Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2008

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 17:58, 31 March 2008.

---

Carrie Underwood discography

previous FLC (17:44, 27 February 2008)

Nominator - The article had failed its previous FLC nomination due to an ongoing dispute between User:I7114080 and myself. The dispute has ceased mainly because I7114080 has not been in any active discussions to help solve the issue, so I am assuming the article is now stable and ready to be nominated again. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 10:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Since it appears nothing has dramatically changed with the article since the last FLC, and I supported it then. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support-Written well, supports FL criteria, everything is well sourced. Great work.--TrUCo-X 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - remove the links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title and I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well-written and stable, any formatting issues from the last FLC have been settled. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:54, 23 March 2008 (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 17:58, 31 March 2008.

---

List of acquisitions made by Google

I am nominating this as a WP:FL because I think it is up for it. Here is phase one and phase two. Gary King (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question: really no acquisitions in the last four months? Hard to believe. Renata (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to look it up. Here's a good starter. I do not think that Google is out to try and set a record for most companies acquired. Gary King (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comment I'd really like for each acquisition to be linkable, so I know what they all are. Also, why isn't the dollar amount given for each acquisition? -- Matthew

Support Concerns addressed, meets criteria. Another good list. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:15, 27 March, 2008

CommentSupport Thanks. Great list, but blogs shouldn't appear in the citations per WP:RS, Eg. ZDnet and TechCrunch. PeterSymonds | talk 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've weeded out the blogs. Gary King (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments Hey Gary, some comments for you before I can support.

• Avoid links in the emboldedened lead per WP:LEAD#Bold_title
  • Addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSymonds (talk • contribs)
• Kaltix redirects to Web search engine - perhaps a real article could be created? Similarly ZipDash redirects to Traffic - perhaps you need an article here instead. There are several of these, I'm not 100% happy with the company name simply redirecting to the nature of their business.
  • Fixed the links. They are now either (really short) stubs or they redirect to their derived service over at Google. Gary King (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Value column could be right aligned to stack the commas neatly.
  • done Gary King (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Consider adding an link to this list in the Google template.
  • already existing Gary King (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, am I being slow? I can see this article linked to in {{Google Inc.}} at all... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you're missing a few letters in your sentence... anyways, in {{Google Inc.}}, next to See also, the list is linked to via Acquisitions. Gary King (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, it's a redirect, that's why it doesn't go bold when you look at the page. Edit the template so it points directly at the list rather than at a redirect, that's why I missed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Fixed Gary King (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than the redirects I can't see any major problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my concerns have been well addressed, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The words "made by" in the title are potentially misleading (Google did not "make" these businesses). No other list in Category:Acquisitions includes that locution. Can this be renamed to List of acquisitions by Google or (better) List of Google acquisitions? --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done Gary King (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What is the reason for "see also" links to List of acquisitions by Yahoo! and List of companies acquired by Microsoft Corporation but not linking to the similar lists for Apple, Oracle, Cisco, and IBM (as well as any others I may have forgotten)? (There likely is a good reason for selectively linking to these two, but if the reason for the selection cannot be articulated, the list may need to be either expanded or trimmed.) --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft all own the 3 largest search engines in the world. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2008 (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 17:58, 31 March 2008.

---

List of New York hurricanes

I wrote this article several months ago, with little knowledge of what a featured list should be. I rewrote it a month or so ago, with better knowledge of what an FL should be. Now, I firmly believe that this article meets all criteria for a featured list. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{(Happy St. Patrick's day!)} 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Article was redone beautifully. Congratulations on such a good job JC.^Mitch32^contribs 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Well sourced, informative, and looks very good. Well done. --CWY2190^TC 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I've made a small change in the lead, decapping List, so it's correct English (!), but a few other observations:
  • New York is wikilinked twice in consecutive sentences.
  • A touch confusing, it starts as a list of hurricanes, which then becomes cyclones and then storms. They may well be synonymous but it's a little confusing.
  • A little bit of overlinking in the sections, e.g. Long Island in the pre 1800 section is linked twice. I don't mind linking once in each section but don't think it should be more than that...
  • "...becomes extratropical. As cold air fed into the system." - needs fix.
  • Rhode Island overlinked in 1800-99 section.
  • "pressure of 28.87 " - units?
  • Keep citations in numerical order - there's a [11][10] there at the moment.
  • "28.47 inches" - should this be converted to metric?
  • "6 people killed and 1 person injured" - six and one.
  • "no known damages." -shouldn't damage just be singular.
  • "960 mbar" - should this be converted to imperial (inches?)
  • "entirety causes $460 " - is that all?! (question really) I suspect a million is missing...
  • 120 mph (200 km/h) and 120 mph (195 km/h). - presumably one isn't using the convert template?
  • "6 deaths" - six.
  • " drops 2.83 (70 mm) " - missing an inches here? Again, not using {{convert}}?
  • 60 mph.[79] is missing its conversion.
  • 3.91 (99 mm) missing inches again.
  • Number of deaths heading in the Deadly storms table is rendering incorrectly. It appears to have too many rows. Put a break between Number and of deaths so the column is much narrower, and consider centrally aligned the values. You could also make this table sortable so you can order it by year or by alphabetical order on the hurricane (you'd probably need to use the {{sort}} template here).
  • Seven dead links when I checked this morning with this.
• Still a good list but a fair few points before I can support. All the best The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments, and I completely agree with the points you raised. I fixed most of them except for the dead link issue, which I am trying to addresss. Is there anything else before you would support? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support conditional on the dead link being replaced. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2008 (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 17:58, 31 March 2008.

---

List of Washington Redskins head coaches

This list is nicely written, has several images, and references as well, and meets all criteria. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments Only two:

• I don't like how small "Statistics correct as of ..." is. It could be troublesome for people with bad sight.
• The use of double hyphens in the table (--) should be replaced with emdashes (—).

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done However, I did keep the font small for "Statistics correct as of ..." - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's really hard to read. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only because it's in several other featured list - but it just seems "right" that way. Try a "Show Preview" - it seems like it's part of the lead. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't a reason to do it here. It would be better if it was incorporated into the main text. Also, it's a parastub. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Just put it with the lead. Or should I do a footnote? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No that's good. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Any other comments/improvements/suggestions? Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The lead seems clear and consise, though I wonder why a picture for George Allen was selected for it. Did he do anything particularly notable? Also while I'm no good at maths, isn't .500 and .200 the same as .5 and .2 in the % column? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

George Allen was chosen because his first year as coach he lead the Redskins to their first playoff appearance in 26 years. Then, during his tenure, the Skins went to the playoffs 5/7 seasons he coached. And finally, hes in the Hall of Fame. All good reasons why hes the main pic. Jwalte04 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. I was just wondering. Personally I prefer to see the first, or the last, but if he's achieved the most then that's also a valid enough reason for him to be there. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All concerns met, meets the criteria -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:18, 28 March, 2008

• Support. The article looks a lot better than it did when I started it, good work cleaning it up. Here are some things that you may want to change, however:

**Avoid links in the emboldened lead sentence per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

• • Images should not be forced to user-defined widths. As a preference, use the upright paramter for portraits. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images for more information on this.
  • Also, I did not want to add it without asking since the article is an FLC, but what would you think about adding the image I just added for Curly Lambeau? Keep up the good work. Jwalte04 (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• • •  Done - I think adding Curly Lambeau wouldn't be a bad idea. Go for it. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:18, 22 March 2008 (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 17:58, 31 March 2008.

---

The Office (U.S. season 1)

The first nomination for this article. It's substantially similar in aspects of cast and production to another of my articles, The Office (U.S. season 3), but of course different in many other ways. I've worked and tinkered on this list for a while, and I feel that it's ready for FLC. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• The DVD image is rather large. Most season articles size them at around 250px.
  •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The first season debuted as a midseason replacement, and thus had only roughly half of the episodes that the first full season was proposed to have."
  • "Roughly half" isn't an encyclopaedic term
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Any idea what show it replaced?
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If a regular season has 24ish episodes, 6 would be a third.
    • My earlier change negated the need to change this. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Did it originally have a full-season order? Why was it cut back to 6? A reference should back this claim up
    • Referenced. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Aren't Gervais and Merchant exec producers?
  •  DoneMastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Make the distinction clearer regarding directors in the number of episodes they have directed. "Ken Kwapis, who would go on to direct nine total episodes, directed the first two episodes "Pilot" and "Diversity Day", " → "Ken Kwapis directed the first two episodes "Pilot" and "Diversity Day", and has directed seven other episodes throught the series", or something, for example.
  •  DoneMastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why is {{episode list}} not used?
  • I'm not sure. The format was lifted from the main episode page, and I just expanded the plot summaries of each. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it should be used. It will format the headers into the Wikipedia-friendly order of

|| # || TITLE || WRITERS || DIRECTOR || AIRDATE || PROD CODE

• -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• A reference for production code is needed I think, since they were filmed out of broadcast sequence.
  • Got it. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished all of your requests. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Bring on season 2! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm gathering resources and references as of now, and season 2's not far away. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work, there's not many things I have to whinge about!
  • "Schrute, Halpert, Phyllis Lapin, portrayed by Phyllis Smith, and Stanley Hudson, portrayed by Leslie David Baker, compose the sales division of Dunder Mifflin Scranton" - I had to read this sentence a few times (and I'm not that stupid) before I realised it does actually make sense. Maybe reword or place "(portrayed by)" in brackets like so, just to avoid comma confusion.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • pop culture obsessed -> pop culture-obsessed
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, sad eyed -> sad-eyed
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "and said "Maybe, after "The Office" dies a quick death on NBC, the network will decide that trying to Americanize British TV comedies isn't such a great idea."" - change the internal quotation marks to the single-apostrophe-type-things as in 'The Office' as a quote-within-a-quote.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Time Magazine, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Coupling should be italicised.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "18-49" should have a bigger dash, like in "2004–2005" below it.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "as well as ranked third for number of viewers on its night" - changed ranked to ranking.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "between the change from the first episode and the second episode, Office moved to its regular time slot" - seems to be called "The Office" everywhere else.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "just over half of that from the previous episode" - should be "half that of"
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• =D —97198 talk 06:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All requests are finished. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead is not written well enough to be featured. Almost every sentence in the lead starts with "the first season...". The first two sentences start identically with "the first season premiered...". Can someone copyedit it, please?--Crzycheetah 07:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I made an attempt... -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:29, 28 March, 2008

• Thanks. The only remaining comment I have is the format of the references. Shouldn't all full dates be linked? Most of the retrieval dates are not linked. Also, the last reference uses the {{cite news}} template, maybe it should be done manually as other references were done?--Crzycheetah 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've dated all of the references, and changed the last reference from the template to conform with the other references. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Much better, good job overall!--Crzycheetah 20:03, 30 March 2008 (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 17:58, 31 March 2008.

---

List of Columbus Blue Jackets players

Another another ice hockey list. It follows the precident of List of Tampa Bay Lightning players, List of Atlanta Thrashers players, List of San Jose Sharks players, and the like. Any comments are always welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

• Comments I don't know anything about ice hockey, so this is just general spelling/grammar type stuff.
• Are the Bue Jackets a "franchise"? Not according to the wikipedia article

They are a sports franchise, which is more thoroughly defined at Professional sports league organization. This could be linked if desired.

Probably a good idea. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is an expansion team? An expansion of an existing team? If so, which?

Expansion team is a new sports franchise in a league. Also possible to link.

Yup -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are the Columbus Blue Jackets related to the Minnesota Wild? It sounds like they are right now.

Both the Blue Jackets and Wild joined the league in the same year, 2000. It is in the opening to give some historical context towards the team, but can be removed.

It just needs rewording I think. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That covers everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Did what was asked. Should be better now. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Follows the MOS and other WP guides, meets the criteria, though I can't comment on the content of the actual list as it's not a subject I know anything about! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

• Comment Why are these lists called "list of team players"? All references that are used in these lists say "all-time roster". I couldn't find the media guide of Columbus Blue Jackets, but I found the Thrashers' media guide and I see that it uses the "all-time roster" term again. What I'm saying is that this type of lists should be called "team all-time roster" because that term is more common than "list of team players". --Crzycheetah 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea why the lists are written that way, but it seems to be the standard across Wikipedia. Various NFL, NHL, EPL, and other leagues have articles using that guidline. The only exception I found was for MLB and NBA team lists. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think this should be discussed in some other place because I believe all these lists should be renamed. What should be done now is to add some categories, such as Category:National Hockey League lists and Category:National Hockey League players.--Crzycheetah 19:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Categories are added. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I just counted that there are 118 skaters (proof is on the talk page). Could you prove that there are actually 119 skaters? :) Other than that, I support.--Crzycheetah 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, I just miscounted. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Could you also add those categories to other similar lists as well? --Crzycheetah 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support You picked an interesting time to nominate this (considering the large discussion about player lists going on at WP:FLRC) but I don't see anything major wrong with it. I'd like to see some more images, but I guess we can only add what we have. Good work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:42, 31 March 2008 (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 17:58, 31 March 2008.

---

KT Tunstall discography

previous FLC

• Self nomination: This discography contains the official releases of Scottish singer KT Tunstall. The last time this article was nominated it did not receive enough votes. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Definitely a good start. I do have some suggestions:

• I'm not sure how your monitory displays the first table, but for me it's forced to squeeze onto the leftside of the infobox, which makes it really really tall. There's a few solutions to this, all of which I would recommend: expand the lead (see below), trim down the infobox (also see below), add {{clr}} to the end of the lead.
• The lead is a little short. It covers all of the section, but you could definately put some more meat on those bones. A little bit more info about Tunstall herself would a good start.
• I'm not sure if I see the point in separating the acoustic album from the other albums. It's still an album, no? It doesn't matter what it sounds like. I'd recommend just merging it into the main table. This would also take out at least one part in the infobox.
• The Catalog numbers are great, but I'd recommend putting a # in there to make it clearer. ie (CDRELX #06).
• Some of the column widths need some work. First, it would be nice to be somewhat consistent between tables with similar columns. Second, the current widths make the tables unnecessarily tall (at least in my somewhat low-res monitor). My suggestion to solve this is manifold: trim down the widths of the chart columns (all of which are wider than they need to be for the content), and broaden the Title and Sales/Certifications columns to avoid information jumping down to the next line uneccessarily. It'll take some experimenting, but you could definately get the majority of the rows to be 3-4 lines. Eye to the Telescopes row is 10 lines for me right now.
• The header for the charts should be "Chart peak positions" or "Peak chart positions" or something like that. Right now two are "Chart positions" and one is "Peak positions".
• Switzerland is usually abbreviated as SWI in discogs.
• The EPs table has the Label, but the other don't. I'd recommend incorporating that into the other tables, and putting the Catalog number after the label.

The demo albums were never commercially released and therefore don't have catalog numbers. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes perfect sense. I'd still recommend putting the catalog numbers after the Label though, not the title. For instance, I assume Eye to the Telescope is cataloged as CDRELX #06 only in relation to the Relentless Label. And I assume that the Christmas album is cataloged as #5099950772421 in relation to EMI. Right now it's not always clear. Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Throw me a Rope should have dashes in all the chart cells, since apparently it didn't chart anywhere.

It was only released in the UK, so not eligible to chart anywhere else. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much. However, I'd still say the dashes apply. It's not so much a question of eligibility, as it is whether it charted or not. If it wasn't released in a certain country, then it didn't chart. That's why the legend for the dash is typically worded on the vague side, to account for cases like this one. I see that you've changed it from " "—" denotes releases that did not chart." (as it appears in many discographies) to " "—" denotes singles that were released but did not chart." I don't see this as something necessary to qualify. (Also, the legend is missing from the Albums table.) Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's two instances of 2007 in the B-sides table.
• ALSO: I think the chart names could be abbreviated a little more succinctly in the singles table. U.S. Adult Top 40 takes up 4 lines, and it's just the header. Take a look at other discographies for some common abbreviations. Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that seems like alot of stuff, but hopefully it doesn't seem too bad. Drewcifer (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gotten everything. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Added all your suggestions into the article. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Almost all of the charts info is unreferenced.

I think that New Zealand and Germany charts are still unreferenced. Also, for the sake of clarity, I'd recommend turning those into in-line ciations rather than general sources, just to make the information and the source of that information clearer. That's just a suggestion though, take it or leave it. Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Added references that cover those charts. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good, all of my suggestions have been taken into account. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• The acoustic album. Is that the release date of the website, or it's physical CD release date? I think both should be included.

The article doesn't state the album's original release date and I cannot find it anywhere else. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, then make it clear that the date given is for the physical release. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• For consistency, World, UK and US sales should be included for all albums

UK and world sales aren't available for KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza and Drastic Fantastic. At least not from reliable sources. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• References are needed for the demo albums

I removed the demo album section because I cannot find references for it. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it. The size of the article shouldn't be an issue any more either, as another album, three singles and videos have been released since. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment- Think about joining the B-sides in the singles table, like in the U2 discography article. I don't know what the manual of style says about this, but I think it is more clear.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, as it's a discography, not a songography -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to lie, I've never even heard of her, but the list seems to be good enough although it is a tad on the short side. I was wondering if Amazon useable as a source? It's a sales website, so I'm not sure if it would fall under WP:RS. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Amazon.com references and replaced them with articles instead. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I like all the discogs on here. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's a valid enough reason to support this list though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. All my issues have been addressed, and as I said, I don't think WP:SIZE should be an issue any more, but the B sides table concerns me. I do think this info is interesting and should be included somewhere, but perhaps not here. Each album track isn't listed, after all. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

B-sides are listed in the Powderfinger discography and Alice in Chains discography (both of which are featured lists) just to name a few. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as many FL discogs don't have it, too. And for me a discography deals in releases whereas a songogrpahy, I suppose, would deal with songs. -- Matthew 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, I'll Support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:54, 31 March 2008 (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 20:19, 30 March 2008.

---

List of Green Bay Packers head coaches

I bring to the community another great list created by User:Jwalte04. Although, I feel this list meets all of the criteria, I will be glad to address any objections or receive any suggestions to further improve the list. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 21:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Avoid links in the emboldened lead sentence per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
    •  Done
  • Images should not be forced to user-defined widths. As a preference, use the upright paramter for portraits. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images for more information on this.
    •  Done
  • "(only one of his tenures was for a whole season)[3] " - this in parentheses is clumsy reading.
    •  Done
  • Don't think you need four paragraphs in the lead, merge the last couple at least.
    •  Done
  • Don't use small fonts as they prevent people who have visualisation problems enjoying the article.
    •  Done
  • What does the em-dash signify in the # column?
    • A: Ray (Scooter) McLean had two separate tenures as coach for the Packers. The # column signifies the running total on the amount of coaches the Packers have had. Thus Mr. McLean was counted only once, on his first tenure, and not the second time to ruin the count. Basically, he was coach two separate times, yet he still is only 1 out of the total of 15 coaches the Packers have had. Hope this answers, feel free to prod me more if you feel there is a better way of doing this.
      • I think that if I'm asking the question then I'm not likely to be the only one, so perhaps you should note it somewhere, maybe in the key, as to what it means? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Any ideas on how the best way to do this? I could add a note, but I think that would look weird. I could just remove the dash and leave it blank, which would kinda help. Any ideas? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, either you repeat the number and make it clear what the hash means (i.e. the chronological number of distinct coaches) or you don't have the hash number at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
            • How is this change and this change. Does that clear it up? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are the coach awards referenced somewhere specific? I'd prefer to see them cited as references rather than hidden away somewhere in the general references.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done
• That's about it for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 March

2008 (UTC)

• • I believe everything is  Done, tell me if my changes work and if you have anything else for me :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - my major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments not related to the FLC by Bole2

• Comment Should you really be using the done templates? FAC page says you shouldn't use them. Buc (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In case you hadn't noticed Buc, this is the FLC page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Are there difrent rules? Buc (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Uh-huh. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Really - I mean no offense by this - who gives a crap? Does it really affect anything? I mean I'm all for following norms, but did using the Done templates really affect Wikipedia enough to comment about it on a FLC? I would suggest going and actually reviewing a list instead of making sure FLC's have proper formatting. That would serve Wikipedia better. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Template apprently take a while to load. No it doesn't really affect me it was just a heads up. Buc (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Notes and references should be in seperate sections, see here for an example. This allows for sourcing of footnotes. VegaDark (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply I cant seem to figured out how to make this work correctly. Would you be able to provide a better example (preferably one that has more than one note, and where one note is used more than once)? Or I wouldnt be opposed to someone just fixing it. Either way thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 05:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To be honest, it took me quite a while to figure out how to do that, I'm not sure how to use the same note twice. Wikipedia:Footnote3 should have more info about how to do that. VegaDark (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I have chosen not to do this. First off, neither you nor I know how to do it. Secondly, the templates you pointed me to (Wikipedia:Footnote3) are decrepit. Thirdly, I cannot see any policy/guideline that says that this is how it should be, nor have I ever seen any article use this type of format. Lastly, I dont see the need for this. Footnotes are footnotes, as long as someone can find them easily (which they can) then I feel they are fine. If someone knows how to do this correctly, feel free, but I have spent enough time trying to figure this out, and I do not feel that this inhibits the List whatsoever. Thanks for the comments though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Those under "References" should be under "Further Reading" or "External Links" WP:CS
  • Are you sure? It's not that I mind changing it, I just have seen many, many lists use the References section as a general reference for everything that is not directly cited. I changed it, but I am pointing this out because most sports lists use this format. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, Wikipedia:CS#Further reading/External links says "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links"." If they are being used as references then why not use inline refs? However, you may interpret it differently, and that's fine. It's not enough for me to oppose. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:41, 27 March, 2008
      • How bout I change the header to "General references?" I've just seen many sports lists, where a certain source includes basically the whole list, so there is very little need to cite the ref in-line. Thus people create a Footnotes section for information that is likely to be challenged or needs clarifying, and then also placing a general reference section where someone can go and verify the list. I really dont mind what it is called though :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Me either. I'll let you pick :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:54, 27 March, 2008
          • I chose "General references." Is there anything else I can do to improve the list? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't think so. Other people covered most of the things.-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:03, 27 March, 2008
• JT-SW.com looks like a WP:FANSITE, and hickoksports is full of popups, and naked-girl ads. I'm not sure it qualifies as an RS.
  • Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:04, 27 March, 2008

• Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:03, 27 March, 2008
• Support Great list. GO PACK! (I'm from WI :)) Burningclean _[speak] 23:37, 29 March 2008 (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 20:19, 30 March 2008.

---

List of Super Bowl champions

It is a nicely done list, and is very informative. It also seems to meet all criteria. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article was recently delisted over issues like a lack of citations (ie. Teams with no Super Bowl appearances), as well as the inclusion of the "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins" and "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl starts" sections. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go add some. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Super Bowl champions/archive1 for various issues regarding the list. --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Could one of you make a "to-do" list below, so it will be easier to see and check off what I've done and not done? Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It appears that you are actively working on adding more sources, so it's premature to comment on the remaining unsourced details. However, note that there are unresolved issues related to the scope of the list. In particular, the inclusion of "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins" and "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl starts" sections has blurred the scope of the list. It's also not entirely obvious that "Super Bowl appearances" (by team) belongs in this list of Super Bowl champions. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)  Done
          •  Done I moved them to separate articles. I added references to the list, and will see what else I can do. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I significantly improved the list. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Nice work so far. Two comments: (1) I have not verified this comment against the WP guidelines/policy, but I think the inline external links in the table should be converted to inline callouts to references or footnotes. (2) I repeat my earlier concerns about the need for sources for the "notes" on stadium history. Sources are needed for statements such as (but not limited to) "Miami Gardens was incorporated as a suburb of Miami in 2003" and "Qualcomm Stadium was originally known as San Diego Stadium and Jack Murphy Stadium." --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
                •  Done The external links should stay. I have seen this on several other FL's and not only that, but they are all from the same "basic" website, which is already used as a reference. If you click on any random two and compare them you will know what I mean. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, but the referencing for the stadium locations and names is only partly done. There are several facts in those notes that still aren't supported by citations. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)  Done
                  •  Done The "Wild Card Qualifier" cannot be cited. It's stated if the team was a WCQ on the external links. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks for fixing the issues that caused this list to lose its featured status. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

* "Prior to the 1970 merger of the American Football League and the NFL, the two leagues met in a championship game" I would make it World Championship game, to be consistent with the header that follows.

• Is it "AFL-NFL World Championships", or "World championships", or "world championships"

* Why is it "Miami-South Florida", instead of "Miami, Florida"? * On that note, why use "Los Angeles-Los Angeles Metro" and "Pasadena-Los Angeles Metro". They're both incorporate as cities, and eveyone out here calls them simply "Los Angeles" and "Pasadena". I dont think anyone uses "Los Angeles Metro", apart from perhaps governmental offices and the Metro system (but that has a different meaning: Los Angeles Metro) The other thing that muddies the waters is that the Greater Los Angeles Metro, which incorporates the Counties of LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino and Ventura is different to the "Los Angeles Metro", officially "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Area", which includes only LA and Orange counties. :I still don't see why it needs to be "Pasadena-Los Angeles". It isn't. Also, Glendale now appears as "GLendale" -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Same for Pontiac. It's a city in it's own right. Id prefer to see all the cities as "City, State". -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• And similarly "Glendale-Phoenix Metro", "Tempe-Phoenix Metro" and "Stanford-San Francisco Bay Area". They're all cities in their own right.
• There's two }} floating around in the notes section.

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• All problems fixed above :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, you're probably getting real annoyed with me by now, but all locations should include the state for consistency. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The references should use {{Cite web}} templates so they show up in the References section. In-line links shouldn't be used in featured content.
  • Avoid use of small fonts because it prejudices against those with visualisation issues.
  • I'd consider splitting the score into separate columns and then making the tables sortable. You've got super-over-wikilinking of the teams already so it lends itself to being a sortable table.
  • The AFL-NFL World Championships section doesn't have references like the NFL Championships section. Why not?
  • Put (NFL) after first expansion of the acronym so it's clear what you mean when you use NFL later on.
  • Same with AFL.
  • "the merger in" - this isn't clear what merger to the non-expert. Spell it out.
  • Is www.city-data.com really a RS? It looks like school project!
• So oppose for now, but there's definitely a good chance for the promotion should these concerns be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You haven't expanded AFC or NFC or AFL before you use them.
  • As for the sortable table, a very different subject but a list I'm working on Colleges of the University of Cambridge has a sortable table, it allows you to list each column in ascending or descending order, so if you did split the scores you could list according to highest score/lowest score etc, list per winning team name and so on. It's not essential but it's something worth considering since you've wikilinked every instance of every team. If you don't intend to make the list sortable then you should unlink subsequent uses of each team name after the first one.
  • Don't just say "merger" - say "AFL-NFL merger" so non-experts know what merger you're referring to.
  • Consider centrally aligning the reference column.
  • City-Data.com or City-data.com? And is this a WP:RS?
    • I would say not, given this statement at the bottom of each page: "Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed." and "City-data.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk". Also on the Contact Us page, "Please note that a lot of content on our site is user generated. For example, city photos, forum messages, city facts, and business profiles are all submitted by visitors". -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:33, 28 March, 2008
  • [46] needs the right title (Pasadena, California I suspect).
  • So, still holding out before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Final comment I'm afraid I still don't believe you can use the City-data.com as an WP:RS as Matthew pointed out, it says itself that its reliability is unconfirmed... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support much better. Good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, once the concerns of Rambling Man are addressed. The photo of the Lombardi trophy is excellent. Also the formatting is very nice. MrPrada (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Reference issues now fixed, all other concerns also addressed. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:56, 30 March 2008 (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 03:54, 30 March 2008.

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy

This list is part of the series of lists that I am creating and updating regarding recipients of the Victoria Cross. Australian recipients, Canadian recipients and List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality are already FL standard. This follows on from there. It is fully referenced, fully sortable and easily read. I believe it meets the FL standards now. I hope you do too. Woody (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Comments:

• reference 7 is not referenced correctly.
  • Fixed formatting issue. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• I assume that the "date of action" refers to the date of the action for which the Victoria Cross was awarded. Although this may seem obvious, it might be mentioned above the table.
  • Added in sentence to lead. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, but put it (and everything following that sentence) below the title "Ship-based recipients". It is no introduction anymore.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I retitled the header as Recipients in line with the other lists. It was a remnant from when there were two lists. I have also reworded the lead to take in your suggestion. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I see, but the table explanation is still in the introduction. Doesn't it fit better just above the table?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• The standard order of the table is very strange.
  • It is ordered by Ship/unit, which given the name of the list seemed appropriate. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• The "Notes" column does not need to be sortable.
  • Done. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • However, it doesn't hurt if the other columns are sortable ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The others have remained sortable. For me they are... Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • And now I can also sort them... Weird. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• In this list (if I counted correctly), 117 recipients are shown. This number does not show up in the introduction. Does this mean that the list is incomplete? I have no way to check this. The introduction does give some number, for example "83 awards given to Royal Naval personnel who serve on ships and in the Royal Naval Brigade". If these 83 persons are in the list, give them a color or something.
  • I have rephrased the lead now to separate ship based personnel from the other organisations listed. The list is complete as far as sources go.
    • Maybe include the total number of VC's given to the Royal Navy in the introduction? Now only the 1356 number is given, which might be confusing.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have reworded the lead to take in your suggestion. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done
• The link to [1] also gives ranks, is it not interesting to include these? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Victoria Cross does not distinguish between ranks, and I think the table would be too crowded if it did include them. Which rank would you use, the rank when they received the award, the rank they left the forces with? Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What do you mean when you say that the VC does not distinguish between ranks? I'm afraid I'm not into the subject, so I can not tell which rank is more important. When I saw the list, the first thing I wondered what was the highest rank that got the VC, and what was the lowest rank. I don't think the table would become to crowded if you'd add them, I've seen larger tables that were still clear. I can not tell you what to do here, I just want to suggest the option ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • My comment was that the VC is awarded to all ranks and that people usually concentrate on the act of valour and not on the rank. I will ask at MILHIST for opinions on it. Thanks for all your comments. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with Woody here - rank is irrelevant to the awarding of the VC, but EdgeNavidad does have a point. Readers unfamiliar with the subject (a few/some/many/most/indeterminate number) are aware that there was a large amount of class prejudice in the military during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps that is the most enduring impression of the British Armed Forces of that time period. There could be interest - whether it's related to the preceding or just general curiosity - in knowing the proportion of officer/NCO/OR recipients. But that could be addressed without precision and another field by explaining in a single sentence that all ranks are eligible for the VC. That is unless there really is a general interest in the rank of each recipient? SoLando (Talk) 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Comments

• As there are so few notes, I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to put the ^[refs] from the table column next to the recipients name?
• I don't think a asterix and cell shading is necessary to highlight posthumous awards. The shading would do the job perfectly well by itself. I think the shading should extend across the row, too, not just in one cell.

