Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2012

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 22:08, 26 March 2012 [1].

---

Manchester United F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s):
– HonorTheKing (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria. The list takes similar format from FL article Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent and the bellow FLC Liverpool article. but unlike those two, it uses goals for and goals against instand of first and last competed season.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quick-fail check: The list is close enough to meeting the FL criteria. Quick-failing unnecessary. Goodraise 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Annoying, but I think all the "UNITED" in the reference titles should be "United" per MOS. Too many clauses in the first sentence, four commas... Split. "The team that Manchester United has met most in league competition is Arsenal, against whom Manchester United have contested 186 league matches;[2] 77 of these were United victories, which alongside United's tally..." count the "Manchester"s, then count the "United"s... needs reword. " which alongside United's tally of league wins over Aston Villa is a club record." -> " which, alongside United's tally of league wins over Aston Villa, is a club record." Presumably all those notes can be referenced by the StretfordEnd links? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Iv'e addressed the aboves and refed those.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support since Struway2 has run out of comments, and since I only had a few minor issues, by now it's a clear winner. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Quick comment – Ref 2 has a hyphen in the title that should instead be an en dash. Other than that all looks well. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments You could wikilink 1892–93 and 1939–40 season "The team that Manchester United has met most in league competition is Arsenal, against whom they have contested 186 league matches,[2] having won 77 of these matches,[3] which, alongside the league wins over Aston Villa,[4] is a club record." This is a very long sentence which could do with being split up. Suggest putting a full stop after "186 league matches" and start the next sentence "They have won... Sentence needs splitting. NapHit (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Done now.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC) United was founded in 1878, yet this table (judging by the key) only goes back to 1892, i think you should include the rest of united's league record as well. The seasons list states they spent three seasons in the football alliance and one in the combination. I would include these records as well Why not include the For and Against columns in the home and away sections? I also think it would be useful to add the first and last columns to give the reader some context as to when united played these teams NapHit (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Due to United not using non-competitive matches in its record books I did not add those matches in the Alliance and the Combination, But will rewrite it to say competitive league matches only. About the For/Against/First/Last, Due to table size Iv'e only added F/A in total and did not used the first/last and F/A in home and away, as when I used it the table went two screen size so Iv'e only picked what I found as most useful of the four (F/A in total).   – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) I'm still not sure about the Alliance and Combination records, as the alliance article states that it was founded as a rival to the football league which suggests it was competitive. The seasons list includes these records, while the luton league record list includes records from the southern league, so by this basis I think there are grounds for the records being included. Regarding the F/A bit, if that's the case then I would remove the width coding from the table which is making the club column too big, that should allow for more space to add the other columns. NapHit (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC) The alliance article does says that, but no source to confirm such a thing, while ManUtd stats books and website does not regard it as competetive and exclude it from its records. Yes United did play those seasons in those leagues, and yes it does mention them in the seasons article, but like I said they are not defined as competetive and the records from those matches are not included. Same goes to tournaments they played such as the Watney Cup and the Anglo-Italian Cup. If you look at the refs you can see Stretfordend does not include them in the teams played against. About the Combination, same as the 1939-40 league, records were excluded due to the league canceling and the issue with teams not knowing when its league and when its not. In addition if you look at the players who played for United in the Alliance you can see those records do not include in thier infobox nor the offical record books, Example: Willie Stewart, who was the top scorer in the time and those goals are not counted. About the table size, There is no width coding anymore and the size will be the same as mentioned above when I add the parts from above talk. Second of all, I also looked at another stats websites to see if those talked about are mentioned and they are not, using the Statto website which LFC list takes some of the records from it also exclude the Lancashire League (see LFC vs Blackpool), and the Comb. and Alli. leagues.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Fair enough if you can't reliably source the information then leave it. I was able to source it for the LFC list so I included it, but if you can't its no problem. The loughborough entry is causing the table to that wide, is there any chance you could shorten the name to Loughborough A.F.C? or something like that, then you at least might be able to squeeze F/A into the home and away columns. NapHit (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Did so about the AFC but still end up doing the same or making each team in two lines which looks abit ugly, The space left is only allow to use F/A in either Away or Home without making the teams in two lines (also saw using nowrap tag). Also see comment of mine from bellow, I do have a source for them but ManUtd don't regard them as leagues but more like non-league thing.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comments Would be helpful from an accessibility angle if you added informative alt text to the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} symbols, e.g. something like {{double-dagger|alt=defunct}} Was only here to mention the alt text, but while I'm here... You're right about the Combination, which was chaotic and never completed. But Newton Heath LYR certainly considered the Football Alliance competitive, even if MUFC 2012 don't. Finishing second in 1891/92 got them elected to the First Division of the Football League rather than the Second like most of the rest. If you were to choose to include it, the results are on Stretfordend here, or on footballsite here (click on Results for each season). hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC) About the alt, done, thank you. About the Ali. League, In the links above you can also see it says Non-League resluts for ManUtd, so thats why I prefer not to add false league information even if United in the 1880's might have found it important. The link in Stretfordend was something I was aware about, but like the non-competetive cups which also can be saw in the menu before the list I choose not to include them. Not to forget that WP:FOOTY, didn't used those stats in the infobox aswell.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Judging by this link it appears the Alliance was a second division to the Football League. As a result I think these records should be included as well as at the moment it could be argued the list is not complete. NapHit (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Like I said before, ManUtd sees it as a Non-League (non-competitive), and you mentioned the seasons article above, but if you look you can see the top scorer only includes FA Cups for those seasons which they competed in that league. (also those stats are not included in the players infobox which is acted as league apps and goals only). So therefore, that league should not be included, no matter what some "sources" might tell you or not tell you.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC) "Non-League" means not in The Football League, not "non-competitive". In my opinion, every league competition that Manchester United and Newton Heath have contested should be included here. You'll note that in the Luton list you based this one on, I included results in both the Southern League and the United League, both of which, particularly the latter, are far more minor than the Alliance. You have the club's results in the Alliance in the relevant seasonal articles (here, here and here), with referencing already intact for a book reference. Same goes for the Combination, the results of which you have here (though no reference; you will have to find one). I would argue that unless the Alliance and Combination are included, the league is not complete as a "league record by opponent"; it is perhaps complete as a "League record by opponent", but nothing more. I apologise for not catching this earlier. If you would like I can give you a hand with this. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC) About the non-League, I meant to say ManUtd stats regard it as non-competitive while a url from a user above said non-league. and few points bellow Examples : LFCHistory which NapHit use the data from doesn't regard those pre-TFL as league games, see exemple James McBride - who scored in that 1892-93 season for LFC, but in the source you can see that that amount played in that current season is listed in the Other column, not league, I can give you dozen more like that, such as thier goalkeeper, Sidney Ross, Duncan McLean and all players who played in that talked season. (click the Appearances tab in order to see what I'm talking about). You can also see in LFCHistory website which used in the list bellow this list, LFC Games Competition Stats, which doesn't list the Lancashire League nor the "Test Matches" as league. And the most important is this LFC League Overall which does not list the 1892-93 season as league at all there!, and it says "Liverpool complete league history", I even checked Statto.com (see example LFC against Arsenal) which is used as source for some of the stats and you can see it doesn't list those seasons niether, so if LFC and ManUtd most used sources and even stats books doesn't regard those games as league games why should we?. During the First and Second WW, United competed in War Leagues (so is LFC), technically those are league games aswell (acording to people thinking) even tho the article says they are unofficial and are excluded, but we won't include those even that we have sources for those games. I also don't agree in the League vs league thing, as the next person will say, "Hey wait, Champions League and Europa League are "leagues" aswell, why don't you move the article to "XYZ domestic league record by opponent", as it doesn't include those stats". Now the final and also not less important, Iv'e looked at over a dozen of players articles in WP (many clubs), and their infobox doesn't include those seasons stats there (infoxbox is league only as you might know), so how can we say one thing and do another?, we should stick to what clubs regard as leagues and use it arround WP articles, not only in particular articles.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) In my experience, regarding non-League football as "non-competitive" and omitting it from statistics only takes place where sports writers are being, frankly, lazy: for example, they may say quite misleadingly that player X "never played League football again", or, in head-to-head match-ups as we are dealing with here, only refer to matches in "the League" (a more extreme modern development of this phenomenon, often seen on television in particular, is referring only to records in the Premier League, which honestly makes me want to scream). I disagree strongly with the assertion that most statistical books do not regard competitions such as the Alliance as competitive: the book cited in the articles I linked, The Definitive Newton Heath F.C., certainly appears to – and is, incidentally, from the same series as The Definitive Luton Town F.C., a book I used extensively while creating the Luton list, which this one is based on. Interestingly, I do remember that The Definitive Luton Town F.C., which was published while Luton were still a Football League club, did not include non-Football League results in its "league record by opponent" table, though the Southern League and United League results were given in a separate section of the book. I had to add them in myself for the sake of completeness, reasoning that if we were only going to put Football League results in there, then we would have to omit results in the Football Conference (which Luton are now in). I am not suggesting there is any fear of this state of affairs potentially endangering Manchester United any time soon, but I do think it is somewhat dubious of us to apply different criteria to different clubs based on their present circumstance. United were not always a Football League club, and their results in league competitions other than the Premier and Football Leagues should (in my opinion) be included here if it is to be complete. Comparison of competitions such as the Alliance to War Leagues and the abortive 1939–40 Football League season are not valid, as those matches do not claim to be official and are never included as such in statistics such as these. You are right that most internet sources do not list results in competitions such as the Alliance, the Southern League and so forth, but that does not necessarily make this correct. Certainly they are not only including Premier and Football League results, since most of these (so far as I can see) include the Conference. Where, then, is the line drawn, if all matches played in league competition are not to be included? It is an interesting and good point you make about the Champions League and Europa League, though if anybody were to make that point it could be easily argued that those competitions are not actually leagues but cups, and therefore not properly incorporated into a list of this kind. In any case, it would be no great tragedy to add the qualifier "domestic" to the article title, if it proved necessary. Alternatives open for you are to include the Alliance results in a separate section, or perhaps to rename this list "Manchester United F.C. Premier League and Football League record by opponent" (or similar). As it stands, I am sorry to say that this is simply not complete, though it is of a very high standard thus far. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC) I agree with Cliftonian on this. I don't think this list is complete until these records are introduced, yes they may be non-league records, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. I think you're reasoning about LFC history is a little confused, as League history is referring to just Football League. League was and still is a common term for the Football League. If you see here League is separate from the Premier League, emphasising the point. That is why the stats are often in other than League because it refers to Football League. I'm still not sure why you're averse to including these stats, the alliance was a league competition, it may not have been a Football League competition but was still an important competition as the winner gained entry to the Football League. I think you are applying today's standards to a competition that was more important in its own time and that is wrong. Labeling these competitions as non-competitive is also incorrect. My local team Chester recently reformed and are now in the Northern Premier Division, and although it is a non-league competition it is very competitive, if man united regard these competitions as non-competitive then they are mistaken as they are. I think the evidence is here that these records should be included for the sake of completeness. This source indicates the Alliance was a rival to the Football League and as such a "competitive" league regardless of what united say. NapHit (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) I have added the Football Alliance to the statistics as per the comments from NapHit and Cliftonian, the 1888–89 abonded season was not added as it is regarded as unofficial. In addition I also added overall record by competition. I put the RC template as it was all about the issue. Hope now you can support it.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC) For information, it's best practice for the nominator to allow reviewers to cap or strike their own comments when they're satisfied, so I've removed the cap. In particular, the comments capped weren't all about the Football Alliance issue. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Capped discussion as all participants appear happy with the outcome. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks good now. Very well done Honor. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Does the Busby Babes picture have any relevance to this list? See Cliftonian comment from bellow; As they played some of those games I myself don't see a reason why not use it instead of the squad picture prior to the season start, unless you don't agree we can always change it back. What bothered me was that it shows players lining up for a European match, not a domestic league match, which is the topic of this list. Not sure whether I can think of an image particularly appropriate to a league record by opponent, unless you were lucky enough to have one that showed action from NH/MU's first/last/only match against someone. Struway2 (talk) The Accrington team that played in the FL in 1893/94 was Accrington F.C., not the unrelated Accrington Stanley. Stretfordend have it wrong Fixed thank you. You'll need an alternative/additional reference, to verify it's not the club listed at Stretfordend Struway2 (talk) Bootle should be listed without the (1879) There are two Bootle clubs, one whos currenly active and the former (original) team which is defunct (the one which United played against) thats why the 1879 The present-day name for both clubs, the live one and the dead one, is Bootle, so that's what should be listed here. We have the double-dagger to show the reader it's the defunct club that NH played, and the wikilink to get the reader to the appropriate article Struway2 (talk) Loughborough is defunct Fixed thank you. Are you sure Nelson is defunct? Not anymore, they joined the North West Counties First Division. so fixed Don't think NH/MU ever played Southampton in the league when they were Southampton St Mary's, or Millwall when they were M.Athletic, or Rotherham County when they were Thornhill (per above comment). Fixed, I have rechecked all and changed those. I know people tend not to bother, but if the stats go up to a specific date, then the accessdate for their online source should be consistent with that date. I usully update the accessdate to the ones which United played the latest, guess I forgot yesterday to do so, fixed thank you. hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC) What you've listed as Rotherham County is a combination of two distinct clubs. The 1890s team was the first Rotherham Town F.C., only the 1922/23 season was Rotherham County. As the first R.Town has no connection at all with the current R.United, Stretfordend is particularly misleading on this Fixed Again, you'll need alternative/additional reference(s) Struway2 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I should probably say that I added the Busby Babes picture because the picture that had been there before was already used at the top here. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I have addressed the above with comments bellow each line.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I have put new refs to those teams, Dealt with Bootle, and I have also retored the previous picture as better something than nothing I belive as it is team picture prior to season start.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2012 (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 22:08, 26 March 2012 [2].

---

CZW Iron Man Championship

Nominator(s): WillC 02:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

First FLC in I don't know how long. Did the CZW World Heavyweight and World Tag Team Championships before, thought I'd introduce you all to the Iron Man/New Horror Championship.--WillC 02:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Okay, this is radical, but following my own nominations of List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals and Premier League Manager of the Season, I think the lead here is too short and should be expanded to describe the matches each time round. This is the only article (i.e. it's not just "CZW Iron Man Championship winners") so it should comprehensively cover the subject matter. Not really sure what else there is to say. I've done several of these we all know, and I've included everything in the lead that is normally noteworthy. Only things I haven't included is which cities the title changed hands at, that CZW is an Ultraviolent promotion, and pretty much a detail of each title reign.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah, that's why I said it was radical. It would be nice, in the prose, to describe the various championship fights in more detail than just the bare facts... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC) If you want I can add the notes from the table into the lead, which I believe would suffice what you are asking for in my opinion?--WillC 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Or better still, leave the notes and expand upon them in a "History"-style section (see those FLs I linked to for examples or the current FLC, List of Malmö FF seasons, which summarises the significant points in a history section). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Alright, I'll start on that section in a subpage later today and add it when its finished along with some more sources. I assume one similar in nature to IWGP Tag Team Championship is whats wanted?--WillC 10:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Sounds like a good idea to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Alright, finished and done. Section plus several new sources have been added.--WillC 07:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Infobox caption needs a period. Done--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Why link vacancy to Wiktionary and then to Wikipedia wrestling terms? Be consistent (prefer Wikipedia). Hadn't noticed I did that.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) "is a professional wrestling championship" I thought it was defunct, so surely "was"? To an extent, however it is still a championship, just not active so I thought is would be better.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) "The title is currently inactive, having been deactivated on July 11, 2009. Prior to deactivation, " repetitive use of "active" in various forms. Flipped them around a bit.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) In the table, why do en-dashes sort between the 0's and the numbers above 0? Same for location, N/A really shouldn't split the real locations. The vacancies are not supposed to be of the overall history, which is the reason they are sorted in that way.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, so they're not part of the overall history but they sort within the history, i.e. after the 0's and before the numbers? Shouldn't they sort before the 0s? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Its however most of the tables are sorted, always been difficult finding which way to sort them as this is brought up in every FL. They are sorted as 0.0 to remain out of the normal sorting. I guess I could find a way where reign 1 is sorted before them if that is what you want?--WillC 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I don't understand why you would think it better that these sort within the valid numbers. You can always force them to be -1, say, which would sort them always bottom or always top, not in the middle like a 0. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Alright, shifted them to "-1".--WillC 10:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Wrestler name sorting needs looking at, I don't really see, for example, why Brain Damage sorts as D (Damage isn't his surname, is it?!). I'd see Brain Damage as a two part name like any normal name, with Damage being the last name and Brain being the first. That is the reason it is sorted as such. Wrestlers with a pure ring name such as Franky The Mobster sorts by F, while DJ Hyde sorts by H.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Ref. should be Ref(s). Done--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Massive dependency on CZWrestling.com, is this significant outside of its own world? Yes, I assumed to the PWTorch and Solie refs would help solve this issue. In the process of looking around for more results for each of the later reigns.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Further comments - history section, well done. Suggest changing "Title history" to "Champions" so as not to clash with the new "History" section. Changed to Reigns to match other formats.--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Since you've said "less than a day" in the lead and in the summary table you have <1 for Domino, shouldn't Domino and Wifebeater have <0 in the main table instead of 0? Well they were champions for a day technically but not the full day, so that is used to show how it was less than a day. The other would represent it being less than no days.--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I meant <1. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Ah I understand what you are saying now. Its due to the age in days template. Never really thought about trying to set it up to look like that. I guess I could for consistency.--WillC 12:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC) "pinned at CZW's Trapped by LuFisto" would prefer "pinned by LuFisto at CZW's..." Done--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Ref 11 needs an en-dash. Done--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC) You don't need Category:Hardcore wrestling championships as Category:Combat Zone Wrestling championships is a subcategory of it. I didn't find that cat in there anywhere.--WillC 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC) My mistake! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I much appreciate the work done to accommodate my original concerns. I think we have a better list because of it, and I appreciate the nominator's efforts. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: According to File:El Egotistico Fantastico.jpg, its copyright lies with Commons user ExtraTNA. However, File:Egotistico Fantastico.jpg names Randy K. Youmans as copyright holder of the former picture's original. I don't believe cropping creates a new copyright. This needs to be addressed. Goodraise 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Switched picture to original version from commons I believe.--WillC 07:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Revisited. Goodraise 00:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Tables don't comply with WP:ACCESS at the moment, MOS:DTT provides details of how to rectify this. Basically you need to add col and rowscopes to the table and a caption as well. Crap I was hoping I wouldn't have to do that for lists. Been having to do it for PPV results. Kinda thought it made them look poor. Alright, it's switched over.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) At the moment, the reader is unaware the tables are sortable, as there is colouring obscuring the sort keys. There are two ways around this; either remove the colouring altogether, or add -color to style="background to get them to show up. Up to you which one you choose I have no preference as long as the sort keys are visible Done.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I would a caption to the key table, just so the reader is aware that is the key to do this simply add |+Key Added to both.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) "At 364 days, Steen's reign came to an end when he was pinned by LuFisto" is there a wikilink for pinned? some readers may not be aware of wrestling terminology Ahh I figured "pinned" was a common enough term to not always need a link. Alright, linked.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) "The title was vacated twice during it history before being retired in July 2009" typo in this sentence Fixed--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Sami Callihan can be wikilinked in the history section Done, figured it was so close to the lead a link wouldn't be needed.--WillC 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – All caps in ref 11 need modification. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Done--WillC 05:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Two comments

