Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2007
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As on the "A" section of this list (see the FLC discussion that passed), I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "W-Z". There should not be any LGBT person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with W-Z that isn't on here. I haven't put forward a list for FLC before, but I reviewed Dev's "A" list nomination and discussion and have upgraded this one to match. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - obviously. Well done Satyr. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the situation with the template that serves as intro has been solved. Circeus 02:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment the situation has been resolved. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm iffy with the "parent article" bit at the top, but I admit I see no obvious ways to better integrate it. Circeus 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why does the "Z" section drop way down to beneath all of the pictures? Kaldari 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The pictures are placed at the begining of every letter, so people whose name begins with W next tot he W section, etc. We have as yet be unable to find any images for the people whose surnames begin with Z. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hello? Any other comments/concerns/supports? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up some in the references section. I see that you need ISBNs for several books that you cited(#10, 15, 19). As soon as you provide them I'll be happy to support and close this nomination.--Crzycheetah 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kewl - I've added all the missing ISBNs except for one book that doesn't seem to have one - #110. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added the ISBN for 110. I support.--Crzycheetah 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kewl - I've added all the missing ISBNs except for one book that doesn't seem to have one - #110. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Yes, it's a self-promotion, but after 10 days there is no opposition, so I do not feel that there is any sort of conflict of interest. Promote. Scorpion0422 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is modelled after the Hart Memorial Trophy, which is a recently listed FL. The page is fully referenced. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 02:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comments[reply]
- This is very nitpicky, but the images near the list drop off in the middle. Would it be possible to add more of them?
- Otherwise, I'm extremely pleased, and it already meets all the FLC criteria. Congratulations! Maxim 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love to, but I have added all of the free images of the players that Wikipedia has to offer... I even added one of a guy holding a completely different trophy. -- Scorpion0422 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about increasing size to 200 px, for example?
- It could be done, but the one image is less than 100px and won't get any bigger, so it would look weird. -- Scorpion0422 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think I should Support the FLC. I know I being overly nitpicky :D Maxim(talk) 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be done, but the one image is less than 100px and won't get any bigger, so it would look weird. -- Scorpion0422 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about increasing size to 200 px, for example?
- I would love to, but I have added all of the free images of the players that Wikipedia has to offer... I even added one of a guy holding a completely different trophy. -- Scorpion0422 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I agree with the image issue, though this may be different at different sizes and such. Perhaps you could put line breaks in after each image, or within the thumbed section of the image? Anyway, therwise, a comprehensive, well written and presented page. Worthy of FL. lincalinca 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeLead lacks useful statistics found in other similar lists (e.g. how many different players). The final sentence is also of dubious relevance. Circeus 19:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I'll add the players, but which final sentence are you talking about? The final sentence in the lead or the final in the history section? Because in both cases, it mimics content from Hart Memorial Trophy, which is an FL. -- Scorpion0422 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is not strictly a MVP trophy, so the sentence is misleading. Circeus 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, and I have fixed the problem (I think). -- Scorpion0422 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I can support now.Circeus 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, and I have fixed the problem (I think). -- Scorpion0422 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is not strictly a MVP trophy, so the sentence is misleading. Circeus 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add the players, but which final sentence are you talking about? The final sentence in the lead or the final in the history section? Because in both cases, it mimics content from Hart Memorial Trophy, which is an FL. -- Scorpion0422 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this for FL as I believe it meets the criteria. It's well referenced, well-illustrated (with free images) and is stable. Any comments will be addressed. Thanks. Chwech 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep in mind that in any featured list, any prose that does not summarize the data must be complemented by inline citations. Examples:
- "The Contest's winner has been determined using numerous voting techniques throughout its history; centre to this has been the awarding of points to countries by juries or televoters, with the country awarded the most points being declared the winner." cite
- "Eleven Eurovision winners featured at the Congratulations concert in 2005, in which ABBA's "Waterloo" was voted the most popular song of the Contest's first fifty years." cite (note citations are not currently found in Congratulations (Eurovision)
- That's probably the maximum that you will have to do ;).◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cites have been added for the sentences above. Thanks for your comment :) Chwech 10:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNo obvious reason to move the ToCUse of flags gets patently ridiculous in the "Margin of victory"section. Terribly distracting.The "staging" section is not really relevant. It should probably be merged into List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest.
- Circeus 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All three points have been addressed, thanks for your comments. Chwech 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Could do with some extra delinking in the first table, but featurable as is. Circeus 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All three points have been addressed, thanks for your comments. Chwech 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Will it be all right to make the table sortable? I think it would be better if the first table could be sorted. I just wanted to see who got the most points and noticed that the table wasn't sortable.--Crzycheetah 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea, but the rowspan in the 1969 row means that the sort button wouldn't work. I'm not sure splitting that row up would be a good idea so I'm going to have to leave it as it is. Thanks for your comment anyway ;) Chwech 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such rows have been split in other articles, though it's really a case by case issue. Circeus 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reluctant to split—I just feel the table looks more readable the way it is. Splitting it and adding the sort tab caused some of the colums to resize awkwardly. I hope that's okay with you. Incidentally, the highest score for a winner is mentioned in the margin of victory section. Chwech 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such rows have been split in other articles, though it's really a case by case issue. Circeus 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea, but the rowspan in the 1969 row means that the sort button wouldn't work. I'm not sure splitting that row up would be a good idea so I'm going to have to leave it as it is. Thanks for your comment anyway ;) Chwech 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I too would like it to be sortable, e.g. by having 1969 against each of the winners and an extra note about the joint victory, but if not, then so be it. Otherwise, it's a fine, informative list, and one I'd be happy to support if you can persuade me that these two points below have no merit in them!Using negative numbers in the margin of victory column looks wrong, to me anyway - the margin of victory is a positive number.Could you combine the "Winners" and "margin of victory" tables? As it is, you end up duplicating the year and the winner, whereas you could add three columns to the main table and make it easier to compare the winning song with the margin of victory, which is awkward at present.
- I've fixed the two points mentioned above, but (regarding the second point) I'm not sure the table is as readable now. I could do with a second opinion, so if you have the chance could you take a look? Chwech 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Support. Personally, I think it looks OK, but I wouldn't oppose if your preference, or the general preference, is to have it the way it was. What do other people think? I was concerned that it might not display well on my browser at work (which is an awkward configuration), but it does. BencherliteTalk 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave it the way you suggested for now, but some more feedback would be useful here I think. Thanks for your comments and support :) Chwech 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Support. Personally, I think it looks OK, but I wouldn't oppose if your preference, or the general preference, is to have it the way it was. What do other people think? I was concerned that it might not display well on my browser at work (which is an awkward configuration), but it does. BencherliteTalk 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the two points mentioned above, but (regarding the second point) I'm not sure the table is as readable now. I could do with a second opinion, so if you have the chance could you take a look? Chwech 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modeled after Hart Memorial Trophy, as well as other hockey trophy FLCs. List is fully referenced and has pictures. Any suggestions or changes will be addressed. Anthony Hit me up... 11:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a few concerns about this article:
- I feel that the lead section is a bit too short, and needs fattening up. (Maybe it will look better with the infobox.
- The Stevie Y pic is of bad quality, and the Kris Draper one doesn't impress me either. Maxim 00:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I might have a better picture of Draper taken during the '07 playoffs. I'll try to dig one up this evening. -- JamesTeterenko 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the following are the only two of Draper I could find that I took. They might not be good enough to replace the existing picture, but feel free to use them: Image:YelleDraperFaceoff.jpg, Image:IginlaDraperFaceoff.jpg. -- JamesTeterenko 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the Yelle/Draper faceoff pic and cropped Yelle out (much as Draper had already been cropped out in a previous pic), and uploaded it, giving JamesTeterenko all credit for the image. Anthony Hit me up... 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAgree about the lead. See the other similar lists in nom for ideas. I'm not complaining about images, though. It has an image of the trophy,which is already godo.. Circeus 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Look at Hart Memorial Trophy. It's three sentences long. I've fattened the lead up by a third, up to three sentences modeled on the Hart. Is good (enough)? --Maxim(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as all areas of concern have been improved. Maxim(talk) 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Leads looks significantly better now. Circeus 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well sourced list, looks good. -- Scorpion0422 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the discography for British pop music singer Natasha Bedingfield. I am nominating it because I believe that it is well references and complete. -- Underneath-it-All 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator. -- 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support This was the first time I saw a scanned image as a source. Clever. --Crzycheetah 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support: 8 links to Broadcast Music Incorporated, and 4 to American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers in references are ovekill. Circeus 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the extra links to the two publishers. -- Underneath-it-All 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: [1] When did we start allowing links to copyvios? 81.153.125.209 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 8 support, 1 oppose. Opposition appears to have been addressed. Promote. Scorpion0422 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this list complies with the Featured List criteria as well as possible. It comprehensively covers every season that Manchester United F.C. (Newton Heath F.C. before 1902) has played in a major tournament, and is factually accurate. It is also useful to football fans. - PeeJay 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Man City's seasons failed because like this list it had no links to individual season articles. Buc 06:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This list does have links to two individual seasons articles (1998-99 and 2006-07), but as you can imagine creating individual season articles is a long and laborious process. However, rest assured that season articles will be created in due course. Everything else, however, is fully linked, apart from FA Charity Shield/Community Shield matches. - PeeJay 09:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great idea - lets get more depth than the Scousers :D - — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPMJPMJPMJPM (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No season articles. Also, the division links are misleading: one expects division season articles. Circeus 02:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Division links have been removed and replaced with a key at the bottom of the article. There are season articles for Manchester United seasons, but only for 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07 at the moment. More articles are forthcoming, but it is a long and meticulous process. - PeeJay 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. There are also division season articles for each Premier League season, which can be accessed by clicking on the club's final position for that season. - PeeJay 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Division links at the first occurrence are just fine. It's the overlinking that's troublesome (because of the other convention mentioned). As for the placement of these links in the "position" column, that is incredibly counter intuitive. I had not even *noticed* there were links there! Circeus 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall move the links to the individual division season articles to the division column then. Any other style aspects that could be improved upon? - PeeJay 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - PeeJay 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall move the links to the individual division season articles to the division column then. Any other style aspects that could be improved upon? - PeeJay 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Division links at the first occurrence are just fine. It's the overlinking that's troublesome (because of the other convention mentioned). As for the placement of these links in the "position" column, that is incredibly counter intuitive. I had not even *noticed* there were links there! Circeus 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not every season for every club is notable enough to have its own article. In my opinion an article shouldn't be failed due to the fact that there are 100 "missing" stubs.
I agree that there currently aren't enough season articles, but equally it's clear that appropriate articles can, are, and will be created. As for the remainder I would suggest linking to that period in the club's history, as this will be more relevant to Manchester United in particular. I think that apart from this point the article's fine, so I'm going to look at similar articles that are featured before deciding whether to support or remain neutral. BeL1EveR 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some season articles, and more are being created. I would add that if this was to fail then those opposing should consider nominating Frölunda HC seasons (and presumably others) for a FL review, as it would fail based on the same criteria. BeL1EveR 17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lack of season articles is not ideal but the English football season articles all provide information on Manchester United. If stubs were created for every season they would contain the same information as the English season articles, so I would be happy to pass the list as it is currently. Dave101→talk 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would like to echo earlier sentiments by saying that i don't think English football season articles are always appropriate for every season. In a season where a major trophy has been won then it would be appropriate, in my opinion, and i do think these articles will be created in the future. For other non-eventful seasons it will be a duplication of history sections and the XXXX in English football articles.
I think this is a good example of how to structure English football club season articles in the future. Woodym555 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice layout and well sourced. I do not think that individual season articles are a demand for a featured list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krm500 (talk • contribs)
Support, per criteria 1(a)2 and 1(a)3, this is a timeline and the criteria also state that the "members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles" is allowed. T Rex | talk 22:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article. I think people are too concerned about having team season articles. It would be great to have them. But having 100 stubs with almost 0 information somehow makes this article better? Better have quality than just create stubs. And the articles, sooner or later, are going to be created. This one collects all the informations it needs, is a timeline, nicely done. Good job.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why isn't the color key in the Key section? Why is the Key section below the table? I think it needs to be above the table, so that readers could use it. List of Manchester United F.C. players has it above the table and it looks better. If you have strong reasons to keep that section below the table, then you need to have a level 2 headline for the table. That way, there will be a table of contents where the Key section can be seen. --Crzycheetah 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think it's more appropriate to have the key at the bottom of the page, after the important content. I've moved the colour key into the main key, and added a section title to the seasons table. I also added __FORCETOC__ to force the table of contents to appear. - PeeJay 08:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fair enough, looks a lot better. It's good to see those links to "English football" and "MANU season" articles. --Crzycheetah 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per T Rex and others. One little quibble, the wording against season 1886-87 "Did not enter The Combination until 1888" implies it was there to be entered - perhaps change to something like "There was no League football until 1888", or leave blank as the point is covered in the lead anyway. Struway2 | Talk 12:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. - PeeJay 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer Review (originally for both captains and managers but they were split)
Along the same lines as the recently promoted List of Aston Villa F.C. players. This is part of the continuous improvement by Everlast1910 and myself, of all Aston Villa F.C. articles. I think this meets all the criteria and is now worthy of FL status. Thanks Woodym555 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nom and support, I also feel this list is ready to be featured. I will be here to help address any concerns raised by other editors. (Everlast 1910 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Why are there no links for "W J Smith" and "Dick Taylor"? Mattythewhite 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know why to be honest, i have added them both. I created Dick Taylor the other day, must have forgotten to link him. W J Smith is still a red link but have added the link nonetheless. Thanks Woodym555 21:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment{{Soccerbase (manager)}} template doesn't have a field for accessdate, so I'd suggest either add that parameter to the template or not use that template at all. Second, I'd prefer you to use Ulster Banner as a flag for Northern Ireland since this is about sports and link to Northern Ireland instead of United Kingdom.--Crzycheetah 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed accessdate and template is now sorted so shows correct flag (Everlast1910(Talk) 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I have used the {{cite web}} template instead of the {{Soccerbase (manager)}} template as this has an accessdate parameter and is well known and used. Any other suggestions welcome. Woodym555 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, looks good now. Is there any other lists of F.C. managers here at Wikipedia? I am just curious to know whether this is the first such list.--Crzycheetah 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not unique, no, although most are usually incorporated into articles. Courtesy of Deadly Doug Ellis, Villa seem to have been through their fair share of managers.
I have looked around and can't find any football ones.There is the List of managers and owners of the Chicago Cubs, List of AS Roma Managers, List of Montreal Canadiens general managers and List of Manchester City F.C. managers (which by the way seems close to FL quality). So, no, not alone. Woodym555 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the links. Anyway, this list a good model for future FLs in this category and I support. --Crzycheetah 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not unique, no, although most are usually incorporated into articles. Courtesy of Deadly Doug Ellis, Villa seem to have been through their fair share of managers.
- Thanks, looks good now. Is there any other lists of F.C. managers here at Wikipedia? I am just curious to know whether this is the first such list.--Crzycheetah 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have used the {{cite web}} template instead of the {{Soccerbase (manager)}} template as this has an accessdate parameter and is well known and used. Any other suggestions welcome. Woodym555 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I discovered when assembling the aforementioned List of Manchester City F.C. managers, Soccerbase uses estimates for appointment dates of managers from more than about 20 years ago (see also this FAC). It'd be useful to get these confirmed by a second source. Oldelpaso 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The appointment dates are confirmed by trawling through the Villa history pages, all internet sites are mirrors and forks. The appointments are correct. I will try and search out sources for the older ones but i do consider soccerbase to be a reliable source, published by the Racing Post. Woodym555 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which Villa history pages? One other point, I think the lead should mention Deadly Doug given his fearsome reputation for sacking Villa managers. Oldelpaso 10:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes i was thinking that, something along the lines of: In the past 30 years Doug Ellis has acquired the nickname Deadly Doug Ellis because of his penchant for hiring and firing managers. In the 37 years that Doug Ellis was involved with the Board, Doug Ellis hired and fired 13 out of the 24 managers that Aston Villa have had in their 133 year history.[2](using correct cite template).
- I agree i think that is about right woodym555 shall we add it into the intro? Everlast1910 13:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the history pages i have double checked the Aston Villa offical history pages and actually they don't go into specific dates, (i thought they did). The soccerbase dates actually gave me cause for concern because of the one year gap between McMullan and Hogan. I have emailed a friend who has a Villa encyclopedia and he has confirmed the 1936 date. I have added that as a reference and will soon acquire the book so this can then be used for specific page numbers. Any other queries? Woodym555 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, changes to lead have improved it significantly. Oldelpaso 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes i was thinking that, something along the lines of: In the past 30 years Doug Ellis has acquired the nickname Deadly Doug Ellis because of his penchant for hiring and firing managers. In the 37 years that Doug Ellis was involved with the Board, Doug Ellis hired and fired 13 out of the 24 managers that Aston Villa have had in their 133 year history.[2](using correct cite template).
- Which Villa history pages? One other point, I think the lead should mention Deadly Doug given his fearsome reputation for sacking Villa managers. Oldelpaso 10:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict - Oldelpaso's point wasn't an issue I knew about, and I wouldn't disagree with his suggestion) Comments Good work once again; just nitpicking now!
George Ramsey's dates could do with a reference (his article doesn't have any to copy over, I'm afraid, but I imagine it should be easy to confirm)- referenced
Can you create a stub for W J Smith, so we lose the redlink?Will do soon- I trust you! BencherliteTalk 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done it now. Woodym555 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you! BencherliteTalk 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"played" doesn't seem the right heading for managers' results, and "win, draw, lose" might sound better in the past tense - how about: "Matches, won, drawn, lost"?- Seems fair enough to me, have accepted the change.
How about saying "information not available", as you did on the players' list?- done
- As well as the honours, how about mentioning the times when AV was relegated? (I know it's a sore point, but...)
- I agree with the rationale behind mentioning it, i only question the practicalities. It can't really go in the Honours section, hardly an Honour. I can't think what to rename it as though. (McMullan, Mercer, D.Taylor and B McNeill have that dubious honour) Woodym555 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename the section "Honours and relegations"? "Significant events"? or something similar perhaps. Up to you whether you want to include the info. BencherliteTalk 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the rationale behind mentioning it, i only question the practicalities. It can't really go in the Honours section, hardly an Honour. I can't think what to rename it as though. (McMullan, Mercer, D.Taylor and B McNeill have that dubious honour) Woodym555 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about having it sortable? It'd be interesting to be able to click and compare e.g. no of matches, win%. You could combine the secretary & manager sections for this, perhaps with a footnote for the two secretaries to note their status. (At least you won't have the nationality sorting problem of your last list, and you've already put the managers' names in sortable format). I've put something in my sandbox which you might want to look at, using {{nts}} and {{dts}} (and my preferred column headings!) as well - I don't think I garbled the information in doing so...
- Thankyou for taking the time to add all of the {{nts}}'s in!!! I have basically added your table across, i think it works although i would question the validity of sorting the win/lose/draw. You cannot really gain any useful information from it unless you factor in overall number of games. That is what the win percentage is for. I do see the reasoning behind having that sortable. I can't see it being a problem or anything commented on to be honest, so i am happy for it to remain. Woodym555 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I agree that the win% is the main one, although comparing the absolute numbers of games won and lost might interest some. BencherliteTalk 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for taking the time to add all of the {{nts}}'s in!!! I have basically added your table across, i think it works although i would question the validity of sorting the win/lose/draw. You cannot really gain any useful information from it unless you factor in overall number of games. That is what the win percentage is for. I do see the reasoning behind having that sortable. I can't see it being a problem or anything commented on to be honest, so i am happy for it to remain. Woodym555 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not far off supporting, but I just think there's a few tweaks that would make this an excellent piece of work. Feel free to tell me why you don't agree with my thoughts, though.BencherliteTalk 20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just some minor issues regarding the lead paragraph before I lend my support to this article's candidacy:
- "The following is a list of Aston Villa managers from the founding of Aston Villa F.C. until present." - When was the founding of Aston Villa F.C.?
- 1874 and i have added it in.
- "From 1884 to 1934, the team was selected by committee and the secretary of the committee had the same power as current day managers." - Not essential, but I would personally try to avoid using "the committee" too often in one sentence. Perhaps try "the team was selected by committee, the secretary of which had the same power..."
- Agreed, fixed
- "There were two secretaries during this period, George Ramsay and W J Smith." - Not directly related to this article, but "W J Smith" should be named "W. J. Smith" per WP:NCP. Perhaps consider moving the article to the suggested name.
- Moved and fixed.
- "In 1934 the club appointed the first manager, Jimmy McMullan who was the first of 22 people to manage Aston Villa." - First, there should be a comma following "In 1934". Second, how many people have managed Aston Villa? Here you say 22 people have managed the club, but later you say that there have been 24 managers. Were George Ramsay and W. J. Smith club secretaries or were they managers? If they were secretaries, should they be included in this list?
- They should be included as they have the same role and they managed the team, just didn't pick it. I have added brackets to the sentence.
- "The most successful manager was George Ramsay who won 6 FA Cups and 6 Division One championships in his 42 year-reign as secretary of the club." - Same issue as above. Was George Ramsay the manager or the secretary of the club? This sentence seems to suggest he was both.
- Have amended wording slightly to The most successful person to manage the club,
- "In the 37 years that Doug Ellis was involved with the Board,..." - Should "Board" start with a capital letter?
- Yes, it is a proper noun.
- "The last manager that Doug Eliis hired was the current incumbent," - "Eliis" should read "Ellis". Also, is "incumbent" an appropriate word to use here? I realise it can be difficult to avoid overusing the word "manager" in a list of club managers, but in this case it may be appropriate.
- yes, it is an appropriate word for this encyclopedia, IMO. Maybe not for the Simple english wikipedia. ;) Woodym555 09:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "This was one of Doug Ellis's last acts before selling the club to Randy Lerner." - "Ellis's" should read "Ellis'".