That's it. --

ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:23, 25 March, 2008

• Woody is expected - no pressure! ;-) - to return to Wikipedia tomorrow (27th). Combining shading and the asterisk to denote a posthumous recipient has been the convention for these lists so discussion should be deferred 'til Woody's return. Did that response have the connotations of an answer machine? ;-). SoLando (Talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm back now. With regards to the posthumous column, they are both there to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles in that we should not use colour as the sole conveyor of important information. In terms of "notes", it is a convention of recipients lists (admittedly one that I started) that we use a notes column to indicate information. I didn't want to clog up columns within the main table. Here it is very clear if there is special, specific information related to a recipient. I personally don't think it is an issue, but if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to change it in this list. Woody (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• With 5 notes for 117 recipients it just looks like the rest have been overlooked. Re the shading and asterix, that was one part of the MOS I didn't remember, but I think bold or itallic text would be better than an itty bitty star.
• Anyway, my suggestions came pretty late in the game and noone else commented on them so it's entirely your choice. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:10, 27 March, 2008

I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think most readers will see that the notes are simply exceptional circumstances. I think it better to maintain uniformity across all the lists. In terms of the star, italics were tried on a different list and rejected at FLC as not visible enough. I think the star is more visible than italics and bolding which may come under "Accessible" as well. Can I be forward and ask you, do these objections mean you Oppose this nomination? This has been up for a while and I would like to be ready to close either way soon. Thanks Woody (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It meets the criteria, follows MOS, and like I said, I was late in the game in adding comments. If they were deal breakers someone else would have risen the point earlier. Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:19, 27 March, 2008

Thankyou for your comments and your review. Woody (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Comments

• I think the manual of style calls for the ship names to be italicised, eg. HMS Arrogant.
• Perhaps some of the links to ship disambiguation pages could be changed to point to the specific ship, but if it's to avoid too many red links then I don't have a problem with it. Benea (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done the italics I had forgotten about those. I am not aware that any dab pages are linked, I thought I had caught them all. Thankyou for your comments. Woody (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There were only two on closer inspection, HMS Harrier and Hazard which are quite new. I've fixed them up now, and now have no hesitation in Supporting. Benea (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, and during a further run through I found that several of the E and C boats existed, just without the full stop. Thanks again for your review. Woody (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• Comment, very close to supporting, but two questions:
  • 1 - is it standard British to say "World War Two"? If not, it should be changed to the more familiar "World War II".
  • 2 - Is there any method to the default sorting of the list? I can see none. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really think there is a standard notation anymore for the World Wars. I have converted it to World War I for this list as it is Commonwealth English standard. The default sort is by ship name which seemed reasonable given the title of the list. Woody (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah. Well then, I support. --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• Comments
  • More British standard to say "Second World War" isn't it? Not some corny "sequel" to "WWI"? Same for the First World War.
  • Why is " in the face of the enemy." in italics?
  • Don't force image sizes, use the upright modifier per WP:MOS#Images.
  • "This along with the *, indicates that the Victoria Cross was awarded posthumously" - why the comma and why both?
  • Be consistent, you have World War One (yuck) and World War Two (yuck) in the lead and World War I (yuck) and World War II (yuck) in the table. Stick with the same names throughout, and preferably not the movie versions...!
  • A note should explain where/why non-conflict recipients were awarded VCs.
  • Make notes column centrally aligned.
• So I can't support for now... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • Whilst, personally, I don't give a shit how you say itI don't see the difference, I have changed it to Second World War. It is in Italics to emphasise the point and the difference between this and the George Cross; though I have now changed it to quotation marks per WP:MOS. The upright code makes the VC image larger, I am not sure why, though on my screen it doesn't make much difference, it might do on others. As explained above: "they are both there to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles in that we should not use colour as the sole conveyor of important information." I have now added in conflicts for all people, thereby avoiding that issue and I have centrally aligned the notes column. Woody (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have now refactored the comments as the tone was shocking. I am truly appreciative of your comments. Woody (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Cool, well remind me to not review your articles again if it exasperates you so. I find the US version of WWI WWII particularly annoying but your tone more so. Sorry to have upset you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A great list which meets all the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2008 (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 01:38, 29 March 2008.

---

Regions of Peru

Selfnominating Regions of Peru as a well documented and referenced list of the first-level administrative regions in Peru. The list was formerly shown in the did you know section on the main page. ErickAgain (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)--.

• Comments:
  • Is the first column of the list really needed? It's redundant with Ubigeo, and it acts to number things that aren't ranked in any way other than alphabetically. I say get rid of the first column altogether.
  • Coat of Arms and Location shouldn't be sortable.
  • There needs to be a link to the former regions apart from the disambiguation page, just a small section about how there used to be a separate system of regions, with a link.
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the former regions they are linked and explained in the "History" section, at the end of the first paragraph. Is that enough? --Victor12 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed sorting posibility from the last two columns. --ErickAgain (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

• Support - MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support – Please explain in the prose above the table what "Ubigeo" is. Also note that Ubigeo redirects to UBIGEO, so also update the table to reflect that. Other than that, well done. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Victor12 (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It is hard for me to understand the need for some items in the bibliography. Why is a news article about the Decline and Fall of Fujimori relevant for Regions of Peru? I would rather put it as bibliography for the history of Peru or the Fujimori article. The same for the article about the elections in 2002: are they relevant here? If they are, maybe consider making them references, for they are not self-explanatory. I think the Spanish bibliography is more relevant, but my Spanish is extremely limited so you might need to reconsider them as well. For the rest: great article! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Bibliography" section summarizes all references used in the article, it is not a "Further reading" section. The BBC link is used to support an statement on the causes of Fujimori's fall which can be a somewhat controversial item. As for the Spanish references, they were used in the article because there's little info available on Peruvian regions in English. Peruvian regional elections are not even covered by international news organizations like Reuters or the BBC. --Victor12 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I understand it better, I did not see that the bibliography items were also in the Notes section. But, I still oppose to this use. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, what you call "Bibliography" is called "references". The Schönwälder, O'Neill and law references are OK, but the BBC and New York Times references are no books, and the same information is just given twice. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Bibliography" has been changed into "References" to avoid further confusions. I don't think web references (such as ONPE electoral results) need to be deleted. The purpose of this section is to give the casual reader a quick overview of all sources used, not just books. Is there any Wikipedia guideline on this? --Victor12 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know or can find. But there should be. For the time being, I think the BBC and NYT references should be removed, you think they should not, so a third person commenting on this would be nice :)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. BTW, how about shortening web references in the footnotes? That way only the title and the author (e.g. BBC, Fujimori...) would be shown in the footnotes and the rest of the info (publishing date, retrieval date) would be shown in the References section. Would that be enough? --Victor12 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Caption for clickable map is fragment so doesn't need a full stop.
  • In Safari, the map renders over the top of part of the next section preventing me from seeing it all.
  • "the process thus, it is not part of any region." - comma seems misplaced to me.
  • Density in the table should clarify that its population density.
  • Do you really need the area to the nearest 0.01 square km?
  • See Also per WP:HEAD should be See also.
• That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, full stop removed, comma removed, Density changed to Population density, and See Also changed to See also. As for the area, should it be rounded to the nearest 0.1 or to the nearest 1 square km? As for the Safari problem I'm not sure on the cause. Maybe its the frame, do you have the same problem with this version? --Victor12 (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for area, it's up to you but I felt that it's a little "over accurate" if you get my drift. Nearest sq km would do, and a note to the effect that it's rounded that way. As for the map, it doesn't seem to be a problem with the version you've linked to... Don't know what's going on there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Areas are now rounded to the nearest whole unit. The difference in the map is that the version with problems has an {{Imageframe}} template. The framed version looks better so I'm not sure on what to do. Could you post a comment at the template talk page to see if the problem can be resolved there? --Victor12 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks pretty good to me. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Are the ISBN numbers available for the referenced books? If so, I think they should be added.--Crzycheetah 20:56, 28 March 2008 (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 01:38, 29 March 2008.

---

List of 30 Rock episodes

I am self nominating this page because I feel that it meets the FL criteria and also because I have been some what working on this page for the past few weeks to bring it up to a (atleast good) standard which it certainly was not this time last month. -- Jamie jca (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the "as the stike has now ended, 30 Rock is expected to air five further episodes " needs changing. In five years time, it'd look strange to still see this, and 30 Rock don't air them, NBC do. Something like "The strike ended on date, 2008, and NBC is expected to air five further episodes beginning April 10, 2008....."
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is someone going to update the article every single day for the "as of March 11, blah episodes have aired"? Usually, the date is that of the most recently aired episode.

That's it for now. I'll read through the actual episodes soon. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done It's that date because {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} and {{CURRENTYEAR}} templates have been used. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• In episode one, is "However" needed? And anyway, a sentence shouldn't begin with "however"
• Checking the meaning of "nubile" in Wikipedia and wiktionary:nubile, I'm not sure if it's the best word to use
• Make the first instance "GE", "General Electric (GE)"
• Wikilink to Late Night with Conan O'Brien

-- Matthew 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Meet criteria, all concerns satisfactorily addressed -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:14, 27 March, 2008

• Support Looks great. A few minor comments as usual:
  • "in which the season is split into Volume One and Volume Two" - 'split into two volumes' essentially has the same meaning but a little simpler.
  • "The Girlie Show's network executive, Gary, dies, Jack Donaghy" - how about 'network executive Gary dies' just to get rid of a few commas?
  • "a loose cannon movie star, to the shows cast" - possessive apostrophe after show.
  • "various plots and story archs are explored" - I'm guessing that's story arcs?
  • "A few minor story archs are carried over into season two" - as above.
  • "which include, Cerie Xerox's" - no comma necessary.
  • "Don Geiss, the GEO of GE" - is that CEO, or could you explain? I wiki'd GEO but not there. Typo?
  • "returning from summer hiatus to many problems, an immediate problem is Jack trying to maintain the success" - where the comma is should be a full stop (period) to separate into two sentences, or a semi-colon or something. There are a number of ways to re-word it but splitting into two sentences would be fine.
  • "Another story arch" - again, arc.
  • "Floyd are also viewed aswell as Tracy" - 'as well' is two words.
  • "his failing marridge" - now that's an an interesting one. Marriage.
  • We probably don't need all the links in the season 2 episodes synopses. Maybe keep The Today Show but the others such as Pacific, entourage etc are a little trivial and unnecessary. And we don't need a link to TGS - that's already been covered.
  • I also see in season 2 there are a few recurring/guest character links - I haven't looked at the character list but if you're linking season 2 characters maybe link the characters on the list that are mentioned in the season 1 synopses.
• Otherwise, good work, meets all criteria as far as I'm concerned. •97198 talk 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done. Thanks for the support. -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - sorry I missed this one, my comments...
  • Couple of WP:MOS things - use en-dash for year separators, and no over capitalising section heading (e.g. Series Overview should be Series overview).
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "(TGS)" - if this is going to be the abbreviation, un-italicise it.
    •  Doing... All instances of TGS in the text or just in the lead when it says TGS with Tracy Jordan (TGS)? -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is 31 bold in the lead?
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One problem I see in general is the instability of the list- you've already got three vacant episode slots which no doubt will be filled in when relevant to do so, but the list should be stable.
    •  Done Removed the empty slots.
  • Refs [6] and [8] need to be placed on the other side of the quotation mark.
    • Can't be done. It's part of the template. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It actually can be done now. {{episode list}} was updated a couple of months ago and a new field, "RTitle=" will now render any reference to appear outside of the quotes. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:57, 25 March, 2008
        •  Done Sorry, I didn't realise. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Order citations in numerical order.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'll try to review the prose later but these issues need resolution before I can support. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments-IMO, the lead needs a little bit more sourcing. Also for the table, especially for the second season, seeing how you put the season episode number in parenthesis, I would use a format similar to List of The New Detectives episodes.--TrUCo-X 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done but I left season 1 because the season number is the same as the series number. Should I change that? -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No it should not, but you responded to my comments accurately, thus I Support.TrUCo-X 20:27, 22 March 2008 (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 01:38, 29 March 2008.

---

Tenacious D discography

Self-Nomination: Major editing, citing and table building. I think this is an excellent list. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Featured lists would be the correct place to nominate as like you just said it is a list. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Burningclean 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There is alot of stuff that is not needed.
  • No need for the finland chart; nothing charted there.
  • You don't need any of the chart positions or certifications for the EP.
  • SWI, FIN, AUT, SWI, and NOR are all un-needed for the singles.
  • Nither is the US cert part.
  • The countrys should only be wlinked on the studio albums.
  • No need for the bsides section, there is only one and it is already on an album.
  • The music videos chart needs a emake. Look at Slayer discography, Godsmack discography, and Alice in Chains discography for examples.
  • Again, US peak and cert are un-needed for the videos chart.
  • The dates of Internet Archive albums should be wlinked and the downloads should be sourced or removed.
  • Unreleased songs aren't very notable.
  • When it says ""—" denotes releases that did not chart.", can you stlye it along the lines of Depeche Mode discography and Slayer discography?

Once all of that is taken care of I'll support. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with everything. I hope I addressed the music videos, I checked those links. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've got more.
  • The B-sides are really un-needed.
  • In the Internet Archives thing. In stead of [[1999]]-[[01-21]] can you maby format it like this [[1999-01-21]]?
  • The second and third paragraphs of the lead can be merged together.
  • No need for the label column in the music videos. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the B-sides, several FA discogs have this included (Alice in Chains discography, Godsmack discography and Depeche Mode discography. Are you sure this needs removal? Fixed music videos. I accept your point on the formatting of the dates, but this will cause a lot redlinkage. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one b-side, it doesn't need an entire section. Save it in a section on the talk page in case someone else who reviews this wants it back. The date formating won't red link. Here is an example: 1999-01-21 That is in the format I suggested. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Burningclean. All done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice lookin' now! —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sorting by date of that internet albums table is screwed up. indopug (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Avoid links in the bold lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • 2006-2007 should use en-dash to separate.
  • UK or U.K. but be consistent.
  • Be consistent with date linking - you fully link September 25, 2001 but partially link November 22, 2006. Why?
  • Separate download numbers with commas per thousand.
  • Date in the download table doesn't sort correctly - use {{dts2}} for this.
• So oppose at the moment until those are sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• All sorted out. Thanks for taking the time. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments okay, getting there - ref [3] needs to use the Cite web template, not be just a raw URL, and then I think we're there... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Support job done. Inward singing all round! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Oppose Lots of good stuff here, but overall the list is a bit messy and inconsistent with MOS, established discography style, and even itself. A few examples:

• Some of the headers are centered, some aren't. Most discogs center them all.
• Why are all the table headers colored/formatted/sized differently?
• Some of the in-header references are on seperate lines as the header title, some are on the same line (GER in the first table is on a different line, while the others aren't). Most discographies put the source on a seperate line whenever possible.
• In the first tables Cert. columns, the first three are named by the country, while the fourth is named by the certification association. Most discogs label the column by country, but wikilink to the certifying association wherever possible.
• "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart, or albums not released in a particular territory. is an unnecessarily long legend. "—" denotes releases that did not chart. Is usually used, since it is broad enough to cover all the bases while being as clear as possible. Also certifications columns are typically left blank for releases that didn't certify.
• It would be good to have some letters before the cat numbers, to make them clearer. I'm not sure what Epic of BMG usually use, but I'd assume it would be something like EP or BMG. But you might want to check on that.
• The music video titles should be in quotations, not italicized.
• It's unneccessary to half two sub-headers for the certifications column of the videos table, since there's only one row.
• The in-line citations need some cleanup. A few don't give proper attribution (such as the IGN) source. The publisher values should be wikilinked if possible (but only the first time it's used) and abbreviations should be avoided unless the source is known chiefly by that aconym. The AMG source is an example of both of these.
• Many of the columns are of varying widths. Similar columns within the same table could be made similar sizes, as well as similar columns between seperate columns. For example it would be nice to see that "Album details" columns in the first two tables similar widths, and all of the chart columns made to conform to each other as well.
• The "Date of Release" column of Films is inconcistent with the other tables.
• Why is 2006 wikilinked in the Films table?
• The tributes table doesn't really have any place in the article, since it's another band doing the tributing.
• The certification column in Videos has a bullet point, whereas the others don't. I would also recommend renaming the title header to something like "ARIA certifications", then just putting platinum in the other box, for the sake of consistency between tables.
• ""—" denotes singles that were released but did not chart." and the same thing in the album table is a little redundant. If it was a single then of course it was released. I'd still recommend ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." Much simpler, less redundant.
• Even though it's currently unreleased, I would recommend putting the D Tour video in the Videos table.

I'll stop there to avoid piling it on. A good list so far, but I think it needs some more work. Drewcifer (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I have tried to remedy as many of the problems you brought up. RE: The cat system. Epic and Sony don't really use the cat system of having <RECORD LABEL ABBREV> <CAT NUMBER>, its more just a number. Have I correctly carried out what you suggested with the video certification? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work so far. I've put the things you've taken care of in the hide box, but a few still remain unresolved. I've also added a few more to the list. Drewcifer (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Had another go at your list. Hope this works. I went back through all the cites and improved on them. Are there any particular ones which are still needing something? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking better and better all the time! I went ahead and cleaned up the citations myself. Let me know if you disagree with any of my edits. The last thing I'd like to see fixed/changed is the Date column of the Internet Archive albums table. I don't really see any point in giving the exact date of release, so I'd recommend turning into a year column, just like every other table. Drewcifer (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point RE: the dates. Perhaps I have made it a bit unclear. The dates refer to the actual performance date (date of concert). I have attempted to make this clearer by changing the column header from just "Date" to "Date recorded". Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Great list! One last thing: since Tenacious D is an american band, the dates in the Internet Archive column should be month day year not day month year. Drewcifer (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I agree with you about the date system, but the dts2 template allows your own preferences to determine how you see the dates. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very true, but that doesn't apply to non-registered users (anonymous IPs) and registered-users without the preference turned on (such as myself). So, typically the original text should be rendered based on the topic, and the dts2 preferences can kick in with those for whom it applies (which is probably the minority of viewers). Drewcifer (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (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 17:28, 28 March 2008.

---

2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches

Originally nominated this for WP:GA status, and was originally promoted after I convinced the reviewer it was an article and not a list, it was later removed on the basis of, er, it's a list. :p Not my finest hour. But in due course I've come back to the article list, improved it, and fixed various problems, and am now nominating it here. All comments are welcome! One thing I'd like to ask is: are archive.com links okay? I originally linked to a story for one of my references but the website has since moved and removed all news articles from before the move, but it's still available on archive.org. It's been linked and noted that it's an archive.com link in the <ref> tag. Hope that's cool. Anyway, critique away, & thanks a lot for any suppots, opposes, comments or suggestions. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Hey AllynJ, some things to consider...

• Any reason why you link the day/month and not the year in the lead opening sentence?
• Expand ODI before you use it.
• "All 16 nations" - quantify "all".
• "13 players to play in a match with 11 batting and 11 fielding at any one time" - this is unclear to me (and I'm into my cricket) - so I think it needs clarification.
• Not one single appropriate image available for this page?
• "(but no matches)." - no need for the parentheses (in my opinion).
• warm-up or warm up, be consistent with the hyphens.
• Match Status section could be a single paragraph, right now it's three really short paras.
• Move [1] to the end of that sentence and remove the comma, it's not needed.
• "fielding/bowling" - I'd prefer an "or" instead of the slash.
• 2 players - two players.
• Put ICC in parentheses after the first use of it in its expanded form, that'll help when it's used subsequently.
• "not 100% complete" - 100% is redundant.
• What's the cyan shading about in the stats tables?
• Highest Team Totals - remove the overcapitalisation!
• Don't worry about the note re:archive.org, there's plenty of them in wikipedia, it's a standard way of going about finding the old links.
• External links are usually standard bullets not numerical.

That's it for me for now. A few things to sort out before I can support. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. I added a photo of one of the stadiums used, but other than that I really can't think of anything that would be particularly relevant that we have available. Photos of these matches aren't hugely common, let alone free ones, so I'm thinking it's the best I can really do on that front. The 13 players bit is a bit of a pain to sum up, will the new phrasing do? Thanks a lot! AllynJ (talk

• Support - I made a small modification to one of the tables but otherwise my major concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A few things from me.

• Numbers 1-10 (except scores) are usually written as words (I refer to the Lead)
• Is that Irish flag something there's consensus over? (I'm ignorant on it - just surprised me)
• "Performance" in Statistics charts is a bit of an oddity, as for most it will be an aggregate of two performances. How about "Aggregate"?

Hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done the first and last two, thanks! Re: the Ireland issue, yes it is, really: the Ireland cricket team represents both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland so using one or the other would be both incorrect and potentially insulting given the tensions between the two. Cheers! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support-however, I would source the lead a little bit more. But in spite of that, it is FL worthy.TrUCo-X 14:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! But I'm going to respectfully disagree with that suggestion, I think, per WP:LEAD:

Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. - I don't see anything as particularly challengeable, especially when the information in the lead is all listed and sourced in the article. It simply looks neater, I believe. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "a series of matches to prepare, experiment with different tactics and to help them acclimatise to conditions in the West Indies." I think needs another comma after "tactics"
  • I'm not sure on this: I've never used the serial comma, and I don't believe it is particularly common in the dialects of English spoken by cricket-playing countries (ie, per the manual of style, If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style).
• "despite sharing some of main features of the form of cricket" is "the form of" necessary?
  • I would say so: it is meant to clarify meaning One-Day Internationals as opposed to Test matches. I've changed a word that should make this clearer, but I think it would look awkward if I rephrased it to say One-Day Internationals again when they've already been mentioned in that sentence.
• "For example, the main change allowed for thirteen different players to play in a match: nine players being allowed to both bat and bowl, with two only being able to bowl and two only being able to bat." What is this a change from?
  • Done.
• I think "voiced concerns" is better than "aired concerns"
  • Done.
• Why are the matches against a blue background?
  • This is because it uses a template (see Template:Limited overs international). This has become a WikiProject Cricket standard and I would be reluctant to change it.
• Perhaps wikilink to overs and runs
  • This is an issue with the template, really... I don't how it should be addressed, personally.
• What are the names there for? (Marlon Samuels and Thomas Odoyo, for example, and what do the numbers beside them represent?
  • They are the names of a the top scorer/highest wicket taker alongside their runs scored/wickets taken; but again, this is more of an issue with the template.
• Why is small font being used? It's a hinderance to those with poor eyesight
  • Done mostly - I agree it's a readability issue in some places and have removed them there, but I think for the (50 overs) it would look rather odd to have it the same size as the score - the overs aren't part of the score, but are a necessary part of reading the score. (I can't think of a better way to phrase that, sorry! I really don't know how to put it, but I do think it works better in the remaining places.)
• What does aggregate mean in the Statistics section?
  • This is something TRM suggested further up the page as there were only two matches played by each team results seemed poorly chosen, and aggregate - an aggregate of two, in this case - seemed more fitting.

-- Matthew 20:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Re commas, I've lived in a number of English-speaking countries and as a result speak and write with a bastardised version of the language that changes from day to day!
    • If the templates render these things in a certain established way then that's fine to leave it as is.
    • Support All other concerns have been satisfied with either edits or explainations. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:05, 27 March, 2008

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 00:43, 26 March 2008.

---

List of awards and nominations for Lost

First, I'm going to address the title. There seems to be no standard for award list titles, there's List of awards won by The Simpsons (titled so because many noms are missing, so I bypassed that one by saying it is mainly a list of awards won), there's List of Home and Away awards, List of awards for Passions (TV series) and List of 30 Rock awards and nominations.

The reason I chose the name "List of awards and nominations for Lost" is because I felt "List of Lost awards and nominations" insinuated the the article had a different meaning, like a list of missing awards or something. If anyone feels differently, I am more than willing to change the title, but I was just clarifying my position.

Anyway, fully sourced, yada yada yada, will address concerns. I tried to use primary sourcing as much as possible, but in some cases the actual award histories page for a certain award would say "for a history please refer to IMDB" in which case I took that to be an endorsement that IMDB was accurate in this case, and used it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The other awards (those at the bottom of the list) should be in a ===Other awards=== section, I think.
• Why are some of the cells in the episode columns missing, when others for the same Award-giving-body are given? For example, in the Emmys, Terry O'Quinn (1st mention), Naveen Andrews, and Michael Emerson have no episode mentioned, but when Terry O'Quinn won, his episode is mentioned.

That's it for now -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Support – Good work -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Because we can only add sources for what we find. The Emmy Awards don't reveal the episodes for the acting nominees and the only reason we know the episode O'Quinn won for is because it was reported by Entertainment Weekly. As far as I know, they haven't revealed the episodes for any others from Lost. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I know all the Emmy acting submissions and will be able to get sources for some of them. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I could not get reliable sources (because message boards do not count) for the season 1 submissions of O'Quinn ("Walkabout" and "The Moth") or Andrews ("Solitary" and "The Greater Good"). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice stuff! Some comments:
  • 3rd sentence, "It has won and been nominated for a variety of different awards, including..." - did it win or was it just nominated for the awards mentioned thereafter?
    • I actually fixed that shortly before I noticed your comments... Weird.
  • "the Emmys had rarely recognized science fiction/fantasy shows" - just seems more formal and prose-y to say 'science fiction or fantasy shows'.
    •  Done
  • "the series was nominated for nine Emmys but failed to win one" - it's picky but I think for easy reading it should say 'failed to win any'. (And who knows, it might've won two.)
    •  Done
  • And - even pickier - the Primetime Emmys and Golden Globes (to name just two) link categories only the first time they are mentioned, yet the Creative Arts Emmys section repeats the "Outstanding Special Visual Effects For A Series" link. That's just one instance I noticed early on in the list, there could well be a whole lot more.
    • I think I previously got a lot of the double links, but I probably missed a few others.  Done
  • Something I just happened to notice - the Creative Arts Emmys lists a nomination for "Thomas E. deGorter" while the Golden Reel Awards lists a "Thomas DeGorter". I'm assuming this is what their noms were listed as; I'm not sure what should be done for the sake of consistency.
    • I'll go with "Thomas deGorter", a lot more sources use that name.
• My proverbial hat off to you, and good luck! •97198 talk 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A change you made a second ago: in the lead, "Amongst there wins are..." - do you mean 'their', as in 'belonging to them'? Or should it even be 'amongst its wins are...' (referring to the show as an 'it')? •97198 talk 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed, thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - In the "References: General" and "External links" parts, there are links to other lists with this information. Although I understand that the links in both categories have a different status, the categories are so small that I would join them. Also, reference #42 currently shows an error message. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref #42 has been fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not like the above users, I can't pick out sentences that may seem a bit off. But I can see that the page is informative and well-sourced. One of the best award pages I've seen. Definitely got my support. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Clean up the tables, add some fixed widths. If you're not sure what I mean, look at List of 30 Rock awards and nominations. I formatted the tables so that they are all inline with eachother. -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer smaller tables and ones that don't have a lot of whitespace in them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Would be nice if award-won and award-nom were used more [2] to keep styles somewhat consistent across similar lists. This removed 7k of markup, about 12% of the article. Gimmetrow 07:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What constitutes a "notable" award per your lead opening sentence?
    • My inclusion criteria was that the award was mentioned at IMDB (every award they won that is there is at least mentioned here), and that they have some form of wikipedia page (although that one is flexible, basically any award with a reliable source is here)
  • Image caption is a fragment so no need for full stop.
    •  Done
  • Yeah, I'd agree, the tables should have the columns lined up, it looks untidy right now. You can fiddle with width settings to avoid too much whitespace.
    • Some tables would have to be smaller because of the images and I really think that table should hug the text as much as possible.
  • Be consistent with repeated wikilinking - awards aren't relinked, nominees aren't relinked, episode names are relinked...
    • I fixed as many as I could find.
  • Four of the Creative Arts Emmy Awards entries aren't cited. All others are.
    • Some of the wins are covered by the general Emmy source at the bottom.
  • Four of the Golden Reel Awards entries aren't cited, all the others are.
    •  Done
  • Why does "Best Sound Editing in Sound Effects and Foley for Television Short Form" occupy three lines?
    • It doesn't on mine, I guess it depends on the browser.
  • Saturn awards are partially cited.
    •  Done
  • Consider making the Other awards table sortable since you've made an arbitrary choice on how it's ordered.
    •  Done
• Some things to consider. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment what's with the [68] in the category for two of the "other" awards? Looks odd so could use an explanation. Also not keen on "See Below"" (which at the very least should be See below) - what's this all about? And finally, ref [24] is showing a template error. Other than that, this should become featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• 68 is where I forgot to add the category (whoops). The sections with "see below" are where there are so many nominees that it would screw up the table. Ref 24 has been fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:01, 22 March 2008 (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 00:26, 26 March 2008.

---

Liverpool F.C. seasons

previous FLC

The list has gone through a peer review which was very productive and cleared up many issues, I feel the lit meets the criteria, and is very similar to other featured lists such as Leeds United A.F.C. seasons and Bradford City A.F.C. seasons. Thanks for your time NapHit (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments Very good, but some comments.
  • ...Houlding decided to form a new club, an initial approach..." - needs rewording.
  • "...for the 1892–93 season. Which they..." - makes no sense.
  • ..."match.." - need to remove the extra full stop.
  • ...1900-01..." - endash needed
  • "Liverpool reached their first FA Cup Final in 1914, losing to Burnley, the club won..." makes no grammatical sense.
  • "...first division..." - needs capitalising.
  • "stewardship" - should say something like "management" instead.
  • "...the, European cup..." - misplaced comma and "cup" needs capitalising.
  • "...season,[6] this..." - should say "which".
  • "...and FA Cup won..." - no need for "wom".
  • "1st" needs to be in gold on all instances.
  • Maybe what "DNE" stands for could be shown in the key?

It is, it's at the top of the Key to rounds NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mostly issues with the prose. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments they have have all bee dealt with NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• More comments Not far now, just a few bits...
  • "Liverpool won their first league title during the 1900–01 season" - needs clarifying that it was their first Division One title.
  • "...won the title this time"... - add a comma between "title this".
  • ...when Liverpool regained..." - I'd recommend saying "they" instead of using "Liverpool" twice in one sentence.
• Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments dealt with, well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Peanut4

*Comments (with current oppose)

• • Prose-wise
    • "With an empty stadium, Houlding decided to form a new club, his application for the club to play in the Football League was rejected." needs re-wording, it includes two main verbs and two disjointed clauses. Also needs a reference.
    • "Thus Liverpool entered the Lancashire League for the 1892–93 season, which they subsequently won, ensuring promotion to the Second Division for the following season, Liverpool won the league without losing a match." Similar to above. The last clause is disjointed to the main theme of the sentence. And promotion is also wrong.
    • Generally the prose needs a good copy-edit. It's very disjointed in my opinion.
  • Other than that, everything looks fine and dealt with since the Peer Review. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments I've gone through the prose and I now think it's a lot better than it was before NapHit (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Certainly better. But think the prose still has a lot of short sentences. But nothing worthy of an oppose. Peanut4 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've rectified some of the sentences which can flow into each other, any better now? NapHit (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another improvement. Well done. Prose is fine, and the table looks spot on. Peanut4 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Struway2

Comments First, sorry I never got back to the peer review; looked at the list the other day and it was tagged {{inuse}}, and next time I looked it was here, and much improved!

• The bit about bolding players shouldn't really be in the lead, it already appears appropriately in the key. Also, I'm not sure you really need to mention the local cups not being included.
• In the table, you may want to note that Liverpool's early promotions/relegation were through the test match system, as automatic promotion/relegation didn't come in until 1898-99.
• You're missing the 1945-46 FA Cup.
• Where there are multiple competitions in the same season, as in 2005-06, if the competition box is split up into separate rows, the rounds reached in each comp can be coloured appropriately. As in Leeds seasons 1970-71, for example.
• At 1024-width screen, the 2005-06 season wraps to seven display lines because the Other/Europe column is so narrow. Could you consider listing the Charity/Community Shield in the Other/Europe column, as Leeds seasons does, rather than having it separate?
• You have 'NF' in the rounds key but no such table entry.

that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the comment Struway, hopefully the list is more o your liking now? NapHit (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Much improved at and since its peer review, this list follows the established pattern of association football club season lists. It satisfies the timeline criterion, is stable and complete, is well-referenced and annotated where appropriate, and has a relevant free-use image. Good work. Struway2 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment When there is one more than one European competition in one season, you should give each its own row, as in this abortive attempt from a while ago. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I've changed to accomodate this now cheers NapHit (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - why aren't FA Cup and League Cup linked in the lead while the other cup contests are? Otherwise can't find a problem with it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, fixed NapHit (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2008 (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 00:26, 26 March 2008.

