Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Lists in Wikipedia

Here we determine which lists are featured on Wikipedia:Featured lists. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, as mentioned in the criteria.

If you nominate a list, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review.

Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured list status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut: WP:FLC

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Toolbox

Dead links (summary) (updates daily)

Nomination procedure

Check the featured list criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating.
Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated article. If you are resubmitting an article, do not delete the old {{FLCfailed}} template.
From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination.
If you are resubmitting an article, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1. Find where the previous discussion is listed in the featured log and update the link there, as well as on the {{FLCfailed}} template of the article's talk page.
Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the article below the heading, and save the sub-page. Please make sure you sign your post.
Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please review the nominated lists fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

If you approve of a list, write "Support" followed by your reasons and sign.
If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection or it is not based on policy, the objection may be ignored.
- To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s> ) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text.

Featured list candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status, and a list must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list to the failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases an additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support. Articles that have gained significant opposition and the nominator has made few attempts to address these concerns may be closed early. Please remember that the process is not entirely a vote, and FLCs with majority support can still fail if they don't fully meet the criteria.

To archive a nomination

Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the list in the edit summary and whether it is being promoted or failed.
For promoted lists:
1. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists.
2. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}.
3. Update Wikipedia:Featured lists, including the count at the top.
4. Add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages.
5. Add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.
For lists that fail to be promoted:
1. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of failed candidacies.
2. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}.

Please note that the rest of the tasks, including updating the list's page and closing the discussion, will be done automatically by the GimmeBot.

The following lists were nominated more than ten days ago, and have had their review time extended because objections are currently being addressed or because they have not garnered enough support votes. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

1 Nominations
2 Nominations for removal

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Tiësto discography

Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the FAC criteria and is as complete as it needs to be to show the discography of mentioned artist. Lonelysoulq (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note I think you may be looking for featured list candidates; the current article features no prose and does not meet the featured artice requirements. BuddingJournalist 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

WP:Lead is nowhere near large enough
Please follow the examples of other discographies at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Music for the layout of albums, compilations and singles. (The singles table that is already there is the way to go)
Wow.. super huge singles table. It goes off the edge of my screen, and now I have a hoizontal scroll bar on every wikipedia page I look at
What do the acronyms in the US charts mean? Especially the one that isn't linked.
My personal opinion — I know others disagree with me — "B sides" shouldn't be included, it's a discography, not a songography. I don't see every album track listed...
Don't use small writing that is too small for poor-sighted people to read
Instruments isn't complete; it says "some of", and fails the criteria 1b
References do not attribute accessdate or work. For help, use WP:Citation templates

That's all. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose For all of the reasons above, as well as a general disregard for established discography style. Check out any of the other FL discogs to see what I mean. Drewcifer (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Per all of the above. Burningclean _[speak] 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Record home attendances of English football clubs

A list of the record attendances of the 92 clubs in English league football. When I first came across this list it was more or less complete, but lacked references. Now it is fully referenced and has had a productive peer review. I am therefore now submitting it in the hope that it cuts the mustard at FLC. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Oldelpaso, some comments before I give unequivocal support.

Last two claims in the lead are unsourced. Now, if they're sourced in the main list then fine but you've sourced the previous statement so it creates an anomaly.
Since the table is sortable (and as you have done for Maine Road) the competition column should be referenced in each row since it could sort any which way.
No need to allow the ref col to be sortable, and I'd personally opt to centrally align it.
"As of April 4, 2008" - I'd write "Statistics correct as of April 4, 2008."
Does Group Stage need that capitalisation?

These are all minor issues; their resolution will result in my support for an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All done, I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support with the most minor of minor points. Does the rank column need to be sortable? It's the same sort as the attendance column. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty

My next lists were going to be season articles for Degrassi Junior High, but I'm getting really annoyed with that whole thing at the moment. Instead, here's something that isn't media or sports related.

So, yeah. A list of LAPD cops killed in the line of duty. Every cop is listed, some, especially the more recent ones, have specfic references, the others can be referenced by the three general references given. If I'm forced to I suppose I can make a trip to the county library in downtown LA, which has archived the Los Angeles Herald, but I'd rather not. I've tried to keep the Lead WP:Neutral, but let me know if it needs tightening, and as always, any other comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When I sort by 'time on force', for some reason, Dorris and Schmid come after Villalobos. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why I hate making sortable tables :)

Done -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Not sure you've completely justified your inclusion of the other four individuals who aren't classed as LAPD officers... (same old title vs content argument)
- I can see the two mentioned in the lead who aren't LAPD, not 4, but actually one of them really was part of the LAPD. The 2nd City Marshal in the list was the head of the LAPD (which was founded in 1869) before his murder in 1876, upon which the title Chief was used. I included the one before him as he was also a City Marshal, which was the only law enforcement agency before the LAPD was founded, even though the title was carried over for the first 7 years of operation. Do you have any ideas on a reword? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"who isn't " - is not. Avoid these naughty contractions!
- Y Done
Put (LAPD) after first full use of the expression.
- Y Done
"such as that for the most recently killed officer, " avoid this - as soon as the next LAPD officer is killed you'll need significant rework. Same for the image caption, I'd just stick to absolute fact rather than timeframing it.
- Y Done
"..Arnold Schwarzenegger.[7] and featured .." - bad full stop there.
- Y Done
I'd avoid spaces between notes and refs in the notes column.
"James H." sorts strangely. As does "William H." and "John M." (that's in Safari by the way).
- Y Done
Why allow the notes column to sort?
- Y Done — forgot to add the code. Hmmm... I can't find the code to add to do this. Can someone point me in the right direction please
  - I think I've done it using class=unsortable in the table heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Assault|Vehicular assault" for Beatty needs sorting out.
- Y Done
1876 and 1853 don't sort properly in the date of death col.
- That's probably because only their year of death is known. How can this be fixed using {{dts2}}? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Pratt's six month tenure isn't sorted correctly. Ricardo Lizarraga has a similar issue. As does David Charles Schmid.
Y Done
Simmons age in the table is given as 31 while 27 years in the service.
Y Done — should have been 51
Notes C to F need references I think.
- As I said above when I nominated, their deaths came either before, or while the internet was in its early years. Also, the Los Angeles Times is notable for ignoring its website readers, and has been slammed for it numerous times. I have to make an 80 mile trip into LA to the only county library that has archived an old local newspaper, alternatively, each officer has a page at the Officer Down site, which I could link to, but I gave the LAPD page at Officer Down as a general reference. It's no hassle to add those, though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's me done! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Parks of Canada

This is one that I had been meaning to clean up, but never got around to it... Until now. It is modeled after List of areas in the United States National Park System (which I am actually considering nominating for removal because it doesn't have stats like area) and is fully sourced. Any comments are welcome and will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

"...is a List..." no reason why List is a proper noun so decap it.
- Y Done
Captions full stops are the wrong way round - the lead image is a full sentence so full stop yes, all others are fragments so full stop no.
- Y Done
"The goal of the national park service..." needs citation.
- It does. The citation is a couple of sentences later.
"feasbility" - typo.
- Y Done
"For a list of National Historic Sites, see: List of national historic sites of Canada." - isn't this what "See also" sections are really for?
- Y Done
Wikipedia:MOS#Color_coding says don't use colour alone to depict particular properties.
"Year Estab'd " - no capital E required, and why not write the whole word out? You've got space. Use a if you like.
- Y Done
Area should be shown in acres (or similar imperial measurement) as well.
- No, this is a list about a Canadian subject, so we're allowed to use the metric system.
  - Featured content should be accessible to all and that includes the hundreds of millions of people who use the imperial system of measurement. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Alright, I'll experiment with it, but it might screw up the sortability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Consider right aligned area col so commas align correctly.
I would consider merging the proposed and abolished tables into the main, colour code and/or reference accordingly. The abolished/proposed date can go into the ref. Then you get a nice contiguous table.
- I would prefer to keep the seperate, I think it works better when it is the seperate tables.
Polar Bear can be polar bear - neither word is a proper noun.
- Y Done
Do National Park Reserves table have year established available to make it consistent with the previous table?
- I think they are already included.
Some tables look forced in width, some not, be consistent, and try to make all tables consistent in column widths.

Starter for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

- Done, thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A few minor things from Suicidalhamster (talk · contribs)

Park Canada is first mentioned in the third sentence, a few sentences later it seems to be introduced again with Parks Canada–the governing body for the system–. These two sentences say similar things (if administered and governing body mean similar things). Could they be merged?
- Y Done
Can the year the parks were abolished be added to that table.
- They were already there, I had accidentally mislabeled the table header. It has been fixed now.
I take it there are no newer statistics than 2005 for progress?
- None that I could find. I doubt there would be any because during that stretch they only announced one new park. Three new ones have been created in the last year, so I expect there will be new stats soon.
I've probably missed something but I count 7 national park reserves (excluding Kluane) in the table, however the lead says there are six.
- One is a future park, which isn't open yet. It has been moved to its own table.

Cheers Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Could the Lead be slightly longer? There must be so much that could be said on this topic, seems quite mean to leave it so short. And it'd balance the lists better. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment OK, this could be annoying because it's been discussed somewhere, but I'd expect to see one list, not several. This way, you can't easily scan them all alphabetically or by size etc because they've been broken up by type. Surely some creative work with an additional column could allow a single table to display all of them without being misleading? (I'd omit the putative future ones from tables but include it as footnote or text or something, as they're not actually national parks, so have no place in a list of such) --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I am open to merging the National Parks and National Park Reserves column, I think the rest should be kept seperate. I think adding an additional column would make the table look worse and it would seem unnecessary since there are only 2 NMCAs and 1 Landmark. As for the future parks, I suppose they could be merged into one table, but they really should be included for completeness, because they are National Parks that have been confirmed, they just aren't open yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients

This is another of the Victoria Cross recipients lists. It follows on from List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality and its "sublists" Australian and Canadian recipients, all FLs. It meets all the criteria as far as I can tell and it has built upon comments in previous FLCs. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

;Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (no groaning please...!)

Hopefully these won't be too irksome...

Image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
(Post-nominal...) doesn't need to be capitalised.
"The Victoria Cross was the highest war honour..." followed by "The Victoria Cross (Post-nominal letters "VC") is a military award for extraordinary valour..." - I'm confused a little here. I guess the first sentence remarked on when it was awarded in the "old days" but the sentences switch tense, the second instance of Victoria Cross is emboldened and its post-nominal explained (which should happen first time round). Perhaps a little work could be done here.
In fact, the first para of the lead switches pretty much every sentence from "is" to "was" and repeats itself a little.
There are 169 and while I accept they're awarded rarely, is it worth stating that "As of April 2008, "?
I think the lead could use a couple of citations, statements like "Both Catholic and Protestant officers and servicemen born in Ireland served alongside each other in the British Military." for example.
"8 Irishmen" eight.
Several of the recipients have images you can use - I don't want to impose style on anyone but you could illustrate the article more like Wisden Cricketers of the Year. But that's purely a personal opinion and feel free to ignore me entirely.
"5 people were awarded " - five.

Otherwise a great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not too irksome at all! (Still apologetic about that!) Done all the little fixes now. The Lead was confused, I think I have fixed it with a rewrite and a citation.

With regards to the images: I don't think it would work for this list or many of the VC lists. They are cramped enough as it is, when I went down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I switch between 1024 wide and 2 x 1600 so I guess it's easy to forget. I'll re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it just that 169 was wrong? You've got 188 now (in the lead, I haven't counted!). I've moved the explanation of VC back on sentence. Otherwise I'm virtually done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had updated the "War" tallies earlier, but forgot about the main tally. Thanks for your fix and review. Woody (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing, and forgive my ignorance, but you have "Nourse's (Transvaal) Horse" and "Imperial Light Horse (Natal)" - it seems inconsistent to me but since both are red-linked I wouldn't really know. Can you shed some light for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am more of a Navy man, and am in no way an expert on the intricacies of the Army Battalion structure. It is linked to Battalions and Regiments. There is the Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey) and then 31st (Huntingdonshire) Regiment of Foot, just look at the Lineage of Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment for an example of how complicated it is. You could try over at the British Milhist task force or the more active talk page if you want a deep explanation.

As it is, I have reworded it to Nourse's Horse (Transvaal) after reading [1] Woody (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support all my concerns rapidly addressed, great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Before I make any decision, I was wondering if there was a specific reason that some of the recipients have notes, but most don't? Cromdog (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The notes are for extraordinary circumstances say the Andaman Islands recipients who weren't "in the presence of the enemy". It also lists the couple of cases where if you go to the page e.g. Robert Scott (VC) it says he was an English recipient, so I added in the notes to avoid confusion. They will become redundant once I get the articles up to scratch I suppose. Woody (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment James Joseph Magennis's unit is listed as HMS Stygian (P249), but in the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy it is down as HMS XE3. I suspect that HMS XE3 is the more accurate, as Stygian towed the midget submarine into the area, stood by whilst Magennis & Co did the deed, and then picked them up and towed them back after it was done, but then perhaps there's a reason for listing Stygian? Benea (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wisden Cricketers of the Year

previous FLC

After some recovery work performed by me, User:Dweller and User:Jpeeling, I feel now that this list is worthwhile of featured status. It was a previous FL which was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead. That's fixed, and besides that we now have a nicely illustrated set of tables with comprehensive references and nationalities included. I'm invoking my own carpe diem clause to get the ball rolling here at WP:FLC and will happily attend to any comments and criticisms as soon as I can. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Was happy to work on this in memoriam, ALoan. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

John Wisden (1913, 29 years posthumously and 50 years after he retired from first-class cricket), : I guess you have to mention that this was to honour him in the 50th year of publication.
- Sorry but do you have an explicit reference stating as such? I'm not in possession of the 1913 almanack. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  - The online edition of 1913 doesn't explicitly talk about the connection. Is this sufficient - "The jubilee issue of the Almanack was in 1913, and for that year the editor, Sydney Pardon, chose a portrait of the founder, John Wisden." (Wisden's cricketers of the year : The first century, 1989) ? . There are also indirect references like these - "John Wisden, founder of the Almanack, to whose memory the whole feature was devoted in the Jubilee issue of 1913" [2] For more specific references, we may have to poke Johnlp or Jhall1.
    - I think that's fine, I've reworded the text and added an appropriate reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also found that Wisden was not the CoY - there was no official CoY in 1913 - but as mentioned above the 1913 edition carried a personal recollections section Tintin 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayasuriya's award was exceptional in that he did not play in England in that season but was treated as a special case. May be worth a mention.
- Note added. Good spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wisden Cricketers' Almanack: each annual edition from 1889 to the present. -> Why does this go to an internal link ? It is linked from the very first line, and should rather be linked to the Wisden archive.
- I've reverted that internal link to an external, general link to the Wisden Almanack site. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Seventy percent of the photos are of non-Englishmen though the Brits have won some 75% of the awards. I know why, but it doesn't look too good. Tintin 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that's my PC mind gone haywire. But we are stuck with the images we're stuck with. I'll have a dig around. By the way, have you seen the non-English flag version in my sandbox? That would reduce the number of images further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes, replied in WT:CRIC Tintin 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Photos reorganised, with a more pro-English approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Great work and looks really good. A nice, neat, easy to read layout. Some quick points:

"Nationality for internationals reflects the team they played for, while for non-internationals, country of birth is shown" This means I am unsure if the flag next to Bill Alley, Mark Waugh and Ottis Gibson means they were named as Cricketers of the Year playing for their nation or only that they were born in that country.
- Ok, well perhaps a reference here or there will help alleviate your confusion! Stick with us! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Use of the new South African flag before 1993 is a little anachronistic, perhaps? The same with the Indian flag pre 1948. I'm not sure the flags add much at all to be honest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I take the point about pre-x year flags, but one of the reasons this was delisted was because it didn't contain the nationality info. So I think excluding ENG is a fair compromise. However, I'll def. look into those pre-x year flag. Funnily enough I felt that as I was adding them in. Silly old me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead", if you disagreed with its delisting, then you should have commented, the FLRC was open 30 days and the Cricket WikiProject was notified. There were two commenters, and nobody left any comments that it should remain listed. Besides, it was actually delisted because of a lack of sources in general (the only ref pointed to a general Cricket site), and because it was poorly formatted, not because of a "lack of sources in the lead". Surely you can agree that the current versions is WAY better than this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just talking facts Scorpion! I was too busy on other lists to hit this one hard. Anyway, it seems that even now we can't satisfy everyone, looks likely that the nationality information will have to go, this list should not become a repository of every fact about each cricketer listed, it's about who won this award. I thought the current version is way better, that why a few of us have worked really hard on it. But it's gradually devolving back to the delisted version. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Has the list been copyedited? I've spotted a few places that seem to be basic grammatical/MOS errors that would likely be caught during a copyediting.

"Where nationality is questionable or changed during the course of a player's career, it has been derived from teams represented during / preceding the season for which the award was made" sounds dangerously close to being OR? What is the basis for this derivation?
There seem to be a lot of notes in the footnotes that would seem to be something to note in the actual article itself, and why not put the notes on those people instead of in a notes tag? Why are the first two entries sharing one cell while the rest have individual table cells?
A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?
What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections? I can kind for the Wars from the lead, but why split out "after 1981"? What changed to cause those to be separate?
The flags are a short way to do nationality info, however I believe the way it currently is done does not comply with WP:MOSFLAG.
The general references are still way to general; just giving a link to http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/current/story/almanack does not provide a reference for anything not appearing on the front page. The second general link is the only one containing specific information easily identifiable in the list (namely the list itself). Where is the nationality information coming from? Where is everything listed in the notes coming from? You can't just say "X was born in" in the notes, as that is not a reference, only a remark. References are still needed.Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the original was in part criticised for lack of nationalities. Where someone didn't play international cricket doesn't mean they had no nationality. We've been as clear as can be both in this general comment and the footnotes how we derived a nationality for each individual. By doing so, I hope we avoid slipping over the OR line. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not quite. The original was partly criticized for not saying what teamed the played for, not necessarily their nationalities. ;) Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the sandbox below, most of the notes have been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?" Is this not explained adequately in the Lead? If it's unclear, we can clarify. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections?" To make the sections manageable but I'll happily merge the tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly arbitrary sections removed - tables merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Really the last two sections were the most arbitrary, but the single table looks better I think. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd make my simple brain ache less if you pointed to the section of MOSFLAG you're referring to... Actually, on second thoughts, I'm going to bed :-) --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an alternative which you'd find acceptable? e.g. (AUS) after the name? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the comment about the general references. What do you mean? Re the nationalities - do they constitute extraordinary claims? Do you really want each man's nationality cited? There's been a lot of winners - cricket's been around a long time and Wisden's 5 per year approach will make the thing littered with citations and probably unreadable. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First people want the nationalities and now they want each and every nationality cited! This list is not the place to cite their nationality. Perhaps we should revert to the version that was delisted without any nationality information. That way we'd avoid any contravention of MOSFLAG as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but I would agree with that approach. I don't know if I would revert to the last version as this list looks great to me, but regarding nationality it is trying to do too much. This is most definitely a problem with listing cricketers as of West Indian nationality (West Indies is not a nation) All the notes about players being born here, there and everywhere is probably overkill too. I would suggest if you are going to list by nationality, only mark those who were named as a COTY as part of a touring team, although even that is probably not needed. The list does not need nationality to pass as a featured list and I would have defended the list at FLR if I had seen it on that basis. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll sandbox it and see what people think... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with a featured article/list it doesn't matter if its an "extraordinary claim." Unless it is general knowledge (sky blue, etc etc), it must be sourced. The removal of a lot of the notes has helped here as did the removal of the flags all together, however refs 10-24 are footnotes with no sources for the name. Some note need to be added to indicate how you know it was renamed.. Also, they should be moved to the year or another field and just drop the notes column all together. It just makes the table look like it has a lot of empty spaces now. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does the list stand in terms of the copyediting? Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. (a) I'll move the notes. (b) Copyedit? Can you point to anything you have specific issues with? There's not a great deal to copyedit... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes now moved and notes column removed. The source for the name is the general reference. Do you want me to reference each reference as well and remove the general one? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine I just wanted to be sure what the source was :) I'll look at the lead to see what I noticed and post some notes later today. Collectonian (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph reads awkwardly to me, but not sure how to reword it to flow better. The " should come after the . not before. I made a suggested change to the paragraph structure to get the topic sentences together and to the table header. Feel free to undo, as both are just a suggestion. :) I like the change in picture to the cover. Is there any reason given for why only one person was selected in some years? Are the Australian Cricketers of the year and the cricketers of the century included in the list? If not, maybe remove that sentence and make those two links see alsos? Collectonian (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Okay, to assuage concerns over citation of nationalities, depiction of such with flags, contravention of MOSFLAG etc, I've created a new sandbox version of the page here. I'd appreciate some quick comments to see if we're getting any closer. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm so confident it's better (in a different way) I've made the same modifications to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the revised version. It looks great without the flagcruft and the references are now much more appropriate and navigable. Thanks for taking the time to deal with my concerns. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Johnlp (talk · contribs)

. The picture of John Wisden is less appropriate than the previous picture of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, since the Cricketers of the Year were instituted years after Wisden's death and are the choice of the editor based on deeds in the game of cricket in the previous season. Wisden himself was featured in a commemorative section in the 1913 almanack, and no Cricketers of the Year were selected that year (possibly because 1912 was such a disastrous season!). The almanack in recent years has carried a list of Cricketers of the Year: for 1913, it says "John Wisden: Personal Recollections". Before the present table was constructed, Cricketers of the Year were identified in the long list of "Births and Deaths of Cricketers" by "CY" and a year: eg "Subba Row, R. CY 1961". The John Wisden entry does not identify him with a CY note.
. The word "Winners" at the head of the table seems odd in this context, since this isn't a competition that is "won" or even entered for. It's an honour in the gift of the editor of Wisden. Perhaps it should just say "Cricketers of the Year".

John, thanks for your comments. Okay, so we'll rework Mr Wisden's entry and change the image. And I've modified the winners heading accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - The list now looks pretty good to me. Two points:

1. I don't know if it's because I use 800x600 resolution (being short-sighted), but the pictures don't appear to the right of the table but precede it. Thus you have to scroll down a long way through the pictures before reaching the table. Would it be possiblt to intersperse the pictures between sections of the table?
2. In view of the discussion above about John Wisden not actually being a true CoY, in the table the 1913 entry for him should either be removed or at least have footnote 7 attached to it.

