Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2011

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:06, 25 December 2011 [1].

---

50 Cent discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've done extensive work on this article, and I finally feel it is truly up to the standard required (of course, you may think otherwise). Since the last, hasty nomination, the article has had a peer review and has had many of its previous errors pointed out and removed. Hopefully, this nomination will iron out any small errors still left and leave us with a great article. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments - Just happened to come across some points Infobox says 21 singles, but lead suggests 23. 24 Shots, an album that did not chart, is unsourced in the discography. External link availablility issues (7 dead, 3 timeouts) Consider replacing or fixing the links. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Update: I have repaired 6 of the seven dead links. However, ref 148 still needs attention. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Done I've corrected the issue with the infobox, and found a reference for 24 Shots. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (Update: have also found a reference to replace the broken link. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

• Support – I peer reviewed this article and feel that it is finally ready for the bronze star. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Michael Jester (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

* Comments from Michael Jester Great work on the article so far. However, there are some concerns before I can support it: "The album charted at number five on the Billboard 200, and peaked in the top twenty of several album charts worldwide." There shouldn't be a comma here. Done "The album features two singles: the international hit "Baby by Me", which peaked at number twenty-eight in the US, and the second single, "Do You Think About Me"." I would remove second single; you already mention that the album featured two singles. Done There was a new discussion over at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, and the consensus was to change the certification abbreviations to the providers. Done Messed up a little bit here. The certifications need to be in alphabetical order. Also, sales abbreviations do not change. —Michael Jester (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Revised You have "—" in sales columns, but the bottom of the table says nothing about what that means. Either needs fixing or remove from sales columns. Done Still one left in studio albums. Revised Okay, the very long caption at the bottom is just weird to me. It seems way too long and sounds awkward. —Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Oops, my bad. It should be better now. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I fixed it. —Michael Jester (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC) I would abbreviate Worldwide. It may look better on smaller screens. Not a big issues, if not done I will not care. In the notes column for Get Rich or Die Trying: "Contains behind the scenes footage, interviews, and live performances." It uses the serial comma, but every other sentence I've seen didn't use one. Done You have an "As of December 29, 2003" under the sales column for 50 Cent: The New Breed. However, you do not has an "As of" for every other sales figure. Either do an as all for every album or none. Be consistent. I'll leave the nominator to decide on that one. I believe he placed he parenthetical info because the sales for that release have not been updated in years. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC) "How to Rob", "Rowdy Rowdy", "Thug Love", "I'll Whip Ya Head Boy", "React", "The Cake", "Creep", "Mujeres in the Club", "Pass the Patron", and "Haters" need references that they are singles. They didn't chart anywhere, so where did you get the information? Have cited some. Nominator may deal with others. Move the reference to directly have the song title. (e.g. "Song Title"[1]) Revised the ones that have been cited so far... Some albums have TBA while others have TBA. Is TBA the album name, or is this just a minor error? Done - removed italicization References have some problems: Wikilink things on every occasion, not just on their first appearance. Wikilinked every reference I could (although considering the large number of references, I wouldn't be surprised if I've missed one somewhere. However, I think I've got them all). Missed a few; I got them though. —Michael Jester (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) You have multiple cases where you have a dash "-" instead of an en-dash "–" (e.g. ref 20, 21) Use italics even in the title of references. For example, "Billboard chart search: 50 Cent - "What Up Gangsta"" -> "Billboard chart search: 50 Cent – 'What Up Gangsta'" Also, when using quotes inside of quotes, use apostrophes. And when the apostrophe is at the end use {{'-}} I noticed that the NZ refs are now redirected to another website and showing only the current week's chart. Somehow this needs to be fixed. Those also need the dash changed to en-dash (there are a few other refs that need changing; ref #122 and #123 are examples).< Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Is "Peak chart positions for collaboration singles on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart in the United States: " really necessary if there is only one other citation? (ref #67) Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) What makes Zobbel.de an RS? I've seen it used before, but I have no idea who Tobias is. (I think these are the last issues that I have.) From what I can establish, Zobbel is basically a massive statistics website which collects things like election data and Palestinian stamps (?), although their collection of UK chart data is their best known collection. According to them, they collect data from two music newsletters, Music Week and UKChartsPlus. Tobias Zywietz is simply the man who started the website and runs it currently. Personally, I use it as their data agrees with that found on the official sources, such as The Official Charts Company (as is the case with this article) and for the positions below 100, I prefer to cite this over the UKChartsPlus journal as I prefer to use references that actually show the data. However, if you don't want to use Zobbel, I will cite the relevant weeks with UKChartsPlus, as is the case on Lady Gaga discography, as it is most definitely a reliable source. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Not needed. That's fine. —Michael Jester (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Once these comments are addressed, I will take a second look, and then a support will follow. —Michael Jester (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I have reduced the nominator's workload. I will leave him to address some of the ones which he will better understand. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent job on the article. I feel that this work can be featured. Support.
  —Michael Jester (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Status {talkcontribs 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A few comments by Status Is the hashtag at the top really necessary? It's not as if people are going to be confused with "50 Cent" and "G-Unit". It would seem better suited to just link in a "see also" section. But that's just my personal opinion. Compilation and soundtrack albums are different; so they should be seperate. What exactly is "miscellaneous"? Maybe have a note on top of the table explaining what it contains. I don't see why "collaboration singles" need to be separate. Again, my personal opinion, but they should just be in the normal singles table. "Collaborations and soundtrack appearances" – "Guest apperances" seems like a more approiate title for this section. The infobox link for "DVDs" doesn't go anywhere. — Status {talkcontribs 03:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – everything looks good. Nice work! — Status {^talk_contribs 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from nominator (Sufur222)

OK, after reading all of these comments, here's everything I have done:

• Changed infobox entry from "DVDs" to "Video albums" and linked it up.
• Changed "Collaboration and soundtrack appearances" heading to "Guest appearances", as suggested.
• Inserted en-dash in reference titles everywhere needed.
• Italicized Billboard in all of the XML reference titles.
• Removed the G-Unit hashtag at the top, and made a "See also" section containing a link to their discography, as suggested.
• Inserted italics into references where appropriate.
• Separated out compilation and soundtrack albums sections.
• Found references all of the remaining uncharted singles. (However, have removed one of the two references for "Haters", as I feel only one is neccessary.)
• Removed date on sales figure for 50 Cent: The New Breed.

There are some other comments I wish to make as well:

• I'm getting conflicting advice over the formatting of the references. In his peer review, Wikipedian Penguin told me to only link every work/publisher only the first time, but Michael Jester has told me to wikilink everything - which is right? Also, WP also told me whilst referring to individual weeks of Billboard charts, to refer to Nielsen Business Media as the publisher if the chart was published during their ownership of the company. However, when I tried this on Birdman discography, JohnFromPinckney told me that they should ALL be Prometheus. Again, which is right?
  • For references, everything should be linked. J Milburn explained it well in the FLC of K-ci & JoJo discography.
  • For the Nielsen Business Media/Prometheus Global Media thingy, I personally use Prometheus Global Media for everything on the web and use Nielsen for the magazine.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the sales figures are listed as according to the RIAA, yet some are simply US. When I read this discussion at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, I thought that the abbreviations would only be used for certifications: however, it appears that they are hovering in limbo. I presume this is a mistake from when the abbreviations were changed: however, I want to be certain.
  • Yeah, only the certifications are suppose to be abbreviated with providers. It looks like someone made a simple mistake.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not yet sure what to write about "miscellaneous": currently thinking - any ideas welcome.
• Personally, I prefer to keep the collaborations singles separate from the main singles table - however, if the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of combining the two tables, I will happily do it.
  • Dosen't matter to me.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work and help, guys. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, that's what we're here for!
—Michael Jester (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – The lead mentions that his fifth album is due out in November 2011. It's near the end of November, and still no album. I checked the article on the album, and it gives the release date as December 2011. Done Removed that clause, as the new date is unreferenced in 50 Cent's fifth studio album. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC) See also should go before the notes. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC) It may just be me, but I thought the "... chart, a chart that" type of formatting in the notes was annoying. There's an obvious redundancy there. Consider changing them to "... chart, which..." to avoid this issue. Done You're right, it doesn't read very well. Have corrected this. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I still see the old type of format in note D. Rest have been fixed, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC) The issue has been addressed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC) A few of the notes end with "acts as a 25-song extension to Hot 100." Minor, but I think "the" should be placed before the chart name each time. The notes relating to the other charts don't have this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Done That one's my fault - I should have been concentrating when I typed those out. Have corrected them. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead says 24 singles as featured artist, infobox differs. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Three compilation albums "including" a soundtrack, but infobox says 3 compilation albums AND a soundtrack album. Done Changed it to two compilation albums and a soundtrack. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Second para "The album... The album... The album..." not brilliant prose by any means. How about this: The album charted at number one in the US, as well as reaching the top ten of many album charts worldwide, and sold 4.83 million copies in the United States in 2005, the second highest sales count by any album that year. The Massacre includes the US top-three hits "Disco Inferno" and "Just a Lil Bit", and the US number-one hit "Candy Shop", which peaked in the top ten of many charts worldwide. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Billboard 200 or Billboard 200? Done Billboard 200. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC) "behind the scenes" should be hyphenated. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I think you should have some referenced notes which say what the Miscellaneous albums are. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Other charted songs, is it really worth including the UK for two songs that didn't make the top 100? I personally think so - it's still the same singles chart, isn't it? If it charted at number 1 or number 200, it still appeared on that chart. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Guest appearance with TBA's, does this mean there's speculation that these will be released on an album, hence not an en-dash? Where's the evidence? Done Have changed these for now: of course, if there is more information regarding which album they will be released on, this will be changed back. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Cee Lo has no hyphen. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per the usability advice included in WP:DISCOGSTYLE, the Title column of the first six tables (they're all album tables) should be specified at the same width (they could generally be somewhat larger than they are now). The remaining seven tables (all dealing with songs) should likewise aim for a common width for their Title columns. This width need not be the same as that specified for the first six tables.
  • Took the initiative and done it.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• I feel really stupid mentioning this one, Rufus, since I've watched you work and I know you try to be careful and complete. I think I must be missing something glaringly obvious, but I still see what looks like big referencing problems. We're showing US Hot 100 and the R&B charts for singles and songs, and both are 100-song charts. But we've got quite a few peaks over 100 in these columns, and they appear to be unsourced. Duh. Just saw the (screen-size) Notes section. So sorry. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• The Album info for the Have a Party" song looks improperly italicized (and capitalized, maybe). Also, I think you could remove the artificial line breaks within and just let the text break where it breaks (most of the words are short).