- "The following is a list of Aston Villa managers from the founding of Aston Villa F.C. until present." - When was the founding of Aston Villa F.C.?
- No, it shouldn't. I was taught (I think) that for singular words and names, you only dropped the 's for long words where pronunciation was awkward if an extra "s" was added, or for words ending in two lots of "s" like Francis' rather than Francis's. But not even those, necessarily. See Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending in s, z, or x. Struway2 | Talk 08:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that was helpful. Bear in mind that this is the first time I've helped review a Featured list candidate, so I apologise if I've been a bit pedantic. - PeeJay 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not pedantic, just thorough, which is what it needs. I have fixed or responded to your concerns. Thanks for taking the time to review it. Woodym555 09:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I now Support this FLC. - PeeJay 09:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not pedantic, just thorough, which is what it needs. I have fixed or responded to your concerns. Thanks for taking the time to review it. Woodym555 09:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a go at copyediting the lead section. I'm putting it here rather than editing the article myself as don't want to interfere with the work the original editors have put in, unless they're happy with it. Please feel free to use, improve or discard as you choose.
The following is a list of Aston Villa managers from the founding of Aston Villa F.C. in 1874 until the present.
From 1874 to 1934, the team was selected by a committee whose secretary had the same powers and role as a manager has today. There were two secretaries during this period, George Ramsay and W. J. Smith. The most successful person to manage the club was George Ramsay, who won six FA Cups and six First Division championships in his 42-year reign as secretary. Jimmy McMullan became the first full-time manager in 1934. Aston Villa were the first top-tier club to appoint a manager from outside the United Kingdom and Ireland when Jozef Venglos was appointed in 1990.[1]
Manager turnover has increased substantially over the past 30 years. The chairman of the time, Doug Ellis, acquired the nickname Deadly Doug because of his penchant for hiring and firing managers. In the 37 years that Ellis was involved with the Board, he hired and fired 13 out of the 24 managers that Aston Villa have had over their 133-year history.[2] One of Ellis's last acts before selling the club to Randy Lerner was to appoint the current incumbent, Martin O'Neill, who has been with the club since August 4 2006.
- also, the Matches/w/l/d columns would look better centralised rather than left-aligned
Struway2 | Talk 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that lead is an excellent revision and you should add it in. With regards to the centralisation, it is a matter of personal taste. I have now centralised it as, after viewing it in two tabs, i think centralised works slightly better. Not much of a difference if i'm honest. Woodym555 11:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- have added lead section as above. Also added trailing zeroes where required in win% column to align on decimal point, looks tidier that way. Struway2 | Talk 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that lead is an excellent revision and you should add it in. With regards to the centralisation, it is a matter of personal taste. I have now centralised it as, after viewing it in two tabs, i think centralised works slightly better. Not much of a difference if i'm honest. Woodym555 11:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's inconsistency as to what competitions are being included in each manager's w/l/d stats. Presumably this stems from using Soccerbase as the primary (only?) source. It's fine for recent years, but not for older data. The problem being the note which appears under the managerial career stats tables that reads "NB: Only games with a date in the database counted here".
For example, see Tommy Docherty's managerial career. The 46 games they give him are League games only; if you look at Aston Villa's results/fixtures for the 68-9 and 69-70 seasons on Soccerbase, the League Cup and FA Cup games don't have dates against them, so any cup games played while he was manager aren't counted.
Whereas in recent seasons, the results/fixtures do have dates against the cup games, so for instance Martin O'Neill's figures will include both league and cup games. Struway2 | Talk 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: (4/0)–10 Pass
Based on recently featured Hart Memorial Trophy and current nominations James Norris Memorial Trophy, Vezina Trophy and Lester B. Pearson Award. I think it meets the criteria, but any concern brought will be addressed.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 10:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: History section not sufficiently referenced, and there is no infobox. Maxim(talk) 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox added, added one reference about winning the Conn Smythe and the Hart in the same year. Other than that, I don't feel it needs more references, because what isn't referenced with a footnote is easily verifiable by checking the winners list and the general references, like the list at nhl.com. Thank you.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I support Conn Smythe Trophy to be a featured list. Maxim(talk) 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of having a * after Member of team defeated in Stanley Cup Finals, I'd rather see that footnotes were used. --Krm500 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 15:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks allright to me. Maybe add an interpolation with the Pearson award? Circeus 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as has been said. Kaiser matias 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: (4/0)–10
The page is modelled after the Hart Memorial Trophy, which is a recently listed FL. The page is fully referenced. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 04:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI don't like the list of winners, under the Jennings-like system and the best-goalie system under one table. I think it should be split up and very reflective of that fact. I was a bit confused when I saw two players, and then I remembered that the awarding changed criteria. I'm marking this as an oppose, because I feel this is an extremely important issue, and consequently, it is not an FL in such a shape, that it demands attention, but when it is fixed, I will gladly strike out this oppose. Maxim(talk) 21:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Agreed, and changed. Resolute 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. I now support Vezina Trophy as an FL. Maxim(talk) 23:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and changed. Resolute 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What happened in 1973-74? I assume there were co-winners during that season. If so, it needs to be mentioned either in the history or 1927-1981 section. --Crzycheetah 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a tie, I have added a mention of it in the history. Later, I'll add some sort of note to the chart explaining that it was a tie, but I have to go for now. -- Scorpion0422 02:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are two redlinks in the history section. Can those be removed, or stub articles created? Resolute 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed them for the time being, I might create stub articles later. -- Scorpion0422 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my only concern. Maxim already got the others. Support Resolute 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed them for the time being, I might create stub articles later. -- Scorpion0422 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but I have one tiny concern and that is the dark grey color in the header of the tables, I prefer the light grey color used on most list. --Krm500 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page didn't take too much effort to create, but nevertheless is complete and highly detailed, and most importantly meets all of the featured list criteria. mdmanser 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The title needs to specify it's National Rugby League competition matches only. At the moment, it could be anything. Furthermore, wasn't golden point used in ARL/NRL finals before 2003? Daniel→♦ 11:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah another editor suggested that I change the title, and I think I will. The problem is, the NRL is the only notable rugby league competition (in fact, any sport) that uses the golden point system. There is a chance that minor leagues in Australia may use it, but I am unaware of the system being in placed. As for finals before 2003 - I really can't remember. I can't think of any game in which this happened for the last 10 years. I used to hear it was extra time as stated, but I wasn't the person who wrote the introduction to this page. I'll fix these things up in the next hour or two. mdmanser 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd suggest List of National Rugby League golden point games, because a) other codes do use golden point, and b) other rugby league comps may end up using it, so it's best to be specific. Maybe also mention the fac tthat, out of the x games which made it to golden point, y finished the 90 mins still tied. Just some thoughts :) Good job, anyways. Daniel→♦ 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved it myself :) Daniel→♦ 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support Daniel's move. I know at least that the State of Origin now use golden point. There was a match a few years back when NSW won by golden point. GizzaDiscuss © 07:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved it myself :) Daniel→♦ 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd suggest List of National Rugby League golden point games, because a) other codes do use golden point, and b) other rugby league comps may end up using it, so it's best to be specific. Maybe also mention the fac tthat, out of the x games which made it to golden point, y finished the 90 mins still tied. Just some thoughts :) Good job, anyways. Daniel→♦ 11:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah another editor suggested that I change the title, and I think I will. The problem is, the NRL is the only notable rugby league competition (in fact, any sport) that uses the golden point system. There is a chance that minor leagues in Australia may use it, but I am unaware of the system being in placed. As for finals before 2003 - I really can't remember. I can't think of any game in which this happened for the last 10 years. I used to hear it was extra time as stated, but I wasn't the person who wrote the introduction to this page. I'll fix these things up in the next hour or two. mdmanser 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralfor now. Here are my comments/questions:
- <humour>Next time, avoid saying "this page didn't take too much effort to create"... you're meant to be exhausted by your efforts to bring a list to FL status, not be able to write one with little difficulty!</humour> But, more seriously, does the list meet the criteria of 1(a) "usefulness" in the criteria? It can't be 1(a)(1) (existing articles) or 1(a)(2) (timeline), so it'd have to be 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". I wonder whether about 30 NRL games in 5 years fits the bill for a "significant topic of study". "Golden point" isn't even mentioned in National Rugby League. But, as I'm the other side of the globe and know very little about this sport/league, you may be able to convince me.
- Haha well I didn't simply intend to suggest that the page was too easy to make, but also give an indication that there could have been some room for improvement, as you've listed out. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Date and time" is given as a header, but no times are given - suggest changing to "date".
- Suggestion fixed - "time" has been removed. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the list need to include referee and crowd size? I know the source has this information, but I'm not sure the list gains much by knowing it. It might be more interesting to include the scorer of the winning points than the referee, for example. That column would also indicate at a glance the games that remained tied.
- I'll take that into account - in fact I will get around to removing those two columns and putting in the winning scorer instead. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need sources for the scorers, I think.
You could also mention something about the scorers in the lead e.g. that Clinton Schifcofske has scored golden points in three games, which is the most any player etc... If you're looking for extra material for the lead, which wouldn't hurt, then who has won the most in golden point games? Who has lost the most?!BencherliteTalk 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need sources for the scorers, I think.
Consider removing the 2003/2004/2005 etc dividers (which, in my view, aren't really needed in this small table);then consider making it a sortable date by (at least) team and date, so that the table can be played with more usefully.BencherliteTalk 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Bencher's date and time, referee, and crowd size comments. I disagree about the yearly separations. I add the first sentence should express the topic more clearly.State the obvious, people. Circeus 02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything in the first sentence has been taken into account. As for the small font - that was to allow each entry to take up just one line in a standard 1024x768 window. At the moment it's not going to happen, but once I get the new column instead of the current two then the problem should be fixed. Thanks for your suggestions. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to all - I've added and filled in the new "golden point(s)" scorer column upon your suggestions and have removed the redundant (yet accessible via link) referee and crowd columns. Two questions - should I reference the instances where the scorer had to be looked up on a separate news article? Secondly, are the colours in the table ok to be used or are they better removed? I initially had them introduced as an alternative to logos, but I'm beginning to see that they're not particularly needed apart from a small navigational point of view. Thoughts? Also, I will update the introduction - I'll let you know on your talk pages when it is done. Cheers, mdmanser 09:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Q1 - yes (cite your sources). Q2 - I don't mind the colours. I've got this page and that page watch-listed, so no need to tell me when there are changes. BencherliteTalk 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to all - I've added and filled in the new "golden point(s)" scorer column upon your suggestions and have removed the redundant (yet accessible via link) referee and crowd columns. Two questions - should I reference the instances where the scorer had to be looked up on a separate news article? Secondly, are the colours in the table ok to be used or are they better removed? I initially had them introduced as an alternative to logos, but I'm beginning to see that they're not particularly needed apart from a small navigational point of view. Thoughts? Also, I will update the introduction - I'll let you know on your talk pages when it is done. Cheers, mdmanser 09:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything in the first sentence has been taken into account. As for the small font - that was to allow each entry to take up just one line in a standard 1024x768 window. At the moment it's not going to happen, but once I get the new column instead of the current two then the problem should be fixed. Thanks for your suggestions. mdmanser 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I fixed the intro (I'm itching to add "since their introduction in...", but no article states when they were introduced!). The tables looks much better without those columns. I didn't mind the headers (I find such separation to be a welcome break in tables.), but the table does fine enough without too. Circeus 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My thinking was that the headers would obstruct sorting; if the list isn't to be made sortable, then I'm not opposed to there being such breaks. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added sources where necessary (games won by field goals have not been sourced, but can be easily looked up in the single reference by clicking the correpsonding date). I also added a paragraph onto the end of the introduction with a few statistics, although it may be worth double checking the prose. At this stage, do you two think a separate results table should be included as well - e.g. games by team? As for the sortable table - I'm not sure how that works. Apart from that, I don't think I have any further amendments to make. Thanks. mdmanser 10:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still prefer references for all the scorers; it wouldn't be obvious to a newcomer to the page that the identity of the scorer was referenced by the general reference when other scorers have references. I've made it sortable (using {{sortname}} and {{dts2}}) and added in the missing scorer's name with a reference - you might be able to find a better one. I think the lead is better now. I don't think a separate results table is needed. If you source the rest of the scorers, I'll support. BencherliteTalk 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added sources where necessary (games won by field goals have not been sourced, but can be easily looked up in the single reference by clicking the correpsonding date). I also added a paragraph onto the end of the introduction with a few statistics, although it may be worth double checking the prose. At this stage, do you two think a separate results table should be included as well - e.g. games by team? As for the sortable table - I'm not sure how that works. Apart from that, I don't think I have any further amendments to make. Thanks. mdmanser 10:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My thinking was that the headers would obstruct sorting; if the list isn't to be made sortable, then I'm not opposed to there being such breaks. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralSupport I am definately not going to oppose an article that uses such good references - for every single entry, however there is all that text at the beginning that is referenceless - try to add some for those. .....Todd#661 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (PS can you advise on my talk page when you have done this?)[reply]
- Sorry for taking so long, but I've finally finished citing each of the 31 games in question. As for the introduction; I've added one source, but it is seeming very hard to find any others. I'll try and have a look around more but I can't guarantee if it will get any better than that. mdmanser 02:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this now eligible for promotion with 3 additional supports? Or does it need 4 supports apart from the original automatic support from the nominator? mdmanser 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: (6/0)–10
The page is modelled after the Hart Memorial Trophy, which is a recently listed FL. The page is fully referenced. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nicely done. --Crzycheetah 21:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well constructed list based on a current FL. Accurate and with good images. Resolute 19:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as said. Kaiser matias 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposequestionable licensing on this image. --Krm500 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The image has been removed. -- Scorpion0422 01:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I do not have any objections. --Krm500 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good. -- Underneath-it-All 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently an article about the Kingdom Hearts manga that is related to the Kingdom Hearts video game series. It was switched to a list format in order to encompass all the related media of the series since the manga article looked like it wasn't making any real progress. Myself and other editors feel that it detailed enough and currently complete. New media is planned to be added as it is released. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Co-nom and support, I also feel this list is ready to be featured. I will be here to help address any concerns raised by other editors. Axem Titanium 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nicely done, as good as the FF one. igordebraga ≠ 17:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Much better than the FF one (which contains two stub sections). Kariteh 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose: decorative images of Game and CD covers used. The books are okay because this article is the main one to cover them, but the games and CDs are not. Circeus 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Solved Circeus 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I'll remove the game and CD covers but would it be okay to add a few more book covers since the game/CD covers would be gone? Axem Titanium 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd stick with images already used in other articles. Given the topic at hand, the absence of images wouldn't be a reason to oppose anyway. Circeus 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Can you explain? Axem Titanium 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, "don't add extra images just for the list; only use images already used elsewhere." Our fair use criteria state that copyrighted material should be kept to a minimum, and not used in a "decorative" manner, and it's practically impossible to argue against the anti-FU when it comes down to lists (this is why we don't have any screenshot in episode lists anymore).Circeus 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Can you explain? Axem Titanium 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd stick with images already used in other articles. Given the topic at hand, the absence of images wouldn't be a reason to oppose anyway. Circeus 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be alright if we kept one picture for the games and soundtracks in a similar manner to the manga and novels? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Following from Guy's comment, I've cut it down to 4 images with one for each super-section. Is this alright? Axem Titanium 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it works. Circeus 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, so do you still oppose? Axem Titanium 18:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it works. Circeus 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Following from Guy's comment, I've cut it down to 4 images with one for each super-section. Is this alright? Axem Titanium 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove the game and CD covers but would it be okay to add a few more book covers since the game/CD covers would be gone? Axem Titanium 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but can those darkened cells be dealt with text content (e.g. m-dashes or "unreleased") instead of looking like big blotches on the page? Circeus 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy from peer review suggested that but I've changed it, since it makes you happy. Axem Titanium 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it comes up again, you can point toward Wikipedia:Accessibility: "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information" (mostly, there's also the fact that empty cells do not actually provide the information for screen readers). Circeus 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, sure. For next time. Axem Titanium 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it comes up again, you can point toward Wikipedia:Accessibility: "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information" (mostly, there's also the fact that empty cells do not actually provide the information for screen readers). Circeus 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy from peer review suggested that but I've changed it, since it makes you happy. Axem Titanium 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 2 oppose. One of the opposes seems to have been made in bad faith and I think the other has been addressed. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted WWE Championships as a featured topic, initially using the category as the main article, only to find out not only do I need a lead article, but it has to be at least GA, if not FA status. Therefore, I whipped this list together, put some pictures on it, and am now submitting it as an FL. It's got sources for all the wrestlers; they're taken from the individual title lists. Also, I have pictures for everyone except two wrestlers, since no free images exist for them and there's not really good enough fair use rationale to please the image Gestapo on this site. So I hope this will suffice; if anything further needs to be done, please let me know. The nomination for featured topic is pending, though only a few hours older than this one, so hopefully there will not be any conflicts. Anthony Hit me up... 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - are the flags really needed? Do the notes need to be tiny? I would also suggest against using state abbreviations. --Golbez 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The notes are a bit out of context; it should probably include who they defeated to win the title. In particular Hornswoggle's note only lists the other challengers, which is fine for the Cruiserweight title list but needs to be elaborated in this situation. Same for all the others. --MarcK 06:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The "notes" listing needs a lot more space considering their content is going to be much larger than any other part of the listings. –– Lid(Talk) 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, there's not too much more information to be included in the Notes. I also made the "C" in Champions lower-case because as someone pointed out, the capital C refers only to the WWE Championship; this is about all titles, and so no capital is needed. Anthony Hit me up... 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The John Morrison note is expanding its listing to exceedingly long proportions and is nearly impossible to read easily because of the lack of space. –– Lid(Talk) 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've got my monitor at 1600x1200, so I guess it looked fine to me. What's your res at? There should be a standard for the site (nothing against you, but I've noticed a lot of articles get into edit wars over size). If someone with a smaller, more common res wants to edit the page so it looks OK on, say, 1024, that'd be fine. Anthony Hit me up... 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The John Morrison note is expanding its listing to exceedingly long proportions and is nearly impossible to read easily because of the lack of space. –– Lid(Talk) 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, there's not too much more information to be included in the Notes. I also made the "C" in Champions lower-case because as someone pointed out, the capital C refers only to the WWE Championship; this is about all titles, and so no capital is needed. Anthony Hit me up... 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Davnel03 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're going to need to remove all those images of the wrestlers with the belts. That's not fair use, I'm certain of it. See this for more info. Also, all dates should be linked. And i don't think you need the sentence on what is contained in each field. Hmm. At the moment, I'm going to have to Oppose. --SteelersFan UK06 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, those are all free images, or at least the description pages say so. --MarcK 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aah, ok, sorry some of them looked like they weren't free use, i didn't bother to check though. I think they should be resized so that each field isn't random sizes though <:-| --SteelersFan UK06 05:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, there isn't a single belt visible in any of the images; they're only of the wrestlers. Secondly, please look at the image before jumping to conclusions that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's ridiculous fair-use policy (which I have massive problems with but won't get into here). As far as disrupting the table size, that I don't have a problem with, and it is on THOSE grounds and those grounds ONLY that I am removing the images. Anthony Hit me up... 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixable oppose - lead is shortish, table columns should be of consistent width, and I think images should go away because they just throw the whole table balance away. I know only one case when tall images look ok in tables - it's when they are in the first column. But this particular table requires that the first column would be the campionship name. Renata 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree regarding the images. Maybe just one in the lead (with a longer caption) would be enough. Circeus 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed images from the table & threw one in the lead, which I expanded & fixed up a bit. It does look better, IMHO. Anthony Hit me up... 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree regarding the images. Maybe just one in the lead (with a longer caption) would be enough. Circeus 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks better with the images removed. The list is just fine. DSachan 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think there should be some deliberation on the title of the article as there is one more article 'List of WWE champions' and this one is 'List of current WWE champions', although when one reads through the article, the difference gets clear but still it creates some confusion in the beginning. An idea might be to rename it to 'List of current winners of WWE championships'. - DSachan 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong' Support
but nit-pick Comment I will do it myself but I think the wrestlers who are champions there needs to be a link to there WWE superstars page which will give you all the information. I feel that the date won number of times won also needs references but if you add a link to all the superstars pages then it saves adding all them ref's. I will do it myself if I have time.Everlast1910 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Everlast1910 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support Sorry for the whitespace. I didn't expect the Tableof Content to reappear an fill in the blank space. Circeus 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't even think this is notable for a page, let alone a featured list. Biggspowd 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Biggspowd's page he has been blocked for three months. So how can we get an answer for his point of view?Everlast1910 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not part of the featured list criteria. –– Lid(Talk) 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the block length has been lowered to a week, the reason given being vandalism. –– Lid(Talk) 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Biggspowd, this is an unactionable opposition made in the entirely wrong forum. If it's not notable, nominate it for deletion insetadof disrupting other legitimate processes. Circeus 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support what more can I say. MPJ-DK 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am renominating this list because Golbez met all the objections in the previous nomination and I believe it's missing a star on the right-upper corner. What do you think?--Crzycheetah 00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support *whistles innocently* Personally, I was waiting to see how the Alabama list fared before renominating this one, but I won't say no to it. --Golbez 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Clean and concise. --maclean 05:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, or rather, stupid question. Why is "Governor" capitalized? Axem Titanium 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precedent, I suppose; like List of Presidents of the United States. --Golbez 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposeFull of Fair-use images. Circeus 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]What do you consider Image:RobertWaterman.jpg? Is it PD or Fair-use? It has both tags on it. Frankly, I never saw both of those tags together.--Crzycheetah 08:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, nevermind. I changed the tags to {{PD-US}}, since the subject died in the 19th century. I'll try to find PD versions of other images.--Crzycheetah 09:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hid all fair-use images. If you find any more such images, let me know.--Crzycheetah 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good to me. Wizardman 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks pretty good now. Made few extra tweaks. Circeus 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not my work this time, just did a little tidying up. But I think the list is pretty well put together, pretty simple, and has a thorough lead. Happy to work on any issues reviewers spot. Geraldk 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeover serious NPOV concerns in the prose. Firstly, some suggestions:
- The Methodology section is rather light on methodology (the first sentence) and focuses instead on the analysis provided by the compilers. I'd like to see more on the methods used to compile the index and details of the groups involved. I'd like to see a paragraph or so on the definition of "peace" used by the compilers. Have a separate section on the analysis of the results as given by the list's compilers. It would be best to cite pages on the website rather than one big PDF. Then have a section on analysis by third parties.