JH (talk page) 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're using Firefox? It renders fine in IE7. I'm not sure what it looks like in Safari (I'll check tonight). As for the footnote, I'll add that in asap. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm using IE7. I suspect that my preferred screen width of 800 pixels means it isn't wide enough to fit the pictures in alongside the table, which has a fixed width. I've now confirmed that by using IE7's facility to set text size to "smallest", when the pictures ddo appear alongside the table. Since few people will be viewing at 800x600, I'm content for things to be left as they are. JH (talk page) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I'm running 1600x1200x2 here but running down at 800x600 I get the same problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So, John, are we done? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. :) Thank you for all the work that you and Dweller have put in. JH (talk page) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have slightly tweaked the wording and the footnote about the 1913 award to better reflect the comments made here. Please feel free to criticise or fix.

I've also expunged "winner" from all the captions and I'll also do one last flick through the Lead text to ensure "winning" isn't there. This is despite my own feelings that they are indeed winners - they have won an award, a fantastic, historic honour and a supreme accolade. Best of all, they have won immortality. Not bad, huh? Anyway, I'm a consensual editor ;-) and the word's gawn. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

John, far be it from me to canvass your opinion, but are you now prepared to, dare I say, support this FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the article as it currently stands JH (talk page) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Support from me too. Johnlp (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs in Guitar Hero II

Self-nomination - I have followed the same approach for the first List of songs in Guitar Hero in fixing up this list, and have already asked Drewcifer for an off-the-cuff check of the table (as there's some new formatting that needs to be done for this list). --MASEM 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Looks pretty good, but there's one fatal flaw: the sources. Namely, the fact that the article references Wikipedia itself. Also, it sources blogs. Albeit, the blog is Major Nelson's, but it would definitely be preferable if you could find alternate sources (which I'm sure you could). A few other less pressing issues: the publisher values of the first two citations should be IGN, not IGN.com. Also, only wikilink in the first citation a publisher is mentioned. I am still wary of the notes for Guitar playable and the video preview thing. The video preview in particular seems reaaallly uneccessary: I can't imagine that contributing anything to the reader's understanding of the game or the songs. The rythm guitar/bass thing makes the list read more like a guide (see WP:Guide then a list). The same can be said for alot of the Main setlist prose. Column titles should only use capitals for proper nouns and the first word. So "Master Recording" should be "Master recording", "Release Date" should be "Release date", etc. The release dates should probably be spelled out. The list looks good so far, it just needs a bit of fine-tuning before I can support. Drewcifer (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia refs I saw, and left them in but added a more appropriate source before nom ,as not sure how they'd be taken. Although I should be able to find duplicate information in other sources (given that GH2 is very popular), I will point out that Major Nelson's blog is generally considered the most reliable source for Xbox Live release information since he's basically cataloging everything that comes out each, regardless of popularity.

On wikilinking publishers, I know you'd normally do that in the wikitext, but given how reference order can change easily and automatically when using citation templates and when clearing other articles to FA, I've been told to wikilink the publisher at all times in the templates.

I agree that the rhythm guitar/video preview thing is not necessary or part of a general reader's understanding (though I think rhythm guitar may be of interest to some musicians), but I also think that moving them to symbols doesn't detract from the many purpose of the list. However, if there's more commentary against them, I can also see removing them. --MASEM 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, of the points above, I've addressed all of them except the wikilinking publisher one, and the rhythm guitar part (I did take out video previews). --MASEM 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. A few more comments:

The blog references are still a problem.
I'm not a fan of the new My Chemical Romance picture: mainly because in low-resolution monitors such as mine (1024x768, which is a pretty common resolution), it squeezes the table into an uncomfortable size horizontally, making it unnecessarily big vertically. That, and the column widths no-longer match the other tables.
I'd recommend making a subheader in the Downloadable content section for the second table. Having two tables back-to-back isn't good form, especially when they list different things.
As for the green/black checks thing, it's not really a big deal, I just figured black was more neutral than green. Drewcifer (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, pic gone, {{ok}} used for checkmarks, added the subheader. I did add additional, more reliable sources to augment the Major Nelson's blog sources, and though while I feel that while a "blog", it has at least become to be considered as an RS within the gaming community. However, if this is a sticking point, it is possible to remove them, so... --MASEM 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Agree with Drewcifer over the blog references, though I can't see where it references Wikipedia.
The article talks about having to unlock the tiers, but then auto-sorts the songs alphabetically. I think they should be sorted to the PS2's Tier, as it was released first, and is probably how most readers of this page will want it presented to them.
What does the dagger represent?
Nevermind. The dagger note should be above the table, with the mdash; note and master recordings note.
Use or Y ({{ok}} or {{tick}}) instead of the image, if you have to have a check mark.
Again the dagger note and the double-dagger-or-whatever-it's-called Xbox exclusive notes should appear before the table. That double dagger is too close to the dagger, too, which would be fine if it was being used to show which songs include bass, but I would choose an entirely different symbol to highlight the XBox tracks
Should the cost, even in funny money, be included per WP:DIRECTORY?
¶ key should be before the table

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs)

The alpha order, and the current checkmark, is based on Drewcifer's comments from the previous List of songs in Guitar Hero and comments. First, that these lists need to be less specific about the gameplay and more about the songs (thus the reason it's closer to a discography than a level list), thus sorting alpha on title is more appropriate. Secondary, he was the one to suggest the use of the black checkmark instead of a colored one for the checkmarks. Costs are a bit tricky, since it is noted in the Guitar Hero II article (albeit standalone from this) that these are considered 'expensive' and that a lot of money has been made on the DLC. Look at WP:NOT, I don't see these falling absolutely any of the cases for sales catalog (it may be that these all can be considered "competing products"), but it has been the case that most downloadable content from XBox Live, PlayStation Network, or Wii Shopping has been included across many other articles. I think this is a good question for the WP:VG project to consider, but for now I think they should stay in, but I can remove them if necessary. --MASEM 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the points listed above, I've fixed the mini-keys to be above the table, removed the cost and size info per a discussion on WT:VG and WT:NOT. Again, see above for the alpha order and the use of the black checkmark symbol. --MASEM 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Detroit and List of tallest buildings in Tulsa. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

"Eleven of the 20" looks odd with words and numbers in one sentence. WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words doesn't mind words over ten being spelled if they use only one or two words. Personally, I prefer words over numbers, but the rest of the article uses numbers, and it's not a big deal as long as its consistent.
- Y Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"(after Philadelphia)" and "(after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia)" needn't be in parentheses
- Well, if they are not listed in parentheses, then the sentence would contain 6 commas without any breaks (Overall, Pittsburgh's skyline is ranked (based on existing and under-construction buildings over 500 feet (152 m) tall) second in Pennsylvania, after Philadelphia, third in the Northeast, after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia, and 13th in the United States.) Personally, I think it is better with parentheses, as they make the sentence much easier to read. -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Notes B and C could be referenced
- Y Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, good list! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support try as I might I can't find anything beyond Matthew's comments. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Nothing wrong with it but I think is better for the lead than the current. Just because the panoroma gives that same view as the current image in the lead. Alaskan assassin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, a great addition to the Featured Lists. I also agree with Alaskan assassin about the picture. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

- Y Done - Image changed. The problem I had with Image:PittSkyline082904.jpg was that it doesn't show as much detail of as many buildings (U.S. Steel Tower, the tallest in the city, is not very visible), but it is more aesthically pleasing. Cheers, Rai•me 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - list looks great. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons (season 5)

Another season of The Simpsons. Personally, I think each of these lists is better than the last. Anyway, it is fully sourced and I will address concerns as they are brought up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Haven't noticed it before, but do all the other seasons' infoboxes match the colour of the DVD?
- Yes. I did that because the normal blue/yellow colours clashed with most of the DVD case colours.
"who executive produced 20 episodes this season" → Personal preference, but I don't like the "this season"
- Y Done
The wikilinks of Region 1, Region 2 and Region 4 all redirect to the same place, DVD region code
- Y Done
"Several of the shows original writers who had been with the show since the first season left" is repetitive
- Y Done
""Cape Feare" which was" needs a comma
Y Done
"hold overs" in the lead, "holdover" in Production
- Y Done
"Jay Kogen, Wallace Wolodarsky, Sam Simon and Jeff Martin wrote their final episodes for the season four production run" wouldn't this be better placed on the season 4 article?
- Yes, but I figured it would be worth mentioning who had left.
Did Jean and Rice return during this season, or a later season?
- Y Done
You link to the thirteenth season, but not the first season
- Y Done
Ref [6] appears mid-sentence
"One-time writers for the season include David Richardson and Bill Canterbury, who received two writing credits." sounds contradictory
- Y Done
"The season started off with "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" because it guest starred George Harrison." More explaination needed, I think
"but the writers managed to win the argument" how? what argument?
- Y Done
"TV Shows on DVD.com" in ref [43] should be "TVShowsonDVD.com", all one word. Ref [44] concerns me as much as seeing Amazon on many other articles in that it's a shopping site
- I was concerned about its usage too, but it is the official shop for The Simpsons, and the reference is used for the DVD's special features, not something potentially controversial like sales figures or opinions.

That's all from me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Good stuff. Although I do think at times it verges on over-detailing certain things, it looks all good to me. After tweaking a weensy bit of grammar myself, the only issue I'd have to bring up is Compared to previously produced episodes, the episode featured several elements that could be described as silly and cartoonish. This was a result of the staff's careless attitude towards the end of season four. The episode ran long which led to the creation of the rake sequence, which became a memorable moment for this episode. Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again.[9]
- Firstly, a source would be great for "silly and cartoonish" - this could be considered POV. If ref 9 at the end of the paragraph does support this, it would be nice to have a secondary source if one's available.
  - Y Done
- Secondly, "the staff's careless attitude" might need to be reworded. Reading it as it is, I'm not sure if they really just couldn't give a damn, or if they just weren't trying as hard, or any other possibility. What does the commentary say?
  - Y Done
- I'm taking "the episode ran long" to mean that it went overtime - which led to the creation of the rake sequence? Wouldn't they add in all the extra rakes if the episode ran short? I swear I'd heard that. Am I wrong?
  - I think an IP must have changed that, and we missed it. It's supposed to be short.
- "Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again." Could we lose all of this? This is the kind of over-detail I was talking about. The article's about season 4 as a whole, and shouldn't spend too long highlighting individual episodes. I don't see this serving much of a purpose unless it's supposed to be talking about the staff's "careless attitude", in which case trimming a bit might be nice.
I'll be happy to support with changes made or some kind of reply. —97198 talk 09:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've made all of the changes. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Support Looks great! —97198 talk 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1976 Summer Olympics medal count

This is modeled after the 1928 Summer Olympics medal count which is a current FLC. The list is fully sourced. It includes which nations won their first medal and who won the most, but I decided not to get too much into individual/nation achievements because it's a list of the games medal count, not a list of medalists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Why does Iran sort before Italy?
- Because r comes before t.
  - Wow, I must have been tired...! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"divided in 198 events" into?
- Y Done
rugby points at a dab - it should be rugby union.
- Y Done
"and most overall medals (129)" in the lead, 125 in the table.
- Y Done
" in 23[7] different " put [7] at the end of the sentence.
- Y Done
"pommel horse and men's horizontal bar events, and a second-place tie in the women's vault " link pommel horse, horizontal bar and vault.
- Y Done

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metallica discography

Self nomination I've been working on this periodically for a while now and really got into it about a week ago. It's ready now. I left out the b-sides because they are all demos, live, and covers. There are no actual non-album tracks. If you want to see them, they can be found here. I'm welcome to any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Burningclean _[speak] 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Cool man. Drewcifer (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments

See The Prodigy discography for a neater way to keep a certifications (from more than two Certifiers) for the Albums. The code is kinda complex for Prodigy, so you can make it just like The Strokes discography.
- I think I'll go with the latter. The Prodigy discog make my brain numb :P

Just as a note, I made the code in the Prodigy discography the way it is so that the actual certification names would be aligned along a common line, as opposed to back and forth. I dunno if it was worth all the code, but that's why it's like that. Drewcifer (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Burning, I know what you mean, I wrote The Strokes discog, and attempted the Prodigy certs code...

~~Keep EPs after studio album. Also, the billboard peak can just be a bullet point.~~
~~US main, mod -->Main, Mod. platinum, gold -->Platinum, Gold (throughout).~~
"I Disappear" single entry is ugly. Remove a couple of the cites (BEL can definitely go, no need to list each and every territory. obviously there are a number of countries in the world where the band charted but its not listed here.) and expand the album column.
~~The Music videos column widths suck :D~~
~~Viedos: Billboard peak --> Billboard 200 peak? Be specific. Column widths suck again.~~
More bullet point info for the Film.
- Like what? I stole the format from Tenacious D discography.
~~The Paradise Lost and Rock Band songs should each have their own row.~~
Lead needs rewriting (not just a ce), why no mention that the Black Album was their most commercial and that it brought the to the mainstream? Too much info on their next album/current status. And what does "Rick Rubin is producing the album; he is the first new producer for Metallica since 1990's Metallica, which was produced by Rock." mean?
- Hmm... I'll figure one out. The lead is the part I hate when writing :P
Refs need formatting. Link first instance of publisher, article name in "quotes" blah blah.

Oh wait I was looking at the Metallica article. Fix those then :P.

I just might :D/=<

If Sound of the Beast hasn't been used as a ref, why is it listed under References? I recommend checking books for chart positions, because many online sources may be be incomplete about the 1980s; we're having such a problem with R.E.M.'s discography. It seems very odd that none of Metallica's early singles (and "Master of Puppets"!) never charted. indopug (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sound of the Beast is used in ref 5. Metallica didn't release any songs to airplay until ...And Justice for All. The only way their early singles were available were at gigs for the most part. I can't find a reliable source for that, I just know it (my dad was a gigger in the 80s and caught the 'tallica) Burningclean _[speak] 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I too am reasonably sure that "One" was the band's first single to chart. However just to be safe, you should look at the chart information at allmusic.com as well, which is strangely more complete than the chart info at billboard.com (going back to our work on the R.E.M. discography, I noticed that whole swaths of singles I knew had charted weren't listed for some reason). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked AMG; nothing different. Burningclean _[speak] 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Where does the discography mention the following;

~~Metallica's cover of "The Ecstacy of Gold", featured on the tribute album We All Love Ennio Morricone.~~
~~Metallica's cover of "53rd & 3rd", featured on the tribute album We're A Happy Family - A Tribute To The Ramones.~~
~~Metallica's cover of Queen's "Stone Cold Crazy", originally featured on the tribute album Rubaiyat – Elektra's 40th Anniversary.~~

Until the above three are featured in the discography, it's incomplete. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have any interest in any other comments/support/oppose? Burningclean _[speak] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ramones tribute album which featured Metallica was actually released in 2003, and not 1999. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Burningclean _[speak] 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Stone Cold Crazy is on the Garage, Inc album - I was thinking that there were some missing songs, like "The Prince", and "Killing Time", from the Black album era singles, but those are all on the Garage, Inc album, too. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you check Garage, Inc.'s liner notes, you'd discover "Stone Cold Crazy" was originally on Rubaiyat. In fact, all the songs on the second disc were previously released elsewhere on singles, comps etc. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew that. Did you want me to mention it or something?

Big glaring omission Now I'm not sure how many miscellaneous track Metallica released before the Black Album, but one that's definitely missing is "Hit the Lights", the very first Metallica recording from the Metal Massacre compilation. Additionally, didn't they re-record that song for a later version of the comp? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I missed alot of compilation appearences. I found them all here though. Thanks for mentioning it. I don't know anything about a re-recording though. Never heard about that. Burningclean _[speak] 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a few different versions, the original, that was done at the last second, which only appears on the first pressing of Metal Massacre, then there is a re-mix that was on all subsequent pressings. There is the No Life 'Til Leather demo version, which has Dave Mustaine and Ron McGovney, and then there is the Kill 'em All album version. Do other discogs leave out demos? Cuz No Life till Leather is a pretty popular one. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hey man, looks pretty good. Here are a few things I noticed:

While they originally formed in LA, Metallica is most defenetly a San Fransisco/Bay Aream based band, they left LA in 1982 and havent lived here since.

"The position for lead guitar was originally held by Lloyd Grant, but he was replaced by Dave Mustaine,[2] with the position for bass guitar was passed on to Ron McGovney.[3]" sounds a little weird.. Lloyd Grant was never really a member, he played one solo on one demo, so I'm not sure he is notable enought to be mentioned here. And the bass sentence sounds odd, 'with the position for bass guitar was passed on to.." you could just say, "with Ron McGovney on bass." And I think the official word is that McGovney was fired.

"Ex-Flotsam and Jetsam bassist Jason Newsted replaced Burton and recorded four studio albums, two live albums, one cover album, and one EP with the band before leaving tension with other band members saw him leave." The sentence sounds jumbled, especially the last part. Do you need to list off all of the releases w/Newstead? there is already a big list of eps, releases, singles, ect above. you could just say he was with the band from 1988 to 2003 or somthing. And the last part of the sentence is confusing: "and one EP with the band before leaving tension with other band members saw him leave" Somthing like "left due to tension with Hetfield" or somthing like that.

"He was Metallica's longest standing bassist." - sounds weird, also pretty short.

" Robert Trujillo (ex-Ozzy Osbourne, Suicidal Tendancies) was offered one million dollars to join Metallica on bass guitar, and accepted.[9] " - Actually, he joined the band and they gave him a million as a "bonus"... the $ thing is not really needed there, you could just say he joined the band.

"Rick Rubin is producing the album; he is the first new producer for Metallica since 1990's Metallica, which was produced by Rock" - sounds a little choppy. Does this info really need to be included on the discog page?

"Metallica has sold over 100 million records worldwide, with over 57 million records in the United States alone. This makes the band the most successful thrash metal band of all time." - Second sentence sounds a little weird on its own, Combine them to say "As the most successful thrash metal band of all time, Metallica has sold over 100 million records worldwide, with over 57 million records in the United States alone."

Other than that, looks pretty good, dude, good work! Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, looking at some of the demo pages for the band - there are quite a few more recordings, (some I've never heard of) but there are some well known ones, like Hit the Lights (album), Power Metal (Metallica album) and No Life 'Til Leather. I'm not up on discogs, but if the Metal Massacre "Hit the Lights" is included, these probably should, too. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Garage Inc. should be listed as a compilation. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edmonton Oilers seasons

I have worked hard on this list. It is well referenced, well written, the lead looks good, and is very informative. It overall looks like a good featured list. Thanks. - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose No major issues with the tables, but the lead contains some language more suited to a magazine than an encyclopedia, and overuses the passive voice.
- What does "charter member" mean? (I'm pretty sure I know, but it is unclear to the general reader)
- upstart WHA - something of a colloquialism, and has a slight feel of POV. Cinderella run is another example.
- known as the Alberta Oilers for their first season after their Calgary counterparts were unable to play. Who are these Calgary counterparts, and what relation does it bear to the name Alberta Oilers?
- Passive voice - phrasing such as They would quickly find success and the Oilers would achieve what is generally regarded as the last dynasty is cleaner and clearer when the simple past tense is used; They found success quickly, the Oilers achieved what is generally regarded as the last dynasty.
- Edmonton fell to the Winnipeg Jets. They lost. No falling was involved.
- The 1990s was dominated by playoff failures "Dominated" is inappropriate here.
- In the tables, division names could do with wikilinking upon the first mention for context. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

"This list documents the records and playoff results the Oilers 35 year history " missing some part of the sentence here?
Per Oldelpaso, the are a few phrases which need de-journalising and re-encyclopaedia-ing.
If you use WHA and NHL then at least explain them as abbreviations so the first time you say National Hockey League, put (NHL) afterwards.
Don't like the way the reference cells come and go.
You could merge both tables and then make the result sortable.
Split the Finish column. What does "5th, Canadian" mean to a non-expert?
Interesting you include the Alberta Oilers while the Carolina Hurricanes seasons is very dedicated to not include anything other than that specific franchise.
- Yes, for consistency that one season should have it's own article and be nommed as a FL! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So, oppose until these are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Why aren't the tables rendered in the same way as the other FL hockey season pages, Frölunda HC seasons and Calgary Flames seasons?
My above reply to TRM's comment isn't supposed to be taken seriously

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Good work so far, but I have to say I agree that the table should mimic the other NHL articles for consistency. Also, I'm not sure inline citations are necessary in this list. A general references section would be sufficient, and is cleaner. Reso lute 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
*Interesting you include the Alberta Oilers while the Carolina Hurricanes seasons is very dedicated to not include anything other than that specific franchise.
- That would be because it is the same specific franchise. The "Alberta Oilers" and the "Edmonton Oilers" were the same incarnation of the same franchise, simply renamed. Akin to the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and the Anaheim Ducks. Same franchise, same incarnation, just a simple rename. Resolute 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  - So the NHL season lists are confusing I'm afraid. To you puck happy fans this is all obvious but featured content has to be accessible and understandable to non-expert readers. Telling me that the MD of A and the AD are the same equals the Alberta Oilers = Edmonton Oilers makes no sense. The first franchise is a rename of the franchise, not a "relocation", the second is the same name of the franchise, just a different location. How confusing for non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Actually, no the second is not a different location either. Edmonton is in Alberta, and the team always played in Edmonton, and only Edmonton. As was noted above, this needed to be clarified better in the article. My argument was that this is not comparable to the Carolina Hurricanes list. Reso lute 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with you that there needs to be some uniform consistency established in this regard, but there needs to be some clarification: The Albera Oilers were based in Edmonton, and after the first season renamed themselves the Edmonton Oilers. Part of the confusion is that this was done in the WHA, which in itself was a rather confusing experiment in the history of hockey. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not really sure why its so difficult to understand that when a team is in a different location it is a very different situation from a team in the same city with a different name. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When the team moved, did it take all the players, managers, behind-the-scenes people, or did they all lose their jobs and the team rehired new everybody. A location change coupled with a name change doesn't change the fact that the team is the same -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A location and name change certainly do add up to a legitimate place to split an article. Because the most important thing changed. The fans. And I am not saying they aren't the same team. I am just saying that it became the consensus in the past to split articles at the point where they changed locations. (ie Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals in MLB. Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes in hockey) -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If the fans were the most important thing, why doesn't Fans of Edmonton Oilers exist? And did not one single fan follow the team when it moved? It's also not the consensus across all sports: Manchester City, Wimbledon F.C. and Tottenham Hotspurs, Wigan Warriors, though these are English teams, granted. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant that comment as in, the people who are going to look up the page are less likely to care about the history from when the team wasn't in their city etc. and if they do they can follow the well placed link to the other incarnation's page. When pages get too large you are supposed to split out parts of it at places that make sense to seperate out. The most obvious place to do so in sports franchises is when they move locations. -Djsasso (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

lead english needs to be improved
lead should specify what oilers are, e.g. professional ice hockey club
title should be 'List of Edmonton Oilers seasons' per WP:SAL

Alaney2k (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really edit these articles myself. But I believe these articles aren't considered stand alone lists. Which is why Calgary Flames seasons was featured without being List of. That being said I see you just went and moved them all without checking the reasoning for the lack of List of in the title. I believe this falls under the timelines exception on WP:SAL. -Djsasso (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stand-alone means an article on its own, embedded is within an article. Alaney2k (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read further in the sentence though it says that consists of a list of links. These pages do not mearly contain a list of links. They contain prose and information as well. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Team Name seasons is the standard across all sports for how these pages are named. See New York Yankees seasons, New York Jets seasons and Los Angeles Lakers seasons for example. -Djsasso (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are Wikipedia articles that contain primarily a list. The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events.

