Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2007
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- In-depth, accurate, fully referenced, etc etc. Follows standards of previous wrestling FLs. --MarcK 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, good. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent list (as always) -- Scorpion0422 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I just have one problem with the list and that is WWE's current stance with the title. On its website, it doesn't recognise any reigns before Shane Douglas drops the NWA World title. [1][2] Though I haven't got a copy to confirm this, I've been told its the same in the recently released Complete History of Champions book. Is there any chance a similar system to List of WWE Champions or List of WWE United States Champions be applied as the reigns are still notable? -- Oakster Talk 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was considering noting that, but the official history also says "Check out the history of the ECW World Title, from Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka all the way up to Bobby Lashley". So I don't know what to think really. I wouldn't mind putting the daggers there if necessary though. --MarcK 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I've decided that the Snuka note was probably just a mistake, and the actual history takes precedence, so I've updated the article to reflect WWE's views. --MarcK 11:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'll place a vote in this. Great job guys. -- Oakster Talk 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This list is being nominated because it is a good list produced by the WP:CHICOTW. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A very nicely developed list, and quite useful as a reference. --Kukini hablame aqui 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - as nominator. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are so many of the dates missing? Explain to me what they are, exactly, and why several fields have "NA"?Redirects will take you to the wikipedia page when the names differ. That's probably the worst self-referential sentence I've ever seen. Try not to advertise a weakness of Wikipedia.Why are the thumbnails of a smaller size in the second section?Wouldn't it be beneficial to have this list as being sortable?Toodles. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I only see one Chicago designation date missing.--Kukini hablame aqui 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't understand the function of the columns. I thought it was all missing information. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- – I have deleted the sentence in point #2. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Resolved
- The second section is a secondary list of Chicago Landmarks. The first section is for official Landmarks designated by the Mayor and City Council that may or may not also by NRHP or NHL properties. The second section is for landmarks in Chicago that have not been designated by the Mayor or City Council, but rather by the Federal institutions. Thus, the first section has more prominent images. I think there may be a space issue in the second section dependin on your viewing preferences and display settings. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how to make the list sortable. How do you do this? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- To make a table sortable, just use "wikitable sortable" instead of "wikitable".
Done TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC) - Regarding the images, the second table is in fact of a lesser width than the first, leading me to believe there shouldn't be a problem with normal sized thumbnails. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Done
- To make a table sortable, just use "wikitable sortable" instead of "wikitable".
- Support. I removed the table sort function though. This table is not optimized for sorting so it adds no useful function here (unless someone really wants to know all which were designated in April, or March). Rmhermen 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I left Phoenix2 a message that I needed some advice on the date sorting formatting. There must be an optimal way to use sortability with dating. I guess if I had YYYY-MM-DD format that would be one way. Is there another. If there is agreement that this is not needed then I will drop it. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I think it's alright now, definitely more trouble than it's worth. In that case, my objections have been addressed. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I left Phoenix2 a message that I needed some advice on the date sorting formatting. There must be an optimal way to use sortability with dating. I guess if I had YYYY-MM-DD format that would be one way. Is there another. If there is agreement that this is not needed then I will drop it. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OpposeSorry, but I think there are still seizably too much redlinks in this table for it to be featured. The other elements of it are fine, though. Circeus 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)- Comment When WP:CHICOTW first worked on the page there about 75% redlinks. Then we spent another week just on creating articles for the redlinks and now it is about 45%.
- Most FLs curently have at least 70% blue links. Considering what is left is only going to be filled in very slowly, that it not enough. Circeus 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reply You are free to vote how you feel, but when we were at 25% blue links we (WP:CHICOTW) were told to shoot for a majority. We were going to try to go for 60%, but there was a loss in enthusiam, especially from our hardest workers. I understand we have to uphold standards, but producing another 40 or 50 articles is not something I expet to be able to convince people to spend another week on. We will stand on what we have produced and if that is not good enough it will fail. It is, however, a complete and thorough list. Also consider that even the redlinks each have a citation to a link for all the details. Note the hundreds of citations which may lessen the importance of producing blue links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You can tell from my user page that I have personally already created about 3 dozen landmarks for this WP:FLC push. Several others were created by other members to get us to over 50% linked. Now, some other members of the project have started adding articles in hopes of improving the usefulness of the page and thus its viability as a WP:FL. So far I count seven new Landmarks since June 25th at WP:WPChi#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages with the promise of more to come. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reply You are free to vote how you feel, but when we were at 25% blue links we (WP:CHICOTW) were told to shoot for a majority. We were going to try to go for 60%, but there was a loss in enthusiam, especially from our hardest workers. I understand we have to uphold standards, but producing another 40 or 50 articles is not something I expet to be able to convince people to spend another week on. We will stand on what we have produced and if that is not good enough it will fail. It is, however, a complete and thorough list. Also consider that even the redlinks each have a citation to a link for all the details. Note the hundreds of citations which may lessen the importance of producing blue links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Most FLs curently have at least 70% blue links. Considering what is left is only going to be filled in very slowly, that it not enough. Circeus 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment When WP:CHICOTW first worked on the page there about 75% redlinks. Then we spent another week just on creating articles for the redlinks and now it is about 45%.