---

List of UEFA club tournament winning managers

This is an overview of the various specific lists that I've enhanced over the past few weeks. It summarises various successes of managers, it's illustrated, factually accurate and forms an umbrella (hopefully to make a potential featured topic main article) to the sub-articles. As always, I'm completely open to criticism and debate over what I've written and encourage the community to give it to me, both barrels. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• "As of March 2008" - Is someone going to update this every single month? There's a template somewhere that does it automatically. Alternatively, put the month of the most recent tournament, and users can perform manual updates after each Final. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, well this usually an accepted way of keeping a definite timeframe of accuracy on a statistical article which will need occasional updates (only four times a year!), so I'm not sure this really needs to be changed. However, I'm interested in the template you've mentioned, any more info on that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} and {{CURRENTYEAR}} produces December 2024, and will update automatically. (Don't worry about the redlinks. I don't now why they're there, they just are.) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Weird, those links don't work.... for me.... but Matthew, could you tell me if you'll object if this statement remains? Just curious... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No, the links don't work, but if you just copy it as it appears, into the article, it will work. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I added them to the article myself, although it wouldn't have stopped me from supporting. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As you've excluded the Fair's Cup, to be consistent you should exclude here and at the relevant list the first Super Cup too. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment2 I strongly disagree with the use of "current month". If no-one edited this article again for 2 years, the reader would think it was up to date. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oops. I didn't think of that. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Response to Dweller, I've replaced the templates back to plain text and I've also added a note here that the first Super Cup is excluded from the statistics. I think it's still relevant over at the Super Cup page, it's noted there as well that the title is unofficial and is probably worth listing along with the three tournaments that didn't happen for other reasons... Whaddya reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as long as Zlatko Čajkovski's sortname is sorted out (no pun intended). Also, although it's not a dealbreaker, I'm mildly confused by the sorting of names with "del", "van", etc in, which currently sort by the "other" part of the surname e.g. Aad de Mos sorts with the "M"s. Surely the "del"/"van" is part of the surname? You wouldn't sort Paul McCartney with the "C"s in a list of musicians....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I'm confused too. I think I'll go through the lists and make that a consistent sorting scheme, sorting on the de rather than the subsequent surname bit. Thanks, and I'll try to sort out Zlatko...! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All fixed I think Chris... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A great, simple list. But just some queries to make with the totals table.
  • I have Argentina down as 4-0-2-0-8
  • You've missed Czech Rep off 0-1-0-0-1
  • I have England as 8-6-6-3-23. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, despite the A-levels, it seems maths isn't my strong point any more! Fixed appropriately, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Now spot-on. Great work. Peanut4 (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Just one question though, why is Valery Gazzaev listed with a soviet union flagicon, and not a Russian one when he won the UEFA Cup after the collapse of the soviet union? Other than that it's superb NapHit (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks NapHit. In response, the flag represents the nationality of the coach at birth, and Gazzaev was born in Ukraine in 1939 as part of the Soviet Union. Accepted, he won UEFA post-CCCP but I'm sticking with manager original nationality, not necessarily nationality when winning the title... Unless you can spot a problem elsewhere with that! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah that's fine you've answered my query NapHit (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support another goodie off the conveyor belt. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great list, well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of teams treat the Super Cup as something of a mickey mouse tournament, so it seems odd to give it equal weight. However, I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative. One thing which definitely does need doing is the addition of Gérard Houllier, who has been omitted. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - sure they do, but UEFA recognises it as a club tournament with a clearly defined winner. It's not up to us to decide on the notability, UEFA consider it a club tournament. But you're right, Houllier has disappeared. Thankfully he's already made a reappearance! Thanks for the good spot... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (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 00:26, 26 March 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in New Orleans

Partial self-nomination (VerruckteDan is by far the list’s primary editor - I did some final work to get the list ready for FLC). Another tallest buildings list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Tulsa and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 03:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Refs [9] and [10] should be placed at the end of the sentence, or at least after punctuation mid-sentence.
  •  Done -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• "upon completion in 2009, it would become" → "upon completion in 2009, it will become"
  • "Would" is used to show that it is not a certain event, as the building is not even under construction. -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• "While not new construction," - missing an S perhaps: "While not new constructions,"?
  •  Done -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Are columns usually left-justified, rather than centered?
  • Yes, that is the default setting for the wikitable. -- Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's such a lame review. I don't usually do these types of lists because it's not a subject I know anything about. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; all reviews are much appreciated. Cheers, Rai-me 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Support As Raime said in the nomination, I feel the list meets the FL criteria and follows the successful model of so many other "tallest buildings" lists. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - very good, well-referenced. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 08:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain Support I have notability issues again. Why is Loews New Orleans Hotel more notable than JW Marriott Hotel New Orleans? Why is First National Bank of Commerce Building notable? For W New Orleans, some kind of a description should be added in the "notes" column . --Crzycheetah 23:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - I have created articles for all three previously unlinked hotels. Although I don't think these high-rise hotels are notable, you are correct in stating that if the Loews Hotel as an article, then the other 3 should probably have articles as well, as there reason the Loews is more notable. Unlike the Albuquerque buildings, these buildings may be tall enough to be notable. I am not sure what you mean by some kind of a description should be added in the "notes" column - why? Most buildings on the list do not have descriptions, and there is really nothing worth mentioning about the W Hotel. Cheers, Rai-me 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I support. As for W New Orleans, I think that that name is confusing and a description needs to be written explaining what kind of a building it is. Other buildings' names basically imply what those buildings are for, i.e. banks, hotels, hospitals. "W New Orleans" doesn't imply much.--Crzycheetah 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't it be easy for a reader to just click on the link and see what kind of a building it is? The "W" Hotel brand is a major hotel chain. I could change the entry name to W Hotel New Orleans, but that isn't the building's official name. Cheers, Rai-me 22:54, 25 March 2008 (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 00:26, 26 March 2008.

---

Green Wing (series 1)

Self-nomination. I believe that this list is of a good enough quality to become a featured list. The introduction is comprehensive, the image is given fair-use rationale and the list is given a full set of references. I've tried to model the list on the List of Peep Show episodes, which I promoted to FL successfully a little while ago. ISD (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A season is different to a list of episodes of an entire series. I'd prefer to see sections on cast, awards, reception, etc. For examples, take a look at Featured Lists Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3), D:TNG (season 1), D:TNG (season 3), [[D:TNG (season 4), and current nominations The Simpsons (season 7) and D:TNG (season 3).
• Template:Episode list now includes fields for Writers and Directors. Can these be incorporated into this list?
• The references need sorting out. I'm no expert, but I think the book "Green Wing: The Complete First Series Scripts" should be listed under "General". Page numbers need separating by an endash.

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to comments - I've tried to carry out all the changes you asked for. The book is now a "References" section and a "Notes" section, creating a section just for the book. I've added cast, awards and reception sections as well. In terms of the writers and directors in the episode list, this I feel is not suitable for this article. This series, like most British comedy series, is directed by and written by the same people in every episode. Although there are eight writers and two directors, all of them contribute to every episode and they are credited in all the episodes, so there is no episode which is written or directed by a single person. They are however, mentioned in the introduction and are referenced. ISD (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All concerns addressed. Meets the criteria. Well done. -- Matthew 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - In the Green Wing article, the comic relief sketch seems not to be included in the first series, as it is mentioned separately. I don't know what's the truth, but I think one of these articles should change.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to comment - I've removed the Comic Relief sketch from the Green Wing (series 1) article. ISD (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Avoid links in the bold opening sentence of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • "having spend the previous " - spent.
  • "having spend the previous night in her car, arrives at East Hampton for her first day of work after a bad night." - night then bad night... reads odd...
  • "greetings to his mother: Joanna." - why the colon?
  • "milk float " - link or explain - non Brits may not get this.
• that's about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to comments: I've carried out the changes that you asked for. ISD (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my comments dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support-Great article and definately meets FL criteria, well sourced and written. However, I would consider cutting down the episode's synopsis. Per WP:EPISODE, as the plot summaries should be a little more brief.TrUCo-X 14:19, 22 March 2008 (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 13:13, 24 March 2008.

---

List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers

I'm nominating this bad boy because it's on a par with the other three lists I recently nominated. It's been tailored according to the comments received in the other FLCs (I hope) and I'd like to think it's as good. It's got many independent sources, it's nicely illustrated, it should comply with the manual of style, I acknowledge that not all finals have an article, but this list is collecting the managers together, not the finals so I hope that won't be a major stumbling block. I've left red links in to encourage those missing articles to be created. Anyway, as ever, I'm more than happy to present this to the community and welcome all criticism, support or otherwise. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man's just too good at this sort of thing ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A description of what the Super Cup is before jumping into why the first one was not considered official would help the flow.
• I'm not sure "anyway" is such an encyclopaedic word

That's it! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Matthew, thanks, good comments, both of which I have hopefully addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Support. Another great list.

• Support Great list, just a minor issue, why is there no picture in the lead, like in the other lists of this type? Other than it's great NapHit (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks NapHit, the lead has no image because no one single manager stands out above the others. In the other lists, it's usually been Trappatoni who's mug is up top because he's won more UEFA/Champs League etc cups than any other manager. Hope that makes sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it's no big problem, I was just a little curious as to why there was no image, it doesn't detract from the list though which is fabulous NapHit (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Odd, I thought I'd commented already. Getting confused in me old age. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2008 (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 13:13, 24 March 2008.

---

List of Birmingham City F.C. managers

Self-nomination. This list follows the format used in previous featured lists of this type. It went through a peer review, and I believe it satisfies the FL criteria. Thank you in advance to those who take the trouble to review it, and I leave it to your good selves to decide if it is worthy of promotion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I participated in the peer review and I'm happy that the article now is more than enough to meet the WP:FL criteria. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Very good list, liking the History section. A few minor comments:
  • "by committee" - by a committee? reworded
  • Soccerbase says Bruce left on the 19 November, while the article states 23 November. Is a different source being used for this?
  • Also, Soccerbase say Black left on 28 November and the article says 27, but the BBC says it was the 27, so maybe you could include this somewhere to reference this date.
• Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The list dates are right, but the differences from Soccerbase should have been annotated, and now are. Thanks for pointing this out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now issues dealt with. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support but being finickety, could you cite the Alf Ramsey spat text? Also, is there no way at all to fill the 1948 lacuna? --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramsey duly cited. Re 1948, I find it very frustrating there being one item missing, but have reached my last resort, which would be to go through the local newspaper archives for the relevant few weeks. These are available at the Central Library, but I don't live in Birmingham and rarely visit apart from matchdays when time constraints generally preclude hours poring over microfilm, so unfortunately it's not going to happen yetawhile. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This implies there was no-one in between. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a mirror of approximately this version of the History section of Birmingham City F.C.'s Wikipedia article. In terms of permanent appointments, Brocklebank was Storer's successor, but what I don't know is whether or not they explicitly appointed a caretaker for those few weeks between the two, and if they did, who it was. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why does the lead say it's a chronological list, when it's sortable by name and date?
  • As presented, it is a chronological list, both in the prose section and in the table. The reader can use the sort buttons to rearrange the table by name, win percentage, nationality, as he/she wishes, but I didn't think that was something that needed mentioning in the lead?
• Are there specific references to include in the table for "Unknown", Bob Brocklebank, Joe Mallett, and all the others without them, or are they covered by a more general reference?
  • The intro to the table mentions the main sources used for each manager's stats (I've changed it to say "dates and statistics") and says that any differences from the main source are noted in the table. I've also added an explicit reference to FCHD to the Honours column heading.
    • Further to the above. BCFC Archive, which should be the main source for the Storer-Brocklebank gap, doesn't explicitly give the stats for that gap, so I've added a ref to book source Matthews (1995), which does. Thanks for making me look at it again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

hope that clarifies matters, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2008 (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 13:13, 24 March 2008.

---

List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions

Self nom I think this list meets all the criteria, and is of a simliar standard and style to List of winners of the Mathcounts competition which was recently passed as featured. One issue that I can't solve yet is that the names aren't sorted by surname, because {{sortname}} insists on adding a non-removable wikilink. An alternative template is being worked on and will be added when it's up and running. All comments appreciated, and will be addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Have you considered just using the {{sort}} template instead of the {{sortname}} for surname sorting? Seems to work, I've had a fiddle with the first table...
    • I tried, but I didn't know how to work it. It's my first sortable list. Now I see what you've done, I'll add it in to the other tables.  Done
  • You've used [4] everywhere, why not just make it a "general" reference?
    •  Done
  • Force column widths to be the same for each table so they have a uniform appearance.
    •  Done
  • Only three sponsors do not have articles. Any chance of making them or are they non-notable?
    • I think they're non-notable. The first one is an old newspaper, and has either been merged into a newer paper, or just stopped printing. I can't find any real mention of it on the internet, other than pages about the Bee. The second one is of a Jamaican company, again - nothing on the internet would to me make it seem notable. The last one, a newspaper again, is still in print but has no article. I guess I could create a stub for that one.
  • "America " - unusual, normally something like "in the United States.."
    •  Done
  • "In 1943, 1944 and 1945, the competition was cancelled due to World War II. " - nope, more like "The competition was cancelled from 1943 to 1945 due to World War II."
    •  Done
  • There doesn't seem to a link to spelling bee at all.
    •  Done
  • Caption is a fragment so doesn't need a full stop.
    •  Done
  • Puerto Rican is a dab link and why is it used when Jamaican is not linked?
    •  Done Puerto Rican should have been linked to [Puerto Rican People]], but there is no demonym article for Jamaican, so for consistency neither are linked.
  • " different city or even state than which " usually we say "different from"
    •  Done
  • "fourty-three" - forty-three (or 43)...
    •  Done - I always make that mistake.
  • "fourty" - forty, or 40.
    •  Done
  • Do you note the non-US winners?
    • In what sort of way? Naming them in the lead? Shading the cells? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • While you're editing, the three links to specific bees are redirects...
    •  Done
• That's about it for now... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All comments are addressed now. Thanks for the review and of course, if you find anything extra, let me know. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, but just one thing, not sure you need spelling bee in the See also section, but it's not a big deal. If it stays, at least capitalise the S of spelling! Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that spelling bee should be removed from the See also section. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I'm not convinced that a speller from Puerto Rico is truly "non-American." Could that locution be changed to something like "from outside the 5O U.S. states"?
    • How about one-and-a-half non Americans? :) J/K!  Done
  • Since I happen to live in a community that has bragged about the fact that three local kids have won this competition, I took note of the fact that the winning spellers are identified only by the geographic location of their sponsor and not also the location of the child's school or hometown. I realize that acquiring this information is more difficult than getting the information about the sponsor, and I would not object to making this a featured list on the basis of its exclusion. However, I think this information is obtainable (in many cases, it's included in references already cited) and I'd like to see it added to the article over time. (For the record, the local winners I am aware of are Henry Feldman, 1960, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Glen Van Slyke III, 1963, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Ned G. Andrews, 1994, Oliver Springs, Tennessee.)

--Orlady (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have included that but for those winners who's only reference I can find is that on the official site's winner's list, it's not possible. And that would mean a bunch of missing information. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your views of the situation. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another comment: According to this article, in the early 1930s the spelling bee had separate "boy champions" and "girl champions". Have you run across that information in any other sources? --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh.. I haven't come across anything else saying that, and even the official website's list of winners (ref 4 in the article) doesn't show that. I just did a quick google search and found nothing else, maybe I typed the wrong search parameters, so I'll have a look around again later. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's OK. The source where I found that was the National Review, which is not a particularly reliable source on spelling bees. If you haven't run into that elsewhere, it's reasonable to conclude it's not true. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. A nice piece of work. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments(Now addressed, see below).

Resolved stuff by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs)

I have a few items that may or may not be helpful:

• Is the whole first paragraph covered by the first citation?
  • Yes
• "Every speller in the competition has previously participated in a local spelling bee, usually organized by a local newspaper. Because of the coverage area newspapers reach, some newspapers have sponsored spellers from a different city or even state from which the newspaper is based." Needs a citation.
  • Ugh! I found it somewhere.. It'll take me a couple of hours to find it again!
    • OK, I ca't find it anywhere, and I can't remember what particular words were used to use as search parameters. So I've <!-- hidden -- it until it can be found. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The National Spelling Bee is primarily an oral competition conducted in elimination rounds until only one speller remains. The first round consists of a 25-word written test, the remaining rounds are oral spelling tests. The competition has been declared a tie three times, in 1950, 1957 and 1962. As of 2007, forty-three champions have been girls, and forty have been boys."
  • I'm sorry, but you haven't put your issue with this!
    • Hehe, sorry about that! My mistake.
• There are references missing from some boxes but I assume it's okay. It just looked a little odd. Is it because the reference before covered it? I'm unfamiliar with list referencing, as you may've guessed. :)
  • Reference [4] covers every winner, and it was in each row. It was then removed per TRM's review and placed in the table headers instead.
• Reference 55 is missing a publisher.
  •  Done

Otherwise, I found it fascinating! Congrats to all involved. PeterSymonds | talk 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds | talk 16:53, 18 March 2008 (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 13:13, 24 March 2008.

---

Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office

Self-nom It's a bit of a funny little list, but I think it meets the criteria, and not everything has to be so serious, eh? It underwent an AfD recently, the decision was to keep. I came across the list after that and worked on it. All comments appreciated and will be addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Cool. I like it. I never thought the word "incumbent" could be used to described a cat. I think the article looks pretty good, but I do have a few suggestions:

I know! It makes me want to grin like a Cheshire cat! :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• The citations need a bit of cleanup. First, I'd recommend centering the ref column. Second, the publisher value should only be wikilinked the first time it's used. Third, I'm not so sure about the use of reprints. Why not just cite the original source? Fourth, the date of Ref #9 is a little crazy. Fifth, is 10 Downing Street actually a publisher? Do they have their own newspaper or something?

• 10 Downing Street is in the "work=" field of {{cite web}}, the "publisher=" is HM Government. Also, those two reprints are the only mention of the dates of Treasury Bill anywhere on the Internet. The official documents related to Humphrey released under the Freedom of Information Act only give his name as one of Humphrey's predecessors. At least the references are there, and if the original published work was ever to turn up the references can be replaced. I'd rather that than not include them at all. Everything else is  Done. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Using the same logic as above, Prime Minister names should only be wikilinked the first time they're mentioned.

•  Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the titles of the dates columns ("Entered" and "Left").

• Do you have any suggestions? "Moved in" and "Moved out" doesn't sound good either. The cats are officially "civil servants" - the Humphrey papers show the Home Office returning gifts and turning down sponsorship requests for this exact reason, so maybe "Employment began" and "Employment ended"? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Began employment" and "Retired"? Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them retired though. Some died while being employed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well death is the ultimate form of retirement, no? =) Well, howabout "Began employment" and "Ended employment"? Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That works!  Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also not a fan of the wikilinked years. That's good for putting certain things into context, but a cat could probably care less about the state-of-affairs in the United Kingdom circa 1978.

• {{not done}} I'd rather leave those in for now and see what other reviewers think, if that's okay. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can wait, but without some sort of argument in the other direction it'll still be a problem. So I can't support the nom until it's either addressed or I'm convinced otherwise. Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just think that as the cats are "employees" of the Cabinet, and their work takes them within the close confines of the workings of the Government and politics, the years should stay linked.

Also, taking Humphrey, he was somewhat of a political scandal in the 90s. He was accused of murdering a nest of baby robins when Major was there, but the biggest stink was when the Blairs moved in. There was a big hoo-ha about whether Cherie wanted him to stay or not, with Blair at the time saying the decision to keep him was one of the most difficult he'd had to make, with regards to public opinion. And she eventually posed for photographers holding the cat. Then there was the nonsense when he was retired off; there was a whole discussion raised at PM Question Time about his whereabouts, if he was still alive and wotnot, with the government arranging a clandestine photo-op, with the cat surrounded by newspapers dated that day, hostage style. All this hit the headlines at the time. However, none of this is mentioned in 1997 in the United Kingdom and if that's the only thing that is stopping you from supporting, then I'll remove them. I'd personally prefer to see them linked to 2007 in British politics etc. anyway, but those don't exist. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's definitely quite a story, but I'm not really sure if it applies to the UK at large, or if that kind of stuff is date/location specific in anyway. So yea, I think it's better without. If there's any opinions otherwise by other reviewers, I suppose I could be more flexible though. So, to allow for that possibility, we can consider this point taken care of, but I won't put it in the hide box. Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's about it. Short and sweet list, but I think that's why I like it! Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments All of my suggestions have been well-addressed. However, I think Scorpion brings up some good points. Namely, it seems on the short side. I don't mean to say that the FLC should fail because of it's length, but that it should be expanded to include all of the stories you've mentioned here. Perhaps have a little section of prose detailing the tenure of each cat, wherever info is available. And if you were to do that, the article may or may not cease to be a list... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think this article has the potential to be much more than a list, and if it has that potential, than it's probably not as comprehensive as it should be. Drewcifer (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I could move this to List of Chief Mousers to the Cabinet Office, and then start a completely new article regarding the history etc. Would that compromise get your support? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the topic really warrants two articles. I mean, it would be very easy to attatch the (relatively small) list to a more prose-based article. My best solution would be to keep it as one, add historical stuff, and call it an article. Probably not what you wanted to hear, but I think this could be much more than what it is right now, and keeping is as a list is just holding it back. Drewcifer (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's a bit on the short side, and several FLCs in the past have failed due to lack of length. There also some big gaps, why was there no chief mouser from 1997 to 2007? Why were there two cats during some periods? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't do anything about the length. Official documents have only been released into the public domain as far back as 1929 and mention the first Peter. Other documents mention Treasury Bill as one of Humphrey's predecessors, and another source dates him to the early 20s. So from that point, I would say it's complete and finite. Unless the government release more documents relating to cats, but I doubt it because the only reason there are documents beginning with Peter I is that a request was made to the Treasury for an allowance for food and a feeding schedule, so that the staff wouldn't feed him tidbits all the time, thereby filling him up and causing him to not be vigilant in his mousing activities. And I think if length was an issue, the AfD wouldn't have been to Keep. It would have been to delete or merge into Number 10.
• There were no cats between 1997 and 2007 because reportedly, Cherie Blair hates them. She pushed for Humphrey to leave (see above). Also, as noted in the lead, the title of "Chief mouser" was only given to Humphrey, so even if there was a cat, it's unlikely he would have been the "Chief Mouser" officially. Sybil, has been called that in the press (the reference is there but I can be specific about it in the article), and Wilberforce and Treasury Bill have been called thatin the official Humphrey documents. The other cats are just "mousers", or pets. Some were strays, some were given as gifts, likely simply so as to raise the profile of the giver, which is why there are two at some periods. Also, I haven't read the book or journals that relate to Munich Mouser or Nelson. They were there when I started on the article.
• All this could be added, but then it turns it more into an article and less of a list, don't you think? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• And short or not, it still covers all the point in the criteria. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I corrected a typo (no thanks required...!) and enjoyed the article enormously, so I'll support dependent on the final sentence in the lead being worked on a little. Firstly I hate parentheses in prose (as you can see) and secondly I found that particular sentence a little clunky... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, do you have any suggestions on how to reword it? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• It looks fine now, support unconditional! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Hehe, I love this page! I never knew there was an official resident cat... £100 a year as well! On the article-related note, I've no further comments. I noticed the last sentence was enclosed in parentheses, and it didn't look too bad, but I agree it could be reworked to get rid of them (like TRM, I also find them distracting, regardless of the fact that I use them outside of article space quite often. :)) Great work! PeterSymonds | talk 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the last sentence, so take a look and let me know what you think (revert if you don't agree with it). In doing so, I removed the reference to the Blairs living at no. 11, as it doesn't seem overly necessary to include it. You might not like this, of course, so feel free to change it. PeterSymonds | talk 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no. That works perfectly :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nice. I made a few tweaks. I wondered what the difference is between "General" and "Further Reading", especially as I doubt David Irving found much scope in his work for dealing with this topic in depth! Could the two subsections not simply be merged into one list? --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edits. A suitable word instead of "employ" was stumping me. Per WP:CS, Further Reading "offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader …[not] used as sources in the article", and "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section". At this time I'd rather go by the policy, though I do see your point as both secions are small. Anyway, there was no need to use shortened notes for the Irving book as it was only referenced once, although it can also be included in Further reading as it "covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article". I hope that these edits will address your concerns. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good stuff. Nice contender for April 1st main page content, I'd have thought. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2008 (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 13:13, 24 March 2008.

---

List of WCW Hardcore Champions

I think this article should be nominated for Featured List status because it is well sourced and written, and meets the FL criteria.--TrUCo-X 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Shouldn't this be retitled "List of WCW Hardcore Championship champions" or "List of WCW Hardcore Championship winners"?
  • No, because of all of WP:PW FL, we go by List of (insert title name here) Champions, because it is a list of champions, the Hardcore Champions of WCW.--TrUCo-X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Explainations of jargon term "ring name"
  • That is why it is wikilinked.--TrUCo-X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:PCR A single sentence would not harm any. Users don't usually want to navigate away from one page to read up on a single jargony word, and then navigate back. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's redundant, ring name is read literally, name used in ring. Its a simple wikilink that well explains the term, no sentence is needed.--TrUCo-X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The WCW Hardcore Championship is a former professional wrestling title" → "The WCW Hardcore Championship was a professional wrestling title"
  • Done--TrUCo-X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• As the list itself is pretty small and finite (meaning it's not ever going to get any bigger) the lead should be expanded. How about including information of what preceeded the belt, if anything?
  • Done--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The championship has been know as: WCW Hardcore Championship (November, 1999 - March 2001)" is redundant.
  • Not really, because it is how every other list of champions article is written as, and its info that is needed as the title could have had another name.--TrUCo-X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There's that guideline somewhere that basically says "just because one article has it, doesn't mean this one should, too." If it had been known by two or three names I'd still suggest it be removed, only in that case turn it into prose. I really think it should be removed. And who's to say that tomorrow someone won't go and turn all that into prose on each article? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done--TrUCo-X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Fine, It is removed.
• The table is confusing
  • The wrestler's names should be sortable
    • Done--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Now every entry needs wikilinking because those that are don't all appear first. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done--TrUCo-X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What does "Times" mean? is this the number of times the wrestler won the title? If so, each instance should be given it's own entry
    • Reworded to Reign #--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It's still a little clumsy. Can anything else be used? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • How is that clumsy? Then for NFL Draft articles, "pick #" would sound clumsy, reign # literally means the number of times the wrestler has reigned as champion.--TrUCo-X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • OK -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Date should be sortable
    • Done--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is "Location" the place the match took place, or where the wrestler is from?
    • Explained more clearly.--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Location should be sortable, and also wikilink every entry.
    • Its is now sortable, however, not every place should be wikilinked because they are already wikilinked in the section,per WP:Mos#Wikilinks.--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to sortable tables. And I know for sure other reviewers are going to request the same. -- Matthew | talk |Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Well that would be redundant, this is a small list, the section is not long so everything being wikilinked wouldn't follow WP:MoS, if this was a problem then it would have been pointed out in previous FLC nominations for other championships.--TrUCo-X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Respectfully, you've got to be kidding? This is the list being nominated, not any other, nor is any other up for re-review. Things change over time, that is why we have Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates; for those that were at one point excellent and have now fallen by the wayside, or simply do not meet current requirements. Just because some other lists don't have it is not a reason not to include it here. And just because it wasn't included in other wrestling lists' noms, could simply mean the reviewers who reviewed just overlooked or didn't notice it. Take a look at all the other FLC right now, and you'll see that other reviewers as well as myself have said to wikilink repeated entries in sortable tables. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Done--TrUCo-X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of "Notes", why not put a column for "Event", and then a column for "ref(s)"?
    • No because as I said earlier other WP:PW FL's are formatted like they are here, which is the example I followed, and the table should tell all of the title's history.--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Vacated" and "Retired" should be removed from the table and addressed in prose. Also explain better what "vacated means"
  • Addressed in prose, but not removed from table because of above reason. No explanation is needed, vacated literally means unoccupied.--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And those 4 words can't be included in the article? I don't think the Wikipedia:SIZE police will care! :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done--TrUCo-X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is there no WCW navigation template or something to put at the bottom of the page?
  • No there is none created.--TrUCo-X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Now all of the things noted out are completed/fixed.--TrUCo-X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. And I apologise if I came across as being snappy yesterday. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. Will you give your opinion on the article?--TrUCo-X 10:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't tend to do that until others have reviewed and their comments addressed. They may find things I missed, is all. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Image caption for the belt is a fragment so doesn't need the full stop.
  • Fixed.--TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• "by ring name" - I'd opt to make this a separate sentence as it's a little confusing where it is right now.
  • I made it a separate sentence, is that better?TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• " title was vacated (unoccupied) " - I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain further, either to me here or in the article?!
  • The guy above said that vacated would not be understandable, so he said explain it better, and he said unoccupied would fit. In these terms, vacated means, that the champion who held the title was either injured and was forced to relinquish the championship, thus making the title vacated (unoccupied). Is that well explained?TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• "World Wrestling Federation (WWF)'s" - yuck, stick with "...Federation's (WWF)"

Fixed.--TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Get rid of the colons in the headings of the table.
  • Done--TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some work needed on the table...
  • Sort by date doesn't work - you need to use the {{dts2}} template.
    • Fixed--TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • With the four colspan'd cells, you get curious effects when re-ordering by reign # for example. It seems to have four distinct orders where you'd normally expect two!
    • What do you mean you only expect two? When you click the sortable tab, all four sortable columns sort, which is the effect you should get, is there something wrong with that? (Why would you expect two?)TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • See what happens when you click on the Reign heading. It should sort it one way or the other. You can actually get four different orders by clicking on it four times which isn't right. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed.--TrUCo-X 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reign # should be explained, that it relates to the individual(s) in question's number of titles up until that point.
  • "Won title on Nitro" - what does that mean?
    • It means that he won the title on WCW Nitro, a television show for WCW.TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thunder, Nitro etc all need to be wikilinking every time in table because its sortable and there's no guarantee you see the wikilinked version first.
    • Done.TrUCo-X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Four external links seems a little excessive - which really relate to WCW Hardcore champions explicitly?
  • I removed two, is that better?

So some work to do before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, all my concerns rapidly and accurately addressed. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, The Rambling Man honestly addressed any concerns I had. I feel that this article goes beyond the FL criteria. iMatthew 2008 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support All my issues were addressed a long time ago. I was just waiting to see if anyone had found anything that I missed. These have all been addressed, too. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support In the interests of disclosure, I am a member of WP:PW. This list fits the criteria of a featured list, as it is fully referenced with reliable sources, is complete, and is a useful list. The article complies with the Manual of Style as well as most WP:PW guidelines. For cases in which the list differs from WP:PW guidelines, this is due to useful suggestions from reviewers that I feel should be adopted by WP:PW. I had minor concerns with the article, but I addressed them myself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (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 22:33, 22 March 2008.