• The final sentence of the second paragraph confuses me - specifically, "was the final champion in his first reign before the title's deactivation". The use of the word "first" there implies that he had more than one reign, which he did not. Could you change that to "his only reign"?
  • Done--WillC 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• I could see adding some more pictures, maybe to the right of the "Combined Reigns" table. Especially since the wrestlers are such colorful characters :)
  • Added new photo and made sure license was set up correctly.--WillC 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Other than that, Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:52, 11 March 2012 (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 22:08, 26 March 2012 [3].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall

Nominator(s): Jowaninpensans (talk), Zangar (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, on behalf of Jowaninpensans and myself, because I feel it meets all criteria. This list has been significantly upgraded over the last few months, modelled on the other SSSI featured lists, with all of the entries now being blue-linked. All feedback welcomed! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work so far on this list, guys. I have a question before expressing an opinion on this article's eligibility for featured list status. Could you tell me how many of the blue links point to (a) an article solely about the SSSI in question or (b) a section on the SSSI in a broader article. If the majority of them do then I think we're well on the way to featured list status. I ask because for a few articles that I checked, the link just appeared to take me to an article on a nearby village or one that has the same name as the SSSI, with minimal mention of the SSSI, still less its wildlife or geological interest, in the article. My concern is that the bluelink-count is artifically inflated. SP-KP (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. After going through the articles I've worked out that they fall like this:

• (A) 77 (46%) Own article
• (B) 25 (15%) Detailed in relevant "parent" article
• (C) 24 (14%) Given own section in a relevant article
• (D) 41 (25%) Detailed in article of the civil parish or island that the SSSI is located

Category (B) are SSSI's such as Lynher Estuary, or Upper Fal Estuary and Woods which have direct parent articles on the river and we felt was best served by residing in these articles. Category (C) are the SSSIs that we felt were given better context by being given their own section within a slightly wider-scoped article (or covered a very similar area), such as Belowda Beacon or Gwithian to Mexico Towans. We put SSSIs that were either very small, or had little information, in category (D) articles, but these do include quite well expanded information, such as those within Bryher, Isles of Scilly#Natural History.

You can see how we came to these loose decisions on the talk page. I was hoping to keep cat (D) SSSIs down to 20% or under. Although we put these here in the attempt to avoid very short stubs such as Friar's Oven from List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset FL.

But I do feel that those in cat (B) are right to reside there to give better context to both the SSSI and the parent article, or else you are leading to unnecessary content forking, the same goes for most of cat (C). So that does mean that over 60% of the SSSIs are rightfully (IMO) located. If you would like us to turn some more over to their own articles to get cat (A) up to 50% or more, let me know and I'm happy to do that (I'll be away over the weekend though). Thanks for your input, cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think that having Category A covering less than 50% is necessarily an issue. Category B is a pragmatic solution that's been adopted in other counties. I think that Category C is OK as an interim status - other counties have created stub articles but both approaches seem equally OK while there is little content. I feel you need to link the entry in the list to the section on the article, rather than just the article itself though, for clarity. Category D is the problem category in my mind - but if you were to upgrade all the Category D articles by creating a new section for each SSSI within the article, then I think we're on to a winner. SP-KP (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

✓  Good suggestion. All those SSSIs in category D should now be detailed in their own section, either headed under their own name or a heading akin to "Protected areas". For those SSSIs in village parent articles, I've put them under the heading "Geography" to keep inline with WP:UKGEO's guidelines on writing about settlements. All those entries in the list now link to the section (either through piping or their redirect). Cheers, Zangar (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Link Cornwall in the lead.

 Done Zangar (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• No real need to UK.

This is added as per a long-standing guideline of WikiProject Cornwall, to avoid Cornish-nationalist/English-nationalist edit warring. The discussions suggest a compromise wording of "Cornwall, England, UK" for all Cornwall location articles, and has generally lead to a much greater stability in Cornwall-related articles than prior to this wording. Therefore I am reluctant to change this here, but am willing to reconsider if you think it really is a major obstacle in obtaining FL. Zangar (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do you really think we need the level of accuracy of acres you have in the lead?

 Done Zangar (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure I see the link between "least dense counties" and "ceremonial counties" since there's no explanation in either case. Maybe you mean "least densely-populated"? In either case that link is confusing to me.

 Done - This was linked to give the reader a more information as to the precise standing of Cornwall in the population-density ranks of English counties, without unnecessarily stating it in the text. But I see that the title article linked is confusing - there's a merge suggestion with another article with a better title and I think that if that goes through that would be a better target link. But I've fixed as per your suggestion. Zangar (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• You split the SSSIs arbitrarily, why not one table which is sortable? (this is a key for me)

I think we were keeping to the precedent that set by the other SSSI featured lists that any lists with greater than 50 SSSIs (Avon, East Sussex, Somerset, Wiltshire) are broken down into alphabetised sections - this was even a requirement at East Sussex's FLC - and Cornwall is by far the largest at the moment with 167 sites. But your suggestion can be implemented if you think there is a benefit, but I'm a little unsure of whether it can be made sortable (having 2 levels of headings), as I've had a quick go myself and failed and couldn't be implemented at the Isle of Wight's FLC. Zangar (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This featured list has two levels of headings and sorts correctly. You can then use anchors to create a navigable TOC like in this current FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples; I've condensed it all into one table, with TOC and anchors, and followed the example for sorting the table, but the column heading sorting arrows are aligned wrong and do not show up for the sub-headings, even though I've followed the example exactly (as far as I can see). Any suggestions? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it's not functioning correctly. I think it's a result of the use of both rowspan and colspan in the headings (which the FL I pointed to didn't have)... I've made a test edit to remove that and all functions correctly. What do you think? You may need another footnote to explain the "Interest" columns, but I think that's a reasonable compromise for such comprehensive naviagability and sortability... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've added the footnote. Thanks for the edit - I think this is the best compromise. I'll still try to have a go at getting the original to sort in my sandbox, as your FL example did have a rowspan in it's last column (so I've added a dummy heading & column that I'll hide later - but that still doesn't seem to work). But thanks for your help! Zangar (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so it did. I wonder if had no effect though because it wasn't sortable? There's a bit of wizardry involved sometimes with the sorting, the wiki markup language is best geared up for it, especially with mildly complex table structures...! All help welcome by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Reason for Designation" why is Designation a proper noun?

 Done Zangar (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and good spot with your suggestions! Please have a look at the comments that I provide with the ones I'm a little unsure as whether to proceed with or not, and see if you agree with my explanations. Your feedback is appreciated! Thanks, Zangar (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Check the area conversion for Hawkstor Pit. And Phoenix United Mine.
• Compare conversion of Ottery Valley with Greenamoor.
• It may be just as well to merge the area columns and use a convert template. Although, having said that, it'll slow the load time down. Just a thought.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've fixed the Phoenix United Mine area, I see that the Hawkstor Pit one doesn't convert properly, yet those numbers are the areas stated (both in hectares and acres) in the referenced citation, but as it has to be a mistake, I've fixed that as well. The same is true for Greenamoor (Ottery Valley was correct), so I've kept to this guideline. I feel that with 167 entries using the conversion template maybe a bit overkill, plus I've gone through all the conversions manually, fixing them where appropriate and comparing with the sources (allowing for rounding differences). Cheers, Zangar (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I found it a challenge to find anything wrong in the first place, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• In the first sentence, England and United Kingdom are such common terms that they really don't need wikilinks. All the links really do is make the lead more blue than it needs to be. I could say the same for items like tin, copper, and lead later on.
• Usually, the prose gurus wouldn't like the hyphen in "densely-populated". Minor point, but worth addressing all the same.
• See also should go before Notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done All fixed, thanks for the comments. I kept arsenic linked as that's slightly more uncommon. Thanks, Zangar (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I would remove the notes and instead place them above the table in bullet points, so the reader is aware what they are referring to before they read the table. The reason I say this is because i missed them until I scrolled down to the notes section.

I'm not too sure if this is a good idea, as they are not really a key, they are notes (extra information and clarification), and notes belong at the bottom, as described in the Manual of Style. Also, as a reader, you do expect to see the information from superscript characters to appear below, not above. Zangar (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I notice you have a lot of PDF refs, normally they would have include the parameter |format=PDF but that would be a lot of work and would look silly considering they're all PDFs. I would consult one of the FL directors for clarity on this in case. An alternative would be to add a note near the refs stating they are all PDFs. NapHit (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a fix? The |format=PDF parameter only adds the text "pdf" in parentheses after the title, which it now does in the first line, and all the pdfs are covered in the single reference. Thanks for your comments, Zangar (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - poked through the article, and am unable to find anything to object to. That said, you should consider archiving your references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites you are linking to ever go away or change drastically, you'll be left with a bunch of uncited information. --PresN 00:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Image review: All images used appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 23:49, 21 March 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 18:08, 26 March 2012 [4].

---

Nebula Award for Best Novel

Nominator(s): PresN 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Having learned nothing from all of my previous scifi/fantasy award list nominations, I've come back to you all with another. Here is the Nebula Awards, which are up there with the Hugo Awards for American genre literary prizes. Unlike the Hugos, these are selected by authors, not readers (though about half of the Nebula winners are also Hugo winners, not to mention the nominee overlaps), but like the Hugo lists, this has... basically the same list format! Hooray for consistency- this makes 17 times you've all seen the same table format of books/authors, so... sorry. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quick-fail check: The list is close enough to meeting the FL criteria. Quick-failing unnecessary. Goodraise 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment the Russian version of this (which is featured) has many images of the authors which has brightened the page up quite a bit. Could you (or would you consider) using some of these here? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Slower comments

• "final ballot" used in consecutive sentences is a little clunky.
• Worth a note saying why there's (currently) no winner in the 2012 listings.
• No space between Mechanique and the colon.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done, done, and done. --PresN 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Quick comment' The table currently fails MOS:DTT you need row and col scope to the table to bring it up to speed. NapHit (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Man, that row thing is a huge pain to set up. Done. --PresN 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Has a straight forward table, well-written, no complaints. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: As stated above, I also have no complaints. Everything is properly sourced, the lead flows perfectly, and the table is nice on the eyes! Great work! — Status {^talk_contribs 09:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks solid to me. The only thing I can see wrong with it is the fact that Slaughterhouse-Five ended up losing to The Left Hand of Darkness, but that's hardly your fault. I hope... GRAPPLE X 01:31, 25 March 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 18:08, 26 March 2012 [5].

---

Keri Hilson discography

Nominator(s): Oz ^talk 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working hard on improving the article for quite some time now, basing it on FL listed discographies such as Katy Perry discography. I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Oz ^talk 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Alt text would be nice for the lead image. Done Note at the bottom of Other charted songs: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." This should be fixed in the style of the other similar notes, particularly since "releases" and "was" are a bad grammar match. Done In the music video tables, the directors are sorting by first name when they should be sorting by last name. Not sure how to do this? Oz talk 03:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC) You'll need to use sort templates for the names. Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play is a good example from the current batch of FLCs. Follow the formatting in that list and it should help you fix this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Done Also, when I click on the director column's sorting, the director's names disappear in cases where more than one column is covered by one director. Without good knowledge of what's causing this, I'd recommend having one director name per song, and repeating them when needed. Done In the refs, remove all caps from the titles of refs 14 (4x), 46, and 48. Done Minor point, but the em dash after the first external link isn't in a good MoS format. Try making it a spaced en dash, or make the existing dash unspaced. Done Giants2008 (Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments " team The Clutch.[1] As a member of The Clutch" repetitive. Done "artists such as " would prefer "artists including". Done "in 2004... In 2006... In 2007"... would prefer some more elegant prose, e.g. the odd "The following year" or similar (as long as its clear...) Done Slightly confused, why would you have rowspan years in the Album appearances table and make it not sortable while then going on to make the Music videos table sortable (and hence without rowspans)? Problem fixed. Oz talk 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) If you insist on keeping the table sortable, link every linkable item every time. "Taj" is a dab link. Removed (theres no article for the director). Oz talk 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Check refs for spaced hyphens which should be spaced en-dashes (e.g. refs 8 & 9) Done You link Rap-Up every time in the refs, but not Billboard (for example). Be consistent. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support just one thing I noticed, the MTV refs use the work parameter yet they are not italisced. I noticed you added two apostrophes to the cite template, you don't need to, as it puts the italics in automatically. I've fixed ref 49 as well, should have been cite news, as it the ref was from MTV news, other MTV refs are fine as cite web. NapHit (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Done
• Image review: The image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 23:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is that a good or bad thing? Oz ^talk 01:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a good thing. I only note it to spare other reviewers the trouble of checking again and to keep track of where I've checked. You need not do anything about it. In case you wonder what this is about, read WP:IUP, which is part of WP:WIAFL. Goodraise 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support seems in line with other featured discographies. One point- the opening sentence "...two studio albums, twelve singles as a solo artist, as well as seventeen as a featured artist, and twenty-nine music videos." should not have the "as well as", or else should not have the comma before it. You should also consider archiving your references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites you are linking to every go away or change drastically, you'll be left with a bunch of uncited information. --PresN 19:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Oz ^talk 20:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support—Seems solid to me. Unfamiliar with bundled refs but I see no problem with them as they keep the list itself neater. List overall is of a good quality, so I'm happy to support. GRAPPLE X 00:14, 24 March 2012 (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 22:04, 19 March 2012 [6].

---

List of songs recorded by Rihanna

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have worked tirelessly on this article to completely overhaul it and make it a better standalone list of all Rihanna's song. Issues from the previous FAC have been address, as inline citations for songwriters have been provided. Media is provided throughout as well. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jivesh

1. Prose

• a Barbadian R&B recording artist - Remove R&B

  Removed R&B Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• as well as collaborations with other recording artists on duets and featured songs on their respective albums the structure and wording looks repetitive.

  Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• on the singer's debut album Music of the Sun - the singer's can easily be replaced with her in this sentence

  Changed to "her" Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Critically acclaimed - This is fanaticism. You can instead use Grammy-winning

  Changed to "Award winning" Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• produced 10 songs - co-produced?

  Changed to co-produced Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The songs lyrics were written by Evan "Kidd" Bogart and J. R. Rotem.[5] - This sentence should come before - to avoid confusion.

  Moved to before the sample. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The release of Rihanna's third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad, included a combination of songwriters and producers whom she had previously collaborated with as well as some new additions. - The release?

  Removed "The release" Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Sturken and Rogers contributed significantly less songs - Does not make sense to me
• Sturken and Rogers contributed significantly less songs to the project than they had previously done so, writing and producing two songs out of 13. - This is in need of proper structuring and re-writing.

  Reworded Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• New writers and producers - Is new the correct word to be used?

  Changed to "Different" Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The release of the album, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, featured new songs written by former boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5. - The release?

  Re-worded Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Why "Tricky" Stewart?

  I have previously said 'Christopher "Tricky" Stewart', so the second time I said "Tricky" Stewart Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Since you are talking about the wring process, it should be Christopher Stewart. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Changed to their names. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Stargate do not penned, they produce under that name.

  Changed to "produced" Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  You should have written their names Aaron. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Changed to their names. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The lyrical content of Rated R cast an ominous, dark and foreboding tone over the album - Does it sound good?

  I think so lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  The lyrical content of Rated R cast an ominous, dark and foreboding tone over the album. See it now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Re-worded Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• more lighter persona - Are you sure it was lighter? Wasn't she on the contrary showing her insecurities on that album?

  Rated R was darker and more vulnerable, Loud was not an insecure album, it was the opposite. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  So "was darker and more vulnerable" = Lighter? Lol :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  What? Rated R was dark and vulnerable. But this point is about Loud, which was not vulnerable.

  Oh My God in Heaven. :D Aaron, you are contradicting yourself... "was darker and more vulnerable" and "more lighter persona". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry partly my mistake. I misinterpreted your sentence because of that comma. Remove it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Rihanna's fifth studio album, Loud, displayed the singer return to her dancehall roots seen on Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me. - Bad structure

  Reworded Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• penned three tracks for the album, - add including

  Added Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• the reggae infused song - Source it

  Sourced from MTV Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The singers - Spot the mistake

  Apostrophe added Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The singers sixth studio album in as many years, Talk That Talk, offered a dance-pop, which tracks produced by Calvin Harris, Dr. Luke and Stargate - Reading and understanding this is a pain. :D

  Lol. Reworded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I see you have added information about chart performance of some singles. I don't know if they are needed here. Better ask someone else's opinion. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support I am satisfied with both the prose and the table. Good attempt overall. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Titles that start with "A", "An" or "The" should be alphabetized under the second word in the title. You need to fix this. Jimknut (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  Have move "A Girl like Me", "A Million Miles Away", "The Last Song" and "The Last Time" to sections G, M and L. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Status

• Unreleased songs can't possibly have a year attached to them. The released song section denotes the year the album was released, which doesn't apply to unreleased songs.

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• No need to say "soundtrack" at the end of any titles. Unless it's the literal name of the soundtrack.

  Yeah it is apart of the name, as Confessions of a Shopaholic is a film. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  What I mean is the title of the soundtrack isn't "Confessions of a Shopaholic Soundtrack" it's something like "Confessions of a Shopaholic: Motion Picture Soundtrack" or something like that, which is usually just shortened to the film's name. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you're gonna do the Other performer(s) section like you do, you might as well just rename it to Artist(s). And add Rihanna's name to each where she performs solo. Either that or remove the out of place "feat." in the section.