- I've overhauled the methodology section, including the addition of a table of the indicators. Let me know if that's adequate. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, having one "Criticisms" section isn't the best way of writing a balanced article. Not all the comment in this section is a criticism—the stuff about Germany and WWII can't be regarded as a criticism of a metric that looks at whether a nation is now peaceful (only the last 5 years count).
- I think it's good to have a criticisms section, since there have been criticisms, and to be truly encyclopedic those criticisms should be covered. The trouble with this one is that it's a little one-sided, and I've worked on that. As to the Germany reference, that sentence is a reference to an argument made by the Wall Street Journal. Personally, I agree with you that it's completely invalid, but I've removed it because it was not a significant argument of the source, not because it's fallacious. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't clear which source is used for the list itself. This should be a bullet-point reference, and I suggest you provide readers with a link to the official site and also indicate a PDF link to the Chicago Tribune reprint (which is suitable for printing but less good online).
- I've added a reference note at the beginning of the index table. Let me know if that's adequate. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand the citations. Use the cite templates if you want, but you should include date, publisher, author, title, access-date, etc.
- In progress. Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "The Israeli Peace Index" external link doesn't seem relevant here.
- removed Geraldk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Now the POV problems.
- The article has a US-centric world view. The position of the US in the ranking is justified and contrasted with other nations.
- In methodology, I've kept the mention of the United States because I think it's a useful example of how the 'drivers' identified by the study don't always apply. It's not absolutely necessary, though, so if you think it needs to be pulled, I'll pull it. In criticisms, the US is mentioned frequently because many of the criticisms have centered around the low U.S. score. Hopefully, the rewording of the criticisms has helped this. Geraldk 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is effectively saying "The US is the great protector of the world, using its military might to maintain world peace." This is one POV.
- I've tried to place in quotes or make clear as opinion of an outside source any such POV. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Related to this is the idea that military power is necessary to maintain peace, and pacifist countries can only afford that luxury because other countries dirty themselves. The words "free-riding" and "freeloaders" are examples of this POV.
- Placed in quotes. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The line "Israel... would like nothing more than to be at peace, but its surrounding neighbors...attack it" is POV and so controversial it probably only has a place on WP inside quote marks.
- Placed in quotes. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose could be improved wrt NPOV if it removed all the comment justifying why nation X has a low score. Note that justification is different from description. Have a look at this article for a much more neutral discussion that comments on several countries' positions in the list without trying to justify how they got there.
- Again, I think discussion of the criticism is valuable to the reader, as long as the article carefully delineates who is making what argument. The article you cite is a good one, but doesn't cover any criticisms of the list - it just mentions why certain countries are ranked where they are. In this case, and in the case of most political controversies, I think it's important that Wikipedia cover the debate as well as the simple, stated facts. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to decide whether to go for completely neutral (non political, neither pro-war nor pacifist) prose or to have POVs discussed in a balanced way. The latter is very hard to achieve, and may distract from the purpose of the list: present the info and let the reader interpret it how they wish.
- Agreed. But want the latter. More comments / suggestions would be great. Thanks for the excellent review. Geraldk 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin°Talk 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had another look. The Methodology is much improved and expanded. I'm almost getting concerned about copyright issues, reproducing that much detail. The Criticism section is also better. I'm happy with paragraphs one, four and five. However, the middle two remain problematical. On WP, we are only required to reproduce the opinions of those who's views are shared by a decent number of people or the opinions of those who are notable in the field they are commenting on. We don't need to reproduce the opinions of any old hack who typed up an opinion-piece for his daily column or blog. The two newspaper columns/blogs cited are poor choices:
- Peter Worthington's column completely misses the point. He confuses a index of peace with an index ranking how great a country is to live in. His view that freedom is an important consideration when ranking countries is fair but no more relevant to a peace index than any other metric such as access to food, shelter, employment, education or health care. By going off at a tangent, he has produced a column that is in fact irrelevant to the Global Peace Index.
- James Taranto's blog is just a daily rant. His comments are juvenile (apparently the whole GPI is "a very silly exercise"), offensive (further up he rejoices in a suicide at Guantanamo Bay with the headline "Another One Bites the Dust") and political rather than analytical. This sort of commentary is designed just to get like-minded reader's heads nodding. It isn't serious journalism and certainly doesn't deserve to be cited by an encyclopaedia.
- The third critic you cite, Riane Eisler, actually makes an on-topic criticism of a peace index. If you read her WP entry, you'll see that she is someone qualified to comment on this index in an intelligent fashion. Whether you agree with her or not, her opinions are much more likely to be worth citing. If you are prepared to drop the first two "critics" (and ideally find more of the quality of Eisler) then you've got my support.
- Suggestion: is there any way to add colour to the table in a way that links it to the map? Colin°Talk 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be easy, but would basically create large blocks of color, because the map has 1-1.69, then 1.7-2 etc. I really don't think it's a good idea. This is not the same as Law enforcement in British Columbia, 2005 or List of inhabitated islands of Croatia, where the primary organization is alphabetical rather than numeral. Circeus 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support Geraldk seems to have gone on wikiholiday. I've removed the two paragraphs that I had issues with. My support is conditional on those remaining out. Otherwise, this is a worthy featured list IMO. Colin°Talk 10:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the methodology section and the rankings table looks good. I think as long as there is some criticism, the list is complete. --Crzycheetah 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Geraldk seems to have very well addressed the expressed concerns, and I can't find much anything wrong with the list. Circeus 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 1 oppose. There is an unstruck oppose, but the concerns raised in the opposition seem to have been addressed.. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating yet another anomalous list for FLC. I have solicited some reviews from FL reviewers (they are available here, here and here). I have tried to address the original research concerns raised by one editor (and shared by myself) and two other editors' concerns over the inclusion of too much historical context in the timeline. I had wanted further reviews and tried to post the list at WP:GAC, but apparently they don't do lists. As WP:PR is backlogged beyond belief, I thought I would bring the list here, hoping it would pass (I do believe it meets the criteria), but prepared for it to fail. I am thinking of the nomination as a review, really. As far as I can tell, there are no personal timelines that are featured lists. I based my initial ideas for the timeline on pages such as the following: Vincent van Gogh chronology and Lord Byron (chronology). As you can see, though, this timeline has developed beyond those barebones lists. The reason I created this timeline was to supplement a series of articles I have been working on for a Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic (they are Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Original Stories from Real Life, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, Mary: A Fiction, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (still under construction) and A Vindication of the Rights of Men (still under construction). Awadewit | talk 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - An amazing effort. This should set the standard for biographical timelines. Kaldari 19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Would recommend, however, images be taken out of thumbnail boxes unless captions are added to each of them (which I don't recommend, considering the small size). Nice work, very easy to read, and I love the context provided. --Midnightdreary 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the images: I added them after images were suggested for List of works by Joseph Priestley. I agree that captions would be ridiculous at this size. I tried to pick images that were obvious, but I am willing to remove them if that is the general consensus. Would others weigh in on this? Thanks.Awadewit | talk 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Midnightdreary was recommending removing the images, just not putting them in thumbnail boxes. Kaldari 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yes, how silly of me. I have removed the boxes. Awadewit | talk 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I first came across this when as a GA nom; I removed its nomination status as GA doesn't handle lists, and recommended it be taken here, as it seems to easily pass FL standards. And as noted by Midnightdreary, the "thumb" paramater should be removed from the image lines, since the only real purpose of that parameter is to make a caption visible. Given that there are no captions, it adds a superfluous box that only takes up space. One tip, add a note in the timeline sections (such as (pictured) ) where it is unclear whose picture goes with what image. For example, the cameo in the 1778 box is next to two author's names; it is unclear who this is.... But other than that, this is a GREAT list. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the "thumbs" and added "(pictured) in all relevant locations, I think. Thanks for that suggestion! Awadewit | talk 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dig it! looks fantastic now... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - impressive. Geraldk 13:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Needs proper date linking. Rmhermen 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, linking all of the dates would make the page much harder to read, would not significantly add to the reader's knowledge and would detract from the more significant links already there. I don't think that the small benefit accrued by linking the dates - they would appear in the fashion chosen by registered users - outweighs these significant costs. Most readers will obviously not have chosen a date format, anyway, as they are not registered users. Awadewit | talk 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would concur with that. I have always thought that the date-format issue is moot; as long as an article is consistant saying "15 August" or saying "August 15" are BOTH unambiguous. No one is going to be confused by one or the other. Its the same as the British/American usage issue: Be internally consistant, and respect what is already there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. And see the MOS. It is not the same as the British/American usage issue. Rmhermen 15:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done for the sake of argument: it wasn't something that bothered me, as my earlier support indicated, but the MOS does indicate it should be so. (Also fixed the "-"s to "ndash;"s as appropriate, before I supported, not that anybody had raised this as a MOS issue). If anyone thinks that the [[day month]] format does make the page harder to read, please feel free to revert those changes. BencherliteTalk 01:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really do feel that the dates should not be linked. Another part of the MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links says that pages should not be overlinked to the point of distraction. I do feel that linking all of the dates reduces readability. I won't revert the changes, but please consider thinking about the readability of the page which seems more important than the date format requested by a minority of users. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did think about the readability of the page, by previewing it repeatedly in the course of wikilinking the dates (or "wikiliking" as I accidentally called it in my edit summary!) before saving. I actually think it makes little difference to the readability of the page, and I don't think that it's over-wikilinked by doing so. What do others think? As I say, I don't mind either way, but was only trying to help overcome the one oppose opinion. At least now people get to compare "with" and "without" by comparing the diffs. If people are happy to pass the list without linked dates, then anyone is free to undo my date-linking, as it won't bother me in the slightest. BencherliteTalk 03:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really do feel that the dates should not be linked. Another part of the MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links says that pages should not be overlinked to the point of distraction. I do feel that linking all of the dates reduces readability. I won't revert the changes, but please consider thinking about the readability of the page which seems more important than the date format requested by a minority of users. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done for the sake of argument: it wasn't something that bothered me, as my earlier support indicated, but the MOS does indicate it should be so. (Also fixed the "-"s to "ndash;"s as appropriate, before I supported, not that anybody had raised this as a MOS issue). If anyone thinks that the [[day month]] format does make the page harder to read, please feel free to revert those changes. BencherliteTalk 01:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A thoroughly researched and presented timeline. Interesting to read and obviously the product of much work. BencherliteTalk 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I tried, but cannot find fault with the page. Ceoil 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm personally quite iffy with the table format. I ad planned to offer up an alternative, but my wiki editing kept steering me in different directions. Circeus 01:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try a year-by-year list (modelled on the examples I cited above), but it started to look really messy. It was hard to find the events in Wollstonecraft's life when they were jumbled in with the other events. (You can go back in the page's history and see the change - I think my edit summary was either "changing format" or "changing format AGAIN" - I went through several permutations). The way that the timeline is currently set up, readers can either just look at Wollstonecraft's life (the topic of the timeline) or spend time looking at all of the other events and their relationship to Wollstonecraft's life. It offers that alternative. A year-by-year listing does not offer the two different ways of reading. I was trying to cater to as many audiences as possible. If you have yet a third alternative that offers this dual reading style, I would be happy to see it. Awadewit | talk 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complete list of Amateur Achievement awardees. I think it fulfils the featured list criteria. Selfnomination: Jan.Kamenicek 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport, since it is now mostly blue-linked (Circeus 20:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]Assuming the recipients are notable, there should be a majority of blue links.- I think the fact that many links are red is not a problem of this list, but is a result of the fact that Wikipedia is still growing. I will try to blue some of them. However, Wikipedia:Featured list criteria does not say anything about this. Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not as directly as it should: 1(a)1: "brings together a group of existing articles" (emphasis mine).Since they are linked, I assume they are notable enough to have articles. Since they are red, the list fails criterion 1(a). Circeus 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I have already started bluelinking some of them. I will blacklink those, for which I will not find any trustworthy sources to write an article. Jan.Kamenicek 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. As you have written, most of the links are blue, I'll try to bluelink the rest as well. Jan.Kamenicek 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the fact that many links are red is not a problem of this list, but is a result of the fact that Wikipedia is still growing. I will try to blue some of them. However, Wikipedia:Featured list criteria does not say anything about this. Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not "USA", "United States"Table design is unnecessarily complicated.- Can you explain this in more detail, please? Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference in a header?
- I thought that all information should be referenced. If this is a problem, the reference can be removed. Jan.Kamenicek 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Sorry, my bad English caused that I misunderstood what you had meant: I thought you had been talking about references in the lead. Crzycheetah was so kind to fix it. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Circeus 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral for now- I think most of the redlinked recipients would not meet WP:Notability unless they were covered in multiple secondary sources (such as newspaper stories). I'd be prepared to support the list with blacklinks.
- Or with bluelinks. :) Geraldk 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already started bluelinking some of them. I will blacklink those, for which I will not find any trustworthy sources to write an article. Jan.Kamenicek 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if this is what Circeus meant, but the alternation of colors in the table is difficult for me to read. I think it would be better with solid white background and lines separating entries.
- Fixed by Crzycheetah. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could place reference 2 at the column headers instead of the section heading, which looks a little funny. Or you could separate notes and references sections, and put the overarching #2 in the references section.
- Fixed by Crzycheetah. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last sentence of the lead is unreferenced.
- When I wrote the list, I asked about the missing year at the ASP, and received a mail explaining it. Can this mail be considered as a sort of primary source? Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would fall under WP:OR. Instead, I would just have it say "The only exception...2002, when no award was given." That no award was given should be pretty evident from the existing sources and provides as much information as the current sentence (which, if kept the way it is, begs the question of why they chose not to award).Geraldk 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence reworded. Now the sentence contains only information evident from the mentioned source, and so the sentence is put under the same reference. Jan.Kamenicek 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I wrote the list, I asked about the missing year at the ASP, and received a mail explaining it. Can this mail be considered as a sort of primary source? Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the images? If there aren't pictures of some of the winners that can be run along the right margin, there should at least be an image of the award or the organization's seal alongside the lead.
- I think this table should be sortable, so readers can sort by country and topic.
- Fixed by Crzycheetah. Jan.Kamenicek 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most of the redlinked recipients would not meet WP:Notability unless they were covered in multiple secondary sources (such as newspaper stories). I'd be prepared to support the list with blacklinks.
- Geraldk 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll support when the remaining redlinks are dealt with, either by bluelinking or by blacking out as non-notable.
- Most of the links are already blue, I hope to bluelink the rest soon. Jan.Kamenicek 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll support when the remaining redlinks are dealt with, either by bluelinking or by blacking out as non-notable.
- Geraldk 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geraldk 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Crzycheetah 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was reluctant to support earlier given the number of redlinks; well done for getting the numbers down. My only query now is whether "ASP" should be spelt out in full in the title. ASP is a dab page, not a redirect to the society's page, and I'd have to say that the page title meant nothing to me when I first saw it. So, conditional support, the conditions being that either the page name is changed or you can convince me that it's fine as it is! BencherliteTalk 09:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose the society's acronym into the article's title for two reasons: it was shorter and I often saw it used in this way. However, it is true that it is usually used in this way in a context, where most readers know, what it means. I understand your problem with not understanding the title and I am going to move it. Jan.Kamenicek 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 01:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom. Another good county list. With this, Maine, and New Hampshire, all of New England is done. And I need a beer. Geraldk 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I need a little explanation over the apparent difference between Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony, as you have three that say "one of original counties of Plymouth Colony" and four that say "one of original counties of Massachusetts". --Golbez 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a couple new sentences in the lead and tried to make the individual descriptions better. I could also add a reference note to each of the counties created before the Plymouth / Massachusetts Bay unification in 1691. Thoughts? Geraldk 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, though I would like at least a stub on Devonshire County. --Golbez 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Geraldk 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, looks like an article already existed. I'm redirecting your new one to Devonshire County, District of Maine, Massachusetts Bay Colony. --Golbez 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Geraldk 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, though I would like at least a stub on Devonshire County. --Golbez 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a couple new sentences in the lead and tried to make the individual descriptions better. I could also add a reference note to each of the counties created before the Plymouth / Massachusetts Bay unification in 1691. Thoughts? Geraldk 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks fine to me. (Decleration of contributions: I set up the basic layout, but the content is mostly Geraldk's). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support There are three of four original counties created in the Massachusetts Bay Colony listed here. I am interested to know which one was the fourth. --Crzycheetah 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. There is active opposition, but I think it has been addressed appropriately. Promote. Scorpion0422 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate, infomative, well organized, and visual pleasing--Southern Texas 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport- The lead is too small and informative
- There are no headings other than References; put the list under a heading
- I assume the colors are there for party, but this should be explained
- Each person has only been under one president, so the (s) in the far right column is unneeded.
- (Personal opinion) The numbers between 1-9 should have a zero preceeding them: 01, 02, 03...
- Not only is the one reference not done correctly in line with {{cite web}}, but it's not in-line, and there should be more references (if applicable)
--十八 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, mainly what Juhachi said, but to add my own comments:- The intro is
woeful.deficient.- I'd still like some more information about the people in the intro. Perhaps the colors can be removed (they are somewhat misleading without context, and I still want the key-table gone - either include the text in the main table for those with accessibility issues, or don't include any color at all) and a mention of Carter's picking a Republican can go there. Mention if any of these are the first female, first hispanic, etc. cabinet members, if applicable.
- Much better now.
- I'd still like some more information about the people in the intro. Perhaps the colors can be removed (they are somewhat misleading without context, and I still want the key-table gone - either include the text in the main table for those with accessibility issues, or don't include any color at all) and a mention of Carter's picking a Republican can go there. Mention if any of these are the first female, first hispanic, etc. cabinet members, if applicable.
There's no citations or references of any kind. Oh, wait, I see it, that lonely external link? Cite it.I disagree strongly with including leading zeroes, though.Split term of office into took office and left office.Add footnotes explaining why a secretary left office if notable.Looking at the secretaries, the only one who resigned in any kind of interesting fashion was Schlesinger.Handled in intro.
I'm not sure if we need inline images AND gallery images.- I don't mind.
Also, please explain how a non-partisan appointed post can have a party shading, especially if it can be different from the president?- The key table simply can't be there, as major info cannot be communicated solely through formatting. I still think a non-partisan post should not be colored, and will change it myself if I think it'll stick. :) --Golbez 21:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, this is only a list, so it should be renamed List of United States Secretaries of Energy or something similar. --Golbez 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better to have the party in the table, since blind people can't see the colors. However, I still want to know why party affiliation is relevant for a non-partisan appointed post. The only relevance seems to be that Carter appointed a Republican, but again, it's non-partisan. --Golbez 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree that any cabinet position is non-political, this person is at meetings with the president and informs him on his agenda. I do think it is interesting to know that Carter crossed political lines and nominated a Republican. I have the pictures on the sides because they give more information about certain notable Secretaries that can't be explained fully in the table.--Southern Texas 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better to have the party in the table, since blind people can't see the colors. However, I still want to know why party affiliation is relevant for a non-partisan appointed post. The only relevance seems to be that Carter appointed a Republican, but again, it's non-partisan. --Golbez 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The intro is
- New issue: The ref you've added needs to be properly cited. --Golbez 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some work to it; Southern Texas, I really suggest you take a look at my edits, and this isn't impugning your work, but I suggest you learn a bit more about wiki syntax (like there's almost no need to ever use a BR, and the cite web format) before bringing another article to a featured candidate. That said, I upgrade to weak support. --Golbez 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much.--Southern Texas 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator--Southern Texas 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. There were some factual problems with the part about the duties of the secretary; specifically, the section on duties listed and referenced the US code about the duties of the SecEnergy with respect to Methane Transportation, not the general duties of the secretary. I've since deleted that part of the list to make it accurate. In addition, there were some major spelling / grammar errors in the article, which I've also now fixed. At this point it looks pretty good, so I will give it a weak support for being the featured list. However, it could be further improved by adding more references, and adding a section about the current duties and responsibilities of the secretary (general duties, not ones just about the Methane program). A little more history wouldn't hurt either. --CapitalR 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose None of the references provided give the information included in the table. Also, the second paragraph of the lead needs referencing. Geraldk 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I referenced everything in the second paragraph and the external links provide the information included in the table.--Southern Texas 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solid list. Geraldk 02:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but I don't think the "Samuel Waldo" in the Waldo County section is linked to the right person. Otherwise, everything checks out fine. --maclean 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've disambiguated the link. Good catch. Geraldk 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. (Decleration of contributions: I set up the basic layout, but the content is mostly Crzycheetah's). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the content is not mine. I only made minor edits here. I worked mostly on the New Hampshire list above.--Crzycheetah 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops! My mistake. Tompw (talk) (review) 14:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a good example of an article where the content accrued over time from many editors. I only really added one or two columns. Geraldk 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops! My mistake. Tompw (talk) (review) 14:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the content is not mine. I only made minor edits here. I worked mostly on the New Hampshire list above.--Crzycheetah 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent list, easily fulfills all the criteria. (Made a slight copy edit of the intro which hopefully improves its reading.) - Suicidalhamster 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another quality county list. Geraldk 12:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When sorting by area, Belknap County (1,039 km2) appears before Coos County (4,665 km2). Could you fix this? CG 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fixed. --Crzycheetah 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I totally forgot about this list. It has everything a county list needs.--Crzycheetah 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets the criteria and has a nice lead section that summarizes the article and has some interesting info Yamaka122 ...:) 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a re-nomination. The previous FLC discussion for this article is located here.