I think that applies to this article, which has links to articles of Oilers' seasons. As for your second point, it may pre-date the WP:SAL and is easily cleared up. Alaney2k (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SAL has been around since 2003. Not likely that it predates it. And it doesn't primarily consist of a list of links. It primarily consists of statistical information. -Djsasso (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An equivalent might be List_of_social_networking_websites, mentioned on WP:SAL Alaney2k (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as an equivalent as it is still just a directory of links. This is more than a directory of links. -Djsasso (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are links and info. Like the Oilers one. And why would WP:SAL not be higher precedence than sports convention? Sports is in every-day life, not a high-ranking category. Alaney2k (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Again because this is closer to an article than a list. The example you showed was links with names for the links and the purpose of the page was the links. This page is about the statistics, not about the coincidental links to other pages. The purpose of this page isn't to make a directory for the season articles. These pages were split off from the main team pages to save on the size of the main team pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is –far– more info in the particular season pages. There are two purposes to Edmonton Oilers seasons. 1. Link to season articles. 2. List of seasons as a whole. The info is anecdotal. Smells like a stand-alone list to me. :-) It's not a prose article at all. It has a lead, and that is covered in WP:SAL. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unlike the Carolina Hurricanes season article up for FL, this one does include the WHA years and should be applauded for having it there. It is not the standard for WP:HOCKEY though why couldn't it be the standard for WP:HOCKEY? Alaney2k (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the WHA days of the Whalers/Hurricanes franchise is contained within Hartford Whalers seasons. The Edmonton Oilers have had a continuous history in one market since the team was founded. Reso lute 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of prehistoric Scotland

A comprehensive overview of the major sites from the Mesolithic, Iron and Bronze Ages, with brief scene setting introductions to each section. Self-nom. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Italic text

Comments

Don't think there's a need to mention the English Channel as being dry land, not because it's called the English Channel, but because it's so far away from Scotland
- I've amended the wording in a way that hopefully makes the issue's relevance more obvious i.e. that it was possible to walk from the Northern European plain to Orkney at the time.
Link to broch in the image caption
- Y Done
"although the acidic conditions tend to dissolve organic materials" What acidic conditions? Is a ref possible, too?
- Y Done "Wickham-Jones (2007) page 25" at the end of the next sentence was the ref, but I've changed the wording slightly and added a longer explanatory footnote with refs.
"However, there are also..." Don't start a sentence with a conjunction
- Y Done
Link to arable land so the townies understand
- Y Done
"A number of the sites span very long periods of time and the distinctions between the Neolithic and later periods are not clear cut." As a general rule I don't like the last sentences of paragraphs to go without a reference, but this definitely should have one if it's saying there could be some ambiguity.
- Y Done There is considerable ambiguity, especially as the presumed dates are different for different parts of Europe. Moffat says: "The Neolithic is generally followed by two more categories, The Bronze Age and the Iron Age.... They are not very helpful tags and require so much qualification and explanation that it is better to use dates where they are available."
Consider putting the key into a small wikitable
- Y Done
Link to Mesolithic period
- Y Done
Link "glaciated" to glacier
- Y Done
"Nonetheless" shouldn't be used to start a sentence
- Y Done
There's alot of jargon and complicated/confusing stuff in the tables
- I've gone through it and provided a little more explanation and added more links. I may be too close to it to see what else might be done and suggestions are welcome.
I don't understand the burn hazelnut shells thing. Is this an archaeological find, or a synonym to something else? Why is this important to prehistoric Scotland? I can stick hazelnuts in the oven for 2 hours an burn them.
- It is just as it says - a large pit containing the charred remains of a huge volume of hazel nuts. Its existence is something of a mystery. The gatherers must have removed just about every last nut from the island, and almost certainly had encouraged the growth of the trees in the first place, yet there is no evidence of any repeat performances. The collectors may have cut down most of the trees for the harvest! The main midden is surrounded by smaller roasting pits. It is certainly an archaeological find, and although not every last Mesolithic site is listed this is one of the larger and most significant ones - even it its significance is not clear. I'd be happy to amend the wording but I am not sure how else to put it.
"shell midden" jargony
- It is the correct technical description and is also Scottish English. "Shell kitchen rubbish dump" would be the English English. Sorry, I was forgetting this is Wikipedia. I've linked to the Midden article.
"burned", then "charred". Again with the hazelnut shell thing.. Is it a find, how is it known to be prehistoric, etc?
- The dates are known via carbon dating. These are finds clearly indicating human activity. A few burnt shells may not seem much but until quite recently the 7700 Rùm find was the oldest in Scotland.
Why is "An Corran" in itallics?
- Its Gaelic. I'll check if there is a common English usage: there does not seem to be an English language equivalent so it commonly appears in this form in English publications. I've removed the italics.
"(S,O)" and the others should have a space after the comma
- Y Done
Does the picture of Oronsay beach depict anything mentioned in the list?
- Only Oronsay and Jura that are mentioned in the list. Both sites are close to the sea and its the closest I could find to an image relevant to the Scottish Mesolithic. I've added something to the caption.
Link to hunter-gatherer
- Y Done
"Development is not however linear." is stubby
- Y Done

That's all from me -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll follow up on the rest asap. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now attempted all of the above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support well-written and referenced, good use of images. I have some suggestions (but already support the list for FL):
Any reason why these are not sortable lists?
- Two reasons - the text is designed to be read in chronological order, and the lists are neither long nor contain much information that someone might want to sort. Having said that, there is no reason not to have them sorted and there may be some benefit if (for example) someone wanted to put the Mesolithic Types together or by alphabetised location. I'll put this in if you think it might be valuable.
  - I would not sort the "Details" column, but the dates could be sorted in reverse order if desired, or one could sort by location as noted, or by type and see all the S(tone) finds or whatever. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I've made the tables sortable, but the width parameters (necessary to enclose the Details) seem to prevent the adding of an unsortable column - or at least I haven't found a way to do it. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      - I knew how to do this and took the liberty of doing so just now - revert if it is somehow not what you wanted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        Thanks - its easy when you know how! 08:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it help to give the rough dates for the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze and Iron Ages?
- The problem is that the periods are differentiated by indeterminate events. The Paleolithic lasts until the retreat of the ice, the Mesolithic until the adoption of farming, the Neolithic until metalworking. They might begin at different times in different parts of the country. See also above quote from Moffat. I've put in some extra text in the lead along above lines.
  - That makes it clearer - my numerical brain just noted that the Mesolithic was all before about 4300 BC, the Neolithic was all between 3900 and 2400 BC, and the Bronze and Iron were between 2000 and about 100 BC. The text addition makes it clearer, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see Last glacial period is already linked in the lead (as "ice retreated"), but I wonder if it would also be a better link for "glaciated" than glacier in Mesolithic. I know the glacier link is from User:Matthewedwards, so only change if you both think it better.
- Not sure - I'll sleep on it.
  - I am liking glacier more, the more I think about it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In Key to predominant "Type": why are some terms linked, but others are not?
- Sheer idleness! Actually I wasn't quite sure what the links should be yesterday. They are fixed now. Stone is a dab page but the finds refer to more than one meaning of the word.

Excellent list and hope my suggestions are useful, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied above - as noted my ideas are only that, not commands, so do as you see fit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the first sentence (I haven't gotten any farther into the article), which currently says "This Timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important sites":
- "Timeline" should not begin with a capital letter.
  - Y Done
- I'd like this sentence, or possibly a new sentence immediately following it, to include some words about what these sites are important for. (Don't assume that the reader knows what makes a "prehistoric site" an "important" site.) Presumably this could use terms such as archaeological sites and megaliths, and could mention evidence of human habitation and material culture.
  - I've added an additional sentence that I hope covers the first point. At first glance I think much of the second sentence is covered lower down - I'll have a longer look this evening Insha'Allah. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I am open to suggestions but I am not sure what else to add. The last para of the lead section indicates the three main periods with reference to the main cultural and material changes that they incorporate and both the lead and first section make it clear that we are talking about the earliest known examples of human habitation. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ideally, the first sentence (or perhaps one following it) would include a link to the Scotland article and a definition of "prehistoric" (as the term applies to Scotland).
  - Y Done There was a link to Scotland a little lower down. I've added as sentence at the close of the lead indicating when prehistory ended.

--Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winning managers

Well, what can I say? I made a botched attempt at a featured topic of UEFA tournament winning managers and User:Struway2 correctly pointed out I'd missed the Intertoto Cup. So here, with considerable help in sourcing references from Struway2, it is. For those who have seen the other lists, including the List of UEFA club tournament winning managers, rest assured I shall be going back there to fill in the relevant statistics for these managers before attempting to head back to WP:FTC. As ever, thank you in advance for your time, energy, comments, criticism and perhaps support! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Support Concerns addressed. Meets criteria. Another good list. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Peanut4

Support - everything resolved. Spot on as the other lists. Peanut4 (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Can't see any reason not to support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Excellent work, as ever ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Despite the distasteful nature of this competition. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The first para says "for the leading European clubs that have failed to qualify for either the UEFA Champions League or the UEFA Cup". In contradiction, the second para says "The first tournament provided two winners, both of whom qualified for the UEFA Cup". Perhaps it should say somewhere that winning the Intertoto Cup qualifies a team for the UEFA Cup?
- Explained The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope you considered WP:VUE when sourcing this article.
- I hope you did too! Of course, due to the relative obscurity of a number of these managers, foreign language sources have been used. As yet, no-one has challenged them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers back to you! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Support I have to declare an interest as I did a fair bit of the sourcing for the managers table. The list meets FL criteria, the free-use illustrations are particularly good. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of North Carolina hurricanes

I based this list off of List of Florida hurricanes, and I feel it is featured-worthy. There is one potential problem I should address right now. The article is based off of the four sub-articles, all of which are featured (except one, which is one FLC) and thus perfect sourcing is near-impossible. I hope that's not a problem, and I'll address any comments or concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

"Floyd is considered the worst modern natural disaster " isn't Floyd a hurricane and did Floyd cause the worst modern natural disaster?
I'd expand the lead to two paragraphs.
" 17.5 percent" why not just 17.5%? And other instances..
"occassionally " should be occasionally.
1900-1949 should use en-dash so 1900–1949, same for 50-79.
Since this article is the overview, direct/indirect fatalities should be explained.
Suddenly the windspeeds switch to knots in the table. Why?
"Landfall Location" - Landfall location.
Why are some "unnamed" linked to named hurricanes? (I think I asked this before but can't remember the answer!)
Why are only some years linked in the table? And why the italics for one hurricane only?
I think you need some references for the 1900-1949 and the 1950-1979 sections.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the Floyd thing, and added a ref. Regarding the lede, I opted to keep it short, since that's what List of Florida hurricanes did as well, and I figured that any more info would be redundant with the climatology section. Regarding the percentages, WP:MOS states Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article, with % usable for more scientific articles. Though this article is scientific, it usage is more for statistical purposes, so I think percent and not % is more appropriate. I added an actual table for deaths, which explains direct vs. indirect deaths. Regarding windspeeds, I opted not to put both mph and km/h in the table, and went for the less controversial "knot". I added the name to one of the unnamed hurricane links, since that is a more accepted name, but the other I left as a link; the Wikipedia title of the other one was the 1933 Outer Banks hurricane, but because the table specifies the landfall location (which was the Outer Banks), I thought it was redundant. I added the links to the years. The italicized names did mean those names are not official, but it wasn't that important, so I removed the italics. I hope that's good! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this should be here or on FAC. I'd clearly pass either one, so support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Support - Wonderfully written, greatly detailed, and should definitely be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carolina Hurricanes seasons

I *believe* this is a FL. I have reviewed other FLC and fixed most of the mistakes. I do believe it needs a picture, but I haven't found a free photo yet. This can be added later. PG Pirate 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as nom
Comment You need more refs in the lead - one is nowhere near enough. You might (note the emphasis) want to include the results for the other two incarnations as well, because the list seems very short at the minute. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was told that information in the lede only needs to be sourced if not mentioned in the list itself. PG Pirate 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Pirate, you are correct. WP:LEAD states that no information should be included in the lead that is not in the main body, and a reference should be in the article if the peice of information is not included in the lead. Also, you might want to consider moving it to List of Carolina Hurricane seasons. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    - All sports season list I have dealt with use this form.

comments

Oops.. I expected this to be about hurricanes in The Carolinas, sorted by winter, spring, summer and fall!
- Sorry about the confusion. Some aspects of that list would be short. I can only think of one hurricane in the winter.
Is there an image to go in the lead? Perhaps a stadium photo or something?
- There isn't one on wikipedia, that I have found yet. I am going to look on flickr for a free image.
Wikipedia:LEDE#Citations says that cites aren't needed if the rest of the article cites it, however, I see no further mention of them being called New England Whalers or Hartford Whalers
- In the references section, there is Carolina Hurricanes Franchise Timeline which mentions it. Should there be a inline citation as well?
Finally, and this is the reason that I oppose, the title suggests it's a list of all seasons not just NHL seasons, and as this list is very short anyway I feel it would be better if it was merged with that of New England Whalers' and Hartford Whalers', which would give a complete season-by-season coverage. And also, even if they were using a different name, aren't they essentially the same franchise? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe they are different teams. And I would believe most Hurricanes/Whalers fans would think the same thing. Also, Calgary Flames moved from Atlanta, and has two different seasons articles (The Flamers seasons is a FL): Calgary Flames seasons and Atlanta Flames seasons. The only rebuttal with this is the Flames has about 20 more years more in Calgary.

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Y Done Don't use the small fonts in the key, what's the point? Just makes it more difficult to read.
"35th for the Hurricanes franchise" but only nine seasons in this list? It's incomplete per Matthew's comments. You could easily split the table into the various named teams. Or you need to modify the name to state clearly what I'm going to see. Either way there's a discrepancy which non-experts will find confusing.
- I change the sentence to this "The 2007–08 season represents the 10th in Raleigh." Is that OK?
Y Done Don't overcapitalise - Regular Season and Post Season, just season is fine.
Y Done What is "² " next to the 2005–06 season?
Y Done Why is 2007–08 season bold?
Notes should have full stops.
- Notes should be full sentences?
Y Done "in parenthesis. " parentheses.

So, as per Matthew, I have to oppose primarily over concerns with this list not actually being what it says it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Would it be ok if I take out most of the Whalers information in the lede to make it a Hurricanes specific list?

Support Doesn't say it is supposed to cover the Hartford seasons. It is fairly standard to split the incarnations of franchises into seperate articles. This article is well written now and more than meets the standard of other such FLs. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely nothing "standard" about this. All seasons should be merged here with redirects where appropriate. NFL lists do that. Take a look at Washington Redskins seasons which is also an FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. Calgary Flames and Atlanta Flames, Colorado Avalanche and Quebec Nordiques. Numerous times this has come up and numerous times it was consensus that when a franchise moves it should have a seperate article. -Djsasso (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Well it seems odd that you'd do that while the NFL guys have it differently. And their lists are complete. Especially useful when you have fickle franchises who move every few years, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      - The idea is usually that each team has its own history and is often considered its own team albeit linked to the old location. Another reason it is often brought up is that there is no reason to try and cram everything onto one page when it can quite succinctly be seperated into two pages to stay under the page size limits. Now the old incaration will obviously not grow anymore. But the new team will continue to grow and eventually the list will be too big and the two teams will be split anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        Unless the franchise moves? Sorry, not convinced. It should be on a franchise basis per the NFL seasons which are good, complete, not misleading. Featured lists which are English football club season articles exist with over 100 seasons, they're just fine. I don't think you need to worry about your list becoming too big. Especially compared to the NHL player lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        How is it missleading? The title is Carolina Hurricanes seasons. Not Carolina Huricanes franchise seasons. Its not Hartford Whalers seasons. Its quite clear that the seasons are for the team called the Carolina Hurricanes and not its franchise. It even says it in bold in the first line. Your arguement against the FL smells pretty heavily of WP:POINT because people who edit hockey articles are objecting to one of your soccer lists. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        No not at all. I don't understand why you'd split the franchise. The NFL guys don't, the NHL guys do. Why? And you didn't respond about the length, you won't have a problem with that. As for WP:POINT, I find that accusation a little rude. Until the whole "100% complete list" is resolved, I'm not budging. I've said this at the List of Medal of Honor recipients so don't take it personally. I want to understand what is and what isn't acceptable. An attempt to make a football list acceptable it was suggested it was moved to "...who have made 100 or more appearances". Thus removing the subjectivity. It was rejected. What can we do? I don't know. But if the NHL and the NFL are doing it differently then something's wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        I would note, that not all of those were NHL teams. Some were professional baseball. NFL actually seems to be the exception to the rule. We never objected to the renaming of the article, we actually supported that idea. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        But the community didn't, so that's that. Until a "general" consensus is achieved, I cannot support partial lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        But this isn't a partial list, its a complete list of seasons that a team named the Carolina Hurricanes competed in. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Which says in the lead that the "Carolina Hurricanes franchise was founded in 1971" and I believe the list should contain the seasons for the franchise. Otherwise it's the list of seasons for when the franchise was known as the Carolina Hurricanes. It should be per the NFL lists. Chicago Bears seasons deals with different leagues as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I personally think the sentence This list documents the records and playoff results for all nine seasons the Carolina Hurricanes have completed in the NHL since their relocation from Hartford, Connecticut in 1997. More than covers the ambiguity. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed we will! I look forward to the day someone submits a FLC for an NHL franchise which moved to a new location for a single season. Even nine seasons here is pushing its luck as a list when both NFL and English football seasons sometimes deal with around 100 seasons... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment What did I do?:) PG Pirate 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- What should I do now?
  - I think if you're happy just having the current franchise then do nothing and I'll oppose. If you decide to go the NFL route then I'll support and, I would guess, Djsasso will oppose. Hope for more interest so these minority arguments don't carry so much weight! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I guess I will solicit advice/consenses from WP:HOCKEY. PG Pirate 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, just because a team/franchise in any sport has changed its name or moved to a different stadium (albeit in a different city), doesn't mean they are different. Their histories can all be traced back to the same event at the same point in time, and if it were not for the New England and Hartford Whalers, I doubt the team would exist in the same capacity as it does today. I'm still inclined to oppose, even if the response you get from WP:HOCKEY is that they're different, as they mightn't see it from an outsider's perspective.

I'm not a football fan, but as an example, Manchester City was originally known as "St. Marks (West Gorton)" and then "Ardwick A.F.C." when it moved to Ardwick. Then they joined the Football league, then changed their name to Man City. Are these three different clubs? I don't think so, and Manchester City F.C. seasons, a Featured List doesn't present it as such. Spurs is another one with name changes and location changes, and their statistics include the earlier named clubs'. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Name changes in the same location we tend to keep one article. It's the change of cities that we tend to have seperate articles. When pages get larger you are supposed to split out sections into sub articles, as such a natural place to split out part of an article would be when it moves cities. I suppose this is more for the main team articles than lists associated with the team. But I don't see why the lists couldn't follow the examples of the team articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give my thoughts on this conversation. As a Hurricanes fan, I personally do not care about the Whalers seasons. I believe most fans only care about the team while they are at a specific location. I do not think many New Yorkers would/do follow the LA Dodgers or SF Giants (Both moved from NY) or Baltimore with Indianapolis Colts. Yes on the technical sense, all have lineage to previous locations, but I do not think they are the same team by any stretch. PG Pirate 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is an interesting debate, and one I went through on my nomination for Calgary Flames seasons. Rambling Man, I also believe this to be comparable to our debate over the FL status of List of Arsenal F.C. players. Specifically, the need for completeness of a data set. As I argued in that debate, even if the set is split over multiple articles, so long as they are clearly interlinked, and the data set is complete, then each article should be judged worthy. In this case, we have Carolina Hurricanes seasons. What we need is Hartford Whalers seasons. That would complete the set. I'll look to create that article later today. As far as the contention that we should be following the NFL wikiproject's lead, I would respectfully disagree. There is no policy or guideline that argues each project has to mime that of others. WP:HOCKEY has consistently split articles along franchise iterations, and in that vein, lists such as this should follow their parent articles. This article defines itself as being a list of Carolina Hurricanes seasons. The Carolina Hurricanes have only existed since 1997, so this list contains the complete history of seasons for the Carolina Hurricanes incarnation of the franchise. This specific incarnation is obviously closely linked to the New England/Hartford Whalers, and those links should be noted and completed. Beyond that, however, this specific article stands on its own merit. Resolute 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment interesting reading. But your franchise view of the world is bizarre to us who have the same club for 140 years. Are you suggesting that a franchise who exists for one year is entitled to a FL? I think the NHL project needs a rethink and needs to consider the history of the franchise, not individual instances of it. You guys are pretty different, as far as I know only Wimbledon F.C. (out of around 100 English clubs) has "franchised". As such most English clubs have 100+ years of history and seasons. The seasons are played in different leagues, the leagues have different names, but the English football articles cope. Why can't the NHL articles? As I said, if a franchise lasts a year, you seriously think a FL is appropriate? If so, why? If not why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Obviously not, simply because there isn't enough history. We've seen this already with other types of lists, such as Mark Messier Leadership Award and List of Nunavut general elections, both of which are part of featured topics, though neither is capable of becoming a FL. Specific to this article, I believe the ten year history of the Carolina Hurricanes is sufficient for FL status.
  - I'm not sure how the disposition of European football clubs is relevant to that of North American clubs. It is fairly rare for a team to switch leagues, and especially so at the major league levels. Teams operate as part of the league, and as such, are considered franchises of it. while the Whalers/Hurricanes franchise as a whole has a continuous history, even the franchise itself tends to treat each iteration as a relatively independent part of the whole. i.e.: The Hurricanes this year wore a commemorative patch on their jersies celebrating their tenth year in Carolina. That it is the franchises' 35th year has been completely ignored. This reflects the common view of such teams, as expressed above by the nominator: While someone who follows hockey will be aware that the Hurricanes existed previously as the Whalers, when they think about the Carolina Hurricanes, they are thinking of the team that has existed since 1997, not the franchise that was founded in 1972. Reso lute
A minor detail about the NFL and their version of relocated franchises, more a point of personal annoyance but relevent just the same: The Cleveland Browns were relocated to Baltimore in 1996 to become the Baltimore Ravens. Popular opinion proved to be very against this in Cleveland, and so the NFL created a new team in Cleveland, but allowed it to be a reincarnation of the old Browns. This new team got to keep the original Browns history, records, etc, while the Baltimore Ravens are listed as an expansion team.