Tentativesupport. Circeus 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)- Comment About 50 or 60 articles have been stubified in the lasst 3 days. I think we have over 70%, but I don't want to count. I have been creating Template:Chicago Landmark houses and reworking Template:Chicago Landmark districts templates. I intend to create several more including places of worship, skyscrapers and possibly schools, monuments, theatres, etc. I am wondering if you know how to minimize KB usage for color coordinating the table cells by row along with this effort. It might make sense to have each house row be one color, each district another, each place of worship yet another and so on. However, I only know how to add color by cell and the article is already long in the tooth in terms of KB measurement. Cell by cell coloring would take up a lot of space. What do you think? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support It now has enough blue links. Some suggestions:
- The table uses "NRHP" and "NHL" without explaining them. Could those be added in parenthesis after the full name in the lead sections.
- Move the key up to the top. Make it horizontal rather than vertical. Choose a different colour than bright green.
- Seriously consider abbreviating your references section. I've made some suggestions on the talk page about a style of references that would be very much more compact. The article takes a very long time to load. The HTML alone is between 350 and 400KB depending on browser. Of that, about 130 to 150KB is the references section. -- Colin°Talk 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The list is completely sourced and is modelled after the List of WWE Champions, which is an FL. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. -- Scorpion0422 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for the moment; many notes are still lacking at which event the title was won, or any details at all. For the older reigns this is necessary, but for more recent ones further information can definitely be given. I'll support if more info is added where applicable. --MarcK 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Concern addressed, support now. --MarcK 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)- Done I have added as many notes as WWE.com would allow.
- It will be very hard for the older title reigns as the official WWE website gives very little information, but I'll add as much as I can to the new ones. -- Scorpion0422 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Bmg916Speak 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Said it before, I'll say it again: WikiProject Pro Wrestling is quality; you guys aren't gonna stop until they're all featured, and then you could make it a featured topic. Anthony Hit me up... 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, this list mirrors the other WWE championship lists that are already featured lists. Nikki311 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support excellent work on this and the other WWE championship lists *thumbs up* MPJ-DK 08:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Same high quality as all the others Drwarpmind 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. No outstanding issues Promote. Buc 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I (lovingly) ripped off the featured list List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks, right down to the paragraph about the NFL Draft. It's not that long, but then again the Panthers have only been around not even 15 years. Hopefully that will not preclude it from being featured simply because it's not as long as some of the other lists.
- Support, nominator. Anthony Hit me up... 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose, I'm not a big fan of all these articles having the same lead. It's redundant, uncreative, and lazy in my opinion. It's bad enough we have 1,000 NFL season articles starting "The [year] [team] season began with the team trying to improve on their [#-#] record from [year]...." Try to be a little creative with it, use your own words. Quadzilla99 13:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)- Changed to support. I still think the prose in lead could be a little better though. Quadzilla99 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Response - reworded the lead to make it a little shorter; removed redundant information and now it doesn't copy the Bucs' article. Anthony Hit me up... 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No Opinion at Present: I think the article needs some work.- 1. the first sentence of the lead para sounds odd - "This is a list of first-round draft picks made by the Carolina Panthers of the National Football League". needs re-wording
- Both the Tampa Bay and Cleveland lists, which I am basing this on, have the same first sentence; there's really no other way to say it. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- 2. need reference - "The Panthers joined the NFL in 1995 with the Jacksonville Jaguars." Question. In terms of expansion, where does panthers rank? add the #
- 3. "The team's most-recent first-round selection was " - this would mean that you got to update the sentence every year. instead use the year as it is easier for someone to spot and replace
- Again, both Tampa Bay and Cleveland have this exact sentence; since the page will have to be updated every year anyway, it's not much more work to do one more sentence. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- 4. Please avoid the use of single sentence para - "The Panthers have never had the first overall selection; the ...".