---

The Simpsons (season 7)

Another season of The Simpsons, and I think this one is considerably better than the other Simpsons season FLs because it is more in depth and includes a section of DVD info (if anyone doesn't like it, please say so because I plan on adding similar sections to the rest of the season pages). Anyway, review away and I'll do my best to address concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Perhaps include more of a description of the show in the lead, explaining that it's an animated series, American, broadcast in America on Fox, etc.
  •  Done
• "The show runners for the fourth production season were Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein who would executive produce 21 episodes this season" Surely the seventh production season?
  • D'oh!
• "David Mirkin produced the remaining four, including two hold overs from the previous season" produced or exec produced?
  • It's executive produced, I left the word "executive" out because it was used in the sentence before, but I readded it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• the word "on" needed between "Region 1" and the date.
  •  Done
• spelling: "charcter", there might be others but I didn't notice any
  •  Done
• "turns himself in, but it turns that he didn't." a little clumsy, and perhaps missing a word?
  •  Done

That's it for now but I'd just like to add that I much prefer this format to the previous format of The Simpsons season pages, and as far as consistency throughout all the TV series' season pages, switching to this style is in my eyes, a good move. -- Matthew

Support Well done. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't find any legend or text explaining the episode numbers (for example, "131 - 3") and Prod. codes (for example "2F20"). Are readers supposed to know what these numbers mean? (FWIW, I've expressed as similar concern at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200804 regarding List of The Simpsons episodes.) --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The first number is the series #, the second is the season # and I'm entirely sure that a reliable source exists that explains the production code. In 2F20, 2F is the production run number, the second number (20) is the order the episode was produced, so it would the 20th episode of the 2F production code. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I found the "production code" explained at the alt.tv.simpsons FAQ (search on "code" to find the relevant FAQs). In my humble opinion, if the production code is encyclopedic information that needs to be included in these lists, the lists should have a legend with a reliably sourced explanation of the code. --Orlady (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, The Simpsons Archive usually isn't considered useable as a RS. We're allowed to link to it, but not use it for citations. Luckily, the codes are mentioned in Planet Simpson, so I used that. I added a key at the top of the list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for adding the key (and the supporting source). --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Avoid links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title  Done
• "two hold overs"? What's a hold over? If I have to ask, it needs explanation.  Done
• "a Marge-shaped head " - do you mean a Marge head shaped box?  Done
• "They also wanted the Treehouse of Horror episode" - they wanted the episode? Doesn't sound right...  Done
• Treehouse of Horror VI is linked twice in the same section.  Done
• Why is Golf capitalised?  Done
• Link IRS for non-US readers.  Done
• Who's Jim Lau and why hasn't he got even a stub?
  • I'm not sure, according to IMDB, he has been in dozens of things (although they were all small roles)
• en-dash should be used in page ranges in citations.  Done
• "...the overall theme is a Celebrity Theme." - what does this mean?  Done

All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns have been well addressed. Nice list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - My concerns have been addressed. --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2008 (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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

---

The Prodigy discography

I've been working on this the past few days, and I think it's ready for scrutiny. As always, suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Random stuff from Crzycheetah

• Comment Why do the entries in the "Certifications" column have white background? Maybe it's just my browser that shows it like that.--Crzycheetah 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, I didn't notice that on my monitor. It's a complicated story, but I think I can fix it. Do you by any chance know what color the grey color usually in tables is? Drewcifer (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Try #F9F9F9.--Crzycheetah 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell on my monitor: does the Experience certifications column look right? Drewcifer (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does.--Crzycheetah 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I think I got them all. I'm doing this blindly however, so if you see any that I missed let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(→)Yes, it looks "normal" now. There are 2 dead links to xlrecordings.com right now. Other than that, it looks good.--Crzycheetah 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Crazy, those were working a few days ago, but Prodigy announced yesterday that they signed to a new label. So now XL doesn't have a Prodigy artist page, but you can still buy their albums at their Shop. Drama! So I just swapped the artist page with the shop page. Drewcifer (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, funny stuff.--Crzycheetah 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Crzycheetah 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and support! Drewcifer (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Remove overlinking from the music videos (stuff already linked in singles, albums etc). That notes column in music videos can be done away with and replaced with a citation-type thing pointing to notes below the table. With the Notes, it looks ugly right now. platinum and gold should have first letter capitalized always. Check out Slayer discography for a neat way to include "'-' denotes release did not chart". indopug (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwikilinked and removed notes column from the Music Video table. Fixed a few capitalization issues in the lead. I'm not a fan of the in-table legend thing for the dash, so I'd prefer to keep that one as is, based on plenty of precedence. Drewcifer (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The first Aussie certification in Albums is uncited. indopug (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Took it out, pending the discovery of a source. Drewcifer (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

IN the lead, make sure only the first mention is United Kingdom, after which it is only UK; same for the US. indopug (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done as well. Drewcifer (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Sorry for the rather sporadic bits-and-pieces reviewing) "The single was re-issued in a limited edition on 2004 to celebrate the 15th anniversary of XL Recordings." - is this necessary at all? Seems trivial and is unchronological.
• "The band followed up Experience in 1994"
• The Prodigy's biggest hit was is the 1997 album
• I think "airplay" is a better word than "circulation"
• "mix-album" - whats that? Link. "masterminded entirely by Hewitt." sounds oddly inappropriate; maybe conceived? But what is the point of the sentence anyway?
• "again peaking at #1 in the UK and peaking at #1" - don't like the repetition there. Maybe "peaked at #1 in the UK and the Billboard's…"
• Replace "entitled" with a comma. "which included a remix of their 1994 single "Voodoo People"." - why is this important?
• I think you can remove XL from each catalogue number.
• The dates are typed in wrongly in the article; do it [[1 January]] [[2006]], per British standard; since this is a British article. This is important for IPs viewing the article to see it this way.
• Whats the cite for UK BDC in the singles?

indopug (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

All fixed except for the date thing and the XL catalogue number. Shouldn't user preferences change the date to conform to region? And the XL in the cat numbers should probably stay, otherwise it's not entirely clear what the number refers to. Usually it's not quite as obvious as XL, but since most other discogs have an appropriate abbreviation of the label name, this one should too, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• IPs don't have user preferences; hence, if they are to view either system, it must rather be the British one in this case.

Good point, fixed it. I'll see about adding references to the lead soon. Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think referencing the lead is mandatory. indopug (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In-line ciations galore! Drewcifer (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• WHat about a cite for the controversy surrounding "Smack My"? indopug (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: indopug (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice list. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Drewcifer (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Tulsa and List of tallest buildings in Detroit. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support with question:

• Can a sentence start with "However" and be gramatically correct? I thought it was like starting one with "And" or "But"?
• Other than that it looks really good, seems to meet all the criteria, and is well written, referenced and presented, and stands up to the standard of other tallest building FLs. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. And you are right; a sentence starting with "however" in use as a conjunctive adverb cannot be grammatically correct - see wiktionary:however. I have added a semicolon between the two clauses. Thanks, Rai-me 12:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - looks like a great list, looks to me like it meets the standards set by previous "Tallest buildings" featured lists. VerruckteDan (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

Random stuff from Crzycheetah

• 1. Almost half of the buildings in the main list are not linked at all. I believe they're more notable than the Chant Tower, a proposed building.
  2. The word "currently" should be substituted with something more concrete.
  3. In the lead, it is stated that "There are currently two proposals" while the Proposed section lists three buildings.

  --Crzycheetah 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • •  Not done - The buildings do not need to be linked. They are non-notable hotels and office high-rises, and articles on them would likely be brought to AfD. Other recently passed building lists such as List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon and List of tallest buildings in Manchester do not have all buildings linked. The list meets the FL criteria, as it "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles" (Criteria 1(a)3). And I would disagree that the Chant Tower is less notable than a non-notable hotel building such as the Wyndham Albuquerque Hotel; it would, after all, become either the tallest or the 2nd-tallest building in the city if completed.
      • If "the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles", then none of the "members' should be linked; they're after all "not sufficiently notable". I see that Simms Building, Metropolitan Courthouse, and Park Plaza Condominiums are linked and listed here as tallest buildings in Albuquerque, that means that this list "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." The problem is that not all members have existing articles, so it fails the 1a1 criteria. At the same time, some members are notable to have existing articles, which means that this list fails the 1a3 criteria, as well.--Crzycheetah 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Can lists not use both 1a1 and 1a3? Perhaps we should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, as this logic was used in the pass of List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, which by your logic fails the criteria. Park Plaza Condominiums is notable, as it is the tallest residential skyscraper in New Mexico. The Metropolitan Courthouse is one of the newest skyscrapers in the city, notably one of the first skyscrapers to be constructed since 1990. The Simms Building was the first modern skyscrapers in the city. Some entries, such as three provious ones, are notable enough to warrant their own entries, while others are not. However, the non-notable ones cannot be excluded from the list. Other FLs also seem to have this situation, where not all entries are notable enough to warrant their own articles, whereas some are: List of works by Joseph Priestley, List of Shetland islands, List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions, and the aforementioned Manchester list. At the same time, some members are notable to have existing articles - if you can identify a building that is notable enough to warrant its own article, I will gladly create it. But take, for instance, the Wells Fargo Bank Building, the tallest building on the list to not have an article. What makes this notable? Cheers, Rai-me 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Also, List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford is a current candidate, and it has only one entry linked out 17. Wouldn't it also fail the criteria by your reasoning? -- Rai-me 22:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, I am only looking at this nominstion right now. Yes, you're right the WP:WIAFL should be clearer on this matter. As I see, the WP:WIAFL states that a list has to meet only one of the 1 a criteria. I fail to see how both 1a1 ad 1a3 criteria can be used simultenously because one requires existing articles and the other does not. It becomes a little oxymoronic to me. When I stated that some members are notable I was implying that Park Plaza Condominiums for instance has an article.--Crzycheetah 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I have brought up a question at WP:WIAFL regarding this disagreement here. -- Rai-me 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done - I removed its use throughout.
    •  Done - Fixed.
    • Thank you for reviewing the list. Cheers, Rai-me 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I still oppose based on notability issues.--Crzycheetah 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support (with a remark) - I object to the "Height" column, giving the height in "feet/m". The least that can be done is splitting the column in two columns, that will make things clearer. Secondly, use "feet, metre" or "ft, m", do not mix the two. It would be best to simply use SI-units, but as this article is about Albuquerque where the metric system might not yet be common, the use of feet is defendable. Otherwise, good article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. The height column is presented in this format to allow the table to be sortable, but keep the height in one column. The table could be formatted in the manner of List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, but then the table could not be sortable. And yes, feet are used here before SI units, as the US still uses US cutsomary units predominantly; per WP:UNITS, the main units for US articles should be feet. And feet (m) is used in accordance with WP:UNITS as well: In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses. Cheers, Rai-me 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Why is it important to keep the height in one column? But hey, I can live with this way;) Please ignore my objections to non-SI units, as they are not relevant here. But I still object to the "feet/m" notation. In the main text, you are right in saying

"This lists ranks Albuquerque highrises that stand at least 135 feet (41 m) tall"

I do not want to change this, as this is good according to me (and WP:UNITS). But in the table, below "Height", you use "feet/m", and this is not the main text, so "feet/m" is just inconsequent here.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. Sorry for the confusion!  Done - I agree, ft / m does look neater. I just think it is better to keep the Height in one column as it is standard for all US building lists, and also prevents the table from being "crunched" even more than it already is. Cheers, Rai-me 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - list look great just like the other FLs. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - MOJSKA 666 (msg) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

---

List of Press Gang episodes

Self-nomination. The article seems to fulfill all of the criteria. Any objections should be minor and easily addressable. Article is well-referenced and not controversial. There are no images as I'm not convinced any would enhance understanding of the topic, thus, failing our non-free criteria.
Please make any constructive criticism as specific as possible: I despise vague comments, especially when copy-editors use a specialist register, as it takes longer to identify the problem than it does to correct it. If you have the skills to identify a misplaced comma, then it would be useful, and quicker, for you to correct it. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments One of my favourite shows!

• "British television children's/teen show".. Hmm. Maybe "British children's television show]]? Done Removed the phrase, as it's inferred later in the paragraph.
• I suppose you could also keep the word "teen", though it should be the full word, "teenage(d/r)", but I don't think it flows well with either.
• The lead needs expanding. When did it first air? How many series? When was the final episode? Done
• Explain that Central is a regional broadcaster and producer on the ITV network. Or whatever it is. (It's been a while since I lived in the UK)

• Do you not think this might be a bit cumbersome? The parent article didn't require such explanation in its FAC. I think that's irrelevant for this article; there's a wikilink if anyone wants more info. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, didn't this air on Channel 4? It's been a while but I'm sure I remember it being shown in that 6pm slot they filled up with Roseanne, Blossom and all that other American stuff. Done
• The prose under the "Series" section could do with being expanded a little. Was it released in all of Europe, the UK, Ireland on Region 2? Was it released in NZ, Aus, Mexico on Region 4? Done
  • Years should be separated by an endash, as well. Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• "(in a couple of cases" and "Sam was basically the character of Julie under a different name" are not written in an encyclopaedic format. Done Reworded to make slightly more formal.
• The final paragraph of the article, regarding the reunion, should be moved up to the lead section.  Done
• References section needs separating into a General and Specific subsections, with the books in the General section, and the pages in the specific. Done

• Mmm, you don't mean having two 'References' to separate books and URLs, do you??? Or do you mean the Cornell ref, which I can split into pages. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's kind of hard to explain, but look at Manchester City F.C. seasons. There's a General subsection, and a specific subsection. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see. That looks fragmented/messy, though. I've just been browsing some (not all) featured episode lists and I can't see this format. 1 2 Is it a requirement in the MOS, and if so where is this requirement articulated? Going off other articles, the Cornell and Evans refs could go above the reflist, or they could be within a L2 'Further reading' section.
  The big difference between the Man City article and this is that for the latter the books are dedicated to the subject, whereas here the subject only appears in Evans and Cornell for the pages cited. There is a logic in pointing readers to James and Baskcomb for Man City, but the rest of Evans and Cornell will not enhance understanding of Press Gang. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what "Cornell", or rather I might know what it is, but not that it is named that! Further reading links should only be used for those not actually used to reference statements in articles, but would work to enhance the information already there. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened_notes gives a good indication of how to implement what I said. The reason it's "General" and "Specific" in the Man City list is because it also uses a footnotes section. For this particular list though, either "General" and "Specific", or "Notes" and "Reference" could be used. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. Thanks, Matthew. I'm still not keen on it, but since it's in CS...

• Please get rid of those two episode guide links in the references. If there is no official website, then you might be able to get them through under an External links section… Done No comprehensive official site.
• … which also needs adding, along with a "See also" section, if anything to include in those sections is available.

• I'm not sure what could go in here? All relevant articles are linked within the list. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe a link to ITV's CITV website as well, and in the see also sections, wikilink to the Press Gang article, CITV, and character list article, if there is one.

• Could do a Wikilink to the PG article: it'd be rather redundant considering it's in the first line, but if it keeps the MOS happy. No character list article. A link to CITV's website would be superfluous as there offers no further information on the subject of this article. It's practically a different service now anyway to when PG was aired. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Done anyway, though I think it's pointless! The JPS^{talk to me} 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Matthew. I think I've addressed all of your concerns now. Thanks for your helpful feedback, and if you have anymore suggestions on how to improve the list, let fire... The JPS^{talk to me} 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Good list. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Approve, the list is clear, complete, has a nice intro, and good references. I don't like the "See also" either, but it is MOS... One minor thing: you might link to IMDB? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Avoid links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • No images you could use?
  • First para is a collection of short sentences and doesn't really make for decent prose.
  • "between 2004–6" - not nice, prefer 2004 and 2006.
  • Don't merge the cells with the number of discs, just have a row for each series.
  • "weren't" - not for featured content, avoid contractions - so "were not".
  • "'pings'..." - why the ellipsis to finish the synopsis?
  • "it has even happened!" - not encyclopaedic!!
  • "a giant pink rabbit!" - again... got to avoid this kind of thing.
  • "that he didn't do it," - did not.
  • " on a nervous Sarah - who is about" - why the hyphen?
  • "has big plans for him - whether Kenny likes it or not" - again, not sure why there's a hyphen here.
  • "who hasn't" - has not.
  • Some synopses seem to be split into two paragraphs, which I don't think is absolutely necessary since the synopses are so short anyway.
  • "43-nil," - "43–nil"
  • Page ranges in the references need to use en-dash to separate them.
  • Don't think you need the See also section at all.
• That's it from me, sorry for the delay in the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have done most, except:

• Images. It is temptingly easy to upload a DVD cover, or use one of the images from the parent article. I've given some consideration at many points during the article's genesis about this and concluded that it would fail our non-free criteria #8 by being there for decorative purposes. I don't feel it an image would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."
  As featured content on a free-encyclopedia, non-free images should have a watertight rationale, and I'm struggling to honestly defend one.
• I've combined most of the paragraphs in the synopsis. I have retained logical breaks to separate a synopsis and any production information.
• See also. I agree with you, but I'm sure you've seen the above comments. Argue amongst yourselves about this one.

The JPS^{talk to me} 12:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see anything in the MOS which mandates the use of a See also section. I was aware of the issues with fair use, I wondered if there was a free image at either Commons or Flickr you could use but I've had a quick look and can't find anything so never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, lost 'See also section. General consensus seems to be that's it's redundant. If Matthew and EdgeNavidad still think it's essential, I'll put it back in. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my concerns have been addressed. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2008 (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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

---

Manchester City F.C. seasons

• previous nom

This list was the subject of a failed nomination last year. Since then, a number of similar lists have become featured, and thanks to a peer review it should now be of the same standard. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comment

• I don't know much about football, and nothing about Man City, so whatever is in the list is fine by me. The lead looks good too, so no issues there.
• My main issues are with the references:
  • Because it's easier to do than to explain, I messed around with the references and footnotes sections a little bit, as what were listed under footnotes were actually a mixture of footnotes and references…
  • …This also means that what is now listed under footnotes can actually be referenced in the normal way.
  • I'm a little concerned that there are only 4 references. Two of them are websites and each page should be referenced specifically, rather than the general main page as it currently is.
  • Is [3] a WP:reliable source? It should also use as many fields as possible from {{cite web}}.

That's it for now -- Matthew

Support

Resolved comments from Peanut4

• A few comments
  • Perhaps central align the Europe / other competition names.
  • I'd also abbreviate Winner to W, and Runner-up to RU, particularly to narrow the other column.
  • Can you manage to create even stubs for the red-linked top scorers?
  • Possibly wikilink to the individual FA Cup and League Cup years that currently exist.
  • Other such entries, have gold and silver for winning and runner-ups.
  • Maybe change the key to columns for ease of reading, again per other such seasons articles.
  • 1899-00 and 1999-00 possibly ought to be 1899-1900 and 1999-2000.
• Only minor things really. And I can't see anything else. Peanut4 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 1, 6 and 7 done. I think Winners provides more clarity than W, so I'm reluctant to alter that.
  • I should have an article for Johnny Williamson done either during this FLC or soon after, but for the other 6 redlinks I have no substantial biographical information - all I have is the snippets of information in my sandbox.
  • I'm not keen on the idea of linking to every cup season, I think that would be overdoing it.
  • The gold and silver have always seemed too high contrast to me, and poor from an accessibility point of view. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good now. Everything I suggested has either been addressed or a good argument made against it. The only thing I woul suggest is trying to narrow the list, but it's not an objectionable comment. Peanut4 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good list! Some small minor issues that are already mentioned above, but after these are solved I approve the nomination. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Struway2

Comment

• Not sure why the footnote system was changed. WP:CITE says specifically that "Many editors use "Notes" as their preferred title for the footnotes section, as the same section can then hold both source citations as well as general notes", so there's no policy argument against the original system used. That's by the by; the problem is that the current lettered notes don't work. If I click on superscript-letter A at the top of the Top scorer column, nothing happens, although clicking on the 'A' in the notes section does take me back to the top of the Top scorer column.
  • Update on above. It does work using IE6 but not with Firefox 2.0. Struway2 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I wonder if anything can be done about the relative column widths. As it stands (for me, 1024px screen, can't go any wider or I can't read the print), any scorer with a name longer than very short is wrapping to two lines (Derek Kevan and Hugh Morris both wrap, for instance), and consequently where there are joint leading scorers, that table row occupies four display lines.
• While I agree the gold and silver are gaudy, and when used over the whole Competition column (as in some of the earlier FLs of this type) can look like an accident in a paint shop, but I wonder if you'd explain why they're poor from an accessibility viewpoint? Do you mean purely visually, or for access from other devices, for instance?

that's all for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong preference on the footnote issue (it wasn't me who changed it). This box is running a pre-2.0 version of Firefox, on which it works OK, but if it causes problems that edit is perhaps best undone. Readability and width is a difficult balance. I've tried changing Runners-up to RU, maybe it will help, maybe it won't; it seemed to work when I tested it by setting my window to a width which resulted in the behaviour you describe. Re accessibility, I was speaking in terms of the tread with caution approach advised by Wikipedia:Colours. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Further update on footnote system. There was, and presumably still is, a known problem where popups conflicts with the ref label/note label system (see here and further down that page here); if I disable popups the refs work OK. Though that talk page does mention problems with Mozilla browsers unrelated to popups use.

Changing Runners-up to RU is a definite improvement re wrapping. You could always bold the RU to make it stand out a bit from other rounds beginning with R.

Colours is an interesting one. For me personally, the silver is problematic. I can't pick out normal-weight wikilink-blue clearly on a silver background, and on BCFC seasons I didn't use the gold and silver in the league position column, as has been done on other lists, because I can't see the silver as significantly different from the colour denoting relegation.

(un-indenting for more odds and ends)

• I've taken out one level of bullet-pointing in the key, think it looks neater. Though please feel free to revert if you disagree.
• You could add a note to the 1992-93 season to mention the divisions being renamed on the formation of the Prem.
• Some of these lists have the top scorer bolded when he was also top scorer in his division, and a note as to how many goals that was.
• You may (not) want to add a note against 1998 mentioning relegation to the third tier for the first time.
• In footnote K, wikilink play-offs. Also some of these lists add a bit of detail (opponents, score, that sort of thing).
• The Footnotes section might look better in smaller font.
• Consider changing the row after 1939-40 which says "No competitive football was played between 1939 and 1946" to something like "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War", on the basis the early rounds of the 1945-46 FA Cup were played in 1945.

That's all I can think of for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done most of these. The prose already mentions that only one season has been spent in the third tier, so I haven't added a footnote. Bolding divisional top scorers could potentially cause confusion IMHO, as the figures are for all competitions, not just the league. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• One last question, we hope. Your note A doesn't mention including goals scored in minor competitions (Anglo-Scottish-Italian-Texaco whatever your lot were in) whereas the table does mention the rounds reached in same. Are these goals really excluded, or have the minor competitions just been omitted from the note? Struway2 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the note is correct, but I am away from my books over the Easter weekend. Perhaps they should be included for consistency. I'll check it out in full when I next have my books with me. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support assuming you sort out the above. The list follows the general pattern of other featured lists of this type; the nominator adequately justifies those differences of approach which do exist. It satisfies the timeline criterion, is well-referenced and annotated, stable and complete, and has an appropriate free-use image. Well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to address the issue people are having with the references, previously the footnotes and references were a mixed jumble, and they should be separated, see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. It also allows the footnotes to be referenced, previously they couldn't be. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't reference [4] be a footnote? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I replaced a hyphen with an en dash but beyond that, nothing else to moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2008 (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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

---

European Golden Shoe

Self-nomination I feel this list is capable of becoming a featured list, it has gone through a peer review, where issues were addressed, it has come a long way since I first stumbled across it. I await the communities judgement. Thanks in advance for your time NapHit (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Issues

• In the lead, "Cyprus FA"; either Football Association (or the native equivalent), and a wikilink is needed.
• Could you explain what Serie A is, in the lead, for those who don't know.

done

• What does "relative strength" mean? Is it to do with the number of teams in the league, something FIFA set, or $omething el$e? And so why does Serie A have a higher weighting than the Welsh League?

done

• The first table, 68-91. The notes column needs not be sorted, but most of all, it needs notes!
• The sorting is messed up in the first table regarding Hristo Stoichkov's row, and Hugo Sánchez' row.
• Shouldn't all the teams' full names include FC, AFC, CF, etc?
• Similarly for the league. Fußball-Bundesliga, etc. Though I could deal with changing "A PFG" to "Bulgarian A PFG" for spacing reasons.
• It isn't clear which country the leagues are from. Perhaps some flagicons or something or other
• 91-96 needs refs in the notes column, which needs unsorting.
• Again, it's unclear which country "Umaglesi Liga" is in, so flagicons or other is needed, not just for this, but the entire table for consistency.
• In the third table, unwikilink the dates, unsort the references column, and add references.

The dates should remain wikilinked as they relate to the relevnt season NapHit (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why isn't every other season wikilinked, from 67-68 to 95-96, and 97-98 and 04-05? Right now it's inconsistent. And the link points to that of the winning league's season. Surely the team's season would be better, or even something like "2005 to 2006 in European football". -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• How does UEFA reach its decision on the ranking in the coefficient list? Are there any websites that show each list, also?

Question

• Should this be renamed "European Golden Boot winners"? There's probably enough information floating around on the internet, and in print, to be able to create an article all about the award itself, though that's not a must-be-done kind of thing.

So a few issues to resolve, and until each winner is referenced, I'm going to oppose for right now. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Ok I think I have addressed all the issues you rose particularly regarding the citations. The reason I am opposed to a move to renaming the list is because there really is little information to warrant its own article, there really is very little info on the web, but if consensus determines it then so be it NapHit (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My argument to that would be that if there is very little information on the subject, it would not be WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia standards, which means this list of winners would also not be notable, no? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll have to disagree seeing as this is a prestigious award to receive, there are sources, but they mainly list the winners, but do not document the trophy and its history particularly well, maybe there are sources in books but there is not much info in my books. It is definitely notable, its just that if this was moved, the information available would constitute a a stub to be created NapHit (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of stubs have been turned into Featured Articles. And just because you don't have the books, does that mean they don't exist? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Support though I would still like to see it renamed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Probably agree Matthew, it's a list of the winners so consider a rename.
• "award that is awarded to" - clumsy
• As per the PR, the sorting needs, well, sorting - it'll be the rowspan I guess.
• "dtermined"?
• Serie A linked twice in the lead, not needed.
• The references seem incomplete - are these nine references sufficient to provide citation of all 39 winners?

So I can't support at the moment since there are significant formatting and citation problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok TRM cheers for the comments, I think I have addressed all the issues, except for renaming which I think is unnecessary given the little information available on the subject NapHit (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my issues resolved, good work NapHit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment All of the entries in the first table use the same reference, so the ref column should be removed, and the ref itself should be added as a general ref at the bottom, like here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the ref to the bottom of the page using the general and specific headings NapHit (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Struway2

• Comment
  • Should it be called Golden Shoe rather than Boot, as this is what UEFA (your note 11) and European Sports Magazines (your note 9) call it nowadays? The BBC reference for Phillips (your note 7) refers to "the prize, formerly known as the Golden Boot".
  • It would be helpful if the table clarified what country the leagues are in (A PFG doesn't really mean much, for instance).
  • Notes columns shouldn't be sortable.
  • First three entries in winners from 1996 table need notes.
  • You have goalscorer hyphenated (in the intro to the first table) which for consistency should be one unhyphenated word. Top-scorer should be two separate words.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with all your comments Struway, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support I've copyedited the lead, please feel free to revert any changes you don't like, and added dates to several of your citations (references to news reports should always include the publication date, where this is available). The one thing you do need to do is highlight the seasons where there are joint winners. Presumably you've got them in separate rows for the sorting (?), but they need to show up somehow. Perhaps a note attached to the season year, perhaps colour the season year cell as well (not too bright, though, see WP:Colours), but for accessibility you couldn't have just colouring. Once that's done I'll be happy to support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Perhaps it would be better renamed List of ... winners, but as writing an article on this topic would come a long way down my list of priorities, I'm not going to push for it. The nominator has improved this list quite significantly following suggestions at this FLC. The list satisfies the criteria; it is stable and complete, is well-referenced and informative, and has an appropriate free-use image. Good work. Struway2 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- The main image of the article has apparently been deleted, is there another one available? Also IMO, the lead needs a little bit more sourcing. TrUCo-X 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've replaced the deleted image with one of Gerd Mullër, and I've added some more refs as well. NapHit (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok the image is good. But the refs you have put in, do they source the entire paragraph? Like I see 1 ref per paragraph, so they source the entire paragraph, am I correct?TrUCo-X 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do NapHit (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well after those fixes and per the list meeting FL criteria, I Support this FLC.--TrUCo-X 16:40, 22 March 2008 (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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford

Self nomination - I am nominating this list as it is clear and concise with full references. Similar to the featured lists of List of tallest buildings and structures in London and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester (I was involved with the latter) and brings useful information with links to the notable buildings and statistics for the ones not notable enough for an article. Not as "sexy" as the lists for some of the global cities, but informative non-the-less. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Nice work so far. I've made a couple of minor citation placement edits, but have a couple of comments...
  • Temperature difference, is Salford 8 degrees colder or warmer?
  • "... the "major" ..." - why in quotations? Is this even necessary?
  • "In contrast to the vast majority of Manchester's tallest buildings, Salford's high-rises were constructed in the 1960s and 70s as part of a regeneration project to alleviate chronic social deprivation and urban decay. Some of the early high-rise buildings have subsequently been demolished themselves, as they provided unsatisfactory accommodation for families and generated as many social problems as they were meant to alleviate. Others have become accommodation for students at the University of Salford." - all uncited.
  • Should "Built" in the first table be "Completed"?
  • Date ranges in Timeline section should be separated with the en dash.
• Otherwise a very good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: OK, I think I've addressed some of these. I've removed the quotation marks around major, fixed the en dashes and tightened up the citation. I'm not sure if the temperature is warmer or colder - the source doesn't make it explicit. On one hand one would expect it to be warmer in central Salford because of urban warming, however, rainfall (here at least) is associated with a fall in temperature. On completed vs. built, I've used built per the existing FLs of Manchester and London. Do you think it is objectionable? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to reply Hey Jza84, not objectionable at all, just curious - may be worth finding out though. As for the completed/built, it's probably worth re-iterating that the date in the tables is the completion date in the relevant section otherwise you'd have to remember that you said it in the lead. Let me know if you'd like another review... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - good work, great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - look at my comment down. MOJSKA 666 (msg)