In short, it proves that the NFL is not exactly uniform when concerning its relocated teams. One team moves and acts as an expansion team, while a true expansion team gets to pretend its been around for 50 years. If anything, this helps to explain that relocated teams are in effect different than the former team it was. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. An image would be ideal, but not necessary. Hopefully someone can get a picture of the Hurricanes Stanley Cup banner, as that would make an ideal image. Reso lute 02:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Irrespective of the points of view, it would be a better article to be like the Redskins season article (IMHO very good) and have the Whalers info. As is, it seems 'not whole', not very strong, missing info. It was a club move, not a 'reinvent', a clear succession. That said, it is what was done with Calgary Flames seasons, per WP:HOCKEY, and it seems weak for that reason too, although they've been around longer. Was that a good precedent? Hmm. Cleveland? That is a special case with negotiated legal terms to govern that special case. Alaney2k (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple really. The main pages are separate so the sub articles should follow suit. -Djsasso (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Auburn High School people

Self nomination. I've largely based this list on the FL List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, which gave me the inspiration to try to bring this list I had been working on up to featured status. --Lissoy (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A few quick comments:
- Lead section is too short. I want it to tell me more about the school.
  - I've expanded the lead; is more needed?
- The numbers in "three hundred diplomas a year and has graduated over ten thousand students" should be rendered as numerals, not as words.
  - Done.
- Some of the images overlap the tables on my screen (specifically, Spencer and Washington).
  - Do you mean overlaps horizontally, or vertically? I can't reproduce this.
- The variable width of the different tables looks odd.
  - Fixed.
- I don't believe that Fulbright, Truman, or Marshall Scholarships are considered to convey notability. I don't think they should be listed. (Others might have different opinions, though.)
  - A similar list passed muster in FL List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. Individually don't I think reciepiency of such a scholarship confers notability, but collectively, I think the complete set is notable, in a similar manner to the principals and presidents list.
- Does Man or Astro-man? belong in a list of people?
  - Each of the band members attended the school, and formed the band while students. They are "Auburn High School people".--Lissoy (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I'm afraid I can't support this until the List of Arsenal F.C. players candidacy for removal is resolved. According to half the people who have contributed there, the title of this list would suggest that it must contain all "people" who were involved with Auburn High School. Moreover, the fact that there's even a tag suggesting that the list is incomplete means it fails criterion 1b. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can resolve this debate one way or another, but WP:STAND notes that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)", which implies that all people should not be included unless all are notable--this is the case for a professional athletic team, since participation in the highest level of professional sports confers notability (WP:ATHLETE), but is not for people simply by association with a high school. I also don't understand your statement that the list would fail criterion 1b due to a dynamic list tag, considering that 1b specifically says that dynamic lists which do not omit a major component are "Comprehensive". Since this list contains every "Auburn High School person" on Wikipedia as far as I know, I don't think it omits a major component. Perhaps I've misunderstood; would you mind clarifying what you mean?--Lissoy (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can prove that you've got all the notable alumni of Auburn High School covered. Just because you think you've got all those with Wikipedia articles, how can you guarantee that those are all the notable "people" ever to be involved with the school? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

What does extant mean, in "oldest extant public high school"?
- Extant as in "oldest of currently operating schools", but not "first school"; I've clarified.
"Courtesy UAB" should appear in the fair use rationale, not in the image caption
- Done.
Echo TRM's comments re the incomplete tag and unresolved issue regarding a different list's incompleteness
- See above.
The numbers as words doesn't bother me, as [as figures or words] allows it.
Force width the tables and their columns
- Done.--Lissoy (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of state highways in Washington

It has recently gone through a major renovation and is a very clean list. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
1. The lead needs to be expanded.
2. The Notes located in the lead should be converted to footnotes.
3. The "Notes" column should be removed, since there are only three notes, which could be converted to footnotes, as well. Currently, this column can't be sorted anyway.
4. Combine the miles and kilometers into one column titled "Length". Write the km in parenthesis.
5. Round miles and km to the nearest whole number.
6. Why are some of the rows colored gray? Explanation is needed.
7. Overall, too many redlinks throughout the list.

--Crzy cheetah 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer 6 and 7, the gray rows are deleted routes and the red links are for the articles that 'will be created by WP:WASH or Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You actually need to resolve these issues in the list while this nomination is still ongoing. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I concur with the above comments although I think the length column should be rounded to the nearest tenth, some of them are less than a mile, so the tenths digit is needed
What exactly do you mean when you say the highway was deleted?
It needs a "description" column to go into a little more detail than just where it begins and ends. In fact merge those two columns into the description column. For example, I-5 goes through Seattle, but the list doesn't tell me that.
I am confused as to what the difference is between "formed" and "became a state highway"
It appears the "formed" and "deleted" columns are unreferenced.

--Holderca1 ^talk 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

There's a difference between state routes, interstates and U.S. Routes. It might be better if separate articles were created for them, which would also reduce the size of this list considerably. And also a separate list for deleted highways.
The lead is too short.
That notes column is very odd, with the huge gaps. It also doesn't sort.
1893-1953 and the other date ranges should be separated by an ndash (–), not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
What do those other state routes in parentheses represent in the Formed column?
There's a lot of red links which should be turned blue by creating articles
"SR339 (ferries)" What does this mean?
What does deleted mean? The designation was removed, or the road was demolished, or something else?
Those that were proposed – were any lengths available, or were they highways that were proposed to have a length of 0?
Please check out List of Interstate Highways in Texas for an excellent example of a Featured List regarding highways.

That's all. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the list, and I don't think it's ready. I'm not going to try to improve it to FL status, but I would like to comment on a few of the objections:

Ideally there would be more entries in the notes column.
Why should lengths be rounded? We have them all to the nearest 0.01 mile through WSDOT.
Gray means that the designation is deleted (no longer exists). This should be explained in the notes above the table.
Formed is when the designation was created (again this should be explained above); became a state highway is when the roadway itself became a state highway.
Formed and eliminated are indeed unreferenced; I don't have a full source for the state laws that designated the routes.
Separating the list into several would remove a lot of the functionality with respect to sorting.
"If a route was renumbered, the old or new number is given in the "formed" or "eliminated" column."
"Deleted" refers to the designation (and this should be explained above).
I haven't been able to find the planned lengths of proposed routes.

--NE2 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloc Party discography

Self-nomination. This is a list of all releases by British rock group Bloc Party. The list meets all of the criteria, is well sourced and has a comprehensive lead section, it is accurate and detailed without going overboard with useless trivia. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support This is well sourced, and a nicely written list. Disclaimer: Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- But look at Feeder discography and Crowded House discography? P.S. Your new sig is very long, code-wise. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Definitely a good start, but the list is generally inconsistent with the vast majority of FLC discographies, in ways that I don't think benefit the list in any way. A few examples:

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Good work so far! Here's a few more (much minor) suggestions/concerns I have:

"Chart positions" and "Peak positions" isn't specific enough, it should be changed to "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions", to be more clear. And, obviously, the same thing for both the albums and singles tables
The width of similar rows in similar columns should be kept consistent wherever possible.
An External links section would be nice as well. Drewcifer (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Please don't edit other people's comments, including putting them into hide boxes, it's rude. Also, I didn't consider all of the concerns you moved into the hide box to be fully addressed. Also, I agree with most of indopug's comments, so you can consider those more reasons for my Oppose vote (except for the B-sides thing. As mathew put it, it's a discography, not a songography). Drewcifer (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Where are the chart positions for EPs?
- None charted. I will add a note at the bottom of the table. Y Done
Avoid linking in bold lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title. The above two articles were wrong, and have been fixed. Also, WP:OSE is no excuse for wrongness. Y Done
Union is a disambig page. Either link to the correct article, or none at all Y Done
"B-Sides" is an unpopulated section, and should be removed. Y Done
Don't populate the "B-Sides" section, as this is a discography, not a songography Y Done
Don't make text too small for poor-sighted people to read. Y Done, bigger (90% compared to 75%)

Otherwise it's okay. I was actually going to work on this about a month ago and nom it myself, but I got sidetracked! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done most of those things now, if you'd like to check. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

~~I disagree with the above reviewer; link Bloc Party in the bolded lead, it is the first mention. See ALL other discographies and you'll see the same being done. WP:OSE is certainly valid here.~~
THe lead is WAY too long. Absolutely no need to mention AMG ratings or charting positions of singles (unless very important in their career). For a band that has existed for three years, I'd say two medium-sized--if not one big--paragraphs is enough.

Better. There's still some stuff that can go and the lead could use a copy-edit. Eg: Mercury prize-nominated is not worthy of mention and the first sentence is a bit too long (shift the founding members to the next sentence). The Irish and Aussie chartings for "The Prayer" can go.

~~"It was in essence their breakthrough album" - awful POV and unencyclopedic tone too. That sentence also never seems to end, going on and on and on...~~
Their first single, She's Hearing Voices - MoS?
Numbers below 10 should be named (seven, not 7). I think listing eighteen would be better than 18 too.

38? --> thirty-eight; you've worded the others.

~~For the record label no need of Recordings, Wichita/V2 will do.~~
~~Where are the refs for chart positions for each country in the studio albums table? Make it like, say, The Prodigy discography.~~
Where are the B-sides? If you think it was better with the B-sides, you don't need to remove it. I prefer them there, especially if they are decent/important songs. Plenty of other discogs have a b-sides table; not including them is the stylistic choice of the above reviweer which you don't need to follow.
If you are removing the B-sides then why have such a detailed Compilation appearances; it might be enough to just list stuff not found on Studio albums/otherwise unreleased stuff. Place refs next to individual songs, not in a separate column.

Look at The Libertines discography for what I think is a neater way to have the Compilation appearances section. The current name implies that no original music is recorded for these albums at all (being their appearances on compilations), while actually quite a few soundtracks have original music. Change "O.S.T" to "soundtrack" (small case). Also, the Label column is kinda unnecessary and the Type column is kinda obvious (Just click on the album). A Comments column tells where else the song is found, i.e, which Bloc Party album or if it were an original recording. Thoughts?

~~Not really related but that band template right at the bottom should be updated to the way it is for other bands.~~
~~That ref with album details is odd. Remove it, as that info is kinda self-referential to the albums themselves.~~
Silent Alarm Remixed should be somehwere else, or at least mention that it is a remix album. It was rather puzzling to see that the 2nd album performed so poorly compared to the others.

Might be better to include it in another table called Compilations. A ref saying that its a remix album isn't the way; below Label, have a sentence that says that it is a remix. The single charting can be included that way too, *[[UK Albums Chart]] peak: 54<ref>
In the albums column make Certifications --> UK certifications, linked to British Phonographic Industry.

UK, IRE, AUS... Reduce size, again see Prodigy discog.

For the Singles table? Keep the refs consistently below the Chart name there.

Check if the refs are formatted properly.

USA -->US. Change throughout.

overlinking: after the albums section no need to link the albums/record labels once again.

Studio albums/EPs still linked in the Singles table.

indopug (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, you've essentially said the exact opposite to what Matthew did. Does it matter if I follow one person's over the other? weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There may be many more people who disagree with me. The way I see it though is as I said above. A discog lists releases. B sides appear on releases that are already mentioned. But if you're going to be super-consise and add B-sides, then why not the tracks that appear on all the albums? If someone wants to see the single's B-sides, they click on the single's release. If they want to see an album's tracks, they cick on the album. As for compilations, that for me is different as not each compilation has an article, so for thoroughness, the tracks should be mentioned. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet; haven't the band made any Music videos!? (check mvdbase.com) What about video albums/DVDs? Check for it. indopug (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Heelers (season 13)

I am nominating this list because it has had a lot of work go into it of late and I believe it now meets all featured list criteria. The episode summaries are concise and are not too long and not too short. I believe it satisfies all applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have modeled it on and compared it with other featured lists of a similar nature such as Lost (season 3), The Simpsons (season 1), The Simpsons (season 7), etc. and believe it has reached FL level. I will address any problems or comments anybody has and would be more than happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

The first sentence says it's the third season. I'm guessing this is an error. I think the article would benefit from a little more time 'in the wild', being less than a week old. --Golbez (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As the result of a recent discussion, many Blue Heelers articles were split into individual season articles and much information was merged into their respective season lists. Much of the content on the page has been simply moved. Daniel99091 (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

Comments
- Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title
  - Link removed, link in infobox will suffice
- "third" - "thirteenth"?
  - changed, quite a stupid mistake. Probably what you'd call "making a bad impression"
- "concerns about the decline of Blue Heelers" in what sense?
  - changed to "decline in ratings"
- "and, when it came time for its contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), although its future proceeding this was still unknown." - bit clumsy reading this.
  - changed to "When it came time for Blue Heelers' contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), but its future after this was still undecided."
- "John Wood, who portrays Tom Croydon" - "..who portrays Croydon..." will suffice.
  - changed to "..who portrays Croydon..."
- "and is, undisputed," undisputedly?
  - changed to indisputably
- Worth emphasising that The Bill is a British cop show.
  - emphasised
- "did not, in fact, " in fact is redundant.
  - changed to "...failed to..."
- "Awards-wise, this season proved a winner for ..." reads like a newspaper report...
  - changed to "This season was very successful in regards of awards, particularly for John Wood..."
- "the Gold Logie, Wood had been nominated for, but not won, for ten straight years" not sure I can read this correctly...
  - terrible sentence; changed to "Wood had been nominated for the Gold Logie, but not won it, for ten straight years;"
- "It is currently unknown when, or if, the thirteenth season of Blue Heelers will be releases on DVD." so remove the sentence.
  - removed
- Guest actors aren't cited.
  - now cited
- First para of Production is uncited.
  - now cited
- "show's storylines; The second ending was used" uncap the "The" after the semi-colon, and use "the latter ending..."
  - changed to "the latter ending..."
- " start producing Heelers again" Blue Heelers.
  - changed to full programme title
- Check your times meet WP:DATE.
  - changed "PM" to "pm", removed commas from dates (eg. 14 January, 2006 becomes 14 January 2006)
- "record, which was, and still is," reads oddly and may go out of date so provide an As of...
  - re-written the sentence and removed the reference to current time
- "These type of figures which Blue Heelers had not achieved for years." is this a sentence? Why is half of it in italics?
  - forgot to end the italics after Blue Heelers
- "In this, Blue Heelers' final year" I think this has been emphasises enough.
  - removed a few references to the final season
- Half of the awards section is uncited.
  - now cited
- Synopsis should be prose, not a load of bullet points.
  - done
- " police for the deat "? death?
  - typo, changed to "death'
- "what could happen to him in the hands of him?" don't get that at all.
  - clarified and changed to "what could happen to Rory in the hands of this fearsome criminal?"
- "Inspector Falcon-Price " no need repeat Inspector twic in a single synopsis.
  - changed to "Inspector Falcon-Price gleefully takes over the operation of the station and also becomes suspicious about Tom's whereabouts, questioning Kelly. Amy begins to get frustrated when the Inspector does his utmost best to hinder her case of a brutal home invasion and assault; only to be taken off the case when their opinions begin to differ.".
- "she tries to find dirt of Joss's new girlfriend." what does this mean?
  - sorry, idiom, changed to "she tries to find some negative information about Joss's new girlfriend.".
- " DVD Release" heading should be DVD release. And is it worth a section if it's unknown both when or even if it'll be released?
  - I thought I would try to have as much consistency over each season article as possible but I see your point, I have removed the section.
So a lot of work to do, I must oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Try and find a free image to use in the list. Might be difficult as it is a television series, and not necessary, but it would boost the "appeal" of the list, if you like. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Y Done"due to its cancellation by the Seven Network. The cancellation was a result of Seven Network concerns about the sharp decline in ratings of Blue Heelers." could be "due to its cancellation by the Seven Network as a result of concerns about the sharp decline in ratings." Same information, less repetitive and clunky
Y DoneAfter the first use of "the Seven Network", couldn't simply "Seven" be used instead?
Y Done"When it came time for Blue Heelers' contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had henceforth canceled Blue Heelers" could become "When the time came to renew Blue Heelers in late 2005, Seven commissioned ten further episodes to be produced, but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had canceled Blue Heelers".
Y DoneFurther to this, Ref [1] suggests that these episodes are from season 14, as season 13 had just wrapped: "Producer Gus Howard told the cast and crew on Monday - a day before series 13 wrapped for the year - that Seven had commissioned 10 more episodes. That takes Heelers to 510 episodes"
- the show had "wrapped for the year"; Blue Heelers episodes are not live and need to be filmed some time before they go to air, as Blue Heelers usually started airing immediately after the Christmas hiatus. I will try to integrate this in.
  - I'm still confused then. To me it sounds like they were a day before finishing the thirteenth season. Then they're told they can have 10 more episodes. Those ten more episodes it seems are the ones listed here. So either they're a part of season 13, in which case where are the rest, or they're actually season 14. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I see what you mean. I think that this writer has just made a mistake; a few mistakes actually. I'm guessing "a day before series 13 wrapped for the year" should read "a day before series 12 wrapped for the year". Furthermore, where the writer states "That takes Heelers to 510 episodes, beating the 509-episode record held by Homicide for 30 years.", is also wrong. Blue Heelers equalled Homicide's record which was also 510 episodes. I think I'll remove this source, definitely not reliable. Thanks, and sorry it took me so long to work it out, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
Y Done"partially due to the series's move its lower-rating timeslot" is missing a "to", I think
Y Done}I can see lots of changes in tense, such as in Cast section: "There were no changes made to the main cast", then "The main cast is the same as in the twelfth season", and then "Main cast for this season consisted of"
Y DoneThose redlinks need turning blue by creating articles
Y DoneI would say that pilot refers to the series' first episode, not the season's, which would be a season premiere
Y Done"This season also marked the time when Blue Heelers matched the record for most episodes produced..." didn't Prisoner Cell Block H have 600+ episodes?
- corrected to "the record for most episodes produced in an Australian weekly primetime drama"
Y Done"These type of figures which Blue Heelers had not achieved for years." is a fragmented sentence
Y Done"achieved 1,512,000 viewers in the 5 cities (metro only)." There are only five cities in the entire country?
- "5 cities" refers to the five largest state capitals in Australia, probably should have explained that.
Y Done"as previously mentioned," isn't necessary
Y DoneInstead of explaining what each #'ed column represents, why not just title them "season #" and "series #"?

That's all for now, but I think it should also have a thorough copyedit. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to give it a good proof and copyedit today. Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Comments Firstly, an inconstructive comment I feel compelled to make, I hadn't even realised the show had ended - which is a little sad considering I'm living in Sydney and I watch an awful lot of TV, almost entirely on Channel 7 :)
- Y DoneThis season focused - just like we say "Blue Heelers is" in the main article, because the shows still exists, this should probably be "focuses".
- Y Done Some links in the lead would be nice, like John Wood.
- Y Done 1.2 million viewers, which was more than half what the show had been attracting - a) Do you mean "less than half" (of 2.5 mill)? b) Do you mean "less than half of what..."?
- Y Done Maybe sweep through the article to make sure you're either consistently using "13th" or "thirteenth" - I've spotted some of each.
- Y Done Newspaper names in Reception should be italicised.
- Y Done indicating the sure decline - IMO, either a decline was indicated or there was a sure decline; a sure decline can't have been indicated.
- Y Done Ratings for this season was generally low - not sure if that should be "were generally low".
- Y Done "Stoked" isn't a very encyclopedic word.
- Y Done Names of rival TV shows in Awards should be in italics.
- Y Done Episode plot summaries - reword whatever is posing a question to the reader. The plot summaries shouldn't sound promotional, and see WP:SPOILER - you should give away what happens!
- Y Done Ref #3 is cited to IMDb Trivia - not a reliable source. Not sure if you could find another source on that point but it's better just to remove it.
Hope that's useful, and I'll be happy to support if it's done. :) —97198 talk 12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice stuff. —97198 talk 07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the review, and support. Daniel99091 (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] List of tributaries of Larrys Creek

List of tributaries of Larrys Creek is a complete list of all 42 named tributaries of Larrys Creek, a stream in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. It has two shorter lists for the tributaries of the two major tributaries, the First and Second Forks. It has had a very helpful peer review, which is here, that found no major problems. The suggestions for improvement have all been addressed and I believe the list meets the criteria for featured list candidates. Note that this list falls under criterion 1.a.3: contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles.

Since the tables are 100% of the possible width, there is not room for pictures in them, nor are there pictures for most of the streams listed. I have instead used a gallery to show thumbnail images of four streams. This use of a gallery follows the model of three Featured Lists: List of Pennsylvania state parks, List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, and List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania.

This is a self-nomination in that I am the editor who has worked the most on this list (and the Larrys Creek article), but I want to thank Dincher, The ed17, The Rambling Man, and Pete for all of their help. Thanks in advance for all input, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support This list is very comprehensive, thoroughly researched and referenced. It might not the be most notable creek in the world, but good work is good work and this is work is pretty darned good. Dincher (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support and kind words Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support glad to have been of service at the peer review and all my issues were well dealt with there so I have no reservations whatsoever in supporting this. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be better to use {{sort}} in the table, because all of the items in inverted commas are at the top when sorted alphabetically. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent idea - I have made the change in all three tables and it works on my computer (sorts properly now). Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Support then. Well done! weburiedoursecrets inthegarden' 09:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Thanks for your support and suggestions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Excellent list! Very well researched, interesting, well sourced, informative, and seems almost perfect. Very well done. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Nice list, though I think the headers could be done differently, by making "Main stem tributaries", "First Fork tributaries" and "Second Fork tributaries" should all be H3.-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Changed accordingly, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  - One more thing, unlink the bold text in the lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title, and I think I'll be ready to support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Thanks for catching that - it has been reverted Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Nice list. Meets the criteria, no other issues to be found. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- thanks for your suggestions and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Nice job! Dhaluza (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Tulsa and List of tallest buildings in New Orleans. I have been working with Alaskan assassin to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Another fine addition to the growing group of "tallest buildings" featured lists. VerruckteDan (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Images should be sized per WP:MOS#Images, not forced to a user-defined number of pixels.
- The MOS doesn't state that images should be sized:
Image size is a matter of preference. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for the overwhelming majority of readers), and a maximum of 300px.