  I don't get what you mean? Could you do an example on "All of the Lights" please? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Do either this or this (B section). — Status {^talk_contribs 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

— Status {^talk_contribs 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I did the first one. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is absoultely no reason to include chart positions in the lead. This isn't a discography; it's about the song's itself. Their sound, producers, etc. — Status {^talk_contribs 17:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason for the third paragraph to be on its own. It can certainly fit into the second, for now.
• I don't like the first sentence. It doesn't flow very well with me. Maybe split "...and has collaborated with other artists for duets and featured songs on their respective albums and charity singles." into a new sentence?
• "After signing a six album record contract with Def Jam Recordings" --> Doesn't really matter how many albums the contract called for.
• "songs included on her" --> included isn't needed.
• "Award winning songwriter Diane Warren co-wrote the title track,[2][3] while Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter Deniece Williams co-wrote the song "Willing to Wait"." Not sure why these two songs are important.

  Because they are very notable songwriters. Such writers aren't usually enlisted for an unknown singers debut album. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I understand that, but it's not like they were released as singles or anything. They never even charted. Not notable at all. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let's use either "Christopher "Tricky" Stewart" or "Tricky Stewart" for "Christopher Stewart", as he is commonly known as "Tricky".
• "The re-release of the album, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, featured new songs written by former boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5." --> "The album was re-released in 2008 featured new songs written by then-boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5."
• "Rihanna's fourth studio effort" Not sure about the use of the word "effort". It makes it sound like it's her fourth try to get something right.

  Done all. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

— Status {^talk_contribs 05:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks good. Support — Status {^talk_contribs 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Soft Oppose on:

• All pictures need alts — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  I just saw you already started to doing the alts, however, they should be more detailed. Please look how they look at "Unfaithful".— Tomica (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  They are fine lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I doubt. They should be informational. — Tomica (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've expanded ones which can be expanded. Other's there is simply nothing else to say. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The caption on the first picture is awkward. I mean you are preparing this for featured list right? There should be a near perfection level.— Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's fine. That's what he did. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Who? Plus in also needs alt. — Tomica (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sean Paul? The first one you mentioned? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Many of which have been released as successful singles around the world. ---> Mmm, I know that this is a fact, but I am not sure that it should be included in the leads prose. It's just not for the lead, in my opinion. — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Award winning songwriter Diane Warren co-wrote the title track,[2][3] whilst Grammy Award winning singer-songwriter co-wrote the song "Willing to Wait". ---> Can't understdand for who are you talking in the section part of the sentence? — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Ooops, it's Deniece Williams. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• In the unreleased songs section, "Saxon" is actually "Red Lipstick". Originally it should have been released under that title, cause its basically the same melody as the song "Saxon" by Chase and Status. It's credited in the booklet as it contains the sample. So it should be removed. — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  I can still see it. lol — Tomica (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  I thought I'd removed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I really don't think Jamie xx picture is needed. They are kind of non-notable for the list, and co-wrote only one song.— Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  If they are mentioned in the article then they are allowed to stay. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

It's a really good effort, but are think they are still here and there issues that should be resolved. Obviously, my vote can change or at least removed when the issues are resolved. — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You resolved all the issues, however, I still don't like how the alts look. For example, look how Timberlake's caption looks, A picture of a man. Awkward. This picture was part of "Rehab" and look how the alt was back then, A profile picture of young man who is speaking into a microphone. You can use this one and improve others one. There are a lot of alts which are poor. — Tomica (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Profile picture is wrong though. A profile picture is like on facebook. A profile shot is right. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to support, but I am concerned with the incomplete list tag. Why is placed ? — Tomica (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Look on the talk page. There are songs without songwriters sources. There are also unreleased songs without known songwriters. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

fthis for writers of "Turn Up the Music", until the Fortune booklet is out? — Tomica (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that include Rihanna's bit? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. But include the core writers of the song. Is there a credit for Spears' part on "S&M"? I doubt, and I think you can use this source and write the authors. — Tomica (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have. And the same writers wrote Spears' verse. It's logged on ASCAP. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. I still doubt about the tag on the page, but all in all the list has improved and satisfies my criteria. — Tomica (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "The album's lead single, 'SOS', were written...". "were" → "was". Changed. Aaron • You Da One Comma needed before Good Girl Gone Bad in the second paragraph. Added. Aaron • You Da One "which critics noted as an step away from her previous more care-free persona." → "which critics noted as a step away from her more care-free persona from past albums."? Changed. Aaron • You Da One This looks the same as it was before. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Ooops. Done now. Aaron • You Da One "The albums lead single". "albums" needs an apostrophe before the s. Added. Aaron • You Da One Alt text would be nice for the images. Every image has an alt. Aaron • You Da One In the Michael Jackson photo caption, the song title has an extraneous apostrophe at the end of the song title. Also, this caption and the Avril Lavigne one need periods at the end. It is Somethin', not Something. That's the name of the song, so it's not extraneous. Aaron • You Da One The parenthetical "website" shouldn't be showing up in ref 34. Pipe the link. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Piped it. Thanks for your comments. Aaron • You Da One

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose For the same reason as the Rambling Man states above. This should be a single list, instead of tables separated by letters. it would increase functionality for the reader, allowing them to sort by album etc. Right now if a reader wants to see all the singles that were in a certain album they have to scroll up and down the page looking for them, whereas if it was sortable it would be much easier. The point is featured lists are supposed to represent our best work, so I don't see how this list can be promoted in its present state, when it can be obviously improved. Few other things I noticed: ref 1 needs the first name of the author as well Added. Aaron • You Da One "Rihanna's sophomore album" is that a common term when referring to a second album? I've never heard sophomore used in relation to the music industry, surely it would be easier to say second? There's nothing wrong with the term but I've changed it anyway. No one thinks debut is a term not used in the industry, sophomore is the same. Widely used. Aaron • You Da One Well, I've never heard that term before and second album is clearer, especially to readers with no knowledge of the industry, so its more helpful that way. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) "The production duo co-wrote and co-produced 10 songs out of 16 included on the album" included on the album is redundant, the previous sentence mentions the album to begin with and the sentence after this one mentions it again, so this last bit is not needed This list is about songs. They wrote 9 out of 16 songs on one album. So this stays. Aaron • You Da One I know the list is about songs that's not the point. The point is you've already mentioned what album is being referred to in the previous sentence, so they are aware you are talking about one album, so "included on the album" is not needed. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Removed. Aaron • You Da One "...co-writing and co-producing two songs out of 13" MOS:NUMBERS states "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" change the two to 2 Done. Aaron • You Da One "Stargate penned three tracks for the album..." who is stargate? there is no mention of this person beforehand, also is there no wikilink? Have explained in the first paragraph. Aaron • You Da One the link you provided has a typo. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Aaron • You Da One ref 2, 22, 31, 37 and 38 need to add the author There are no authors of CDs. Have added authors to websites where one was given. Aaron • You Da One I meant 3 and 18 instead of 2 and 22 my mistake. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Done. Aaron • You Da One ref 32, the author needs to be formatted to be consistent with the other refs She was the publisher, not the author. Where is the name Lynne Segall mentioned in that ref I don't see it anywhere, so what qualifies her as the publisher? NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Aaron • You Da One No it's not I still see Lynne Segall in that ref. NapHit (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC) She is the publisher! Her name is in the publisher parameter! Aaron • You Da One I know here name is in the publisher parameter, but when you click on the ref there is no mention of her name anywhere on thet page, so again why is she is the publisher, when there is no evidence to support this. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC) It lists her as the publisher of the publication on the Wiki page. Stop making things so awkward. Aaron • You Da One I'm not making anything awkward. If you had told me she was the publisher of the publication from the beginning the issue would have been sorted. Anyway it appears she is so no problem. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Why do use cite web for MTV news refs instead of cite news, surely you should use the latter? Also mtv news should be work and Viacom publisher It's not a printed publication, so it shouldn't be news? And yes Viacom is the publisher. Aaron • You Da One BBC is not a printed publication, yet you would cite news for that same applies here. Regarding the viacom issue, you have both MTV news and Viacom in the publisher parameter when only one is the publisher, so MTV news should be in the work parameter. NapHit (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC) This has not been done either, MTV is work not the publisher. NapHit (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Yes it has, I changed them all, you just haven't checked properly. Trying clicking on edit and have a look. Aaron • You Da One Fixed. Aaron • You Da One Refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 6 does not, move to the comma after tainted love Ref 3 work is MTV news not mtv I've been told before to not merely just put MTV, but rather MTV News, MTV UK, MTV Buzzworthy etc. to distinguish. Aaron • You Da One There is no need to force the size of the columns, so I would remove the coding that does this Would be nice if you could indicate what songs were singles. Perhaps using colour to indicate this. At the moment with some cells having links and others not its a bit confusing as to why This is simply a list of songs, not a list of singles. That is what the Rihanna discography is for. I will amend your other issues tomorrow. Aaron • You Da One 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Yes its a list of songs, but some of those songs have been singles, yet at the moment the reader has no way to tell which ones were released as singles. It would also help with the link issue, as I assume most of the linked songs were singles. Some readers would get confused as to why some are linked and others aren't. BTW was there any need to have an edit summary of "No." I am trying to help you get this list to featured stated not hinder you (which by looking at it from my perspective you seem to think I am doing) if you carry on with this negative attitude and blunt remarks, then I'm not sure if I can continue reviewing the list if I'm not going to get helpful responses from you. After all you nominated it on the proviso that you were going to get comments and wanted input from the community, to react brazenly to some suggestions is out of order in my opinion especially as we are trying to help you, which you don't seem to realise. NapHit (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Looking a lot better now, just one last concern regarding the sorting. You have four cells that are sorting out of kilter, they need to be fixed. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Which ones? Aaron • You Da One 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC) A million miles away, the last time, the last song and a girl like me. NapHit (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC) But I used the sort you gave me on them? Aaron • You Da One 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Ye I know it's not your fault, I'll try and fix this myself, as I'm not sure what's causing them four to sort like that. NapHit (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC) I know you want to help but some of your comments are simply irritating. If you want to know which ones were singles, you can go to her discography page. If you still argue on this, maybe we can delete her discography page. Or better, we can merge her bio page with the discography, the videography, all her albums, all her singles, this list and everything else related to her. Of course, I am joking. My intention is only to show you how far this point of yours was wrong. It is clear that you are not very familiar with music-related articles because you are assuming a lot. A song does not need to chart to have a page on Wikipedia if it meets WP:GNG. Similarly, a song does not need to be a single to chart. And a song can be a single but yet not chart. I believe you should familiarize yourself with music-related article first. And about the comment on the reference with regard to the work parameter; whatever Aaron has done is good because MTV News in not supposed be in italics. It is neither a magazine nor a newspaper. Even if he writes ''MTV News'' in the work parameter, a bot will automatically release the '''' the day he will do a cleanup. And I don't think an FLC should have wrongly formatted references. Last but not the least, Aaron's attitude may be negative but your comments are somehow responsible for it. And that's reason for which I comment only on topics to which I am familiar. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC) It shouldn't hurt a reviewer to raise a concern that (s)he feels should be raised. I personally don't see any of his points as irritating. The nominator is free to disagree with concerns as long as (s)he has a reasonable rationale to. Telling NapHit to get familiar with music articles is not helpful either. This may be the first FL of its kind, so we don't necessarily have to follow other lists like these. There is no problem with identifying singles either: the article should be independent. All we need to know here is which songs were singles, nothing else. The discography dives into things like sales, charting and certification. But this is just a list of songs, many of which were singles. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, referring to comments as "irritating" when I'm trying to improve the page is just plain stupid. Maybe a song does not need to chart to have a page on wikipedia, but it still begs the question, why some have pages and overs don't. Therefore adding a colour to allow the reader to see which songs were singles is helpful. Why should I have to go to the discography page when the info could be displayed here easily, it's a no brainer! I do not need to familiarise myself with music articles at all. Your suggestion that you don't review something you don't know about and I should too is stupid. Often the best reviewers are the ones that no nothing about the subject, as they can pick up on things that are not so obvious to people who are familiar with the subject. The list is supposed to be easy to understand for everyone not just people familiar with music, so if I don't understand, its more than likely they won't, which is why I'm suggesting these changes. Its a ridiculous assertion that my comments are somehow responsible for his attitude how are they? I have not done anything differently to the other lists I've reviewed and none of there reviewers have reacted in the manner he has. There seems to be an uwiilingness to co-operate which i don't understand, as the whole point of flc is to canvas opinion from the community. That means all members of it not just music editors. NapHit (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC) So you want colors? Okay. But there are not only things like songs and singles. We also have promotional singles. We have cover versions. We have soundtrack singles. We have songs recorded to promote a brand. I strongly believe all these will complicate things. By the way, your list of football and tombs are not comprehensible to me. As you see, it does not only matter to review a list. Also having some knowledge about it is always welcome. Those lists are like reading Chinese to me. Sorry but this is how I feel. Perhaps, I won't comment any further because you simply will not agree and I don't want to make this FLC look bigger. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Actually Jivesh, you're wrong. It's always a good idea to have someone who doesn't necessarily understand or is an expert in the subject matter. It provides an outside perspective and one that sometimes is overlooked by the "experts". I try to review each and every list (and have done for a couple of years) that gets nominated, and far from being expert in each of the individual subject matters, I believe I have a good level of experience on what would make a list featured. A shame that you and Aaron seem to think the reviewers here (who have invested their own personal time in trying to help) are deliberately trying to irritate you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Hmm wait, can I know why you are using the word single? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC) A single table, i.e. one table. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Right now if a reader wants to see all the singles that were in a certain album they have to scroll up and down the page looking for them... - Should I explain the differences between a song and a single? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I think NapHit means songs in that context. But it's a useful point, it would also be beneficial to know which of these songs have gone unreleased as singles. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Hmm, this is too much now. We should even say which song was released as a single? Released on an album is not enough? Excuse me but this is becoming too much. I have been telling since yesterday that some information is best to be verified at the album's page itself. Lists of songs are generally bulky, there is no need to add to that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Ye I did mean songs, sorry that's my fault. But the point still stands, if the reader wants to know what songs were in an album, they would have scroll up and down the page, whereas with a sort facility available its a lot easier for the reader to navigate, which is the key issue. In its current guise the list is not easy to navigate, which contravenes WP:WIAFL part 4 as TRM pointed out above. Jivesh its not too much, you're assuming readers already know information about rihanna, some may not, therefore clarifying what songs were singles is useful to them, as not every reader of wiki has an in-depth knowledge of rihanna. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I never edit Wikipedia assuming that everyone should know about an artist. But what I hope for is at least for people to have some knowledge in this field. For instance, I would never comment on an article about submarines or football teams if I am not interested or know nothing about them. You can visit an artist's discography to know which songs were released as singles. You can also visit his/her videography to know for which songs videos were shot. By the way, it's good for you to know that all songs are not recorded for albums. So according to you, a single list which will have more than 200 songs consecutively will be easier to navigate through? And there is no need for you to know which songs were on the same album as this is a list about songs, not albums. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Alright, I'll bite. Please explain why it would be more difficult to navigate through a single list with 200 songs? I've shown you examples of long single lists with TOCs based on anchors... What's the problem? If the coding is too difficult, you just have to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC) None of the lists you have shown me is that long. None of the list you have shown me list so many details. Your list of tombs do not even mention who built the tombs. I know this my sound foolish but this is how I want to show you that we also need to least the writers of the songs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Yes I have, see List of Premier League hat-tricks. Cheers. Mind you, this is becoming pointless, you are determined to keep it "as you like it" without considering the usefulness of sortability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I could have said the same thing about you. I am still not convinced. The list is not that long and it is not about songs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC) It's not useful in this circumstance. It would throw everything out of sync and balance. It is not functional for this list. Aaron • You Da One 18:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC) No, it's not about "songs" but it's a sortable list and it is longer. Please stop saying "it's not a song list", there are no other song lists this long so we need to relate it to something relevant and comparative. This list proves that it's not difficult for readers to access, it's sortable, useful and appropriate. "It would throw everything out of sync and balance. It is not functional for this list." - i.e. I don't want to do it. "throw everything out of sync", like what? "not functional" how? Many longer lists do sorbability. You need to accept this. Thanks! Your objection is baseless, and my oppose stands. And I'm now unwatching this because the "debate" is going nowhere. Feel free to email me if you need a revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC) My dear, there are other lists of songs. I edit music articles here and I know what I am talking about. On the other hand, I have never seen those lists you mentioned until yesterday. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC) (e/c) well perhaps you should familiarise yourself with what a current featured list looks like and provides to our readers. I already told you there is only one list of songs which is featured. You made some excuses. You obviously aren't aware of what we now consider to be the standard required for a featured list. And this really, really is my last post here. Oppose stands, and disappointed that the nominators weren't open to exploring the possibility of making the list better, more functional, more interactive, more intelligent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, there is one though it is about unreleased songs and is around one twentieth the size of the Rihanna article which is about songs released. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Happy that the list now meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - just a quick one at this stage, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be a single, sortable list, using anchors to navigate in a similar way to your current table of contents. See Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica for a good example of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) No I don't think so. Not when there are this many songs. That's just a hinderance. Aaron • You Da One 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose then, "a hinderance" to whom? A sortable table which can be easily navigated using a TOC based on anchors is an advantage to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC) To be honest, I think that's quite a poor reason to oppose based on your personal preference. The idea of having them alphabetised and in separate tables is for exactly that reason. Having them sortable would completely disrupt when the first songwriter or album is wiki-linked and the order of the songs. Not to mention that editing a table that big would become a lot more difficult to navigate around. One assumes that you will also oppose other lists that follow exactly the same style. Aaron • You Da One 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) See WP:WIAFL part 4. And see WP:REPEATLINK. For whom would "a table that big would become a lot more difficult to navigate around"? Not the reader, that's for sure. And it's not a "personal preference", it provides tangibly good, additional capabilities to our readers. And yes, I will oppose other lists of the "same style". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC) It passes part 4. This proves it is down to your personal preference. It is easy to navigate around; want to see who wrote Take a Bow? Just click on T. There are section headings for each letter and there are table sort facilities. Aaron • You Da One 14:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, where is the sort facility? I can't see the little up/down arrows on my screen... How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please? I don't believe I can. So my oppose stands I'm afraid. Don't forget I am just a single reviewer, others may disagree with me in which case the closing director is more than welcome to ignore my oppose. I also have to say that I haven't reviewed the rest of the list, which I will do in due course, but only if a single table is used. Still don't understand why you believe it will be more difficult to navigate...The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC) There is TOC where you can choose which table you want. This is a list of songs, not a list of albums, if you want to see the songs from Talk That Talk, you look on the album article and look at the track-listing, don't you. Don't you think if you way was better, then other lists of this standard would be using it? Having one large table would also interfere with the pictures, as they are aligned with each table specifically. Having sortable columns would mean that pictures do not correspond to the correct letter, not to mention that pictures would not be able to be included (appropriately). Aaron • You Da One 14:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC) It's commonplace amongst many lists to be a single sortable table with the images down the right hand side, initially sorted in alphabetical order. Most lists are this standard. Cheers. Just in case you missed them, three of the last five promoted FLs did exactly that 1, 2, 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Greetings. First of all let me quote this - "How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please" - If you want to know which songs are on the album, the simplest and most logical thing to do is go the album's page. All albums by Rihanna have their own album pages. Now - Most lists are this standard - Since when should all lists be by this standard? Sometimes, it is better to ignore some guidelines or rules just to facilitate reading or should I say, in this case, navigation! And how can you compare a list about tombs to a list of songs? Fellow editor Aaron is absolutely right in whatever he has been trying to explain. How many tombs does that list contain? Did you see how many songs Rihanna has? And those tombs were built were built from the fifth to sixteenth centuries. Rihanna has been recording songs since 2004 and judging from the way she works, she will not stop till 2050. If in seven years she has recorded thrice the number of songs than tombs that were built in around 1200 years, what will her list of songs look like in another seven years? Last but not the least, a list of songs has to mention the writer(s), the album(s), the year, featured artist(s), etc. The list you you gave does not even mention who built those tombs, etc. You see how these two list do not follow each other? All other list of songs recorded by XYZ follow the same format Aaron has used. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC) There is just one featured list of this "songs" kind of list (List of unreleased Britney Spears songs) which is a single sortable list, not split alphabetically like this one. The only reason I linked the tombs list was to show an example of a single long list with anchors for navigation, I wasn't expecting you to compare tombs with songs, not the point at all. More importantly you should look at the list of Liverpool players, much larger, more relevant and, once again, a single list, not split by surname alphabetically, and one which is bound to grow way beyond the Rihanna era. Size should not prohibit this kind of thing, look at List of Premier League hat-tricks, a single sortable list which is maintained on a weekly basis. I have no idea why you and Aaron believe that excluding sortability for some unknown reason is a good idea. But as I've said before, my oppose stands, but it just one opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Again, you listed another short list. It is absolutely normal that a list of unreleased songs will be short. This list is about released songs. In short, they are different by miles. And again, I will say this is not a list about tombs or football players. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) The hat-tricks list is far from short and allows sortability, has many different columns to sort by. Why you believe that our readers wouldn't want to navigate (using a TOC) and have sortability in this list, I have no idea. Irony is, by the time you and Aaron are done arguing about this, you could have implemented it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC) And let me try another example or two of why sortability may be useful. How do I easily list all the songs written by Sturken? Or how do I list all the songs recorded in 2010? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC) This list is not about the songs written by Sturken. A separate list can be created for that. If you want to know which songs were recorded in 2010, you should go to the wiki-page of the album that Rihanna released in 2010. Simple. And why should we implement something that we feel is not working well? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I fully understand what the list is about. If you think it may not be useful to find out which songs were recorded in 2010, why list the recording year at all? And why do you feel sortability and navigation using an anchor-based TOC "is not working well" on this list when it works perfectly on a number of other featured lists? I'm not pursuing this further, my position is clear. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Because unlike that number of other featured lists, this list is about songs. Most importantly, Rihanna has far too many songs. It is not a sort list. Having a single table will make everything look never-ending Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Comments Make sure the initial sorting order is maintained on the first sort, i.e. all songs which start with "A ..." currently move on the first sort. Doing Aaron • You Da One Done. Aaron • You Da One Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Repeat links every time please, permissible in WP:REPEATLINK. So for example, every time The-Dream is mentioned, he should be linked? Aaron • You Da One Correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Provide a TOC using anchors as described above. Doing Aaron • You Da One Done. Aaron • You Da One No writer info for "Straight Up Beautiful"? No. Aaron • You Da One So format the blank cel consistently with other similar cells. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Make the unreleased songs table sortable as well. I have. Aaron • You Da One Done. Aaron • You Da One Either use brackets or parentheses for "inlay notes" etc but not a mixture. I can't seem to change the Mylo Xyloto one to [..] for example. They appear to be pre-coded. Aaron • You Da One Hand-code the references in that case to make sure they appear consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I fixed it. Aaron • You Da One Check you formatting of the various MTV news sources and make sure they're consistent. And be consistent with linking. Done. Aaron • You Da One Check publication dates, e.g. ref 1 has incorrect date. Fixed. Add publication dates where they're missing e.g. ref 11. Added. Aaron • You Da One Refs 27 and 28 don't mention Rihanna at all. They are sources for who wrote Redemption Song which credit Bob Marley as the songwriter, which she covered. Aaron • You Da One Where's the source that Rihanna covered it? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC) [7] for example--♫GoP♫TCN 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I've already put that in the articles. Thanks anyway. Aaron • You Da One 16:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I don't see the † being used along with the colour for each single release. There's no need for it. Aaron • You Da One Yes there is per WP:ACCESS. Looks like it's been done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) They are there now. Aaron • You Da One You need to make sure the list sorts in alphabetical order correctly, i.e. in the same order you initially have the list (so, for instance, if you wish to initially list "A Child is Born" as a C, it should sort as a C, not as an A which it currently does). I don't understand how to fix this. Aaron • You Da One You need to use a {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) I don't understand how to apply it, what should I replace with what? Aaron • You Da One That's what sandboxes are for. Read the documentation about {{sort}} and learn how to use it. It's really very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah but if I don't know what I'm mean't to be doing, it won't work, will it. I don't know what you want me to do with it. That page doesn't explain what it is or how to use and neither have you. Aaron • You Da One I have explained about three times, as have others but never mind. You want "A Child Is Born" to sort by C rather than A, so you use the template {{sort|Child Is Born|A Child Is Born}}. It will sort by the first parameter and display the second parameter. Oh, and on "A Child Is Born", the article you link to talks mainly about a drama, and doesn't even mention the Rihanna song. Would consider making it link to a more appropriate article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC) No one has actually said that and written an example. It makes things so much easier and less hassle. I have done it and have unlinked it too. Done the same for The Last Song and The Last Time. Aaron • You Da One The template instructions couldn't be any clearer. There are other examples you need to fix as well, e.g. A Girl Like Me. Check all. And also please check the quote marks around S.O.S and Take A Bow as they don't sort properly either. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Some but not all of your image captions have (pictured). I don't think this is necessary when there's only one subject in the image. Yeah there is. Aaron • You Da One No, there's no necessity to say "pictured" when there's just one person pictured and you're only talking about one person in the caption. And if you believe there really is, then you should do it for all images, not just some of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Only ones with certain people mentioned now say pictured. Aaron • You Da One Chris Brown needs to have it removed, for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Removed. Aaron • You Da One Ref 23 looks odd. Fixed. Aaron • You Da One So does ref 10. Fixed. Aaron • You Da One Ref 4 is just a Wikipedia mirror so shouldn't be used. ? Aaron • You Da One Ref 4 is a BBC page which is a copy of a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you can't use ref 4 because it is a "mirror" of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Okay. I replaced it. Aaron • You Da One I can't really see how you can say "intended album" for, say, "Goodbye", the reference doesn't explicitly state that. The source talks about it in relation to not making Rated R and how it is reminiscent of Good Girl Gone Bad. Look at the date, it's Feb 2010, Rated R was recording from Feb 2009-Aug 2009, so it was clearly intended for that album. Aaron • You Da One No, that's your intepretation of the details you've given there, who's to say she wasn't writing a completely different album in secret? You mustn't use original research in your articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) No I know it was for Rated R, but I've put n/a anyway. Aaron • You Da One Well find a reliable source that explicitly states it and you can include it. I don't count you as a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC) "I've put n/a anyway" Aaron • You Da One I don't see the point in linking Chris Ivery since the article redirects and says nothing about him other than he married an actress from Gray's Anatomy. Unlinked. Aaron • You Da One Our article calls him Scott La Rock (not LaRock). Changed. Aaron • You Da One J.R. Rotem -> J. R. Rotem. Changed. Aaron • You Da One Otherwise looking better. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Ref 33 is now erroneous, and ref 19 doesn't have a publication year. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 19 is fixed, but I don't see what is wrong with 33? Aaron • You Da One 12:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Ref 33 now appear fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Should this Brown/Rihanna collaboration be included now it's been released? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Turn Up the Music? Only if there are sources for who wrote the original as well as Rihanna's part. Aaron • You Da One 13:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC) No, there's clear evidence here from a reliable third party source that Rihanna has recorded another song which isn't in your list, hence your list is incomplete and should be tagged as such unless you include it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, Turn Up the Music... Rihanna features on it. It can be included on the list but only the songwriting credits for the original version of the song can be included, as we don't know who wrote Rihanna's part on the remix. See what I am saying? Aaron • You Da One 13:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Not really. You can include it with "not known" if appropriate. Incomplete lists should be tagged with {{incomplete list}} The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC) His album hasn't been released yet so there are no songwriting credits, that box is marked as n/a. Aaron • You Da One