• Comment sorry to ask Mojska666 but what do you mean "much long incipit"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm also unsure what this means, or how it helps. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • On reflection, I think this means the lead is too long, which it isn't as it's compliant with WP:LEAD and inline with other FLs. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Now it's OK, the long incipit now is a normal incipit (the its last part is in the headlines history or buildings). Bye, MOJSKA 666 (msg) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I undid the edit; your sectioning meant that certain paragraphs lost context and meaning, and were also in breach of WP:LEAD. A "normal incipit" is permitted to be four paragraphs long, this is three. Please be mindful this is a list not an article. See also, List of tallest buildings and structures in London and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry, Mojska, but your comments are a little difficult to decipher. Please help us understand what it is you object to. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Majoska, your oppose is not based on any form of Wikipedia policy and seems to be based entirely on your own opinions. I hope the FLC closer will take note. _L^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I'd have to agree. Although I welcome feedback I think the changes desired here would breach the Manual of Style. Majoska seems to be quite new to the English Wiki however and don't want to bite (!) -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Comment(s) - Note to And-Rew and Jza84: my user-name isn't Majoska, it's Mojska! Are you blind ;-) For the article, 1) I don't like the timeline, here it's a mini-label, can we delete it? 2) manual of style, incipit... the readers don't read (all) the article if its text is all in an un-subdivised incipit. So, my oppose became a neutral. Don't talk, please, about this neutral, it's good because it isn't an oppose :-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Confession - This is a nicely done list, but my main reaction to the article is to ask "why should people be interested in a list of the tallest buildings in a city where the tallest building is only 88 m tall, and most of the tall buildings are ugly social housing"? The one element in the article that makes the list somewhat interesting is the item about the university professor who suggested that the multitude of high-rise blocks in Salford have caused an increase of drizzly weather in Manchester. Is that theory widely credited? Has it been published more widely than the two 2002 news articles cited? If yes, perhaps this info should be featured in the first paragraph, as a bit of a "hook". --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I understand and respect your first point. I agree the content is a little banal (and made this clear in the opening statement of the nomination), but I do think it's notable and informative. Certainly the list is better than existing articles, like List of tallest buildings in Glasgow (tallest at 90 m) and List of tallest buildings in Leeds (tallest at 110). Salford is set to have a 160 m building which I believe makes it even more notable. Of course we can only present the facts as they are, but I think the list is more telling of the state of the city than first appears. It also helps deferentiate the buildings that are not in neighbouring Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm... I'd like to see the lead revised to more effectively explain why tall buildings in Salford qualify as a notable topic. Clearly, Salford is becoming a concentrated area of tall buildings. The plan for a 160-m building is part of that story that needs to be highlighted better in the lead. Perhaps some of the detail could be trimmed from the lead. The following is an example of some text that is important but seems overly detailed for the article lead: "The City of Salford is a local government district of Greater Manchester, with the status of a city and metropolitan borough ... named after its largest settlement, Salford, where the city's largest buildings and structures lie, but covers a far larger area which includes the towns of Swinton, Walkden and Eccles". --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the lead is strong as it is. It clearly describes the subject which is what a lead is supposed to do. What you describe as being overly detailed is valuable information as the subject is the City of Salford rather than Salford and that requires clarification for the reader. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's the list's fault that the city of Salford is... different, compared to those cities already featured in FLs. This list is still well written and presented, meets all the criteria, and is well referenced. Support. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't the tallest building in the city at least have its own article? Surely it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, the entries for the Salford Cathedral in the Tallest structures and Timeline sections should be identical. One states that its use is a "church spire", the other a "church", and the entry titles are different. These should be standardized. -- Rai-me 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Meets all the criteria as far as I can tell. I don't mind that it is about a rather banal subject. I added in a bunched image fix but that was all I could see. Good work. Woody (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment In the column "Notes", links to references for the height and other statistics are found. Are they not better placed as references next to the height itself (88^[1][2]) instead? And I checked the source in the article for the height of the North Tower, and it was given 80 meter, not 88 meter. 80 meter is close to 262 feet. Because already the first number is wrong, I would advise to check all the other numbers also. -EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for spotting this. It should've read "80" not "88" and I've fixed this. On your point on the reference column I'd have to disagree - this was actioned based on feedback for other simillar lists. Also, the reference is for building name, use and date, not just the height. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that I try to visualize my reference solution, I think my solution looks even worse than the current situation :S. Just keep it this way :)--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per 1a. Only a few of the buildings have articles, and I'm not entirely sure that a list of buildings where the tallest building wouldn't make the Top 10 of the List of tallest buildings in Tulsa is a "topic of significant study". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for this feedback. Are you proposing this list be deleted? It seems to meet 1a: "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". That the buildings are not tall by global standards, these are ranked on several external skyscraper sources, and have a regional notability. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure it does that though. 1a3 is around to excuse things like timelines, lists of statistics, episodes, etc. In this case, if the buildings have notability, then they should have their own page. If you created pages for most of the taller buildings, then I would consider my concerns addressed, but otherwise, I don't think it meets all of the criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can't seriously compare the United States with the United Kingdom? Here our buildings are generally smaller because we are not obsessed with height and usually prefer style. Per your comments about 1a, Criteria 1(a)3..."contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". Most of the buildings are simply residential apartment towers which have no notable features for an article. Obviously they can't be missed out from this list so they are added with no linked article but full statistical information. I do think the North Tower needs an article though. The topic is very significant especially if you look at the towers which are being built and will become some of the tallest in the UK. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not comparing the United States and the UK. I'm comparing the buildings of Tulsa and Salford. Okay, a better example: why is a list of buildings where the tallest doesn't even make the List of tallest structures in the United Kingdom notable enough to be considered a "topic of significant study"?
• If the buildings "have no notable features for an article" why can't they be mentioned in the article for Salford? If they are just residential buildings, why should they be mentioned at all? In fact, if Salford is part of Greater Manchester, why can't this list and the list of tallest buildings in Manchester be merged to create a list of tallest buildings in Greater Manchester? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• You are comparing Tulsa (United States) and Salford (United Kingdom) our buildings are smaller, that is just a fact. The list of tallest structures in the UK is dominated by television masts and List of tallest buildings in Glasgow and List of tallest buildings in Leeds do not feature on that list either. They have no notable features because many of them are social housing towers and they can't just be missed off the list because of that. Not all of them are residential. It would be too unusual to have a list of tallest buildings in Greater Manchester because there are no other lists which are based on counties, only on cities. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Manchester and Salford enjoy the distinction of having City status in the United Kingdom. Greater Manchester's 8 other boroughs do not, and in that capacity do not seem to have their buildings reported on. Simillarly, your talking about the highest density housing estate in Europe, and a major factor in the recent history of the locality ([4]). Salford's high rise buildings are some of the largest and most dense in the UK, higher than Leeds or Glasgow. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neither the Glasgow or the Leeds lists are FLCs. If they are nominated, then they can be debated over. I still don't see why a list of residential buildings under 100 m tall in a mid sized city could be considered a topic of significant interest. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• With respect, this doesn't seem to be constructive feedback, and seems to be subjective. At what point are buildings of worth? Indeed, I could argue that a list of buildings under 101 m tall in a mid-to-large city isn't notable. The content is defined by statutory boundaries, reported on in third party sources and include a number of factoids related to the locality. The list is not of residential buildings; it includes entries such as the neo-gothic Salford Cathedral (the centre of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford), British Broadcasting Company HQ mediacity:uk, architectually acclaimed The Lowry, the Canopus Towers which will be just shy of the tallest residential building in Europe. We could omit the ugly, but most densely inhabited housing estate in Europe to airbrush the list, but that wouldn't be very neutral. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• The subject matter may well be uninteresting to some, even banal, but that is of no consequence. No list with 70+ references would last long at WP:MfD, so this list has a place here on Wikipedia. The question is whether the list meets the featured list criteria. To my mind it is a good example of Criteria 1(a)3..."contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". WP:GM is certainly capable of creating twenty or thirty sub-stubs (that's not a threat or a suggestion), but I think it's a bad idea. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - A great list I was involved in and it meets all criteria set for featured lists. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 04:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This list is very good about my home. Very thorough and looks nice. SalfordLad2008 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Struck because this FLC was the editors first edit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Unstruck because you do not have the right to start putting lines in peoples edits when you do not like them. I used to edit on my IP so this is not my first edit so please leave me alone. SalfordLad2008 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)****I hate to break it to you, but I do a lot of the FLC closures around here. We don't count first edits or IP edits because of WP:SOCK concerns. I'm not saying that is what is going on, but we have to be consistant. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • • I hope you do not close this list because you must have a grudge against my city to do a strong oppose to this lovely list. And stop wp:bite biting me and being horrible because I wanted to help but now you are calling me a liar. SalfordLad2008 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Checkuser evidence has confirmed SalfordLad2008 as a sockpuppet of Joshii. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
            •  Confirmed - I was asked to run a check as I'd seen strong evidence of sock-puppetry and votestacking on here - Alison ^❤ 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I can only apologise for him as a member of WP:GM. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I am not really sure about this being a "topic of significant study", but I do have three other concerns. I find it hard to believe that even the tallest building in this city is not notable enough to have its own article. An article for the North Tower needs to be created. Also, the entries for the "Salford Cathedral spire" in the tallest structures section and the "Salford Cathedral" in the timeline section should be standardized (keep or remove "spire", but make it consistent for both entries). Also, it is important to note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Question regarding criteria 1a1 and 1a3 to determine if lists that include both linked articles and members which are not sufficiently notable to have their own articles (such as this one), meet FL criteria. Cheers, Rai-me 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I've fixed the "spire" issue. Do you really think the North Tower needs to be created as means towards achieving FL? This doesn't seem to be part of the criteria. As stated by Mr Stephen, someone is more than capable of creating a stub to satisfy reviewers but that the tallest building in Salford happens to be fairly non-descript means that it seems to be consensus (amongst WP:GM) that it does not really warrent an article. My concern is that if people (users that seem to be non-British) feel the content of the list is not "significant" enough to acheive FL, ought we just delete this and not bother putting in all that work? What tier of success should a user be looking towards acheiving? Is there anything wrong with the formatting? I'm concerned that because the images show buildings in the unfashionable Brutalist style, users are turned off from the content. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I do think an article for the North Tower needs to be created. Criterion 1a3 states ...where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles, but the North Tower, as the tallest building in the city, is sufficiently notable. List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, for example, has 7 buildings shorter than the North Tower that are each sufficiently notable to have their own articles; see Liberty Towers. And the North Tower, as the city's tallest building, is just as, if not more notable than those buildings. As I stated before, I am unsure about this list's significance, so I wouldn't oppose based on that alone; however, I don't think it has to do with the fact that the buildings are brutalist-styled, but moreso that the entries on this list are so much less notable than those of List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, which itself was once tagged for notability issues (grant it, the tag was quickly removed). I certainly think that this list shouldn't be deleted, but I think "significant topic of study" means more than simply "sufficiently notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place". Again, though, I am undecided on this issue, and will not oppose based on this list being "insignificant". My main concern is the discussion going on at WP:WIAFL; the outcome of which will determine whether this list, and many other tallest building lists and FLs, even meet the criteria, as they seem to "straddle" criteria 1a1 and 1a3, which in some editors' eyes is unacceptable. Until then, this FLC and that of List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque above should be neither passed nor failed. Cheers, Rai-me 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am prepared to believe that this is a "set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles," but the article lead fails to establish that notability. The latter portions of the intro do contain tidbits of information related to notability, but to find those tidbits the reader must wade through details such as "The City of Salford is a local government district of Greater Manchester, with the status of a city and metropolitan borough" and "It is named after its largest settlement, Salford, where the city's largest buildings and structures lie, but covers a far larger area which includes the towns of Swinton, Walkden and Eccles." --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, please leave this with me and I'll rejig the lead per your concerns. The lead was based loosely on that of the List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester page, but doesn't seem to work effectively from this feedback. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes, this is true, the lead does seem to stray off-topic. Infomation not directly relating to the city's buildings needs to be removed. The discussion at WP:WIAFL is relating to whether a list can use the "set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles" criterion, and yet still have some members that have their own articles (as this one does - Peel House, Salford Cathedral, The Lowry, and Canopus Towers), since not all members are "not sufficiently notable to have their own articles". All input at that discussion would be appreciated, as that talk page does not seem to get a whole lot of traffic. Cheers, Rai-me 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Does this address your concerns at all? Any other feedback on the lead would be appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• That helped a lot. Additionally, I switched the order of two paragraphs. I think the intro needs a little more cleanup, but (for me) the notability issue is fixed. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, on reflection, the swapping of paragraphs seems to work here. If you (or anybody else) have any other pointers of improving the article, feel free to share. I'm passionate to make this list great and will take on board any feedback.... I may even create a North Tower article (<- that's a redirect to an article on the World Trade Center). --Jza84 |  Talk  13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes the lead is now much better. My main remaining concern is that a North Tower (Salford) needs to be created. And, of course, the discussion at WP:WIAFL will hopefully decide whether or not a list like this one with some links and some non-links still meets the crieria. Cheers, Rai-me 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This is a well-crafted list, and the article lead now clearly communicates why this collection of buildings is notable. I do not share Raime's view about the need for an article about the North Tower because I don't see any notability in that building, as pictured in the article and described in this source. AFAICT, that is the only "work" devoted to this building, and it is neither architecturally nor historically interesting. Being 5 m taller than the next tallest building in Salford is not much of a claim to fame. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I couldn't disagree more. Being the tallest structure in a city for over 40 years is certainly a claim to fame. Its city rank alone makes this building significant. -- Rai-me 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If you feel strongly that this building is notable, perhaps you are the best person to draft an article about it. Either you will succeed at writing a worthwhile article, or you will conclude that the building is not individually notable. I see the building as non-notable: The building is inherently nondescript; its use (as a chain hotel) is nondescript; it's just a little bit taller and a little bit older than several other buildings in the article; and I have yet to see any independent works written about it. --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm pleased to say that I have been proven wrong. Mr Stephen has written a nice article about North Tower (Salford). Wow! --Orlady (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's actually a not bad little article. Anyway, consider this article promoted. I'll do the actual promotion in about an hour. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:06, 22 March 2008 (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 16:52, 20 March 2008.

---

Slayer discography

Self nomination I am nominating this list for FLC because I have been worning on it in the last couple of days and it meets all criteria. I don't care for the band's music very much but they are certainly interesting. I retrieved sources for chart positions from 12 different coutries. All comments are welcome. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks pretty good overall. I have a few suggestions:

• "Chart positions" is too vague, it should be "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions" or something like that.
• It would be nice to see the "Album details" columns in the all of the appropriate tables to be the same width.
  • I tried. Everything is set to a width of 300 except the studio albums, that is at 10000 but I tried 20000 but it was exactly the same. They are a bit bigger but it seems they aren't getting any bigger than this. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2000px might be a little overkill. I switched everything to 275px. How does that look to you? Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Did none of the singles chart anywhere?!
  • Nope. This is the first time I've encountered that also. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd recommend adding some letters to the Catalog numbers. For instance Reign in Blood should probably be (DJ #924131 2) or whatever Def Jam usually uses. It would make the numbers a little clearer.
• Later appears on re-release of Show No Mercy". What's with the errant quotation mark?
• In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida should be wikilinked.
• The publisher values of the in-line ciations should avoid .com/.net whatever at the end if it has a proper name w/o the .com, and should also be wikilinked wherever appropriate. For instance "Allmusicguide.com" should be "All Music Guide", "Blabbermouth.net" should be Blabbermouth.net, etc.
• An external link to Discogs would be good.Drewcifer (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• One last suggestion: the 2nd paragraph of the lead is ginormous. I'd recommend splitting it up into two paragraphs. Also, the lead does not currently summarize the article very well: it ommits even a mention of music videos, video releases, and B-sides. Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Split para and addedmentions of b side and what not. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Slayer's singles didn't chart anywhere. Maybe you can put that somewhere above the table? Looking at the article the way it is now, I suspected the information was simply missing.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppose I could do that.
• Does the tribute album really need a separate category? According to the Undisputed Attitude article, there are also three original songs on it, so in my opinion it fits in the Studio Album category.
  • It is still a cover album, so no.
    • A cover album recorded in a Studio, so yes. Please give more arguments than this... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think Studio album implies the major release by the band; into which a lot of marketing etc is put into. Another consideration is that the itself probably doesn't consider this album as a major release; hence its under tribute album. indopug (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why are the b-sides listed seperately? Don't they fit nicely as a column in the singles list?
  • Nope.

You know, this has always bothered me too with other discographes. Why all the emphasis on B-sides? It's basically stating the track-listing of the single. We tend to discourage putting an entire album's track listing on a discog, so why do the same for a single but in a different table? I guess the notes are somewhat interesting, ie "B-Side X was re-released on Album Y", but I'm not really sure if that's all that informative. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the way it's done on U2 discography. Also on The Beatles discography, the B-sides are next to the singles. The Rolling Stones discography also does this. On the Metallica discography, b-sides are not mentioned, and (in another genre) Britney Spears discography also does not list b-sides. The Offspring discography does give a list named "B-sides", but it looks like the person that made that list does not know what a b-side is, as only 2 of the 5 songs are b-sides, and a lot of real b-sides are not on that list.

The first featured discographies (in alphabetical order):

Don't list B-sides: 50 Cent discography, Aesop Rock discography, The Corrs discography, Godsmack discography, Gwen Stefani discography, Hilary Duff discography

List B-sides separately: Alice in Chains discography, Billie Piper discography, The Breeders discography, Dave Gahan discography, Deftones discography, Feeder discography, Depeche Mode discography, Goldfrapp discography, James Blunt discography

Some do it, some don't. In the second category, some mention all songs on a b-side, some mention only b-sides that were not on any album. Personally, I would choose between A. putting the b-sides next to the corresponding a-sides in the single table, or B. remove the b-sides table and add a "miscelaneous" table where you put the b-sides that were not on any album (together with other "rare" songs). It's time for some wikipedia standards! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Take a look at The Make-Up discography. This is how I approached the problem, and I (obviously) like it. Drewcifer (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So what am I doing? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the two options Edge and I seem to agree on are to either incorporate it into the singles table or remove it completely. Drewcifer (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. There aren't any notable or important songs anyway. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from indopug

• Comment -

• Could you make that certification column into three sub-columns; for RIAA, BPI and CRIA? If the width of that table spills wide, then you can actually reduce all the album details columns' widths a little bit more; or even remove that Norway chart (there is only one album that charted there).
  • Norway should be kept for completion. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• What about b-sides of other singles?
  • No others. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Are you sure that NYTimes ref doesn't have a link too?
  • Sorry, but no. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why is the music video column so wide; keep the first column of the singles, b-sides, miscellaneous, and music video tables of the same width.
  • (See message below)
• For ""—" denotes releases that did not chart.", could you look at the way its presented in Depeche Mode discography? Me thinks is way neater that way.
  • That looks pretty nifty. :) —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is looking very good; I'll do a ce of the lead myself within a couple of days and support. (So much better when we aren't on opposing sides of an FAC, don't you think? :)) indopug (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I got most of it done. The column widths are a real pain. For some reason they just aren't spilling wide. I can't figure it out. Thanks for the ce. I think by now you know grammer is my weak spot. You are 100% right, discogs are so much easier than articles. :P —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth os up with the live albums' Year column?!indopug (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Year column of the Live Albums table is really wide.

• Comment:

• "The band started to play locally, attracting the attention of Brian Slagel, who signed the band to Metal Blade Records.[2]" - is this sentence necessary at all? It adds nothing really important but just complicates matters by adding an additional name. That the band was signed will be evident from the next sentence any way. I've removed it.
• Not sure about what's been done to the B-sides; I'd recommend not doing it for AiC discog too because consensus was reached there.
• Did a CE; due to the large number of albums, I thought it would be best if it were all in ALBUM (YEAR) format in the lead. What do you think?

indopug (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweet thanks. It all looks great. Much appreciated. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

aaaaand.... Support indopug (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• OMG-No-B-Sides-Support - some minor things; in the lead, fix things like "and Hell Awaits(1985)" (needs space). Also, the singles haven't charted anywhere? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Somebody fixed that. Nope, no charted singles. They are the biggest underground band in the world. If that makes sense. Thanks to everyone who participated. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 18:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are four supports without a comment in three days, eight days in. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ten days and four supports. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:34, 19 March 2008 (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 16:52, 20 March 2008.

---

Timeline of Jane Austen

Co-nomination by Simmaren and Awadewit

The first in a series of articles about Jane Austen that we are working on, this timeline is modeled on Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft. It has gone through peer reviews here and here. We believe that it meets the featured list criteria and look forward to the further improvements that this process will bring. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support An excellent and well researched resource for anyone studying her life. It is a shame the family tree isn't readable as-is. A combination of two things might help make that work: increase the size to 350 and replace with an SVG where the font is carefully chosen for readability at small size. User:Fvasconcellos knows a thing or two about SVG diagrams, so you could ask him. The table column headings might benefit from highlighting e.g., with a light-grey background. They get a bit lost among the white otherwise. Oh, and I still think the pics should have alt-text (for tooltips) like "Steventon church" or "Samuel Johnson circa 1772, painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds." I'm nit-picking... Colin°^Talk 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've increased the size of the family trees. See what you think.
• I've left a note with User:Fvasconcellos but it may be a while before s/he can help us as s/he has just moved.

• This is done now. Awadewit | talk 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• On my screen, the column headings look like they already have light-grey shading. Should the color be changed to a darker grey?
• Could you leave a message on my talk page explaining how to do the alt-text? Thanks! Awadewit | talk 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question/Comment

• If it's placing the life and works of Austin against those of other authors, politics and what-not, why are there entries for 1769, '70, '72, '76, '78, '80, and '81?

• We included the lives of her family, as they were very important to her (see introduction to list). We decided to include works and political events from these early years because they would obviously have influenced her life and works, even though they happened before she was born or while she was young. For example, she was influenced by the sentimental writing of Sterne. Awadewit | talk 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some of the entries under "Literary History" for these early years represent known influences, e.g., the works of Samuel Johnson, Horace Walpole, and Laurence Sterne. The rest of the entries under "Literary History" and "Political History" for this period (as elsewhere) are intended to provide context for the reader as well as to suggest the milieu in which Austen was raised and lived. Because of the scarcity of biographical material concerning Austen, "likely influences" is a much broader category than "known influences." Simmaren (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• From the 1790s onwards, the column for Austen could do with being wider, as there is a lot of information being squeezed into this fairly narrow area.

• I thought it would look odd to have one column wider for part of the list and I'm not even sure how to do this. Do you know how? Let's see how it looks. Awadewit | talk 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, the information looks good. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well done, organized, and referenced. In the interest of full disclosure, I made the map for this Timeline. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - cc bm ao? MOJSKA 666 (msg) 08:22, 16 March 2008 (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 16:52, 20 March 2008.

---

List of Scottish football champions

The bare bones of this list was already present, but I've shown it some TLC and brought it up to what I think is FL standard, please let me know what you think......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "initially as an amateur league as professionalism in Scottish football was not legalised until 1893" → "initially as an amateur league until professionalism in Scottish football was legalised in 1893"
• Is there a way of sorting Dumbarton and Rangers separately?
• Same for Sandy McMahon and John Campbell, Robert Hamilton and William Michael, etc, as it currently sorts only by the first mentioned.
• "Hearts" should be given as "Heart of Midlothian", not their common name.
• Is there a better way of displaying the "Champions shown in bold also won the Scottish Cup that season; Champions shown in italics won the Scottish League Cup; Champions shown in bold italics won both cups" bit? Perhaps shading the cells?

That's it! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Many thanks for your comments, I believe I've now addressed them all. I don't know of a way to make the table sortable in such a way that it can sort two names in the same cell, and on reflection I'm not sure the sorting's really that important to a chronological list (the equivalent English list, an existing FL, doesn't use sortable tables after all.....), so I've taken it out...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm.. I'm not sure about the choice of Wikipedia:Colours. They're a little too contrasty. Otherwise, good work on responding to the comments. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I've changed the colours to something a bit less "acid trip" - what do you think now.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments Well, much better since the PR but still a number of easily resolvable (I should think...) red links for the top scorers... are you going to work on that? It's not a dealbreaker but just something that would improve the list to perfection... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get onto it :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all done :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - yay, all good, my concerns addressed both here and in the PR. Another Dude-tastic work of Wiki-pwnage... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment The doubles and trebles are now twice in the article. Redundant or not? I say yes. -EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you feel the entire section on doubles/trebles/quadruples need to be removed, or just the table within said section......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the table should certainly be removed. The text is interesting, maybe it can be placed somewhere else? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thinking about it I concur, and have merged a trimmed version of the text into the overview at the start - what do you think now........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it's great! You still give the same information, and it's easier to read. By the way: the reference for the top scorers is a Danish page, consider this rsssf page, it's in English.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Changed ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Satisfies timeline criterion, comprehensive, well-referenced and with appropriate free-use illustration. I thought it was close to FL standard at peer review and it's improved very significantly since arriving here. Also, I changed my mind about wanting the clubnames left-aligned, they look fine as they are. Couple of suggestions you may wish to consider.

• You took out a row for the Second World War period because it messed up the sorting. Now you've very sensibly made the tables unsortable, don't know whether you want to put it back in, or do you prefer the current footnoted version?
• In the Total titles won table, you have a column for total runners-up spots, but only for those clubs having been champions. Consider including those clubs which have been runners-up but haven't been champions? I think there are only 3.

well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Both points actioned as you suggest ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Fanastic list, well referenced well done NapHit (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (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 16:52, 20 March 2008.

---

BBC Young Musician of the Year

I've worked on this list extensively for the last week or so, and now - I honestly believe its ready for FLC. I've transformed it from its old condition to its current state and added citations and the like. I honestly believe it now meets the Featured list criteria. I will address any concerns raised as quickly as possible. Please note that this article is currently undergoing a peer review, and I will also keep an eye on that, but I have seeked extensive feedback on IRC to improve the article as well, so hopefully everything is in order. Thank you for your time, ~ Qst (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed issues by Scorpion0422 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A few comments: The list isn't that long, so I'd like to see the text doubled in length if that's possible. I've included as much as possible, hopefully this is to your satisfaction. Qst (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC) It would be nice if there were some external links like an official site. Done. Qst (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Have any of the runners-up/finalists done anything notable? If so, should they be mentioned somewhere? -- Scorpion0422 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Doing. Qst (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I will address these issues within the next few hours. I must note, however, that I believe the finalists are only listed for the 2006 competition, and there is no other information about them (apart from the name) - so I'll probably include them in the lead. Thanks, Qst (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I'm doing the list for 2006 finalists now, it will take me probably about half an hour. Qst (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, I've just found a massive directory on the BBC website which lists finalists for each year of the competition. Despite looking extensively before, I never found this list - so issue #03 by Scorpion0422 may take longer than expected to address than I had first believed. Qst (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Tomorrow is quite a busy day for me, but Sunderland06 and I will finish the tables off within the next few days. Qst (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Done. Qst (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done Comment I don't think it's necessary to have a "reference" column in a table when every row uses the same ref. -- Scorpion0422 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC) What other format could be put into place.  Sunderland06  05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Just put them at the bottom under the references column as a general ref, like what is done here. -- Scorpion0422 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I've got a different idea, how about this User:Sunderland06/Sandbox.  Sunderland06  06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) That would work too I suppose. -- Scorpion0422 06:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Implementing now.  Sunderland06  06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed issues from Matthewedwards (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments Done removed Is "(deceased)" necessary? Done "which this year, will be hosted at..." → "which will be hosted in 2008 at..." Done Please wikilink each instrument I don't think its necessary to link to the instruments/instrumental categories more than once on the finalists table. Matthew, you suggested this above, but linking more than once makes a list untidy. Personally, I don't think they need to be linked at all. I'd like some input on this matter from you, if you please. Qst (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I think the wikilinking is necessary, per WP:Context. If it wasn't for the instruments they played, they wouldn't have won. Anyways, I'm only one of a number of reviewers, and just because I think it should be one way, doesn't mean the majority does. You can wait and see what others think if you want. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Also wikilink each and every Place of Study, as the table is sortable I would prefer to see the article's title changed to "BBC Young Musician of the Year contestants" or "List of BBC Young Musician of the Year contestants" (or a different word instead of "contestants", "competitors" perhaps) because that's really what this is. That way, an article can be properly developed all about the BBC Young Musician of the Year. All the information about the competition is included in the lead and other prose, so there would be little point in doing this, but I'm open to discussion. Qst (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Are you okay for the article to stay under its current name...? If so, please ignore this comment, but if not, please note below. Thanks, Qst (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) If there is very little information that could be of use to create an article about the competition, and have this as a separate list, then it's probably better to leave it as it is. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Done Paul Richardson's name is messed up in the 1982 table Done Why is 1980's finalists table excluded? Done Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering, the past finalists should be listed earliest to latest. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues raised by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk). All have either been addressed, or explained and an agreement reached.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments - prose needs work first of all "is a televised competition, broadcast on BBC Two and BBC Four every two years and hosted by the British Broadcasting Corporation" - what kind of competition? Also needs commas for flow Done. Qst (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) The image isn't appropriate. Use an image that's directly related to the contest, if you have one. Removed. I'll see what I can do about other free images/fair use, although its likely that it will have to be fair use, as I searched extensively for a free image and the one I just removed was the only one with the most relevance to the list. Qst (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) You could crop this and just have the YM on the right, perhaps. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Done. Qst (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) "former members of the BBC Television's Music Department" --> "former members of the BBC Television Music Department" Done. Qst (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Is that all the information there is on the history of the competition? Yes, I was hoping for more originally, but having searched through the official website, Google and their book search, that is all I can find. So, unfortunately, I can't do anything about this concern. Qst (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Last sentence of lead is a parastub. Expand or merge into another paragraph. Done. Qst (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Now for the list itself... TOC should be enabled Done. Qst (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Is this a similar programme to things like Australian Idol? If so, I think you'd have more information for each person...how they went in the comp, dramaz, etc. Its not even near such a large scale of that. Its quite a low-key competition held every two years, it doesn't have bug televised auditions or anything. Hence, not much information is available about it, but I've included as much as possible. Qst (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Make the 5th column a bit wider so the header is on one line Done. Qst (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I don't see what benefit comes from making the tables sortable Done. Qst (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I'm thinking it'd be better to merge all the past finalists into some bigger tables. Not sure how though...any ideas? Also, Scorpion's referencing format (suggested above) is a lot better than the current one. Regarding the table, I think the format of the table here could be useful. Using the first column for the year, second for the recipient and the third for the instrument/category. Is that to your liking? Qst (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Referencing: Done. Table - Well, seeing as you said you didn't mind either way, I'll leave it; but if it is brought up again, then I'll reformat it. Qst (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I'm willing to do this, but it would mean inserting ~200 surnames in to Microsoft Excel for it to sort them, then basically redoing the full list. Like I said, I'm willing to this if necessary, but is it very important? Qst (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Meh...I don't mind particularly. Up to you. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC) How come there's more info on 2006 than on other years? That would be because this BBC webpage lists the most recent competition finalists in a lot more detail than the main directory lists ranging back to the late 1970s. Qst (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Aaah, OK. You might want to make a permaversion of that page, using webcitations.org etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC) In the refs section, all refs say "BBC" for publisher. Be consistent. Well, the first reference has says British Broadcasting Corporation, so I felt it would be okay to abbreviate it to BBC for the following references. Can you comment on this matter? Thanks. Qst (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC) You should make it clear (somewhere) that British Broadcasting Corporation == BBC. If you have already, than ignore this. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Done. Qst (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 2nd EL isn't necessary; that's the purpose of the list! Done. Qst (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Any relevant navboxes? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Done. Qst (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I'll work steadily on addressing these issues, as today is rather a busy day for me. Qst (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed or agreed issues raised by EdgeNavidad (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments Up to 2004, there were around 20-25 finalists. In 2006, there were 5. Change of format? Some explanation is required. There is nothing really to be explained. 2006 had fewer finalists than previous years. It wouldn't be a wise thing to insert in to the list, as it would have no reference and it just wouldn't look right. Qst (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, but it still looks strange to me. Because in 2006 the number of finalist is different, the performance is given, and notes are given, I get the impression that the 2006 final was different. (By the way: before yesterday I never even heard of this award, so I am no expert at all...) Maybe in the introduction, you can mention that "the number of finalists has varied from 5 in 2006 to ... in ...". If you have any idea about the number of persons in the regional auditions and all other stages, it would be nice to include them as well, to show the size of the competition. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Done. 17:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC) In the lists with finalists per year, consider making the winners boldfaced. Done, but instead of embolding them, I've added a light blue background colour, similar to other lists. Qst (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Even better! I see on the BBC page of the finalists, that each year also lists "class winners" for the different categories Brass, Strings, Keyboard, Woodwind and Percussion. This information can also be given in the list here with a different colour. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) The references to the winners all come from the same page (although from different places on that page), and the same with the references to the finalists. You can make things more clear by making them two references. Well, its clearer and more convenient to the reader if the reference for a certain year leads directly to that webpage. Qst (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I don't think it's clearer. It looks silly to me. And it is not really that much more convenient here, because the webpage is not that large. But if you honestly think it's more clear and convenient like this, keep it this way. One small thing though, try how the use of {{refbegin|2}} works out for you in this case, this makes the list two columns. I'll keep it as it is, as you said you don't mind. For those learning English as a second language or those who are not good with the internet, having just one link maybe confusing to them. But as you said it was okay, I'll leave it as it is. Cheers. Qst (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As there is an ongoing FLC discussion, the ongoing peer review should be archived. Also, I think that this list would look better with the TOC enabled, as opposed to disabled. Other than that it looks really good. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - as with at FAC and PR, please avoid using {{done}} at FLCs. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with Vergency (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
, an agreement has now been reached. There is hardly anything on the upcoming competition, due to be held in May [5]. There's lots of stuff about it on the web ([6], [7] etc) but this article seems to stop at 2006 - despite 2008 preparations being well under-way. I'll help work on it if you like - this is a topic of interest to me :) --Vergency (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Okay I added some info on 2008, but I've now noticed there's a level of detail on 2006 that isn't on any of the others (such as what they performed, where the final took place, and other general notes). I'd like a balance of the detail across all the years shown. --Vergency (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) And shouldn't all those people have linked articles? They are surely notable? --Vergency (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) They should not be linked, because they're red linked, and red links are almost always left unlinked if they're red on lists. The reason their is more info for 2006 is explained above in the issues by Dihydrogen monoxide. Sunderland2006 has kindly done the 2008 list, I'll make any necessary adjustments, then your issue will be fully addressed. Qst (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Is there not a version of that page in the Internet Archive that you could use for older years (at least back to 1998 is a possibility). I may have a look myself. --Vergency (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Also why did you change "finalists" to capitalised? And see the comment on the article talk page please. --Vergency (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment In the future, please do not strike, or box other users comments. Let them decide for themselves if their comments have been addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK. I left a comment on the talk page of most of the users whom I archived their comments, but it seems quite a common thing for the nominator to do for addressed concerns. Qst (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Huge improvement from this, meets the standards expected, overall good read. Impressive work! AGK § 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Address
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose until my concerns are fully addressed. --Vergency (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Most of your concerns have now been addressed. I just need to add a little more about the 2008 competition. I'm relucant to add information about the time it begins and the like, as that is irrelevant for an encyclopedia articles; but I'll see what other information I can find. Qst (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Ok, your issues have now been addressed. I've expanded the 2008 section. Qst (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC) They haven't been addressed. There is still no info on any of the other years. --Vergency (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I've already explained this to you. If you had taken the time to check above comments and webpages, you'd see their is no information available except for the mere list of finalists for years earlier than 2006. This is out of my hands. Qst (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC) See [8] for an example of an archived page. Lots of info on the 2004 competition. Just because you can't find it on the web doesn't mean it's non-existent. Without these details on older years, this article is incomplete and unbalanced, and should not represent Wikipedia's best work. --Vergency (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, I've added some of the non-trivial information about the 2004 competition, and had a look around for info on other years, and I can find nothing. I don't know, maybe its because I'm not too good with these web archives, either way - I hope you're satisfied with my additions. Thanks, and sorry for the late reply. Qst (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, I now support! --Vergency (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Permission obtained here to archive these comments and move the support to the bottom of the page where the other supports are. Qst (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. per WP:WIAFL, the image in the article infobox should have alt text (see #3 on the noted policy page). Not a showstopper, but should be addressed ffm 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for your input. Qst (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support now that my concern turns out to be undoable (alt text + infobox != a nonzero number), it is a great work. ffm 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Vergency (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (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 16:56, 20 March 2008.