- 5. The para "This list concerns the first round ...." sounds very strange because of its positioning. if there is a place for the para - it is right after the first sentence or else it doesn't add value
- See TB & Cleveland. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not a good reason. Either have the para right after the first sentence or remove it. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I removed all but one sentence and placed it in the lead paragraph.Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- 6. "Note that due to their status as an expansion team, ....." - i have no idea why this statement was present
- I put it in there to distinguish the Expansion Draft (which oddly doesn't have its own article); Rod Smith was technically the first draft pick the Panthers ever made, but he's not on this list. I reworded the sentence & added a reference to draw a distinction. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- 7. The lead para can include some analysis on the performance on the first round pick. for eg: Julius Peppers won the ROY (isn't it?)
- With all due respect, I don't think the lead paragraph should include any information on annual awards; the lead would become bloated with every Pro Bowl/All-Pro/ROY/MVP selected. HOFers are rare enough to draw their own distinction. However, I have included notes about awards under the "Notes" column. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, i am not asking you to list every award won by their players. i am asking for a summary of how the first-round draft picks performed. Any perennial All-pro? Any busts (I know it is difficult to label recent picks as all-pros/busts, but i am sure we can analyze the picks from a few years back. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added a small paragraph about some of the picks and the struggles they've had... for a short-lived franchise, the Panthers have had a lot of problems (I know, I've been following them since Day 1, and it hasn't been easy lol). Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- 8. Since the article has less years to deal with - i think it needs more info. for eg: for each of the trades, please enter the player selected. for eg. "The Panthers obtained this pick from San Francisco in exchange for first- and fourth-round picks" would read better if it was "The Panthers obtained 28th overall selection (used to select Chris Gamble) from San Francisco in exchange for first round pick (xth overall pick, used to select y) and fourth round pick (xth overall pick, used to select y)
- 9. I was a reviewed for the tampabay article and i think there should be an improvement in quality as we get more FLs. I am sure that we will go back to the TB FL article at a later time and bring it to the same level as this
Please let me know if you have any questions. apologies if i have put too much out there. Kalyan 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)- No, it wasn't too much... at least not so much that I couldn't handle. I think I addressed most of the major concerns. As for the others, I was following the two lists that are featured, and they're minor wording issues at best; I hope you look at the article as a whole and realize that this is (now) in fact better than the other two featured lists (it contains much more details about the trades, along with pictures). Please let me know if there's more to be done. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support: A couple of minor points remain, but does not prevent FL for the article. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for your support; I have addressed your remaining concerns. Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the notes should be centred. Buc 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done - although to be honest, I think it looks worse with the notes centered than before. Anthony Hit me up... 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the notes should be centred. Buc 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a couple of things that are still bugging me:
- "The Panthers joined the NFL in 1995, as the league's 29th franchise, with the Jacksonville Jaguars." This sentence reads awkwardly, it also says they were both the 29th franchise.
- "The Panthers have had a hit-or-miss history of first-round picks." This needs a source, it reads like a personal observation.
- "Rae Carruth had a promising career as a wide receiver," Same deal as the previous one. I also don't think this is true regardless if you get a source his numbers were pretty mediocre even when he did get on the field. Quadzilla99 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done - removed the "hit or miss" statement, provided a source for Carruth's promising career, and slightly altered the 29th franchise sentence. The article has to mention that the Jags came into the league at the same time; there's really not too many ways you can phrase it differently, it is what it is (to quote John Fox, haha).Anthony Hit me up... 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive and well referenced. Looks very much like FL-quality. Sportskido8 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments Note: I copyedited the lead section and are thus, a minor contributor.
- I disagree with Buc and think the notes should be left aligned.
- Done
- The notes all need to be more concise, for instance you don't need to repeat the player's name every time. Example: "Brockermeyer made several All-Rookie teams." could more simply be "All-Rookie Team selection".
- Done
- I disagree with Buc and think the notes should be left aligned.
