Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of world expositions

List of world expositions

Same jive as last time...Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of world's expositions

Nominate and Support - This list is detailed, multi-faceted, nastalgic and exciting to read. A lot less cumbersome than List of world's fairs, this list only examines the largest. Jo e I 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Renata 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.

~~Reference 2. You've got the wrong URL here due to the use of frames. Try http://www.worldsfairs.com/expos.html.~~
Reference 7. The Visitors, Costs and Area all link to the BIE homepage, which doesn't contain these figures. Can you link to a more specific page, or at least help the reader find that page with a note after the reference?

Can someone tell me how to make a note after the reference? They all came from the list of fairs on the left frame. Jo e I 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 8 contains visitor numbers in 10,000's. These don't match your figures. E.g. France 1867. They are more precise than yours and some of your numbers are more precise than others. Could you consistently display all these numbers to 2 decimal places, or else use the 10,000 multiple too?
This reference also clearly shows the year and has the duration in days, which IMO is more accessible than tiny date ranges. If you want to keep the month/day then perhaps have a "Start Date" or "Opened" column with a normal font size. In the table sorted by date,it would be better if the date/year was the first column.
References 10-15 have mostly the wrong URL. Could you add the Publisher template parameter for this so that readers can see they all come from one web site.

Ummm...what? Pount me in the right direction? Jo e I 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding other cite web parameters such as author and date if you can find them (e.g. Stan Daniloski for refs 10-15).

Didn't know how to find em. Jo e I 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your table had a reference column, the ref superscript wouldn't interfere with formatting. Could you then right-justify the numbers. Combined with consistent decimal places, the columns would look neater. Colin°^Talk 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaarrggghhh. I've just lost what I've been writing for the last 15 minutes due to clicking the wrong button. Sorry if the following is a bit terse:

You can put any text between the closing braces of the cite web template and the end-ref tag. However, I suspect some of these citations would be better as general References rather than footnotes. You could then rename the existing section as Footnotes for just the specific stuff. Many of the superscripts are making the table messy.
The links for the US city references are all wrong. Just click on them and you'll see.
The visitors and cost are inconsistently rounded. Consider just using the raw number from the source.
Some costs are not in USD and one is a profit. For the table to be useful they all must be consistent.
Some areas are acres - it is easy to convert.
There is no rationale why Attending Countries isn't in the first table, other than perhaps space considerations.

They are in that one cause it's sorted by countries, figured apples to apples. Jo e I 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments re: Duration still apply.
My comments re: formatting numbers still apply.

Couldn't find how to justify one column to right. Jo e I 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The secod and third pictures don't, IMO, do anything for the presentation.

So, I'll have to oppose for now, for issues of presentation and accuracy. Colin°^Talk 14:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]