That's it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• For the first point, should I convert it to the format: 8 Mile soundtrack? Will change it to 8 Mile OST, as no one complained about similar usage on K-Ci & JoJo discography. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Should I remove the artificial breaks in the guest appearances table as well? I'm concerned that some of the columns will end up being massive otherwise.
  • You can add style="width:12em;" to the column. You can change the number, but by using a specific width, automatic linebreaks will be created.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I've done that, and it looks good that way. Cheers. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I have to say I was a bit confused by the ugly-sounding phrase "Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture" which I thought you'd invented. I hadn't followed any of the soundtrack links (and I had only noticed the one title I mentioned anyway, although I now see that several titles use it).

My suggestion would be to trim that crap where possible, and use what we use for our own WP articles: Get Rich or Die Tryin' soundtrack, 8 Mile soundtrack, In Too Deep soundtrack, Bring It On soundtrack, Tupac: Resurrection soundtrack, and Real Steel soundtrack. Only the first two and the Tupac one appear to actually use the "Music from and Inspired..." thing at all, and only the 8 Mile looks like it might be official. It looks more like a sub-title on the Get Rich and Tupac soundtracks. If it were just me on my own, I'd drop it, but maybe you or others feel strongly about keeping it in the 8 Mile title and possibly the other two. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I like your suggestion. I'll change them all to that. Oh, and should I change the format for the Get Rich soundtrack in the Soundtrack albums table as well? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that'd be best (and consistent). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to come back to this. I have looked the page over (again) and I like it very much. I support the promotion and congratulate Rufus on some really good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:06, 25 December 2011 [2].

---

List of 1930s jazz standards

Nominator(s): Jafeluv (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Third part in a series of lists of jazz standards. The earlier nomination last month was slightly premature, but now I think the article is ready and meets the FL criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I havn't reviewed the article, but here few issues:

• the images require ALT texting.

  Done, although it may be worth double-checking since describing people's appearance is not exactly my strong point. For example, I have no idea how to properly describe Billie Holiday's hat in that picture. Jafeluv (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Need to replace February 1 1987 with 1 February 1987. in one of the refs to match all.

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Refs usage should be fixed to organize them numerically, ie: [12][7] to [7][12]; [28][29][10][7] to [7][10][28][29], and so on. All of the refs 7,10 and 40 of what I see are like that, and probably more.

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fakebooks should be Fake books
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – This will be a review in pieces, since it's a long list with a lot of writing. Starting off... First, what makes JazzStandards.com a reliable source? This is particularly important since it's very widely used in the list. This actually came up in an earlier FLC. Information about the writers can be found here, and at least Jeremy Wilson and Chris Tyle also have their own Wikipedia articles. AFAICT the site's writers are trustworthy sources on the topic of jazz standards and their list has been produced using objective inclusion criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Just in the 1930 section, I see a load of repeated links from one entry to another. There's no need to have this many repeated links in prose (maybe if it was a table, but that's not what we're dealing with). It also appears that the rest of the article has many repeat wikilinks. I've lost track of how many Louis Armstrong links there are, to give one example. Went through the text and removed repeating links. There were indeed 11 links to Armstrong in the article! Jafeluv (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC) In the photo caption here, the phrasing "endured lasting popularity" is confusing me. Perhaps "gained lasting populariry" would make more sense. Changed. Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 1931: "by vaudeville performer Belle Baker. Baker...". Try to avoid this kind of repetition from one sentence to another (Baker and Baker). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Reworded this and a few others like it. Jafeluv (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 1934: "A 1961 version sold a million copies was included in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's list of 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll." Feels like "and" should be put before "was", or another change should be made to it. Fixed. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1936: "and recorded the song several times 1940s and 1950s." Missing "in the" toward the end? Done. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Another one of the repetitions like the one above: "It is often associated with swing bands, especially Benny Goodman. Goodman...". I'd also switch the first one to "Goodman's" since it's referring to his band, not him. Reworded. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1937: "and the song became later readily associated with his live performances." Switch the order of "became" and "later"? Changed to "and later the song became readily associated". Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1939: "'Something' to Live For' is a jazz ballad written by Billy Strayhorn. Strayhorn...". More sentence-to-sentence repetition. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Reworded. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments a couple of general points, but overall a very nice piece of work. This may be picky, but "is a song" is really repetitive. I don't think we need it on just about every entry. It's clear each is a standard by the nature of the list so we could be more creative in writing our prose. Mix it up a little. Reworded most of the entries to avoid excessive repetition. Any better? Jafeluv (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Check for redirects which imply the title you've used isn't 100% bang on, like "How Deep Is the Ocean (How High Is the Sky) " seems, on the face of it, to be missing a ? for instance, "Sing, Sing, Sing" has "(with a Swing)" in our article for instance. Done. Jafeluv (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - as a jazz musician I consider the improvement of these lists to be a phenomenal resource. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 13:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I believe it meets the criteria.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Cant' find any faults NapHit (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:06, 25 December 2011 [3].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble

Nominator(s): —SpacemanSpiff 17:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. Also, we have the other two great spinners of his era Murali and Warnie as FL/on the way, so Kumble's list seems the logical next step. The structure used is similar to the other five-wicket haul lists. Just to note on one of the WP:ACCESS guidelines -- given that there's no single "most important" column, row scopes are not used. —SpacemanSpiff 17:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Fewer than 30..." are you sure? I looked at the Cricinfo link and saw around 35 or more... Hmm, I did a WP:CWW from the McGrath list and didn't bother to count! I've changed to 40 (there's 37 currently), and I'll change it for the other lists too, this content is standard across all of them (except Warne/Murali). Probably worth a quick note about T20I since he played 54 over them... He hasn't played T20Is, those are plain T20s, all in the IPL You relink One Day International in the second lead para and don't use the abbreviation ODI... once you've abbreviated, use it. Fixed. Why isn't the key in the same order as the column headings? Fixed. While technically accurate, I think it's confusing to use both Calcutta and Kolkata for the same location. If you insist, perhaps a note on the Kolkata usage. Added a note. For India articles the convention is to stick to the name at point in time, it's followed in FAs/GAs too e.g Sourav Ganguly (a GA) gives the birth place as Calcutta but Kolkata is mostly used elsewhere as his cricketing career was primarily after name change. Same for Chennai/Madras. Added a note. As above; Dinesh Karthik is the Madras/Chennai cricket GA equivalent to Ganguly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Hope this addresses your comments. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support no further issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Both notes about the renamed cities seem unnecessary and irrelevant.—indopug (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It was done in response to TRM's comments above. I'm personally neutral, but it does help clarify things for the unacquainted. —SpacemanSpiff 04:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "and fourth highest amongst all players". "amongst" → "among". No need to link Test cricket twice in the lead. Comma would be helpful after Jim Laker. Kumble has also taken two five-wicket hauls in One Day Internationals. The first of which was against...". Don't think "of which" works that well in a situation where this is split into two sentences. Also, you may as well use the ODI abbreviation since it's been set up and used earlier. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Fixed all. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Depending on the results of the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shane Warne/archive1, the names may need changing for players granted a full name on the scorecards. Harrias ^talk 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Will wait for the dust to settle on that before making any changes here. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the best option may be, as for the other list, to use full names in this section, and apply this to the current FLs for consistency. Harrias ^talk 15:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not entirely convinced that it's the right approach. Perhaps we should have a more detailed discussion at WT:CRIC or WT:FLC before we accept that as convention? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Personally, I think it probably is. A discussion at WT:CRIC (here) decided that for scorecards, full names should be used. I think the logic that applied there is equally applicable here: that it is easier to know who is who. As to the format specifically used in this article, I am very much against it; using intials throughout for sylistic reasons may look nice, but MOS:IDENTITY seems to suggest against it, and given that most Pakistani players in particular are universally known by two names, seeing S Mushtaq for Saqlain Mushtaq is confusing even to someone who knows cricket well. Using another example, Shoaib Akhtar is often referred to as simply Shoaib in news articles which typically would use a surname, suggesting that this is possibly of more importance than Akhtar, and thus using S Akhtar would seem incorrect. Harrias ^talk 19:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I've changed to full names. Personally, I'm not entirely for it, but I don't really have a strong opinion on this and since quite a few other editors seem to think it's a better option, I'm fine with it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
            • I think it's the safest option. Nice work on this Support from me. Harrias ^talk 06:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a little strapped for online time right now, so I'll address the comments in a few days (don't want anyone to think I'm abandoning the nom). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Struck comment no longer applicable.—SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment You need to add rowscopes per WP:ACCESS, MOS:DTT provides more info on this. NapHit (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I brought this issue up in the nominating statement, we don't have a single titular column, so adding rowscopes doesn't make sense. This is also how the Shane Warne list was done (the most recent such list, after the ACCESS guidelines had been changed). —SpacemanSpiff 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC) In that case what I add would do is add scope=row but don't include the exclamation mark, that why no one column will be singled out. NapHit (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Done, I think. If I've goofed up, please let me know, I'm not entirely comfortable with these access requirements. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:12, 19 December 2011 [4].

---

List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on this list very intermittently for about 18 months, and having recently reviewed another list of this type, and paying close attention to the comments I left there (and those of other reviewers, to be fair), thought it was about time this one was submitted. Any comments will be addressed promptly. Struway2 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