Re-nominating. Have addressed the concerns expressed by the previous reviewers. Geraldk 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupportLists should be in chronological ordering.--Crzycheetah 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Do you really think it matters that much on a sortable table? Geraldk 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it has to be the other way around. It has to be in chronological ordering, then if anyone wants, he/she can sort in a non-chronological way. Why? Because every publishing newspaper or magazine orders such lists chronologically. Even the official website(?) lists chronologically. --Crzycheetah 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I think both normal and reverse ordering are defensible. Circeus 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to forestall long, drawn-out debate, Crzy. Geraldk 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think it matters that much on a sortable table? Geraldk 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support Circeus 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support I reiterate this is an important and useful list. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support BencherliteTalk 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. All concerns met. Promote. Raime 13:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination. Another "tallest buildings" list. This is a well-organized and well-referenced list that meets criteria. Its lists the 30 tallest buildings in boston, along with all proposed/approved/under construction buildings. Each entry has at least two references, and most have three. In addition, Historical Tallest buildings in the city and Listing by Pinnacle Height are included. There are 12 images in the article that fit well with the context. Out of these, one (Image:Trans National Place 1.jpg) is a copyrighted image of a proposed building, of which there are no free images available. It has a thorough fair use rationale on its page. According to a previous debate under List of tallest buildings in Providence, this image is available for use in the article. Any issues with this will be addressed. Overall the list is clear and informative, with a three-paragraph introduction, two free-images of the existing skyline from two vantage points, a list of the city's 30 tallest buildings, an informative notes section, a list of the city's Historical Tallest, a listing by Pinnacle height, and a lengthy reference list.
The list meets Featured-list criteria:
- The list is useful and informative.
- The list is comprehensive, as it contains a list of the 30-tallest and most notable buildings in the city, as *well as all tall proposed buildings.
- The list is accurate, with reference links to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, Structurae, and other notable sources.
- The list is not at all controversial and is very stable.
- The lead summarizes list scope, with the list's title in bold.
- The list has 11 free-use images, and one fair-use image with a thorough and complete fair use rationale.
All possible issues brought up here will be addressed. Raime 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Initial comments:
- I dislike having a panorama first, text should be first.
- Done: First skyline image has been moved to below the introduction, and second is below the first list.
- Move the 'ranking' explanation into prose rather than a ref. --Golbez 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Ranking explanation now in prose, but not so sure about this one. It is now very awkward in prose, and seemed to work fine as a ref. Is there a reason why you think it could not stand as a ref? Raime 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike having a panorama first, text should be first.
OpposeMix of existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. See also my oppose under Providence.- Done: New table created, non-existing buildings removed. Raime 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a listing by pinnacle height. You don't need to detail those in the first section's note column. Just specify at the beginning that radio masts etc. are not accounted for.- Done: Information removed
Reduce the width of the images on the side of the table.- Done: All images in article, with exception of broad skyline image, are now 200px. Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes full of facts irrelevant to article's topic. Trim those.- Could you please specify somewhat? I went ahead and removed some notes, but not exactly sure what qualifies as "relevant". Do you think it would be better to just remove the entire section and replace it with a "References" section, as with the other two lists? Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, if the "note" is not relevant to the building's current, past or future height, its name, or its relationship with other buildings on the list (e.g. "part of foo complex"), it doesn't have a purpose in this list. e.g. "Known for its unique X-bracing exterior and distinctive rooftop box design." (One Boston Place), the entire notes of the First national Bank Building, One Financial Center, or One Post Office Square. Here, size matters; anything else? Not really.
- I see your point, but that will leave most of the entries empty. Should I just remove the section? And for the new "Proposed" section, do you think anything in that notes section is relevant? I will remove the information you specified. Thank you for your review. Raime 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: All irrelevant notes removed. All that is left is alternate names and "tallest building in X section" or "tallest hotel", etc. Raime 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but that will leave most of the entries empty. Should I just remove the section? And for the new "Proposed" section, do you think anything in that notes section is relevant? I will remove the information you specified. Thank you for your review. Raime 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, if the "note" is not relevant to the building's current, past or future height, its name, or its relationship with other buildings on the list (e.g. "part of foo complex"), it doesn't have a purpose in this list. e.g. "Known for its unique X-bracing exterior and distinctive rooftop box design." (One Boston Place), the entire notes of the First national Bank Building, One Financial Center, or One Post Office Square. Here, size matters; anything else? Not really.
- Could you please specify somewhat? I went ahead and removed some notes, but not exactly sure what qualifies as "relevant". Do you think it would be better to just remove the entire section and replace it with a "References" section, as with the other two lists? Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under "historical tallest", South bay Tower and Trans National Place are not completed; those "estimates" have nothing to do there whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball.- Done: Buildings removed. Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Circeus 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still opposed? Raime 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I've made a few other fixes, but everything now looks okay. Circeus 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still opposed? Raime 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all my concerns addressed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 August 2007.
- Comment Why did you list thirty buildings? Why not twenty? ...or forty? Why thirty? Is there a size limit?--Crzycheetah 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 30 seemed a reasonable number. Why does the Paris structures list have 100? It just was an assigned number. If you think it more appropriate, I'll remove the final three buildings to make it an even "400 feet or more". That might be better. Raime 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be better. I Support, by the way. --Crzycheetah 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. I have removed the final three buildings, making the list buildings at least 400 feet (122 meters). Raime 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be better. I Support, by the way. --Crzycheetah 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 30 seemed a reasonable number. Why does the Paris structures list have 100? It just was an assigned number. If you think it more appropriate, I'll remove the final three buildings to make it an even "400 feet or more". That might be better. Raime 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good work. BencherliteTalk 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Certainly as good as your List of tallest buildings in Providence, which is now FL.--Loodog 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the main article Aston Villa got FA status me and Woodym555 have put our efforts into pages such as this one Captains and managers. I would be grateful for feedback and what needs doing to this article but i feel it meets all the criteria! User:Everlast1910 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralAppearances, goals, nationalities do not sort correctly.- They do if you click them twice, don't ask me why, they just do.
Notes should not be sorted, IMO.- removed section, replacement section is not sorted.
Format your references. {{cite web}} template may help.- References now formatted correctly
It would be better if you had a See also section where you could list all those "for...,see..".- I have now added one in.
--Crzycheetah 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't make one column non-sortable. Either all the columns are, or none. There's no issue with it, really, except the fact the column is not necessary to begin with. Circeus 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can. You can just add class="unsortable" before the title of that column. See Nadir Afonso artworks for an example.--Crzycheetah 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of my recent edits: I have removed the notes section, was primarily trivia that should be in own articles. I have now added the unsortable tag in to the records section that is the replacement for the notes section. I have added a see also section. I agree that the "for..." was getting a bit unsightly.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can. You can just add class="unsortable" before the title of that column. See Nadir Afonso artworks for an example.--Crzycheetah 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- No images
- FL guidelines state "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject," I dont think that it needs any images, they wouldn't add to the list. Also any images would disrupt the table format and other related featured lists do not have any (including List of Arsenal F.C. players which was the basis for the article).
- For the most parts, the "notes" are entirely unnecessary. The captains, if included, would be best placed in a separate section. Other articles (Central Coast Mariners FC and Queensland Roar FC) have sections for "notable players" and "records" instead. Keep the table short and sweet.
- No images
- Circeus 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of edits in reply: I agree with the statement about the notes, they were unneccessary and as such i have removed them. A colour coded system is now in place. With regards to the FLs that you have listed i do not think that they are relevant to an English Club. They seem to cover recent players only. I have based the list around the featured List of Arsenal F.C. players. With all due respect the list will be as long as it needs to be to ensure that it remains comprehensive.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still oppose. Information that should have been placed in separate sections from the beginning are now only available via color, which is even worse for accessibility. Besides, the captainship years should have been kept. Circeus 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please elaborate on "information". As far i know, no information has been lost. Can you suggest any separate sections? The "notes" section had degenerated into trivia, the statements that weren't trivia are dealt with elsewhere in wikipedia more accurately. The List of Aston Villa captains deals with all of the information regarding Captains. This page should not become a duplicate of that page. With regards to accessibility "Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels." The footnotes deal with what the colours mean. There not that much information covered by the colours really, hall of fames and captaincy are the only things. Woodym555 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still oppose. Information that should have been placed in separate sections from the beginning are now only available via color, which is even worse for accessibility. Besides, the captainship years should have been kept. Circeus 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral Circeus 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Weak support List has seen tremendous improvement since my previous neutral, but I'm still iffy with the use of color. Circeus 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of edits in reply: I agree with the statement about the notes, they were unneccessary and as such i have removed them. A colour coded system is now in place. With regards to the FLs that you have listed i do not think that they are relevant to an English Club. They seem to cover recent players only. I have based the list around the featured List of Arsenal F.C. players. With all due respect the list will be as long as it needs to be to ensure that it remains comprehensive.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Bill Walker (214 goals) is described as the club's top goalscorer, but Harry Hampton is listed as having scored 242 goals. Either somethin's wrong, or something hasn't been explained clearly enough.
- It has now been corrected, (FYI Bill Walker scored 244 goals)
- Further to Crzycheetah's comments, notes and rerfersnces should be in a seperate section; and anything denoting multiple spells at the club should go in the "Aston Villa career" column.
- Removed the star (*) denoting multiple spells, they were unnecessary. Also separated notes and used correct format for references.
- "Notable" is not defined in the article
- I think it does define it. The main lead paragraph defines it as such: over 100 appearances and/or a special record. These "special records" are noted in the notes section.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tompw (talk) (review) 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel my concerns have been dealt with, but the points made by others still apply. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bill Walker (214 goals) is described as the club's top goalscorer, but Harry Hampton is listed as having scored 242 goals. Either somethin's wrong, or something hasn't been explained clearly enough.
- Comment There is a new thing that I didn't like. The footnotes in the claret color don't look very well, especially when they get purple after use. I understand your desire to use the club's official colors, but maybe you could use a lighter color to represent club record holders? --Crzycheetah 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, i had been trying to change the wikilink colour in my sandbox but it didn't work out. Anyway the claret was harsh on the eye so i have changed it to green, works better now. Woodym555 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe appearances and goals columns don't sort properly. The reason being, the first entry "n/a" isn't a number, so it forces the column to sort alphabetically rather than numerically. The sort mode is dependent on the first entry in the column to be sorted at the time the sort button is clicked. See Help:Sorting.The white on blue isn't very clear for those like myself with less than perfect colour/contrast vision - to me, it looks blurry (I realise I may well be the only one for whom this is a problem).Struway2 | Talk 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I have turned the text black now to avoid any problems. Looks better for me as well actually Woodym555 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why do Walter H. Price and George Ramsay have "n/a" in the apearences and goals columns? Tompw (talk) (review) 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put: the information is not available. Every source that i have looked at does not have the information listed. As far as i know the information is not listed. Ramsay in particular is more famous for his secretary/advisor/Vice-President/directorship roles at the club than for the actual games played. Hope that helps?Woodym555 18:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, add a note to that effect - "N/A" means not applicable, which isn't the case here. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Must have had a mind blank. The N/A was originally put in to avoid the sortable problems. I have provided an explanation at the top (in the key). Woodym555 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, add a note to that effect - "N/A" means not applicable, which isn't the case here. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put: the information is not available. Every source that i have looked at does not have the information listed. As far as i know the information is not listed. Ramsay in particular is more famous for his secretary/advisor/Vice-President/directorship roles at the club than for the actual games played. Hope that helps?Woodym555 18:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a couple of quick points
Two players are listed as being "Utility" players without explaining what this means, it may be better to lose the term altogether or link them to Football (soccer) positions- Have added a note at the top of positions linking to Football (soccer) positions. Added wikilink for Utility player in columns.
Consider creating stubs for those redlinksIt's not essential and no it shouldn't be a bar for a Featured List- Will do when have time. I think over 90% are not but don't think it should disqualify the list.
Done Stubs now made (Everlast1910 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
See also - is there a need to have two links to the same article?- Nope there isn't so have removed Aston Villa F.C. which is linked in the intro anyway
Captaincy column - shouldn't this use ndash's between years as in the career column?- Yes it should and now it does Woodym555 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Foxhill 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - List is well created, nicely laid out and comprehensive. Foxhill 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The list got even better during this nomination.--Crzycheetah 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good but I don't like the images or the see also section. Buc 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Deleted images in see also section as well as deleting see also section) Woodym555 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well done. I don't think the "see also" section is needed, given that the Aston Villa template has the links already, but that's not enough to qualify my support. A couple of minor things that I fixed, in case someone wants to check: (a) changed "-" to ndashes (b) fixed the nationality sorting order problem (Serbia and Trinidad were first, before Australia) by using "<span style="display:none">England</span>" etc (is there a better way?) (c) consolidated references for e.g. FA Cup winning captains (d) for John Devey, removed the note that said "Won the First Division and 2 FA Cups" as this seemed to duplicate the following note "Won the First Division and 2 FA Cups as Captain". BencherliteTalk 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (deleted see also, THANKYOU for fixing nationalities, (only way as far as i can tell) THANKS again.) Woodym555 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Use of colour/clarity is much improved, but any more use of colour would make the list look messy again- I agree, no need for anymore colour! Don't think anything else could be highlighted by colour to be honest.
Don't think the images at the bottom add anything to the list, and they distract from the notes section.- Given the persisitenet concerns, i have removed them.
Suggest removing the See also section - perhaps add a link to current squad at the top as on List of Arsenal F.C. players, and for the rest, there is already a navbox at the bottom of the article- Already removed
Clarify the note against Tom Waring - 50 goals in League, all comps? club record or English?- Clarified
Thomas Sørensen (158 League appearances) isn't here. Are you sure there aren't any more?- I have trawled through the Comprehensice Fansite and have added as many as i have found. There may of course be the odd one that has been missed, mainly current players. I am 99% sure that this list is comprehensive. Woodym555 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struway2 | Talk 09:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral My concerns have generally been dealt with adequately and very promptly. I'm still not really very keen on colour being used as the major indicator of a particular piece of information, though the list as amended is much clearer and much less excessively colourful than it was. Struway2 | Talk 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this was just nominated, but I think I've satisfied the demands of the previous nomination (here) and I also want to throw the new format for 'higher offices' to the wolves before I try it on any more articles. --Golbez 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the first one's always free. --Golbez 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsI had some minor stuff to list here, but then went ahead and fixed them myself. I just don't know how to fix these two:- I don't think a 5-paragraph prose followed by a 4-point list is what WP:LEAD talks about.
- In the Other high offices held there are NO REFS...just kidding. Your new format looks neat, but William Wyatt Bibb worked in the US Congress and he doesn't have a "H" and "S" next to his name. I think you need to add those two letters with a note saying that he represented Georgia because, right now, it looks as if he held some high office other than the US Congress.
I believe it's going to be promoted this time. --Crzycheetah 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My sarcasm meter is down at the moment, so could you elaborate on your first bullet point? :) --Golbez 07:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no sarcasm, okay maybe a little. Just click on "edit this page" and then count how many paragraphs(mostly one sentence) there are in the lead. And then there are those four bullet points that mess the lead. In other words, it's just not as concise as it should be. That's all. List of Governors of Maryland, for example, has the lead I am looking for - three solid paragraphs. --Crzycheetah 08:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I consolidated some, but do you have any suggestion for the 'prior governors' list? Move it down in the article? --Golbez 09:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To tell you the truth, I don't know how to improve that part. It just looks sloppy right now. Maybe remove the bullet points and create a paragraph?--Crzycheetah 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I consolidated some, but do you have any suggestion for the 'prior governors' list? Move it down in the article? --Golbez 09:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no sarcasm, okay maybe a little. Just click on "edit this page" and then count how many paragraphs(mostly one sentence) there are in the lead. And then there are those four bullet points that mess the lead. In other words, it's just not as concise as it should be. That's all. List of Governors of Maryland, for example, has the lead I am looking for - three solid paragraphs. --Crzycheetah 08:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My sarcasm meter is down at the moment, so could you elaborate on your first bullet point? :) --Golbez 07:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Now, the bullets aren't as bothering as they were before because I see that it's common to have bullet points in the lead. The list itself is good, though not as illustrative as California's list.--Crzycheetah 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a reason why the "Notes" section is not located at the bottom of the article, near "References"? This is not a standard format (that I know of) used in other lists. It seems that even if the Notes only apply to the upper section, they still should be located at the bottom. Raime 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it work now? Now it makes it more clear that these are footnotes specifically for this table... --Golbez 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, but it also completely divides up the list. Clarification of a footnotes table isn't really necessary; as long as someone can click on the footnote link, it does not really matter if the section is directly below the table or at the bottom of the page. I was just saying, it seems like all other lists have References and Notes sections at the bottom of the article, so maybe this article should do the same. However, if you feel strongly otherwise, and there is no specified rule that states that Notes sections must be located at the bottom of a page, then I guess there is no strong reason to change the format (besides consistency). Raime 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it work now? Now it makes it more clear that these are footnotes specifically for this table... --Golbez 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I like how you split the references section into general and specific citations. Looks good. Geraldk 17:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although my preference as well would be for the "notes" and "references" sections both to be at the bottom of the page, as Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions seems to indicate. Having both at the bottom avoids breaking up the flow of the page, too. However, there's more than one way of doing things, I suppose, and I won't oppose purely for that. BencherliteTalk 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I still don't see a strong reason why the "Notes" section is located where it is. However, great work on a great list. Raime 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list recently had a small peer review here. The main issue that I've been having with the article and brought up at the peer review was the brief list of unreleased songs. ASCAP, which I used for Gwen Stefani discography, only has No Doubt's released songs in its database, and BMI only has two songs total for the band. I've searched everywhere I can imagine, but there don't appear to be reliable sources for any other unreleased songs, even though fansites and illegal lyric sites have a ton of them. Other than that, the list is pretty thorough and thoroughly referenced. 17Drew 05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good and well referenced. Great work! -- Underneath-it-All 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I removed the notes section because there were no notes, just citations. Now, it looks like a featured list.--Crzycheetah 07:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Like the article. Very nice and systematic. Great job! Luxurious.gaurav 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of official releases and music videos by American pop singer Hilary Duff. It is well referenced and complete. -- Underneath-it-All 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator -- Underneath-it-All 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am a supporter of discographies. I think many of them should be brought here. It is difficult for me to say how to judge comprehensiveness of discographies beyond studio albums. Furthermore with iTunes special releases this topic will get dicier. However, I think this list is a good one and don't see any glaring mistakes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good discography, well-referenced. Not much of a fan, but this should be featured. Geraldk 15:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support The Canadian certifications (which were recently added in by an anon) should probably be removed since the U.S. and UK certifications are already there and each account for around four times as many sales. I wouldn't object over this second thing, but you might want to consider converting the unreleased songs into a bulleted list since there's not much information (unless the albums for which the songs were written are known). 17Drew 07:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The unreleased songs are now in a bulleted list -- Underneath-it-All 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -I think the Lizzy mcguire part should not be there in the lead. And lead has to be a summary of the whole article and there is nothing about lizzy in the article too. It has nithing to do with her music. Discography is for songs i suppose. Luxurious.gaurav 07:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nicely structured and referenced. Not worried by reference to Lizzy McGuire, as there is a mention (under Miscellaneous) that her song for the soundtrack hasn't made it on one of her albums. (Plus now I've learnt the MOS distinction between albums and "singles"!) BencherliteTalk 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 10 support, 1 oppose. The opposition appears to be met. Promote. Crzycheetah 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did submit this to peer review, but they're very backlogged and not really meant to review lists, so I thought I'd have more luck just coming straight here. It's taken ten months of slog from both me and WP:LGBT, but we've finally completed the first of our LGBT people lists, and there should not be any LGBT person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with A that isn't on here. I've never written a list before, so I'm sure there will be a few problems that need ironing out, but I am confident that this is either FLC standard or very close to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some immediate comments that come to mind:
- Nationality. I see both "English" and "British". Perhaps this should simply be replaced with the country templates.
- Excellent work that every single entry is referenced.
- However, only one of them uses any of the {{cite templates. This needs to be fixed.
- "Notes" is mostly empty and wide; I suggest this be combined with 'Profession' as "Profession and notes", maybe.
- Some of the dates are centered, some are not. Pick one.
- Back to 'nationality', there's zero links, which is why I suggest the country templates (like {{CAN}}, etc) be used.
- In 'dates', some say simply "b. ?" Can we at least get a ballpark estimate?
- I like the use and selection of pictures.
- There's a single redlink, Lily Ann.