So I don't really see what need to be changed with the current layout. The only thing the MOS does specify about image sizing is that the lead image should be at least 300px, and the lead image in this list is that size. -- Rai-me 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In Note A, numbers below 10 should be written out in text.
- Y Done -- Rai-me 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the list. Cheers, Rai-me 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Could a mention of the Minneapolis Skyway System be included? It's the largest in the world and connects most of the buildings. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done - sentence added at the end of the first paragraph in the lead. Cheers, Rai-me 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Support: great list, very comprehensive. ~ Eóin (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Raime, this is a beautiful article. Would it be possible to add a column naming the architects? -Susanlesch (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! Unfortunately, I don't think it is very feasible to add another column; it was tried adding an additional column for street addresses in some building articles originally, but this caused the tables to become extremely "crunched" and very hard to read at lower screen resolutions. Adding an architect column would do the same... Cheers, Rai-me 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tentative oppose. Sorry to have to say that because I like the article. So much design and engineering know-how goes into these buildings I wouldn't be able to support this as featured work without architect credits. It would be like a list of paintings without their artists. I know you have a series of "List of tallest buildings..." going, and that it is a little bit of work. But adding rows within rows would make this quite easy to accomplish at any screen resolution including mobile. Help:Table shows how to nest information in case that helps. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so, I don't think architects should be added. As I am not the only building list editor, I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers#Inclusion of building architects in tallest building lists to find out the opinions of other editors. Please feel free to express or expand upon your opinions on the matter there. Here is my opinion on why architects should not be listed (transcluded from the aforementioned discussion at WP:SKY):
- First and foremost, architects, while very suitable to list in articles pertaining to architecture in a city or just lists of buildings in general, are not relevant to list in lists of tallest buildings. In these lists, height is all that matters; that makes floor counts relevant for obvious reasons, years of completion relevant to show general trends in high-rise construction, and limited notes pertaining only to height relevant. Any additional information not pertaining directly to height, including architects, should not be included and should be saved for individual building articles.
- In many cases, recently brought to light with the construction of the Freedom Tower, the final plans are changed drastically from the original vision of the architect. In many, if not most, cases, the developer(s) plays a far more significant role in the building process. Does this mean we would also have to list developers in the tables?
- As noted above, the addition of the inclusion of architects would lead to a plethora of new possibilities for lists - developer, owner, use, cost, etc., all of which are irrelevant to building height and should be saved for infoboxes and prose in individual building articles.
- For many shorter, less well-known buildings, there is little to no information about the architects of buildings that can be found - this is a problem I have run into while creating building articles for past FLs. However, as all buildings have architects, having this lack of information in some cases would heard the completeness and comprehensiveness of the list, both of which are FL criteria.
- Many buildings are jointly designed by several architectural firms. Would we need to list all of them? Again, such information is much better suited for articles than tables.
However, if there is consensus among several editors to include architects in tallest building lists, then I will find a way to include the information. Cheers, Rai-me 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed. I posted my thoughts at the WikiProject and am more than happy to change my vote if consensus really is in favor of no architects. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Striking tentative oppose in favor of support because the WikiProject tells me so. Thanks for seeing the idea through, and again compliments on this list which surely should be featured. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - great work! Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of True Tears episodes

This is a list of episodes of the True Tears anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Myself ; Yourself episodes, List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes, and List of Claymore episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Looks good and complete. One additional piece of information that might be relevant to have would be the DVD sales figures, because I recall reading they were remarkably low, but that's more relevant to the series as a whole than the list of episodes, so I won't fault the page for it. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Would probably be more relevant to a reception section at True Tears (anime), yeah. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support my major concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The linked True Tears is so placed because it's part of the subject's title. I see that's specifically advised against, but is it better to leave the words unbolded or unlinked? --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Response I'd opt for unlinked and still bold since "True Tears" is in the title of the article. You can link the True Tears on its next occurence. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

- Please inform me if anything else needs to be addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

"This is a list of episodes of the 2008 Japanese animated television series True Tears." would be better as "This is a list of episodes of True Tears. True Tears is a 2008 Japanese animated television series... blah blah". This will fix the WP:LEAD#Bold issue
- Cut the bold. I think it's fine now. If you still want it changed, I'll do it.
The sentence "The episodes are loosely based on the visual novel True Tears by La'cryma, using an entirely different story with different characters, and a different art style" should have a reference, because the way it describes it, it seems nothing like the visual novel at all!
- Reworded the sentence.
Who's father died, Shinichirō's or Hiromi's?
- Says "her father," which makes it fairly evident I think.
  - I think it needs to be clearer who is male or female. A native English speaker won't know just by the names who is what, like they would John and Sarah-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Reworded accordingly.
"interacts" → "interactions", maybe?
- Fixed.
"The title for a given episode is a line spoken within the episode." Reference this, as not many people will be able to speak Japanese to verify themselves
- Hard to source this. Would you rather have it cut?
  - Doesn't {{cite episode}} have fields for quote and minutes? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    - So 3-4 cites for that sentence or do I need all 13? Just curious. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How does Shiniciro continue to lament when this is the first episode?
- Fixed.
"Shinichirō Nakagami continues to lament how he cannot express his feelings for Hiromi Yuasa, noting that when he knew her before, he always treasured her smile, but she acts coldly at home, and Shinichirō regrets not being able to see her tears, or any form of significant emotion" is an extremely long and unweildy sentence.
- Fixed.

Real life calls. Gotta jet. I'll do some more tomorrow. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me if anything else needs to be addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a little bit of copyediting for the first six episodes. You can see the diff here. I felt the summaries were extremely long and convoluted with a few too many commas. The remaining episodes still need looking at, I think, but if you think otherwise, feel free to undo it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Minnesota Wild players

Another NHL player list to nominate. It's fairly similar to List of Columbus Blue Jackets players in that both teams joined the league in the same year and have comparable numbers of players. Comments welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Avoid wikilinking the bold title in the lead, per WP:LEAD
Those two pictures of the goalies make the table shift half-way down the screen
"1999–00" should be "1999–2000"
"2000–01, then "2000–2001". Be consistent

That's all I can see. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed up. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Don't put bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

Removed

Says it was founded in 2000 but joined the NHL for the 1999-2000 season. The last sentence of the first para in the lead and the first sentence of the second para have significant overlap - I'd consider reworking it a bit. Oh, and "eight" goaltenders, not 8.

Fixed

Don't force image sizes per WP:MOS#Images - use upright as your size parameter. And put the images in the right section - the first goaltender overlaps a section boundary.

Don't quite understand the size issue your talking about, but removed the two images. There weren't any problems on my screen, and were in the proper spot, but are gone regardless.

References 2 and 3 need full stops.

Done

Image captions, when complete sentences, need full stops.

Done

"during 2007-08 season" all instances of this should use the en-dash as separator.
Same for 2006-07, should read as 2006–07. The whole of the Skaters table seems to need to be remedied.

All fixed

Pity you haven't got more images for such a lengthy table...

It is a problem I'll agree, but is all that are available. One of the reasons why I waited this long to nominate it was to find more images to use.

Seasons in the table are e.g. 2000-2001 while seasons in the lead are 2000-01. Be consitent.

Is consistent now

Empty cells in the Goaltender key table should be removed.

Thats there partly for uniformity, and partly because I haven't a clue how to change it.

That's all from me for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all your concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of New York Giants head coaches

Another well done list, nicely referenced, info, accurate. - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title
Avoid manually resizing thumbs per WP:MOS#Images - the lead image should use upright to modify its size.
"have won seven, including three of the four Super Bowls in which they have played." should be cited.
Ref [10] cites a number of the awards but many others aren't cited.

Otherwise no real complaints from me! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Don't link the bold title, per WP:LEAD
"and have played for eighteen NFL Championships and have won seven..." too many "and have"s
Wikilink NFL championships in the first paragraph, and drop it in the second
"Steve Owen is the all-time leader in games coached and wins" is a little clunky
Those two picture next to the table are very long. If you crop them to head shots, it will allow more to be added, assuming there are free pictures available.

Otherwise, nice list -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Done with everything above. There are also know other free use images (I think), so cropping would be useless. Thanks, - Milk's favorite Cookie 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 6)

Another season list. Any comments or concerns raised will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Support as nominatior -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

"it wasn't until " avoid contractions.
"at 9:30," p.m. missing? I think there's more than one of these...
"broadcast episode twelve to fifteen " episodes...
"broadcast episode twelve to fifteen before it aired episode thirteen" 12 to 15 contains 13... little reword here.
Link weed to marijuana.
"as a auto mechanic"...
" she can't keep " see above.
"confronts them, which results in his death " No full stop but this needs a bit of a reword to explain how it resulted in his death.
"is in sorrow. " "is in mourning."?
"jeopardising " -probably needs a zee?
"DVD release of season five " season six!

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All done. Thank you for the review -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Looking good.
- marked the first death in the series of a main character - it's picky, but seems to read better as "the first death of a main character in the series"
- Publication names in Reception such as Winnipeg Sun should be italicised.
- Episodes: "dad" to "father" and "mom" to "mother"?
- her feelings for current boyfriend Peter, and her ex-boyfriend, Sean - latter comma, or even both, not necessary.
- Pick "webpage" or "web page" and sweep through the article for some consistency.
- Ellie's ex, Jesse - maybe "ex-boyfriend" is a little more encyclopedic.
Hope the comments helped! —97198 talk 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those. They've all been addressed. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 5)

Another Degrassi season page. Everything looks to be in order, well referenced, seems to meet the FL criteria. No dead links, fair use rationales missing. The one thing I'm not sure on is if the word "realize" is spelled the British way in Canada, so if someone can let me know, that'd be great. All other comments/concerns also welcome, and will be addressed in a timely manner. Regards. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:16, 30 March, 2008

Support as nominator -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Provide context for CTV for us lot who don't know where the station operates.
Get rid of the full stop in the image caption fragment (after digipak).
Can you reduce the three tiny paras in Crew to maybe two?
Set Details (missed this before) - why not Set details? Same for the other subsections of DVD release.

Just a few opening comments... get the ball rolling. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

All done I've applied these changes across all the D:TNG season pages too, including season 6, which I've just nominated, too. Thanks for the review. If you find anything else, holler! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support In the Venus' description, you wrote "her parent to throw...", maybe you meant her parents? If not, then be more specific and write "her mother" or "her father".--Crzy cheetah 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Thanks for your support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of International Mathematical Olympiads

previous FLC (13:13, 24 March 2008)

I'm resubmitting only hours after the last one closed: There was only one major issue left (the date formatting) and that's been addressed. You can read everything else in the previous nomination. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Why don't all IMO's have references?
- See the previous nomination. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Fine, but it's not clear in the article I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Reference number seven (which because of an interface bug is dubbed eight in the main text) says it. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Page ranges in citations need en-dash not hyphens.
- Y Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
For #4, "July 07, 1962 – June 15, " has a rogue comma.
- Y Done
For useful sortable table, consider having From and To columns for the date and make the From column sortable by using the {{dts2}} template (as you currently have).
- I'm not sure why one would want to sort that at all, actually. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Well you allow sort on the other columns. But no problem either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"(and other branches of abstract algebra, and topology are generally not present on the six-problem paper." missing closing parentheses?
- Y Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"It also includes the cities which each olympiad was hosted in." - "...the cities in which each olympiad was hosted."
- Y Done
Do you really think it essential to wikilink "country" to Nation?
- I guess not. Removed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Expand GDR, FRG.
- Y Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My date column is too narrow so it wraps on #6.
- Made wider. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't ref 6 in the refs column?
Where's ref [7] in the article?
- Both of the above are interface bugs; ref seven is for some reason dubbed ref 8 in the article. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Presumably City column should be City/cities?
- Y Done

That's all I have, it's an oppose for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why no reference for #43 in Glasgow?
- Y Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Order citations in numerical order, you have [6][5] now.
- Y Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Not keen on dates like July 08... July 8 would be fine by me.
- I'll get rid of those while formatting the dates.
"abstract algebra, and topology" no need for comma.
- Y Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - my major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Why are the dates dd month year - month dd? Particularly why is it date first then month first? It looks all range. Personally I'd go for dd month - dd month year or month dd - month dd year. Peanut4 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- How about year month dd - month dd? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - That wouldn't work for those running over month than one month, and is still inconsistent. Both the first and second entry need to be either date first or month first. See WP:DATE for full details. Peanut4 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Sorry don't know what I read first time. Yes year month dd - month dd, would be fine. See WP:DATE for full details of acceptable date formats. Keep them consistent, and it's fine. Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Oh, and you need to check the dates of the first olympiad. It goes back in time at the moment. Peanut4 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I reformatted some of the dates, but they didn't show up! You can view the source to verify that I changed it, but the month is still first on the article. I tried purging the server cache, but no result... Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The absence of individual references is extremely conspicuous, but would be less so if that references column was removed. Alternatively, provide page refs, such as <ref>Olson (2004) p. 45</ref>
- People opposed the last FL because of the absence of a refs column. I guess I'll do the latter, then, but be warned, it'll make the refs section look very ugly. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It's odd looking at the header for "#" rendering on three separate lines
- Er, huh? I'm not sure I understand.
  - Maybe it's just my screen then, but # is on one line, [4] is on a second line and the sortable click button is on a third line. Maybe specify a column width? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the sorting of the dates?
- Someone said that it was unnecessary in the last FL, so I made it unsortable.
What is the "six-probem paper"?
- Clarified. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"include medals for roughly the top half " is vague and unencyclopedic
- Fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The Lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs
- Split. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Lastly, I can't help feeling this list could be expanded somewhat with the inclusion of winners perhaps
- Like I said in the previous FL. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:57, 30 March, 2008

Good list, but the reference for the 2001 competition is about the 2000 one instead. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of cricketers called for throwing in major cricket matches in Australia

This list, which Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and I collaborated on, details those cricketers who have been called for throwing (see Throwing (cricket)) in major cricket matches played in Australia; ie. first-class cricket matches and One-Day Internationals. It is a highly topical and relevant list, free from any biographies of living persons concerns, with clearly-set out criteria for inclusion, is referenced properly, and is in my opinion sufficiently stable for featured list status.

Thanks in advance for any comments; Blnguyen and I will be happy to recieve, act on and/or discuss suggestions for improving this list, and of course (as with any other article) please be bold in making this list better! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Nice list, very interesting
The ", from either side." in the Note just before the table is confusing. Does it mean either team, either end of the pitch, or something else?
- Ah, good point. Clarified, I think. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Hm.. OK, now I get it, but I don't think it's actually necessary. The reader is able to see which team the thrower is from simply by reading the list. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:42, 30 March, 2008
    - I think the idea was to clarify that the player didn't have to be Australia, but merely be playing in Australia. Any suggestions on further improvement along these lines? Daniel (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      - The note seems clearer without it. Also, the article title says "in Australia", not "in Australian matches" or some such. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        Removed. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The article title is really long, can anything be done to reduce it?
- Not really, or else the list title won't clearly define and represent the scope. I guess the "List of" could be ditched, but I don't think it'll make much difference, really. If you or anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to post them here for discussion—Blnguyen and I couldn't think of anything else. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Which reference actually relates to the throwers?
- The list itself? Number 8, as noted next to "Player". Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
One more It's not important, but this list lends itself to being sortable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:42, 30 March, 2008
- Done :) Daniel (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:59, 29 March, 2008

Thanks! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments - yeah, very interesting concept for a list, not bothered about the size of the name if you can intelligently link it into other articles.

Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
- Done. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
While I know the image is very useful and informative, you should try to comply with image sizes per WP:MOS#Images, this would involve just using thumb.
- Done, I alwaus forget about that :) Daniel (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Worth explaining the scope of "major" here because the article you link to suggests it's a "colloquial" term...
- Is this more sufficently explained in the article itself to remedy your concerns? Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the italics such as no ball in the lead...?
- ~~I'll leave that one for Blnguyen to justify :) Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)~~
  - I think they're being used as an alternative to scare quotes. Should I swap them over? Daniel (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't think either scare quotes or italics are needed. I would find a suitable wikilink if possible.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      - Fixed. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Worth talking about the analysis of the actions of folks such as Murali (I found this interesting) in the lead?
- Yep, seems like a good idea. What do you think, a short sentence or two at the end of the last paragraph about how players are sent to testing facilities to check their action, and how it's criticised as it's not a "game environment"? Would require a reference in addition to the one you provided, but I don't think that would be hard. Thoughts appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I'm keen on the bold in the list. Maybe colour code the cells instead.
- Changed to blue, the colour may need some tweaking; thoughts (note: I changed the colour again in the later diff, so it isn't as bright; see the current version)? Daniel (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd force the dates to {{nowrap}} - the columns are oddly spaced because "New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia XIII" - anyway of shortening this?
- I've changed it to use abbreviations—it's now about the same length as the other entries. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Notes and References section can be merged and subsectioned - References as a heading then General and Specific for your References and Notes respectively.
- Do you have an example of this in another article/list which I could look at? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Check out this little beauty.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Is what I did just now what you were looking for? Daniel (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      - Parfait. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Tried to copyedit lead, but couldn't find anything. Seems FL ready. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Some small points for consideration.
- I would mention Law 24 specifically in the text and even quote the relevant clause. I know it can be found in the linked article but finding the link isn't intuitive, especially for non-cricket enthusiasts.
- The lead says nothing about throwing specifically in Australia; i.e. Has it been more of an issue in Australia more than elsewhere for example.
- The list, to me, seems to show quite clear clumping in the frequency of no-ball calls for throwing, e.g. high frequencies between 1897-1901, 1930-31, 1960-64 and 1995-99. Did these all relate to individual players or was there a general "campaign" against throwing at these times? For example, the Muralitharan, Halcombe and Marsh entries seem to scream out for some context. Perhaps footnotes could be used, such as in List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries Not sure if a list should cover these sorts of issues or not but the list seems to me lacking in context otherwise.
- Is is possible to show how many times the bowler was called in the match? For example Meckiff was called once and removed from the bowling attack but Murali was called several times by Hair and then moved to the other end.
- Would a link to a scorecard for each list item be useful?
- Finally, just for interest sake, is Charles MacGill related to this famous wine connoisseur?

The points above are for consideration only, please don't feel obliged to adopt them if you feel they would not improve the article. To my mind the list meets the FL criteria as it stands. Great work! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Surprisinginly interesting list, and very well done. As a question, however, the lead mentions that careers have been destroyed over throwing incidents. How, exactly, would this action destroy a player's career? As a person with only a rudimentary understanding of cricket, neither this list, nor the article on Throwing (cricket) really makes this clear. Is it simply because of the potential for a one year suspension if caught throwing illegally twice in two years? Reso lute 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green Wing (series 2)

Having successfully promoted Green Wing (series 1) to featured list, I am trying to do the same with the second series. I have followed the same prinicples as I did with the previous list and I believe that this list is now of the same quality. ISD (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Sally Phillips has two l's in her surname.
" in the episodes that he appears in" - "in the episodes in which he appears"
"Other than Harley, other Green Wing writers make cameos. These include Fay Rusling and Oriane Messina.[10]" merge... "..make cameos, including..."
"was received less well " clumsy...
"one- off" rogue space.
"who steals some of Mac's semen and makes herself pregent." typo and exactly how did this occur?!
" so he tries to trick her " -who, Guy or Alan?
"while still trying to convince Joanna that he is having it. " reads strangely to me.
"and make her fly" what does this mean?
" takes the tape of Sue" off Sue?
" aSwiss Army Knife" space required.
"of what he thinks is her favourite thing." what was it actually?
" trains station" singular train.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

- Response to comments - I've carried out the changes you've asked for. ISD (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Can the stubby sentences "The second series was considered worse than the first by critics." and "The second series was considered worse than series one." be expanded?
"Amongst" sounds archaic compared to "Among"
Cathy Prior's review relates only to the first episode, not the series
Add a wikilink to Dada

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:00, 28 March, 2008

- Response to comments - I have carried the changes that you asked for. ISD (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of the 100 wealthiest people

This list is based off of List of billionaires (2007), a list I submitted that became WP:FL a few weeks ago. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I delinked the word "billionaire" in the enboldened part of the lead, but apart from that, it's very similar to List of billionaires (2007). Congrats (once again!) on your hard work. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support It's been a long road, but the article's looking very nice! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

~~Oppose~~ For the reasons listed ~~above~~ (below). ~~A list that is a direct transcription of information from a single source is unnecessary and largely unhelpful. As it stands, a single External link would accomplish just as much as the entire list.~~ Drewcifer (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The # column doesn't sort. That, and I don't think a column should be named by a symbol. Drewcifer (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:It sorts for me. Plus, the column is small, so a whole word would widen the cells unnecessarily. The symbol # is widely known as a number, but that's just my humble opinion. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] | [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>talk</small>]] 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake about the sorting thing. But I do still think the column shouldn't be a symbol. Howabout "No."? As in Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography. Unrelated examples, I know, but similar enough. Also, I am a little concerned with the single source. Sure it's reliable, but a single source is just asking for trouble. Aren't there plenty of sources that might echo the forbes article? Such as CNN? Lastly, after taking a look at the forbes page, they have alot more types of lists and information then is provided here. I'm not saying a list of youngest billionares is required of this FLC, but it might be good to add an age column. Also, the fact that the sources of income column is sorable really isn't helpful. Whatabout a Industry column, so we could sort by people who became rich by energy, technology, retail, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, No. it is. The list is based on the Forbes list so that's why that's the primary source. If another source, like CNN, were to compile a similar list, the net worths and rankings would be different because different methods are used to calculate the lists. This article specifically states that it is based only off the Forbes list. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then that begs the question: if the article is based solely on a single source, then why is this list even necessary? I'm not saying it should be deleted, or that I agree with that line of reasoning, but the list does seem to be on shaky ground here. What I would suggest (as I did above), would be to expand the list a bit with extra columns, extra info, or whatever. That way it's a) more useful to the reader, and b) not a verbatim copy of another source, rather it goes above and beyond what the reader could learn from going directly to Forbes. Drewcifer (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire, but the problem is that each one uses a different methodology to do so. Therefore, we need a single source that uses the same methodology to get the values of each billionaire instead of hashing values from different sources using different methodologies together. Gary King (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but the list still needs to stand apart from it's source(s). If it were based on multiple sources, at least it could accrue an aggregate amount of information and centralize it all in one place. As it stands, the list is actually inferior to the single source provided, and provides nothing that the source does not, except for wikilinks. I understand that different sources calculate these things differently, but as it stands right now the list isn't a "List of billionaires in 2008", it's a "List of billionaires in 2008 according exclusively to Forbes". Which yet, again begs the question, why is this list even neccessary? Or, perhaps more relevant to this FLC, how does a direct transcription of a single source exemplify Wikipedia's best work? Drewcifer (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added an age column. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good start, but that doesn't really address the single-source thing. And looking at Colin's comments here and at the 2006 page, I have to agree with him on those points too. Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked around, and the only articles that mention the people on the list and their wealth use Forbes as their reference. Gary King (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The shortcomings of other articles doesn't really have anything to do with this list. Sorry to say it, but I really don't see any way to justify a single source for the entire list. Drewcifer (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If I used other articles that used Forbes as a reference, would that be considered another source? That would mean they also consider Forbes to be a verifiable source. The problem is that Forbes is really the only publication that is willing to spend time to calculate the net worths of people around the world. Gary King (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