Haven't read through the prose yet, but a few initial comments from the table: For the 1920–21 season, the ex-Southern League clubs formed the Third Division: Division 3 South came along the following year. I knew that... fixed There's some inconsistency between footnotes for specific matches. It's understandable to have footnotes for the 1909–10 cup wins, and I also understand the argument for a losing FA Cup final footnote. But my conflict of interest notwithstanding, I don't see why the 2008–09 Football League Trophy Southern final merits a footnote, but not the losing Southern Charity Cup finals. You'd remove the FLT F(S), rather than adding the losing SPCCs? I think either of those approaches would be fine, as long as the list is internally consistent. In answer to your question, my approach in the Watford list was to only add a footnote where the cell alone didn't explain the team's progress. 3rd* doesn't tell the full story if the team reaches the playoffs; SF doesn't reveal the full story if there is a third place playoff, or if you pull out of a competition to make St Albans feel better. —WFC— 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC) That makes sense. Can't remember reading anything unusual about the losing SPCC finals, so I'll probably remove the FLT note. Will check in the book, but it's only available in the reference section of my library, so I can't borrow it. Note [u] (best performance in the League Cup) seems somewhat redundant in a sortable table. Removed: it's mentioned in the lead, and as you say obvious from the table if one sorts that column. Not wanting to start this again (honest) but I wish I knew whether the general reader ever does sort columns in a table like this. Probably worth clarifying that Leon Knight's 25 Division Two goals in 2003–04 doesn't include the play-off goal. Done. Even added a ref for Sky Sports Yearbook doing it that way. Other than those relatively trivial things, the referencing, footnoting and sort function appear to be very good. I'll go through the prose at another time. —WFC— 14:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your review so far, for not finding all the mistakes in the table, probably, and for fixing the key. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Prose was never my strong point, and I'm satisfied that others have that covered. —WFC— 09:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on "for cinema showing". It's not that unusual a phrase (see e.g. [5], [6], [7]) and I'm not sure I could think of anything better. "for showing in cinemas" or "to be shown in cinemas" is a bit simple English, "for cinema audiences" is the phrase used in the source. Could you suggest an improvement, or a paraphrase? For cinematic release? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Done, thank you "before losing to West Ham United " which round did they actually get to before being beaten by West Ham? added (last 16) "first time. Against Manchester United, the scores" I would move that full stop, the "Against Manchester United.." reads oddly to me. "first time, against Manchester United. The scores..." It read oddly to me as well, but again, I couldn't think of anything better... How about "In 1983, for the first time, they reached the FA Cup Final, in which they played Manchester United. The scores..."? Perhaps I missed it in the prose but I'm a shade confused over the logistics of playing in two divisions simultaneously as happened in the early days. Worth an explanation? Something to the effect of: clubs used to arrange friendlies on days when they didn't have a main league/cup game, to keep the players fit, try out new ones, and make sure the paying public keep turning up. Having a second league to play in was an easier (as there was a captive market for opponents) and hopefully less financially risky (no need to pay opponents a guarantee to get them to come) alternative to arranging friendlies. The secondary leagues tended to play midweek: the Southern Football Alliance was explicitly a midweek league. I'll add a sentence when I've got access to the book again for references (tomorrow, weather permitting) added Is there a reason you link the finishing position to the division's season article, and not the division name itself? Because I did on List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons and nobody suggested that then? or, I never considered doing it differently. Of the English seasons lists promoted since that one, Hull City links the finishing position, and the promoted versions of Plymouth Argyle and Watford didn't have links to division/season articles at all. Do you think it should be changed? Seasons template need en-dashes for year ranges. done Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – History: What is "the rivalry between the teams has been as keen as ever" referring to? We haven't heard of a rivalry yet in the article, and now we find out about it without knowing the other club. It doesn't refer to rivalry with another club. It means that the general competitive standard of individual matches in the league didn't decline, that other teams didn't stop trying just because there was little chance of their catching runaway winners BHAFC. Could move the Football League link up a paragraph in this section, to its first appearance. done When sorting for position in the table, did you intentionally leave the 1939–40 season out because it wasn't complete? That would explain why it isn't sorting in the right order. No... Like all the sorting markup, I copied it from List of Watford F.C. seasons, without really thinking about why it was different :-( Having now thought, I don't see much point in sorting that particular column of an incomplete season differently from the others, so it's changed back to normal formatting. Thank you for pointing it out. Note 25: Remove hyphen from "newly-formed"? Hmmm. One of these days I'll stop doing that... Giants2008 (Talk) 03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments "As a Football League team, the team have won..." not keen on team being used twice in close proximity would simply change the second use of team to Brighton changed to Albion "and seven years later the team made a brief return to Division Two." probably needs a reference added ref 19 needs the author included It was there, but there was a typo in the cite template parameters that stopped it being displayed: thanks for noticing Why isn't the Sky Sports Yearbook included in the bibliography? The two Carden & Harris books and Camillin & Weir are major general references, so I put them in a bibliography (which might just as easily have been a general references sub-section) to avoid having to repeat the full details of each book every time they were referenced. Admittedly Camillin & Weir is down to only two inline refs now, I think, but in an older version of the list, there were several others. The Sky Sports Yearbook and Soccer at War in ref#27 are used only once each. NapHit (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cliftonian (talk)

Comments – This is mere personal preference: I would pipe the link on the opening wikilink, expanding it to read "Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club". Like I say, however, ths is just my own preference. I was going to say not done, because it made the opening line overly repetitive, except that here and here the repetition clearly didn't bother me... So done I would rework this part: "The scores were level at 2–2 until the last moments of extra time, when Albion's Gordon Smith – to the accompaniment of the radio commentator's "And Smith must score..." – failed to beat the goalkeeper. Albion lost the replay 4–0,[18] and were relegated that same season.[4]" Try: "The scores were level at 2–2 until the last moments of extra time, when Albion's Gordon Smith had a clear chance to score a winning goal. Peter Jones's radio commentary of the moment become famous: "and Smith must score..." he cried, just before Smith's shot was blocked by the goalkeeper's legs. Albion lost the replay 4–0,[18] and were relegated that same season.[4]" You're right this bit needed more detail. I've added your wording, but I'm not keen on the "he cried": sounds a touch cheap-novel. Can't think of anything better, though. And added another source for the enduring fame of Peter Jones's soundbite: Clive Tyldesley calling it "The most memorable bit of FA Cup commentary". I would also combine this whole paragraph with the previous one – you have two very short paragraphs in between two longer ones and it looks and reads a bit strangely in my opinion. Done Otherwise, this is excellent work which I am sure I will be more than happy to support following the resolution of these minor concerns. Well done! —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Thank for your review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – I agree that "cried" sounds a bit odd; I agonised for a while over what word to use, but "said" just didn't seem to do it. If you think of something better by all means replace it. In the meantime, I'm supporting this promotion. Well done! —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:12, 19 December 2011 [8].

---

Warren Spahn Award

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the next of my non-MLB sanctioned awards for FLC. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments "annual award given out" we already know that it s an award so there is no need to repeat it, I' mnot keen on given out, sounds like anyone could get when that obviously is not the case. I would rephrase it as "annual honor awarded to..." "Johnson and Johan Santana both won the Cy Young Award every year they won the Warren Spahn Award." not happy with this sentence, I would change to "In the years they won the Warren Spahn Award, Johnson ad Santana also won the Cy Young Award." "The New York Yankees' CC Sabathia edged the Houston Astros'" not sure edged is the best word here, perhaps beat? I'm not sure what the guideline is on bold links, as I can't find it in the MOS, but as far as i was aware they were frowned upon, so I would add the parameter plainrowheaders to the table to stop the bold links. ref 1 needs format=PDF added to it NapHit (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC) "annual award given out" --> "presented annually". Babe Ruth Award, which passed FLC, uses "given annually", and so I think this wording is an improvement from that. I chose to use "defeated" over "beat". The above changes are all made. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments – Don't need two 1999 in baseball links in the lead. Same goes for wins. It's now seven pitchers in 13 years, not six in 12. That needs updating. Are any details avaliable on the tie-break system that was used in 2009? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Changes made. The tie-break was chosen on the basis of winning percentage. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Remove all "year in baseball" links in prose. Their use is deprecated everywhere except in tables; see template doc for {{by}}. Switch out templates from {{by}} to {{mlby}} in table as they provide the proper context ("Baseball years" are world-wide articles, while "Major League Baseball seasons" are the league-specific articles) and because this is where the key says that they go. Add some discussion on the other multiple winners to the lead. Award table needs caption. The lead should be a summary of the table. You do not note the Cy Young Award double-winners in the table, so this should be removed from the lead or, alternatively, the Cy Youngs should be noted in the table. "The winner is chosen based on rankings, which are based on wins, strikeouts and earned run average." - some sort of footnote explaining how these rankings work would be helpful. "Cleveland Indians / Milwaukee Brewers" - needs a non-breaking space before the slash On my resolution, the images run into the reference section, crushing them. Consider removing an image or re-vamping the format. Might be better to use an actual image of Spahn instead of a statue that may or may not be PD and doesn't really show the pitcher at all, just his stance. "The Warren Spahn Award is presented annually... for that current season" - awkward wording. Consider re-word: "The Warren Spahn Award is presented each season..." I don't think the "See also" link to list of MLB awards is appropriate, as this award isn't MLB-sanctioned. All of those awards are linked from Baseball awards anyway. Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 12:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Mostly done The only thing I haven't done is the explanation on how the rankings work. I've been unable to find any specific information on how the rankings are formed, only what they are comprised of. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC) I understand you're busy in the real world, but could you please help me finish this one off? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Yup, is good. — KV5 • Talk • 22:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments It's a short article, so just two lead paras would suffice. "The Bricktown Rotary Club became a sponsor of the award in 2009.[2] Since 2009, the award is presented at the annual Warren Spahn Award Gala, hosted by the Bricktown Rotary Club of Oklahoma City at the Jim Thorpe Museum every January" nasty prose. Repetitive (year and Rotary Club repeated) and in need of an elegant merge. awardee yuck. Recipient? Forgive me, but as a non-baseball fan, what's the prominence of this award? In other words, why should care who was awarded it? Could be a tinpot organisation making these decisions which has no real notability outside itself... The fact that the presenting body (the Oklahoma Sports Museum) doesn't have its own article is concerning me... I see it has notable third-party coverage, so that's a good start, but is there any source that says winning this is considered a great achievement? Santana's caption claims a Triple Crown award, where is that referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Changes made. I redlinked the Oklahoma Sports Museum as it probably should have its own article, and I may create it when I have more time. As for the level of achievement of this award, it is definitely not as prestigious as other baseball awards. I remember seeing a source that said that Johnson went out of his way to attend the award ceremony because of his respect for Spahn. I'll try to dig that out later today and put it in prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I added to the article about how Johnson personally attended the awards ceremonies because Spahn called him and asked him to. I hope that helps to talk about its prominence a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:12, 19 December 2011 [9].