Resolved comments. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: Fully agree with The Rambling Man. The list looks much better and is easier to navigate through. His point was proven right when he said "How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please?" Further discussion was not necessary after that. Using invisible anchors and a TOC instead of the headings is a really nice idea too. An FL is an FL; it doesn't matter what the FL is about. Also, this isn't a very interesting way to begin a list: "Rihanna is a Barbadian recording artist." The sole fact that she is Barbadian and a recording artist does not explain what this article is about. Finally, refrain from using the work "whilst" too. Not going to oppose, because I'd like to have a closer look later on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC) It looks worse, but whatever. Aaron • You Da One 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Now you've changed the table would mind addressing my other points as well? Also i suggest looking at the tombs list to see how you can use anchors to allow readers to navigate by letter, seeing as this was one of you concerns. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Yeah I will. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. I don't spend every waking moment on here! Aaron • You Da One 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Calvin, co-operating with reviewers makes the difference from an oppose to a support. Everyone has a "real life", just remember that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Where is this list of tombs? Aaron • You Da One 22:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Seriously, you need to calm down, I'm trying to help I know you have a real life, but as you had changed the table I assumed you would have done the other comments as well, no need to get aggressive. The tombs list is mentioned on this page, in TRM's initial comment. NapHit (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I don't understand how that has been done at all. Looks confusing to me. Aaron • You Da One 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Copy the coding and use Trial and error, have a go in a sandbox. That's what I do when I'm unsure of how to do something. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Not sure about the "N/A". How can a song not have writers? That's what N/A means. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC) It's not that there weren't any, it's that they are unknown... Aaron • You Da One 20:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Well "N/A" means not applicable. So, the song has no writers. You can use a dash and in the legend, say what the dash denotes. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Support – looks great after all the scrutinizing; everything is organized and in its place. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Looks good, made a few edits myself (see here). Clearly a lot of changes have happened to this article over the course of its nomination, and I think it is reasonably close to becoming a FL. I just have some comments of my own: I see that the issue of the opening sentence has already been discussed above, but I think that it could still stand to be a little tighter. I think it can be generally assumed that a reader who clicks onto this list will have an understanding of who Rihanna is, so there's no need to so explicitly state "Rihanna is a Barbadian recording artist". I feel that "Barbadian recording artist Rihanna has recorded material for her etc. etc." would flow better. "whom she had previously collaborated with" -> "with whom she had previously collaborated" "Some" is a vague qualifier of size, and should probably be removed. For "If I Never See Your Face Again", I think Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded needs to be listed before It Won't Be Soon Before Long, so that it sorts alongside tracks from the same album. Any reason why Rated R is not wikilinked in the "Rude Boy" and "Russian Roulette" rows? In the caption of the Britney Spears image, should "is featuring" not be "features"? Also in the Britney caption, S&M needs to be in quotation marks. From what I can discern from its Wikipedia article and a brief amount of Googling, the soundtrack album to Confessions of a Shopoholic wasn't actually called Confessions of a Shopoholic Soundtrack - it was simply called Confessions of a Shopoholic. Overall, nice job! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Hello, I did all of your comments apart from two as I have questions about them. Aaron • You Da One 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Personally, I think linking to "songwriter", "singer-songwriter" or "music critics" is a little unnecessary - they are common enough professions that a reader would recognise them. Like "A Girl Like Me" and "A Child is Born", A Girl Like Me needs to sort under G rather than A. Also, The Blueprint 3 needs to sort under B rather than T. I tried applying the sort template into the wikilink but it didn't work? How should it be written? Aaron • You Da One There are probably a couple of ways of doing it. Give {{Sort|Girl Like Me|''[[A Girl like Me (Rihanna album)|A Girl like Me]]''}} and {{Sort|Blueprint 3|''[[The Blueprint 3]]''}} a go. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done, thanks. Aaron • You Da One 16:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC) For songs where the leading artist isn't Rihanna, the Artist(s) column needs to sort by surname, e.g. Brown, Guetta, West, etc. Again, how do I put the template into the wikilink? Aaron • You Da One These would similarly be something along the lines of {{Sort|Brown, Chris featuring Rihanna|[[Chris Brown (American entertainer)|Chris Brown]] featuring Rihanna}}. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done, thanks. Aaron • You Da One 16:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Wasn't Kid Cudi also credited on "All of the Lights"? Added. Aaron • You Da One I'm a little confused by the three songs that have N/A in their Originating Album column – if they didn't feature on any album, how were they released? Birthday Cake Remix is a single only release, Brown is not on the album version; Redemption Song was a single cover only, not on a Rihanna album (Should I put Bob Marley's album instead?) and S&M Remix is the same as BC Remix, Spears is not on the album. Aaron • You Da One In that case, I think it might be better to put something like "Single release only", rather than N/A. It's a little more intuitive to a reader, and it seems to be what's done on other articles (e.g. Maroon 5 discography). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Okay. Aaron • You Da One Having compared this list to Rihanna's discography, there seem to quite a lot of songs in that article that aren't featured in this one, e.g. "Live Your Life", "Roll It", "Just Stand Up", "Numba 1" and several others, including most of those featured in the Guest appearances section. Any reason I'm missing for their absences? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC) I don't have the songwriting credits for those songs. I've listed songs on the talk page which need citation. Aaron • You Da One 16:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Hmm, tricky one... Not sure what the opinion of others is, but I personally feel that, in the interests of completeness, it would be better that the tracks were listed without the songwriting rather than not listed at all. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC) I don't think so. This is a list of songs, and songwriters are provided for every other released song. I can't really source them either because I don't have the credits or the publisher IDs. Aaron • You Da One But then what's the criteria for inclusion on list? I'd assumed that it was a list of every song that Rihanna had ever recorded, but there are several songs missing, which therefore means that the list doesn't meet criterion 3(a) of the WP:Featured list criteria. If you can't find the credits or publisher IDs, then that's fair enough, but the tracks could still be added to the list with the Unknown template in the Writer(s) column – it looks like that's already what's been done for "Turn Up the Music" anyway. I agree with Sanders that B-sides should be included, and "Live Your Life" was such a big hit that it definitely needs to be on the list as well. Preferably, I'd like to see all the songs listed on Rihanna's discography also be included here too. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC) [[8]] is an FL and has the incomplete tag. But if I include all recorded remixes, like for You da One, Rockstar 101, Only Girl (In the World) etc, the list will become so long. They are just remixes. I don't mind adding the songs and putting the Unknown template, but I would want a source saying that Rihanna is on the song. I don't wanna leave anything unsourced. Turn Up the Music, we don't know who wrote it, but I sourced it confirming Rihanna is on it. Aaron • You Da One 13:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC) That's a good point about remixes – I can understand you not wanting to include each and every remix or live version of a song, as that would quickly violate WP:Listcruft. And obviously not listing a song without first sourcing Rihanna's appearance on it makes sense too. However, looking at the discography article, there do seem to be references available for some of the studio-recorded tracks that are not listed here, e.g. those in the Guest appearances section. Having songs listed with the Unknown template in the Writer(s) column is probably not something that I would oppose over, but I would like to see this article be as comprehensive as it possibly could be, which would mean including the songs listed on the talk page. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Okay I will include them. Aaron • You Da One Okay I have added nearly all of them. I managed to find sources from ASCAP and BMI. Aaron • You Da One 16:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support After some hard work from Aaron, I am now convinced that this article meets the FL criteria - great job! Although I don't envy you having to update it every time Rihanna releases a new album... One final thing I think it might be worth including would be a short paragraph (or maybe just a sentence or two) on the unreleased songs, just to explain what they are and maybe give one or two examples of why they were never released. This could go either at the end of the lead, or at the start of the Unreleased songs section. Anyway, excellent work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks :). Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Sanders11 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I randomly hit N in the contents and it didn't take me down to N on the list so double check they all work.

  Fixed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The images seem to go in alphabetical order of song name except for the picture of Britney Spears for S&M, which should go next to Stupid in Love.

  Okay, thanks for telling me. Someone else added that one. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• The images of Spears, Jackson and Lavigne have no reference but all the others do despite conveying largely similar information.

  Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• You've included some songs with N/A for the writers so I see no reason to not include the various songs on the talk page as I'm sure you can find a reference saying Rihanna recorded them even if not for the writers. Although I do agree with the reviewer who noted N/A is probably not the most appropriate way to denote this as the song does have writers even if they are not known.

  Change the only one to the Unknown template. Brown's album hasn't been released so that's why the credits are unknown, but we know Rihanna is on the remix, so that's the difference and why it is sourced. The ones on the talk page are not sourced. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I don't understand "Fourth studio album (not Rated R)", went to check the reference for clarification and it is not mentioned in the reference, presumably just an error in referencing but clarification on what that means would be helpful.

  Has been removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Does the Year denote the year the song was recorded or released? Recorded would make more sense given the title of the article but they seem like release years, again clarification would help.

  Recorded. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Rihanna has lots of remixes but you've only included two, have you got specific criteria for when to include a remix?

  They aren't re-recorded studio songs from her albums though. "Birthday Cake" and "S&M" were re-produced and feature a guest vocal from other singers, and were released as single. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Any B-sides?

  No. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I'm not sure if it's necessary to include the piano version of Love the Way You Lie, I take it there are no further acoustic versions or anything like that of her other songs?

  It was included on Loud as song and is different in both vocal, composition and production. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• There seems to be some inconsistency in linking the writers, some are linked on every occasion and some only on first appearance.

  All are linked now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Justin Timberlake for Rehab isn't so double check for more please.

• If I Never See Your Face Again has two originating albums, surely it can only originate from one album no matter how many albums it appears on.

  The original, which didn't feature Rihanna, is on the standard version of It Won't Be Soon Before Long, however, the remix featuring Rihanna was released as a single from both artists re-releases of both their albums. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  The title of the column is originating album, in my opinion you should only have the original album that this version appeared on, whether it was the Maroon 5 album or the Rihanna one, or try and come up with a different column heading.

• Why three refs for the Bob Marley cover?