- That's all that I have for now. --Golbez 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reply. The use of "British" is when we don't know whether they are English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh. Where we do know this we break it down into its constituent countries, because many of the people, especially the Scots, don't consider themselves British at all. I don't use cite templates, I write all my references out long-hand because I find it easier to edit later on. I have removed Lily Ann, and I will go estimate and center birth dates, and link nationalities. I'm kinda torn on the notes column though, we use it to indicate a person's sexuality if it differs from homosexual (and I couldn't think of a better name than "notes"), and I can see your point about integrating it, but as a stand alone column, it means anyone scanning down it can immediately pick out the non-gay ones. I'm not sure, does anyone else have an opinion on this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nationalities and centering done. As an example for the birth dates, I've just looked at Paula Aboud and it looks like she was born some time in the 1950s - how should I write that? b. c.1950s? Does this count as OR?Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason for an absent birth date on these LGBT lists is the lack of a sourced birth date in the articles themselves. Guessing/estimating is a bad practice here, so I think it's better that a reader interested in a missing birthdate goes to the article and guesses/estimates for themselves based on available information there. Someone below commented on the use of "?"; it's not ideal but I can't think of a better way to get across that the info is unavailable. To me, leaving the box blank indicates more that someone didn't bother to check. I will however, implement a foot note of some kind to explain that no sourced info is available, and see how everyone likes it. TAnthony 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nationalities and centering done. As an example for the birth dates, I've just looked at Paula Aboud and it looks like she was born some time in the 1950s - how should I write that? b. c.1950s? Does this count as OR?Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support/promote, as soon as the red link is fixed. Awesome job. MrPrada 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The red link has been removed. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets all criteria as far as I know; a very complete incomplete list! I'd love to see the other letters of the alphabet promoted in the future, too! •97198 talk 12:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're on the to-do list. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- stron oppose - first: This list isn't encyclopedic. Second: There are Mistakes. Nobody knows what the real relationship between Antinoos and Hadrian was. Maybe the were gay. But we're can't really be sure. So theres no other possibility as to say no. Marcus Cyron 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of no serious scholar who suggests that Hadrian and Antinous were not lovers. On the contrary, every source I have ever read, including their Wikipedia articles, classical sources on Hadrian, and my personal copy of Hadrian's empire are all matter of fact about their relationship. The reason we know Antinous existed at all was because of his status as Hadrian's eromenos. I am genuinely astonished that you believe otherwise, what are your sources? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to this, I asked at WP:LGBT and one of the editors wrote this:
:The objection is on a level with the flat-earth theory. On the spur of the moment, I can't find a direct quote from a classical source that says "these guys slept together" in so many words. But no doubt there are such sources (Compton cites the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3 vols., Harvard Univ. Press, 1953) because the whole body of scholarly opinion seems to concur that they were in fact lovers, and early Christians attacked the worship of Antinous on this very ground. I've worked up some extracts from Compton you can read here. You might also refer to the article on Hadrian at glbtq. The onus is on the objector to provide a classical or scholarly quote that they were not lovers.--Textorus 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- P.S.--Britannica also identifies Antinous as "the homosexual lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian."
- So, I don't think your objection is valid. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure all your references are adequate. For Christina Aguilera, for example, that reference does not do an adequte job confirming that she is a bisexual. I have found a reference that seems to contradict the entry: [3]. Not necessarily saying the entry is wrong, just that another reference is needed for confirmation. Otherwise, great job. Raime 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That source doesn't contradict it, it merely says that there's no evidence that Aguilera has had a relationship with a woman. But then, the contention was never that she has, the source provided on the page makes it clear that she enjoys (or did enjoy) casual sex with anyone, be they male or female. In any case, one does not have to have had a relationship with the same sex in order to "qualify" as bisexual: examples include Megan Mullally, Billie Joe Armstrong, and Laurel Holloman, all of whom are married to opposite sex partners. However, I found a more explicit quote mentioned in a 2004 interview with Zoo: "I find it hornier looking at women than men. I love experimenting with my sexuality. If that means girls then so be it. It would be wrong to hide this side of my personality." I can swap it for the other one. That okay for you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport - I think that would be a much better reference.You should also add the above information on who exactly "qualifies" as a bisexual for the list as a reference. Your definition may not be the same as that of another user, so for clarity purposes, it is needed.Raime 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, strongly sourced and of encyclopedic merit.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Zythe. I would like to state, though, that I strongly feel what Raime is stating about Christina Aguilera on this matter. I know plenty of heterosexual (straight) women who have admitted to liking kissing girls, but that they know that they are straight or consider themselves straight because the sexual and or romantic attraction to women just isn't as intense and that they could never truly be romantically happy with a woman. Some of them have even had sex with at least one woman. Likewise, I know plenty of gay men or lesbian women who state that they themselves have gotten a little sexual pleasure from being with the opposite sex, but that they don't consider themselves bisexual because it just didn't feel like home being with the opposite sex romantically. Again, there was that intense-factor brought up and how when they tried to be romantically happy with the opposite sex, it didn't/wouldn't work, so it is complex, of course, sometimes as who to label or imply as/is a bisexual when some people just don't see themselves as bisexual due to their majority-sexual preference, even though there was a little sexual and or romantic attraction in those cases to the sex they do not favor. Anyway, sorry that I went a little off-topic there. This is a great list. And as I stated before, I support it. Flyer22 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support What a fantastic effort and congratulations on putting together this list. I too agree with the first responder that it is great that you have an individual reference for every entry. I do have a minor dislike of the question mark when the birth/death date is unknown. For a casual reader, this might look to them as if we (as in wikipedia) have not been bothered to find out when they were born/died. Is it possible to have a link to a notes section that explains in general why they are not listed. .....Todd#661 11:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Love this list, very encyclopedic and well-sourced (probably one of the best-sourced lists out there). Much thanks to Dev920, SatyrTN and other members of WP:LGBT who have worked so hard from A to Z. Oh, and the opposition about Hadrian is ridiculous. TAnthony 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wonder how the other lists will be handled going forwards - will you repeat the intro, unaltered, for each letter? I guess you could, but somehow it feels wrong. I suppose my preferred solution would be not to split by letter at all - it's really a bit of an artificial distinction. However, I realise that would make it a massive list. I'm not opposing, just wondering aloud. One real point, though - Marc Allégret is not marked as bisexual but his article says he had relationships with women. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other lists are currently structured in the same manner. However, they are not "complete" in the sense that /A is, or fully polished, which is why we're nominating them separately. Obviously, it would be preferable if we could have one massive list but it just too impractical. This is how long /A-B was - and that was after we have removed C-E. I shudder to think how long A-E would have been iif we had completed them without splitting them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Aguilera and Allegret entries have been changed and TAnthony has added a footnote to all the ? birthdates. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You need a reference or note designating who eactly "qualifies" as a bisexual for this list. Your particular definition (or at least a part of it) is "one does not have to have had a relationship with the same sex in order to "qualify" as bisexual". Clearly, regarding Flyer22's discussion above, this definition is not the one that every Wikipedia user will hold. As such, a note regarding who exactly is included on the list as a bisexual is needed. Raime 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no it isn't, and I'm not going to include one. The entire second paragraph of the lead is devoted to explaining that people define sexuality differently and concludes "See homosexuality and bisexuality for criteria that have traditionally denoted lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people." specifically to counter the fact that some Wikipedians will assume that one needs to have had a relationship with either sex in order to be bisexual, or with the same sex to be gay. The term "bisexual" in this article is added to a person's entry where the reference warrants it. I hope that that is self-evident given the very purpose of references, "a citation of a text that has been used in the creation of a piece of work such as an essay, report, or oration. Its primary purpose is to allow people who read such work to examine the author's sources, either for validity, or simply to learn more about the subject". So there really is no need for such redundancy in the article.
- For the benefit of everyone reading this, the current guidelines WP:LGBT uses regarding the categorisation of other articles where there is not such an abundance of citations, are thus:
"To consider someone a bisexual, we must be able to verify three circumstances:
- That person identifies as bisexual, regardless of relationships, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
- A person has had documented, notable relationships with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
- A person has been alleged, with evidence, by reliable sources to be, or have been, in a relationship with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey."
- These are administrative rules of thumb not relevant to the article, which bases its claims of bisexuality on the references provided, and that is why it is unnecessary to place our own definitions within the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry, I didn't know there were already guidelines in place. In that case, no note is necessary. Great job on a terrific list (I have already posted my Support above). Raime 07:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. I have to say, I am rather taken aback by the numbers turning out on this FLC, it has been a very pleasant surprise. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support, due to the missing birthdates. --Golbez 20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this lack of information is prohibitive; date of birth is not really a necessary component for this list anyway. And the information is simply not available at this time, the burden is on the articles themselves. TAnthony 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great list. Excellent referencing. Excellent use of images. Geraldk 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's difficult to believe that some people actually wouldn't consider a person gay unless that person has actually had sex with the same sex. I mean, what? It can definitely be argued that plenty of gay people never admit to being gay. And, of course, we know that some gay people don't admit to being gay until much later in life, some of which may still decide to date only the opposite sex afterwards, no matter how silly that might seem to do after having come forward on their romantic desire. My comment above was more about how people label themselves in regards to sexual orientation when it comes to having been romantically paired or linked with/to both sexes, of course. Dev920, I want to again state what an awesome list this is though. One of the best lists that I've seen on Wikipedia. Flyer22 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeReferences aren't formatted properly. Publishers are missing in most of the references.--Crzycheetah 09:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishers have not been given where they are not provided. Wikipedia policy is to place the name of the website at the beginning of the reference instead of the end where this is the case, and this is what you should see. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I see that policy you are talking about?--Crzycheetah 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since when myspace pages are considered reliable sources?--Crzycheetah 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was somewhere in one of the citation pages. There appears to be an edit war on at a few of them, maybe it got swallowed up. I will keep looking. And if it can be established that a myspace is the official myspace of the person concerned, it's the equivalent of a personal website and can be used as one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been reviewing my previous edits to see where I've referenced this policy before and I referred to it here as well - so evidently it does exist, I just have lost it's exact location. :) I will keep looking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one more concern. The Glbtq.com references are cited inconsistently. The refs #7 and #8 are cited one way (properly, IMO) while refs #20, #28, #44, #53, #57 and so on are another (improperly, IMO).--Crzycheetah 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because I've been formatting them the way I would a Britannica entry, ie, without an author, just the "from Britannica" part. Someone else started changing them but lost heart. I will change those two, I keep meaning to and then keep getting distracted. Incidentally, I can't find this refs policy I've been following for the past year and it's really starting to bug me. I'm going to ask on AN and get back to you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CITE/ES clearly shows how to cite web sites. As you can see the name of the website is located right before the retrieval date.--Crzycheetah 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I can see that, and of course you can see that that is exactly what I have done in every case where the reference has an author. But where it does not, I read to put the website at the front. Now, I have no idea where I read that, but I did somewhere because that's the policy I've been using at least since September 2006, when I wrote Jake Gyllenhaal. And I know I did read it, and I'm not going to rest until I find it again. I have posted it to AN as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Glbtq.com references need to be cited just like WP:CITE/ES shows because every Glbtq article has an author. The ref #7 is the proper way to cite glbtq references per WP:CITE/ES.--Crzycheetah 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, though I profoundly disagree. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the refs in wikipedia's featured artickles and lists are formatted that way. This list just needs to be consistent with the others. --Crzycheetah 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't stop me hating it. :) On what grounds do you still oppose? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the refs in wikipedia's featured artickles and lists are formatted that way. This list just needs to be consistent with the others. --Crzycheetah 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, though I profoundly disagree. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Glbtq.com references need to be cited just like WP:CITE/ES shows because every Glbtq article has an author. The ref #7 is the proper way to cite glbtq references per WP:CITE/ES.--Crzycheetah 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I can see that, and of course you can see that that is exactly what I have done in every case where the reference has an author. But where it does not, I read to put the website at the front. Now, I have no idea where I read that, but I did somewhere because that's the policy I've been using at least since September 2006, when I wrote Jake Gyllenhaal. And I know I did read it, and I'm not going to rest until I find it again. I have posted it to AN as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CITE/ES clearly shows how to cite web sites. As you can see the name of the website is located right before the retrieval date.--Crzycheetah 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because I've been formatting them the way I would a Britannica entry, ie, without an author, just the "from Britannica" part. Someone else started changing them but lost heart. I will change those two, I keep meaning to and then keep getting distracted. Incidentally, I can't find this refs policy I've been following for the past year and it's really starting to bug me. I'm going to ask on AN and get back to you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one more concern. The Glbtq.com references are cited inconsistently. The refs #7 and #8 are cited one way (properly, IMO) while refs #20, #28, #44, #53, #57 and so on are another (improperly, IMO).--Crzycheetah 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been reviewing my previous edits to see where I've referenced this policy before and I referred to it here as well - so evidently it does exist, I just have lost it's exact location. :) I will keep looking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is one more thing that you are not going to like. Your references are still not consistent. I see some citations where the word retrieved has a small "r" , then there are some with the capital "R". I see some citations with retrieval dates in italics and some not. There are also some instances where you just use a date without the word "retrieved". There are some ISBN numbers that are linked and some not linked at all. It's not about what I like or what you like it's about being consistent thus being professional. In other words, your references look as if several people have added them and no one proofread, that's why it is a complete mess right now. I'll help you out if you decide to use the {{cite web}} template for all citations.--Crzycheetah 06:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one R that required saving from the dreadful shame of being lowercase, so you could have fixed that yourself in the time it took you to tell me about it. The word "Retrieved" has been added where necessary. ISBNs have been linked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice that there was just one instance or "r', I just noticed and stated it to you. I made several fixes up to ref #70. --Crzycheetah 17:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted your changes to the format I have previously outlined for references without authors - whether you agree or not, this is the format that is currently being used consistently over this entire series of articles, not just /A, and thus it is important to keep it, even if I can't find the supporting policy for it. Thank you for your other changes however, they have been helpful, and I hope you will soon have all your criticisms cleared up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I neither love nor hate that format, it's just 95% of wikipedia's articles use it and this list along with its comrads need to follow them for consistency. I totally disagree that you need to use that format, but who am I when this huge encyclopedia called Wikipedia thinks otherwise.
- I'd suggest you to propose at WP:PUMP that all articles need to follow List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people's reference format for consistency. If there is a positive consensus, then go ahead and use your format.
P.S. I even found on your userpage two FAs that use the format you hate (Andrew Van De Kamp and Latter Days). Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and go with 95 percent of articles rather than 5 percent.--Crzycheetah 05:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- No. This is the style I use and it has been deployed consistently thouhout every one of the FAs I have written. The issue on Wikipedia is not that every article uses the same infoboxes/templates, but that it is internally consistent. Look at the cite template, the policy on it clearly makes it an issue of personal preference. We also allow variations in spelling, as long as the same spelling system is used throughout the article. If there has ever been one rule I have been told consistently during my FA writing time, it is "Don't automatically copy other FAs just because they're FA". Now, I appreciate the work you have put into the article yourself, though I confess I don't see why the ISBNs have to have dashes removed, but please just go with me on this point. It's never been a problem before, and to be honest, any layman who reads this article is not going to notice, even if they look at the references. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN's usually get linked automatically, but in this case they weren't unless those dashes were removed, don't ask me why, but if you know a way to get a blue linked ISBN with dashes, then please add them.
For the main problem, well, there are FAs with little or no references at all, so, yes, this one can use a different format. Anyway, while I was looking at the refs more closely, I noticed one (ref #128) wrong link. I think there needs to be a more specific link. Also, there were some books cited without ISBN's (56, 60, 63, 117, 119, 124). I don't know if it's required, though.--Crzycheetah 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Interesting. I will have to remember that one. I don't think it's obligatory, but I've added all the ISBNs anyway, those certainly are helpful to people wanting to look up a book (I discovered one book we were quoting doesn't actually exist in the edition we were citing.). The wrong link isn't wrong, it's just the website is written in frames which I clearly didn't notice when I wrote it up. I have added a comment to the footnote explaining what page to click on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The refs aren't as messy as they were before and are good enough for a featured list. Wouldn't it be easier to give this link in the references (for that #128 ref), so that people wouldn't make an additional click?--Crzycheetah 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Yes. Huh, it wouldn't bring up a url for me. I'll go change it. And thank you for your support. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The refs aren't as messy as they were before and are good enough for a featured list. Wouldn't it be easier to give this link in the references (for that #128 ref), so that people wouldn't make an additional click?--Crzycheetah 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I will have to remember that one. I don't think it's obligatory, but I've added all the ISBNs anyway, those certainly are helpful to people wanting to look up a book (I discovered one book we were quoting doesn't actually exist in the edition we were citing.). The wrong link isn't wrong, it's just the website is written in frames which I clearly didn't notice when I wrote it up. I have added a comment to the footnote explaining what page to click on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN's usually get linked automatically, but in this case they weren't unless those dashes were removed, don't ask me why, but if you know a way to get a blue linked ISBN with dashes, then please add them.
- No. This is the style I use and it has been deployed consistently thouhout every one of the FAs I have written. The issue on Wikipedia is not that every article uses the same infoboxes/templates, but that it is internally consistent. Look at the cite template, the policy on it clearly makes it an issue of personal preference. We also allow variations in spelling, as long as the same spelling system is used throughout the article. If there has ever been one rule I have been told consistently during my FA writing time, it is "Don't automatically copy other FAs just because they're FA". Now, I appreciate the work you have put into the article yourself, though I confess I don't see why the ISBNs have to have dashes removed, but please just go with me on this point. It's never been a problem before, and to be honest, any layman who reads this article is not going to notice, even if they look at the references. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted your changes to the format I have previously outlined for references without authors - whether you agree or not, this is the format that is currently being used consistently over this entire series of articles, not just /A, and thus it is important to keep it, even if I can't find the supporting policy for it. Thank you for your other changes however, they have been helpful, and I hope you will soon have all your criticisms cleared up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice that there was just one instance or "r', I just noticed and stated it to you. I made several fixes up to ref #70. --Crzycheetah 17:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 20:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the list's second nomination. The list is comprehensive, fully referenced, very stable; and all issues noted in the first nomination have been addressed and resolved. I don't see any reason for it not to become a Featured List. Kariteh 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and I do think it should've passed the first time, and I believe it would have had the nomination not been closed before some of the voters could change their votes when their issues were resolved. --AutoGyro 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great lead, fully referenced, complete and comprehenseive. I too see no reason to object. •97198 talk 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- Are there any available images to add next to the lead? It's not enough to prevent the page from getting featured, but it's a little dry as is.
- There should be a reference at the end of the third paragraph of the lead to account for all of the information between inline ref 6 and the end of the paragraph. If ref 6 covers the information, than that ref should be moved there.
- Same goes for the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, which is uncited.
- If reference 1 is the source for all the information in the tables, that needs to be noted somewhere.
- Geraldk 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to
Object- I really think the lead referencing issues need to be fixed. Geraldk 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to
- Geraldk 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I'd like to second Geraldk's comment on the possibility of adding an image.
- The section titles should incorporate a season's year(s) of original broadcast, not the number of episodes.
- "Notes and references" is a redundant section title since it has a subsection called "Notes". Probably change the section to "References" and keep the subsection as is.
- If reference 1 is used throughout the article, I'd suggest listing it as a full citation in "References". Then turn its single note into an inline citation (just the page's title).
- Comment: I fixed the references. I'd like to point out that several of the featured lists in the anime and manga wikiproject contain far less citations and much smaller leads than this list does, which by today's standards merits delisting them. Also, as far as images go, it was my belief that fair-use images were frowned upon in lists. --AutoGyro 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good fixes. You're right about the lead / referencing issues on some of those lists, and they should be fixed or nominated for featured list removal. I've started with one. I think fair use images are frowned on when they are used gratuitously and without them really illuminating anything in the article. In this case, as here and here, the use of a single, fair use screenshot of a logo or DVD cover serves to usefully expand on the reader's understanding of the subject of the list, IMO. Geraldk 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The list now has a fair use image of a DVD cover of one of the volumes that Geneon released in the US. The image has the proper tag and fair use rationale. It does add a little color to the list :P --AutoGyro 17:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per 97198, and since my comments have been addressed. Cliff smith 20:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supportper above. This list has been improved significantly since its previous nomination. G.A.S 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The list needs to expand on the following:
- It is not clear to me why only episodes 1 to 79 has American DVD Titles. This should be explained, as otherwise it would seem that the list is incomplete.
- Ep. 99 title "(First episode of any anime to be broadcast in Stereo)" — This is already provided in the lead paragraph of the section, it should not be explained in the Title field, rather only in the lead, or in the summary field.
- Ep. 100 – 102 "[Based on a Viewer's Idea]" — This should also not be provided in the Title field, rather in the lead of the section; in the summary; or as a footnote. Currently it gives the impression that the translation is based on a viewer's idea.
- G.A.S 11:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fixed the issues and added some information in footnotes :)--AutoGyro 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Support. G.A.S 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fixed the issues and added some information in footnotes :)--AutoGyro 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 3 support, 0 oppose. Three supports, plus the nominator. Promote. Crzycheetah 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who commented.
Checking against Wikipedia:Featured list criteria:
1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
- (a) the table is "Useful".
- (b) "Comprehensive": list all the wild mammal species in Florida as per The American Society of Mammalogists. Species from other sources not in the list are mentioned but not included in the list itself.
- (c) "Factually accurate" The list comes from the list compiled by The American Society of Mammalogists from several sources. Common names are identified as they are used in their own Wikipedia articles, since they vary greatly. Scientific names were updated using the Red List. The meta:cite format is used.
- (d) (e) (f) "Uncontroversial", "Stable", "Well-constructed": I hope so :-). The table will change once more species are introduced.
2. It complies with the standards:
- (a) the lead summarizes the list scope.
- (b) besides the lead, there is a little explanation on how the list was constructed.
- (c) There are several tables in the article. The orders with more species have a separate table and smaller orders are grouped. All the lists are sortable. A table in the beginning summarize the species' counts. Introductory paragraphs explain how the species arrived in Florida and their current situation, going down to subspecies level.
3. Images: I added free pictures to each animal when possible. I uploaded several pictures myself when they were missing.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank for the peer review that some editors made.