---

Twenty-five Year Award

Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it failed it's last nomination in July not because of any objections whatsoever, but because there were not enough reviews. Now that the summer is over, I can again devote time to wikipedia and advancing this list through the nomination process again. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – One new issue I noticed that wasn't there last time: a typo in the second paragraph of the Eligibility section ("canidate"). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• fixed.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• One more I found while doing spot-checks: the "25 to 35 years" quote is in reference 3, not ref 1; that source just gives the 25 year figure. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Got it. Fixed.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I may have asked this before but have we guaranteed that images are all okay under the freedom of panorama laws? Other than that, I have no other issues with the list since it's gone through significant review thus far. A quick comment about the former and if happy, I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• From my understanding of the law, photographs of buildings are permissible as long as they are taken from public areas (including lobbies, auditoriums, etc.). The only caveat is that sculpture does not have freedom of panorama. From what I can tell there are no sculptures, besides the rogue company sign which I believe would be considered part of the architecture of the building, in any of the pictures, and they all appear to have either been taken from a public street or a lobby of the structure.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jafeluv (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A few comments: The capitalization of the title looks odd to my eye (I expected "five" to be capitalized), but AFAIK there's no mention of that in WP:CAPS so either version is probably acceptable. The references used in the article seem to use either "Twenty Five", "Twenty-Five" or "Twenty-five". Noted. I believe that i had the title capitalized differently before, but then someone suggested this way. I could be wrong though.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Reference 3 (American Institute of Architects) is a dead link. Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC) "25 to 35 years" is written in numbers in the lead, but later "between twenty-five and thirty-five" are spelled out. Since the first one is a quote, maybe it would be better to use numbers in the latter instance as well. Done--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Is there a reason why some cities include the state and some not? Surely if Barcelona is "Barcelona, Spain", Boston should at least be "Boston, Massachusetts" (if not "Boston, Massachusetts, United States"). The concept behind this is that places such as "New York City," "Los Angeles," "Boston," etc are known well enough that the subsequent state and country would be redundant. Much like how the titles of those cities articles are named. Any city outsideof the United States, where the award is handed out, I placed the name of the country as well.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I guess that makes sense, since the article is clearly in a US context. Thanks for clarifying. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Titles with the definite article should be sorted without it. Eg. "The Atheneum" should be sorted at A, not at T. Similarly, people's names are usually sorted by last name, not first name. Might want to consider using {{sort}} here. I will work on the sorting issues tonight.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Done--Found5dollar (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Looks good. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Jafeluv (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Jafeluv (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment The table currently does not meet WP:ACCESS standards see MOS:DTT for more details. Basically you need row and col scopes for the table. I am not familiar with those parameters but i added "scope=col" to the column headers. As the rows don't really have a header (A.K.A. one of the columns darker and what the entire row is about), I didn't add scopes there. If I should please let me know.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC) You could argue that the building is the header, but if you're not happy with having one column darker I would add scope=row without using the exclamation mark, because you do need the scope=row. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Done.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Instead of having the dagger and then a note at the bottom which is quite hard to read why not put it before the table in a key? I originally didn't have that note at all, but during the last review i was told to add it in that style.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I just think it makes more sense for it to be before the table so the reader can identify what it means, especially as its right at the top of the table saves them scrolling all the way down. Note has been moved to before the list.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Other than those two comments I can't see any other problems. NapHit (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Great list, well done. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I feel there needs to be a World map with the location of the buildings. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I thought about adding a map like that at one time, but decided against it for two reasons. First the map would be very messy as many of the buildings are in the same cities. This combined with the size the map would have to be (it would have to cover basically the whole world), it would be virtually unreadable. There would be too many building names and not enough space on the map to get them all on it.Secondly, after looking at other featured lists, specifically the featured "tallest building," and other featured architecture award lists, i noticed that no other featured articles in the same category as this one have maps associated with them. I am open to adding one, I just don't think it will add anything to the article as the location of each building is stated clearly in the table, and having a map that is unreadable do to the proximity of many of the buildings and the distance of a few others may take away fromt he visual impact of the article.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have also just added a small paragraph to the openign to explain where the most awarded cites are.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Perhaps introduce "Eero Saarinen" as "Finnish architect" or similar because I'm pretty sure most will not have heard of him, certainly not compared with the likes of Skidemore et al and Lloyd Wright. Done--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) May also be worth stating in the lead where the majority/minority of these buildings are seeing as only two are outside the US despite it being a world award. Done--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) "Nominees are judged by today's architectural standards in their function, execution, and creativity" is that a quote? It reads like one. If so it should be in quotes, if not, we need to define what we mean by "today's architectural standards in their function, execution, and creativity". The quote the information in this sentence comes from is in Ref2 and reads "The project must have excellence in function—in the distinguished execution of its original program and in the creative aspects of its statement by today's standards." I believe they leave what "today's standards" is purposefully vague so that as standards in aesthetics and functionality change they do not have to rewrite the rules.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Do we really need post-nomials like FAIA here? That is how they are listed on the official list of winners on the AIA website [10]. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, but do we need them here? Do we normally list things like OBEs etc after someone's name or not? I think not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I removed all the "FAIA's". --Found5dollar (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Are the two See also's of particular relevance here or are they "just another two" architecture prizes? E.g. what specifically links that Skyscraper prize to this "longevity-based" prize? More of a query than an accusation by the way...! They are both other prizes that are given to a building (or architect of a specific building) like this one is, instead of an architect in general like most architectural awards.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Refs 2 & 5 could use a page number. Done.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Just a general question, the AIA themselves (on the general reference you provide) don't hyphenate the Twenty-five as you do here. Which is correct? there has been tons of questions regardign the hyphanation and capitalization of the title in this and the last FLC. Basically for the hyphenation I was going off what the MOS says at WP:ORDINAL and figured that that overruled how the AIA spells it.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:12, 19 December 2011 [11].

---

Radiohead discography

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am of the opinion that it meets the criteria, as all the previously mentioned issues from the first FLC were eliminated.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• No need to link Abingdon twice in the first two sentences.
• Ref 1 is missing a publisher. This appears to be a New Yorker article from another website. Is this a reliable source, and do they have permission to run this article if it's the same? Might be better off just having a print cite there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • done all--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 11:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Support: I would be tempted to modify the first paragraph slightly, but I'll support in the current state, too. I would replace the current text with:

"The discography of Radiohead, an alternative rock band from Abingdon, England, comprises eight studio albums, twenty-four singles, seven extended plays, thirty music videos, seven video albums, and two compilation albums."

You might also consider replacing the prose numbers with figures. MOS:NUM insists that they all be formatted alike, but doesn't advise on which to choose when both large and small numbers are listed. I find it easier to read:

"The discography of Radiohead, an alternative rock band from Abingdon, England, comprises 8 studio albums, 24 singles, 7 extended plays, 30 music videos, 7 video albums, and 2 compilation albums."

And I might join the first and second paragraphs. Just something to think about... --Stemonitis (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

done. Thanks for the support! --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose a little way to go so far... I really dislike the first, single-sentence para of the lead. At the least it should be merged with the following para, and preferably the numeric values replaced with words, permissible by WP:MOS I believe. reworded Do you have to repeat they were formed/from Abingdon in the second para? removed Consider adding a link for platinum certification. not done. Platinum certification links to Music recording sales certification. That would be overlinking. "most successful single—charting in the" why em-dash? a comma would be fine. replaced " certifications by both the " received from not by. replaced "receiving triple platinum from the BPI and the CRIA." perhaps "being awarded triple-platinum status by the BPI and the CRIA." reworded No need to relink EMI in the lead. delinked See WT:DISCOGSTYLE for my issues with reusing linked country abbreviations to different things within the same article. replaced "Did not chart" were they released in those territories where they didn't chart? Can you cite that? If not, best to change the note to "... not chart or were not released in that territory" added Where's the evidence that Drill or Itch or No Surprises/Running from Demons ever existed? They didn't chart so they have no direct citation. added refs Same for Stop Whispering and These Are My Twisted Words. added refs The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Michael Jester: It looks nice, but there are some problems in the references. Allmusic shouldnt be in italics in ref #2, #25, #26, #28 done A lot of the chart websites (dutchcharts.nl, australiancharts.com, etc.) have incorrect titles. For example, the title of ref #6 isn't "Australian chart positions", it is "Australian-charts.com – Discography Radiohead". Or you can just use "Discography Radiohead". Also, some of these should use the language parameter. done For the Canadian album peaks, ref #9 is hard to navigate. If you click on the RPM link, there are eighty-something more links I have keep clicking on to verify. Is there anyway you can link the specific chart? no, that would take me too much time. Fair enough. Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Excuse my ignorance, but what makes MusicBrainz a rs? it is just there too proof that this ep exists. Fair enough. Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC) For red #28, the work is not billboard magazine, it's just Billboard done The article looks great, and once these are addressed I'd be happy to support! Michael Jester (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC) addressed.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the article. I believe now I can support it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments The tables fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this I would also like to see the tables reconfigured as outlined here, apart from these issues the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I don't like the design :/--♫GoP♫TCN 13:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I don't think WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an adequate argument, the design is more user friendly, complies with WP:ACCESS measures (which have not been implemented), if these aren't implemented then I'm afraid I can't support the nomination and will have to oppose on failure to comply with WP:ACCESS. Just a note that 50 Cent discography which is currently at FLC, utilises the same table that I'm advocating so I think it should be included. NapHit (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC) which does not affect FLCs♫GoP♫TCN 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) FLs should comply with WP:MOS. WP:ACCESS is part of WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC) maybe, but IDONLIKEIT not. What I find unfair is no one have told such format is against ACCESS. Why so suddenly? That's no walk in the park. Somebody should have said it before.♫GoP♫TCN 15:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Most reviews here look for compliance with MOS and have done for quite a while. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I understand it's annoying to have to redo the tables, especially since the nomination has been up for a long time. In fairness someone should have pointed it out earlier. But that does not hide the fact that the list fails certain criteria and this needs rectifying. NapHit (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, we reviewers are far from perfect, but all reviews are given with good intent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Done♫GoP♫TCN 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Nearly, the extended plays, needs the name of the song first, for consistentcy with the other tables, and you need to implement the new tables in the videos section. NapHit (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC) ditto♫GoP♫TCN 16:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The note for "My Iron Lung" in the singles table does not direct anywhere. Does it even exist? -What a pro. (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. Removed.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:06, 18 December 2011 [12].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 13:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is it. The final list of the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster series. This has been a huge undertaking and I thank you all for your support and patience. My current nomination has three supports and no open comments, so hopefully we can bang this one out and I'll get out of your hair for a while as I search for my next undertaking. Cheers and good health. — KV5 • Talk • 13:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Don't like starting a sentence with numbers, as is seen at the start of the last two paragraphs of the lead. Not convinced that the symbol key for the individual lists are relevant to this page. It has no relation to the table here, and it includes links to notes that don't appear in this list. Regarding the second photo caption, it isn't techinically true that one player per year gets into the Walk of Fame. That isn't counting Harry Kalas and Paul Owens, who weren't players. It would be more accurate to broaden the definition. The 1887 Phillies caption could use a cite. Ref 15 doesn't verify that the Phillies made consecutive trips to the World Series, or that it was the first time they did so. Refs 10 and 11 are the same and can be combined. Ref 19 looks the same as well. Refs 9 and 20 are also duplicates. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Refs combined. Numbers fixed (bad MOSNUM habit). 2009 photo caption fixed through removal. Key also removed. 1887 photo caption added (Baker Bowl originally known as Huntington Grounds, the name given in source). WOF definition corrected. Should all be done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Great, great, great work on this series. Very well done, again. It's been a pleasure to review all of these lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• The (horizontal) TOC has a link to Table key, which doesn't appear to go anywhere.
• The TOC also links to External links, but the page has no such section.
• No user/reader would care, but the repeated ! scope="row" style="text-align:center;" | markup on the rows is overdone and could be reduced to ! scope="row" | (the table is center-aligned by default).
• Down at the Key subsection of Footnotes, the "a" note ("For the purpose of this list...") seems like it should link to something, but it doesn't.
• I usually prefer enabling adaptable columns for refs (e.g., {{Reflist|25em}}), but the page insists on 2 columns ({{Reflist|2}}). Not a deal-breaker for me, but I'd like to push us to support varying widths of displays.
• My browser's print preview tells me the printed version of this article will be a mess, mostly due to sub-optimal page-breaks and an overlapping of images and tables, but I think this is a WP-wide problem (Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (W–Z) stretches to 42 pages on paper), and anyway, I don't have any suggestions on how to fix it. I mention it mostly because I saw it, and also in the faint hope of somebody else knowing what knob to twiddle.