←Ohh, sorry. I thought you were referring to other Wikipedia articles. My fault. Yes, that would certainly be a good start. You could use the Forbes thing as a general resource, then have specific in-lines from wherever else. However, you said up above that "There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire". Those other sources should definitely be used. Drewcifer (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I said that when I saw several resources, but then afterwards noticed they were using Forbes. I'll add in some references now; let me know if it's acceptable in the next few minutes. Gary King (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, definitely a good start. Hopefully you can sustain it for the whole list. Let me know when you think it's finished. Drewcifer (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few more now. The lesser known billionaires are tougher to find more sources for – these guys like to keep to themselves. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely looking better. I'd say I'm satisfied citation-wise. So, I only have two more concerns with the article (which I haven't mentioned yet, so apologies for being an endless supply of complaints): first, the title of the article isn't really accurate. If it was truly a list of billionaires, it would go all the way down to people who have less than 8.9 billion. So if I had 1.6 billion in the bank, I would be up there. At least according to the title. So, either a bigger list is necessary, or (the easier option), to change the scope slightly (and I suppose title) to the "100 wealthiest people" or something like that. Second, and this is more of a meta-concern, but since the scope of the list has been changed from just 2008 to a current list of billionaires (which is a good change), what will happen to the list in February 2009? And, what will happen to the 2007 and prior lists? Drewcifer (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

List of the 100 wealthiest people now. If you asked me, I'd just say to leave those lists. Also, I would imagine that this current list should be kept up to date as much as possible? Gary King (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I would assume that the list would get updated once a year, hence making year-by-year lists unnecessary. So, I also realize that everything from this FLC is kinda messing up alot of other billionaire-related articles, so I'd recommend taking another look at all of them and considering whether they're really worth keeping, or at least how to change/improve them to reflect all the decisions made here. That said, all of that has very little to do with this particular FLC. So, I only have a few more suggestions (yes, I know I keep saying that): first, I think it's generally good form to center align columns with numbers, and left align columns with text. So, you should center align the "No," and "Age" columns, and possibly the "Net worth" column. Second, the References column is really wide for what it does: I'd recommend abbreviating References to Ref. Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, it would be good to have one more column concerning the person's industry. So we can sort by those who have earned their fortunes from technology, telecom, banking, etc. However, this last one is just a suggestion, not something I'll necessarily hold you to. Drewcifer (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of billionaire articles... I'll see when I can get around to doing them. Industry is hard since I either don't know a lot of these companies or the billionaires have very diversified interests. Industry is better suited for each company's articles. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, ignore that last point. The center align looks good, except for a couple where the code is haywire. Also, I don't think it's necessary to have the Ref column sortable. Also, I don't think 17 references requires the 3-column references section. Might not even warrant 2-columns. Drewcifer (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all done. Gary King (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Surprised billionaire isn't linked anywhere.
- was linked to from emboldened text, but is now linked to in 'Top billionaires' section Gary King (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably need specific context that it relates to the year 2008 in the lead, not just assume we get from the fact Forbes released the list in 2008.
- done Gary King (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Millhouse Capital redirects back to Abramovich (there may be other examples) - as per the Google acquisitions, I'm not too happy with this. Either unlink or write the article.
- done Gary King (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much else to moan about though, besides the slightly excessive external links and the dependency on a single primary source. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

There's what seems to me to be a stray comma in "Forbes is an American, national business magazine"
I would change the key from "last year's list" to "2007's list" or something else more concrete.
"As of 2008" links to 2008, and I don't think MOS:UNLINKYEARS likes it.
Apart from one person, the residence is the same as the citizenship. I think it's a bit unnecessary, and I'd rather see where the business is based, I think.
I'm not sure if the residency column is correct. As far as I know, Roman Abramovich lives in the UK, and according to his Wikipedia page, lives in Rogate, West Sussex.
Per TRM's comments above, Corral Petroleum Holdings redirects to Mohammed Al Amoudi
PPF Group redirects to Petr Kellner
Unitech Group redirects to Ramesh Chandra
Grupo Bal redirects to Alberto Baillères
Quiñenco redirects to Antofagasta PLC
Votorantim Group redirects to Antônio Ermírio de Moraes
Uralskaya Gorno-Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya redirects to Iskander Makhmudov
There are other redirects which I think should be fixed, for example "MashreqBank" redirects to "Mashreq Bank",
"Echostar" redirects to "Dish Network Corporation"
"Bharti Telecom" redirects to "Bharti Airtel"
"Uralkali" redirects to "Mobile TeleSystems"
Can August von Finck's source of wealth be more specific than simply "Investments"? All the others are businesses, and by simply reading the list one would think that "Investments" is a business name.
Also August von Finck links to a disambig page
Ronald Perelman's is also "investments", but this time with a little i
There are a couple of others which is given as "investments", but I'd like to know what they invested in
I think "MMK" should be written out fully as "Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works"
"Lukoil" as "LUKoil"
"Thomson Corporation" as "The Thomson Corporation"
"LVMH" as "LVMH Moët Hennessy – Louis Vuitton"
Shouldn't the Duke of Westminster be given as his real name?
Raymond Kwok links to Raymond, while Thomas and Walter link to Sun Hung Kai and Walter Kwok respectively. I think they should all be given a last name, too, or written as "Raymond, Thomas and Walter Kwok"
"Sun Hung Kai and Companies" redirects to Sun Hung Kai
Iris Fontbona redirects to Antofagasta PLC
Beau Bray redirects to Namco
Nassef Sawiris and Alexei Kuzmichev redirect to their companies
Dmitry Rybolovlev links to Mobile TeleSystems
David Koch links to a disambig page
"Suleiman Kerimov" links to Suleyman Kerimov

That's it. Mainly a lot of redirects to fix. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:59, 25 March, 2008 More

The reference section doesn't need formatting like that as there's only 1 reference
According to WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS, the article needs secondary and tertiary sources. Try to include some other sources for everyone's wealth and source of wealth.

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:04, 25 March, 2008

All done Gary King (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More comments

The link at the top to List of billionaires (2008) is now a double-redirect to List of the 100 wealthiest people via List of billionaires. The template at the bottom of the 100 wealthiest also needs fixing.
There are two dates. The Lead section says March 5, but the "Top billionaires" section says Feb 11
Roman Abramovitch I'm sure lives in the UK (see my comment above), and I think he'll get some income from Chelsea FC.
Now this list has been moved, what's going to happen in 2009 in regards to a 2008 list? Will this be moved, and then a new list compiled at List of the 100 wealthiest people, or will it be lost in time?

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the above has been resolved. As for next year's list, it will replace this one and therefore this list will be forever lost. Gary King (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Following the recent vandalism, there still seems to be a conflicting entry at 73. Where it used to be Beau Brady and Namco, it is now Phillip Knight and Nike. (see the diff from the last known good edit on the 25th, to now). I don't want to change it though because I haven't verified it.

Unfortunately, Criteria 1c (factually correct) and 1e (stability) are the problem right now, although 1c is easily fixed (see above), but the list is being vandalised, is currently edit-protected until April 10, and so I'm currently hesitant to support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:18, 27 March, 2008

Number 73 is correct now. I can request to remove protection if that helps. The articld isn't that heavily vandalized; only the past two days, and by only three different IPs. Gary King (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe the links in the See also section are redundant, since those links are already in the "billionaire" template. I realize that by removing this section, the ToC will disappear, but it's not needed anyway.--Crzy cheetah 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

done Gary King (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

- Support Looks good.--Crzy cheetah 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOT. We don't act as a statistical repository for old data. Yes I know this is the 2008 list and I didn't see the 2007 slip through as an FL. Rename this to List of billionaires and ensure you keep it up-to-date. See List of countries by Human Development Index and Global Peace Index for examples. Apart from a few sporting lists, Wikipedia presents current data. If a featured list contains data that is updated periodically, we expect editors to keep it refreshed in a timely manner or else it is defeatured. Colin°^Talk 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what about articles such as Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 which is just a list of statistics (opinion polls, no less, meaning they may not even have any bearing on the final outcome), and I would say is far more unwieldy than this article. Gary King (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this issue at 2006 rather than repeat stuff here. Colin°^Talk 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

List of billionaires (2008) has been moved to List of billionaires. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue with this just being a snapshot in time has been resolved: this list will be maintained as the current top billionaires. However, its scope and sourcing is now confused. Previously it was all according to Forbes on one day (yearly updated). If this is still the case (ie. the amount and rank come from Forbes) then Forbes should be a general reference, not a footnote (i.e, it has a bullet point and is listed at the end of the References section.) At the moment, it looks like many of the entries are unsourced since they have no entry in the ref column. If the entries now come from a mix of sources then the lead is totally misleading and you are conducting original research. It would be original research to collect people and valuations from multiple sources and then rank them in a top 100 order. In addition to being OR this would be statistically nonsense since your sources are all for different dates so the precise ranking is not possible. Finally, some of your "sources" are just news articles repeating Forbes. The Forbes list is a totally reliable source, in so far as you trust anyone to compile such a list. Why are any other sources required? At the moment I'm strongly opposed to this being featured. Sorry. Colin°^Talk 10:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So... should I follow this line of reasoning or Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs)'s? This Wikipedia stuff is confusing. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this is certainly an interesting situation. However, I don't think that my suggestions and Colin's are necessarily mutually exclusive. Colin's suggestion of making the Forbes source a general reference rather than an in-line is a very good suggestion. From what I can tell, the majority of the other sources merely echo the Forbes source, so I don't think there's a problem of ranking based on differing scales/moments in time. I suppose sourcing an article like that is a bit redundant, but I stand by the fact that a single source was a problem. The only thing left to do is to make sure that the Lead is worded very carefully, so that the scope/sourcing of the list is no longer confusing. Drewcifer (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it's better now? Gary King (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I've just looked at nearly all your extra "references" and they all cite the Forbes list. They add nothing. Some of them aren't even citing the 2008 Forbes list, so they are one or two years out of date. I really don't see what Drewcifer's problem is with citing just Forbes. If the list is based on Forbes 11 February 2008 list then there is no getting away from it. Colin°^Talk 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically because an article that is based on a single source is a) redundant, b) about as useful as a single external link, and c) goes against WP:RS, (specifically the fact that the guideline often uses the word "sources" (plural).) Here's what I think we should do: this seems to have become more of a meta-Wiki issue, so I recommend this FLC be closed (since it appears we're deadlocked anywys), and we can bring up the issue at WP:RS or WP:V or something like that. That way, we can get a broader set of opinions, and maybe the guideline can be reworded a bit to avoid confusion like this in the future. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this page now, since its move. I preferred it when it was "List of billionaires (2008)", as it met criteria 1a3 and 1e. As soon as February 2009 rolls around, somebody had better update this list immediately, or it will become unfeatured. Sure, we expect editors to update it, but it doesn't mean they will. I didn't see the harm in having it set to one year; season pages for TV shows do this, as do lists of hurricanes (albeit for a longer period of perhaps a decade). It's also still semi-protected, which since that's an automatic fail for a GA, it should be an automatic fail for featured status. When does the protect expire? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twelve Imams

It's a complete, well referenced and useful list.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a good list. A few comments:

) Can any images be possibly added to it?
) Please replace "Martyred" with "Killed" per WP:MOS
) Please check the reference for "Sacrificing himself and his family at the Battle of Karbala for the sake of a true Islamic polity" I couldn't map it to Britannica.
) Possibly add a famous saying for each Imam.
) Please fix "Suny press" to "SUNY Press".
) A few sentences are not sourced, please fix them.

--Be happy!! (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

) A shrine of Imam Hussain has been added to it.
) Fixed.
) Fixed.
) Will in a moment. On second thought, I don't believe this would be a good idea, as the list is saturated enough. I can do it if you feel it to be really necessary however.
) Fixed.
) Will soon.

--Enzuru 07:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea to add few sentences from each Imam. It's not Wikiquote article.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The first sentence of the page is very long and heavy. It should be broken into at least two, and also referenced.

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "Theology of Twelvers", use "[[Theology of Twelvers]", and Twelvers later in the article

Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "or Ithna Ashariya", it should be "(Language used: Ithna Ashariya)"

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why "'Ali" and not "Ali"?

Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Should "jurispudence" be "jurisdiction"?

"jurisprudence" is correct.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done I omitted that part.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurispudence on all matters" is repetitive and heavy

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The final sentence of the first Lead paragraph is also long and heavy.

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"An Imam ," stray space

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"successors to Muhammad.[1]" → "successor to Muhammad.[1]"

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs an explaination of what an Imam is.

There is an explanation:there is an infallible and knowledgeable male descendant of Ali and Fatimah at any given time who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurisprudence on all matters of faith and law in the Muslim community.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't say that this is Iman. It just says it's some guy -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would use a proper wikitable to make the table
Ali ibn Abu Talib seems to link to two different people

Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What does CE and AH mean in the "Lifespan (CE/AH)" column

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't lifespan usually mean the number of years someone is alive, rather than the actual years they were born and died in?

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All the years should be displayed as "600–661", not "600 – 661"

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is 600–661 BC or AD? I think it should be specified as this isn't a subject many English Wikipedia users will be familiar with

Done (BC is CE) --Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "BH"?

Before Hijra.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That needs to be expressed, then, with an explaination of what Hijra is. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008

Is it acceptable to write [[Islamic_calendar#Chronology|BH]]--Seyyed(t-c) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for all, and if there is some terms or jargon that the regular reader doesn't understand, it needs explaining or at worst a simple Wikilink -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:08, 25 March, 2008

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably better to split the Lifespan column into two separate columns; one for Gregorian calendar dates and the other for Muslim calendar dates

I disagree, I feel it is clean like this. --Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Birth" → "Birthplace" Also include the country

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

" 57 or – 114" 57 or what?

Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The info about Muhammad ibn al-Hassan makes him sound almost Godlike. He has to have physically died, whether the people believe it or not.

As Henry Corbin describes in his work, History of Islamic Philosophy, it doesn't make him sound almost Godlike. I can't add different viewpoints in the list. It should be mention in the article. I tried to write something which is acceptable for Shias who believe he's alive and non-Shia.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But a belief that he's alive in some sort of spiritual form, or even a belief that he's actually alive isn't the same as truly being alive. There's no way that a person can be alive from the year 800AD, and no amount of faith can turn that into fact. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008

How can I explain the issue in the list? I think even I can't explain it in the footnote. There is another article for it Muhammad al-Mahdi#The Occultation. Of course we should add some explanation in that article like what Corbin has described in his book. (The Hidden Imam and Eschatology pp. 68 - 73) or what Allama Tabatabaee explains in Si'ite Islam --Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would try to find a definitive date of death first, although I do understand that this may be difficult if the Shias think of him as still alive. Then I would have the notes explain that in the belief system he is still alive. If no date can be found, keep the "Unknown" but obviously make it clear that while he can't be alive, he is in their beliefs. I also noticed one capitalised version of "He", as opposed to "he" throughout the rest. I don't know if this is like the "He" of the Christian god, or just a typo. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:06, 25 March, 2008

I corrected that H. I've never seen any date of death. Most of the non-Shia academicians and historians don't believe in his existence at all. Some of them believe that he was born but they don't believe he's still alive. There are some non-Shia who have mystic viewpoint such as Henry Corbin who believe he's born and he's still alive. But in this viewpoint he rule over the time and time doesn't affect him.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For the title, I would do "Arabic title (Turkish tr.)", place the Turkish translation in parentheses, and remove the lines

They aren't translations, Turks and Arab-rite Shi'ah have different names for them, but since they are such a big population and spread out in many countries, we gave attention to them. --Enzuru 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Same with name
I also think the table could be presented better, and perhaps with some sortable fields.

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:49, 25 March, 2008

Which field can be sorted in the table?--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would choose to do name, title, years and birthplace. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:13, 25 March, 2008

I can't understand correctly. They have more than one title. Also ten out of twelve have the same birthplace. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. OK I see your point :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:28, 25 March, 2008

Question) The article says the following about the 4th Imam: "According to some Shia scholars he was poisoned on the order of Caliph al-Walid I in Medina, Saudi Arabia." Is this the view of some Shia scholars or all of them? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done The majority. Consider it fixed. --Enzuru 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For my own information, is there any Shia scholar who thinks otherwise? What is the view of minority? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not too familiar with the historicity of the subject of their deaths, but Seyyed might know. My perception is that the majority of scholars and laymen have the position that all the Imams were poisoned aside from Ali, Husayn, and al-Mahdi, by the reigning caliph. --Enzuru 08:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to western historians such as Madelung some of them have dead naturally. But even in this case they disagree with each other. For example while Madelung think Imam Reza died naturally, Petrushevsky disagrees. Thus in the cases which western academicians have different ideas I wrote According to Shia. God willing, I will check the Shia sources for other reports.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I check there are too few Shia scholars who disagree with it and we shouldn't mention it per Undue weight.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Commment

Lead I think we should work on the lead. Please refer to the talk page of the article for more discussions.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done--Seyyed(t-c) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More

I think the table would be better presented as a Wikitable
I made the table headers bold, but the headers cells could do with shading, too, IMO
Those notes underneath the table need attatching to the text

Done I moved them to the footnotes. Does it satisfy you?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that I'm going to stay neutral on this one. It seems to meet the criteria and MOS, but I can't bring myself to support something that I just can't understand. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:26, 27 March, 2008

Please explain what can't you understand.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Interesting list! I do have a few suggestions, though. And I admit to knowing almost nothing about the topic, so excuse any ignorance on my part:

I too would suggest converting the table to a wikitable, as it simplifies markup and makes for a more consistent encyclopedia.
The sources/foototes are a little messy. A random article I found that did a good job of juggling it all is Thoughts on the Education of Daughters.

Done--Seyyed(t-c) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The list/table itself should be in its own section.

Done by Sephiroth BCR--Seyyed(t-c) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For someone like me who doesn't know much about the Twelvers, the lead doesn't explain everything. For example, why 12? Why isn't there Imams to this day? Or is Muhammad ibn al-Hassan an Imam to this day? Which makes me even more confused: is an Imam a physical being or a spiritual being? Mortal or immortal? Like I said, I know nothing at all about the topic, and the list makes me interested, but I'm left with more questions than answers. Drewcifer (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Twelvers, a branch of Shia Islam, has twelve Imams while seveners have seven ones. However I think who wants to know more should refer to Imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine) and I added some external links for whoever wants to know more. This is just a list and it's not appropriate place to explain the doctorine completely. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Oppose until~~ a few things are fixed:
- answers.com is an unacceptable source... luckily it is citing from Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia so we need to track down original page numbers and bibliographic data from the encyclopedia. This is definitely necessary... and it would be nice to get some paper sources for the books hosted on balagh.net... mainly because websites even of notable institutions change... but, it's not something I'd oppose for

I think this is the real source--Seyyed(t-c) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

- Citation style is somewhat messy... for the Tabatabae you should used the proper citation for an online book... that includes using the original SUNY edition information but also the website information. Also, for the footnotes I would only link pp. ##-## and not the book's title... It's somewhat a hodge podge of styles where you have some form under References but not necessarily the editions linked under the footnotes (if something is an online edition and you link to it then the reference should also show that it's an online edition). Because, I now see you reference a Ansarian Publications version and not a SUNY one... it's somewhat misleading to link to the SUNY one... I understand university press gives more authority while online gives greater ease but there is a better and less misleading way to do taht I'm sure. --gren グレン 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DoneI remove all of the links which refer to online version of Tabatabaei's book. As I checked their page number are similar. I add the online version as an external link.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editting has done by Sephiroth BCR.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh...shallow copy-editing at best. I think another set of eyes would be nice for the prose. The table also needs to be fixed (I'm crappy at layout), and some of the referencing styles still need work I think. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of 7th Heaven episodes

previous FLC

Self nomination All the concerns I think have been addressed since the last FLC. It no longer looks like a Skittleopedia, and has all the relevent information, with a suitable Lead section, and is fully referenced. All concerns/comments will be addressed. Thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I made some changes. You need to explain what a "prod code" is. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Matthew 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
- Image caption is fragment - remove the full stop.

Y Done

- Spaces between the years and the en-dash in the tables for "originally aired" should be removed.

Y Done

- Per above, what's a "prod code"?

Y Done

- Decap Airdate in the tables.

Y Done

- Why aren't there any episode synopses?