- Comments Nice riffing off List of mammals of Korea. The list manages to be independant and still very similar. However, I do not believe it is a good idea to present the IUCN status as is done. Information available only in images when it can (and arguably should) be text is not a good idea. This also obscure any particular status the species might have at state or county level (e.g. Tamias striatus is "Special Concern" in Florida, while Ursus americanus[specifically floridanus] is "Threatened".). Also, consider keeping with the 100px width. I think 150 gives the images a distracting prominence (and adds unnecessary whitespace). Circeus 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some tests on different sizing; commenters please vote on their favorite. I still like 150px better.About the threatened species, there are some problems related to it. The list is of species, not subspecies, so the threat level must be necessarily on species level; detail is provided on the introductory paragraphs. About the icons, I think they should stay how they are for keeping the same visual connection to other animal articles. The icons are ordered using soft keys.--Legionarius 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport
The lead needs to summarize your list. Talk about terrestrial and marine mammals in one paragraph. You have a lot of text in those sections, so it won't be a problem for you to sumarize that.Done Actually, I am a bit stuck on that, since the individual paragraphs are very specific. Please, do you have any articles you could refer me to?--Legionarius 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, no, I don't. You could just write something like "there are terrestrial mammals of ...families and marine mammals of ...families." I also think that you can just expand the first paragraph, no need for the additional paragraph.--Crzycheetah 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UT)
- hope it looks better now... please let me know.--70.60.86.178 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just what I needed. Thanks.--Crzycheetah 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican Gray Squirrel is the only red link; it would be better if it were a stub.Done somebody killed my redirect.--Legionarius 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]I like the 120px size because the table get broken up at 100px and 150px is just too big.Done. Good reasoning. left 120px for now.--Legionarius 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzycheetah 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great referencing, absolutely spectacular use of graphics and photographs. Kudos. Geraldk 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very, very well done. Wizardman 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. All previous concerns addressed, and no new objections or concerns raised. Promote. Raime 13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination. This is a well-organized, well-referenced list that meets criteria. There are six images in the article that fit well with the context. Out of these, one (Image:Onetenwaterfire.JPG) is a copyrighted image of a proposed building, of which there are no free images available. It has a thorough fair use rationale on its page. Any issues with this will be addressed. Overall the list is clear and informative, with a three-paragraph introduction, a free-image of the existing skyline, a list of the city's 15 tallest buildings, and an informative notes section. The list currently only has one table, but approved, proposed and under construction buildings could be broken into another table if it is deemed necessary.
The list meets Featured-list criteria:
- The list is useful and informative.
- The list is comprehensive, as it contains a list of the 15-tallest and most notable buildings in the city, as well as all tall proposed buildings.
- The list is accurate, with reference links to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and other notable sources.
- The list is not at all controversial and is very stable.
- The lead summarizes list scope, with the list's title in bold.
- The list has 5 free-use images, and one fair-use image with a thorough and complete fair use rationale.
All possible issues brought up here will be addressed. Raime 07:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it sortable and did some minor work; support. --Golbez 07:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
There are a few unsourced statements such as the Westin comment. References also aren't in a standard format. Should use cite web template for all.Fixed. Thank you.--Loodog 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Done: All buildings have at least one, if not two, sources.
- Done: References now in standard format; cite web template is used for all Internet References.
- Comment
My understanding is that you can't use the Image:Onetenwaterfire.JPG image because there is a free image available. I mean you don't need to illustrate that exact building, you just need to illustrate the tallest buildings in Providence. There are free alternatives available to illustrate the tallest buildings in Providence, such as Image:Providence-first impression.jpg or Image:Providencetextronside.JPG.--Crzycheetah 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The list does not only consist of existing skyscrapers, it also includes proposed, approved, and under construction buildings. Images of existing buildings are obviosuly necessary to portray the content. However, there are no free images available for under construction/proposed/approved images, only the copyrighted images released by developers. Since these buildings are included in the list, however, I believe that one fair use image that greatly adds to the article and is used in fair use context is available for use in the article. At least one under construction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted, and yet there are no free images available for these structures. Nevertheless, if you think keeping the OneTen image is a serious problem, I will remove the image. Raime 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the list was about "proposed buildings", then there would be no problem. I disagree with your "at least one unserconstruction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted" statement. Why should it be depicted? Anyway, I would love to keep that image, it's a great image. I just don't think we have a right to have that image in this particular list. Any third opinion would be very welcome, preferably from a copyright expert.--Crzycheetah 00:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is about existing and proposed buildings. Maybe should was a bad word choice, but it seems like one image of a proposed building would make sense to portray all content of the list. However, if we do not have a right to use the image, then you're right; it should definitely be removed. Other than the image, do you see any problems? Raime 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per Wikipedia:Non-free content, this image is fair game for fair use. If the images are going to be representative of the items in this list, we should have at least one image of a building not yet built. Whatever image that is, is irreplaceable since no one can take a picture of a building that does not exist yet. This image falls under "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." so I don't see a problem.--Loodog 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I am glad that we have a right to use that. And no, I don't see any other problems, yet.--Crzycheetah 02:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per Wikipedia:Non-free content, this image is fair game for fair use. If the images are going to be representative of the items in this list, we should have at least one image of a building not yet built. Whatever image that is, is irreplaceable since no one can take a picture of a building that does not exist yet. This image falls under "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." so I don't see a problem.--Loodog 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is about existing and proposed buildings. Maybe should was a bad word choice, but it seems like one image of a proposed building would make sense to portray all content of the list. However, if we do not have a right to use the image, then you're right; it should definitely be removed. Other than the image, do you see any problems? Raime 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the list was about "proposed buildings", then there would be no problem. I disagree with your "at least one unserconstruction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted" statement. Why should it be depicted? Anyway, I would love to keep that image, it's a great image. I just don't think we have a right to have that image in this particular list. Any third opinion would be very welcome, preferably from a copyright expert.--Crzycheetah 00:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The list does not only consist of existing skyscrapers, it also includes proposed, approved, and under construction buildings. Images of existing buildings are obviosuly necessary to portray the content. However, there are no free images available for under construction/proposed/approved images, only the copyrighted images released by developers. Since these buildings are included in the list, however, I believe that one fair use image that greatly adds to the article and is used in fair use context is available for use in the article. At least one under construction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted, and yet there are no free images available for these structures. Nevertheless, if you think keeping the OneTen image is a serious problem, I will remove the image. Raime 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Why do you rank Turk's Head Building at 11 while emporis.com, your main reference, ranks it at 20? Maybe you need a better reference than that?--Crzycheetah 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main (or at least equal to Emporis) reference is probably SkyscraperPage, which ranks it (correctly) as 11th. The only problem is that SkyscraperPage cannot be accessed as a city compilation, only by individual building files. Therefore, it cannot used as an external link. Emporis is definitely wrong about their information for the Turk's Head Building; you can find it on other sources that the building is taller than that website states. However, as long as the Turk's Head Building entry does not use Emporis as a reference, and other buildings do, it is not really a problem. Emporis often has small details wrong about certain buildings, but for others it is correct. For those it is correct for, I see no reason why it should not be used as a reference. However, if you think it would help, I'll use SkyscraperPage as a reference for every building on the list, to go along with Emporis. Raime 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In these types of lists (one that has rankings), there's always a general reference that proves that the ranking is correct. It's missing here. I'd suggest to remove that emporis link from the external links section, since it only confuses readers.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Very good point. External link to Emporis is removed. And I've also made references to SkyscraperPage on most building entries on the list, to define it as the main reference over Emporis. Any other problems that you see? Raime 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, emporis is notoriously inaccurate.--Loodog 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this link at SkyscraperPage, but it's still off. It ranks Omni Biltmore Hotel lower than Turk's Head Building.--Crzycheetah 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is not off. That link only ranks it lower because it excludes the Biltmore sign at the top of the building. However, signs such as these are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. If you look closely at the images on the diagram, you can see that the Biltmore sign is actually higher than the roof of the Turk's Head Building. Oh, and thanks for the link. I've been trying to use that diagram as an external link, but for some reason I cannot get it on my computer. But, since yours worked, I listed it under External links. Any more problems? Raime 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This explanation needs to be cited and included somewhere in the article. Otherwise, it would be the same deal as was with Emporis, I mean the confusion part.--Crzycheetah 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Very good point, that would get quite confusing. I've added the following as a reference under the Biltmore's Notes entry: "The Biltmore Hotel became the tallest in the city in 1922 including the height of the prominent BILTMORE sign on the top of the building. Such signs are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. However, other sites, such as SkyscraperPage, do not include the sign in the total height of the building. Without the sign, the Biltmore stands at 205 feet (62.5 meters), making it the 12th-tallest in Providence rather than the 9th-tallest." Raime 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the See also section because you already linked to it in the lead. Plus, fix the Woodward's book citations, preferably use {{cite book}}.--Crzycheetah 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- DoneWoodward refs now standardized with cite book.--Loodog 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DoneSee also section removed. Raime 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Very good point, that would get quite confusing. I've added the following as a reference under the Biltmore's Notes entry: "The Biltmore Hotel became the tallest in the city in 1922 including the height of the prominent BILTMORE sign on the top of the building. Such signs are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. However, other sites, such as SkyscraperPage, do not include the sign in the total height of the building. Without the sign, the Biltmore stands at 205 feet (62.5 meters), making it the 12th-tallest in Providence rather than the 9th-tallest." Raime 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This explanation needs to be cited and included somewhere in the article. Otherwise, it would be the same deal as was with Emporis, I mean the confusion part.--Crzycheetah 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is not off. That link only ranks it lower because it excludes the Biltmore sign at the top of the building. However, signs such as these are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. If you look closely at the images on the diagram, you can see that the Biltmore sign is actually higher than the roof of the Turk's Head Building. Oh, and thanks for the link. I've been trying to use that diagram as an external link, but for some reason I cannot get it on my computer. But, since yours worked, I listed it under External links. Any more problems? Raime 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this link at SkyscraperPage, but it's still off. It ranks Omni Biltmore Hotel lower than Turk's Head Building.--Crzycheetah 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, emporis is notoriously inaccurate.--Loodog 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Very good point. External link to Emporis is removed. And I've also made references to SkyscraperPage on most building entries on the list, to define it as the main reference over Emporis. Any other problems that you see? Raime 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In these types of lists (one that has rankings), there's always a general reference that proves that the ranking is correct. It's missing here. I'd suggest to remove that emporis link from the external links section, since it only confuses readers.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main (or at least equal to Emporis) reference is probably SkyscraperPage, which ranks it (correctly) as 11th. The only problem is that SkyscraperPage cannot be accessed as a city compilation, only by individual building files. Therefore, it cannot used as an external link. Emporis is definitely wrong about their information for the Turk's Head Building; you can find it on other sources that the building is taller than that website states. However, as long as the Turk's Head Building entry does not use Emporis as a reference, and other buildings do, it is not really a problem. Emporis often has small details wrong about certain buildings, but for others it is correct. For those it is correct for, I see no reason why it should not be used as a reference. However, if you think it would help, I'll use SkyscraperPage as a reference for every building on the list, to go along with Emporis. Raime 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose- I absolutely oppose mixing the listings for existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. If there's one thing the Paris list has right, it's that.
- Done: Separate list created, but unsure about what to do with Under Construction buildings that have already topped out. I included them in both lists, a sthey are officially the Xth-tallest building in the city, but are still oficially under connstruction. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes are awfully wordy. trim them and remove material that is irrelevant to the topic athand. How does the fact that One Financial Plaza is "featured prominently in the background of the TV Series Family Guy" have anything to do with its status as current second tallest building in the city? Or the fact that Turk's Head "Has a rounded V-shape footprint due to the shape of the lot."
- Done: Notes section trimmed down, Many buildings now have empty entries.
- Instead of throwing past tallest buildings in notes, makes a separate listing (either in a column or section).
Comment: This list would only have four buildings. Is this really necessary? Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Well, it turns out that all of the "tallest" information was incorrect, as neither the Biltmore or the Turk's Head Building ever surpassed the height of the capitol, which was built in 1904. Other sources rate them as tallest buildings only becaus ethe capitol is not always included as a skyscraper. However, on this list it is, so I have removed the "tallest from X to Y" information from the Notes section of every building except the Bank of America Building and the State House, which derserve mention. Since a "Historical Tallest" list would only list 2 buildings, it is really not needed. Raime 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One "under construction" is italicized,but another is between quotes.
- Done: Problem has been fixed, all now use Under Construction format. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely oppose mixing the listings for existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. If there's one thing the Paris list has right, it's that.
- Circeus 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What could be done to avoid mixing actual buildings with future is give them their own list, similar to List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, and there list theoretical ranking. Part of the interest in this list is there's a lot of new construction in the city and people wonder where the new projects would rank among existing buildings.--Loodog 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not talking about List of tallest buildings by U.S. state (if it has the same problem, then it has to be fixed). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we cannot list buildings that don't even exist yet in a list of tallest buildings! Just put them in a different section, and move them up when they are actually completed. Circeus 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is applicable here, as no certain claims are being made about buildings not under construction. As of now (August 4), all under construction buildings have topped out physically, so there's no danger of asserting the heights these buildings will rise to. All proposed buildings have heights estimated by developers, though these often change as planning progresses. Proposed buildings could therefore be given their own list, and an appoximate ranking based on current data, knowing that this could change. But by completely ruling out this material, we're removing very interesting information which I'm sure is one of the reasons readers view this article.--Loodog 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: I don't know if this was unintentional, but please don't remove my postings from the talk page.--Loodog 18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I have removed the incomplete buildings from the list, and placed them in a new list. However, I agree with Loodog. There was no presumption of exact claims being made, and it even stated in the introductory sentence: "Future structure's ranks are approximated in parentheses". However, I moved it to keep it consistent with the Paris list, which is currently the only featured "tallest buildings" list. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are two, but they were listed in different sections of WP:FL (London is the other, and I can see quite a few fixes that should be made to it...). Circeus 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as long as all other Featured lists use this format, this list needs to as well. Raime 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are two, but they were listed in different sections of WP:FL (London is the other, and I can see quite a few fixes that should be made to it...). Circeus 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the incomplete buildings from the list, and placed them in a new list. However, I agree with Loodog. There was no presumption of exact claims being made, and it even stated in the introductory sentence: "Future structure's ranks are approximated in parentheses". However, I moved it to keep it consistent with the Paris list, which is currently the only featured "tallest buildings" list. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is applicable here, as no certain claims are being made about buildings not under construction. As of now (August 4), all under construction buildings have topped out physically, so there's no danger of asserting the heights these buildings will rise to. All proposed buildings have heights estimated by developers, though these often change as planning progresses. Proposed buildings could therefore be given their own list, and an appoximate ranking based on current data, knowing that this could change. But by completely ruling out this material, we're removing very interesting information which I'm sure is one of the reasons readers view this article.--Loodog 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not talking about List of tallest buildings by U.S. state (if it has the same problem, then it has to be fixed). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we cannot list buildings that don't even exist yet in a list of tallest buildings! Just put them in a different section, and move them up when they are actually completed. Circeus 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What could be done to avoid mixing actual buildings with future is give them their own list, similar to List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, and there list theoretical ranking. Part of the interest in this list is there's a lot of new construction in the city and people wonder where the new projects would rank among existing buildings.--Loodog 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Circeus, do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still strongly opposed?
- I think I can Support now. Circeus 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Circeus, do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still strongly opposed?
Support.--Loodog 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done. --Crzycheetah 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. No new objections or comments, just supports. Promote. Geraldk 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is completely sourced and although it is not title "List of _____", the vast majority of the page is a list. Any issues people have will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Lists should be in chronological ordering.--Crzycheetah 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- It's overlinked. For example, you have Gretzky's name linked 8-9 in a row, just one would be enough. There are other instances, too. This recently passed FL shows that linking once is enough.--Crzycheetah 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That list managed to get away with using xxxx-xx... Anyway, I'll remove some of the double links. -- Scorpion0422 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentFWIW, nearly every sports related publication I have handy uses reverse chronological order for lists such as this. I don't see a problem with using the same here. However, I hate the use of xxxx-xxxx to note the year for 1999-2000 NHL season. While I find it utterly ridiculous that someone would assume "1999-00" means "1999-1900", it seems a lot of people do. Ideally, all entries should use the same date format, which means each entry should be "2006-2007", "2005-2006", etc. Resolute 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that every entry should be changed to xxxx-xxxx instead of xxxx-xx? And if it really is an issue, I'll switch the ordering around. -- Scorpion0422 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, on the other lists I've seen, ie the Devils and Avalanche players lists, they were advised to use the xxxx-xxxx format. Resolute 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, consider it done. -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, on the other lists I've seen, ie the Devils and Avalanche players lists, they were advised to use the xxxx-xxxx format. Resolute 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that every entry should be changed to xxxx-xxxx instead of xxxx-xx? And if it really is an issue, I'll switch the ordering around. -- Scorpion0422 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As an added thought though, if there are more good images of players that have won the award, it would help add some colour and fill some white space to the right of the chart. Resolute 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. I'm just a newbie here so please forgive any errors or mistakes. Here's my feedback (not based on any FA criteria):
- The lead duplicates the history sentence for sentence for naming, donated after 1923-24 season and replacement of the trophy.
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so there will be duplicate info. -- Scorpion0422 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusing about the trophy being replaced – is it the actual trophy? Where did it go? And who cares enough for it to be mentioned in the lead?
- On a re-read, I do see that the trophies look different in the photos and that the original went to the Hall of Fame. But more clarity would be helpful. Canuckle 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistent style on numbers in prose, three or 3 Done
- Spell out MLB, NBA, NFL on first reference Done
- Is it Original research or sourced that ‘the team A won trophy X times and Joe Thornton was first…’
- Comment: It's not OR to just count up the number of times a team has won the trophy; there's no other way to do that than just count. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overuse of wikilinks to teams
- Instead of a column titled "Win#", I’d prefer to see a column titled "Notes" with details on notability for that year's winner: ie “First win” “First player to win after mid-season trade” “also won the Art Ross”….”lead all defencemen in scoring that year.” “First American” “First European” "Tied with Iginla, won tiebreaker based on more first-place votes"
- Comment: I wanted to avoid a notes section because I felt it wasn't necessary. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any references from outside the NHL?
- Comment: It's an NHL trophy; the IIHF has no say in the trophy whatsoever, so there probably aren't any references outside the NHL. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By outside of NHL, I meant nhl.com and its sub-site(?) legends of hockey. You know, newspapers, books and stuff. Canuckle 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any controversial picks?
- There will always be controversial picks, but I couldn't find any sources that definitively said "____ is the worst choice" -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any controversy in reliable sources over the selection methods (eg are sportswriters the best qualified to choose?) or an Eastern bias for Eastern players?
- Couldn't find any. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When does the vote take place? After or before the playoffs? Does playoff success play a factor in the selection? Add a sentence to distinguish it from the Conn Smythe MVP trophy for the playoffs. Done
- The ranking method of the vote is pretty standard but could use a sentence or two more of clarification. Is a first-place vote worth 10 points and a second-place five? You mention a tie, was there ever a unanimous selection or a notable landslide choice?
- Do they typically announce 3 or 4 contenders prior to the awards ceremony? Is that just hype, in that they know who won but just tease the top 3 for entertainment? Done
- When and where do they give the awards out? Done
- You mentioned the Hall of Fame, are there any other impacts on players selected? Salary? Bonuses?
- Note that the sportswriters also vote on Lady Byng and Calder.
- That's not really notable. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilink Professional Hockey Writers Association then start an article on it so that it’s not a redlink.
- Has the trophy ever been damaged or have rituals associated with it like the Stanley Cup? Does the winner keep it all year?
- Not that I could find. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What the h**l is the actual trophy supposed to look like anyway? Who made it and what is it made of? Are player's names inscribed on the bottom and replaced on regular basis?
- Is there regular media speculation each year about the merits of candidates and can that be reflected in the article?
- How do voters evaluate "Most Valuable" anyway? Is there an official rule book that you can quote as to criteria?
- Personally, I favour the chronological order and the 19xx-xx year format. Canuckle 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of your suggestions would require a reliable source, which there are few of. However, I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As follow-up, just wanted to note for others that I too did some googling for reliable sources and the current article reflects generally what is out there. Canuckle 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although I'm not willing to withhold support based on these comments (at least initially), I agree with what a lot of Canuckle says. I think we could definitely expand the prose section of this article to more than just a brief description of the trophy. In fact, I'm wondering why the list of winners is even included in the article; Stanley Cup and List of Stanley Cup champions are two separate and distinct pages. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are only 82 winners listed here, and if you split the two, the main page would be a stub. And I would love to add a long, detailed history on the trophy, but I can only add what the sources allow. Besides, a lot of it, such as salary bonuses, falls more under the category of trivia rather than vital information. -- Scorpion0422 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean a list of individual player bonuses. But it could stand a line that says the NHL-NHLPA collective agreement allows players to earn performance bonuses for placing in top 10 of voting for Hart (primary source = [4]) Canuckle 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think it's that notable, because of course bonuses will be given out. But, if you feel strongly enough, you can go ahead and add info about that. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Though I do think more images (of the players with the trophy, rather than them by themselves) would be nice, it is probably hard to get a hold of free-images like that. BsroiaadnTalk 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Most of my concerns were addressed, and I don't want to be nitpicky about every little thing; I know how hard FLCs can be. You've got my vote. Anthony Hit me up... 07:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good work, reads like a dream and is a very informative topic. Croat Canuck talk 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support what everyone else said already. Kaiser matias 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and a comment; I'd like to see active players highlighted. --Krm500 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and active players higlighted Done IrisKawling 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Other comments. Promote. Geraldk 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of members which contanis notable members of a Greek-letter Fraternity that has gone through peer review and should meet the FL criteria. Thanks for any feedback and of course, Support.--Ccson 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very well-written and NPOV list, full of famous and notable people. It is often hard(er) to write a list so well, and I like the fact that it is highly-organized, as well as directly to the point. Jmlk17 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for reviewing the article and your support.
OpposeRemove copyrighted images.--Crzycheetah 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- First, thank you for reviewing the article and I will be quick to make your requested changes. I obtained the images from the main article for each listed member, but if you can be more specific of which images you find objectionable; I will remove them? Thank you again.--Ccson 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked half of the list and found five of them, there may be more. --Crzycheetah 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which five copyrighted images did you find?--Ccson 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hid them, click here.--Crzycheetah 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which five copyrighted images did you find?--Ccson 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked half of the list and found five of them, there may be more. --Crzycheetah 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, thank you for reviewing the article and I will be quick to make your requested changes. I obtained the images from the main article for each listed member, but if you can be more specific of which images you find objectionable; I will remove them? Thank you again.--Ccson 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you in support now?--Ccson 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as I said I just checked half of the list. There may be more. --Crzycheetah 08:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but, if you're not going to verify the copyright status of the remaining images, how will you be able to remove your opposition?