---

List of official Halo series media

I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all the Featured List criteria. FightingStreet (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions:

• The language in the lead is generally a bit clumsy. I'd recommend a thorough copyedit.
• The column headers are generally a little vague. I'd recommend changing "Date" to "Release date" and "Media" to "Media type".
• The in-line citations need to be cleaned up a little bit. Namely, the wikilinking of publisher values are kind of all over the place. Only the first instance of a publisher should be wikilinked. Also, the publisher should ideally be provided with every source.
• There should probably be a separation between the lead and the table itself. ie a heading.
• I'm not really sure if the Bestiarum or the Conversations from the Universe booklets deserve their own entries.
• Lastly, an external links section would be good. Bungie's website would be an obvious choice. Drewcifer (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ALSO I disagree with some of the sentiments below, I think the In-universe column is great. I would not recommend removing it: it puts each piece into context as far as the greater story goes. It seems like a very useful addition to the table to anyone wanting to learn more about the series and its storyline. Drewcifer (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can understand that. I mainly oppose it because information like that is already available at Halo (series). Plus it can be mentioned in the "Description/Notes" section, and should describe things from an out-of-universe perspective. Like, "takes places after the first game", occurs before the third game". I'm mainly opposing the presentation of it, not specifically the inclusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

But the in-universe data being sortable is the whole point of it, in my mind. Like I said, it makes the article that much more useful to the reader wanting to learn more about the Halo series and its storyline. Drewcifer (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

True, there are people that come to Wikipedia to find that, but we have to cater to the general audience as a whole. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), articles "should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."

Admittedly, it is a cool idea and function, but it serves a purpose Wikipedia is not meant to serve. Also, the Halo series article is undergoing revisions to get it FA and should be able to convey the plot info better than this table could. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Fair enough: it's obvious there's different opinions on the matter, and this might be a debate better suited for the article's talk page or the Halo WikiProject. I would argue that we shouldn't hold that particular column against the FLC, and let involved editors figure it out on their own. Either way, as far as this FLC goes, the column isn't a deal breaker for me. Drewcifer (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the lead sentence should be: This is a list of official media related to the Halo series
• Explain what "machinima" and "Red vs. Blue" mean. A comma is also needed after "fan fiction"
• Description column shouldn't be sortable
• All of the "Media" column words should be wikilinked as the column is sortable.
• "external pages" and "see also" sections would be good
• At least one image is needed I think. Maybe of the first Halo game, or a poster of the upcoming film.. I'll leave it up to you.

That's all for now -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Though the list is informative and well sourced, I have a few issues I'd like to see addressed before supporting.

• My main issue is criteria 1(f) - "Well-constructed". Though it lists all the media related to the series, I think having everything in one sortable table makes the information difficult to interpret and navigate. I would use List of Kingdom Hearts media as an example and divide the info into four sections:
  1. Games
  2. Soundtracks
  3. Printed media
  4. Film
• I would also remove the "In-universe date" as that really doesn't provide any vital or notable information to the general reader. And information like where in the story content takes places in best included in the "Notes" section of the media.
• I also agree that an "External link" would be good.

This list is in pretty good shape, and once 1(f) is met, I'll be happy to support this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Support: All of my issues have been addressed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• Conditional Support- Yeah, it basically need restructuring and the elimination of the in-universe dates, there's really no need for that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support - As with Judge; I happen to like the in-universe dates, but to the general reader they won't be much help. Once the above issues are taken, I'll switch to full support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All my concerns have been addressed, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - The picture at the top of the page. I highly doubt that's a free image, because the taker has captured copyrighted and trademarked pieces of media. You cannot take a picture of the X-Box name and say it's free to use, Microsoft has a trademark on that name and logo. The same goes for Halo and its name and logo (specifically that Halo 3 logo that is on there), and I obviously don't need to mention Master Chief appearing in the image as well. This is the same reasoning why someone that personally captures a screenshot of a television show or movie cannot claim that screenshot as their won. The image might be yours, but everything inside the image is copyrighted, so you have no claim of that stuff. This isn't a huge deal beyond the copyright license needs to be fixed. I don't know the exact template to use, someone might want to speak with the people at WP:FU as to which one fits it best.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm no copyright expert, but I think this might be appropriate {{Non-free product cover}}. Some one more knowledgeable should probably chime in though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
    • That seems more appropriate. The only thing extra would be that I would use this template and then list all the different copyright owners (that's Microsoft and Bungee are the only ones that I can think of off hand) and the year those works were released. That should take care of the licensing issue, then you'd just have to put in a rationale for use, which shouldn't be hard just explain why it meets all 10 criteria for a non-free image. Here's an example of a scanned image of a toy box cover.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have replaced the image with one of the covers of the central 3 video games. It is a fair use image and quite high resolution which I can reduce if necessary although it is already reduced from the original photo. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that was a bit high. I reduced it down to 600x450px. Generally, these images are really down to 350px, so be aware that another editor might think it needs to be reduced further and put a "reduce fair use" template up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More comments: I was bold and reorganized the table into separate sections. It's all in one edit, so it can be undone if someone disagrees with it. My edit takes care of my original issues with the list. Although, another point came to my attention while editing the content. The Halo film, has a release date of 2008, but the notes state is "postponed indefinitely". Does anybody know which is correct? That and a few more extra sources here and there would be nice, but that's just me; I like to source things as much as possible. Because of these two minor issues, I feel that criteria 1(c), "Factually accurate", is not completely satisfied. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Comment: I believe the widths of all of the tables should be constant, and expand the entire length of the browser. Can someone fix this? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

• Support - Great list, comments and requests by other editors have been addressed. Hello32020 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - rename to simply List of Halo media? Current title is a bit clunky. That we have List of Kingdom Hearts media, etc. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, the "official" part is some what implied by the content of the list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
    • This point was raised before but not acted upon, there were no objections and there is a sentence in the lead that explains that it is only official stuff so I moved it to List of Halo media. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - looks good. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:19, 19 March 2008 (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 16:52, 20 March 2008.

---

Virginia Tech bowl games

This is the keystone article of an eventual (hopefully) Featured Topic about Virginia Tech bowl games. It's fairly long, but much of that is due to the amount of information that needed to be cited. As an aside, many of the individual-game articles linked from this page are start-class or worse. Only two (2008 Orange Bowl, 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl) are of featured status, but work is underway to improve them. Any comments about how I can improve this page are greatly appreciated. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments - an impressive start, just a little confused as to whether it's really a list or an article. I won't dwell on that though and give you my opinions as it stands right now.

• "Including inactive streaks, Virginia Tech is tied for eighth with Tennessee and Ohio State.[3]" a little jargony and a little trivial for me.
  • What's jargony about it — what would you suggest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKBrooks85 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I should clarify - what's an "inactive streak"? And the "tied for eighth" is a just trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see what you mean now. It ties in to the previous line, where I talked about how Tech has the fourth-longest active streak of consecutive bowl games. If you count streaks that have ended, Tech's 15-game run is equal to historical fifteen-game streaks by Tennessee and Ohio State. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Smith participated in the 1984 Independence Bowl, while Vick quarterbacked the Hokies to their first national championship appearance during the 2000 Sugar Bowl, and followed that performance by leading the Hokies to the 2001 Gator Bowl before entering the 2001 NFL Draft and being selected by the Atlanta Falcons.[4]" Consider splitting this sentence in half - it's a bit of a mouthful.
  • Fixed.
• "going 6–9 during " very American football oriented - a non expert would need this to be explained - perhaps just stick to "winning six" or similar.
  • I spelled out the first instance of this shorthand for regular-season results in the 1947 article. That way, anyone reading the section and unfamiliar with the shorthand will understand it later on (hopefully).
• I'm not keen on your wikilinking of various to Walter Camp Coach of the Year and organizations to Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year - too much of an Easter egg if you get my drift.
  • Removed.
• "a Bowl Championship Series game" what is the significance of this?
  • Wikilinked
• "3–3–3 " I know what this means but non-experts won't. I think this could be a problem throughout really, there needs to be an elegant but explanatory way of describing the season record that's accessible to all.
  • See above.
• "halftime" is normally hyphenated, isn't it?
  • Halftime may be regional (hyphenated outside of America, one word in America). I have never seen it hyphenated, though our own half-time article disagrees with me. The NFL has it as one word 2120 times and hyphenated or two words 93 times. --B (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, no big deal, my US English is improving all the time! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• "the favored Bearcats managed to get their offense rolling", "were doomed to defeat" - journalistic, not encyclopaedic.
  • Rephrased
• "didn't " - avoid contractions in featured content.
  • Removed
• "frigid 36-degree " - use degrees Fahrenheit (and {{convert}} to celsisus) because where I live, 36 degrees is really hot.
  • Converted I had gotten the other temperature and wind references... just missed that one. Thanks.
• I think, in general, the match synopses need to be copyedited from a neutral tone perspective. Right now they read a little too much like newspaper reports.
  • Well, I'm a newspaper writer in real life, and I don't think I can change my writing style overnight. If you can give me specific examples, I'd be happy to change what you suggest. Other than that, I'm really at a loss. It's simply how I write, particularly in regards to sports items.
    • That's perfectly understandable, I'd like to be a sports journalist one day... I'll keep dreaming. Okay, well I'll go through the rest of the article and highlight areas which concern me.

Something to be going on with. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll see what I can do to clear things up for you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to have been of use.. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It might hurt to have a small chart at the beginning which details all the different bowls (by which I mean the types - Peach Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc, not the individual games) they've participated in, which would include things such as their win loss record in each. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd thought that as well, and I'll do just that — thanks for the suggestion. Where should I put it, though? My initial thought is directly below the top picture, but if you've got any preference, let me know. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay... I've dropped that table in there. It's stretched out the space between the lede and first section slightly, but unless there's another place where we could put it, I guess that's where it has to be. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks good, but you should also include a column for wins as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Great progress. I have a few comments.

• Inclusion of the pre/post rankings of both teams if applicable. For example, 1995 Sugar Bowl doesn't include the rank of either team.
  • Done.
• I do not like how Virginia Tech bowl games isn't in the first sentence per WP:LEAD.
  • I chose to emphasize the second part of WP:LEAD, which instructs editors to insert the boldface text as soon as logically appropriate. Yes, it's not in the first sentence, but I chose the soonest spot where it was logically appropriate to insert the name of the article. If you can think of a way to insert the full name of the article in the first sentence without completely wrecking the flow of the lede, please do so. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The only thing I could think of is:

This is the list of Virginia Tech bowl games since the creation of the football team in 1892. Virginia Tech has participated in 21 post-season bowl games including three Bowl Championship Series game appearances and one appearance in the national championship game. The Hokies have been invited to a bowl game every year since 1993, a 15-year streak that is surpassed only by Michigan (33 games), Florida State (26 games), and Florida (17 games) for active teams. Including historical streaks, Virginia Tech is tied for eighth with Mississippi and Ohio State, who had bowl game streaks during the periods 1957-1971 and 1972-1986, respectively.

It might need prose cleanup though. Also, I think the related NCAA college football seasons articles needs to be wikilinked for each applicable bowl game. i.e. For the 1995 Sugar Bowl game, in the article, it could be 1995 Sugar Bowl. That gives the reader a link to the college football landscape of 1995, and a reference to the Sugar Bowl in general. But, 1947 Sun Bowl wouldn't have the wikilink for that college football season, because the article currently doesn't exist. Just a thought, what do you think? PGPirate 13:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I advanced the boldface text. Thanks for the suggestion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the suggestion about linking the bowl and year separately, I'm concerned that it might be a little too much like an Easter Egg, as Rambling Man put it. I like the idea, but there's already links to the bowl games and seasons scattered throughout. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - looks great now, congrats. PGPirate 19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-I started reading an introduction about the Virginia Tech football team, and suddenly it was about the Hokies. I assume it is a nickname for the team, but it is not clear. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry — that was an obvious thing that I should've caught. It's been fixed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. I only have one suggestion, but it's a big one so I figured I'd support anyways and hope you take care of it eventually. The in-line citations are a little bit messy and inconsistent. For the most part they give proper attribution, but little things like a comma here, a period there, italics, capitlization, etc are inconsistent. Rather than scour the entire article for these minor fixes, I'd recommend using citation templates, since they do all the work for you. But, like I said, that's a pretty major undertaking, so I'll support anyways. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Drewcifer. I'll go through and standardize them as best I can. I'm a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to the citation templates ... I've never liked them, so if it means a little more work to make the page look better, I'll take up that burden. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well written, well sourced. Meets all of the criteria. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 09:36, 18 March 2008 (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 04:57, 19 March 2008.

---

List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA)

Ugh, yea, it's another hurricane list. After publishing it earlier tonight (based on the featured List of retired Pacific hurricane names), I figured I'd give it a shot for FL status. I'd be happy to address any objections or concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Very well done list, it is comprehensive, accurate, and has great supporting pictures. Hello32020 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I wrote the original basic outline, although I had little or no involvment with the list. I think it is very well written, well sourced, and is comprehensive. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support- I can not find anything wrong in this list. -EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. An exemplary list, and even if I hadn't checked it over - I know that any list worked on by HurricaneHink will be outstanding. Qst (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Object.Why are SSHS colours used for storm background names? Shouldn't they reflect the JMA's typhoon-severe tropical storm-tropical storm scale instead?

JTWC names should be included. Even their supposed "unofficiality" is not a compelling reason to exclude them. Here's why. Meteorologists reporting on the name list change never mentioned that the JTWC's was unofficial[9][10], even calling pre-JMA names "official" [11][12]. Other languages include JTWC names when referring to older typhoons[13][14][15][16]. Meteorological papers often refer to typhoons by their JTWC names; a selection with the word typhoon in the title is here.[17]. The JMA acknowledges the JTWC's names, finding room to include them in its official best track data[18]. The JTWC's names may well be unofficial, but names retired from them should be included here because the JTWC's names were de facto official, and how many people refer to them by.

The introduction (p. iii) may perhaps contradict the date of the JMA becoming the RSMC given in the list. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, I fixed the colours (I forgot about the typhoon colour). Regarding the JMA, I think everything is still in order. The HKO reference clearly says the JMA "...has been delegated since 1981 with the responsibility of assigning to each tropical cyclone." The JMA reference just says the typhoon center was established in 1989. I'm guessing that the JMA issued warnings from 1981 to 1988, but the following year a specific typhoon department was developed, in which case there is no contradiction. However, I'll try and find a reference that is clearer on that.
• Most importantly, regarding the JTWC names, I don't believe they should be included. While JTWC certainly issued naming, and they were/are widely known by those names, the naming was not official, and more importantly, I find no references that indicate the earlier names were considered "retired". I have done several Google searches, each time producing nothing. For example, a search on "Joint Typhoon Warning Center" Ike Mike Thelma Mireille produced only Wikipedia links. Surely, if they were considered retired, those names would have been mentioned. I suppose it's the project's fault for considering the JTWC names retired for so long (late 2005), but it's never too late to change. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I quote: "(This particular range of names from the circular list of 92 names was last used from early 1992 through mid-1993. Oscar replaces Omar, which was retired after its devastating strike on Guam in 1992.)"[19] (Scroll down to Subject 3). This dates from October 6, 1995. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is a very interesting link, and I've never seen that before. However, I've seen no other links for any of the others. If I were to find a link that said each name was retired, then I might create a table that listed those names, as there is some relevancy. However, I have found no such list, and rather than adding the one (Omar), I would rather limit it to the official, well-documented, retired names. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• See: "The death and destruction were so terrible that the name Mireille was retired, never to be used to name another typhoon."[20] or "As a result og the devastation and death in the Republic of the Philippines, Super Typhoon Mike's name was retired from the JTWC naming list."[21]. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ugh, that certainly makes it interesting. However, as I've said, there's no list of the pre-2000 retired names. Going one by one might miss one, so including only those three, for example, would make it less comprehensive than it is now (since it would broaden the scope; currently the scope is strictly defined, and the article complies to that scope). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• A Vietnamese news page,[22] has, according to User:DHN, the headline "21 Typhoon Names had been 'Retired'". Also accoring to that user, the article's basic content was that "21 tropical cyclone names, including 18 typhoons and 3 tropical storms, had been "retired" by WMO and JMA because of the excessive damages they caused". In addition, DHN says that the article does not refer to Wikipedia. JTWC names in that list are Karen, Ike, Bess, Thelma, Mike, Mireille, Omar.Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I actually came across that site earlier today. At first, I wonder why it doesn't include Sudal, Rananim, or Nabi from the modern ones, as well as either Lucille or Ophelia, as we had them included. However, I believed the site used Wikipedia for its information, and specifically Category:Retired Pacific typhoons. If you notice, those five storms they excluded are the only five retired Pacific typhoons we don't have articles on. Notice, they say 21 names were retired, and at the time that story was published, there were 21 articles in that category. As they bring up the WMO, I did a simple search with the words "Omar" and "Bess", since the former had a link that it was retired and the latter was mentioned twice in the document; one useless result came up. Some of the wording (through the awkward translations) seems similar to the page, as well. I don't particularly feel that a Vietnamese news agency is reliable, when there is no other source, anywhere else, that includes JTWC names as retired. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Name changes: MANNY replaced MIKE in 1991; MELISSA replaced MIREILLE, TERESA replaced THELMA in 1992, and OSCAR replaced OMAR in 1993."[23] Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is still only a few names, which are the changes in recent years. Again, as I've said above, I don't feel comfortable including the JTWC names, when there is not a list of names that the JTWC considers retired. Other than that, is there anything else in the article that you object for it becoming a featured list? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is from the back matter in the JTWC's own report. 1991,[24] 1990,[25] 1993,[26] and 1994[27] are similar, all back matters from JTWC reports in their respective years. The earliest two don't mention removals from systems that hadn't happened yet. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, like I said, it is only the changes for a short time period. I feel really uncomfortable adding only a few names, given that there is no list of retired typhoon names while JTWC was naming them. If we can only list four of them, due to sourcing, I'd rather not include them. In fact, those four were in the time period when JMA was actually the warning agency; including JTWC names pre-JMA would be somewhat justified, since there was no official agency, but that's not the case. I'd much rather stick to the official names from the time period when the official warning agency named them. Other than that, is there anything else in the article that you object for it becoming a featured list? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) Wikipedia does not deal in what it true; Wikipedia deals in what can be verified as true. If something can be verified as true, and it fits the intuitive scope of a list, then it should be included. I have a compromise. This list should be renamed to List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA). This way, its current scope will make sense. The JTWC-era retired names should be put in a different list, List of retired Pacific typhoon names (historical); PAGASA retireds could be given List of retired Pacific typhoon names (PAGASA). This turns one list into three, solves the dispute over whether JTWC names should be included here (by giving them their own list), and provides room for meanings of JMA-era retired names. I'm willing to support this compromise. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's a good idea, as it allows for JTWC and Pagasa names to stay separate. I'll make the moves. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the page has been moved, I'll support. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Weak Object. The WMO Typhoon Committee does not Retire the names in the spring of the following year - The Typhoon Committee generally meets in late November or early December of each year. 1 2 Jason Rees (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ooh, good catch. I fixed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Supportok that now looks a lot better and my concerns have now been corrected. Jason Rees (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (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 04:51, 19 March 2008.

---

Silverchair discography

I've worked over this for the last week or so, basing it mostly on the Powderfinger discography. Here's hoping this FLC is a little shorter than that one! Happy to act on suggestions. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: needs some work.

Note: I have contacted him several times, but RaNdOm26 is yet to strike this oppose or comment on what else needs to be done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The abbreviations in Charts are very misleading. "IND" looks like it was charted in India, "TH" looks more like Thailand. Also, I question the list's accuracy as the Canadian Hot 100 is a chart for singles and not albums.
  • I changed the abbreviations and fixed the Canada wlink. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The abbre could still be better. It's better to mention which country. "BB200" is basically U.S. Albums Chart, so use "U.S." The next charts, "HEAT" and "IDP", are also U.S. charts. Same with singles. Use "U.S. Main" and "U.S. Mod". RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Singles released" isn't needed as the "Singles" Section below already states what singles appear on each album, making one of them redundant. See also Natasha Bedingfield discography.
  • Kept; see Powderfinger discography ;). Seriously, the two serve a different purpose in different places and are equally useful. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• No need for links to years.
  • Delinked. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• The box sets should be expanded further (labels, charts, etc) and use a table like the others.
  • The label information is already there. There is no chart figures, and none of them were certified...do you think I should? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oops, I overlooked the labels. The Box Sets looks rather bare without the additional info. Is there an exact release date? Good to research this if possible. If it was released in Oz, a chart section is still necessary, and show that it did not chart in ARIA. Without it, it looks like its unknown whether it did chart or not. By the way, is it supposed to be "Sony" or "Sony Music"? In Frogstomp, it says its "Sony Music". RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It should be Sony, I think. I'll have another look. Adding table. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• The B-sides and Other appearances are way too different in terms of format. Why bold the years? Why are they in smaller font. Why are the references in a separate column?.... No need for this. RaNdOm26 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made the formatting consisted in terms of colours etc. The references are in a separate column as they reference the entire row, as opposed to only some data (I could do this in the video section if you like). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • MUCHHHHHH better! Still unsure about the ref column, but it will be better if the video section does this to be consistent. Could you also finish off the directors section? This source says music director for Tomorrow.
      • Added the source; will get around to the other stuff. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done - fixed the ref column. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Looks pretty good, though I do have some concerns:

• Discogs is not considered a reliable source. Neither is IMDB of MVDBase. And I'm not so sure about metallicafans.co.uk either.
  • I removed IMDB and MVDBase as they're not critical there. For Discogs, I can't find much else in most cases...I dunno, I'll try some more searches. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Only the first instance of a publisher in the in-line ciationsshould be wikilinked (ARIA, RIAA, and AMG are wikilinked every time, I believe).
  • I disagree; the wikilinking loses usefulness if you have to search through the entire ref section to find which article it should be pointing to. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also, try and avoid abbreviations in the publisher values (RIAA/ARIA, etc.)
• "Charts" is too vague. It should be "Chart peak positions" or "Peak chart positions" or something like that.
• I'm not too hot on the "Singles released" column of the albums table, since that's already covered more than adequately in the Singles table.
• I'm also not sure about putting the certifications in the Notes column. Since it's somewhat similar to the chart positions, certifications are usually given their own column (which you'd have room for without the "Singles released" column). That way you can also consolidate all the instances of ref #11. Check out Nine Inch Nails discography for an example.
• The multi-platinum numbers should use "×" not "x" for the multiplier.
• Saying "Second studio album", "Third studio album", etc is a little redundant. I think you only need to have that with the debut album.
• Could you make the various tables in the Albums section more uniform? ie the width of the various columns?
  • Not really sure how to without making a lot of blank space. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Since neither box set charted, there's really not much reason to have the charts columns.
• Also, is that table even necessary? Couldn't that info be added to the notes section of the studio albums table fairly easily?
  • Ironically, see Random's comments just above (asking for a table). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• The singles table needs the "Chart peak positions" sub header thingie.
• According to WaveAid, it shouldn't italicized. Same with Edgefest.
  • It's an album/DVD title, hence italics. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think it's worth noting that the track on the Spawn soundtrack is actually a duet with Vitro.
• "Silverchair's first single, "Tomorrow", was highly successful upon release in 1994, which provided the band an opportunity to release the song" don't you mean re-release the song? Drewcifer (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied to some stuff; the rest is done. Thanks heaps for the review. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking better, here's a few last concerns/suggestions:

• Charts usually come before the Certifications columns. So it would be nice to be consistent.

• Done, other discographies already use it. 134.7.248.130 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, I did notice that another user suggested the box sets be in their own table. It just seems redundant to me: there's no new information provided whatsoever, other than the fact that they're box sets. They could both easily be incorporated into the main albums table with a single sentence/bullet point, thus avoiding an unnecessary table altogether.

• I've merged this box set section into the "live recordings & compilations" table. Does it look better now? Only two tables left, one for the main albums, and one for all other main releases. By the way, is the main heading too long? Should I change to "Other albums"? 134.7.248.130 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• That looks better, and "other albums" would be good IMO. Thanks heaps for your help! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• As for the multiple wikilinks in the citations, I agree that not wikilinking every time reduces sheer usability, but I still stand by WP:MOSLINK, which argues that links are only necessary the first time per major subject/topic/section, since the user is most likely to require additional information the first time a term comes up. This applies equally to citations too.

• I also agree about complying WP:MOSLINK into reflists. That Australian Recording Industry Association looks a bit annoying with all that wlinks. 134.7.248.130 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The discogs thing is definitely an big issue. Hopefully you can find different sources.

• The list is now Discogs-free. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Charts columns of live recordings still needs to be renamed for clarity's sake.

• Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• As for the width values and what not, check this out: diff. There's not excessive white space, is there? Just an aesthetics suggestion.

• Done as suggested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it might also be worth nothign that "Spawn" was also included on Neon Ballroom as "Spawn Again". Though space might be an issue.

• Not a notable song...not really worth it IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Support: Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Support This is a very well put together list. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Support well organized and referenced, seems enough. igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 17 March 2008 (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 02:23, 17 March 2008.

---

List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers

Based on the other two lists (UEFA Cup and European Cup/Champions League winning managers), this is the final member of the triumvirate. I'd appreciate as many comments (and support!) as humanly possible, and I promise to attend to them as soon as I get bandwidth >2Kb/s. Thanks in advance for your time and energy in looking at this! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks pretty good. I do have some suggestions/concerns:

• My biggest concern is that literally every source is from the UEFA itself. Or in other words, the article completely lacks third-party sources.
  • Working on that one... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)*The in-line citations are over wikilinked. Only the first instance of a publisher value should be wikilinked.
  • Per the other two lists, I'll disagree here. Can't believe it'd be a deal breaker...?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why is Aad de Mos in the lead, while the others are beside the table? I'd recommend putting him down there with the others.
  • Well, he's a landscape rather than a portrait, but I've moved him anyway, kept his sizing per MOS and that's that! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• The lead should include a bolded description of the page.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd recommend centering the Final column.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• The flag columns are great, but they are a little big confusing. It's not entirely obvious which other columns they apply to. On one hand I'd say give it a column header, but that would kind of ruin the functionality... any ideas?
  • Per other two FLCs, discussion with Struway2 didn't come up with any decent results.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Another problem with the flags is that the link to the image, not the country. Again, I don't have a solution up my sleeve, but that seems like a problem.
  • Per other two FLCs, the {{sort}} template simply can't cope... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• An external links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You have a section now, I'll work on expanding it further... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, due to the above. Drewcifer (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support Looks good, though the lead still needs to have a bolded first line. Take care of that and you're good to go. Drewcifer (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support Looks very good. I've bolded the first line, but otherwise the only thing I would recommend is to create articles for the red-linked managers. Peanut4 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All redlinks addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely. I'll get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I agree with Peanut about the redlinks
  • Me too.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe a little information about why the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup ended in 1999, and what it became (with a link)
  • I'll look into that... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Again for consistency, I'd like to see a sentence about how many managers took a team not from their own country to victory. Either that, or remove it from the first article you nominated.
  • The key difference is that the UEFA Cup has been won predominantly by managers leading clubs of their own nationality. The other two cups don't share that same distinction. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Should "Scotsman" link to Scotland, or Scottish people?
  • Linked per you... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Same with "Hungarian" and "Swede"
  • Linked per you... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is there an image of Sven to go in the lead because he was the last manager to win it. Or Nándor Hidegkuti as he was the first.
  • No, I've scoured Commons, Flickr, and Wikipedia for fair use or free images... nothing I can do about that (unless I become a stalker!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why "West Ham Unt", but "Manchester United"?
  • That appears to have been fixed in my absence! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• And either "FC" or "F.C."
  • Those differ due to the official names of the clubs... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though I've already supported the other two nominations, could you check these points against those lists, and the comments left there for this list? -- Matthew

Support - Well written, sourced, presented. Meets criteria. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "The last final of the competition was held in 1999 after UEFA abolished the competition" I know what you mean, but it reads funny that it took place after it was abolished. Also, I count 4 wins by Scots and 2 Scottish club titles, but the table says 3 - something wrong there. --Dweller (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Think I've dealt with it... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Another goodie. I'm wondering if the Lead could do with a sentence explaining the premise of the competition, but it's certainly not essential. Good work TRM. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done... thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support all good ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (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 02:23, 17 March 2008.

---

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima

I believe that this list has what it takes to be a featured article. If its missing anything please leave a message on my talk page and I will be glad to fix/address it. Additionally, many of the articles within the list contain enough information to be B class articles or better.--Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Needed improvements:
  • The dates should be in US format. -Complete
  • The intro is way too short. -Complete I think but please let me know if it still needs more info.
    • Actually it has way too much. You need to start with what the list is, not the description of the battle. Then give a short description of the battle and why it was notable. We don't need the geography of the island whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I've done some trimming and rewriting myself. --Golbez (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the asterisks. -Note sure what you mean here.
    • Using asterisks in the name column to signify ones given posthumously. Perhaps that should go in the notes column? The asterisk seems out of place in the name column, I can see it maybe in the date column, but maybe actual text would be good too. --Golbez (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -I removed the asterisks and added a column for posthumous or nonposthumous recipient.
  • You need to sort by last name; there are templates to help you do that. -?It is sorted by last name.
    • The original sort is, yes. But resorting redoes it by first name. Look at some other lists of names to see how it can be done, I don't remember the name offhand. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all of the columns need to be sortable. -The in order to sort a wikitable its an all or none thing.
    • No, it doesn't. There's a way. Look through the other lists here. I don't know it off hand, I'll look for it later if you don't find it. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -Complete, good to know.
• I've done some work cleaning up the table. Now I have a new question - why don't all of them have entries in Notes? --Golbez (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure I have been adding that data as well. I will finish them by tomorrow. I also fixed some issues with each of the articles in the list.--Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

* At the moment, this violates WP:NAME (specifically, "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles"). Something like List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima would be more suitable; it's not as though Iwo Jima really needs to be disambiguated with World War II. Kirill 13:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -Complete

• At the moment it's lead is too small -Complete and duplicative. and it lacks individual citations, and the "external links" section should be renamed "References". -Complete, I also expanded the references.

I would also like to see more text added, such as brief explanations about what each recipient did. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -Complete

Thanks, I will work on this as soon as I can. Should be in the next day or so.--Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of individial citations, do I need to add a citation for each individual recipient?--Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Bellhalla

• Oppose for now
  • Either link all OR delink all of the service branches in the table. With a sortable table, you shouldn't assume that the linked occurrence will remain first.
  •  Done
  • There seem to be some spelling errors in the notes.
  • The stats in the lead seem to be wrong. The article states that there were 2 Navy recipients, but in the table there are 4.
  •  Done
  • The overall Marine Corps stats need a citation. (Relisted below)
  • I think the lead needs some explanation of what the Medal of Honor itself is.
  •  Done
  • Other military award FLs (List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients, for example) include the unit. If available, it should be included in this list.
  • Again looking at the above two FLs, posthumous awarding is noted by both a shaded color and an asterisk of the name field. I know that goes partly counter to the suggestion above, but I think doing that here would keep the list cleaner by not cluttering up the Notes column.
  •  Done
    • If that's the case with others, I yield. My main problem was the asterisk at the start of the name. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The other lists have the asterisk at the end of the name; I agree on not having one at the beginning of a name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done
          • That certainly declutters the notes section, but I think I would have gone with highlighting and starring the name rather than the date. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the notes section some give a summary of the awarded action, while others give biographical and/or legacy information. My opinion would be to go with just a summary of the action. Presumably the individual articles will state what has been named after whom.
  • However the Notes section is addressed, either remove the periods (my preference) OR make the notes complete sentences.
• I think the list is closing in on FL territory, but it just needs that extra push to make it sparkle. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Support with the proviso that the number of USMC Medals of Honor in the lead is cited. Looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The multiple dates need work. For example, Chambers has a 4-day range, but his description says the battle was 8 hours long. Likewise, Watson has a 2-day range, but the description says 15 minutes. Is it possible to pick a single date here? --Golbez (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - I classified this as done because I reviewed each of the dates with issues and the dates reflect exactly what is on the Medal of Honor citation.--Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, we need to find a solution to this, because we can't just have random unlinked dates, and we need to find a good way of handling the ranges. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I had delinked the date ranges per WP:MOSDATE which instructs not to use brackets around date ranges in the same month. As a personal preference, I like having dates linked/auto-formatted, but if you think it detracts having dates linked and date ranges not, I have no problem at all with having them all unlinked. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I certainly think they should be linked, so that we can have the autoformatting. However, this is a weird situation... --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another Comment Each bit in the notes section should have a citation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If this is required then I will do this but after reviewing several other Featured lists most of them that have notes section do not have citations and most of those that do only have it in the column header. If this is what is required for featured list status I will do that it though.--Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support It looks pretty good and is well-organized, though it seems a bit bland to me. Maybe an image or two placed tactfully could liven it up? Also, if you can find a bit more variety of references, it would be stronger. bahamut0013♠♣ 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:20, 17 March 2008 (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 02:23, 17 March 2008.