Purely for WP:SIZE reasons. Episode summaries for 240 episodes would be a strain on the page. I'm not opposed to doing episode summaries, I'd just rather make individual season pages. Also, the summaries that were there were direct copies of those at tv.com and had to be removed as Copyvio. -- Matthew 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:
A list of episodes page usually does not use a show infobox, having only an captioned image in the upper right corner. Why use one here?
- I bulleted your comments so it would be easier to respond. I hope that's OK with you. Consider this point Y Done.
Rather than have refs in the season table headers, why not divide the refs into a General and a Specific section as is seen with other featured episode lists?
- Y Done Although I've seen just as many done like this
Where are the specific season articles with summaries?
- I, or rather, the Wiki community haven't created them yet. I don't mind doing them, and I will if no one else gets around to it.
Individual season sections should be subsections under the first season header.
- Y Done, if I understand this correctly
I'd go ahead and remove the template at the bottom since its pretty clear it will be deleted.
- Y Done

Collectonian (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I changed the list to show you what I meant about the general episode section. Feel free to change it back if you don't like. :) Beyond that my only concern is the lack of summaries and season pages. It would be one thing to have no summaries but seasonal pages, but I'm not sure an episode list that doesn't have them yet is ready for FL until it does. ~thinking~ Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why I put done when it wasn't! Thanks though. I don't mind doing the season pages but if they need to be there for this to be passed then maybe it should be closed, because as quick as I was with the Degrassi season pages it still took me an entire day to write each one. That would mean the season pages wouldn't be complete for at least another 11 days from now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would need to take that long. You'd basically need to make an episode template hack (or use an existing one of it works for what you need). Then cutting and pasting the tables into the new articles, adding at least a basic intro and front matter, change the template name (search/replace), and then include those pages into the main list. Then the tables don't have to be repeated. If you aren't sure what I mean, take a look at List of Lassie episodes and then List of Lassie episodes (season 1) to see how this works. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I would like to see seasonal pages created as well before featuring this list. Also, could you remove <br /> from production code, season #, and series #? The reason is that it forces wide headers for users with higher screen resolution. "Another" also, could you change the table widths from pixels to percentages? --Crzy cheetah 07:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the line breaks. Why do the table widths need changing from pixels to percentages though? It's going to be kinda difficult to calculate the changes necessary. Also, see above my reply to Collectonian about season pages. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you compare the tables of seasons 6 and 7 located in my sandbox to List of 7th Heaven episodes#Season 6? Then tell me if you see any difference.--Crzy cheetah 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in the column widths, the only change I see is that all the headers are centered now. I'll adjust all the seasons to fit your sandbox, though. Thank you for the effort. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What I wanted you to see is that the "prod code" column of season 6, for example, looks wider than the "prod code" column of season 7 in List of 7th Heaven episodes's current version. Meanwhile, in my sandbox those two columns have the same width.--Crzy cheetah 00:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it already, but I looked at the old diff and I can see what you mean now. I also think it all depends what browser is being used. Firefox recognises pixels, whereas IE7 doesn't. They both recognise percentages though, so it was a good suggestion. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep forgetting about those differences in browsers. It looks good now. Seasons 7-11 don't have heading colors because there is no DVD available yet, I assume. But missing seasonal pages is an obstacle here, though. I am going to stay neutral because of that. I think this will set a bad precedence, i.e. passing lists of episodes without summaries.--Crzy cheetah 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. No DVD; no color. That's okay. I understand and respect where you're coming from. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Medal of Honor recipients

I believe that this list os worthy of being a Featured list. Please let me know if additional changes need to be made.--Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

~~I think linking to things in headers is generally discouraged, and it would be great if you could explain what the purpose of the "Foreign" section is.~~ -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done Please let me know if you see anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Support This is an excellent list, very comprehensive and detailed. The only thing I could say is to find a refences beside the U.S. Army Center of Military History Medal of Honor Citations Archive to further validate all of the listings. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments a few quick things...

**Dates should all be formatted per WP:DATE and date ranges should separate using an en-dash per WP:DASH.

- - Y Done If I understand this correctly.--Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

**Avoid links in bold sections of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

- - Y Done I only found one link that was in bold and I corrected it.--Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

**Why are there several sections which just link to other articles? If there are no medal of honor recipients for those campaigns they shouldn't be linked to here. If there are recipients for those campaigns then they should be included here otherwise this list will be incomplete.

- - Y DoneThe reason for this is because there are 3500 recipients so there are far too many to put into 1 list and I do not agree with holding up the list because there are too many and had to be broken up.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ensure image captions which are fragments don't end in a full stop.??I don't know what you mean here. Maybe someone can explain this to me.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So, oppose until these are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding the "completeness" of the list. It may be worthwhile you reading what's going on with a current candidate for delisting, the List of Arsenal F.C. players, considered incomplete because not all Arsenal players are listed. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players is where you'll find the debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is different, in the article you mention not all players are listed, so in my opinion it does NOT meet the criteria. In this case all of the Medal of Honor recipients are listed but for ease of use and to ensure that the page doesn't reach critical mass they are split up. They are all there, they just are not on one page. To list all 3500+ on one page would not only make the article difficult to read, navigate and edit it would far exceed the reasonable length an article should be.--Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Yeah, that's an interesting outlook. The debate at WP:FOOTBALL is ongoing and I'm interested to see how it pans out before I can commit to supporting any article which doesn't meet similar requirements. I understand length is an issue. In fact, the Arsenal list would be around 1000 long if the debate ends in the conclusion that all players should be listed. In fact, I think this is an interesting point. Thanks, I'll take your opinion there! More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Just FYI I've added this perspective to the on-going debate. I think its valid and would be interested in the opinion of the wider community. Until it's resolved, however, I'll have to reserve my support. Sorry, nothing personal, but there's little point in promoting this list just to see it delisted under an ongoing debate. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Thanks, I will keep an eye on that one as well.--Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        Hsa this been decided yet?--Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        No. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

"the 3,464th will be presented April 8th, 2008)" makes the list unstable, and see WP:DATE for that date.
- Y Done I fixed the date and the list isn't unstable its true that there will be more recipients of the Medal of Honor occasionally but they are extremely rare.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"1863-1973 " en-dash needed.
- Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"The following is a complete "... not really, it's a list of some and a lot of forks to other articles which may or may not be complete.
- Y Done, It is a complete list if you include all the forks. Again, it is not reasonable to include all of the recipients on one page so this is the only way to do it without the article hitting critical mass. If wikipedia has a rule that says that an article cannot become GA status or higher if it has forks then we need to add an exception for extremely large articles. If an article can never be allowed to achieve greatness then it should be deleted. Otherwise it would just be a waste of time.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Not sure why it's unreasonable to include all recipients on one page. That's what's being discussed at the Arsenal players list. That's why I can't support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    - If you check out List of Medal of Honor recipients for the American Civil War: A-L you will see that list has exceeded 100kb and it has been suggested that it be split up. Also bear in mind that the American Civil war list is already 1 of 2 and that it doesn't have anywhere near the info it will need to reach GA status some day. If you add together all of the recipients and assuming the page has all the info required for GA status I suspect they will be close to a 500k article.
      - Not if you transclude the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        Not sure what you mean, could you give me an example?--Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        Sure, have a look at List of Latin phrases (full) - it transcludes three large lists into a single page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        I see what you mean now but that list is extremely long, its knowwhere near FL status and its less than half the size of what the Medal of Honor list would be.--Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"The Medal of Honor" = avoid The in headings per WP:HEAD.
- Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ref [2] needs placing after the comma.
- Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The rest of the Medal of Honor section has no citation, e.g. the quote and the comparisons with the VC etc.
Korean expedition has no references.
Nor does Samoan Civil War.
Nor the whole of the Boxer Rebellion section.
" Two time " in captions, why not two-time?
- I couldn't find this one.--Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"1916-1924." en dash required.Y Done and no citations in this section either.
"The immediate cause of the war was the June 28, 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Black Hand. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare." no citations.
So according to your key, none of the awards were made posthumously until 1993?
- Y Done Again, if you look at the forks they were, its just that on this page there are none until you get to that. You seem to be stuck on the forks thing, if you insist that is the only way to pass it I will add all of the recipients to one page, but I don't recommend it.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I was just ensuring that none of the other recipients on this page were posthumous recipients. The thing is that in the lead you say more posthumous awards are made than not, and this table (exc. forks) tells the opposite story. That's confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The list of unknown soldiers is odd, you talk about Canadians and then there's just a list of unknown soldiers.
- Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
So some more work and still the outcome of the Arsenal list before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to wait on doing any more changes until the Arsenal debate stabilizes, because if they come back and say that it must contain all players/recipients then this article will never reach GA status because it will be too big to edit or read. Sorry if my attitude seems bad but for this article to be held up because we chose to split it up into digestible peaces is ridiculous to me.--Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Sorry that this has occurred while you're mid-FLC, but please don't take just my opinion into account. The consensus rules and just because I'm going to oppose until the Arsenal situation has resolved itself, it doesn't mean others will. You're perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that the entire list in one page is ridiculous, just as a lot of us have at WP:FOOTBALL. But the NHL guys are arguing the list is incomplete without everyone. Your forks may or may not contain every person but that now means that a FLC would need to check all subforks for completeness, so the whole FLC process would involve reviewing every fork from the main FL. If this is the way forward, then so be it. But in the meantime, don't be disheartened by me, please continue and resolve the other issues (which need to be sorted anyway, most are MOS issues) and other folks may overlook the ongoing strife and support anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Resolved follow-up comments from Matthew

Follow-up

All the prose needs citations now:
- Anything in quotes, such as ""…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the..."
- The sentence Because of its nature, the medal is commonly awarded posthumously.
- The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government
- I would say each sentence in the Civil war section
Unbold "American Civil War"Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done Can't do because this forks off to 2 separate articles currently and it will probably be several by the time I'm done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
and "Indian Wars" in the prose, and wikilink
- Y Done --Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
More info on Indian Wars: How many were awarded, how many posthumously, etc
- Y Done --Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Unbold "United States expedition to Korea", and link to United States expedition to Korea instead, at the same time removing {{main}}
Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, all facts presented need referencing
The rows for John Andrews, Patrick H. Grace, Michael McNamara (Medal of Honor), and Hugh Purvis aren't inline with the others
Use piping to link the names with "(Medal of Honor)" so instead of John Andrews (Medal of Honor), it's just John Andrews
- If you can make this work please do, I have yet to figure out how to use pipes in the name when useing the nowrap and sort name templates.--Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Hmm.. TRM will probably be able to help if you ask. I've only used sortable tables once and don't know how to do it either. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
    - He did and I fixed it Y Done --Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unbold "Spanish American War" and link per comment above
- Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Reference each fact
Same for ~~Samoan War~~ Every other section — Unbolded and link, remove {{main}} where it links to the War and not the list, and reference each presented fact
- Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The Haiti list is really narrow. I'd move those pictures to a horizontal gallery
- I didn't like how it looked so I commented out the images for now. Maybe we can add them back in later.--Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
" This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously" — "This along with the *," sounds clumsy
- This is the standard formatting and statement used on all the other lists that have made it to featured status which contain posthumous recipients. If I change it here it should be changed on ALL of the others and something should be documented to say what it should say. For now I am leaving this as is.--Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Why "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" when no other has the date in the header?
- Y Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:51, 27 March, 2008
Are you kidding, some of this is exactly what was already there and I changed per somone elses comments. Some of this makes sense though and I will start working on it.--Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not kidding, and which parts were already there? this diff between the 17th when the nom was put forward and now would suggest otherwise. If any other clarification is needed though, let me know.
  - Just a quick note - it's better not to strike out, hide, or otherwise alter people's comments, per the FLC procedure "Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text." Many people will do this when they feel their comments have been addressed to their satisfaction. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008

Why no prose for the Second Haiti section?
- There is no article on wikipedia yet for this. Once its created I will gladly add it.--Kumioko (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Just because there's no existing Wikipedia article, doesn't mean nothing can be added. If we looked at things that way, Wikipedia would never have gotten off the ground -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
    - Thats not what I meant, there is very little information for that period, other than the fact that 2 Marines got the Medal of Honor I have not seen any other documentation that documents the 2nd Campaign. Perhaps you can find some or know someone who does have some.--Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Ah, now I understand. If that is the case, is it definitely a second campaign? Note the wording for the first one: "[It] began on July 28, 1915 and ended in mid-August, 1934. Other occupations include ones that began in 1994 and 2004 (though under the UN banner, the US was the prime mover of the actions)." Perhaps it would be better to move these two recipients to this main section as the dates, 1919-20 coincide with the dates given for the first, 1915-1934? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:58, 28 March, 2008
        
        Y Done I consolidated the 2 sections on Haiti.--Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Support though I had a thought last night. If you gave each section here their own page instead of having 5 or 6 lists and then redirects to all others, brought them all to FLC and passed them, you could use this page as the main one for a Featured Topic. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:24, 29 March, 2008

- Thanks, My plan has been to get all the Medal of Honor lists up to featured status. Once approved this will be the 2nd, I am working on the Korean war now and should have it ready in a few more days and then I will submit the next one (Probaly either the Philippine-American War, or the Boxer rebellion but I have to create missing pages for most of the ones that are left). The only problem with this is that most of the ones that are left on this page in my opinion don't have enough (less than 10 rows) to make a good list and therefore likely would not pass on their own. I suppose it is possible to simply incorporate these small lists into the main articles but in some cases the main articles are already very long. I do like the idea of making it a featured topic though.--Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Great list. One quick thing.

This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Any reason to have both the background and *. I believe the background color is sufficient. PG Pirate 15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

- I would tend to agree however that is the format used by all the other articles with posthumous recipients that have made it to FL status. I can easily remove the * but I only want to do that if we make a consensus to do it for all of the others as well. Otherwise it will be confusing to the readers if we have some one way and other another way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, I have to disagree with PGPirate here, for a change ;-) ! Check out the manual of style, read Wikipedia:MOSCOLOR#Formatting issues where it suggests that colour coding alone is insufficient. The asterisk + colour colour coding meets WP:MOS. All good. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Definately a good list. I only have a few comments/suggestions. First, the wdith of the columns should ideally be kept consistent. This is an aethetic issue, but it also has ramifications for the content: the notes section in some of the tables gets really really squished. Take a look at Ross L. Iams' entry and you'll see what I mean. To solve this problem, you could probably shrink the name column(s) a bit. Additionally, the Korean Expedition table should be kept consistent as well, even though there's no images to its right. Also part of the problem is that some of the notes are very wordy, and at times POV. For instance: "desperate hand-to-hand combat", "selflessly hurled himself", "remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire.", etc. Lastly, the posthumous awards is a good, but I'm not sure why you need the grey box AND the star. Just the grey background should suffice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, on the colour/star issue, read Wikipedia:MOSCOLOR#Formatting issues please. Colours alone are not enough. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for removal

[edit] List of North American birds

This article has no in-line citations, and for such a massive list that is very not good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep as FA The entire list is based on the ABA list as stated in the introduction, and ABA is referenced at the end. You are surely not suggesting that every one of the nearly 900 species should have an in-line reference to that source? I agree that the intro could do with a couple more refs, but that's no reason to declassify a clearly notable and useful list Jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right I am not, but there should be some...do some and I'll take a look. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to support it's removal as a featured list. The list is as misleading and at the very least ambiguous for the uninformed reader. It only includes species from the US and Canada. It does not include species from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean which are included in most references to North America. It is true the list does make mention as referencing the list as the ABA list, which it is, but even the ABA does not consider this to be a North American list, it is the ABA's list. I know there has been very involved discussions in past communications concerning this issue. For me, although the text does mention this is a list of North American birds recorded north of Mexico, it is not a true North American list which the title suggests...........Pmeleski (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are describing is a blatant WP:COPYVIO. Lists must be supported by independent research, not simply lifted from a copyrighted source. So, yes, you will need independent sourcing for the entries. Dhaluza (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The mere list of birds falls clearly within the realm of Feist v. Rural. The list of bird species seen in North America is not copyrighted to anybody, no matter who compiles it. Circeus (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The raw data is not copyrightable, but a particular list may be if it contains creative expression in the format or choice of entries. It's not so clear to me that this list is the same as a telephone directory, which is much more cut and dried. Also the case you cite applies only to U.S. law. Regardless, copying a single (non public-domain) source is clearly plagarism, which is not acceptable either. The list needs more diverse sourcing, and should be delisted and tagged until improved. Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A list may be copyrighted if it contains creative expression, but a list of public domain information in a rationally obvious order is not a creative expression. The order of this list is in taxonomic order, which for lists of organisms is a rationally obvious order. Both this list and the ABA follow the taxonomic order established by the AOU. The ABA does not "own" that order. It is also the order followed by most field guides. This list also contains birds that the ABA list does not. The ABA and the AOU drops introduced birds that have become extirpated, it was decided not to do that with this list. It only affects a few birds, but is "creative decision" that is different from the one made by the ABA. The AOU and ABA are clearly cited as being sources for this list, so it is not plagiarism. I'm not sure why Feist v. Rural being applicable to US law only is mentioned. The wikimedia servers are in the US, the ABA and AOU are located in the US. Most of the major contributors to the article are located in the US. What law other than US law would apply? Dsmdgold (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep as FL. I have addressed copyright complaints above. The title reflects the practice within the birding community. Field guides for "North American" birds all restrict themselves to birds north of Mexico. The ABA list reflects this. There is a certain reality on the ground to this division. The bird population of Mexico is significantly different from the bird population of the United States, and the border, by historical accident, is quite close to the transition zone. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the nominating concern, which is a total lack of inline citation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are nine hundred or so discrete facts, all sourced to the same source, I don't think the software will perform well with that many pointers to the same footnote. I note that when multiple footnotes point to the same source, the footnote appears with a superscript letter. If someone clicks on the letter it takes him to the point in the text with the footnote. Assuming that the software will double that reference letter when the 27th footnote points at the source, by the time you get to the 900th bird the system will be on its 35th loop through the alphabet. This does not seem practical to me. Other than the individual items in the list, what specifically should have inline citations? Dsmdgold (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked for some, not 900, as that would be ridiculous. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But which ones? Should we pick twenty or so random birds and put in footnotes, all pointing to the same source? Dsmdgold (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If there are any controversial ones, or fine distinctions, those would probably be best to reference. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Arsenal F.C. players

After three attempts at FLC for List of Chicago Blackhawks players, there appears to be a consensus to delist all sports-related lists that do not include all of the players that ever played for the club. The game limits for inclusion (in this case 100 games) were deemed arbitrary and POV. This is the first of many lists that will be brought here. I invite your input. Teemu08 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Delist A 100 game limit to a listing of players who played for a major club is arbitrary and POV. Any player who played for this team is notible enough for their own article, and thus is more than notible enough for this list. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - i.e. maintain FL status. Firstly, it is not arbitrary if the limit is agreed on by consensus (which it previously had been), and it is not POV as it is based upon an objective and verifiable fact. Furthermore, this is dangerously heading down the route of WP:POINT - if the article you want to achieve FL status is denied, then removing other lists with FL status first is not the way about it. At the very least, you should raise the point on their respective talk pages about improving or expanding them to bring them up to the standard you think they should be at first. Qwghlm (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just because you arrive at a number by consensus does not make it any less arbitrary. You just picked a number. Is someone who played 99 games that much less notible than the person who played 100 games? It is POV in that it indicates that people who played less than 100 games are not as notible as those who played more than 100 games. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as the creator of the List of England international footballers (alphabetical), I would like to have this as a featured list one day. The list is complete, but many of the players who have played one or two games only are redlinked, which would prevent the list being a featured list until articles are created for every player on the list. The article is huge, and is often criticised for this reason. A complete list of Arsenal players would be equally huge. To prevent this, there has to be a cut-off point and 100 games seems a fair compromise. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Such a list would be too long (almost certainly breaking WP:LENGTH) and would be of limited use due to being full of red links (until you created a few hundred articles to turn all the links blue). I agree that the 100 game thing is an arbitrary number but a limit does need to be imposed IMO. I think that 100 games, used alongside other criteria such as international caps won at the club, players of the season, club captains, hall of famers etc is a good compromise and I personally can't think of a better way to do it. --Jameboy (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Delist (delist) Incomplete list, arbitrary and POV definition of "notable". Reso lute 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Delist delisting as incomplete, though I do agree with Qwghlm that to do this Removal Candidate right now is WP:POINT. Tsk, tsk. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:LENGTH and per this being a WP:POINT. Professional football clubs have been established for over a hundred years and with squad sizes now over 30 as a rule, this would be unmanageable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep defeaturing. The concept of 100 appearances is well established on Wikipedia as conferring special notability in such lists. I would, however, like the article to more clearly establish the rationales for each <100 inclusion, usually done through footnoting. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep A quick check on my club, Gillingham, revealed that just under 600 players have played for the club just since 1950, so I hate to think what the total number would be for clubs like Preston North End who have played professional-level football constantly since 1888. Saying that a list had to include every player who'd ever played for a club equates to saying that no such list could ever be allowed for any club, as they'd all be far too long per WP:LENGTH. As Dweller states, though, I think nebulous "he played less than 100 games but still made a significant contribution" inclusions should be avoided..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did a quick check on the players I have recorded in my Arsenal subpage - 761 have played a first team game in League or Cups (excluding wartime matches); 440 or so have articles already, which probably wouldn't be enough for FLC should the list be expanded. Qwghlm (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  - If the decision was taken that such lists had to include every player in order to remain at FL, I'd be prepared to suck it up and expand the Gillingham list accordingly, although in the short term it would probably involve the mass creation of several hundred articles which initially just said "X is a former professional footballer who played Y matches for Gillingham"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep To include all players in these lists would be quite absurd, and the current criteria which is commonly deployed by these lists (100+ apps) seems suitable. True, it has been subjectively deicded, but it has been done by a community consensus which feels it to be right. It's definetley an improvement on sections on articles like this, which is POV-ridden "naming favourite players", which is certainly not present on these features lists. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps this list (and others from the soccer realm) should then be renamed "List of Arsenal F.C. players who have played 100 matches" or some such. As it stands, this very clearly is not a comprehensive list of Arsenal F.C. players. Also, I find the WP:LENGTH defence to be quite weak. There is no reason at all why the article couldn't be split due to size. Afterall, you didn't cut out massive amounts of team history to fit the entire club's existence into History of Arsenal F.C., did you? Reso lute 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - As the list is "sortable" splitting it into sections would destroy that sortability - or perhaps there should be two sections; those players who have made 100+ appearances, and the rest. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Ultimately, my concern is that all players are represented. Reso lute 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Where would you stand on clubs which played at a non-professional level for substantial lengths of time? My own club played at a non-pro level from 1893 until 1920 and again from 1938 to 1950, so players who played for the club during those 40 years don't meet WP:BIO requirements - do you feel they should or shouldn't be included in such a list.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do the team's record books include or exclude players who were on the rosters at those times? That would be the ideal indicator of whether such players should be included in a list such as this. Reso lute 15:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The book I have gives the bare bones info, but only to the extent of "F.Smith: 10 appearances, 5 goals", nothing more detailed than that (not even forenames!)..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cats are better at catching all members of a large group, irrespective of relative merits. List articles can be more selective. There's already a sufficiency of hat-notes at the top of this list which explain where the reader can find the exhaustive information. With that in mind, I don't see a comprehensiveness problem. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Firstly the removal is a WP:POINT], and if all players had to be included it would just be unworkable, my own club Liverpool F.C., has numerous amounts of players, therefore the list would become huge. The list also explains why some players are not included, so it does not need removing. NapHit (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