And that's all I can find to whine about; good work! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the key (leftover problem from removing the second key in Giants' comments above), the EL section (I had one in the TOC intending to use it but it never became necessary and is now hidden), and the footnote (again, from deleting the second key). I agree with you on the print preview thing, but that is why we have WP:BOOKS, I suppose. The text-align deal is because this list used to be classed as "plainrowheaders", then I decided I liked it better the other way. Since it doesn't hurt anything, I just left it as it was. As to the adaptable columns, I'm on the other side of the fence; I don't like that they change differently for each article, especially because it seems whenever I set them, they are not long enough for some of the wider citations that sometimes occur in certain articles. I've always been a fan of the 2-column reflist and I would prefer to continue using it. All should be done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I still maintain my preference for the adaptability of ref columns depending on users' displays, but it's not enough to make me want to withhold my support for promotion. And verily, good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Congrats on finishing this project, KV! Looks good to me, I tried to get nit-picky, but you've clearly got these lists down pat by now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support – yep great work!.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not at all keen on the bold links in the column headings. Since they're already linked in the key, there seems no real need to link them again, immediately afterwards. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Easily rectified. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Alrighty then, I'll do the right thing here and support. Good luck at WP:FTC! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:06, 18 December 2011 [13].

---

List of colleges and universities in Minnesota

Nominator(s): Ruby comment! 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked very hard in the past month entirely overhauling the article into a hopeful FL (collecting data from reliable sources, organizing it into a table, and deciding what to include in lead). This especially inspired me to work on my own state. I wish all 50 lists would eventually become as complete. Thanks in advance for your comments. Ruby comment! 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Lead image(s) could use alt text. Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It's not showing up for me, although it's possible that it's just my computer. Anyone else having the same problem? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Fixed the problem. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC) If U of M is going to be used as an abbreviation, that should be included in parenthetical form after the original use, in order to avoid any confusion for the readers. Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) To fill the blank spaces in the Accreditation column, consider dashes of some type. Done (Used —) Ruby 2010/2013 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) In note 5, is Rasmussen Colleges intended to be plural? It isn't in the table. I corrected it (minor typo on my part). Ruby 2010/2013 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) En dashes are needed in the page ranges of refs 11, 70, and 86. I still see the one in 11 (others are done). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) More en dashes would be useful in the titles of refs 2, 6, 15, 19, 23, 24, 37, 56, 65, 66, 85, and 109–114. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Dashes all added. Ruby 2010/2013 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) A good number of these still have faulty hyphens. It's worth rechecking. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) TheRamblingMan was nice enough to run a script through it; they all look good now Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) The script missed the ones still left in 2 and 24, though it did a nice job on the rest of them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Done Ruby 2010/2013 19:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments No need for period in infobox image caption. Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Postsecondary in our own article is hyphenated. Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Is fall capitalised or not? Not in the lead, is in the table col heading. Done (not capitalized) Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Are all these institutions inherently notable? If so, they should be red-linked if no article exists. Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Would prefer to see None under accreditation for those with no accreditation. Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Defunct table could be sortable. Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) PDF links should have format=pdf Done Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. They have all now been addressed. Ruby 2010/2013 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

;Comments: On my viewing platform the text "There are nearly 200" are even with the three stacked photos. I'd use {{clear}} just after the photos. Putting the template there didn't work, so I put it before the images. How does it look now? Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Two dead links Fixed Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC) majority of Minnesota's post-secondary institutions are accredited, 22 are accredited, Most are accredited. Dull, repetitious prose with "accredited". Possibly reword? I agree, but there really isn't a better synonym for accredited that doesn't change the meaning. I reworded one of the sentences to say "accreditation" (similar I know, but hopefully it switches it up a little). Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Delink "higher education", common term Done Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC) No scope row or scope col tags on the "Institutions" list? Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC) No scope col tags on the "Defunct institutions" list. Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC) The ISBN's should be dashed, see Wikipedia:ISBN. This tool could be of assistance. Albacore (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Done Ruby 2010/2013 01:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Albacore (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I tweaked the edit you made to the image template. Personally I like the image box there (after the lead text), but let me know if it looks odd. Ruby 2010/2013 02:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per all above. Great list. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! Ruby 2010/2013 03:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This is a very good list, and appears to be on-par with similar featured lists. This statement in the lead has no reference: "While the University of Minnesota was chartered by the state in 1851, it did not operate as a place of higher education for nearly two decades." I'd say that needs a citation. I'm still going through the sources/links. AstroCog (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 32 appears dead or broken. I'd say, it's best to used archived versions of websites for the links.

Breakdown of featured list criteria:

• Prose: prose is good and it's straight-forward and to the point.
• Lead: the lead defines inclusion in the list and provides appropriate context.
• Comprehensiveness: this article appears to be comprehensive - I couldn't find any obvious omissions.
• Structure: This list is structured appropriately and is easy to navigate.
• Style: appropriate colors and citation style. Very few red-links. I think the image gallery could be placed differently - it just sort of dangles off the bottom of the lead. Can it be right justified to be located next to the lead text?
• Stability: no apparent edit warring. List is curated by a single editor, who is maintaining it well.

I'd say just clean up the broken link and fix the placement of the image box and I'll be happy to support this nomination. AstroCog (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. I moved the image box back to its original spot, and fixed the link issue (I added an archive link so the problem doesn't arise again). The U of M statement you mentioned was actually cited in the following ref, but I moved it around so now both sentences are now clearly referenced. Thanks again, Ruby 2010/2013 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job. You've got my support. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:06, 18 December 2011 [14].

---

List of best-selling singles of the 1960s (UK)

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have compared this article to its equivalent 2000s list (currently a FL), and I hope that it is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much in advance! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "... "She Loves You" by the Liverpudlian group The Beatles." > Couldn't you just say "... "She Loves You" by The Beatles."? Considering how popular they are I don't think identifying them as being from Liverpool is really needed.
• "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" > Should this sort under "Satisfation" (i.e. the song's main title) rather than "I Can't Ge No" (i.e. a parenthetical extension to the main title)? Jimknut (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done both. Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments To a non-expert, you may need to explain that the OCC is a UK company? Done. "by post" may not be universal (e.g. think of the Americans!) Wikilinked to mail. "Released in August 1963, "She Loves You" spent four..." don't repeat "She Loves You", perhaps either just "it" or "the single"? Done. Was Bilk kept off number one by one particular song or just a bunch of songs because his song was a slow-burner? Added. Was Blackburn the first Radio 1 DJ or the first BBC DJ full stop? Specified that he was Radio 1's first DJ. Not sure where ref 13 backs up the claim of more than half being by British acts, is it somewhere in the MP3? If so, note the time. However, it's now not available....! And probably never was to international audiences... About a fifth of the way down the page it says: "In the era of the British invasion, it's a very British chart so multiple entries for The Beatles, The Stones, Cliff Richard, ... and Ken Dodd mean over half the records are by Brits." Dodd's caption needs citation. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jafeluv (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A few comments: The first sentences would work better with a full stop instead of a semicolon. The sentences aren't really that connected. Done. No wikilink to United Kingdom anywhere in the article? I'm willing to change this, but I've been reading WP:OVERLINK to mean that major geographical locations (such as countries) need not be wikilinked to. True, major geographical locations shouldn't normally be linked. However, links with contextual significance should certainly be included -- for example London should no doubt link to United Kingdom even if the latter is a major geographical location. If the context of the article is singles in the UK, I would (as a reader) expect a link somewhere to both single and United Kingdom. That's a very minor point, though, and I see that the 2000 list includes no such link. Jafeluv (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't it be "the Official Charts Company" instead of "The Official Charts Company"?[15] Fixed. Somehow I don't feel the detailed history belongs in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should start with a summary of the list and its important points, and details about how the charts were compiled should come later (either in the lead or as a separate section). Not entirely sure that I agree with this. My understanding of WP:MOSBEGIN is that the opening paragraph of the article needs to establish context for the reader, which, to me, would mean explaining what singles actually are and how their sales were measured during the 1960s in the UK. That being said, if this is something that you think really needs to be altered, I'd be happy to do so. I agree that it's good to establish context by explaining the definition of single and describing how the numbers were produced, but I still don't think detailed explanations about which magazine had higher readership or what sample sizes they had belongs in the first paragraph. A separate paragraph later on for the detailed history would IMHO work better and lead the reader faster to the important points. Jafeluv (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I've swapped around the first and third paragraphs. What do you think? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, I think it definitely works better that way. Is the fact that Tony Blackburn was the BBC Radio 1's first ever DJ important in the lead? To me that sentence looks kind of disconnected in there, but then again I probably don't know enough of the topic to be able to tell the important information from mere trivia. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I thought that it would be good to provide some context as to why Blackburn in particular was selected to present the show. I've removed the second half of that sentence. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC) The second-most-represented act probably belongs before the most-represented female act. Fixed. Is that really the best photo of The Rolling Stones that we have? I think this or this would work better in the article. Nice thought. Replaced with the first photo you suggested. Why is Magical Mystery Tour, an album, in the list of best-selling singles? As Chris has mentioned below, it was released as an EP in the UK, which, at the time, qualified it for the UK Singles Chart. Slightly odd, I know, but that was how the list was compiled. I don't think it's necessary to link London, BBC etc. several times in the references section. Removed wikilinks to London and BBC. Jafeluv (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC) In the UK, Magical Mystery Tour was released as an EP and charted in the singles chart..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I see, thanks for the information. Maybe it would be worth making a note about that fact in the list in case someone else wonders about it as well? Jafeluv (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Nice idea, I've done that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) "The BMRB compiled data from approximately 250 different record stores, which was hand-written and submitted by post." - Shouldn't "which" normally refer to the immediately preceding noun? What is meant here is "data, which", not "stores, which". Jafeluv (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Rewritten. Is this any clearer? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, looks good now. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Is a part of the lead copied from List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones (or is it the other way around)? Either way, it should be attributed in the edit history per WP:CWW. Jafeluv (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I used the lead from the "List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones" articles as a starting point for writing about the same subject in this list. I tried to put it into my own words wherever possible, but, just to err on the side of caution, I've added a {{Copied}} template to the talk page and a dummy edit to the article history. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks, that should take care of any attribution concerns. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments The table fails WP:ACCESS requirements, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this Fixed (I think). Nearly you just need to add the rowscopes, I've done an example for you so you know what to do. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Done. Thanks a lot for the assistance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Is the artist column sorting by surname, if so Cliff Richard is not sorting correctly I wasn't too sure about this. It seemed to me that "Cliff Richard & The Shadows" is the name of the group, and hence should be sorted under C, in the same way that Gerry & the Pacemakers is sorted under G. But if this goes against Wikipedia convention, I'll happily change it. I see what you're saying, although the shadows were his backing group so I would be inclined to sort it under R because of this. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC) seems a bit odd to have a list of best selling singles and not include the amount sold, is this info available? if it is I'd like to see it added NapHit (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately the sales info was never revealed on the Radio 2 programme. I can find info for the top 17 best-selling songs, but nothing below that has been made public. Would it be worth including the sales info for those 17 singles anyway? Ah ok, fair enough, I'd leave it then, no point in having 17 columns full and leave the rest empty. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support as well. Jafeluv (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 16:06, 11 December 2011 [16].