  They confirm that Rihanna covered it and that Marley was the songwriter. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  That shouldn't require three refs, one that she recorded it and one that he wrote it should suffice. I would also suggest formatting the refs so they are vertical rather than horizontal.

• Have you intentionally not included the Bob Marley cover that is on Good Girl Gone Bad Live? Technically that was recorded so you should consider including it.

  It's not a released studio recorded song though. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  That's fine, I wasn't particularly bothered either way but just wanted to flag it up.

• You've named the deluxe version of Good Girl Gone Bad as the originating album for tracks from it but not noted the deluxe version of the album for tracks from the other album's deluxe versions - not sure if it's worth adding (deluxe version) or something to such tracks.

  Only Good Girl Gone Bad got a re-release so I'm not really sure what your point is here. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  It was a suggestion that you could find some way to express when tracks only appear on specific versions of albums. Again not necessary to do, was just something that crossed my mind

I'm not familiar enough with featured lists to support or oppose but the comments might help. Sanders11 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the points that have been changed. I'm afraid I stand by my position that I don't feel it is appropriate for me to support or oppose as I am such a casual editor these days and am not up to scratch on the guidelines. Sanders11 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Have done some of them. Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Comments
• The Avril Lavigne caption needs a closing quote on the song's name.

  There is? Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  "interpolates Avril Lavigne's song "I'm with You. Due to the" - no, there isn't. --PresN 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh sorry I was looking at the "Cheers (Drink to That)" caption. Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Barbadian caption needs a hyphen between reggae infused.

  Added. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Remove the space before the reference in the Sean Combs caption.

  Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• E,J,N,V,X, and Z don't go anywhere from the table of contents.

  Shall I remove them then? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Sure, though isn't there an "N" song? --PresN 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I fixed that one. Okay, I removed the others.

• I'm not comfortable supporting even if you address these until Sanders' comments above are resolved, especially about the inclusion criteria for singles, as well as Status coming back to confirm that his comments have been addressed.

  I have asked Status to look back over as well as Sanders. But I looked and Sanders contributions and he/she doesn't come on Wikipedia often. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• I also strongly recomend that you archive the references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites ever go away or change to lose the information (like, say, that Amazon cite) then you end up with chunks of the article unsourced. --PresN 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  I have tried that website but it doesn't seem to work for me. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Which one? as I used webcite earlier today... --PresN 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah it is that one. I tried using it and a friend told me how, but the link didn't work. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 01:03, 10 March 2012 (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 22:35, 14 March 2012 [9].

---

1984 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria. My third Olympic medal table, although only my first for a non-London based games. As such I've attempted to use American English wherever possible (major instance is center vs centre). The article wasn't in a terrible shape prior to my edits, but I've modified the table in include row scopes and fix the sorting. Also added citations and found out why the medal totals don't match up. Miyagawa (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments This always gets me "Approximately 6,829 " that's a very precise approximation... You're right - its not like the IOC didn't know exactly who entered after all! Dropped Approximately. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) "48 countries won medals, leaving 92 countries " countries or NOCs? Corrected to NOCs. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) "received 84 gold medals" table says 83. Corrected to 83. :) Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) " Soviet Union led " would think that should be Soviet Union-led? Fixed as specified. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) China is just China, according to our article (and the table) so you can re-order the three Communist nations in the order they finished in the table. Corrected as specified. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) "for an unrelated reason to " -> "for a reason unrelated to..." Changed as specified. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) The rather splendid NY Times map appears to have three authors (Byron, Cox, Ericson) so they could be mentioned in the citation. Added to the citation. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Not hugely important, but would stick with US date formats in the refs, since one of the ref titles is in US format and the article is a USEng article. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Actually, just noticed "50 metre" in the lead caption and "(various) meters" in the other captions. Knew I was bound to miss one! Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Athletes from 48 NOCs won medals, leaving 92 NOCs without medals" not keen on leaving change to which left You should link United States on the first instance in the second para not in the third para "This broke the previous record of 78 from the 1904 Summer Olympics but still won less medals overall than the previous record." should be a comma after olympics, and it seems like there is a word missing as well, they should be after but The wikilink to United States the country should no be wikilinked as linking common terms is frowned upon see WP:LINK Same with the romania, china and yugoslavia links The sort icon in the key is the old sort key, would recommend replacing it with the new one NapHit (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC) All of your comments should now be fixed. I didn't link United States in the first instance as per your later comment, but I did remove it from the third. Miyagawa (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

;Comments: "... held in Los Angeles, California, USA..." – Replace "USA" with "United States" (don't link it, though) "6,829 athletes from 140 NOCs..." – Don't begin a sentence with a numeral. Rephrase it to avoid this. Copyedited to make it ideal. I'd merge the second paragraph with the first one, as the former's first sentence is related to the latter's final sentence. "Athletes from 48 NOCs won medals, leaving 92 NOCs without medals. Of those that won medals, athletes from 25 nations won gold medals." – This is always a mess to read... Try: "Athletes from 48 NOCs won medals, of which 25 secured at least a gold medal. As a result, 92 NOCs were left without any medal." Be consistent with the use of "NOCs" instead of "nations"/"countries" Capitalize "games" (it's the Olympic Games) Why not specifying the reason for Albania's absence? "... the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a nation NOC have won (in this context, a "nation" is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee)." Fixed, I kept the bracketed sentence but changed it to explain about the NOCs. Miyagawa (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC) "The number of bronze medals awarded were was greater than either the number of gold or silver medals." four way → four-way I see no need in keeping that Table sub-heading and also the note about how sorting is made. I'd remove them altogether. You could've kept the table's caption/title. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Parutakupiu (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Added it back again, as it helps to remind the readers about the NOC abbreviation in the column heading. Miyagawa (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Made the alternatives as suggested. As for the Albanian question, I'm struggling to find a reliable source for it, but Albania at the time boycotted several Olympics and other international sporting events, not limited to the 1980 and 1984 Games. Miyagawa (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC) There a few items missing, still. I made small copyedits to the prose and also tweaked some of the image captions. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• The opening is reminiscent of those "This is a list of" beginnings that we cracked down on a long time ago. Would it be possible to recast it?

• Redrew the opening line based on the 1980 table. Should be less "listy" now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "over the United States support of Israel" Shouldn't it be States'?

• Fixed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Medal table: "Also, a second bronze medal was awarded for each of the boxing, judo events...". Replace the comma with "and". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed as noted. That originally came about as I briefly had it as boxing, judo and tennis events. Then I realised the tennis events were only exhibition events and removed them - then promptly neglected to fix the grammar. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (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 22:35, 14 March 2012 [10].

---

Liverpool F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria. The list takes its format from luton Town F.C. league record by opponent, granted that list was promoted nearly three years ago, so guidelines might have changed, cheers NapHit (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Premier League repeated in the first sentence. I would say "association football" because it clarifies it for non-experts. Could make that lead image a bit larger, up to 300px if I recall correctly. "disagreement between " twice in consecutive sentences is repetitive. "which they won" in which they were champions? Not great alternative, not keen on current wording. Premier League linked a third time...! "of which were draws" I would say "of which were drawn". " Liverpool has lost more matches against Arsenal than any other club" (and Man Utd!). Actually, adding up the Arsenal defeats in the table, it comes to 60, one fewer than the 61 against Man Utd... Check Southport Win %. Any abandoned matches in Liverpool's league history? Correct as of... probably worth placing the last match that the list was updated for (just in case...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments I've addressed them all, regarding the abandoned matches, I've gone through my books and i can't find any, there are the three games from the abandoned 1939–40 season but Statto does not include these anyway, so I've added a note in the key clarifying that these matches are not counted. NapHit (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Merseyside should be linked. "The dispute over rent resulted in Everton moving to Goodison Park from Anfield, which left Houlding with an empty stadium. Thus, he founded Liverpool to play in the empty stadium" - no need for the second mention of empty. "The team that Liverpool has met most in league competition is Everton, against whom Liverpool have contested 185 league matches" - replace the second Liverpool with 'they'. "the club has them beaten" - should be "the club has beaten them". Also at the end of that sentence there is no need to mention League again. "Lancashire League, (from 1892 to 1893)" - would move the comma to after the brackets. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Eddie, I've addressed them all, cheers. NapHit (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• The semi-colon after "against whom they have contested 185 league matches" should be a regular old comma instead.
• In the post-table footnote, check the last year in the title of the Pead book. I think it may be off by a century. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Giants, I've addressed both of them. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from HonorTheKing (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from someone with similar list - You forgot to put the double dagger in few of the defunct teams, and in the lead, you should change "to the Football League" --> "to The Football League Few of the teams are redirects due to them being A.F.C. (Swansea City, Oldham Athletic, Loughborough Town, Bradford City).   – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quick drive-by comment - "The records include the results of matches played in the Lancashire League (from 1892 to 1893), The Football League (from 1893 to 1992, and then again from 1920 to 2009) and the Premier League (from 1992 to the present day)" has an error in it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ta Chris, can't believe I didn't spot that, fixed it. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comments Think you might want to lose the first Premier League from the opening sentence (and then wikilink the remaining one) * Would be helpful from an accessibility angle if you added informative alt text to the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} symbols, e.g. something like {{double-dagger|alt=defunct}} hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Thought I'd put here I'd done these, apparently not. Anyway they are done. NapHit (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Still think you should lose the Premier League from the opening clause. Most of that clause, "Liverpool Football Club is an English Premier League association football club based in Liverpool", is defining LFC, but LFC isn't by definition a Premier League club. "Liverpool Football Club is an English association football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, which competes in the Premier League, the top tier of English football, for the 2011–12 season" would work better. Or maybe "whose first team have competed in the top tier of English football since 1962" or whenever it was and then link Premier League when it first appears. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry didn't notice the premier league there have removed it now. NapHit (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Comments. The prose could do with a bit of a copyedit. You've got stuff like "they has beaten" and "have beat", and Liverpool taking both singular and plural verbs in the same sentence,, as in "The team that Liverpool has met most in league competition is Everton, against whom they have contested 185 league matches". Your second para says you're listing LFC's record against each club faced in "nationally contested leagues". The Lancashire League doesn't quite fit that definition. Key. Maybe link the abandoned 1939/40 season This isn't an actionable comment, but perhaps the need for varied prose doesn't apply to key definitions. Might be clearer if the definitions for your first and last columns were phrased the same as each other Loughborough should be marked as defunct, in which case, it should be called Loughborough and not Loughborough Town. Are you sure Nelson is defunct? Don't think Liverpool ever played Southampton in the league when they were Southampton St Mary's, or Leyton Orient when they were Orient. Think Manchester City were still Ardwick in 1893/94. I know no-one ever bothers, but if the stats go up to a specific date, then the accessdate for their online source should be consistent with that date. hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks of the comments Struway, I have addressed them all, hopefully the prose is an improvement. NapHit (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I belive it meets the cretiria, also nice to see many clubs with the league record articles now been created (Malmo, ManUtd and Liverpool).
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good; well done NapHit. As an aside, I have to say it's quite nice to see that my humble list of Luton results from that long ago has actually turned out to be quite useful for the Wikipedia project as a whole, having inspired this and the other lists mentioned by Honor above. —Cliftonian (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2012 (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 21:10, 12 March 2012 [11].

---

Public holidays in Rhodesia

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Might be considered picky, but would prefer "(renamed Zimbabwe in...)" to "today's Zimbabwe" "Cecil Rhodes's " vs "Rhodes' Day". Would like a consistent approach to s's or s'... "along traditional British lines, along " along along... "Patrol's being " is there a need for that apostrophe? I'm not sure... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Okay, all done. Thanks! —Cliftonian (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 12:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "and their raising there of the Union Jack." This is a touch repetitive and odd to look at. Any chance of getting rid of "their" or "there"? Same goes for the table note. "as the internationally-unrecognized state of Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Zimbabwe Rhodesia...". Try to avoid this repetition from one sentence to the other. "after the country's internationally-recognized independence in April 1980, now called Zimbabwe." The independence was called that, or the country? The prose implies the former, which I don't believe is the intention. Add a period at the end of the Boxing Day note? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Okay, all done. Thanks! —Cliftonian (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment The use of "whites" doesn't sound right to me, think white people would be better I would split the first sentence, as it is quite long, at the "short history" point NapHit (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I don't think most would have a problem with "whites", but okay. I've split the first sentence too. Thanks! —Cliftonian (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Meets FL standards, and great job on the list.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Honor. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – The list satisfies all the FL criteria, also a good read. Good job! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2012 (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 21:10, 12 March 2012 [12].

---

List of accolades received by David Lynch

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My dog barks some. Mentally, you picture my dog—but I have not told you the type dog which I have. Perhaps you might even picture Toto, from The Wizard of Oz. But I can tell you my dog is always with me.

I believe this list meets the criteria. Having learnt from my previous foray into FLC territory, I've decided to go with something much meatier, as the last attempt faced opposition over criterion 3b. I don't believe this to be an issue here, as this collates information related a wide range of films, television programs and the strange love felt for the man by the French, in a manner which could not simply be shoehorned into any one given article. I've also taken any other relevant feedback from that prior nomination on board with this one (mostly about where to place the table references, although I'm completely open to moving these if it's deemed necessary or preferable). GRAPPLE X 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments "own unique cinematic style" and "dubbed "Lynchian"" for instance, are these also covered by reference 1 or is this your own opinion? It was backed by this but I've added a few more specific citations of the use of the phrase "Lynchian" to support the context it's used in. GRAPPLE X 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "His more notable films "... according to whom? Fixed, I've removed the phrase. Had intended it to be backed up by the other films (Dune, Eraserhead) not having garnered awards attention like the listed films, but that's probably a piss-poor rationale. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) début has become sufficiently anglicised to remove the accent. Done. GRAPPLE X 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC) As you've broken down the awards by film, I think it would be great if we could have a little bit of info on each film (just a couple of sentences) and then move the wikilink from the heading into the prose for each title. I've added some information. It's all quite uncontroversial so I've left it uncited (I doubt that "Blue Velvet is a 1986 film" is going to be challenged, for instance). Let me know if you feel more should be added (for instance I've not summarised the tables in prose, but if you think it would be better than I'll add that). GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Excellent, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Tables need row and col scopes for screenreaders per MOS:DTT. I've added col scopes. Row scopes are confusing me based on that page alone but I'll have a look through some other FL tables and find out how it's done in practice. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I've looked over a few other FLs and I can't see this being used anywhere, so I'm a bit lost. The example given on MOS:DTT uses a different format than the tables I've used here, should I try to rewrite them to conform to this? GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Agreed, MOS is not always intuitive. I've made a test edit to show you what I would do. Let me know if any of it needs explanation, it's not that easy to get your head around it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I've fixed the other tables based on your example. I'm pretty sure it turned out right. GRAPPLE X 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Looks perfect to me. I removed the central alignment of year of award I added in my test edit, so it's consistent with your other tables, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Should these fields be centred, or is it not really important? GRAPPLE X 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Mainly down to personal preference, I like the way numerical columns look when centrally aligned, but it's not essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC) "Palme d'Or<" <? Artefact left from moving a ref. Nabbed it now. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Sounds a bit retentitve, but ordinarily these kinds of lists have the tables the same format, i.e. column widths the same from section to section. Have added this now, let me know if it needs tweaking. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Any reason for not linking AMPAS in the references? Linked. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Several links with the same title exactly, I know they link to the same page but it's mildly confusing, perhaps adjust the titles to reflect the section they link to within the page? I've had a scan and I seem to be overlooking which ones you mean. Are you talking about the external or internal links? GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I meant reference tittles... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Ah, yes, the Cannes titles. I've replaced the dates for this year's festival (which is present in all the page titles there) with the year of each festival being cited. GRAPPLE X 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Any reason why "may" isn't capitlised in the link title? Even if it's in the page title, we should make it correct. Got it. Not keen on hypercorrecting what is essentially a quotation (which is why I had also left in the hyphens in these titles), but I'll defer to your judgement. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Refs 17 and 19 are bare URLs, these need to be fixed. (For future reference these are now refs 18 and 20). These pages have the URL used as the page title. I've given them titles to reflect their content but these are simply my own coinages. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I think that's the right thing to do. While we may be encouraged to use the HTML title for webpages, often as not they're crap...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Ref 24 is dead (and linked to a blog) and ref 3 isn't working for me at the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Have added an archive URL for ref 24 (now ref 25). It is a blog, but in format only - it's still the Toronto Film Critics Association's official website. Ref 3 (now 4), I've replaced with a working one from the same site. GRAPPLE X 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Ref 27 needs a publisher, outside the title. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Got it. Apparently I'd listed the publishers but not actually added the "publisher=" parameter in the template. Oops. GRAPPLE X 03:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010

• How necessary is it to have Lynch's birth date? (Not used to reading accolade lists for one person, so am unsure if a birth date is the norm)
• French government "has" not "have"
• "...then as an Officier in 2009..." Input bolded
• Not too sure on the lack of references in the article body; Should "The movie exhibits elements of both film noir and surrealism" for example be referenced? Or this one: "can be viewed as both prologue and epilogue to the television series Twin Peaks"?
• Ref 3: Why no publisher link? Be consistent as to whether you link all publishers, or none. Ruby 2010/2013 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  I could remove the birthdate if it's unnecessary, it doesn't bother me either way. As for the referencing, I've bunged in a few more citations for the things you've specified; is there anything else you feel needs to be supported? GRAPPLE X 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. Supporting the promotion of this list to featured status. Ruby 2010/2013 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Would like a few refs for the description about the films above the tables. For example the straight story bit could be challenged so a ref would clear this issue up. refs that are PDFs need |format=PDF adding NapHit (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Have added the PDF formats, and cited both the true story nature of The Straight Story and the fact that Wild at Heart was adapted from a novel. Is there anything else you feel should be supported? GRAPPLE X 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Ref 26 needs the PDF format adding and would add refs to the descriptions of films or tv series that don't have them which are Elephant man, mulholland drive, inland empire and twin peaks. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Have added some refs from the Lynch on Lynch book, Roger Ebert and The Guardian to round these out. GRAPPLE X 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Only one thing that I see, and it's not major. In the two sentences on "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me", Kyle MacLachlan's name should be wikilinked. I know it's wikilinked above in "Blue Velvet", but every actor's name is wikilinked in each movie description, and it seems out of place.
• Other than that, Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also left other actors unlinked on their second (and beyond) mentions as well; Harry Dean Stanton, Larua Dern and Ray Wise for example. If you feel I should add the links to all of these then that's fine, I can do that, just pointing it out so you know it's not a one-off instance. GRAPPLE X 01:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Personally I would, but it's not major. I know it could be considered overlinking, but at the same time, Kyle's name *not* being linked jarred me. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Got it. GRAPPLE X 03:01, 11 March 2012 (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 21:10, 12 March 2012 [13].