- That's your job as a nominator to verify the copyright status of the remaining images. I randomly picked 3 images, two of them had copyright issues. I suggest you to go one by one and remove all copyrighted images. The copyrighted image is the one that has a copyrighted tag on it.--Crzycheetah 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you in support now?--Ccson 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Ccson 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't see any copyrighted images now. The next problem I have is the overlinking. There's no need to link the people's name under their photos (in captions). They are linked in the list already, so what's the point of linking them again? --Crzycheetah 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I modeled this list exactly like the List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni which has the names linked on the pictures, so I didn't think it was in violation of the Featured List Criteria. Can you provide a complete list of objections so I can address them at the same time?--Ccson 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't about violating the criteria, it was more like following the guidelines. Your last question had me laughing for a minute. It's just that I saw copyrighted images and stopped reviewing the list. Now, there are two things that bother me:
There are many red links or unlinked names. I assume that some members are not linked because they are just not notable enough to have their own articles. If so, I don't agree about that. There is a sentence at the beginning of the list that says, "Here follows a list of notable Alphas." If they are notable, then each of them needs to have an article about him. If they are not notable, then why are they on the list?
- Surely you're not suggesting that's someone notability is judged base on an article in Wikipedia. This article can and should stand on it own mertis because I have sourced all notability listed. In fact, there is no reason for a reader to view an article to verify facts in this article. The links are provided when there is a corresponding article, but wikipeda does not require that all names listed in an article have wikilink. I created the list based on who was notable based on their contribution to the category. I will remove the redlinks.--Ccson 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough.--Crzycheetah 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no explanation about Pledge chapters.
What do they mean? How one gets those Pledge chapters? What is the difference between any two?There are people who don't have any, why not? As you can see there are a lot of questions about this column, so it needs an explanation.
- Done I don't know which chapter each person pledged, but that's not what makes them notable, it's an optional field.--Ccson 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? Is having a pledge chapter an option one may take? Or you mean that Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field?--Crzycheetah 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter, Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field. sorry for the confusion.--Ccson 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to note that the pledge chapters of those members are unknown because it shows that as if they didn't deserve any.--Crzycheetah 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I used the Featured list List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni as a model and it doesn't have anyhing for "Class Year" for students where they haven't yet verified the year.Would you prefer "Unknow", "?" "TBD" (to be determined), or something entirely different from these three suggestions?--Ccson 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing was missing in that Georgia list. I'd suggest you add ''unknown'' in all cells that misses thosepledge chapters.--Crzycheetah 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I wonder why I would make such a statement that could easily be verified? What does your computer display for the following persons: Chucn Sannipoli, Stephen Pace, John Brown, lll, James Ellis, Nicole Jordan and Andy Runton? Thanks--Ccson 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: List of Dartmouth College alumnifor names such as Josh Taylor, Thomas Okama, or Stan Brakhage where they list Stan as "Never Graduated", but the others who did graduate, but class year is "unkown", is left blank. There are many more, I just stopped checking half way through. I appreciate your suggestion, however; I just want this list to match the standard that has been set by current Featured List. Do you still require ''unknown'' in all cells that missing a pledge chapters?--Ccson 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd make the same suggestion to any of those FL's if I saw their nominations. I just dislike blank cells. Blank cells imply that the list is unfinished and requires additional info. If there is a special reason why those cells have to stay blank, than it has to be mentioned somewhere. I assume that you can't find out their pledge chapters, that's why I am suggesting the unknown note. I understand that this is somewhat of a nitpicking on my part, but there may be some people(readers) who could assume that those without pledge chapters didn't deserve any and their perception of those members worsens. I think we shouldn't leave anything for the readers to assume. Everything needs to be explained. This list may very well be a standard for future FLCs of this category.--Crzycheetah 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Nothing was missing in that Georgia list. I'd suggest you add ''unknown'' in all cells that misses thosepledge chapters.--Crzycheetah 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks!!
- Again, I used the Featured list List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni as a model and it doesn't have anyhing for "Class Year" for students where they haven't yet verified the year.Would you prefer "Unknow", "?" "TBD" (to be determined), or something entirely different from these three suggestions?--Ccson 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to note that the pledge chapters of those members are unknown because it shows that as if they didn't deserve any.--Crzycheetah 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter, Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field. sorry for the confusion.--Ccson 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? Is having a pledge chapter an option one may take? Or you mean that Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field?--Crzycheetah 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may see some other things that look bad to me, so I may be back with some more objections. This list is only going to improve from this.--Crzycheetah 06:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't about violating the criteria, it was more like following the guidelines. Your last question had me laughing for a minute. It's just that I saw copyrighted images and stopped reviewing the list. Now, there are two things that bother me:
- Weak Support I really believe that this list needs a star, but the article size (113,186 bytes) worries me.--Crzycheetah 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very well done list. 2much 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Extremely well done list.-RoBoTamice 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. No further debate since Aug. 1. Promote. Geraldk 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this list meets the featured list requirements, but I am unsure if this is the kind of list usually "featured". Awadewit | talk 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral- The lead does not properly indicate the topic within it's first paragraph (that should be easy to fix, though).
- Fixed. Awadewit | talk 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some notes do not make much sense (cf. the Socrates and Jesus Compared one)
- This was supposed to be explained in this sentence from the lead: "This list of Joseph Priestley's works is taken from Ronald E. Crook's A Bibliography of Joseph Priestley 1733-1804 (unless otherwise noted)" - is this not clear? Awadewit | talk 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of all the works linked, not a single one is blue.
- Is this a requirement? I am not ready to write pages on these texts (I am still working on Joseph Priestley). If this is a requirement, I will withdraw the nomination. I am not interested in creating articles for all of these texts at the moment. Awadewit | talk 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comprehensiveness of the list is far too fuzzy
- The list is as comprehensive as it can be. It is based on the only scholarly bibliography of Priestley's works. It has been supplemented using the bibliography of Priestley's modern biographer. That is the best I can do. Anything else would be original research. In fact, some might even consider the combination original research. Awadewit | talk 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead does not properly indicate the topic within it's first paragraph (that should be easy to fix, though).
- Circeus 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, if items are linked, I think it is reasonable to expect for a FL some/most of them will be blue.
- I understand your view on that, but I don't really think that the redlinks detract from the list as a list or decrease its usefulness. Awadewit | talk 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not be so uncertain as to the comprehensiveness. Removing the notes about "It is not known whether or not it is complete." in the sections would be a good idea. Circeus 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But those sentences give the list integrity! I cannot say with certainty that those are all of Priestley's scientific papers, for example. I see no reason to pretend that the lists are complete if we can't prove that they are. Awadewit | talk 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, if items are linked, I think it is reasonable to expect for a FL some/most of them will be blue.
Leaning towardsSupport. I've not got time for a full comment ATM; I just didn't want the nomination removed before I got round to it. This list should be tested against 1a3 of the FLC. That removes the requirement for blue links provided the items in the list are generally not notable enough for articles. The set of items is certainly well defined and finite. I'm prepared to accept Awadewit's explanation that this is as complete as we expect for such a historical subject. I'll add some more suggestions/questions later... Colin°Talk 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions: Since this list/article is about his literary work, could you perhaps spend a little longer discussing this aspect in the lead. Additionally you could do so in the lead for certain sections. There is no rule that says all the prose must be up the top. We have several FLs were each section has a short paragraph or two. For example, the main article says "his most important scientific works are the six volumes of Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air". You mention he published "a seminal work on English grammar" but there's no indication of what that was (either in the text or a footnote). I guess it is The Rudiments of English Grammar. (Note: I haven't read the main article yet, but am inspired to do so...) Were there any books/papers that he had difficulty publishing or that were discovered after his death? I'm looking for extra info about the works themselves rather than the experiments, theories or beliefs.
- The list is a little dry (lots of lists are). Could it be enlivened with some pictures of the books or papers (title page or an illustration he drew)? I see there are some in the main article. They will all be out-of-copyright.
- (Sorry, I just saw this comment). See the newly decorated page. Awadewit | talk 14:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Full-text online works" section is really an "External links" section and perhaps should be renamed as such, with an sentence introducing the list of full-text online works. The editions Google scanned are subtly different from those in the list (later date, different publisher, etc). I don't know how much that affects the text, but if I wanted to be completely thorough/anal, I'd reformat them into full cite-book style entries with Google's publisher/date/location/etc as listed in the "About this book". Colin°Talk 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I didn't really want to go through all of that. I will start today. Awadewit | talk 14:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's done. Awadewit | talk 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think the "Last retrieved on..." is strictly necessary? I can understanding it for sources and for using archive.org if the link breaks, but I'm not aware that archive.org looks at Google Books. Colin°Talk 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what they archive. If they don't archive it now, they may in the future, which would make these dates useful. I was simply trying to be thorough. You can remove them if you want. Awadewit | talk 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about writing paragraphs for each section. That starts to look like an annotated bibliography and I have no sources for such a thing. Also, privileging the publication history of one book over another is highly suspect (why should I only tell the history of the ones with which Priestley had trouble?). I will fix the grammar reference - that should be clearer, I agree. I'm glad that the bibliography made you interested in the article. :) Awadewit | talk 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just a suggestion and I didn't know whether it was feasible. I just thought it would be appropriate to focus more on the works themselves. As you say, you can only work with what sources you have. Colin°Talk 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of Priestley's books would not warrant a separate page. I have redlinked the ones that I believe could be written, with the available scholarship. That undertaking is vast, though, and not one I am committed to at the moment. Awadewit | talk 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps just create a stub for these? I appreciate a full GA quality article would be loads of work. It isn't a requirement, but would make both this list and the main article look more complete. Colin°Talk 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an incredible amount of work. I have been urged in the past to create stubs like this, but after more experience on wikipedia, I decided that such stubs were not worthwhile. Here is one article that I whipped up recently that I consider a "start". I don't like to create uninformative articles, I'm afraid. I am of the philosophy that a redlink is better than a stub. All of the redlinked works are discussed in the Joseph Priestley article and its associates, Joseph Priestley and education and Joseph Priestley and Dissent. It is fine with me if you want to create all of those stubs using information from the JP pages, but I will only create the pages when I have something a bit more substantial to contribute. Awadewit | talk 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I wish I could "whip up" a "start" that was as good as yours. Someone seeing that stub you created might be inspired to expand it. A newbie might be particularly nervous about starting a new article, but happy to contribute to an existing one. Someone Googling for "Of the Conduct of the Understanding" will find the stub in the first page. In fact, I've just noticed it is on WikiSource. I should find out how to link to that... Anyway, I don't know whether redlinks or stubs are better for inspiring contributions. This isn't a necessary requirement for this FL. Colin°Talk 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that hard to create a good "start" article - you just have to know where to go for the research. That is a good point about google - I had not considered that. Perhaps I will try to make some stubs for some of the redlinks. I feel less comfortable making stubs for the scientific works, so I will leave those to someone else. Awadewit | talk 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I wish I could "whip up" a "start" that was as good as yours. Someone seeing that stub you created might be inspired to expand it. A newbie might be particularly nervous about starting a new article, but happy to contribute to an existing one. Someone Googling for "Of the Conduct of the Understanding" will find the stub in the first page. In fact, I've just noticed it is on WikiSource. I should find out how to link to that... Anyway, I don't know whether redlinks or stubs are better for inspiring contributions. This isn't a necessary requirement for this FL. Colin°Talk 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an incredible amount of work. I have been urged in the past to create stubs like this, but after more experience on wikipedia, I decided that such stubs were not worthwhile. Here is one article that I whipped up recently that I consider a "start". I don't like to create uninformative articles, I'm afraid. I am of the philosophy that a redlink is better than a stub. All of the redlinked works are discussed in the Joseph Priestley article and its associates, Joseph Priestley and education and Joseph Priestley and Dissent. It is fine with me if you want to create all of those stubs using information from the JP pages, but I will only create the pages when I have something a bit more substantial to contribute. Awadewit | talk 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps just create a stub for these? I appreciate a full GA quality article would be loads of work. It isn't a requirement, but would make both this list and the main article look more complete. Colin°Talk 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of Priestley's books would not warrant a separate page. I have redlinked the ones that I believe could be written, with the available scholarship. That undertaking is vast, though, and not one I am committed to at the moment. Awadewit | talk 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a very detailed bibliography compiled from all the available sources. I have watched it develop and hopefully it will help set a standard on how to do bibliographies at Wikipedia. The commentaries about how complete the list is should remain. It isn't a case of Awadewit not doing the proper research (possibly this is now the most complete bibliography of Joseph Priestley in one place?) but simply indicating where there is some doubt as to whether all works have been found. Obviously there are limits on how complete any list can be, and pointing out those limits will help others to research the subject further. I think it's of real value to those studying Joseph Priestley because as has been stated before such a list cannot be found anywhere else on the internet. Anyways, examples of well done/researched bibliographies are needed in the featured lists category. Hopefully this one makes it.-BillDeanCarter 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is there a "—" at the beginning of each entry?--Crzycheetah 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes the place where the name would normally be. Circeus 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Crzycheetah 00:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes the place where the name would normally be. Circeus 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have various suggestions and questions; I'll serve them up as I can be bothered to type them in. First, the section on papers in Theological Repository. (i) We read This list of Priestley's theological papers is taken from Robert Schofield's biography of Priestley. It is not known whether or not it is complete. This seems odd to me, as they're all in one periodical, and I'd have thought that Schofield and his assistants would have been able to check that systematically: that it would be the one reliable part of the bibliography. Does he hint otherwise? (ii) Why "—." at the start of every entry? (Just say at the top that all of these papers are by Priestley alone.) (iii) Surely the reader doesn't need to be told "Theological Repository" dozens of times. Change each to "Vol." and at the top of the section; These papers were published in Theological Repository as specified (or similar). -- Hoary revised 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Schofield's bibliography is listed as a "Selected bibliography" at the back of his book, I cannot be sure if the lists are complete. I don't know what he did. Awadewit | talk 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say all of the works are by Priestley (unless otherwise specified) in the lead. The — is standard bibliographical practice. 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, repeating Theological Repository is standard bibliographical practice. I am following the sources here. Also, if someone were later to add other papers from somewhere else, it would be better to have each entry as specific as possible. Awadewit | talk 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I think is standard bibliographic practice is to have a longish line (not an em dash; more like a line the length of two or three em dashes) at the start of an item to mean "same author(s) as above". Thus: Dickens, Charles. Bleak House; [line]. Hard Times; Trollope, Anthony. The Way We Live Now. But in this section of the Priestley bibliography there is no ultimate "above". If the first line were to have "Priestley, Joseph" instead of the line, then the result would make sense, in one way; but the whole enterprise would still be unnecessary, because they're all by Joseph Priestley. Of course there's the possibility that somebody will later find a paper in TR that should be described as by "Priestley, Joseph, and Joe Bloggs" and that is worth adding, rendering "Priestley, Joseph" necessary elsewhere for contradistinction; but if that happens it can easily be fixed with a text editor.
- Frankly, I don't see the problem here. I use the lines since there are texts not by Priestley in the list (see edited works). If you want to oppose the list based on its use dashes, that's fine, but I feel that such stylistic decisions are irrelevant to the usefulness of the list. Awadewit | talk 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly bibliographic practice to specify the name of the periodical. I'd have no objection to the repetition of "Theological Repository" half a dozen or even twenty times within a longer list. But when all of these are within a section explicitly titled "Theological Repository" it seems potty. At the very least retitle this "Theological papers" or similar -- though a much more efficient solution would be to retain the title and skip the laborious repetition.
- I have changed the section title to "Theological papers". Awadewit | talk 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I missed the fact that this is from something presented as a "select bibliography". -- Hoary 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This list of Priestley's scientific papers is taken from Robert Schofield's biography of Priestley. It is not known whether or not it is complete. My reaction: Well of course this isn't known. But what does Priestley say about the likelihood that other pieces are yet to be discovered? And what do the reviewers of the books say? [More comments/questions later.] -- Hoary 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Priestley doesn't say anything. He is long dead. :) Again, Schofield's bibliography is a "Selected bibliography", so I can't be sure if the list is complete. Note that I did not make this statement at the top of every section - it is not a statement that reflects the vagaries of history. It is a statement that reflects the fact that Schofield's bibliography is identified as incomplete. I can provide no more information than my sources provide. (What reviewers?) Awadewit | talk 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheesh, I hadn't realized quite how sleepy I was when I wrote that nonsense. Of course I was wondering about what Schofield wrote, not what Priestley wrote. But doesn't Schofield comment in a preface or elsewhere about the degree of selectiveness of his "selection"? As for reviewers, I'd have guessed that Schofield's work would have been reviewed, if not in the TLS or NYRB then at least in one or two scholarly journals of the history of science, of theology or whatever. Did you look for such reviews? (Of course this is not the kind of thing that WP editors normally dream of doing, and normally I wouldn't ask; but you seem both to have access to an excellent academic library and to be unusually and commendably energetic and thorough.) ¶ I'll comment more a bit later. Hoary 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Schofield does not explain his selection criteria. I have never seen a "Selected bibliography" that does. Schofield's book is not the kind of thing that gets reviewed in the TLS or the NYRB - it is too scholarly. Happily, I have read academic reviews of the book. They do not discuss the bibliography (again, I've never seen an academic review that discusses a book's bibliography); they only discuss the content of the biography. Please understand - Schofield wrote the first modern biography of Priestley, that is what is interesting about his book. Reviewers aren't going to waste space talking about the bibliography. Awadewit | talk 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheesh, I hadn't realized quite how sleepy I was when I wrote that nonsense. Of course I was wondering about what Schofield wrote, not what Priestley wrote. But doesn't Schofield comment in a preface or elsewhere about the degree of selectiveness of his "selection"? As for reviewers, I'd have guessed that Schofield's work would have been reviewed, if not in the TLS or NYRB then at least in one or two scholarly journals of the history of science, of theology or whatever. Did you look for such reviews? (Of course this is not the kind of thing that WP editors normally dream of doing, and normally I wouldn't ask; but you seem both to have access to an excellent academic library and to be unusually and commendably energetic and thorough.) ¶ I'll comment more a bit later. Hoary 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I am stunned at the nit-picking here. I do not know what is normally a FL, but if it is not something like this, then something is wrong. Of course this cannot be known to be complete or not. But it has a tremendously large amount of good material in it ! Maybe in 20 years someone will discover a box of manuscripts that were hidden in an attic and find a few more publications, who knows? But for now, this is a pretty good stab at it, I would venture. And it is also a good foundation to build on, if more are found, or it might even be a spur to some later biographer to get a more complete bibliography than what is here or in the modern biography. That is not a reason to dump on this impressive effort, however. And someone wants these to be linked to completed articles? Wow, those are pretty high standards. Even if we got there, we would have to start with something, and that is a list like this. I am not sure each of these publications would be worthy of an encyclopedic article, however.--Filll 03:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Hoary has responded to this and other comments on the talk page.
- Filll, this is an unusual list for FLC. I don't think we've had a list before that not only contains no blue links in the entries, but has a good handful of red links to boot. Until 2007, the FLC requirements were that FLs had to serve a navigation purpose by linking to articles. A few exceptions came up (such as timelines) and after some discussion, two more list-styles were introduced. This list falls into the 1.a.3 category in the criteria, and we just haven't had many of those. I don't know whether I speak for others here, but my worry when introducing that category was that we'd get lists of trivia or data-dumps that had no encyclopaedic value. Without the navigational linking, it has got to be that bit special, I think. That may be why so many comments are focussing on presentation rather than content. Colin°Talk 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I responded on the talk page.--Filll 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping that the redlinks would spur others to create the articles. Colin, do you consider this page a "data dump" or "trivia" that has no encyclopedic value? Awadewit | talk 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Och, no. I wouldn't have supported it if I did. The author of these works is significant enough (and his works are significant enough) that listing them has value. But you can see how someone could just run an author-search on PubMed (for example) and produce a list of papers on a modern author that would almost certainly not be of value to WP. That's why the "significant topic of study" clause was added. Colin°Talk 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping that the redlinks would spur others to create the articles. Colin, do you consider this page a "data dump" or "trivia" that has no encyclopedic value? Awadewit | talk 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for superb work. Awadewit deserves kudos for her scrupulously correct and complete (45 kb!) rendering of Joseph Priestley's works, which should benefit all serious students of Priestley and related fields, particularly Unitarianism and the history of chemistry. Reading the titles of his works sheds a new and fuller light on Priestley's thinking (and that of his contemporaries) that neatly complements several historical and biographical articles at Wikipedia. To me, this list fulfills the nominal criteria but, more broadly, it represents the sort of article upon which Wikipedia's claim to being an encyclopedia rests. Willow 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, for goodness sake. The nominator is several steps ahead of the quibblers, to say the least, and I suggest this be featured as soon as possible, to save Wikipedia from further embarrassment. This is the best piece of bibliography I've come across on Wikipedia.