---

List of Heisman Trophy winners

Probably some of my best work in lists, I have reviewed the criteria and think this list is ready. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No idea what sport this is about from the first four or five sentences in the lead. Remember these FLs need to be accessible to all.
• "Tragically, he too never played a snap in the NFL, as he was diagnosed with leukemia shortly after winning the award, and died in 1963." - too much POV, a bit of jargon "played a snap"? and needs citation.
• In fact, most of the lead claims need citation.
• Key shouldn't be a section of its own.
• Tom Brown's picture is, well, a little odd in this context. Could do with further explanation in the caption.
• Since it's sortable, wikilink every instance of the position of the winner.
• Use the {{sortname}} template so the players sort by their surname.
• Ideally (but not essentially) the images should be the same width.
• Image:Tebowleak.jpg is pretty grim, can you get permission/licence to crop it to just include the subject in question?
• Trophies by school could do with at least a single sentence of lead and then tabulation rather than indented bullets.
• Are four external links necessary here? I can't really see any of them are useful besides the official award website.

So, oppose for the moment, but most of these are easy fixes so let me know if you'd like a reassessment. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Did a few, ready to fix the rest. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Done with another, but I think the images look pretty good how they are. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP:MOS#Images recommends the use of upright for portraits - this is instead of forcing your own widths... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did that, but it does not seem to work correctly. Got it. I am done now. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments
  • Consider right aligning the number of points column so the commas line up.
  • Check the names link to the correct people, e.g. Steve Owens, Pat Sullivan etc. You can do this by piping another parameter, the actual article name, into the {{sortname}} template after the surname, e.g. {{sortname|Steve|Owens|Steve Owens (American football}}.
  • Add a break between Trophies and won in the heading of the second table, it should help make the column thinner.
• That's it, very much better... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by JKBrooks85

Comments

• Good work so far, but it still needs a little work. You need some in-line citations for the lede paragraphs. At least one per paragraph, but more are suggested.
• Jim Plunkett's school isn't listed.
• I'd suggest converting the "trophies by school" section into a table.
• You need at least some prose for the "trophies by school" section.
• The picture captions should be complete sentences.

If you need any assistance, just ask, and I'll be willing to help. Good luck! I'm looking forward to being able to add it to the list of Wikiproject College Football featured content. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be working on the rest. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture captions still aren't complete sentences, and you need to include the publisher, accessed date, and official name of the source in the in-line citations. Something like the ones in 2008 Orange Bowl would work well if you're reluctant to use the citation template. Once you've got those two taken care of, I'll go through and give it a copyedit.

JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've given the article a thorough copyedit, have added six more citations, clarified the lede, and generally cleaned up the article. I've checked each listing for correctness, and have attempted to clear up the circumstances around the DAC's loss of its original building. The only thing that I'd suggest adding would be a column for the second-place finisher each year with their point total. That would give readers an idea of how the vote totals changed over time and give an indication of closer races than more distant ones. Good work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Question Considering that this list is about college football, wouldn't it be better to note which winners have been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Off hand, I'd imagine that 95% percent are in there. I could be wrong, but if that's the case, then you wouldn't get much distinction. That being said, if they are all in there, it's a fact that should be mentioned in the prose. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps you should add a sentence about which winners aren't in the College Football Hall of Fame. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well cited, nicely done. Meets all criteria. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support (same reasons as stated by Milk's Favorite Cookie), but with one very minor issue. My issue: The sequence of the images of the winners is odd. While the names of winners are in chronological sequence (1935 to 2007), the images are not (1992-1986-2004-2005). I would fix this myself, but I can't tell if this was intentional (for some reason that I can't perceive). --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2008 (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 02:23, 17 March 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Toronto

I believe that this list should be a WP:FL. Please bring up any concerns that you find with the article and I will do my best to address them. Gary King (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments - as ever, a great start point for review - my comments...

• " 298 metres (978 ft)" etc - ideally use the {{convert}} template, or, at the very least, use non-breaking spaces between values and their units and ensure your conversions are consistent and use the same unit abbreviations. Right now there's a mix (for example) of metre and meter.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• "of over 14 " - these sort of sentences always read strangely to me... so 15? or more than 15?
  • Done Gary King (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Last sentence of lead could do with a citation.
  • Done Whoopsie daisy... it was originally 15 buildings, but it turns out to be more like 440. Done! Gary King (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would centrally align rank, height, floors and year in the tables.
  • Done I did do this before but someone reverted it. Other articles similar to this one do not center align them; anyways, I did it. Looks better. Gary King (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• "at least 145 metres (476 ft) tall" - seems like an arbitrary cut-off point... especially when the future buildings table has "are planned to rise at least 130 metres (427 ft)." as the constraint.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• A personal point, but things like 2nd, 3rd and all that I'd prefer second, third (up to tenth)...
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is the year in the table the year of completion? I'd clarify the point.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• For buildings with just references and no notes, is there no information available e.g. architects?
  • Done Yes that's correct. Very little information on those buildings besides how tall it is and when it was completed (information grabbed from a construction site, so nothing about architects, history, etc.) Gary King (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Punctuation has gone astray in the future buildings table, notes column.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is the year in the future buildings the anticipated year of groundbreaking or completion or what? Could you clarify in the lead up to it?
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• No spaces between the year and the separating en-dash in the timeline table.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Height information missing for five of the buildings in the "timeline" table.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Punctuation and reference placement needs work in the timeline table.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, just a minor note, but this list is partially based off of List of tallest buildings in Cleveland and so a lot of the conventions come from there. That article became an WP:FA about two months ago so I would consider the standards used in that article to be fairly recent. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had a dollar/pound/euro for every time I've heard that...! I'm aware that plenty of FLCs make it here based on other existing FLs but part of my job (as I see it) as an FLC reviewer is not to go with the flow, it's to pick at and dissect articles which I'm reviewing with no prejudice at all... You're doing a great job on these lists so no need to worry about what they're based on, as long as you don't mind if I pick up a few items in each one you nominate! I'll give it another look (oh, and by the way, I'll shortly have three lists of my own here at FLC so you can open fire, all weapons, soon!!) ... all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm ready to comment on other FLCs just yet. Gary King (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree! You're been here long enough to seize the day and give the rest of us a hard time! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Gary, you mentioned that you modeled your work on this list after List of tallest buildings in Cleveland another featured list. There are a total of 12 "tallest buildings" lists that have made FL status. The list is found here on the WikiProject Skyscraper page. These lists, and ones that are still being improved, are built around guidelines created by the Skyscraper project for such lists. Anyway, you may find those guidelines helpful/informative if you were not already aware of them. Nice work on the Toronto list, I'll give it a more complete look through later and let you know any other comments. VerruckteDan (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of those, I will check them out. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral - Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists should be used as the guideline here. Some of the improvements suggested here actually went against the guideline and made the list worse. For example, there should not be width and alignment formatting in the tables and the height cutoff should not have been changed. Also, comparing it with the guideline it is clear this list is still missing a lot of substance. I have edited this list in the past and I believe it is not ready for nomination at this point. — Kelw (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of the nominator and other active editors, could you please list everything that does not conform to WP:Skyscrapers? Is the style guideline the only issue here? Specifics please :) Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI to everyone, this user has not been active on Wikipedia since March 9, 2008 (same day this message was posted here), so I have been unable to get any more information on why this person has chosen to oppose this list. I assume that the list now meets style guidelines, considering that Raime (talk · contribs) below has given his support to the list and is a member of the WikiProject Skyscrapers. Gary King (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gary King; Kelw's concerns have been met, as the list easily follows Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, the increased height cutoff has been reverted, columns are no longer centrally aligned, and more substance (many more buildings, and soon a pinnacle height section) has been added. The closing editor should take this into account when considering Kelw's oppose, the only remaining one here. As a regular contributor to building lists, I believe that this one meets the criteria and is "ready for nomination" and passing. Cheers, Rai-me 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from Rai-me 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is an excellent list, but I have a few concerns:
  • The most pressing issue here is the length of the list. A 150-meter cut-off is much too high. You can see the height cutoff information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Data cutoff. After all, Toronto has 1,718 high-rises. In comparison, List of tallest buildings in New York City has 82 building entries, List of tallest buildings in Chicago has 90 buildings, and List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong has 75 buildings. A data cutoff of 120 meters would allow this list to include 47 buildings, and 110 meters would provide for 80 buildings. Either one of those cutoffs would be much more acceptable.
    • None of those lists are FLs. Regarding the cut off, it was originally 140 meters, but User:The Rambling Man mentioned that it was too arbitrary so I bumped it up to 150 meters. Regarding number of towers, List of tallest buildings in Providence has 16 towers, List of tallest buildings in Tulsa has 17 towers, and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester has 18 towers. These are all FLs. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The Tulsa, Providence, and Manchester lists are all about cities with very small skylines. This is outlined on Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Data cutoff - cities with larger skylines should obviously have longer lists. Including only the tallest skyscrapers over 150 m makes the list much less comprehensive, criterion #1b. List of tallest buildings in Miami and List of tallest buildings in San Francisco are two FLs that include 42 and 43 buildings, respectively. This list should be more along those lines. Cheers, Rai-me 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done Gary King (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The images should not be sized. Using "upright" instead of "200px" will allow individual browsers to size the images appropriately, and minimize potential column cramping.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the architect really need to be stated? This is not a standard for building lists, and it seems strange to list the architect for only 7 out of 14 buildings.
    • Yes, strange information to include. Removed from all towers. Gary King (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could the lead be expanded at all?
    • Not sure what else to add. It is comparable to the leads of List of tallest buildings in Cleveland (an FL) and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia (another FL). Gary King (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I would certainly add information about the Trump Tower and other tallers buildinsg proposed for construction. -- Rai-me 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The CN Tower should be added; see List of tallest buildings in Dallas, an FL which includes the non-building Reunion Tower, and List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas. Generally, a note is simply added stating that a structure is not a habitable building, but is included for comparison purposes.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Stating "Part of X centre" is neither standard nor necessary; for many entries, it is obvious from the building's name. Anyway, this really shouldn't be included, as it is not overly relevant to building height, which is what matters here.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles need to be created for Residences of College Park and Harbourview Estates II. For shorter building, articles aren't always needed, but buildings over 150 meters should almost always have their own articles. Several of the future buildings should also have their own articles.
    • Created. Gary King (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For the timeline section, a "Street address" column should be added and the "Years as tallest" column should be listed third, after "Name" and address but before height and floor count. This section, after all, measures by year over height. A "Notes" column also need not be preent here. See List of tallest buildings in San Francisco#Timeline of tallest buildings as an example.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Beard Building, as the city's first skyscraper, should most certainly have its own article.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:SEEALSO, List of tallest buildings in Canada should not be listed in the See also section, as it is already linked to in the text.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does The listed year indicates the year when construction was completed on the building really need to be stated?
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Building names in captions should be wikilinked.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The information about future building construction in the lead should probably be expanded, IMO. But maybe that is just me.
  • When stating "65th tallest building in the world", for example, "65th" and "tallest" need to be separated by a hyphen.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There should not be alignment formatting in the tables, with maybe the exception of the Floors column.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Buildings of equal height should be marked as "#=" in the rank column. For example, "11=" for the the 11th and 12th entries, as they are both 154 meters.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The future tallest building section should have at least one image, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Images.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cheers, Rai-me 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Good job clearing all of those issues up. But, I have a few more concerns, so for the moment I still weak oppose this nomination.
  • • As stated before, the list should be expanded to include more information about future projects, particularly the Trump Tower. Also, the second paragraphs should contain some info about the number of high-rises in the city.
    • Is it possible to get a lead image that includes the CN Tower?
      • I guess you can take your pick from CN Tower? I don't know what you're looking for. I can't find a CN Tower image that includes surrounding buildings. Gary King (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • How about Image:Toronto 2007.JPG? -- Rai-me 01:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay added. Gary King (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It appears that the CN Tower is measured by pinnacle height, whereas Scotia Plaza is not. The main list should only measure by architectural height, with a separate section called "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height" to include antennae (see List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Detroit).
      • Fixed Gary King (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The columns in the future buildings and timeline lists need to be left-aligned, as with the main tallest buildings list table.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some note should be added next to the CN Tower stating that it is the tallest completed free-standing structure on land in the world.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A "status" column is missing from the future buildings section - this indicates if a building is under construction, approved, or proposed.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In the section header for "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved", The years listed in the table indicate the year when construction will be complete should be removed.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some kind of heading should be added for the timeline section.
    • Notes, such as the note about the CN Tower, should be separated from references. See List of tallest buildings in Boston#Notes.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The street address column in the timeline section seems to be imcomplete. Do no buildings have numbers to include, such as 44 Bay Street instead of simply Bay Street?
      • I can't find the addresses for 3 of them. Gary King (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Entries such as Maple Leaf Square North Tower don't need to overly specific in height; 186 m is fine, instead of 185.5, as all other entries are rounded up or down.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In the timeline section, "References" should be rewritten as "Reference", as each entry only has one citation.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Information about what buildings are in what developments still need to be removed from the future buildinsg section, and the image in both this section and the timeline section need to formatted with "upright", and for the timeline section, "200px" needs to be removed.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Another image should be added to the main tallest building list.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cheers, Rai-me 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support - great job! Looks like you got pretty much everything. All that is left is the addition of the "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height" section (again, see List of tallest buildings in Boston#Tallest buildings by pinnacle height), the addition of information relating to Trump Tower and other future buildings to the lead, and the addition of information in the lead regarding the number of high-rises in the city. Great work. Cheers, Rai-me 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Regarding the Pinnacle Height list, I don't know how I'd be able to compile the list any other way besides checking every tallest tower in Toronto until I had a suitable number of towers to create a list? It doesn't seem like this type of list is standard among Tallest Buildings lists. I've added information regarding future buildings in the lead. Number of skyscrapers added. Gary King (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just the top 10 buildings are included. All lists that have substantial differentiation in building height when including antennae include this section; for most it is not necessary. Here, given the below confusion regrding the CN Tower's height, it clearly is (First Canadian Place is also substantially taller when including its antenna). Rai-me 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done Gary King (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I have a couple of comments and they all relate to the CN Tower. In the lead, it states "While the CN Tower is Toronto's tallest landmark at...." Why was "landmark" used and not "structure?" This list is about the tallest buildings in Toronto, not the landmarks of Toronto. The sentence should be reworded. My second comment is about the amount of floors in the tower. 147 is just the number of "levels" on the staircase and not truly the number of floors. You should either keep the entry blank (like the Reunion Tower's entry in the List of tallest buildings in Dallas), replace 147 with "NA," or change it to the actual number of habitable floors (like the Stratosphere Tower or the Eiffel Tower at Paris Las Vegas in the List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas or the Space Needle in the List of tallest buildings in Seattle). --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments: There is something else I noticed that needs to be addressed. A second source for the CN Tower should be added for consistency with other entries in this list and for consistency with other lists. Preferably, CN Tower's entry on Emporis.com should be that second source.

Another, probably more important, issue is the height of the CN Tower. In the list, it says the CN Tower stands at a height of 447 m (1,467 ft). This would mean that it is shorter than Taipei 101, which I am sure is a mistake (just for reference, Taipei 101 stands at 509 m (1,671 ft)). I looked at the height on SkyscraperPage and on Emporis. SkyscraperPage listed several heights. I noticed that the current height listed in the article (447 m) probably came from the height of the top floor which is 446.5 metres (1,465 ft). But, the height of buildings should not be the top floor, but the roof or spire (excluding antennae). The roof height is listed as 457.2 metres (1,500 ft) and the antenna is listed as 553.3 metres (1,815 ft). But still, the roof height would be shorter than Taipei 101. I realized that the height of the CN Tower that is listed in most places does in fact include the antenna.

If we want to use the height that most sources claim as the official height of the CN Tower, then we would use 553.3 metres (1,815 ft), which is what Emporis also uses. But, if we want to be consistent with this list, which "includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts," then we would use the height of the roof (457.2 metres (1,500 ft)). Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, roof height it is. Gary King (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support All looks good now. Congrats! PeterSymonds | talk 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think "notes" should be used throughout the tables, for the sake of consistency.
  • "Notes" is used in the first table because that column also contains text, while 'references' is used later on because those columns are only for references. This is the format for Skyscraper lists I believe. Gary King (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is "pinnacle height" used in other Featured building lists? If it is, is its meaning explained? And even if it isn't, I think it should.

That's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Pinnacle height is already explained in the paragraph in that section. Gary King (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Can't see any other issues to raise, and those two have been addressed satisfactoririly. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Why does "Oxford Tower (Toronto)" redirect to PATH (Toronto)? An article for this building should be created, and there should also be one created for Empire Tower (Toronto). -- Rai-me 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done Gary King (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that some changes have been made while I was away, so I've modified my position above. — Kelw (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support - The CN Tower should not be ranked. The distinction between a building and a structure is an important one in Wikipedia, and the practice is to NOT rank structures in building lists. Note that the CN Tower is not ranked in List of tallest buildings in Canada or List of tallest buildings in the world. Instead, the CN Tower should be left off the list and there should only be a note explaining it is not a building. There are separate lists that rank just structures, and buildings together with structures, for example List of tallest structures in the world and List of tallest buildings and structures in Canada. — Kelw (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2008 (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 21:06, 15 March 2008.

---

List of European Cup and Champions League winning managers

I'm nominating this to become a featured list - it's well illustrated, well referenced and meets the criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments, criticism and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support although there appears to be a typo in reference 21 which needs fixing. Other than that, excellent work as ever ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, typo fixed... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support although I've left a {{cn}} for you to deal with, TRM. I do maintain that the default should be to list the winners in reverse chrono order, consistent with your other article at FLC, but it's not a deal breaker for me. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the {{cn}}, it's fixed now. As for chronology, I'm not worried but it will take me more than five minutes to reverse it, which I currently don't have! I'll do it later, at least it'll be consistent, as you say, with the other list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Struway2 has pointed me to guidelines which say it shouldn't be in reverse order so I've reversed the other list...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, though I'd like to see a note about the number of managers who have won with a team from a different country than their own (similar to the UEFA Cup managers list). -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Matthew, but can you drop me a line on exactly what you're expecting? I see a table summarising the wins by nationality on each list and nothing else... (but it is early and I am tired..!) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Scratch that Matthew, I see it. I'll put something in (if it's pertinent)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think for consistency's sake, but if it's not there I'm not about to un-support! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – Wondering about the title. Should it be ...and UEFA Champions League winning managers, that being the name of the competition and the title of its wiki article, rather than just Champions League? (personally, I don't care, on the basis that having to call things FIFA World Cup and suchlike irritates me intensely, but I thought the question needed asking) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think so too. I had been wondering that, I inherited the title so I'm happy to move the page over for the sake of consistency... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, anyway, seeing as I gave you enough time to incorporate all points raised at the other FLC. Though you may want to proof-read Mr Trappatoni's image caption. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  Looks like TRM fixed it. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments See my comments made in the List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers FLC. Many of the same concerns apply here. Drewcifer (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Oppose:

• My biggest concern is that nearly every source is from the UEFA itself. Or in other words, the article completely lacks third-party sources.
  • Working on getting another set of citations from our much trusted fchd.info. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've now added a completely indpendent general reference for this, from rsssf.com. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• The in-line citations are over wikilinked. Only the first instance of a publisher value should be wikilinked.
  • I disagree, respectfully. I don't believe a reader should go searching for the first instance of a source should it be used dozens of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why is Frank Rijkaard in the lead, while the others are beside the table? I'd recommend putting him down there with the others.
  • Moved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• The lead should include a bolded description of the page.
  • It now does. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd recommend centering the Final column.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• The flag columns are great, but they are a little big confusing. It's not entirely obvious which other columns they apply to. On one hand I'd say give it a column header, but that would kind of ruin the functionality... any ideas?
  • As per UEFA Cup list, Struway2 and I discussed this. Unless there's a better idea, it'll just stay as it is I suppose.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Another problem with the flags is that the link to the image, not the country. Again, I don't have a solution up my sleeve, but that seems like a problem.
  • As per UEFA Cup list, the {{sort}} template doesn't help here. It's not that big a problem really since it at least links to the name of the country in one way or another, but if I need the list to be capable of sorting per nationality of winner or nationality of team, that's the way it'll be until someone clever sorts the sort template... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• An external links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You've got one now, but I'll add more to it as soon as I can...The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support The general reference is good, but I'm still a little iffy about so many in-lines from 1st party though... but not enough to oppose the FLC. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Great work as usual NapHit (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (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 21:00, 15 March 2008.

---

List of UEFA Cup winning managers

I'm nominating this to become a featured list - it's well illustrated, well referenced and meets the criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments, criticism and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work, can't find any issues ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Of course. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great work,only issue is that maybe the refs section should not be sortable, and I'm not sure if the captions require full stops, but these are minor issues. Great Work NapHit (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good spot, fixed now. And captions only need full stops if they're not sentence fragments so, in this case, I think they're all okay. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments just some minor, easily changable style issues:
  • "Wolves" → "Wolverhampton Wonderers"; just a little unclear right now where Wolves is if you're outside the UK
  • "25" → "twenty-five" per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words
  • "Internazionale" → "Inter Milan" or "Milan's Internazionale"; "SS Lazio" → "S.S. Lazio" / "Rome's S.S. Lazio" (as Wolves comment) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed, thanks for pointing them out Matthew! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You're welcome! Support -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hate to differ but my reading of the MOS is that it should be "25". --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep your nose outavit buddy... Well, it can go either way I think. My reading of the MOS says either are acceptable but Matthew likes words, I like words, you like parentheses, so let's call the whole thing off.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Struway2

• Comments
  • First sentence. Either it gives the title of the article, in which case the bolded title shouldn't contain wikilinks, or it doesn't, in which case it shouldn't be bolded. See WP:LEAD#Bold title.
    • Unbolded The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • over two legs. Can this be wikilinked?
    • Linked The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer Internazionale to Inter Milan, but both occurrences need to use the same name, and the second needs delinking.
    • Names aligned and overlink removed The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you sure three-time winner is standard English?
    • Pretty sure... It gets a few positive hits on Google The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • in which case it needs hyphenating in Trappatoni's image caption. Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done, thanks for the spot The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • in both 2006 and 2007 UEFA Cup Finals. I know what you're saying, but it doesn't sound right. Maybe "in both the 2006 and 2007 UEFA Cup Finals" works better?
    • Should work better now... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence reads very awkwardly, and "different than" certainly isn't standard British-English. Try something like Only three managers have won the title in charge of teams from a country other than their own; the most recent of these was the Frenchman, Gérard Houllier, as manager of English club Liverpool.
    • Done The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Images. Per WP:MOS#Images, images in portrait format should have the 'upright' parameter. They normally wouldn't have a width set if the thumb parameter is present, though if they're going to start interfering with the table at some combination of screen width and user preferences, that's probably a good enough reason to set an image width.
    • Not familiar with upright so I'll need to look into this further. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well that was pretty straightforward... done! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • By year table. It would be helpful if the countries (both of manager and of club) were in separate columns to make the table sortable by country. The reader might well want to view, say, all the Italian winners together.
    • Hmm, that's a bigger job. Would you consider it essential? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • yes, to be honest. It's the sort of thing the reader (at least, the reader who knows that those little shapes after the column headings are sort buttons) would expect, especially as the By nationality table prompts them into thinking about it. Ideal use for a sortable table. Wouldn't have thought it was that big a job, would you like me to have a go at it? Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's a really big job, the hardest part I think will be coming up with succinct headings for the two new columns... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Wouldn't bother with headings, if the flags are right next to the name and club respectively, it should be as obvious what they refer to as it was when they were in the same column. Struway2 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That'll do for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• • One more thing. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering says that Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should always be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.. If this list is a chronological list within the meaning of this guideline, can you think of a good reason for going against the guideline? Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The only reason I could come up with is that I didn't know the guideline said that! I'll fix it... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • not surprised, I didn't either :-) Was just wondering if there was a reason lists were always that way up, and found the guideline. Struway2 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All issues resolved. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I mean, you are after all a mega-officianado. Can't argue with that. Drewcifer (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Comments See my comments made in the List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers FLC. Many of the same concerns apply here. Drewcifer (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

• The in-line citations are over wikilinked. Only the first instance of a publisher value should be wikilinked.
  • I tend to disagree. If an article has dozens of links to one place then why should someone go off and search for the right link in another potentially completely unrelated reference? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily a deal-breaker here (or the others), but I'm just going off WP:MOSLINK. Especially when all the citations lead to essentially similar pages. Drewcifer (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm a mega-officianado of the MOS, in my last two and a bit years here I've seen the MOS questioned and modified a few times. Fingers crossed this'll get changed too. I'm not trying to be awkward but I hope these links won't be the only thing that would prevent your support. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why is Giovanni Trapattoni in the lead, while the others are beside the table? I'd recommend putting him down there with the others.
  • He's the record holder - he's won the cup three times. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure you didn't put him up there because he was your favorite.=) Drewcifer (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely not! I feel that despite the logical placement of some images, aesthetic articles are better. Anyway, I think his image's position is justified (if you don't mind me saying that!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The lead should include a bolded description of the page.
  • I'll have a look and fix that. But this is a bone of contention between reviewers... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Reworded so it's the same as the title and then bolded. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd recommend centering the Final column.
  • Sounds perfectly reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• The flag columns are great, but they are a little big confusing. It's not entirely obvious which other columns they apply to. On one hand I'd say give it a column header, but that would kind of ruin the functionality... any ideas?
  • No, and this was an issue when I added them as separate columns per the comments of Struway2. Unless you can suggest something dynamic and brilliant, I'm going to leave it I think. Perhaps I could add a note in the main text? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Another problem with the flags is that the link to the image, not the country. Again, I don't have a solution up my sleeve, but that seems like a problem.
  • I'll do my best to get the {{sort}} template working harder! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, my initial optimism seems to have been misplaced. You get the flags to sort nicely in country order, but there doesn't seem to be a way to link them to the country. Again, as a suggestion of Struway, I made them sortable according to country name. Perhaps this is a bigger problem than just this FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• An external links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can muster... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There is one now, and I'm asking our fchd.info expert for another... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've added a couple of general references to rsssf.com which is an excellent resource.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment for clarification re bold title.

• Please have a look at WP:MOS#First sentences and WP:LEAD#Bold title. They say that the topic of the article should ideally appear as the subject of the first sentence and in bold face; but "if the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive", the title need not appear verbatim and if it does, it is not bolded. Personally, with these lists I'd lean towards the title being a descriptive one, but wouldn't have a problem if you think otherwise. However, if you are bolding the title, it should not contain wikilinks. Anything that needs linking should be linked later on in the paragraph/section. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up for everyone (myself included) Struway2, I think I'll revert to not bold and a decent opening sentence... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (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 21:00, 15 March 2008.

---

List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games

I believe that this list meets the criteria, and I've had no comments in two weeks of peer review, so I'd like to subject it to closer scrutiny to become a featured list. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment

• You might want to briefly explain the "gaps" in the years the Games were held (i.e. during the two World Wars), for those who aren't already aware of them.
  • Do you think that requires some formatting to each table (e.g. a thicker vertical bar at those gaps), or just a statement in the introduction? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I was thinking of a statement in the introduction, but the thicker bar might also be useful to draw a bit of attention to the gap. So both, I guess! MeegsC | Talk 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added explanatory legend at the top. I did not edit the 24 tables, as the wikicode to put gaps for the three cancelled Games was a bit excessive, and the list is already 49K. I think the legend is sufficient. Added columns for cancelled Games, shaded dark grey.

• What's the "Code" used for?
  • Good point. I'm so close to the trees that I can't see the forest. The code is used frequently to report event results, at the Games themselves (e.g. you'd see "JPN" on a scoreboard next to a Japanese athlete's name) and in the official reports. I have recently updated List of IOC country codes, and I will nominate that soon as a featured list, but a short explanation might also help on this article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think just a brief explanation (what you said above is probably sufficient, for example). While a reader could easily figure out that it's a code for the country, the need for that code isn't immediately clear. MeegsC | Talk 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done added note and link to legend — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than those two small things, this is a great looking list! MeegsC | Talk 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Hi. My first comment relates to what MeegsC said about the Code. The note provided still doesn't explain why it's there. Simply linking to List of IOC country codes isn't enough, I think.
• While the explanatory comments are linked to the footnote section in the tables, it's a little annoying not to have the ref links to the external references not included in the tables. The way it is now, any of those references could apply to any entry and if I wanted to see the reference for Botswana, for example, (a) I wouldn't know if there was one; and (b) if there is, I don't actually know which one it is.
  • Looking closer at the references, it appears each external link is per event, not per country. So I guess the ref link needs adding next to each year in the header.

  I struggled a lot trying to figure out the best way to reference this list, so any suggestions would be welcome. The problem is that the references are per-Games, instead of per-nation, so you would have ~200 incoming links to the single reference for the 2004 Games, if I was to put one next to each bullet in the table. Putting a reference in each table header section is also awkward (see below). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't have any suggestions of how. Sorry. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrwsc (talk • contribs)

• Per WP:SEASON, years shouldn't really be abbreviated to two digits except where absolutely clear, and since the dates span three centuries, I'm not sure if it is absolutely clear. While I realise this may mess up the table width, and send it veering off of the edge of the page, personally I could deal with seeing the first instance of each century in full (1896, 1900 and 2000) and the others kept abbreviated.

  That's precisely the problem — the table formatting is much uglier with any of these possible styles:

Nation	Code	1896	1900	04	08	12	20	24	28	32	36	48	52	56	60	64	68	72	76	80	84	88	92	96	2000	04
Greece	GRE	H	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	H

Nation	Code	18 96	19 00	19 04	19 08	19 12	19 20	19 24	19 28	19 32	19 36	19 48	19 52	19 56	19 60	19 64	19 68	19 72	19 76	19 80	19 84	19 88	19 92	19 96	20 00	20 04
Greece	GRE	H	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	H

• ..and it gets worse if references are added to the table header too! (I've tried.) Another option might be to have a new section with a per-Games table before the alphabetic list of nations, showing the number of nations at each Games with references there. I shall explore that idea. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• You should probably consider Wikipedia:Self linking each instance of "see Russia", "see Soviet Union", "see Yugoslavia" to if not the country in question, then the section containing that country. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's it from me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More comments

• First I just wanted to say I understand the problem with adding refs and using full dates for the table headers, so unless any other reviewers object, it's fine with me now to leave it as it is.
• Every note regarding a name changes of a country should be referenced.

   Done

• From "Participation notes"
  • [C] thru [G], and [I] thru [X] all need references
  • [D] and [G]: "Some sources consider": remove.
  • [L] - Are there any reasons why they didn't compete in the main part of the games?
  • [R] - What boycott?

  All  Done

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• • •  Working Now that I've re-written all the footnotes to use {{ref label}}, I can properly reference them. Maybe by today I should have that complete. (I was in China last week and unable to edit Wikipedia even when I had Internet access, due to the oppressive censorship policies of the PRC government...) As for the partial boycotts in 1956 (Suez crisis) and 1976 (African nations, due to the South African rugby team competing in New Zealand), I can explain those in an improved intro. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

      now  Done

Comments

• "Therefore, the Swiss might also be considered to have competed in every Games to date." - simple fact is they did compete as they took place in the equestrian sports.

   Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• The lead needs expanding for me. It kind of deterioriates into a {{main}} template, a legend and some bullet points. Untidy.

   Working — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  now  Done. The introduction is now rather large, so this has become much like an article than a list! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The notes/refs both using numbers is confusing to me.

   Done I've fixed the section footnotes (using {{cref}}) to use an abbreviation instead. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• The notes all appear to need references as far as I'm concerned.