---

List of Ohio class submarines

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... the list has recently undergone a very successful A-class review which saw its promotion only seven days since its creation. I think the list is ready for the next step. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image could actually be at the top of the lead, and larger (I think MOS says we can go up 300px or so for a lead image). Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) "is currently" needs a timeframe (like "as of February 2012"). Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Five paras in a lead of a list so brief is probably three too many. Could you please clarify your comment? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Reduce the number of paragraphs in the lead to, say, three. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Hmm, I don't think that's feasible, as the subject involves numerous different aspects (SLBM, the Tomahawk missile, the SSGN conversion, the late trials, START I, etc) that could not be readily be removed from the list as the list will not meet 3(a) of WP:WIAFL. Anyway, I don't think the lead is extensively long, compared to other FLs such as List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories, Hugo Award for Best Related Work and List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents). Nevertheless, if you think there's an aspect in the list that could be removed, please tell me. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I'm really only pointing at WP:LEAD here, for an article as brief as this, the lead should be shorter. An alternative approach would be to very much summarise the lead and have another section where you greatly expand on the info. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Should displacement be a part of the list, sounds appropriate... The specifications of all 18 boats are the same, unless the US Navy decides to mate three Ohio boats to give the Typhoons somebody to compete against ;) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Boy I'm stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Also maybe range/armament etc? More interesting than Hull number to fair. I'm afraid that won't help, as the lead has mentioned the armaments of the SSBNs and SSGNs. As for the range, since the Ohio boats are nuclear, they can travel indefinitely until their next refueling of nuclear reactors (I've included the info about the 42-year operational life and the 2-year mid-life refueling ✔) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC) See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC) USS Ohio is overlinked in the lead. Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps consider expanding what SMART I means, it may not be clear to everyone. I don't think I've mentioned "SMART I", unless you mean "START I"? ;) Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Use {{dagger}} for screen readers rather than just the plain symbol. Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Ref col doesn't need to be sortable. The command is for the whole table so, unfortunately, I can't remove the sortable function from the Ref col. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Not true, you should be able to make the desired change by adding "class=unsortable" in the col heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the tip; done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Colours are a little garish, perhaps just colour the cell with the boat's name? Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC) The diagram of the layout of an Ohio-class sub seems out of place here. It's interesting, but it's kind-of crammed in under the list of the subs and not explained or really referred to anywhere. See List of Smithsonian museums. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC) And....? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC) There's a similar file at the bottom, so I personally think the diagram of the Ohio class sub is fine in this case. You want me to remove it? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC) No, it just seems a little out of place without any real explanatory text. Perhaps this could be used in the "new" section I've discussed above where you can expand out a more summarised lead.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I'm gonna move the file under the paragraph that I just moved. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose just in case. I haven't seen this new version and while it's certainly an improvement, it brings with it its own issues. No need to have "picture" sortable. Table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT. What's the rationale behind the sorting of the Hull number and Weapons columns? Is it Navy.mil or Navy.mil? "the U.S. Navy is currently undertaking" when is "currently"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Done. ✔ Thanks again for your comments, they're much appreciated. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose per WP:FLC 3b. I don't believe this list meets the requirements for being a stand-alone list as it could easily be integrated as an embedded list in the article Ohio class submarine. Currently the article Ohio class submarine is only 1340 words, while the length of the prose in this list is 583 words. Much of the text in the list, as well as the list itself, would fit nicely within the main Ohio class article. In fact, there is already a simpler version of the list in the Boats of the class section. I recommend merging the list and article and redirecting this page to the main class article; when cleaned up, the main class article can be nominated at WP:FAC. –Grondemar 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have had a think about this, and decided that embedded lists would only be suitable for articles such as Seawolf class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Trafalgar class submarine, and any other classes have less than 15 vessels (the Ohio class is the third-most numerous after the Los Angeles and Sturgeon classes). If the list in question is to be merged, don't you think the detailed information (date order, launch, commissioning, status, etc) is too much for, and would dominate, the article? For the records, there is a similar list at List of Los Angeles class submarines. Please read my comment over carefully, and tell me what you think. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree it's a tough call. I'm not sure that I can agree that there should be a hard cut-off when an embedded list should be split from an article, although I definitely agree that List of Los Angeles class submarines needs to be separate from Los Angeles class submarine. To me the key question is whether, when Ohio class submarine is brought to FA status, would including this list in the prose of that article be WP:UNDUE weight. I invite other editors to weigh in on this subject; if the consensus believes that this list should be stand-alone, I'll withdraw my oppose. –Grondemar 01:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• C and D class destroyer is the only example of a decently developed article on a large class of ships (14 in total) I can think of. It has a table with the relevant data like this list, followed by several paragraphs that sum up the activities of the ships. I am really on the fence about whether it should be a stand-alone list or not. I doubt these boats have all that interesting service histories, so I don't think it would be overkill to do something like the C and D class example. Removing the photos from the table would go a long way to shrink the table, making it more manageable if it is merged in. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Given the amount of effort I have invested in this list, and the fact that most of us are on the fence, I think this list should remain as it is, instead of being merged. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• After looking at the revised list with the pictures of the individual boats embedded in the list, I'm willing to strike my original oppose as I believe that in this format it can and should stand alone from the main class article. I will review the list further before deciding whether to support. –Grondemar 01:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Just a few things:
  • "is currently, as of February 2012," - "currently" can be removed per WP:DATED.

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• • As those are American submarines, why not convert to mdy format?

• I was expecting somebody to bring up the point; WP:STRONGNAT allows articles about modern US military to use DMY format. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Maybe a see also section for similar submarine classes?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. ✔ Thanks for your comments. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, pending resolution of Grondemar's concerns above Comments
  • Not sure why this wasn't brought up earlier, but the list needs to differentiate between the SSBNs and the SSGNs.

• There are only four SSGNs, so I thought it would be better to merge both types of boats. Also, the main differences between the two have been outlined in the intro -- I wouldn't know what extra information to add if I was to split the SSGNs off. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• You don't need to split anything off. Technically, the SSBN/SSGN is part of the hull number and should be included in that column. All you need is a note explaining the difference between the two. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've explained about the SSGN in the lead. You want me to further add a column called "Notes" and say what weapons and payload the SSGNs carry? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that should be in the table. You might consider replacing the unit identification code column with the weapon suite - I don't know what real value the UIC is to the average reader, but I think many would be interested in what weapons the boats carry. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• You might consider merging the cells that are the same (see for instance List of heavy cruisers of Germany, which is also currently at FLC). Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just noticed: Henry M. Jackson is listed as SSGN-730, but the armament column has Trident IIs - which is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Also, why are there redundant sorting methods (i.e., color coding and symbols?)

• See below.

• • I don't know if this has been considered or not, but do the colors chosen work for color-blind individuals? Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's the point of the inclusion of both symbols and colour coding -- the symbols help the colour-blind readers, while the colours are for those who can see colours. User Matthewedwards insisted that I use both types of classification during a previous FLC. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Avoid bold links like the one in the intro, per the MoS.
• In the drawing's caption, is the note for item 11 supposed to have a 1 at the end, like the Auxiliary machine room no. 2 a bit later? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. ✔ Thank you for your meticulous eyes! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Grondemar 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from –Grondemar: "Named after its lead boat, the Ohio class of nuclear-powered submarines is, as of February 2012, serving with the United States Navy." Are you anticipating that members of the class will one day serve in a different navy? I'd suggest a rephrase. "Named after its lead boat, the Ohio class of nuclear-powered submarines is, as of March 2012, in service with its sole operator, the United States Navy." ✔ It's a little confusing to say that the Trident missiles were designed concurrently with the Ohio-class, and then mention that the missiles first served on a different class of submarine. Perhaps the mention of the first submarine each missile served on is excessive detail and could be cut? I think it's acceptable to have a weapon (the Trident) being developed alongside another (the Ohio class) but entering service with an older one (the Benjamin Franklin class), especially since development of the Ohio class lagged behind for a few years. At the same time, it's not right to make the reader incorrectly assume that the missile entered service with the Ohio class. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) "In 1994, a study called the Nuclear Posture Review determined that, of the 18 Ohio SSBNs the U.S. Navy would be operating in total, 14 would be sufficient for the strategic needs of the U.S. " "A study called the" seems excessively wordy, as does "the U.S. Navy would be operating in total". These could be trimmed or cut. I've addressed your former point, but not the latter as in 1994, only about 15 of the class were commissioned. Instead of "the Ohio" should it not be "USS Ohio"? Either way is acceptable, but I'd hate the "USS Ohio, USS Michigan, USS Florida, and USS Georgia" construction, which is, obviously, redundant. Why is List of Los Angeles class submarines in the See also section? The Orange Pumpkin requested the list be included, as you can see above. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) As TRM mentioned above, row and column scopes need to be added per MOS:DTT Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks, –Grondemar 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support In my opinion this list meets WP:FLCR. –Grondemar 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment from Harrias ^talk

• After sorting the Weapons and Status columns break. Harrias ^talk 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• See below.

• Support Nice work. Harrias ^talk 11:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Per Harrias above, and against Parsecboy's suggestion above, I would remove the col merge and go with separate cells. For one thing, this list is sortable, while the "List of heavy cruisers of Germany" is not.

• The breaking of the two columns prior was due to the ROWSPAN function requested by TRB and Grondemar. To address this and SatyrTN's comment, I've separated the two cells into eighteen cells. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the color coding and the accessibility symbols be in the same column? If it were me, I'd color code (and symbolize) the boat name column.

• The ROWSPAN function doesn't work with the colour coding, and so I've moved the symbols and colours to the "Hull number" column. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support with the above modifications. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:50, 11 March 2012 (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 21:10, 12 March 2012 [14].

---

List of heavy cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another list of German warships, this one comprises all of the heavy cruisers built or designed by Germany in the 1920s through 1940s. The list has already passed a MILHIST A-class review (see here), and is the capstone to this project, which will be ready to head over to WP:GT once this article makes FL. I feel this list is very close to FL quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring it meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Alt text for the images would be nice.
• For the ships with 10,000 t displacement, the lead shows them as having 9,800 long tons of displacement, but the body shows 10,000 in multiple places.
• The text says Lutzow was scrapped in the 1950s, but the table says 1960.
• Ref 10 should give the page range as pp., not p. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't really like messing with alt text, since, as far as I'm aware, they still haven't figured out what exactly is useful for alt text.
  • The tonnage discrepancy was a convert template error, should have been 10,000 long tons, not metric tons.
  • A result of a disagreement over the eventual fate of the ship - one source says 1958-59, another says 1960. Updated to reflect this.
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments "panzerschiffe " my German is rusty but shouldn't that be Panzerschiffe throughout? "10,000 long tons (10,000 t)" but "50,000 long tons (51,000 t)", so should 10,000 long tons be 10,200 t? And then "16,020 long tons (16,280 t)"..... looks like an inconsistent conversion is being used, or truncation of division not be used consistently. On second thoughts, it might be a sourcing issue. Either way, (and especially now I've seen 20,000 long tons (20,000 t)) the inconsistency needs to be resolved or explained... Need to follow MOS:DTT for row and col spans (to assist screen readers per WP:ACCESS) in each of the tables. "canceled" or "cancelled"? "in Bikini Atoll" or "in the Bikini Atoll"? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Should all be addressed, thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments MOS:NUMBERS states numbers over nine should use their numerical form and not be spelled out. twenty-two needs in the first para needs to be in numerals, can see a few more as well. "Admiral Graf Spee was meanwhile scuttled after the Battle of the River Plate" this sentence troubles me. "was meanwhile" doesn't read brilliantly i would remove meanwhile, also what was scuttled mean? As I'm not aware of this term, if there is a wikilink to it that would help You relink a few terms in the Deutschland class that were linked in the lead such as the Spanish Civil War, yet World War II is not linked in that section, any reason why? "but Hitler allowed only increases to..." swap allowed and only round so it reads, "but Hitler only allowed increases..." "Admiral Hipper was scuttled by her crew after having been heavily damaged..." not keen on 'after having been' reads awkwardly, would change to "Admiral Hipper was scuttled by her crew due to heavy damage sustained by RAF bombers." NapHit (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC) See WP:NUMERAL - the MOS actually says that any number that can be expressed in one or two words can be either spelled out or in Arabic numerals. I prefer to spell out numbers less than 50. Fair enough, hadn't noticed that before. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Linked to Scuttling, removed "meanwhile" No real reason. Fixed. The sentence is grammatically fine (past perfect rather than simple past), though there is a passive voice issue. How does "Admiral Hipper's crew scuttled the ship after she sustained heavy damage from RAF bombers" sound? Parsecboy (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC) That sounds fine to me NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. By the way, the lead image could use some cropping. Goodraise 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Overall looks good, just one comment:
  • D class, "In 1933, Hitler authorized...". Although I have a hard time believing anyone might not know who Hitler was, I would suggest giving his full name, position and linking to his article on the first occurrence of his name.
• This comment does not effect my support, as it is quite minor. Prose, sourcing and images all look solid. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point - added first name, link, and position. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Everything looks good now. Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk In the first paragraph you spell it Panzerschiffe, but in the third paragraph, and again in P-class: Panzerschiff. Is there a reason for them being different (I speak no German), or is one a typo? Panzerschiffe is plural, Panzerschiff is singular. "Most of the heavy cruisers were used as commerce raiders during the war," – Is this referring to the Spanish Civil War, the only war mentioned in this paragraph, or World War II? Presumably the paragraph switches to World War II at some point if not there, and this needs to be made clear. Could you link caliber in the "Deutschland class" section? The prose states that "The treaty limited large German warships to a displacement of 10,000 long tons (10,160 t)" but in the table, the displacements are all around 15,000 long tons: could the reason for this be stated somewhere? "Lützow was re-floated by the Soviet Navy and expended as a target in July 1947." – I have no idea at all what that means. Some explanation would be nice. Does linking to target ship clarify this? Incidentally, the ship's page and the class page both have the "10,000 long tons (10,000 t)" problem, so it might be worth having a look around all the articles in the proposed GT for this! Why no reference in the table for the fate of the Admiral Scheer? In the D class section the prose states "20,000 long tons (20,000 t)" presumably this needs to change to "20,000 long tons (20,321 t)" as is used in the table. "..three O class battlecruisers. The O-class ships.." – remove the hyphen from the second use of O class here. The lead also uses a hyphen in the third paragraph, remove that too! Actually, both should have hyphens - when used with a noun (like battlecruiser, ship, etc.) the name of the class is treated as a compound adjective. The only time hyphens aren't used is when the class name is used by itself, (i.e,. the ships of the O class). "The O-class ships were significantly larger, faster, and more powerful. These ships, however, were also not built." – If they were never built, they couldn't be larger, faster OR more powerful. They "would have been significantly larger, faster and more powerful." Or something similar. "to build 50,000 long tons (51,000 t) of heavy cruisers, enough for five 10000-long ton ships." – Inconsistent displacement notage. "10000-long ton ships" appears to be the only time in the whole list that a conversion isn't given, and no comma is used in a long number. 10,000 long tons is converted above, you don't need to convert a number every time. Again for the Admiral Hipper class, is there a reason that the displacement is so much higher than the Treaty allowed them? Navies at this time, especially the German Navy, were routinely violating treaty restrictions - the treaty system had largely fallen apart in 1937 when Japan backed out, anyway. That said, this article really isn't the place to discuss this. In the "Deutschland class" section, you use a lower case 't' for treaty, but in "Admiral Hipper class" you use a capital "T". I don't really have a preference either way, but you need to be consistent. Why no reference in the table for the fate of the Blücher? Harrias talk 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Everything else should be addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, going a little bit deeper on this last point, the German cruiser Deutschland article suggests there is some disagreement about the final fate of the Lützow; but only one fate is listed in this list as "fact".
  • Prager is based on the declassified Soviet archives, the others are works from the 60s-80s, and thus less reliable.
    • It just seems inconsistent that on the ship's article it states that "The ultimate fate of Lützow is unclear" but in this article no allusion is made at all to the uncertainty. Harrias ^talk 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - It all looks quite solid to me, and I'm not seeing any issues- Harrias's above point looks to be settled in the article. --PresN 19:39, 9 March 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 08:30, 9 March 2012 [15].

---

List of Vanderbilt Commodores head football coaches

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the five previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas and LSU). Hopefully this will get through with minimal issues, but as always am grateful for any comments to make this list even better. Thanks to all who take the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption is a complete sentence so should have a period. Done Personal klaxon - I can't stand the word "winningest", awful awful awful. If you changed it to "the most wins" or something, it'd make my day. Day made, done! "of those who have coached more than one game" this is probably boilerplate but it's unnecessary here because all the coaches have coached more than one game. Done Similar comment applies to the following sentence. Done Key says GC for games coached, table has just G. Not sure how I managed that one, but fixed now. Check also OW, OT, OL, O% and C%. Done Why is DC DCs (etc) when e.g. OW isn't OWs? No good reason for that, fixed. Second gen ref has (PDF) as the first item, vs Ref 10 where (PDF) is after the title. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Comments addressed. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I believe this list meets WP:FLCR. I made a minor copyedit in the second paragraph. I do have one minor concern: "In that time, five coaches have led the Commodores in postseason bowl games" shouldn't that be to bowl games? –Grondemar 00:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed the "to." Good catch! Patriarca12 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment "McGugin is the leader in seasons coached and games won, with 198 victories during his 30 years with the program" this came up on another of these lists recently, is program used to refer to the team in american sports? As a British sports fans I find the usage a bit odd, wouldn't it be simpler to say team? It would a save a bit of confusion for this unfamiliar with american sports terminology. Otherwise the list in fine shape NapHit (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC) This has come up before, I just missed it in this sentence. It is now fixed, and thanks for catching it! Patriarca12 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Great list, Meets the WP:FLC.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 20:59, 8 March 2012 [16].