---

Kansas City Cowboys (AA) all-time roster

Nominator(s): Neonblak ^talk - 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As usual, any issues will be addressed in prompt manner. Neonblak ^talk - 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Ref. to Ref(s), as it uses more than one ref at some players.
• Headers should use scope="col" and the players in the table should use scope="row", not to forget the table cation (+XYZ) and plainrowheaders so they wont center and bold. see the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (S) as an exemple from two bellow this list.
• † and § should be converted to thier templeate for ACCESS (due to JEWS readers), with alt aswell. Exemple †, to all that located there.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A note: the use of the plainrowheaders class is optional and the choice of the primary editor, and the § symbol is read properly by JAWS (I assume this is what you refer to above) and does not require substitution by template. — KV5 • Talk • 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Made the appropriate changes noted here. If the table is fine, I will leave it as is.Neonblak ^talk - 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The table does still need row headers, captions, etc. The only optional things are the addition of the PRH class and the swap of symbols for templates. — KV5 • Talk • 01:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Table switched over, not sure if this is an upgrade though, but whatever people want :) Still have issues with it, such as the position key needs to moved to the right, player photos don't line-up flush with the table, a large gap between the table and the player photos. If you have any suggestions on how to correct these, please let me know. I will have time later today to work on this.Neonblak ^talk - 14:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Format the table like the Myron Allen entry is formatted. Albacore (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Used albacore's fix, resolved the position key issue (deleted it, expanded positions in table), and added team photo for lead, move Hamilton down to list.Neonblak ^talk - 03:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Unbold team name in lead. Years in baseball should not be linked in prose because they are not given sufficient context to warrant it. winning just 22" "Slidin'" Billy Hamilton - his nickname is not "Slidin'", it's "Slidin' Billy", so the more appropriate link would be as follows: "Slidin' Billy" Hamilton. Improve image captions alongside table; they give little context at present. I know previous FLs for all-time rosters have had captions like this, but see the above-linked Phillies "S" roster for more appropriate and explanatory captions. Dave Rowe needs a symbol. Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Correction made, and captions for photos added.Neonblak talk - 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Fantastic. — KV5 • Talk • 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "then moved to Exposition Park for 1889 season." Feels like it's missing "the" before the year. Repeat word in "He was replaced with with non-playing manager Bill Watkins". John Bates: "He was released from the team following the conclusion of game." Would be better as "conclusion of the game" or "game's conclusion". Jim Donahue: Missing "with" in "then split time at the position Charlie Hoover...". Frank Hafter: "His career consisted of two complete games losses in May 1888." Make "games" singular. Charlie Hoover: "when split time as the team's starting catcher with Jim Donahue." Needs "he" before "split". Chippy McGarr: Typo in "Wester League". Bill Phillips: "In the last of his ten-season career". Feels like it needs another "season" after last. Henry Porter: "Porter led the franchise in many major pitching including...". Another missing word here, before "including". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC) All corrected.Neonblak talk - 14:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC) "after beginning the season with win–loss record of 14–36 through 50 games." Missing "a" after "with". Fixed.Neonblak talk - 07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comment from User:Muboshgu
The alt on the first picture, "A baseball player is posing for a photograph, five men standing, five men sitting on chairs, and two are sitting on the floor." should be fixed to say "Baseball players..." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Fixed alt.Neonblak talk - 04:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments Is there really a need to add (AA) in the title? There is no Kansas City Cowboys all-time roster after all... I did that due to the two other Cowboys teams; one in the Union Association (1884) and another in the National League (1886). However, both of those two were only at the "major league" level for one season each. But since I thought they could still hypothetically have their own all-time roster, I pre-emptively disambiguated.Neonblak talk - 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC) "the team's player-manager for a period of 56 games " v "1888, he managed 58 games." maybe he didn't play in the last two he managed, but this is slightly confusing. "he led the team with 5 home runs." 5->five. Ref 1 needs an en-dash as the year separator. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) These corrections made.Neonblak talk - 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - yep well done.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 16:06, 11 December 2011 [17].

---

K-Ci & JoJo discography

Nominator(s): Michael Jester (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. This article has been researched a lot and finished an extensive peer review a month ago. Michael Jester (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking very good. Just a few thoughts: "number-two Billboard song," Perhaps not automatically clear what this means? Reworded. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) "Emotional (2002), was" Lose the comma? Done. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Are the compilation albums worth redlinking? Don't be scared of redlinks- if a topic is worthy of an article, link whether there is an article or not. (If they aren't worth an article, a redirect here wouldn't be a bad thing.) Same's true of the singles. Okay. I redlinked the compilation albums as well as the singles which I thought was worthy of an article. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Some more links in the footnotes wouldn't go amiss- Allmusic, Billboard, etc., but not the biggest deal. Also, I'd link in all footnotes or none- I note that you've linked Vevo only once. Consistency is good, and remember that each ref could well be viewed individually. I tried to link things the first time only per Wikipedia:Overlink#Repeated_links That MoS page seems to be contrary to common practice and common sense. It seems to be regular practice at FAC and GAC to link everything in every reference; this makes sense, as each reference could be viewed individually- someone checking the references may not have (almost certainly hasn't?) checked all the other references. In addition, the overwhelming message of our guidelines on citing sources is that consistency is a good thing- it doesn't matter too much how you do it, as long as it's consistent. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Okay. I believe I have linked every in the references section. I understand why too. Thanks. Michael Jester (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Footnote 17- "Retrieved September 19, 2-11." Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) For refs 23 and 24, could you perhaps have an intro line, as you do with 26 and 29? Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Very small point- in some places, you combine multiple refs into a single footnote, in others, you use multiple separate footnotes for the same point. I'd still be happy to support without this being fixed. It would be more difficult (or at least I think it would be) to reference in the lead if I combined certain footnotes. Again, nice work. I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these very small issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, I have replied to all of them. —Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) The article's looking great. I'm gonna hold off my support for now, to see if anyone else raises any valid concerns, but I strongly suspect that I will be supporting soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Remove comma in "K-Ci & Jojo was originally affiliated with the R&B group, Jodeci before..."? Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Move ref 4 to after the comma, not before. Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC) "The album produced five singles, all which charted in the top 30 of the New Zealand Top 40 Singles". "all which" → "all of which". Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC) "The album peaked at number twenty on the Billboard 200, peaked at number three on the Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums, and was certified platinum by the RIAA." In this case, just omitting the second "peaked at" would make for a smoother read Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC) In the next-to-last sentence of the lead, add commas after Love and before Playlist Your Way. Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC) As a general note, there are many redundant usages of "peaked" or "peaking". If it's said once at the beginning of a sentence, it doesn't need to be repeated right afterward. All it's doing is making the text more difficult to read through. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I appreciate your comments and I believe I have addressed them all. —Michael Jester (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Not much to pick at, but I did find a few things:

• LEDE: In "Love Always peaked at number five on the Billboard 200,[2] and number two on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums[2]", it's proper to speak of the Billboard 200, but I would either leave out the "the" before Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, or add the word "chart" after it.
  • Done. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• LEDE: I happen to know what the ARIA charts are, but really only because I fiddle with music articles on Wikipedia a lot. I suggest you change "ARIA" to "Australian", parallel to Swiss, Canadian, UK, etc. (Keep link to ARIA.)
  • Done. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• LEDE: The above comments for the 1st paragraph apply for the 2nd graph, too.
  • Done. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • One more R&B thingy in the 2nd graph. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Michael Jester (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• LEDE: In "including "Tell Me It's Real", which peaked at number two on the Hot 100", you could provide a link for Hot 100. Also, perhaps slip in a reference to the U.S., as, e.g., "including "Tell Me It's Real", which peaked at number two in the US on the Billboard Hot 100."
  • Done
• LEDE: I would hyphenate "three times platinum" to "three-times-platinum".
  • Should this be done? I don't think I've seen it hyphenated like that before (I may be wrong though). Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I feel confident about this (although I do see it without hyphens more often than not on WP). You could go with "triple-platinum" here, if that makes it easier to swallow. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. However, can you explain why? I'm not that good when it comes to hyphenating words. Michael Jester (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
        • My reasoning is that three-times-platinum is one whole term, and it's jarring to read (exaggerating now to explain) "...it was certified three. Times. Platinum." You have to go back a couple of times to see that it wasn't certified three like reaching a peak of three, but was certified three times. Well, that sounds good, What certification did it repeatedly receive, three times? Ah, platinum! Oh, I see, it was certified only once, but at the three-times-platinum level.

I know it seems like I'm stretching the point here (and I realize many normal humanoids don't care either way), but those little hyphens make a difference to those sensitive to the details. (And BTW, a triple-platinum record might actually get certified three separate times in the platinum area [after getting a gold cert, presumably], so it may seem that my example of repeated certs up there matches life pretty closely, but sometimes the certs come all on one day, and the platinum and double-platinum are just formalities to get to the actual award level at certification time.)