- This can still be better, don't start the notes with made or won; include the years of Peppers' Pro Bowls like under Morgan; I personally don't think the publication names are necessary, and All Rookie Team selection should be enough for Brockermeyer, Carruth, Peter, Gross, and Gamble but I'm not confident in that point.Timpcrk87 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)¶
- Shored up a little bit more: Added Pro Bowl years for Collins & Peppers, and made some of the All-Rookie references shorter. I left the publication name in for Gross & Gamble because a: it's the only one and b: there's a wikilink to the publication, so it doesn't make it terrible. Other than that, fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- This can still be better, don't start the notes with made or won; include the years of Peppers' Pro Bowls like under Morgan; I personally don't think the publication names are necessary, and All Rookie Team selection should be enough for Brockermeyer, Carruth, Peter, Gross, and Gamble but I'm not confident in that point.Timpcrk87 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)¶
- I'm not sure the header "Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks" needs to be on the table, after all that is the name of the article.
- Done
- Why is every school except UNC spelled out in the table, it should be consistent.
- Done
- I'm also not sure it is necessary to spell out the positions the first time they appear as long as the first appearance is wikilinked, it really clutters that column.
- Done
- I'm not sure the header "Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks" needs to be on the table, after all that is the name of the article.
- Timpcrk87 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- All concerns addressed & fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Timpcrk87 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Now Support my concerns were addressed and the article looks very nice.Timpcrk87 05:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
¶
- Support lead looks fine now. Buc 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. MarcK 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of all the known extant cetaceans including images and distribution data. It is based mainly on several of the other animal featured lists that exist. Chris_huhtalk 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like ref 35 needs {{cite web}}. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Cite web added. Chris_huhtalk 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, good. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Nominating this one has been on my "to do list" for a while. Great work. Rmhermen 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Looks excellent. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I really like those size comparison diagrams.--Pharos 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Excellent list. yup those size comparisons are very useful and great. DSachan 18:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport: I really don't think it necessary to link to List of whale species and List of dolphin species so many times. Just once in See also should be enough. After all, Everything in these lists will already be in this article... Circeus 04:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)- It was originally like that but in a peer review it had a while ago i was asked to change it. I think your way is better though. Like i said in the peer review since 'whale' is a monophyletic term it makes it more confusing having them linked like this. I will change it back. Chris_huhtalk 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I have now done that.Chris_huhtalk 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suspectit's the sort of things about an article that tend to go back and forth... Circeus 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was originally like that but in a peer review it had a while ago i was asked to change it. I think your way is better though. Like i said in the peer review since 'whale' is a monophyletic term it makes it more confusing having them linked like this. I will change it back. Chris_huhtalk 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. MarcK 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Based off the layouts of the other featured lists at Wikiproject Football, but with some additional sections that I thought are relevant. I believe it meets the featured list criteria, but that's up to you to decide :) See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Central Coast Mariners FC players/archive1 for some relevant details, as that list was very similar to this; similarily, this may also be useful. Cheers, Daniel 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- And yes, the image suck at the moment. I'm working on it. Daniel 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Update: When Danny Tiatto finally plays a match for QR (in the 2007-08 season, later this calendar year), I'll have a (very appropriate) image to add to the "Notable players" section, which Tiatto will feature in.
- Support as nominator. Daniel 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support – though I'd like to see the "Appear'ces" column title written out in full, since table width doesn't seem to be an issue in this case. - Mark 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done, that was a thing that I was meaning to change but forgot all about. Thanks! Daniel 06:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support Quality Article. .....Todd#661 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- A simple flag icon before the name wouldn't be more efficient than an entire column? I see that it's an issue with several of these lists and I think it is very, very unnecessary. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it would look better having, say,
Ante Milicic, however this breaks the sort table for the "name" field, for some reason. Unless you can think of doing this another way, the only other option is to not list the nationality of the players, which I feel would be a considerable loss to the list, given this is a rapidly-diversifying club team. Daniel 07:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose. Support for the time being, I'll ponder on this and see if there's a better solution. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really hope you can find one, because I agree with your comments that the current way the flags are listed isn't particularily effective. Daniel 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose. Support for the time being, I'll ponder on this and see if there's a better solution. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it would look better having, say,
- Support - would DoB be relevant? Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not, in my opinion, as I can't see what it'd add to the list in terms of making it more 'comprehensive'. Daniel 06:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I fully support this article becoming featured. It's well-referenced and the list itself is incredibly interactive and easily sortable. I actually plan on using the format of the list on an article that I'm working on. gaillimhConas tá tú? 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)