---

List of Malmö FF seasons

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

After a very thorough peer review done by Cliftonian and several improvements to both the lead, history section and the table itself I believe that this list is now ready for FLC. This is a list that covers all seasons played by Malmö FF, the most successful club in Swedish football in terms of total number of trophies won. I hope that you find the list interesting, well written and complete. Thank you. Reckless182 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As Reckless says above, I gave this list a good going over during its peer review and have watched the nominator bring this list up to a very high standard in every department. I have no qualms about supporting. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments I know we all know which football it is, but it's worthwhile expanding out the "association football" in full rather than pipe-linking it to just football, just for our confused North American friends. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "BK Idrott, who for a short time had been merged " not keen on the comma arrangment, would see it as "BK Idrott who, for a short time, had been merged " Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "were its reaching of the " reads awkwardly. "was when they reached the..."?" Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "a total of 27 times " a total of is redundant. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "would later go on to " later is redundant. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "to Div 1 Svenska Serien Västra, one " was it really called Div or Division like all the other divisions you've mentioned? Changed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "Malmö FF remained in Allsvenskan until 1934, when the club was found to have paid players in spite of the league's then-mandatory amateurism,[4] which remained in place until 1967" you haven't said here that the club was forced to drop one division because of the illegal payments. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "for continental competitions" worth being specific here, this may not be clear to those who refer to football in Europe as "continental competitions". Changed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "but only managed to win " -> "but only won" Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "to rivals " are they significant as rivals or were they just rivals because they were the opposition? Changed to regional rivals and added a wikilink to the article about the rivalry. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) "Supercupen" note, since you have one sentence with a full stop in that note, you need to end the second sentence with a full stop as well. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Is Nilsson's image size forced? Shouldn't be if it is, should just be thumb. Is there any reason for the image to be smaller? The image doesn't distort any headings or text in its current size. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Compliance with WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I understand. Now fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Don't make refs column sortable. Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Is there a reason stated as to why Malmo played no football in 1910 and 1921/22? There is no given reason for the 1921/22 season, the reason for the 1910 was most likely that the competitive had already started when the club was founded. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Why is Super - cupen three lines and hyphenated in the table? Looks very odd. Changed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Is it Svenska cupen or Svenska Cupen? Changed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Same comment for Svenska Mästerskapet. Changed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) What is "Distriktsmästerskapet"? First and only mention in the table heading for the 1910-1919 seasons. See the first paragraph of the history section. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you could spell them consistently...? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Most refs end with a full stop, some don't (well, at least one, ref 3), be consistent. I will look into this. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Now fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Any reason why Erik Svensson is more notable than John Rosén? Yes, Erik Svensson played for Malmö FF in Allsvenskan whereas John Rosén and the top scorers before him did not. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I think there's a difference in did not qualify and cup didn't exist... If you know when they did not qualify, couldn't you be more explicit and use DNQ instead of an en-dash? Previously I used an empty space to display the fact that the cup didn't exist, however this is incompatible with sorting and can't be used. For Svenska Cupen, Malmö FF have competed in every single season of the cup. Featuring a DNQ for years when the club did not qualify for the European cups would not be a good solution layout wise I think. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Don't use mixed date formats in the references. I will look into this. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Now fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Do you need Malmo FF as a category if you already have a sub-category of that in Malmo FF seasons? Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I'll just point out that Reckless has given a table of competitions in the key for quick reference, which tells you when each of the cups were founded. Perhaps in the table we could put "n/a" for the years before each cup was founded? I agree with Reckless that putting "DNQ" for every year the club did not qualify for Europe would be rather jarring. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Okay, not a bad idea, N/A for those competitions that weren't around, and en-dashes for those for which Malmo didn't qualify. And adjustment to the key to cover the change... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Sounds good to me. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Alright I've applied this for Svenska Cupen, Supercupen and European competitions as of now. I wrote n/a instead of N/A according to the WP article. I will do play-offs later today, I will display n/a when there was no kind of play-offs available for that season (championship, promotion or relegation). --Reckless182 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I have now added n/a for when play-offs where not held as well. That should do it. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Include the season in the 1926-27 wikilink, just to make it clear what is being linked, same applies for 1950 afterwards and any others "Hans Håkansson holds the record for most league goals for Malmö FF during a single season, having scoring 30 goals in 18 second-tier..." think there is a typo here and +ing is normally frowned upon as well, change the comma to a semi-colon and use "he scored 30 goals..." "five league titles in the process" in the process is redundant "European continental cup play" not the greatest wording perhaps simply "European competition"? "After a briefly..." think it should just be brief "taking them out of the top division for the first time since 1936" not keen on the use of taking perhaps change to "the first time since 1936 they war out of the top division" consider using — instead of the current format at the moment, will ensure dashes sort correctly Would change winners and runners-up to W and RU respectively I would spell out UEFA in the refs so readers are aware what it is, its done for one ref but not others NapHit (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I have looked at most of your concerns, I did everything you suggested in the lead and history section except for removing "five league titles in the process" as I believe it adds something to the context. I will address the other issues later. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Alright, I've done some testing with the template you suggested for dash sorted but this proved to cause some problems. Dashes are sorted before anything else when it should be sorted last. I see no point in changing from a sorting system that already works flawlessly. For UEFA, isn't a mention in the text or perhaps linked in the refs enough? The organization itself is almost exclusively refereed to as UEFA and very rarely as Union des Associations Européennes de Football or The Union of European Football Associations. I believe that changing it would confuse the reader more than its common name. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Regarding, the sort issue seeing as you use n/a to indicate the competition did not exist (I assume that's correct? It just says they didn't play in the competition as there wasn't one) I would forget the sort bit. I was not suggesting removing "five league titles in the process" just the "in the process" bit as its redundant. Regarding UEFA, its not actually mentioned in the lead or history section, and its common practice to spell acronyms out. What I do when using UEFA in refs is to spell it out and then put (UEFA) in brackets next to it, so the reader is aware what it refers to. That was what I was advocating, I just didn't make it clear. NapHit (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I would be open to use the full name with brackets next to it in the lead or the history section. Do we really need to spell out the full name in the refs as well? As I said, in the case of UEFA, the abbreviation is far more common than the full name and should thus be the name used according to WP:COMMONNAME which is relevant here even though it primarily deals with article title policy. --Reckless182 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Its not currently in the lead or history section but if you put it in and do as you suggest I'm fine with that. NapHit (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Putting it there was what I suggested, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I added it to a relevant sentence in the history section. I also addressed the other concern earlier. Thanks for your feedback! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Don't capitalize first word in "Association football" in the opening sentence. No hyphen needed in "newly-created". Don't link Allsvenskan twice in the first paragraph. Photo captions could use periods at the end. In the Name column of the main table, the two players with diacritic Os beginning their last names aren't sorting properly. You may need some type of sort templates to get them in the right order. Footnote G: "amongst" → "among"? Ref 14 should contain a pp., not a p. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC) All issues are now fixed. For the name sorting, the character "Ö" is sorted last in the Swedish alphabet so sorting should now be correct. Thanks for your feedback! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

* Though WP:DATED advises us not to use words like "currently": could you rephrase Will rephrase these. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) The image captions are sentence fragments, not full sentences, so shouldn't have full stops/periods: see MOS:CAPTION Will go through this. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Key. Suggest putting the Allsvenskan specifics table below the other colour/symbol table, so that the Key to cup record table isn't quite so squashed up on the right Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 1910-1919 section. Why are there two rows for 1916-17? This is due to the season format being changed for the 1918 season, thus all four competitions were held during the 1916–17 season. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you could add a footnote so the reader won't have to ask the same question? Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Sorting the league position by division as well as position is unusual but not necessarily unreasonable. However it does mean that the reader can't sort that column to see all division-winning seasons together. Is that a good thing? Since Malmö FF have played a large majority of their seasons in Allsvenskan I believe this is the best sorting solution. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Was wondering why you chose to appropriate gold and silver in the position column for Allsvenskan results, so that winning a lower division doesn't get coloured gold? I've coloured the Allsvenskan positions after the medals given by the Swedish FA, medals are generally not given to winners of lower divisions. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Perhaps in that case your Allsvenskan specifics key should be called something like Swedish league specifics, and add a note to clarify why the only coloured boxes are for Allsvenskan. As it stands, the reader would expect a gold colour for winning things. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) I've clarified the matter in the relevant footnote. I don't think changing the name to "Swedish league specifics" is a good idea since the medal allocation only concerns Allsvenskan and not the entire league system. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) I'm more used to reviewing English seasons lists, where the format seems to have settled on columns for the FA Cup and Football League Cup, i.e. competitions that all clubs enter without having to qualify, and then another column-pair for name and result in other competitions, e.g. Europe, lower-division cups, charity shield, short-lived trophies. That sort of layout means, for instance, that you wouldn't need a whole column devoted to a competition that didn't exist until 2007 and Malmö FF have only qualified for once, as with the Supercupen. The great swathes of n/a in this list do make it visually cluttered. I accept you want to distinguish between seasons where a competition didn't exist and seasons when Malmö FF didn't qualify, but I wish there were a less messy way of doing it. I see your point. We've discussed the different possibilities with indicating n/a and n dash in this FLC and we reached the current solution. I do agree that it looks a little bit messy but I would have a hard time merging competitions that are largely different and also both domestic and international in one column. I think the current format is best as of now. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Does the Billing et al article abstract really belong in the general references section, as it's only used to source one fact, albeit three times in various parts of the article, so only appears once in the specific refs list? Do you think we should include the entire ref in the specific list? I don't feel happy mixing different ref formats in a list. I don't have a problem with the way it looks now. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Confused am I a little, as you already have different ref formats in the specific list: Smitt page ranges, and cite-webs. I think it's a question of function rather than appearance. Smitt's a general reference, but Billing isn't. Nor are the 2011 and 2012 club handbooks, for that matter. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done. I've relocated both Billing and the clubs yearbooks to the specific list. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Could you add translations of the titles of the Swedish-language webpages referenced? they go in the trans_title= parameter in {{Cite web}} Will do. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Comments. The Rambling Man asked me to comment here. I hope you appreciate his efforts... Use the singular verb in the opening couple of sentences, where you're referring to the entity that is a football club, and not to its team. So, "Malmö Fotbollförening, commonly called Malmö FF, is a Swedish professional association football club based in Malmö, whose first team currently play in the highest tier of Swedish football, Allsvenskan. Malmö FF was founded..." I have discussed this with various users and come to the understanding that the plural verb can be used for club when referring to the club as a collection of players, therefore I've used this across all Malmö FF related articles, including the main article which was TFA last friday. I'll change it if I'm completely wrong but in my understanding both singular and plural can be used in British English. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) It's called the discretionary plural, which some people interpret as meaning a writer can choose either singular or plural to go with a particular subject and then stick to that choice all the time. Where the writer's discretion actually lies, is in choosing which to use depending on what you're talking about. The plural verb can, and indeed in British English should, be used when referring to the club as a collection of players, as in the clause "who currently play in ... Allsvenskan". But in the clauses "Malmö FF ... is/are a Swedish football club" and "Malmö FF was/were founded", it's referring to the entity that makes up a football club – not just the players, but also the business, board of directors, club rules, deciding which park to play in, etc, etc. In that usage, it's a singular entity. Which is why when I tried to recast it above, I added the words "whose first team" as subject of the plural verb "currently play", thus avoiding the apparent inconsistency of having one singular and one plural verb with the same subject in the same sentence. The tl;dr version goes: There's a question about the concept on the BBC's Learning English subsite, which sums it up as "The thing to remember, is when we look at them as a collection of individuals, we would normally use a plural noun, and if we want to look at them as a unified institution we use the singular." Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) I'm happy to change the first sentence in the lead if I can keep referring to Malmö FF as a team, a collection of players, in the rest of the prose. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC) The only ones that need changing are the "Malmö FF are a professional..." in the 1st sentence, and the two "Malmö FF were founded", one in the 2nd sentence and one at the start of the History section (you can't "found" a collection of players :-) You'd be correct to use the plural elsewhere. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC) In 1935 and 1936, shouldn't the promotion play-off boxes be coloured? Also, the second p in Promotion Play-offs shouldn't be capitalised I could colour the play-off box for 1935–36 in green but it might be unnecessary since the position is already coloured, also what colour would be appropriate for the 1934–35 box? --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Would be covered by above. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) I've de capitalised the second p in Promotion Play-offs. I'm a bit confused as what you mean above, is the colouring in the league position column enough or do you think I should add colouring for the 1935–36 box? --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) What I meant was: In seasons lists, we are used to a box showing a team winning something being coloured gold and a box showing a team coming runners-up being coloured silver. Although I wouldn't necessarily expect that for play-offs, it looked to me like an omission that the 1930s promotion play-offs boxes were not coloured silver and gold when the 1980s play-offs were. However, I was assuming that the note you were going to add to the Allsvenskan specifics colouring footnote (in what was then the previous comment, and is what "above" referred to) would be enough to explain why this was the case. I don't think there's a problem now, and nothing needs changing. Sorry for my lack of clarity. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Alright, no problem, thanks for clearing that up! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC) In 1946/47, why didn't they enter the Svenska Cupen? No Allsvenskan teams entered that years edition of Svenska Cupen for unknown reasons. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you could add a footnote so the reader won't have to ask the same question? Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) And a source for that? While you're in the footnotes, "calender year" in footnote D should be spelt calendAr. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Done. Turns out the reason for Allsvenskan clubs not participating was the absence of some key players that were away for the 1948 Summer Olympics in London. I've added a ref for this and corrected the spelling error. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Did Malmö FF not enter the Fairs Cup? It wasn't a UEFA-organised competition, but it was certainly an official competition, so the reader would expect to find it in this list. They did, however The fairs cup is not part of the official European competition record recogonized by UEFA, I've therefore chosen not to include it in this list and Malmö FF in European football. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Its omission would bother me from a comprehensiveness criterion 3a point of view. The Facts page on Malmö FF's website says they had 16 participations in the UEFA Cup. Your list shows 13. Malmö FF entered the Fairs Cup 3 times. Given that Malmö FF's website appears happy to count the two competitions as the same thing, a decision to omit it from this list just because UEFA didn't run it would also bother me from an original research point of view. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) When I worked on Malmö FF in European football I worked with the idea that UEFA's European record is a good and proper guideline for relevant and notable competitions to be included in lists such as the European list and this one. It's simply more difficult to come up with a better definition for which competitions to include. Malmö FF's official website might include the fairs cup record, however, the Swedish FA doesn't. Malmö FF have also competed in competitions such as Royal League, Intertoto Cup (Before UEFA) and various other minor international tournaments of various quality. It's very difficult to draw the line. I don't think that this goes against criterion 3a due to the fact that the sources differ on the subject. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Perhaps Malmö FF in European football would be better named Malmö FF in UEFA competition, for accuracy? There's no inclusion scope mentioned in the lead of this list, as perhaps there should be by criterion 2, but the note in the Europe column heading specifies what's included, and your content is consistent with that. But the approach I'd expect from a season list is an accurate and as-complete-as-possible reflection of the seasonal history of the club, to include all senior first-team competition. I don't know if the club sent first teams to the Royal League or the pre-UEFA Intertoto. But the Fairs Cup, particularly when Malmö FF were playing in it in the latter half of the 1960s, was a successful major competition. If it hadn't been, UEFA would have gleefully watched it die rather than taking it over and naming it after themselves. You may want to invite other opinions on this. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC) The naming issue was brought up for discussion at the FLC for that list. A third opinion would definitely be welcomed here. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC) The Fairs' Cup is actually the more-or-less official precursor to the UEFA Cup, so I would expect to see it here. I apologise for not catching this earlier; I was not aware Malmö FF had played in it. But as Reckless says, it's difficult to draw the line. I must make clear that although I would consider the Fairs' Cup a major competition, that does not make it the same thing as a UEFA competition. I would not agree with including all non-UEFA competitions. I would agree with Struway2's inclination that the Fairs' Cup should be included here and in Malmö FF in European football (with an advisory explanation, however, that although it was not a UEFA competition, it ultimately became one), but I do not think it is necessary to actually rename the European football article. I don't think the Royal League or pre-UEFA Intertoto competitions are necessary for either of these. I hope my comments here are helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I'm OK with adding the fairs cup as long as that draws the line. I don't want the list to be overcrowded with competitions that are not relevant and/or not notable. Thanks a lot for your opinion! I'll add the fairs cup to Malmö FF in European football later as well. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC) This is now done. I've added the results to the list and added further clarification and a ref to the footnote. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Pleasure to work with a nominator confident in their own work but still prepared to accept changes where needed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Your input was greatly appreciated. I'm intending to nominate more Malmö FF related lists for FLC, feel free to comment at any time! --Reckless182 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2012 (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 The Rambling Man 20:59, 8 March 2012 [17].

---

List of National Hockey League players from the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria, and (I think anyway) is an interesting list on something that I had wondered about for a while. It is loosely based on the current FLs List of Major League Baseball players from Australia and List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico, but not too closely. As always, all comments and suggestions are appreciated. I should also point out that I am taking part in the WikiCup, so this nomination is tied into that. (For what difference that makes?) Harrias ^talk 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you might want to go through the list of all the NHL players as I am pretty sure you have missed a number. Sid Finney is the first one that I noticed that was missing. The list just seems very short as there were a lot of people from the UK who played in the NHL in the early years. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through the list of players from England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the United Kingdom on the Legends of Hockey website, as well as the Hockey-Reference lists, and Finney is the only other player I can confirm is from the UK. Two others, Bobby Kirk and Jack Riley are listed as being from places that I can not find on Google to confirm if they are Southern or Northern Ireland, and thus are not verifiable. Browsing around prior to nominating this list, I found a lot of UK-born players appeared in the NHA and other pre-NHL leagues, but this number of players seems to be about right for the NHL: unless you can add anything else? Harrias ^talk 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope I trust you. Just wanted to point out that I saw one so was concerned there might be others. Good work on the list. I will leave it to others to review more thoroughly for other featured criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that: I'll have to do some more research into that pair to try and pin down where they are from! Harrias ^talk 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, provided a few fixes are made:

• "The modern form of ice hockey is generally considered to have began in the mid-19th century, when a group of Englishmen from the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment played a game in Kingston, Ontario.[2]" - I'd suggest just removing the whole sentence, as it is uncertain where and when ice hockey originated. The first part of the sentence is sort of alright, the last part just don't make sense... it implies that regiment created the game.

• I've seen this from a fair few sources: the consensus seems to agree that this was probably the first game played with a puck. Should I state more specifically that is what I mean? Harrias ^talk 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• But looking around now, I agree that there is a lot of variation. I'll look at whether I should cut this entirely or just "soften" it a bit. Harrias ^talk 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• How does it sound now? Harrias ^talk 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In the United Kingdom, a five team league was established in 1903" - what was the name of the league? It might be a good link, even if it is still red.

• At the moment I don't know, but I am trying to find that out! Harrias ^talk 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think it makes more sense to put the pink highlighting of a Hall of Famer over his entire row, and not only the name. This is just a stylistic concern, as in "it look weird to me". If you think it's fine, ignore this comment.

• Done. If anyone else particularly objects I can undo it again, but I'm not over bothered either way. Harrias ^talk 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• The article is orphaned as of my review; I'm going to add links on the player pages, but other links could be useful, too.