Adverbs (ending in -ly) don't usually get hyphenated to the words they're modifying (we use "a quickly running man" rather than "a quickly-running man"), but the "triple" or "three-times" here are adjectives modifying the "platinum", so we still hyphenate. There does appear to be a slow trend away from hyphenating borderline cases, though. Some spell-checkers tend to suggest dehyphenating some words. I agree it can be tricky. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That was a very good explanation. I wasn't expecting that lol. Thank you for explaining it in depth. I understand it more now. Michael Jester (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• On the two albums tables, the Title columns seen unnecessarily narrow (8em). They don't have to be as wide as on the singles tables (16em), but how about bumping them up to 12 em for those two tables?
  • 8em is what WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests to have, but I do see your point. Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, the point of the examples at WP:DISCOGSTYLE is not to say, "these columns must be 8em wide", but to show how tables might best be marked up, with visible examples of the output. The more important rule is that we do what's best for an individual article, and aim for consistency among similar tables (so we aim for equal widths of the Title columns of the albums tables). That one sample albums table happens to use 8em, because it suited that particular table. (Any suggestions you have about how to make WP:DISCOGSTYLE clearer are more than welcome, be it here or on that Talk page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Ohh I get it. Thanks. Michael Jester (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Refs: You've used names for the respective works like "Australian Charts Portal", "Dutch Charts Portal", etc., but it seems these aren't part of the actual sources. These shouldn't be made up, but should reflect actual identifiers from the sites themselves. That'd be "Australian-charts.com", "Dutchcharts.nl", etc. There are several of these.
  • Done. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Refs 16 and 22 and 2 and possibly others: The titles here are like "Australian single certifications", but the actual pages provides a clearer title like "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 1999 Singles". Again, we oughn't make things up, even if our descriptions are better summaries than what some dopey webmaster put up there.
  • I'm using {{Cite certification}} and that's the title it generates. I don't know what I can do about that? Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Ugh. I'd like to take a look at that, but won't get to it right away. I hope you can be a bit patient. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I can be patient. Michael Jester (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for waiting. I've finally looked at the {{Cite certification}} template and I think I've refined at least the Australian case to resolve my complaint about that example here. In any case, it's not your fault that the template still needs a bit of work, and it's the nature of templates that the page shouldn't suffer through the use of imperfect templates (which will only improve over time). Consider this a non-problem, then. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
          • No problem about being patient, I know we can be busy at times. Also, I saw what you did with the template. It looks nice. Thanks.
            —Michael Jester (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• For the Swiss sources, look at using swisscharts.com instead of hitparade.ch. The swisscharts.com is the English-version of the same site, even if you'll see a few German-language graphics or texts leak over into the English one. With swisscharts.com I think you can remove the language=German parameter. (Make sure the data still verifies, though.)
  • Done. Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all I'm seeing right now. Looks very nice, otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I believe have addressed them. If you find any more, let me know.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, here's a new one about capitalization: AllMusic (my preference; see the title bar on their site) or allmusic, but not Allmusic. See what I mean? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, allmusic is how it's stylized. Also, it comes after a period, which would require it to be capitalized. So it cannot be allmusic, per that and MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter. Their website also shows AllMusic, but in every discography FL that has passed in 2011 has used "Allmusic". Lastly, the Wikipedia article on it uses the "Allmusic" type.
  —Michael Jester (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Don't know what to say here. Their site seems to use exclusively AllMusic in text, but their so-stylish graphics are either allmusic or ALLMUSIC. I don't usually go out of my way to capitalize lowercase deliberately terms in refs just because they follow a period; "ITunes" just looks wrong (and seems to be not required by MOS, so it's a poor example). But if we are going to capitalize (and I think we should) then why not in keeping with AllMusic's apparent naming convention?

Those are my rambling thoughts, for what they're worth. Ultimately we come to the CamelCase bit under MOS:TM#General rules: it's a judgment call. So use your best judgment; it's editor's choice! (I won't oppose because of this one thing.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, then Allmusic it'll stay. Michael Jester (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe I can now support this article being featured. Good work, Michael. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, John. I appreciate you for all that you have done. Michael Jester (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment Why the red links? — Status {^talk_contribs 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In J Milburn's comments, it will explain why.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mild oppose too many little niggles for me at the moment. Says 14 singles in the lead, 15 singles in the infobox. Check music vids too. Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Is it USEng "to sign a deal to" something? I can see "to sign to..." or "to sign a deal with..." but not what you have. Think I fixed it. Michael Jester (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC) "in the top 30 of the New Zealand Top 40 Singles" I think it's a little trivial to delineate the top 30 of the top 40 from just the top 40. Should I take this out then? Michael Jester (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Taken out. Michael Jester (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC) "Neither album charted in Japan or the US." well, Love could never had charted as it wasn't released in the US... Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) "The album produced five singles..." I can only see four in the table. Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The two soundtrack singles don't get a mention, nor is it abundantly clear that these are not albums by K-Ci & JoJo from the table, perhaps have "official soundtrack" or something after the names of the albums. Added "OST" afterwards. Michael Jester (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Were is the specific reference for the release of Love? Since it didn't chart anywhere, and you don't reference its release in the lead, where do you get info such as the release date? I believe I have added reliable sources to it. Michael Jester (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Same comment for the last three non-charting compilation albums. Done. Michael Jester (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Same comment for "Fee Fie Foe Fum" in the singles table. Added reference that it charted on Bubbling R&B/Hip-Hop Singles. Michael Jester (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Not noticed this before, it seems confusing to a non-expert to have one blue-linked SWE link to Sverigetopplistan and another identical looking blue-linked SWE link to something different, i.e. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (which isn't even Swedish)... Possibly something that needs resolution with the DISCOGSTYLE folks. Similar comment for the recurring and differing use of US. No offense, but it's kind of self-explanatory that clicking US under "Peak chart positions" will lead one to article about the US's charts. Same goes for certifications. Also, IFPI is an organization based it London, but they're responsible for Swedish certifications. Should I de-link IFPI from SWE, though? Michael Jester (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Okay. I have changed the certification abbreviations. Michael Jester (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Where are Royalty and From the Ground Up referenced? I can't seem to find a reliable source for these two... Michael Jester (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Found a source for "From the Ground Up" and "Royalty". Michael Jester (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC) It's Me appears in your table but not in the template. Which is right? Is this the rogue single causing the discrepancy between the lead and the infobox? Fixed. Michael Jester (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you The Rambling Man for your comments. I have addressed some of them, and I will finish after I get home from work. —Michael Jester (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Okay, I believe every comment has been addressed. —Michael Jester (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support good to go--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you Pumpkin for the support.
    —Michael Jester (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support nicely done! One of my favorite duos :-) Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you Jona for the support.
    —Michael Jester (Talk) 20:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:18, 4 December 2011 [18].

---

List of James Bond films

Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria; it acts not just as a stand alone source of information in its own right, but also as the 'header article' for the canon of James Bond films. SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

;Oppose from Albacore (talk) Minor issues Unbold James Bond in the lead. Maintenance tag on File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.svg, fix or replace. In the Non-Eon versions table "Director" should be "Director(s)". When I click on the "Chapman 2009" ref it doesn't go to the book like Balio 1987 does. James Bond is a fictional character created by novelist Ian Fleming in 1953. He is a British secret agent... Reword here, unclear if Fleming is the secret agent or Bond is. Oppose reasons I dislike the use of rowspans in the table (see also this on the matter. No real benefit is gained by using the spans as opposed to using one entire cell for the same information. Currently fails WP:ACCESS. Almost no lists become featured that can't be sorted. Please allow sortability in the first four columns. IMO no need for the Rotten Tomatoes column. If someone wants to see the rating they should be able to find it in the relevant article. Can review closer when these are addressed. Albacore (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed all (though the actual/adjusted columns is unsortable because the sorting is kinda broken... and I could've kept the rowspan in the actors and it would still be sortable, but decided not to), even if I somehow object on the RT removal - in film series articles the rating for all installments is always there on a reception section. igordebraga ≠ 02:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment The sorting was not working correctly so I fixed it. Jimknut (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So I guess the downside of having to have sortable columns is that we have to over-wikilink everything? SchroCat (^ • @) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Really don't like the non-free logo image at the start. It doesn't even have a fair-use rationale, and I doubt an acceptable one could be created. Surely we have a free image of one of the actors who played Bond that could go there instead. Why raise the status of any one actor over the other six? The logo image is the one that represents Bond overall, not a specific actor. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Forgetting whether a photo of an actor should be there, a non-free photo shouldn't be used in an article without a valid non-free use rationale (not just a template saying it's fair-use). Nothing of the sort is on the photo's page. It would be better with no photo at all than with this one. I'll stronger consider opposing over this if something isn't done, whether it be removing the photo or adding a good rationale on the photo's page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I've deleted it: I'd rather have none than one that skews the balance. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Could you please explain your opposition to the logo to me? There are a number of other FLs which have artwork which has as much relevance to the articles as the 007 logo does here. I'm thinking specifically of, inter alia, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of 24 episodes, List of M*A*S*H episodes, Family Guy (season 1), Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8). Could you let me know why their artwork is deemed acceptable, but the 007 logo isn't? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Just because something passes through FLC in one list doesn't mean it's automatically acceptable or best practice. One of FLC's great weaknesses is that image reviewing is infrequent; FAC does a much better job in this aspect. If attention isn't paid to the photos, it's easy for a photo that doesn't meet the non-free criteria, or that has shaky free licensing, to sneak through. If you want the photo back in, I'd suggest asking an image expert what needs to be done. From my FAC experience, I remember User:Jappalang doing a solid job of image reviewing, but I'm sure there are others who can also help (best to look for them at FAC). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Greetings. I work a lot with Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia:Files for deletion, and I do image reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. In my opinion, a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided for this logo, and this logo could be used in the article without violating any of our non-free content criteria. – Quadell (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Given the advice above-and the call below for an image-I'm tentatively returning the image again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC) "He has been portrayed on film by actors...". Not an expert on movie phrasing, but should "on" be "in"? Grammatically speaking, either are acceptable. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC) No need to link Eon Productions twice in the lead. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The 1964 in film and 1965 in film links don't add that much. More relevant links would be to the articles on the Oscars in each of those years. Done the years in film links. Will re-work the Oscars sentences to include links shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The Oscar links have now been done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Pretty sure the MoS doesn't favor external links in the text; I was referring to wikilinks to our articles. If you want to keep these, I'd suggest formatting them as references. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Table, in entry 5 (For Your Eyes Only), the hyphen in the middle of the note should instead be an unspaced em dash (big one) or spaced en dash (little one) per the MoS. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Still see the hyphen; it's in the middle of the synopsis. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Not quite sure why the previous edit didn't work: all done now, however. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC) In ref 3, the pp. should be changed to p. because it's citing a single page, not a range. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC) What makes http://the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php a reliable source? It's listed on WikiProject Film/Resources page as source. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Just because something is listed on a WikiProject's resources page doesn't necessarily make it reliable. The projects are usually more inclined to declare a shaky source reliable than the other way around. Are there any stories in the media that declare this source reliable? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I've run a news search through LexisNexis and, since 1 Jan 2000, there have been 960 references to the-numbers.com from local, national and international newspapers. From what I can see as a general skim, these papers appear to be using the statistics put out by the-numbers.com. These sources also include newswires and trade press references. In addition, from a brief look at online sources shows Nash Information Services, which publishes "The Numbers", has been referenced by some high profile publishers: Variety, Wall Street Journal, New York Times etc. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) That seems to validate the source, IMO, since The source is unclear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Have to check the links later. I'm a little pressed for time at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• I don't agree with the removal of the Rotten Tomato scores. The reason that "readers can look them up on the individual articles" doesn't wash with me; on that basis we could scrap the box office figures too and then what's the point of having a list? You may as well just have a navbox. I certainly don't accept that the Rotten Tomato ratings are an obstacle to FL status, which is basically what this review is supposed to be assessing, and I think financial and critical comparative analysis are kind of mandatory. Being able to see how the films compare to each other improves the article IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Betty Logan makes a valid point. The Rotten Tomatoes scores should remain. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I returned them. igordebraga ≠ 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments No lead image? I would be tempted by a Daniel Craig one or a Connery one (latest/first Bond...?) The image is a sore point at the moment with a reviewer (above) not wanting the 007 logo which was previously there. We could have a picture of an actor, but there are two issues with that: 1) There are no images of the actors as Bond, which would be the ideal picture to have and if we do put up a pic of them as Bond, then we may as well retain the 007 logo, which has only just been removed; 2) A picture of any one actor raises that actor above the other six and gives them undue emphasis, which is a long way from ideal. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) "and featured Sean Connery as Bond" don't need Sean as you've mentioned that already. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) twenty two -> twenty-two. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) "a combined gross of over $5 billion" table says 4.91 billion. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) "case would ensure that" -> "case ensured that". Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) "All sums in millions of US dollars." apart from when they're in billions presumably...! Agreed! The billions only appear in the Totals row, apart from the columns, however, so it should be okay... SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Make sure table is accessible by using row and col scopes. Also not sure about the 97% font size, if necessary just make the synopsis column narrower. A great shame the table cannot be sorted by budget or box office. Consider linking years to "... in film" articles. These have just been removed on the advice of the previous reviewer... - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Sortable table so items that are linked should be linked every time. (e.g. SPECTRE). Not quite sure what you're asking for here: are you saying that the plots should also be sortable on key terms? - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC) No, what I mean is that you've linked SPECTRE on the first time of its use in the table, but not thereafter. Since it's sortable you need to link SPECTRE every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Got you now - all done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC) cat and mouse -> cat-and-mouse. Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree that using the 007 logo is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on Non-free content. The rules quite clearly state it is: WP:NFCI #1 permits Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. On many articles about a commercial product such as a film, a non free image of the poster/cover/advert is often included under this rationale. Wikipedia's policy explicitly caters for it, so a FUR rationale would only have to indicate that the image serves to visually identify the subject on an article about the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Given what many video game FLs use for an image, I thought about an image similar to this, if possible. igordebraga ≠ 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• As per my above comment I have tentatively returned the image. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• @User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, the artwork at List of 24 episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes is deemed acceptable because they aren't fair use. Both images are in the public domain. I can't answer why List of M*A*S*H episodes needs a photo of a box of DVDs, and if I'd reviewed it I would have insisted on its removal. Family Guy (season 1), Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8) are slightly different in that if you read Wikipedia:NFCI#Images #1, they comply with the rule that they are being used "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". At the bottom of the pages and in the ledes, the DVD releases are discussed. Each boxset artwork is also being used as a representation of the season, they don't limit the ability of the Fox to market or sell the DVDs, they are of low enough resolution so as to avoid piracy, etc. It should also be noted that other FL TV show lists such as 30 Rock (season 4) and Glee (season 1) do fine without fair use artwork.