REMINDER This is not a vote. The number of votes will not be counted, the validity of the arguments will be. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Alongside the lack of completion, the lead is too short and the lack of citations concerns me. As well, why are there no statistics for David Danskin? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no specific citations as all the majority statistics come from a single book, cited in the foot of the page, augmented with up-to-date ones from the web. Danskin's stats are lost in time as records are not kept, but he is kept in as he was the man who founded the club. Qwghlm (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The book cited goes up to 1995 and the website (which appears to be a fan site) used hasn't been updated since 2006 and most of the statistics I saw haven't been updated since 2005, so there are no sources for statistics of any players since 2005. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Added in Soccerbase (which is the standard reference used for contemporary players by WP:WPF members) to the list, with a clarification. Qwghlm (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal What about splitting the list up like the history aritlce is? Have List of Arsenal F.C. players (1886–1966) and List of Arsenal F.C. players (1966–present). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That would eliminate one of the strengths of the list - the ability to sort by appearances or goals. I agree with Dweller's points about the differences in scope between categories and lists, and see no reason to delist on the grounds of comprehensiveness. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely no merit in this whatsoever, and Scorpion0422 has failed to provide any sort of reason, let alone a compelling one. It would also cause a problem for any player whose career straddled the year 1966 (among them a good proportion of them the Double-winning side). Qwghlm (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My reason is that if the list was split up, you would be able to list every player but it wouldn't be overly long. FL criterion 1b says the list "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" and with a title like "List of Arsenal F.C. players" one would expect the list to include every player. So either it should be split up (to solve the length problem) or retitled. Personally, I would prefer the first solution. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Delist It's incomplete and should be defeatured unless the title of the list is changed to something like List of Arsenal F.C. players who played at least 100 games. Any reader who sees List of Arsenal F.C. players assumes, and rightfully so, that he/she will find each and every player who played for Arsenal. Right now, this page is basically deceptive to readers.--Crzy cheetah 23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were to be renamed, I believe List of notable Arsenal F.C. players would make more sense, as it includes more than just players who made 100+ apps. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with that is that according to our own definitions, every single player who has ever stepped onto the pitch for Arsenal is automatically "notable". --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is the reason they all need to be on the list. -Djsasso (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. They're all catered for by the hat-notes. --Dweller (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

KEEP As mentioned above it would be rediculous to have to include every player that has played for a particular club as this would make the list to big and unmanageable as the list would expand all the time 02blythed (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Delist - it's inappropriate for the list to be incomplete; being broken into two lists would be far preferable to not having a complete list. And it would go beyond category duplication because not every player who player for Arsenal, presumably, has an article. I know that there are still redlinks in the lists I work on, like the Minnesota Twins all-time roster. matt91486 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Without getting all waxy about it, presumably if the football lists are de-featured then those who supported that will then be moving on to de-feature List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters or List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A, neither of which contains every person who meets the requirement suggested by the title.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I'll get right on it!..... Just kidding! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The difference on those lists and lists of players on a team is that players on a team are relatively finite with only a small amount being added each year and is more than easily kept up with. -Djsasso (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's purely subjective. Any "incomplete" list would need to be delisted if this list is delisted. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I think there is a difference, in this case any player who has ever played for Arsenal is automatically considered notable (per the guidelines) but in the case of LGBT people or Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters, being one does grant automatic notability. Plus in both cases, they include everyone that has a wikipedia page, while this list does not. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    - So the selection of LGBT people is subjective too or purely subject to WP:BIO? A lot of talk has taken place about notability of footballers. Perhaps this "local" interpretation of the notability criteria needs removing. But the US contributors must understand that we're talking about thousands of people per team here. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      - I understand that, which is why I suggested renaming it or splitting it. The criteria does not say "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set unless the list would be too long", so it does fail the criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        But, as you know by now, splitting these notable players into subsections is not good. The criteria applied, while possibly subjective, are, at least, clearly defined. We, in the UK, are used to having these players defined by some level of notability. Over a thousand players for over 100 clubs is incomprehensibly difficult to manage. Most of the NHL lists I've looked at which deal with only the past 10 or 15 years are virtually useless. They're non-sortable, split by surname, effectively not much better than a category. Finding a member of such a list is as difficult as going to the category and clicking on the name. Because the NHL lists are non-sortable, they're almost pointless other than a massive collection of stats which are unusable. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        I don't see how not being sortable makes names easier to find, so you'll have to explain that to me. I'm not even sure why this list is initially sortable by the date they joined anyway, because it seems that people looking for a specific person will search by last name. Since WP:FOOTBALL members are so adament that the lists can't be split up, then they should be renamed to "List of ____ players who played more than 100 games". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        I think the issue here stems from the fact that all WP:FOOTBALL articles about clubs have a "notable players" section which, in general, has been forked off to an article with some generally accepted criteria (within the project, admittedly). However, if you're saying that the acceptable solution to this is to rename all football lists with "more than 100 games" than I'm sure that most people would prefer that to delisting all the football articles. But it seems a little one-eyed. However, it's an objective criterion which couldn't be disputed. So perhaps that's the way forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        In my continuing quest for an easy life I have already put in a request to move List of Gillingham F.C. players to List of Gillingham F.C. players (100+ appearances)..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        .....which was refused ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep as FL. Good topic, valuable content. At worst, revert to a previous version that is FL-worthy. There must be a better way than this of resolving the issues raised. See WP:POINT. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Another perspective I'm currently reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients and it's clear here that, under the objections raised above, this list cannot pass because there are 3500+ recipients but the article forks out to major groups. Thus the actual "List of Medal of Honor recipients" is incomplete. However, if this Arsenal list had a fork to List of Arsenal F.C. players who have played less than 100 professional matches for the club then we surely have a complete list? Just thought I'd poke the wasp's nest! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This list article already has a hat-note pointing to the Cat which is where those whose contributions were less historic can be found. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Even better! Have we gone full circle yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But the category doesn't include every player either. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What would be really useful would be if there was some way to put redlinks into a category. I wonder whether the ability to do so has ever been considered by the devs. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I recently began my personal quest to get every NHL team list featured. So far I've been working on the more recent teams that have no more than 200 players in the teams history. Now I've begun working on List of Montreal Canadiens players. The Canadiens are a team that has been around for nearly 100 years, and in the 90 that its been part of the NHL, over 700 have played with the team. I've completed around 2/3 of the list so far, and am now seeing just how long it really is. So I'm in full support now of something being done to reach a compromise that will allow a full complete list of team lists, as well as a shorter, more narrow list that cuts out the fringe players of teams. Both have their merrits, and it isn't very proper to just have one list. We have the capability to include a full list, seeing how Wikipedia is not paper. But I think there needs to also be limits, defined in the title of the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Just think how long the page would be if all players were listed! Also, there have been, probably, several thousand Arsenal players over the years, and to list them all would take years. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment But it is a finite number of players and is easy to find information. Leaving it out is just plain laziness if too much work is your arguement. I am fine with having multiple lists like Players who played more than X games. Or even players by letter of the alphabet. But to call this "List of Arsenal F.C. players" is completely inaccurate as it is not all the players who played for the team. -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep and Comment First I would endorse some of the realism expressed by many (but not all) above about the impracticality of listing all payers regardless of their contribution which was summarised so well by Kaiser matias (talk) just now, that I was compelled to add my support to what has just been said. I was interested to hear that a NHL team around for 100 years could have 700 or so players. Having just carried out some similar work on a Premiership football team which has been around some 125 years I estimate there have been at least 1300- 1400 players. As has been commented on before and not wanting to fuel the fires it does seem that the argument for listing all is coming from those who have not grasped how many thousands of football players there have been, not just in the British teams but elsewhere over the years. Although a fair amount is known about a lot of them for many of them sadly their careers were short and typically uneventful with not just one club but many and what there is to say about them is either very brief or nigh on impossible to turn into a useful / cited article. Frankly if I knew I had to find and list all 1400+ to ensure the List / article survived I would prefer not to start fear of dying of boredom in the attempt. Tmol42 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't about keeping an article. It's about stating that it is not feature worthy. The purpose of a list is actually the perfect place to have those types of people who had short uneventful careers as they are notable and better than making individual articles for them you put them on the list. This is actually one of the primary reasons why the list should have every player on it. Because it's better than leaving them to one line stubs for articles. -Djsasso (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Isn't that a shift from the arguent you put at the top of this discussion when you said "Any player who played for this team is notible enough for their own article, and thus is more than notible enough for this list"?Tmol42 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Not at all. They are notable for their own article per WP:ATHLETE, but that doesn't mean they have to have one. It is a very common practice to place articles that would be one liners into a list so that they are not perpetual stubs while redirecting the article to their spot on the list. An relevant sports example would be List of one-gamers in the National Hockey League. -Djsasso (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The list should be moved to List of notable Arsenal F.C. players if anything. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- What consitutes notable though? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again all players who play professionally per WP:ATHLETE are notable so that title doesn't work either. -Djsasso (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  - For me the only tenable solution is to create sub-articles on this list page which are called "List of Arsenal F.C. players who have not made 100 appearances for the club" and fill that in over time. That way this list title is perfectly accurate, as per List of Medal of Honor recipients. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    - That's what I'm planning on doing for the Gillingham list. I've nearly finished creating all the articles on players in the 50-99 range, I'm going to add them onto the already-featured list and then create a fork for those players with less than 50, which will initially be full of redlinks. The 50 apps mark pretty neatly cuts the total list in half, as it happens..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment As stated previously, I have been working on List of Montreal Canadiens players. The Canadiens are a team that has been in the NHL since the league was founded 90 years ago, and has over 700 players in it. I just finished reformatting the article for FL status, and would like to point out how difficult it is to list all players of more established sports teams.

As it stands, the list is very simple with no images or extra notes that are on other NHL team lists (see List of Tampa Bay Lightning players as an example. Even so, the list is 90kbs long. If I were to add available photos (there are plenty on Wikipedia), notes about Stanley Cup wins (the Canadiens have won it 24 times, nearly twice that of any other team), award winners (as the dominant team of the league for decades, there are quite a few), and members of the Hockey Hall of Fame (again, they were the dominant team, and have 42 in the HHOF), the article would probably show up on the list of largest articles on Wikipedia.

Putting this in perspective, I am now a strong advocate of having similar articles shrunken, but noted in the article title. As an example, I will be using a more refined article on the Canadiens when the time comes to nominate it, with an appropriate title and link to this larger article. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

SOP is to split articles when they become too long. In the case of the Canadiens list, this could easily be accomplished by turning List of Montreal Canadiens players into an index, and creating three sub-articles: one for goaltenders, skaters (A-L) and skaters (M-Z), as an example. Completeness should be encouraged whereever possible, and I see no reason why your impressive work on that list should be stripped down to suit some arbitrary size restriction. That flies in the face of Wikipedia's mandate. Reso lute 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sub-articles need to be created. And not by date, as Scorpion suggested once, but alphabetically.--Crzy cheetah 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So do you also agree that lists with subarticles can only be FL's if their subarticles are reviewed as throughly as the main article? Otherwise how can you be sure the subarticles are complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That creates its own problem. How could a list with (say) 1,000+ names on it be assessed for comprehensiveness? --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd have to assume that people supporting the promotion of one of these comprehensive NHL lists has either checked them all or hasn't gone the whole way and supported regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In most sports, I would assume soccer is no different, teams have all time player lists available for media etc. This is how the NHL articles are kept track of. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no. Clubs themselves may have this information but there's no guarantee it's made public, e.g. on a website. But do you honestly believe people actually check that every player is there? I seriously doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked to see that they don't? Its an extremely common practice in pretty much every other sport. And yes, people who are serious about editing these types of articles do check that sort of thing. That is sort of the point of making these articles. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course I've looked! Some clubs are lucky enough to have fan sites which list every player they can, but a lot of clubs don't even have names for players who played for them in the 1870s. Most NHL franchises don't have this problem. And I don't believe people will be prepared to check over a thousand entries across the lists. Sorry, that's just nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the NHL articles, at least, there are two sources on the net, at least, that will provide full lists: Legends of Hockey, and HockeyDB. We've also typically used the team media guides, which is a third, while other publications, including Total Hockey, as well as the NHL Guide and Record Book will have such lists. There is, as always with non internet sources, an assumption that the editor citing them has done so properly, and completely. If you feel that there is an issue with any such lists, please bring it up and we will attempt to address them.

Do FLC reviewers assess the list for completeness? I would hope so, but I would agree that many likely don't. That is, however, a flaw in the process. I think there is a difference, however, at FLC, in a list that claims to be complete, and one that makes no attempt to be so, which is the issue we're specifically discussing here. Reso lute 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But what you NHL guys have is irrelevant here - I'm saying a lot of football clubs, some of which have now been around for almost 150 years, don't have this information. So you're saying that all football player lists should be precluded from becoming featured on that basis? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an incomplete list is incomplete. You can hardly be the shining example of a list when its missing key information about its topic. -Djsasso (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's it then for football articles since I'd bet my house that 99% of the records don't extend that far and, with various inconveniences like world wars, may have been lost forever. Out of interest, who validates your "reliable sources"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well one of them is the hockey hall of fame itself, so its pretty much beyond question.... Nevermind the team and league lists. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And the other? HockeyDB with its nine adverts on the homepage? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to look for the link at their site, but they actually have a page of sources, which means they meet WP:RS. -Djsasso (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree there needs to be a reasonableness factor as well. Wikipedia lists should be as complete as possible, but if reliable sources do not exist for a period of time in a team's history, then that should be noted, with the list as complete as possible. If there are no records for a period of time, then Wikipedia's lists will reflect this fact. If the list is as complete as possible, then I would still support it at FLC. Reso lute 16:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Its the arbitrary number of 100 games that I do not like. If there are no records available then fine make note of that somewhere in the list. But to not even try to be complete is a pretty big issue. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and you're happy with contravening WP:LENGTH? If, as most English clubs do, over 1,000 players have played for a club, it'll make it difficult for the page to be used. I'm now a proud owner of a dual core 2.4GHz MacBook and even that struggles with some of the "big" lists I've seen WP:FOOTBALL create as an example of what would happen if this removal is sanctioned. Assuming my laptop performance to be in the top 5% then you're making the list virtually universally inaccessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus the discussion of splitting the article. Really, I'd have no problem with leaving this article as is, and creating a second for players below 100 games, if that is how you choose to split them. Reso lute 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But the discussion to rename an article similar to this accordingly ended with negatively. What's the difference? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I speak only from my personal opinion, if consensus opposes that idea, then we look for a different way. Personally, I'd be fine with leaving this article as is, with a hatnote stating this article lists players who played over 100 games, and to see article x for those who played below 100, or some such. Reso lute 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that would be top notch. But would you also review the subarticle for completeness before supporting its non-delisting? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no. I would treat each article as an independent entity. However, the existence of, and directions to a subsequent article that completes the data set would eliminate my objection to this list due to lack of comprehensiveness. Reso lute 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points. Some football clubs don't even list their honours, I mean just one or two trophies, never mind 1,000 or so players. Secondly, I don't see how splitting a list between those surnames A-M and N-Z (or however you feel) is appropriate. How do you compare relevant players. If you need to split lists, I'd do it by either era (probably impossible because players' career overspan) each other, appearances or positions (in some sports impossible because of fluidity, in others possibly American Football very appropriate to compare stats). Peanut4 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Haven't read every last word above but it is quite fatuous to imagine that a credible list has to include every last item it possibly could if the list would become unmanageably long. It is not called 'The List of...' or 'A List of Every....'. It contains the information I'd expect to see. The nomination is simply a breach of WP:POINT and indeed common sense. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its a breach of common sense at all. By being named List of X, the The is being implied. I expect to see everything. If you tag on a qualifier like that played X games. Then I have no problem with it, but without the qualifier in the title then the title of the article is simply not accurate. I do however, agree the Resolute's suggestion would work for me. As long as there is a list created for those under 100 games and at the top of this one its clearly labeled that there is a sub article at X my concerns would be gone. -Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What's so much better about that than the status quo that points to a Cat? --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, the category does not include all players, and a category cannot include statistical history. Reso lute 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But we've just agreed it's OK to have a hat note to another list article that may "not include all players" and who says it'll have to have a statistical history? --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked how it would be better. The versitility of a list article that can include stats, images, etc is what makes a list better than a cat. As far as not listing every player, ideally, that would only happen due to a lack of available information, not the lack of an existing article for each player. Such a list could have red links until those articles are created. Reso lute 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Out of interest, what's the procedure for resolving this FLRC? It's now been open for more than three weeks and generated 40KB of debate, but what's the resolution going to be.......? ChrisTheDude (talk)
- Well, I see no reason to close it yet, but in about a week I'll ask a neutral user to take a look at this and make the call. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Cheers! ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ohio county name etymologies

The list lacks properly formatted individual references.
It isn't as clear as it should be, for example Several of the references say "For the Indian word for ______". There are several different Indian languages, so which tribe does the word come from?
Several of the entries contradict eachother (one source says Crawford County was named after the treasurer William Crawford, others say it was named after William Crawford the soldier.
Finally, some of the entries are confusing, ie. the entrie for Adams county says it is named "For President John Quincy Adams (clearly wrong)"... What? If it's clearly wrong, why is it in the list?

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should hold that (#2) against this list. It's not this list's fault that there are different respectable books that are contradicting each other. The lead mentions that there are disagreements.--Crzy cheetah 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the "(clearly wrong)" part. That entry should stay because there is a reliable book that states it.--Crzy cheetah 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. Interesting idea for a list, but the execution seems spotty at best. Drewcifer (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Well, it's original and complete, but where are the references in long sections such H or M? --jskellj - the nice devil 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you oppose the delisting of the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Elementare, Watson :-) This list must exit from the featured lists! --jskellj - the nice devil 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove from featured lists. It's no longer a good example. To retain featured status, reference callouts should be updated to current standards. Also, the "Analysis of names" section should either be converted to text (discussing the namesake types that occur more than once) or somehow merged into the same list (for example, in the form of footnotes). --Orlady (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. If you wanted to research more than one or two of these, you would not want to have to deal with 150 numbered footnotes at the bottom of a web page. This format is more accessible. There are twelve reliable reference texts and each is represented by its author's name or initials. This referencing method has been used for decades in the humanities-- and literature and history seem to be what we are referencing here. So why break out of the style used by a specific field?

I don't see that making the individual numbered entries more complicated would be a benefit to readers, especially if from different sources. It simply would not make it easier to interpret the data presented. For example, changing the following:

Wyandot County (1845):

1. For the Wyandot Indians, who lived in the area. "Wyandot" supposedly means "around the plains" in their language. (O.R., O.A.)

2. For the Indian word meaning "calf of the leg" or "tobacco tribe" (Rydjord)

3. For the Indian word meaning "dwellers on a peninsula" (Rydjord)

Wyandot County (1845):

1. For the Wyandot Indians, who lived in the area. "Wyandot" supposedly means "around the plains" in their language. (O.R., O.A.)

2. For the Indian word meaning "calf of the leg" or "tobacco tribe" (Rydjord) or the Indian word meaning "dwellers on a peninsula" (Rydjord)

simply doesn't make the information any more clear; if anything, it makes it more difficult to follow the list and interpret what each entry indicates-- which is the entire purpose of a list in the first place.

On a final note, this list cannot be faulted if the historians that have bothered to try to answer the question of 'where did this place get its name' have not been particular about which Indian language or dialect their suggestion comes from. At this point, there is a good chance that many of the 'Indian' languages referenced are extinct and therefore no one really knows what the words were. If you review other states entries by clicking at the bottom of the page, you will find no references, and a single, pretty entry for each one. The fact that Ohio has competing theories about a lot of its counties is what makes this list look the way it does. Would the list be better if only one of the sources were followed and all of the others removed (leaving this list looking like the other state county name lists, but with one source)? No--because it would not include all of the varied theories proposed by different historians.

Just my 2¢, I suppose. The footnotes should probably be made to look like the other parenthetical references, though-- for consistency sake; this is a matter of 5 minutes of editing. --Matthew K (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (edited)

Support, the referencing is spotty, and uses a mix of styles (per MOS, one style should be used consistently). Specific referencing is also preferred to just "this book" or "somewhere on this site." Nothing wrong at all with 150 references in a list of 88 counties. Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you support the delisting or support the keeping of the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Support the delisting. Collectonian (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
KeepIndividual references are fixed. --Crzy cheetah 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's better, but the lead still needs to be expanded. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The lead explains why the particular Indian language isn't known and why there are more than one entry for each county. What else would you like to see there? --Crzy cheetah 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I have three specific issues for the lead:
    - What reference support exists for the assertion that "some of the scholars in this area have been unfortunately unconcerned with or unable to determine the particular Indian language"? (That assertion borders on being defamatory of "unconcerned scholars". As an aside, I doubt that all of the sources cited are accurately described as "scholars.")
    - If the information is available, it would be nice to tell how Ohio's county names were determined. (Are they bestowed by the state legislature, selected by referendum of settlers in the new county, or what? Probably the naming methods were different at different historical times.)
    - See my earlier comment about the "Analysis of names" section in the article. Some of the information there could profitably be added to the lead (such as the number of counties with names derived from Indian languages).

--Orlady (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) / refactored to add third issue --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delist needs to link references to individual page numbers. More explanation of multiple etymologies. gren グレン 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates"

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Tiësto discography

[edit] Record home attendances of English football clubs

[edit] List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty

[edit] List of National Parks of Canada

[edit] List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients

[edit] Wisden Cricketers of the Year

[edit] List of songs in Guitar Hero II

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh

[edit] The Simpsons (season 5)

[edit] 1976 Summer Olympics medal count

[edit] Metallica discography

[edit] Edmonton Oilers seasons

[edit] Timeline of prehistoric Scotland

[edit] List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winning managers

[edit] List of North Carolina hurricanes

[edit] Carolina Hurricanes seasons

[edit] List of Auburn High School people

[edit] List of state highways in Washington

[edit] Bloc Party discography

[edit] Blue Heelers (season 13)

[edit] List of tributaries of Larrys Creek

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis

[edit] List of True Tears episodes

[edit] List of Minnesota Wild players

[edit] List of New York Giants head coaches

[edit] Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 6)

[edit] Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 5)

[edit] List of International Mathematical Olympiads

[edit] List of cricketers called for throwing in major cricket matches in Australia

[edit] Green Wing (series 2)

[edit] List of the 100 wealthiest people

[edit] Twelve Imams

[edit] List of 7th Heaven episodes

[edit] List of Medal of Honor recipients

[edit] Nominations for removal

[edit] List of North American birds

[edit] List of Arsenal F.C. players

[edit] List of Ohio county name etymologies

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Interaction

Search

Toolbox

Languages