- I'm sure you are right. It is just the first one we've had on FLC. The process runs for another six days... Colin°Talk 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I don't very much care for the box at the top of this page and would like to record a polite objection to it. Please do not put me in it.qp10qp 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care for it either. And if people object enough that they don't want to be in it, well then it is useless as well as objectionable. I've removed it. Colin°Talk 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A few issues have been debated, but I trust Awadewit's scholarship and thoughtful reading of WP policies. –Outriggr § 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Geraldk 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another list from the WP:COUNTYLISTS. This list follows the guidelines of the county lists. There may be some syntax errors in the lead. If you find them, fix them for me, please. Thank you.--Crzycheetah 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Given my involvement with similar lists, I'd like to declare that the only edit I made to this was a minor cleanup of the lead). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Raime 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Underneath-it-All 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, i don't see any problems. Wizardman 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Geraldk 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is closely modelled on similar Featured Lists. It is useful (pulls together information not otherwise available in one place), comprehensive (includes all current counties), factually accurate (with references), stable (assumeing Hawaii doesn't change the county boundries), uncontroversial (no disputes) and well-constructed (clearly laid out); the lead gives background information, and the headings and TOC are appropriate; and images are all the quick-loading SVG versions. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If possible, could the okinas ( ʻ using {{okina}} ) be added where necessary? Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Tompw (talk) (review) 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since the Origin is the same for all of them, perhaps that column could be removed and a statement to that effect be included in the intro? A mention of Kalawao's status as a leper colony could also be moved to the intro. Perhaps also noting the extremes would be good - how Honolulu County is technically the longest in the world, and how Kalawao County is the smallest by land area (though not by total area), and how it's the second smallest county. I could do this myself, but I wanted to propose the removal of the Origin column first. --Golbez 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose to remove the creation dates, too. They all were created in 1905. --Crzycheetah 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the origin and history columns, and put the info in the lead instead. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose to remove the creation dates, too. They all were created in 1905. --Crzycheetah 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'd like references for the "etymology" section, even though they're kind of self-explanatory.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Golbez 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I don't see any glaring problems. Wizardman 17:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Geraldk 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Geraldk 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created this list and showed it to an experienced list editor, who said it could be ready for FLC. Thought I'd nominate it and see. Acdixon 14:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. :> --Golbez 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you re-format the first table(symbols section)? The description needs more space, it just looks unreadable. --Crzycheetah 08:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've widened it some and narrowed the quotebox for the pledge. At what screen resolution is it unreadable? Acdixon 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any difference. The screen resolution is 1024x768. The description text overlaps with the flags that are on the left of the text. One more question: Why do you use the thumb parameter for the flag images?--Crzycheetah 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the thumb parameter. Not sure why I had it there in the first place. As for the table bleed-over, I tried it at 1024x768 and still didn't see the problem. Then I switched from Mozilla Firefox to Internet Explorer, and I am able to see some bleed-over on the left side. Not sure what the root of this problem is or how to fix it, but apparently it's one of those stupid IE quirks. I'll try to play with it a bit, and I'm open to any suggestions that anyone might have about how to fix it. Acdixon 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the seal and flag images to the rightmost column, which seems to have fixed the bleed-over. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any difference. The screen resolution is 1024x768. The description text overlaps with the flags that are on the left of the text. One more question: Why do you use the thumb parameter for the flag images?--Crzycheetah 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've widened it some and narrowed the quotebox for the pledge. At what screen resolution is it unreadable? Acdixon 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aren't Kentucky Colonels something of a state symbols? 67.174.57.188 04:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that quite falls under the same umbrella as other state insignia, as it does not appear in KRS Chapter 002, which deals with state symbols. It is more of an honorary title. Acdixon 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (conditional) - I'm not certain on this, but I don't understand how the state flag and seal can be tagged and licensed as one's own work. Otherwise, the list looks great. Broad, well illustrated and referenced. Nice work. Lara♥Love 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The flag image is available at The Commons. I'm not a copyright expert, so I can't say whether it is possible to release the rendition of the seal into the public domain, but knowing the editor who created it, I have no doubt that it's his original work. Acdixon 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support With regard to the copyright issue commons:Image:Flag_of_Kentucky.svg states "This image is a U.S. state, federal district, or insular area flag. Such flags are in the public domain." The seal image is based on the flag, so I don't see any issue here. (The image of the seal is just showing part of the flag). Tompw (talk) (review) 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although I'd prefer the references split up into two groups General and Specific and get rid of the Notes headline. There are no notes in the Notes section, only specific references.--Crzycheetah 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great list. Geraldk 12:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current Opinion | User |
---|---|
Support | Crzycheetah |
Support | Golbez |
Support | LaraLove |
Support | Raime |
Not sure why this failed the first time. All links in the list are blue now. Buc 20:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe lead needs expanding. Lack of important notes, see Chicago Bears seasons for the notes that need to be mentioned.--Crzycheetah 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- How 'bout now? Buc 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. Support. --Crzycheetah 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How 'bout now? Buc 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lost Divisional Playoffs (Panthers) 29-23 (2OT)" Best. Game. Ever. Oorah Panthers. Oh, and support. Just one suggestion - the Bears list makes the team name changes very obvious by using the team colors, perhaps the bars showing the team name/location change here could get the same treatment? --Golbez 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Appears to meet the criteria to me. Lara♥Love 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More Support is still needed for the list to pass. Buc 08:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets criteria, useful and informative. --Raime 20:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Pinkkeith 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Other comments. Promote. Crzycheetah 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current Opinion | User |
---|---|
Support | Crzycheetah |
Support | Geraldk |
Weak support | Wizardman |
Support | Acdixon |
Support | Phoenix2 |
Support | LaraLove |
Support | Raime |
This is closely modelled on similar Featured Lists. It is useful (pulls together information not otherwise available in one place), comprehensive (includes all current counties), factually accurate (with references), stable (assumeing Wyoming doesn't change the county boundries), uncontroversial (no disputes) and well-constructed (clearly laid out); the lead gives background information, and the headings and TOC are appropriate; and images are all the quick-loading SVG versions. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The area and population columns don't sort properly. Pepsidrinka 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does now. Thanks for pointing this out. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As the main contributor, I can't refuse the urge to support. Thanks, Tompw, for your edits and this nomination. I don't know about you, Tom, but I modelled this list to List of counties in Arizona. ;) --Crzycheetah 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... serves me right for copying a previous nomination of mine. Changed it now. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - though it would be useful where possible (as suggested in the List of counties Arizona nomination) to have birth + death dates for the people counties are named after. Geraldk 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support, there's a lot of redlinks in the etymology, but I can look past it. Wizardman 15:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a list of counties and all counties have blue links. I want to remove these remaining redlinks because I think that they are not notable enough to have their own articles. Any thoughts? --Crzycheetah 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Just as high quality as similar, already featured, lists. Acdixon 14:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks fine to me. -- Phoenix2 (holla)
- Support - Appears to meet the criteria and it looks goog to me. Lara♥Love 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets criteria, definitely looks good. --Raime 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. It's difficult to meet the objection in dynamic lists. Promote. Crzycheetah 07:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current Opinion | User |
---|---|
Support | Circeus |
Support | Geraldk |
Weak Oppose | TonyTheTiger |
Support | Colin |
Support | LaraLove |
- A list of alumni and academics, broken down into various sub-groups along the lines of List of Dartmouth College alumni (a FL). All names are referenced with a mixture of web and non-web sources. Note that whilst the Dartmouth list uses just "class date", Oxford works slightly differently: matriculation (entry) date is generally used for college/university purposes rather than graduation date, and so unless I could find a date for both start and end of study, I have played safe and used "?" rather than assume that a course was completed (or completed in the usual time). There are still some names that can be added from Category:Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford
and Category:Fellows of Jesus College, Oxfordand I will carry on adding names as and when I can, but only if proper sources can be found (not all those included in the categories have proper sources at present). So, I hope that you find it (a)(1) useful for bringing together existing articles by well-defined criteria; (b) comprehensive (bearing in mind the above); (c) factually accurate; (d) uncontroversial; (e) stable and (f) well-constructed. I think I've MOS'd it correctly; the lead is longer than the Dartmouth list; the headings are appropriate, I hope; and the only images added are all appropriate and acceptable for copyright purposes. With thanks for your time, Bencherlite Talk 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (update: all the Fellows are included) BencherliteTalk 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now:- A. There a list of references after the 'politics and the law' section. All references should be listed in the references section at the foot of the article.
- I think it got "forgotten" there. Happens to me al the friggin' time. Circeus 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone, before I even saw this. Was section-editing at the time! BencherliteTalk 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it got "forgotten" there. Happens to me al the friggin' time. Circeus 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B. I think the images would look better in a separate column of the table.Circeus' idea is better- Otherwise, I think it's very well-referenced and the tables are well-constructed.
- Geraldk 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. BencherliteTalk 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A. There a list of references after the 'politics and the law' section. All references should be listed in the references section at the foot of the article.
OpposeReferences are listed twice (!?)I recommend splitting alumni propers and faculty into different sections. This would remove 3 columns from the "alumni" tables.Run images alongside the table, especially since you're not illustrating every entry.Switch "degree" for "course"Try to make it so the table cells' sizes are consistent from one table to the other.Remove the "see also". there's no overwhelming reason to link ot the categories that way. besides, the page is listed in both already.Consider reducing the width of the lead image to 300px. 400 is a bit overwhelming.
- Circeus 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments.
- Done already, see above!
Disagree - the existing lists aren't split between "alumni" and "fellows", so I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting rearranging the table so that there's one list of all the alumni and one list of all the fellows/principals? Or separate tables of alumni and then fellows for each subject area? Some fellows / honorary fellows are also alumni (e.g Neal Blewett, second entry; John Rhys scores a full house!) so you'd either end up with duplicates (confusing) or a three new sections: Alumni, Fellows, and "Fellows who are also alumni". I'm open to suggestions though, but I don't quite follow your thinking at the moment.Further update Done.Will move them to the top of each section; I don't use tables/images enough to be able to put images along the side of a table, but if someone shows me with one I'll do the others. Otherwise, I'm happy to leave them out - not that many, anyway. Update Photos moved to top of each section.Further update Done.- Done.
Will try to improve, although it will be very difficult to get perfect. The reason is that I have eliminated the surplus columns deliberately (e.g. there are no Fellows, Honorary Fellows or Principals in the section "Other people in public life", so I removed those columns). So the width won't be the same if there aren't the same number of columns in each section - but to get them the same width, you'd need the redundant columns back! Update Have now standardized the width of the "Name", "Notes" and "Ref" columns (63% width, FYI) so that they line up all the time, and then divided the remaining 37% between the remaining columns as appropriate depending on the number of columns needed for each section. Less "jumping around" than there was.Further update Done .- Done.
- Done.
- BencherliteTalk 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — updated BencherliteTalk 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) further updated BencherliteTalk 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the existing lists aren't split between "alumni" and "fellows" Well, DUH! Those are lists of either alumni or faculty, while this one happily mix them together, so that each (most) entry (beside the occasional one that belongs to both) is cluttered with columns that are irrelevant to it.
- I don't use tables/images enough to be able to put images along the side of a table It's doen the exact same way you'd palce an image on the right of any text: [[image:foo.jpg|right]] See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax toknow everything about images.
- Circeus 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments.
- We were at cross-purposes before. When I said "the existing lists", I meant the lists on this Jesus College page, not other Wikipedia lists. Sorry for the confusion. I thought it useful to keep the two together for the sake of those names who were students and Fellows, but I take your point about the number of redundant columns that this left. So I have now re-jigged the page, so that alumni are split from Fellows/Principals (with the occasional duplicate included in both lists for ease of reference). I have also removed the Honorary Fellow column and put this information in the notes instead. There are now no redundant columns, the column widths are uniform and the photos are at the side of the table. (I did know about "right" and "left" - I put the photos in the article using "left" and "right" originally, after all! - but the problem I had found was getting the images alongside the table at the same time as keeping the columns lined up perfectly. That, in turn, depended on how many columns there were, which is now resolved). I think I have addressed all the points now, but please let me know if there is anything else.
- BencherliteTalk 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- outdent Much better, but now this highlights another iffy issue: comprehensiveness (criterion 1(b)). There are simply too many missing years and degrees, especially for 20th century people, for the list to be considered comprehensive. And a typography issue: use n- or m- dashes in "faculty" for those cells that are irrelevant, not hyphens. Circeus 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second point is done. First point: adding as many more details as I can. Would I need every box filled to reach FL status, or would it be akin to having some redlinks in a list – or should I remove those with minimal details if no more info can be found e.g. Paul Jones, singer with Manfred Mann? (Perhaps I was being too ambitious in aiming to include details of the course studied (not a field included in the Dartmouth College or Georgia Tech FLs). There's also the difficulty of the double date as I explained above (matriculation and graduation) which wasn't an issue for those FLs either...) BencherliteTalk 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize the issue with 19th century and earlier. But for those who entered/finished in the 20th, it should be possible to fill in the blanks. As it is, the other two lists restrict themselves to (I believe) graduation year, without degree. If that column can be reasonably completed (I wouldn't expect 17th century students to have years), That would be enough for me to support. Circeus 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 "?"s turned to information since you left that comment, and
one new namesix new names added with full details of matriculation, graduation and degree (at least for 20th century additions). Will see what else I can turn up. However, I am really struggling with some of the recent ones in the "authors etc" section where I can't find anything else on dates online, nor in my offline sources. Would it be best to remove those names for now? I would have hoped that the list could be regarded as sufficiently comprehensive (as in "not omitting any major component of the subject", the subject being their (sourced) association with Jesus College) either with their names in the list but not full details of dates/course or, alternatively, without their names but having regard to the comprehensiveness of the list overall. BencherliteTalk 10:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC) update BencherliteTalk 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Further update: nine further names added (some being people on Wikipedia who weren't included in the alumni category and needed extra tracking down) BencherliteTalk 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 "?"s turned to information since you left that comment, and
- I realize the issue with 19th century and earlier. But for those who entered/finished in the 20th, it should be possible to fill in the blanks. As it is, the other two lists restrict themselves to (I believe) graduation year, without degree. If that column can be reasonably completed (I wouldn't expect 17th century students to have years), That would be enough for me to support. Circeus 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second point is done. First point: adding as many more details as I can. Would I need every box filled to reach FL status, or would it be akin to having some redlinks in a list – or should I remove those with minimal details if no more info can be found e.g. Paul Jones, singer with Manfred Mann? (Perhaps I was being too ambitious in aiming to include details of the course studied (not a field included in the Dartmouth College or Georgia Tech FLs). There's also the difficulty of the double date as I explained above (matriculation and graduation) which wasn't an issue for those FLs either...) BencherliteTalk 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work! Three thumbs up! Circeus 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. Geraldk 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless the timeline list is that of a reliable, verifyable third party it constitutes WP:OR. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why isn't there at least one more important person that could arguably be included in the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 July 2007.
- Tony, you've been copy/pasting this "weak oppose" on four different lists. This isn't a "timeline". This is a classic example of a "dynamic list", which merely has to not "omit any major component of the subject". To argue that point, you must have strong reason to believe it is deficient in this area (e.g. you can easily name some other people that aren't on the list but should be, or that a particular group of people seem under-represented). You can't simply challenge an editor with "how can this possibly be comprehensive" without a little evidence for your case. Please review the Featured list criteria, especially 1b. Post a request on the FLC talk page if you think there is ambiguity in the guidelines. Colin°Talk 09:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the members of category:Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford are included. The only members of Category:Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford not included are Dudi Appleton, R. Tudur Jones and Walter Evans-Wentz (plus Kathryn Davies, a categorized redirect to her husband) - in each case, because I have found no sources that confirm attendance at the college. Of course these categories and the list itself are never going to be complete: the college has over 425 years of history and it would be impossible to get a list that included everyone notable who had ever attended or been a Fellow. However, FLC doesn't require that everyone notable is included. If you can see that the list in its current form omits one or more "major components of the subject", please point them out, as further suggestions for improvement are welcome. BencherliteTalk 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the sloppy copy and paste. However, there is no indication that the burden of proof lies with the objector. It seems that it is the burden of the nominator to show it meets the criteria. The fact that he can point to WP categories is not supporting evidence. WP is not a valid source for other WP articles (WP:ASR). You need to tell me that something like the Alumni association or some third party has presented this list as the official list of notable associates. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Specifically: "For example, why isn't there at least one more important person that could arguably be included in the list" is not a fair challenge since a dynamic list is allowed to be incomplete (and indeed usually can never be complete). To object on 1b, you claim that it does omit a major component of the subject. In the interests of fairness, that charge has to have a reasonable foundation. When I think of our FL dynamic lists, I'm struggling to think of any where the nominator could prove beyond all doubt that the list had no missing major components. The nominator puts forward his case, we examine the evidence and make a judgement. It is not an exact science. We expect both sides to present reasonable arguments.
- With this list, I am worried that WP categories are being used to support the argument for comprehensiveness. On the two people-lists I have been involved with, WP's categories were vastly incomplete and occasionally wrong. Colin°Talk 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not using the categories as evidence that the list is complete. In fact, I found many articles that weren't in the categories, even if they mentioned Jesus College at all. I fully accept that including the names from the categories is merely necessary, not sufficient, to show completeness (insofar as a dynamic list of this sort is ever "complete"). There is not, as far as I am aware, an "official" and fully comprehensive list of all notable people associated with Jesus College. That does not make this list "original research"; it just means that a list of this sort is inevitably always going to omit names of people who could be added. Again, does this list omit a major component of the subject? I assert "no", in that it includes a range of people from across the centuries (16th to 20th/21st), across fields of work (politicians, clergy, authors etc), and across countries. BencherliteTalk 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I suggest you compile a list of "potential names" on the talk page, beginning with any names missing that are in the categories or your external link. (BTW: Alberico Gentili is on that external link). That opens the door for other people to help locate sources. I'm not a fan of sorted lists since the implementation is so poor. Most of the columns don't make sense sorted. The name column doesn't sort as it should (surname, forename) and I believe this is possible with some template trickery (I can't remember the featured list I saw that did it). However, since you are splitting by category, some of the power of sorting (e.g. by date) is lost. I'd just drop the sorting, but its up to you. I recommend you combine some of the tiny categories into Miscellaneous. If you do drop sorting, you could combine M and G columns and give a range using an ndash. Additionally, if you want, you can avoid the Ref column like on List of polio survivors. These changes may allow for a wider Degree column. Colin°Talk 12:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting in name columns: done. (<span style="display:none">surname, firstname</span> is what you were after.)
- I think sorting is useful, albeit an imperfect tool. I split the table into sections to help find people from related fields, rather than search through the notes. I suppose that an alternative would be one large table, with a small column to allow sorting by area e.g. "Pol" for politics, "Sci" for scientists", rather than rely on sorting by notes (which is difficult to get consistent). Open to ideas as to what people think would be most useful.
- I know I don't have Alberico Gentili, but I'm treating that list with caution: at least one name is referenced by a Wikipedia article (!), another name appears to confuse father and son (the son went to Oriel, according to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), and another name (Austin Mitchell) has no known Jesus connection as a student or fellow (Google = nil, his Who's Who entry mentions nothing) (he may have been a college lecturer, but that wouldn't really count). So unless and until I find something else to confirm Gentili at Jesus, not just at Oxford, I'll leave him off.
- I don't have strong opinions about whether a separate column for Refs is necessary.
- Some of the smaller categories may expand as more names are added. If not, their existence can be reviewed in future. BencherliteTalk 12:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose (contd) Why are there so many ? on the list?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIn truth I do not believe in good conscience I can remove at least a weak oppose. I do not feel this particular list should pass unanimously. I don't know if something can pass 3-.5 or not, but I think that is over 80% approval.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Appears to meet the criteria, and it looks good to me. Lara♥Love 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Buc 07:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current Opinion | User |
---|---|
Support | Geraldk |
Support | Tompw |
Support | Redl@nds597198 |
Support | Underneath-it-All |
Support | Cliff smith |
Support | Bignole |
Support | LaraLove |
The page is completely sourced and is modelled after The Simpsons (season 8). The only problem might be that the list is considerably shorter than season 8s, but I don't think it matters. Any concerns will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 00:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks great. Well-referenced. Only critique I have is that it would better meet Criteria 3 if there were screenshots associated with each episode. Geraldk 01:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but unfortunately, it's not possible. There used to be an image for every episode, but they were removed because of fair use concerns. -- Scorpion0422 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stupid copyright law... Geraldk 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but unfortunately, it's not possible. There used to be an image for every episode, but they were removed because of fair use concerns. -- Scorpion0422 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good work. Tompw (talk) (review) 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well-written, well-referenced; very complete. •97198 talk 13:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all of the above. Cliff smith 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport - Good list. Couple things.
**Why the vague dates in the opening sentence? We know the exact dates.
- Was:The show runners for the eighth production season were Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, and Sam Simon copied straight from The Simpsons (season 8)? I ask because it says "eighth production", as opposed to "first production". If so, that should probably be corrected.
- ...but it only suffered from some easily fixable problems - "Some"? How many is some? Either be specific or drop altogether.
- The producers managed to convince Fox to push the debut of the series back several months and the series premiered on December 17 with "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire", which was originally intended to be a Christmas special - What is "several months"? I know it aired on December 17, but there's no indication of when it was meant to air, other than "in the fall". Maybe just say: Fox moved the debut to December 17, and aired "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" as the first episode of the series.
- The episode "Life on the Fast Lane" won the award for Outstanding Animated Program and the episode "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" was also nominated in the category because it was considered to be a separate special and thus The Simpsons was nominated twice in the category, although normally a series is limited to one episode. - This is a run-on sentence. Try breaking it up. Remove the "also", it's not needed. Maybe: Although television shows are limited to one episode a category, "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" was considered a separate special, and nominated alongside "Life on the Fast Lane" for Outstanding Animated Program; "Life on the Fast Lane" won the award.
- "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" would also receive a nomination in the "Outstanding Editing in a Miniseries or Special" category and "The Call of the Simpsons" would be nominated for "Outstanding Individual Achievement in Sound Mixing for a Comedy Series or a Special". ---> Maybe: "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" was also nominated for "Outstanding Editing in a Miniseries or Special", while "The Call of the Simpsons" was nominated for "Oustanding Individual...." -- It's just a trim of the wordiness.
- "would be" -- Change to "was". Just straight past tense.
...million units and would hold onto the record until October -- Maybe just "...million units, holding the record until October...
To me, these are really minor things. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Gran2 06:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all of above. Lara♥Love 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ "Venglos first foreign coach". BBC. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
- ^ "Deadly Doug's managers". fansite(br0wn.co.uk). Retrieved 2007-08-23.