File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png is completely different in that it's a fair use logo. It doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 because it can be replaced by something that is free: the numbers "007" without the stylised gun. The file is 400px on its largest side, which is generally considered too large for non-free content (WP:NFCC#3b). Finally, how would the file's omission would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC#8)? It has to "significantly increse [their] understanding" to be allowed. Will a reader understand the topic (a list of Bond films) without the logo? Yes. Will a reader have a hard time getting the gist of the article if it were excluded? No.

• What is the source for the Adjusted 2011 dollars?
• Why are the budgets and grosses in dollar amounts (also which dollars?) when it is a British film series? Why isn't it using GBP?

Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference number 43 (it's a note under the "Non-Eon versions" section)... also, the producers are Brits but the films are co-productions with US studios (UA, MGM, Columbia) that provide the financing, so there's no reason not to use dollars. igordebraga ≠ 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I'll come back to you on the image as I'm a little pressed now, but as we've had comments from Quadell who does huge anmounts of good work at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions saying that a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis.
2. I've added cites for the adjusted figures in the column headings.
3. The full figures for global budgets & box office returns are only available in $, rather than anything else, so those are the figures used. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced the logo with a collection of Bond DVDs - as I said above, it's more than enough to illustrate. igordebraga ≠ 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the same issue, unfortunately: a repetition of the logos is actually worse than a single one. Either way, the stylised 007 that was there before is a perfectly acceptable image to use on this page and it should be returned. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, showing the movies themselves certainly fits the criteria 8 (although showing all the films could help understanding better than 20 of them being reduced to box sets, but that's a detail). In any case, I asked some help on the matter. igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How does it meet criterion 8? The boxsets don't show what movies there are. You need the article to see what the movies are, which means it doesn't "significantly increse the readers' understanding of the topic". Showing all the dvd cases also doesn't significantly increase the readers' understanding, because by reading the list, the reader gets to see what all the movies are. Criterion 8 is very hard to meet for a reason. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the second sentence of the first paragraph is extremely long and could do with being split, it also says there are 24 productions, but including Skyfall, there are 25. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Split the sentence (I didn't want to have "the next one is in production" twice, but here we go). igordebraga ≠ 04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It seems the editors just don't get it. Now there are two different photos of DVDs. IMO the photo of the boxsets requires seven Fair Use Rationales because each DVD case is an individual work of art. It doesn't matter that they're in the same photo (others may disagree and say that one very strong FUR would suffice, but the one here isn't strong). The new photo uploaded by Dr. Blofeld, for the first 19 DVD spines, individually they aren't copyrightable because they're made up of typeface and geometric shapes. However, put together, and they form the 007 Gun logo, which is. The three spines to the far right have their own copyrights attatched because they display copyrighted images of Craig and Connery, and the Gun logo is visible on Casino Royale. At worst it needs deleting from Commons, uploading locally and tagging non-free with a FUR, at best it needs deleting altogether. There simply is no non-free image that could convey easier than the list already does, that there are 24 movies or what they are called. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The two abominations of photographs removed. They add nothing to the article, are legally dubious and look hideously unprofessional. I've replaced it with the 007 logo, which covers all aspects of the Bond films and as we've had comments from Quadell who is something of an expert on these things (see their work at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) that says a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've stricken my comments because the pictures were removed, but my oppose still stands for now. Note that Quadell said a valid FUR could easily be provided.. I take that to mean that the FUR right now is not valid. Perhaps he could write a good FUR for it? Also, I'd also like to hear from him why he thinks it could be used in the article without violating any of the NFCC, because I still don't believe it meets #1 or #8. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Image replaced with public domain screencap. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support The image is clearly related to one James Bond film, and it's cultural iconography to the James Bond films can't be denied; however, this is one still from one movie, and presumably each movie or at least each new Bond actor, has their own barrel sequence (I always assumed it was s gun sight -- who looks down the inside of a barrel? But I digress). So it's not really relevant to the other 23 movies, and therefore has little relevance when used to illustrate an overall List of Bond films, so it's still not a perfect choice. Some articles just don't lend themselves to any media and I think this is one. Still, it's free -- apparently (although it seems a bit iffy to me) -- and the criteria for FLs (and FAs) have no stipulation for relevant, on-target, meaningful media, so I can only support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  All the actors did indeed shoot their own gun barrel sequences, but this particular image is actually the "silhouetted man" version, used for the very first gun barrel sequence. Sean Connery had already finished filming, so they filmed a stuntman in silhouette form. Since this is the only barrel sequence in which the actor isn't identifiable I think it works quite well. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments The table looks horrible with the two headers above the rest, you can implement them into table look at List of Liverpool F.C. managers to see what I mean. The table fails WP:ACCESS at the moment you need to add row and col scopes, see MOS:DTT for more info. The refs with pdfs need format=PDF added to them. I think the table should be full size as well I don't see any benefit to having it under 100% and remove the background stuff as well. NapHit (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC) These points should all be addressed now. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC) You need to add rowscopes, these should go in the film name cell. NapHit (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry - missed that one! Now done: didn't work with the numbers in the first column, so I've removed them (there sort of superfluous anyway) We now have the film names as the first column, which act as the row headers: I hope you approve. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So far?
I think we've addressed all the points raised so far: if there are still any outstanding, then they are lost in the type above! Could people please let me know if there is anything from the above section that still needs addressing? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jafeluv (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment The article looks good, although seeing the title I would have expected more information on each film, such as who played the Bond girl, who the villain was, and at least a link to the book the film was based on. The table format seems to make it impractical to provide detailed information, which is a shame. I appreciate where you are coming from, but this is a list of the James Bond films, not all the people who were in them. Linking them to "source" books is a tricky subject with Bond films, as the films may take elements from three of four books or short stories – or none at all! The page does have links to the films, where all the sources, as well as full cast lists etc, are available. True, issue of which books provided the story to the film might be too complicated to include in a list. The reader can of course find more detailed information by following the link to the film article. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC) "Twenty fifth", "twenty third" etc. should be written with a hyphen. Or is this a BrEng/AmEng issue? I don't think we hyphenate these in BrEng, although I'm prepared to be over-ruled on that as I’m not 100% sure! At least Wiktionary seems to hyphenate these throughout. My paper dictionary has "two hundredth" without hyphen, but "twenty-second" with it. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure, so I'll stick with WP:ENDASH and put them in. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC) The US-dollars-only box office figures were a surprise to me as well, but if that's how they are usually presented in sources I won't object. If these were British only sums then obviously sterling should be used, but they are international figures so we use the dominant reserve currency (i.e. dollars) as per MOS:CURRENCY. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I see, thanks for the explanation. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Is the-numbers.com a reliable source? Yes. It was raised above in one of the hidden sections: see the comments in Giants2008’s section Ah, sorry. I did take a look at the earlier comments but looks like I missed that one. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC) What exactly is the difference in scope between this article and James Bond in film? This is a list of the films. James Bond in film is a wider article (currently awaiting a major re-write) about the films, looking more closely at the history of development, with a focus on focus on the background production history, long-term legal battle and it’s effect on the films etc Hmm, while the James Bond in film article certainly has a different focus, it also contains a list of films (although not in table format), and has much of the same information including box office results and Rotten Tomatoes ratings. Much of the prose is also found in that article in a slightly different wording (example below). I'm trying to figure out what additional information this list provides to the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Extended content List of James Bond films: Additionally, several of the songs produced for the films have been nominated for Academy Awards for Original Song, including Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die", Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better" and Sheena Easton's "For Your Eyes Only". James Bond in film: Additionally, several of the songs, including Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die", Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better", and Sheena Easton's "For Your Eyes Only", have been nominated for Academy Awards for Original Song. There is, obviously a small area of overlap - both articles address Bond films, so there will obviously be a minor element of duplication. However, the James Bond in film article needs a complete overhaul and re-write and this is on the cards to come up shortly. Details of the re-write and how the article will be more clearly differentiated from this list etc are all on the talk page. It sounds a rather obvious point, but probably one worth re-iterating, but this is a list of the films, as opposed to an article about Bond in film. As to the similarities in text, yes! There will be some minor similarities there as I think I wrote both sections! Putting the three songs into chronological order seemed the most obvious way to go and it's difficult to write the supporting sentence too many other ways whilst it reads naturally. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Jafeluv (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I hope this all helps, but if you’ve got any questions or further points about anything I’ve answered, please let me know - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The two tables should probably be merged and use a small legend to show the two non-Eon entires. That way a complete comparison can be done between the movies. 18.111.42.197 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Support I had my say at the peer review. Article looks good. Ruby 2010/2013 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support very nice --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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