• Yeah, I need to look at that! Harrias ^talk 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maxim_(talk) 16:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – "He joined the Montreal Canadiens for the first season of the NHL, which competed in 1919 Stanley Cup Finals as league champions." First, I'd use "who" instead of "which", since the team nickname is plural and that's a standard way of dealing with situations like this. Second, "the" would be nice before 1919. The team nickname is still being used in the singular ("playing in its very first game"), which I don't think is correct for a North American-based team name that isn't singular. Suggest switching that to "their". I've removed that bit entirely, as I think it was misleading (given the Canadiens played matches prior to that in the NHA. Harrias talk 07:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC) "He won the Vezina Trophy on two occasions, and was named team captain of the 1933–34 season, and led his team to win their first Stanley Cup." Not sure about "team captain of the 1933–34 season"; maybe try replacing "of" with "for" to fix it. Also, the double "and"s lead to some flow issues. What do you think of "leading his team to win their first Stanley Cup" for the last part? One more thing from that sentence: the Stanley Cup link is repeated from earlier in the lead and isn't really needed. Last sentence of the lead could use a reference. Not the most important thing in the world, but alt text for the images would be nice. In the position column, the second words of "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" should probably be decapitalized, since those aren't proper nouns or usually capitalized. In the Owen Nolan caption, "Gold" should also be decapitalized, and the caption itself could do with a cite. Two of the three See also links are used in the lead; those don't need copying here if used earlier. Note 2: "Active" isn't capitalized in the heading, and it's incorrect to do so here if that's the case (and I agree that it shouldn't be capitalized there). Maybe it's just me, but it seems odd that the number 1,000 has a comma in the lead but none in the table for the two players who've reached that number. I'd use the comma myself, but I'd prefer it to be consistent either way. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Made fixes based on most of your comments. Haven't added any alt text yet, nor added a reference for Nolan's gold. Adding a comma into the 1,000 for the table will probably cause sortability issues, so I will wait until I've got a little more time before trying that too. Should get these three things done later day or tomorrow. Harrias talk 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Added alt text, and commas into table. The sortability still seems to work for me, if anyone else has issues, please let me know! Harrias talk 11:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Steve Thomas and Owen Nolan have played over 1,000 regular season games..." I would remove the have in this sentence, as it sounds like they are still playing, which is what I inferred from the sentence, with just played its clear they are not. Per WP:ACCESS, I would recommend replacing the dagger with † as people using screen readers have trouble distinguishing the normal dagger. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Done and done. Harrias talk 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Grondemar 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

* Comments from –Grondemar: I notice you only listed the debut team for these players, rather than all the teams these players played for over the course of their careers. I randomly picked out a sports FL showing a list of players and representing their entire careers rather than a single year or draft, 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. That list showed all of the teams each player played for along with the years. I realize that including this information would hurt list sortability, but I think it would be good information to include. I could be persuaded otherwise, however. See below. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I realize you included "RS" and "PO" in the key, but still when I first glanced at the list I had no idea what they meant. I suggest adding another header row, with "Games played" over both of these statistics. Done. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks, but I think the table would look a bit better (and maybe be a little more accessible) if the RS and PO headers were under the Games Played label, rather than over. –Grondemar 03:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I agree, but I can't find a way of doing that which doesn't mess up the sortability unfortunately. If anyone else can sort this, feel free! Harrias talk 18:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC) It might be a good idea to add statistics such as goals scored, assists, points, and (for goalies) GAA; however I can also see how that might clutter the list. See below. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) You might want to consider renaming the article List of National Hockey League players born in the United Kingdom, since that is more precisely what the article is about. Yeah, fair point. Done. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Another consideration for data to be added to the article, in addition to the Hall of Fame, would be Stanley Cups won, All-Star appearances, and other trophies won. References are hard to find for these, and I would be quite worried that I had missed someone! Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Hope these suggestions are helpful. –Grondemar 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC) In answer to a number of the points made, I felt that adding too much information would clutter the page up too much. More information can be found on all the players on their own page, and I figured that this was the best balance. You might be able to argue the addition of some more, but the problem comes that a couple more can lead to a lot more, and we need to be wary that not everyone has a hugely wide screen! The decision not to list all the teams came from the baseball lists that I based the article upon, though they did admittedly list the last team too. With regards to further statistics, because hockey seperates these stats for the regular season and playoffs, it would create a lot lot more information that I don't think would fit on the screen! The goalie stats also pose a problem, would goalies then be listed seperately, or would this create even more columns? Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) You make good points here; let me think on this and get back to you. –Grondemar 03:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support pending resolution of the image concerns below. After further consideration, I believe this format meets WP:FLCR. –Grondemar 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Jhall.jpg does not yet state under what license it can be used in the US. Also, it could use some clean-up.
• File:Charlie Gardiner.jpg's source link appears to be broken. (Fixing optional.)
• File:Steve Thomas by Djuradj Vujcic.jpg provides invalid information for source. Removed from the article. Goodraise 21:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:Daniel Taylor.jpg provides invalid information for date, source and author. Overlooked something here. Goodraise 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise 03:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed the first two for the nom. But the second two I don't actually agree that they are incorrect. The authors are mentioned and the information is correct. It is laid out in the normal manner for images on commons that have been transferred there from en. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:IUP is part of WP:WIAFL. What commons wants is irrelevant to us, here at FLC. The first still does not state under what license it can be used in the US. The third refers to an "original", but doesn't name it. Goodraise 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The first one actually does, anything that qualifies for PD-Canada that was taken prior to 1996 is public domain in the United States. Being that the subject of this article died in 1919 the picture had to be taken prior to 1949 as required. However I have added a redundant tag. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The first image has now been replaced with the same image from the commons, and I have left a message on the talk page of the user who uploaded the third image in the first place. Harrias ^talk 17:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Revisited. Goodraise 20:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is well possible that User:Tempo21 is copyright holder of said "original". If so, it would be enough to exchange "Cropped from original" with "Own work". Goodraise 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Thomas image for the time being, given the possible copyright concerns. Harrias ^talk 07:39, 2 March 2012 (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 23:04, 5 March 2012 [18].

---

List of Scheduled Monuments in Maidstone

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a complete list of the Scheduled Monuments in the borough of Maidstone, Kent. Scheduled Monuments are sites of historic importance that are protected by legislation against change. The lead explains the meaning of the Scheduled Monument and describes the borough and provides a description of each of the monuments.DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Two dab links, "Loose" and "Nettlestead". Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Table needs row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT) for WP:ACCESS. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Grid Ref -> Grid ref Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) "nationally important" needs attribution (I'm guessing English Heritage state this?) It's in the second paragraph of reference 1. I have rephrased so it is a direct quote--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Image captions that are complete sentences need a full stop. Done I would say "The borough of Maidstone..." because I was slightly confused (knowing Maidstone as just a town, rather than a borough!) OK. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) "The importance of the River Medway and its tributaries to the district's economic and social history is reflected by the inclusion of seven medieval stone bridges on the list." picky, but who said this was true? Reads like WP:OR to me. That would be me. I'll change it.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) "9.8×5.2×2.3" vs "160 × 98 ft" be consistent with the spacing. Done. The convert template which is what I used for the n x n ones does it differently to convert/3 used for n x n x n. I've changed to convert/2 which is consistent with convert/3.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) No need for "Moot" to be capitalised. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) "and rag-stone and " format problem. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Isn't "Archaeological sites in Kent" a better category than the England one? It is. Changed.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Not sure about the legitimacy of "Scheduled Monument" in capitals since sources and our own article seem to imply it's simply "scheduled monument". I've followed the formatting and text from the featured list Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester, but I'm happy to change it.--DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Well, it appears that even to English Heritage that Scheduled Monument is not a proper noun, so I would decapitalise it throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) OK. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support

• I notice that List of Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539) (a Featured List) has a note which explains where the term "schedule" comes from and it may be worth adding here (relevant bit in italics): "A scheduled monument is a nationally important archaeological site or monument which is given legal protection by being placed on a list (or "schedule") by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." I think I'll do the same at List of Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester.
  • Good idea. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• As "scheduled monument" is lower case, shold "Scheduled Ancient Monument" also be lower case for internal consistency? (I've seen both terms using either form so I don't think it's a case of being right or wrong, just aiming for consistency.)
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Should "18th century mortuary" be "18th-century mortuary"?
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Remains of buildings associated with a undiscovered Roman villa.": I know what's meant, but this may strike readers as odd, because how can a villa be undiscovered if we know there was one. Perhaps change it slightly to something like "Remains of buildings associated with a Roman villa, the main structure of which is undiscovered."
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• In the descriptions for Boxley Abbey and Leeds Priory I think it would be worth mentioning when they were demolished.
  • Neither of the Pastscape sources for these give demolition dates. My other usual source (www.british-history.ac.uk), also comes up with nothing. I'll see if I can find anything elsewhere.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there are only decently four lists of Scheduled Monuments (aside from this one), and this is consistent with the format and layout of those. The main difference is they covered counties (Cheshire and Greater Manchester) but I think this list's approach of using a local government district works. The GM list was as far as I know the first of its type and doesn't have that many, hence why a single list can handle an entire county. There are over 200 in Cheshire so a single list was less practical, especially with detailed descriptions as seen here. The coutny's SMs aren't evenly distributed between its districts (not even close) because they're different sizes: two small and two much larger. Dividing by district wouldn't have been useful so instead time period was chosen. I don't know how SMs are distributed in Kent but the 13 districts don't seem as varied in size as those of Cheshire which might help create a more even distribution, and conservatively assuming there are 15 per district a list for the entire county would probably be too long to be user friendly. In conclusion, this list's format has my full support.

• Kent has 417 scheduled monuments according to the National Heritage List for England (NHLE), including 73 in Medway (a unitary authority in its own right).--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Having put together this kind of list before sorting the date column can sometimes be tricky, but it seems to work here. The descriptions are illuminating while keeping brief and to the point. Overall I'm impressed with the list. I'm not sure if it counts as a spot-check, but having taken a peek at the sources on the castles I can confirm the article matches what the sources say and there were no concerns regarding plagiarism. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've manually forced the sorting of the date column using {{Hs}} to get it in the right order.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that when I was putting together the Greater Manchester list part of the challenge was ensuring no site was missed. As DavidCane uses this site a lot I assume he used the search tool to double check the results, and it makes life much simpler than checking the individual counts on local government websites (while weren't always easy to find). Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The NHLE includes a definitive consolidated list of various heritage classifications including scheduled monuments. I obtained the list for Maidstone Borough by doing an advanced search with location district set to Maidstone and Heritage Category set to scheduling. The items included in the list on the NHLE don't often include the descriptions of the monument, which is why I cross referenced to PastScape as the main source for these. I've also used it to prepare Grade I listed buildings in Maidstone for which I am gradually working through the redlinks before it comes here for review.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've switched to support as the one outstanding issue (demolition date of the religious houses) aren't deal breakers. I look forward to seeing the Grade I listed buildings at FLC. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – No need for two English Heritage links in the lead; one will suffice. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I havn't done a full review, but like it and consider that it satisfies the criteria for FL as it stands. Some suggestions:

I should like to see where Maidstone is geographically in the first sentence, ie that it is in Kent and that Kent is in England (for overseas readers).

Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As you mention the different listing grades, a key would be helpful. You could copy one, say from here.

As most of the scheduled monuments are not listed buildings, I don't think the key is necessary, but I have added an explanatory note into the text (note 1) on what listing means.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The {{GeoGroupTemplate}} adds to the interest of the list, but I don't know if it works with GRs; (I usually use coords). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that since I nominated the list and it doesn't work with Grid Refs. I would like to add it and, if I get time at the weekend, I will do the necessary conversion to make it work.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support The list is fine as it stands; with the template would be even better. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support after a quick revisit I'm more than satisfied that this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not going to effect my support, but any reason why the font size is reduced? NapHit (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I hadn't noticed. It must have been carried over from the page I borrowed the layout from. I've set it back to standard size.--DavidCane (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2012 (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 23:04, 5 March 2012 [19].

---

Birdman discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked extensively to get this page up to standard, and think it meets the FLC criteria. Although I cannot guarantee that the page is already perfect, I feel it will not take too long to fix any issues anyone has. Based on my successful nomination of 50 Cent discography, I've formatted the page with the basic template I was given there, so it should be alright. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 1:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Non-reviewer comments from Michael Jester Add collaboration album to the infobox? Infobox says 15 featured singles, but the lead says 14 What does "*" mean in the studio albums table? Why is the certifications column in the studio albums table so skinny? Every other column is much higher and shows a full cert on a single line. Pricele$$ -> Priceless. Why is the Guest appearances table look so differently than the other songs? The artists are not labeled under the song title. What does "—" mean in the Guest appearances table mean? Does the "N/A" mean there was no director? Or is it just unknown? —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I've dealt with every comment except for the sixth one: please excuse me if I'm missing the point, but what do you mean by saying that it "look so differently than the other songs" and that the "artists are not labeled under the song title"? Some elaboration is needed. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'll explain via tables. This is how the table is formatted now for first couple of songs in the Guest appearances : List of guest appearances, with other performing artists, showing year released and album name Title Year Other performer(s) Album "U.P.T." 1998 Juvenile, Hot Boys 400 Degreez "Never Had Shit" 1999 Juvenile, B.G., Turk Tha G-Code "Flamboastin'" 2000 E-40 Loyalty and Betrayal Re-doing the table to look like the other tables: List of guest appearances, with other performing artists, showing year released and album name Title Year Album "U.P.T." (Juvenile featuring Hot Boys and Birdman) 1998 400 Degreez "Never Had Shit" (Juvenile featuring Birdman, B.G. & Turk) 1999 Tha G-Code "Flamboastin'" (E-40 featuring Birdman) 2000 Loyalty and Betrayal I'd prefer to use to second one, as it shows whos song it is. But, as I am not reviewing, just giving comments, you don't have to listen to this one; it's just a preference. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see what you mean now. Don't ask me why, but the format I used is generally the standard format for guest appearances tables. I see your point, but for consistency's sake I'll stick with the format I already have. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC) That's fine. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Could link discography in the lead. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC) You say in the lead the 39 singles includes 19 as featured artist... infobox could be confusing, as it says 39 singles and 19 featured singles. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC) "number 9 " would prefer nine here. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) "peaked at number 3 on the Billboard 200 and number 1" maybe "at number three on ... and topped the..."? Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) You use "peak" 11 times in the lead, making it quite repetitive, any chance of a rephrase please? The lead doesn't discuss any of his "featured work" or collaboration album. Don't forget the lead is supposed to "summarise" the whole article. Done Written about some of his successful featured singles. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Mixtapes don't appear in the lead or the infobox. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I don't see "5 * Stunna" in ref 1 or ref 5 or ref 6. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I don't see "Birdman" in ref 1. Album also known under the title Baby aka the #1 Stunna - have mentioned this in the lead, as Billboard has assigned the chart positions to the latter name. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I don't have time to check each and every ref, but it should be noted that you probably need to revisit and make sure everything is cited. Refs seem to refer to Priceless as Pricele$$, worth a mention. Year columns are WAY too wide on my browser (Safari). There is no specific width set for the year columns - all of the others have widths,to make sure that the song title boxes line up properly. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Fire Flame appears to have been a 2011 chart act in Canada, not a 2010 one... Yes, but it was actually released in 2010 (see here. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Collaboration singles have a table but aren't in the infobox or lead? I'm counting collaboration singles in the totals on main singles in the infobox and lead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Guest appearances, why is Other performer(s) col centrally aligned? Looks way odd. Personally, I feel that it makes the table look neater. Lots of other discographies use this format, although admittedly the table is usually a lot smaller. If you think it is absolutely vital that I change this, then I will do that. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Bow Wow is a dab. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Cash Money Millionaires#Discography -make a more elegant piped link for this rather than the hashed section link. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Ref 1 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark on its first use. Also, why does this need a cite here when the remainder of the sentence is sourced by the same reference? Done Removed the unnecessary cite altogether. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) The em dashes at the end of the second paragraph are improperly spaced per the Manual of Style. Either make them unspaced or convert them to en dashes (the smaller ones). Done Changed the dash type. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Alt text would be nice to have for the image. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC) In note I, the "a chart" could be shortened to "which" like in the other notes. This would make the writing a shade tighter, which is important even in a note. Done I meant to make it the same as the others anyway. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) For all Rap-Up refs (12, 88, 89, 91, and 108), the publisher should be italicized since it is a print publication. One of the reasons it helps to do this, in addition to it being proper style, is that it helps reviewers to establish that a given source can be trusted. I was about to ask whether Rap-Up was a reliable source before clicking on the wikilink and seeing what it was. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Comments "... and thirty-nine singles, including nineteen as a featured artist." – Are there 39 singles plus 19 collabs or are 19 of those part of the 39 in total? Also, this is probably a format followed in several discographies, but the "singles as a featured artist" wording is ungrammatical; "nineteen with him as a featured artist" would work though. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Per MOS:NUM, comparable numbers should be consistently written as figures or words. In other words, you cannot have "number two" but "number 36". You can have either "number 2" and "number 36" or "number two" and "number thirty-six". This is something you'll have to check in the lead. All chart positions should only be written either way. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) "In 2010, Birdman appeared on the Kevin Rudolf single "I Made It (Cash Money Heroes)" alongside Lil Wayne and singer Jay Sean, which reached number 21 on the Hot 100[2] and charted in Australia,[9] New Zealand[10] and the United Kingdom." - A bit ungrammatical because the relative pronoun "which" must be immediately after what it's referring to, which in this case, should be the single, not Jay Sean. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) "The album" is used a bit too often. Try and find opportunities where it can be replaced by "it" or something else. It gets repetitive after some time. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Studio albums: does the "... or was not released in that territory" apply here? The song charted on another US chart. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Likewise in Other charted songs. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) "'—' denotes unknown album." and "'N/A' denotes unknown director." - missing "an". Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) What makes Datpiff a high quality reliable source? Done Good question. I have replaced it (however, bear in mind that sources for mixtapes are often very difficult to find). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I understand. There are also two more Datpiff links in the article; the reference numbers are around the 80s. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Done Replaced the other two. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Why is 5 * Stunna in the references surrounded in quotations instead of being italicized? It's an album, non? Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Not too fussy over this, but you could add a link to Birdmanstunna.com (official site) in an External links section. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) There seems to be some linking inconsistency the Collaboration singles and As featured performer tables, where the chart abbreviations are not linked. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC) "... or was not released in that territory" also appears redundant in the Collaboration singles table, where all three charts are based in the US. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Good work! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Support as I see no reason not to. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support good, well-referenced work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Image review: The image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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