   Working The biggest problem I have here is that I'm using <ref>...</ref> for footnotes, which would conflict with using it for references. Also, I can't nest refs, so I wouldn't be able to reference a footnote automatically. Would a combined "Notes and references" section at the end be a bad thing, or should I stick to separate sections for each? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  If you use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} for the notes you would be able to use <ref>...</ref> to reference the notes. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for that! I was looking around today for some techniques to handle this, but hadn't seen those templates. Before I deconstruct and reassemble this list, using these templates, any comment about the best way to reference the per-Games sources? Shall I put a table of Games (referenced) before the alphabetical list? I am reluctant to add references to each of the table cells (> 3000 in total), or even to add 25 references to each of the 24 table headers (600 total). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  A table of games might suffice. Put one in and then we can take a look at it. Other than that I don't know. Sorry. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

   Done Notes are now referenced. I wrote a fairly large History section to handle the per-Games set of refs, by mentioning them all at least once. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A good list but some concern for me over the lead and the referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I think that after expanding the lead a little more, you should head for a level 1 heading which turns your bullets into prose (to explain what the following tables are about to explain). I reckon that'd work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  That's the angle I'm pursuing now, using introductory prose to describe the growth of the Games in terms of number of nations etc. and attaching references to every instance of each Games mentioned in the text. I'm worried that it might come across as too "forced", since I need to mention all 25 Games at least once within the prose in order to get all the references covered, but we'll see how it looks when I'm done in a few hours. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • The table is inconsistent as to which former countries it includes. It includes the Soviet Union, but not the two Yemens. I don't know if I want all of them in it (especially since the history isn't as complex as Germany's, and I rather like the Germany section), but maybe a note as to what warrants inclusion.

    Yeah, that's true. I also did not include distinct table rows for Serbia and Montenegro (instead attached notes to each of Serbia and Montenegro for 2004 only), to the British West Indies (notes for Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad-Tobago for 1960 only), to Australasia (AUS and NZL for 1908 and 1912 only), for Malaya (1952-1956) and North Borneo (1956), for the Unified Team in 1992, etc. I felt that the footnote approach was more effective in most cases, especially for the "combined team" cases where the individual nations are listed far apart, alphabetically. Germany works because they are all listed together, and the United Team of Germany years (1956–1964) are best shown merged as they are. Is this "inconsistency" a deal-breaker for you? What kind of note would help you? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    I don't know. It's just jarring to have some former countries but not other, when the only difference appears to be length of time. However, then we run into focus creep - is this a list of participating nations, or a list of participating organizations? ANZ was not a nation, but it was a single olympic organization for those two olympiads.

     Done I have added a "Description" section to explain that the list is arranged by the current 205 NOCs, with URS, YUG, TCH and FRG/GDR being the only obsolete NOCs mentioned, and only for clarity reasons. Hopefully this works, as I see the two alternatives (put all historic NOCs into the list, or replace those few by a string of footnotes) as much less clear. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Some mention should be made that the country names are the ones used by the IOC, not necessarily official or international names.

    That's not precisely true. For example, the IOC currently uses "Islamic Republic of Iran", "Lao People's Democratic Republic", "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", etc. The only "unusual" names on this list are perhaps "Great Britain" (instead of United Kingdom) and "Chinese Taipei" (for Republic of China - Taiwan). The latter is explained in a footnote, but perhaps needs to be expanded. I could add a footnote for GBR too. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    And "China" instead of "People's Republic of". Maybe to be consistent, we should use the IOC names?

     Done for China. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • What was the code for North Borneo?

    There is none. The codes were introduced in the 1960s-1970s, and North Borneo only ever appeared in 1956. The 1956 official report sourced in this article does not use country codes. But now that you mention that, I really ought to remove "SAA" from Saar for the same reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Yay, I helped! Be sure to include a footnote explaining why those two lack codes.

     Done by only mentioning Saar and North Borneo in the footnotes, not the main table

  • Perhaps an extra table should be included, showing all of the obsolete names/codes. I would very much like to have this information outside of just footnotes.

    That kind of table is already included at List of IOC country codes#Historic NOCs and teams. Do I really need to replicate that here? Anotehr idea would be to collect all the content references for previous names into a distinct section, instead of placing them at the end of each individual section. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Hrm. I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and work on a table for this.

  • You're going to hate me, but I think the WW2 columns should be included, and shaded out, and showing the host nations.

    (sigh) Yes. I do hate you. I will work on it...  ;) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done

  • The names of the country notes are rather jarring; can't you just use single letters?

    This is the first time I've used content references with {{cref}} and {{cnote}}, and the examples listed there use words and phrases, so I assumed that was the accepted style. One thing to consider — if I list all of those references together in a single section per the previous suggestion, then those would be effective identifiers in what could also be seen as a standalone sub-list. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Ah. I'll work with it a little.

  • That's all for now. I like this list, let's see if we can make it great. --Golbez (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the feedback. Check back in a few hours and tell me what you think! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    And thanks for your response! --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - should Bohemia be included with anyone else after 1912? Was it part of Czechoslovakia? --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Done Bohemia removed from list; added as footnote for Czech Republic participation prior to Czechoslovakia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - An impressive table.
  • However, I find it incongruous that the font size in the legend and notes is larger than the font size of the content in the table. If at all possible, I'd like to see the font size increased in the table. I haven't tested it on a truly small display, but I think that font size could be increased to at least 95% without significantly degrading viewability on small display screens. The "Nation" column could be made somewhat narrower without loss of quality. (However it looks like the IOC code inserts nonbreaking spaces in multi-word names, thus preventing line breaks in the longer names.) Regardless of the font size in the table, the article would be more aesthetic if the legend and notes had the same font sizes as the references. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

     Done 100% font size just fits at XGA (1024x768) screen size, which is (I think) an appropriate design target. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was just about to do something as drastic as to correct the same problem Golbez highlighted pertaining to which entries goes in and which goes out until I noticed this nomination. I am of the opinion that if we are going to have Czechoslovakia, the Germanys, the Soviet Union, etc in the list, than all other former nations with distinct borders should be added too, including Saad and North Borneo etc. I am also particularly disturbed by the way the China issue is handled, which highlights questions on where we make distinctions on the way we handle name changes of nations with borders intact, name changes of nations with different borders, and nations with different borders but no name changes. The tables fails to illustrate the fact that the "China" of 1932 to 1948 was represented as one single country, then known officially as the ROC. It seems to suggest that atheletes from the area now administered by the PRC did not participate in the game during that period, as the name "China" is greyed out from 1986 to 1948 (despite obviously in reference to the PRC which did not exist then).--Huaiwei (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  Well, the original intent was to only list the current 205 NOCs and use footnotes etc. to describe the past history. I still feel that is vastly preferable to listing all the predecessor nations in the same table. Certainly, this approach works well for relatively simple situations such as name changes (e.g. British Honduras→Belize) or some nation changes (e.g. Yemens, Malaya+North Borneo→Malaysia, etc.) but as you can see, there are some complications with respect to the more complex nation changes, specifically, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and perhaps Germany. Currently, only these four are treated differently. The biggest reason for doing this is that it is unclear how else to express this without implying too much. For example, we know that Armenia was part of the Soviet Union (as the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic), but we don't know if there were Armenian athletes competing for the Soviet Union for all instances since 1952. Therefore, I don't think we can put a string of footnotes in the table cells for Armenia prior to 1992; the current method of a single spanned table cell with a pointer to "see Soviet Union" seems to be more appropriate. Let me write an explanatory statement in the introduction and we'll see if that works, or still needs improvement.

  As for China, I am not completely happy with the current layout either, so any suggestions are welcome. I am convinced that the history needs to be explained using only two table rows, since there are only two NOCs to consider. However, it is certainly muddy since the ROC evolved into TPE (representing Taiwan only), but represented all of China in the first few appearances. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

   Done I think? I think the new "Description" helps explain how the table is organized around the current 205 NOCs, only adding a select few number of historical ones for clarity reasons. Still might use some expansion on the ROC/PRC issue if needed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

   Done I've also updated the CHN/TPE section to add a row for ROC, which should help explain this (also with the footnotes). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks I think that helps the resolve the issue for now. I have also amended the text slightly for more contextual information.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It is good that you have a table legend, but I don't like the positioning right now. And I miss any reference to the 1906 Summer Olympics. They are not considered "official" anymore, but don't you want to mention them anyway (just as they are mentioned in the {{Olympic games}}-template? Otherwise: great list!-EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

   Done Added mention of 1906 in the History prose text, and updated the table legend placement as part of the expanded Description section. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Would it be ideal to (perhaps eventually) provide links to all of the subpages via the bullets in the tables, or was there a reason you decided against this? For instance, United States at the 2004 Summer Olympics? Jared (t)  23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  That would have added about ~120–140K to the size of this list, which is already currently 72K. I felt that providing links to the top level summary article for each nation (i.e. United States at the Olympics), each of which has a full set of navigation links to individual Games results pages in the respective infoboxes, was wholly sufficient. This list is not intended to serve as a massive single page navbox. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  I figured that that might be the case. It doesn't bother me any either way. It would probably make sense to keep them off. Jared (t)  23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Awesome list! Mind you, I didn't bother reading all of the comments made above, but I can't think of any ways to dramatically improve it. My only suggestions are to add a External links section and to add a See also section, thus moving the ugly {{see also}} template from the lead. The Winter games article can be (should be) mentioned in the lead, but not with a template. Put it in some prose and make a new section at the end you're good to go. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Is the usage of {{see also}} really so bad? I thought is was pseudo-standard, and certainly wouldn't hinder featured list/article status...? I'll see what I can add for external links. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done anyway! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - A nice job on a notable (not to mention surprisingly difficult) list topic. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see where this list can be any more enriched content-wise. Great job, Andrwsc. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2008 (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 13:19, 14 March 2008.

---

List of wealthiest foundations

I believe that this list meets all of the criteria required for WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Needed improvements:
  • References doesn't need to be sortable.
  • Endowment needs proper sorting; at present, when you sort, $3 billion comes after $10 billion.
  • A note at the top of the table or column can say all figures are USD; you don't need to repeat US in the entire column. (But keep the $)
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done Gary King (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments Wow - you're really putting out a lot of lists!

• Could you explain briefly what "financial endowment" is, and what the "legal sense" of a foundation is, and a "holding company" in the lead? I know they're wikilinked, but it'd still be nice to have one or two sentences on the page without clicking out of it to find out.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is it really correct as of March 4th? The referenced sites don't have a date in them to know how old they are.
  • This means that the endowment values are current in terms of the exchange rate on March 4th. Gary King (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The endowment value is an estimate measured in United States dollars" - Why? Is it just because the ref sites give it in $, or is this how this sort of thing is always measured? I only ask because the US$ is currently rather worthless compared to some other currencies.
  • The primary reason is because most of the largest foundations are US-based. Gary King (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Therefore, would it be worth putting in the monetary value of the country of origin as well as US$ for those companies that are not American?
  • Done Added. Gary King (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Need to use the correct symbols; not all currencies use $. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done Good point. Gary King (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The Native currency column shouldn't be sortable though, as they're not equal in value/stature, like HK$77.8 billion might actually not be bigger than Skr32.7 billion, if you know what I mean. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Right, good point. Gary King (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Out of interest, why does the list stop at 25? I'd like to see a "Top 100", so to speak.
  • I was going to, but 1) It is difficult to find compile this list because of 2) the endowments change so often that the list would be quickly outdated. A smaller list is easier to manage for this particular subject. Gary King (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Well written, presented, referenced. Meets criteria. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Sorry it's taken so long for me to get round here! Another great list, congrats. One thing: would "snapshot" in the lead be too colloquial? I ask because I'm not sure, but that's no reason to withhold my support. 92.11.138.100 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, it logged me out! PeterSymonds | talk 21:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. Gary King (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support Much improved since the time I first encountered (and edited) this article several months back. I edited the intro today; I hope my editing does not cause anyone else to change their good opinion of this list. Minor gripes:

1. Can "Country of origin" be changed to "Country"? I can't figure out what "origin" refers to in that context (in most cases, the donors got their money from all over the world). --Orlady (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Several of the internal links (The California Endowment, Garfield Weston Foundation, and Realdania) do not point to articles about the foundation. The California and Denmark articles don't even tell about the foundation. IMO, every linked item on the list should point to an article or article section about the foundation. Those three need to be fixed... --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (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 13:19, 14 March 2008.

---

List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States

This article should have all available information concerning the top 10 rainfall amounts (if the state was impacted by 10 systems) for all states, and relevant territories, which have been impacted by Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclones and their remnants. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment For the most part, it has no prose, and no lead. I think at least a short descriptive lead would be needed, and a little prose for each state. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The ones that you have done look better, so when the rest of the states get a couple sentences, I will support. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment — I'd agree with the suggestion to add a bit of prose. I'm also rather surprised that Hurricanehink hasn't participated in this article. It's the first tropical storm article I've ever seen that doesn't have at least one contribution by him. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See here for a Hurricanehink contrib to the article Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I must've missed that earlier. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Now that there is some good prose, I support. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Object: While this article has obviously had a lot of work put into it, and is very good and and almost certainly unique anywhere on the internet, I feel that I have no choice but to object. My reason is the lack to tropical cyclone rainfall info for American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands. If those places were added, (I'm not sure if Johnston or Wake need their own sections), I would have no objection to this being a featured list. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC) My objection has been resolved. Since I am a member of WP:WPTC, and have edited this page, I'll refrain from explicitely supporting it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You bring up good points. The USVI and American Samoa issues have been resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment It would be nicer if each of the tables had the same width, overall and by column. Also, the colums should be sortable so readers can look at the data in various ways. Hmains (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this possible? If so, show me how and it will be done. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I added percentages to the tables. They should all be the same size width, both overall and in each column. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Help:Sorting says that "Javascript sorting may not work properly on tables with cells extending over multiple rows and/or columns". This list has lots of tables like that. Do you still think sorting should be added? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment I find the map to be difficult to read, even when expanded. Some of the numbers cross state boundries and are unclear. The storm names are fuzzy and hard to read. Are the colors making the problem? Hmains (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you clicked on the image twice? If you do, it is very clear. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments. Support I hate to ask, but what about Alaska? The Hurricane Ioke article mentions some rainfall in Alaska from its extratropical remnants, and the CPHC report on Fico (78) also mentions some Alaskan rainfall. I just noticed something while cleaning up the wikilinks; there are two Allison 89's in the Pennsylvania section. I assume one was for Allison 01, but I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a mistake. One more thing. I know {{cite web}}s are a requirement for FAC's, but are they also for FLC's? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I went through it. The references should be cite webs now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 08:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed the PA problem...the second Allison was supposed to be Donna. I'll look at those two articles. Maybe Alaska is needed after all. However, I am concerned that we're on a slippery slope here. Many extratropical cyclones which move into the Gulf of Alaska are former Pacific typhoons. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, that could be a problem. Perhaps there should just be a prose section for Alaska, that says something like "No tropical cyclone has ever directly affected Alaska, though the remnants of Pacific typhoons often affect the state. Former Hurricane Ioke brought X inches of rain t Bethel." The tricky part is sourcing, however. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes. And Alaska is a large state as well, even though the number of precipitation observing sites in AK is similar to FL (due to their small population). It would take a significant amount of time to include AK into the HPC rainfall website, since it would involve cross-checking multiple hurricane databases and somehow obtaining pacific weather analyses from NCDC. Last I checked, they haven't digitized them, at least not prior to nMap's implementation in 1999. The older surface analyses for AK and the northern Hemisphere are quite large and unwieldy. I can't imagine ordering the 30 years of them between 1970 and 1999. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Quick question. Should the lede clarify that the totals are the highest known rainfall totals? After all, each table lists the top known totals, and since this article has been on FLC, I have seen the order change a few times. Additionally, I'd like some clarification on the following.
            • For Hawaii, tropical cyclones and their remnants which have moved through the central Pacific ocean were considered. For Guam, tropical cyclones which moved through the western Pacific ocean were considered.
          • It doesn't mention American Samoa, it seems a bit repetitive, and I'm not really sure what the sentences mean. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I reworded the lead. Hopefully it makes more sense now, and is less repetitive. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Yea. I'll support this now, so this FLC doesn't get closed prematurely, but there's still some things I'd like to see. The image size should probably be the same for the images on the right of each section. The intro for a few of the states don't mention which storm was the wettest, though I'm not sure if that was intentional or not (see South Carolina). It makes it a bit awkward, when you don't know which storm it was. Also, I fixed some of the Wikilinks for the retired storms (by changing Hurricane Floyd (1999) to [[Hurricane Floyd), but I wasn't sure if the year identifier was intentional or not (if so, it should've been Hurricane Floyd (1999)). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Fixed the blurbs. All images are now set to be 250 px wide. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Now that I look at it, it is very inconsistant; the image map in the lead says the maximum rainfall for New York is Floyd. However, the first sentence in the New York section says it was Diane that dropped the most rainfall. But when I look at the table for New York, it says Connie was the biggest rainfall producer. Which one is it? I question the accuricy of this article. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The box at the top of the map says: "Maximum Rainfall caused by Tropical Cyclones and their remnants per state (1972-2007)" (emphasis added). The map's only including totals since 1972 explains why Diane is in the list but not the map. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Julian is right about the Connie/Diane mix up. The fix has been made. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: While looking though it yesterday, I noticed that a few totals are without sources, eg Pamela in Guam. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Struck. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This was because the former reference for Pamela's rainfall became invalid. The rainfall totals for Guam will have a source once I return to work on Monday morning. After your request for data from American Samoa, I found Guam information as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll strike that comment once Monday comes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You might be able to recover it using the Internet Archive. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • While that is potentially helpful, there have been requests in the past to include Pacific Island info on the HPC rainfall page. I'll include the info on the HPC website tomorrow morning. The stat I found for Pamela was higher than previously referenced. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I gave the article a full copyedit, but I have a few questions/comments/concerns:
  • The Florida section indicates that the rainfall caused by Easy in '50 was the national record at the time. However, it also states that Easy's record held until '79, which adds several issues. First, the article itself says that Hiki caused 52 in of rain in Hawaii that same year; while it is true that Easy caused more rainfall over a state at the time (as Hawaii was still a territory), can you still say that the Easy's record was national after 1959, when Hawaii entered the Union? Or am I over-complicating stuff?
  • Also along the same lines, that section says that Easy's record was broken by Claudette in '79. But the section about Texas says that in '78, Amelia caused 3 in of rain more than Claudette produced a year later. Both of those points can't be correct, unless I'm missing something obvious.
  • The units for the Puerto Rico section indicate the rainfall in mm / ''. The rest of the article uses in (mm). The units (and the order) should be consistent within the article.
  • There are several sections which have "List of X hurricanes" articles (such as List of California hurricanes, List of Delaware hurricanes, etc.), and it may be a good idea to add them to the respective sections using {{seealso}}. Currently, only Florida has a link to the respective list. Also, adding more links to "Climate of X" articles for each state might be a good idea, for consistency.
• Otherwise, the article is great. The only other thing I can see is that not all the images are the same width, but that is so minor that nobody cares. I'll support once these points are addressed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a blurb about the 42" in TX in 24 hours during Claudette being a rainfall record. The difference between Claudette and Amelia is that Amelia's rainfall was distributed over a series of nights. I don't think any one location received over 30" per 24 hours in Amelia. Hiki's large rainfall (52") occurred over more than 24 hours as well. If you can think of a better way of wording it in the article to avoid confusion, I'm open to it. All concerns about Climate of XX and List of XX Hurricanes being included in see also's within various states have now been addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • So, would you be able to say that Hiki holds the national precipitation record for a tropical cyclone during its lifetime, and that Amelia holds the storm total rainfall record for the contiguous United States? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, we can say that. I'll put in that wording. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks good. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. According to my watch list, this article was promoted over an hour ago to a featured list, but no star has appeared on the main page, the template at the top of the talk page has yet to be changed, and this candidates talk page is still open. I'm not supposed to change these things myself, am I? Thegreatdr (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot will close this and add the FL star. It is currently inactive (since earlier this morning), but when it comes back on I'm sure it'll add the rest. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2008 (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 13:19, 14 March 2008.

---

List of billionaires (2007)

I think that this is a worthy candidate for WP:FL. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - including a note saying that the dash, green up arrow, and red down arrow represent would be nice, although it's fairly easy to discern that they refer to changes from the previous list. Include it regardless though. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done I added a legend. Gary King (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - good work. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comment

• I think the lead should mention this is only the first 100 billionaires, with a link to the next page of 101+
• The gallery is just a little too wide on my screen (1024 x 728).
• Perhaps link "2006", the last word of the final lead paragraph to List of billionaires (2006)

And that's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done All done. Gary King (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• How feasable is it to put last year's ranking in brackets next to this year's ranking, or in a separate column? It's ok to say up or down, but I'd like to see how much by.
  • Probably not very practical since we already have the previous year's list at List of billionaires (2006). Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Same with net worth.
  • Per above. Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Are the Sources of Income sourced in the references, or is it WP:OR?
  • The Sources of Income originate from the Forbes article. When you go to the URL, click on one of the names and you will see 'Source'. Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm assuming, given that Forbes published the list around this time last year that they're about ready to publish a new one - The article will be updated within a relatively small timeframe I hope?
  • Either that, or a new list will be generated. Same layout, new data. It will probably reside at List of billionaires (2008). Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah! it says 2007 in the title. Silly me! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• More explaination in the lead is needed for what Forbes is, I think. "Stock prices and exchange rates", too. Which stock prices? NYSE, FTSE, etc etc, also what are stock prices and what are exchange rates?
  • Done Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• "some period of absence" is a little vague. "Snapshot" is a term I also find un-encyclopaedic.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• "the billionaires ranked 101–946 are found at List of billionaires (2007) 102-946" Wouldn't this be "the billionaires ranked 102–946 are found at List of billionaires (2007) 102-946" because there are two rankings this year at 100.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• How about a local currency amount for those outside US? Similar to the wealthiest foundation list. Not sortable though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say it wouldn't make much sense, considering I can only really get the exchange rates for today and I'm not sure how I'd get them from February 9 2007. If I used today's exchange rate, then obviously it wouldn't work well since the data is supposed to be set in stone on that day. Gary King (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support How about getting List of billionaires (2007) 102-946 and 2006, 2005, 2004 done, too? :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In due time, in due time... probably not the 102-946, though. That's way too massive. The page itself already slows computers down to a crawl. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Support a great list with all the features I'd expect. Country flags are an excellent addition, and it's interesting to see that only our Duke of Westminster ranks in the top 100 British billionaires. I have two comments. In the external links section, you have a link to the top American billionaires. Could more be added for international diversity (if they can be found)? Also, I notice that the page is semi-protected; I'm sure that's just because it's controversial, but is it stable? Again, great work! PeterSymonds | talk 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Added a few links. I wasn't even aware that the article was protected because it didn't have the lock symbol; there isn't really much I can do about it I guess? I don't even know why it is protected. Gary King (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've requested its unprotection at WP:RPP. At least it's stable, which was my major concern. It's now unprotected. Great work :) PeterSymonds | talk 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why isn't net worth sortable? It's the most important column, surely?! And shouldn't it be "Net worth" rather than "Net Worth"?
  • Done I tried earlier but it didn't work. Turns out the 'US' preceding the dollar amount was messing up the sorting; I've moved that to the header now. And sortable. And renamed. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I may be wrong but I'm sure trillion and billion are different in the US from the rest of the world. Can you check that out for me?
  • Trillion is a mathematical term, therefore it is constant around the world, as much as hundred, thousand, million, and billion are. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I imagine sorting names using the {{sortname}} template would be preferable.
  • Done Didn't know about that template. Done. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Last year's list doesn't need three links in three lines.
  • If you're talking about 'See also', then those are 3 different lists of 3 different years. Gary King (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I'm talking about the key table.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is it worth allowing "source of wealth" to be sortable if you have something like "investments" in there?
  • Done Gary King (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Consider putting US$ in the heading for net worth so it's not repeated 101 times...!
  • Done Gary King (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support although I still think billion and trillion in the lead need to link to the correct numbers, despite the idea that the long scale may not have been in wide use for a while, it's still potentially ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done Linked! Gary King (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support
  1. Maybe I missed it, but what number do you mean by saying a billion? 1 000 000 000? or 1 000 000 000 000?
     • 1000000000. The long scale has not been in wide use for decades, at the least. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
       • Still, a link to the 1 000 000 000 000 page will be make it clearer.--Crzycheetah 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
         • Done. Gary King (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. The "#" column doesn't sort properly.
     • I've unsorted it until someone can figure out how to properly sort it. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
       • The {{nts}} template does the trick.--Crzycheetah 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
         • Done Gary King (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  --Crzycheetah 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment the 'source of wealth' column could be more useful by being sortable. Hmains (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done Gary King (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have to say I disagree as it only sorts the first word out of those with more than one source. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The way I see it, some people would at least rather have that option than not at all. It isn't entirely useless; for instance, you can quickly see where the Wal-Mart inheritance lies on the list. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (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 02:13, 13 March 2008.

---

List of Meerkat Manor meerkats

I am nominating this list for featured list as I believe it meets all of the criteria for being a featured list. It is comprehensive, combining well referenced information from the Meerkat Manor series with available real-world information from the Kalahari Meerkat Project and other references. It is well-constructed, grouping the major meerkats by their family groups. It complies with all applicable MOS's, with a proper lead section and an appropriate image of the main meerkats of the series. Finally, I believe it is well-written, and it has been copyedited so it should not have any major grammatical or wording problems. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, I was reading through the list and it seems like Flower has enough notability to warrant her own page, is there a particular reason why she doesn't? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thus far, there has been no need or any real desire to create one. While she is the most prominent of the Whiskers, even the book seems to focus primarily on the group as a whole and the project. Though her death was covered in the newspapers, before that, there is actually little outside sourcing about her, so there isn't much real world expansion. KMP does not make a ton of information available beyond what's already sourced from their site. The book might be used to give more prehistory, but that won't be released in the US until April 18th, so I can't say for sure if that will provide more information to allow for a fuller article. The movie might also give more info, at which time it might be something to consider. For now, though, I don't think she really needs one. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comment Wow – I'm just skimming over it right now. From the contents it looks like it's going to be a hard read, but it's actually not.

• Repeated word use at "the primarily purpose of the Kalahari Meerkat Project is to study the "...the breeding success"
• Do the references back up the statements that the meerkats were named after other people/characters, for example Zaphod Beeblebrox?
• Where does the description of being a "bruiser" come from?
• Where does the description of having "some social problems" come from? Is there a narrator or something on the show that these come from? If so, it's probably from a script, or descriptions the producers wanted to give and could be one-sided. Are there any third-party descriptions available?
• "possibly from when he was dropped on his head by a bird of prey as a pup" – did this event actually happen? Was it shown on screen, or is it discussed elsewhere?
• What is a "roving male" I assume it means he's off chasing the ladies?
• As {{cite episode}} has a field for credits, the director, camera operators or something might be good to include.
• For Axle, it says "In the US broadcast, the spelling of Axle's name is changed to Axel". Did they actually have credits at either the beginning or end, or is this taken from closed captioning, DVD cover text, or something else?
• Additional: Are there any more pictures that could be included, especially for the more prominent characters?-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Other than those few questions, it's a really nice read! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) The repeated word has been fixed. Yes, the KMP FAQ gives some specifics on which meerkats were named after specific people/groups. "Bruiser" is specifically used on the AP meet section on their website (see the reference). "Some social problems" is the phrase used through the first series in the opening sequence. For the possible head dropping, it is stated in the episode cited (#3). Roving male...basically, yes, its a male meerkat that has left the security of his group to find females to mate with outside of his group, returning to his group sporadically between trips. The director/writer for each episode isn't information that I've been able to find, unfortunately, as none of the UK sites I could find with episode information gave those specifics. I removed the statement on Axle's name being respelled. The AP site now has it spelled as Axle instead of Axel.

On the question of pictures, I originally planned to put a picture of each group, however during the peer review, it was felt that one was sufficient as meerkats generally look the same. If more group images would be good, though, I can try to get some more from the DVDs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's what the peer review said, I'll go with that. I can see the reasoning behind it. I've taken a closer look just now and found a couple of the same things The Rambling Man did, but other than that have nothing new to add right now. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - This is a really good list. Well written, sourced, presented. Meets the criteria. And all my comments were either fixed or refuted with good explainations. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments - nice list, some comments...

• Avoid getting too wordy in the caption (succinctness is the key).
• "which only appear in one or two episodes" - one or two? Which is it? Need to be definitive really rather than familiar.
• "Dominant Female" - why capitalise the Female?
• "three square mile" - use {{convert}} for folks who aren't Imperialists.
• "several adults and pups to death, " - expand, i.e. did they all get killed in one go? Did they get sick? Sounds serious enough for explanation.
• "(ISBN 0-297-84484-9)" - not sure this is really needed in the prose - move it down to references with a good {{cite book}} template.
• "Flower was a devoted mother" - just "she was a devoted mother" will work fine here.
• "she was bitten in " - "she was killed after being bitten.." (some may not be aware that the bite was terminal.
• " primarily purpose" - primary?
• British English article presumably (since its about a British show) so "eulogized", "named for" etc need to be Brit-ified!
• Keep citations in numerical order (I see a couple of [3][2]).
• "series 3" - series three.
• "research name " - explanation needed.
• " and get pregnant" - clumsy.
• Link goshawk.
• "in a (very) rare event for meerkat society" - phrase used twice in consecutive sections, firstly is it cited by the reference and secondly, can you use a slightly different phrase?
• "premature birth caused by the strain of her new-found leadership" - is that referenced?
• "research number" again, needs explanation.
• There's a lot of "burrow move"s - perhaps an explanation the first time round what this means (for the non meerkat experts?)
• Link euthanize (or it's Brit Eng equivalent)
• Link Commandos.
• "Meerkat Manor states that Lola has been the leader of the Zappa for three years. In reality, she was born in March 2005..." - why the discrepancy?
• "Starsky" - was it, perchance, named after the TV cop?
• De La Soul is mentioned three times but doesn't have a section...
• You've got one deadlink (see this) and you seem to be referencing Wikipedia a lot - as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't meet WP:RS.

So several comments to attend to, I'll have to oppose for the moment. Let me know if you'd like to discuss anything I've written here! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the second item? That section is noting that meerkats which only appear in one or two episodes are not listed, so it could be any one or two? How do you Britify eulogized? I tried to get as many as I could, but since I'm American, I probably missed some. For "Link Commandos" where should they be linked to? No idea why MM changed Lola's leadership. They haven't really explained why they sometimes change things from reality, but I reworded to try to make it clearer. Starsky may have been named after the cop, but we have no reference on her name source. :) De la Soul is only actually named in the one episode where she disappears, so there isnt' much to say beyond her being the sister of Kinkajou and Mozart, and that she disappeared. I can add a section if its warranted, though that would go against the list qualifications.

"you seem to be referencing Wikipedia a lot" - I don't understand this comment. There are no references at all to Wikipedia? I've fixed the dead link and I think I've addressed everything else with the edits I've made. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, quick response - Brits eulogise, not eulogize, we name things "after" things not "for" them. I'll do my best to find some time to Brit-Eng the article for you should you find it difficult. The reference section, in general, does not contain links external to Wikipedia, they link to episode articles or character articles in Wikipedia, nothing which would be considered a reliable source. More comments should you need them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the two items you mentioned, but feel free to fix the rest as I have little Brit-Eng knowledge beyond what I could find in the MOS. I still do not understand your complaint about the references. How is citing an episode from the series not an RS source? It is the primary source and is a perfectly reliable sources when citing information about "characters" in that series that was stated in the series? Yes, the citations do link to the List of episodes, because that is part of the {{cite episode}} template. I can go strip out the links, but it wouldn't change anything. All of those are references to the actual episodes, not to any Wikipedia article. The Cite Episode template is the one making links to the episode list. It is like wikifying an author name or publisher. You aren't referencing that article, just giving a link if someone wants to follow through. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I caught a few more z's which should be s's in British English so I think that's covered now. My biggest problem with your references is that they do not link out to a external reliable source. They link to a Wikipedia article (which does not necessarily have any pedigree, could be full of {{cn}} templates). I don't want the links to be stripped out, I want them to point out to reliable external pages, not Wikipedia season, character or episode pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how the cite episode template works. The template instructions explicitly state to only link to an outside site if there is no Wikipedia episode list or episode article. In the case of Meerkat Manor, there is an episode list so the cite episode instances are all being properly used. Again the episode itself is the source, not any Wikipedia article, website, or anything else. Only the episode. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well live and learn! Good, thanks for clearing that up... Still seems anomalous to me as you could be linking to stubs or, worse, nonsense. I'm sure in this case it's not the case but you get my drift? Anyway, since that's the way it's supposed to be, I can't very well object on that alone. Please allow me some time to go over the list again and check it for what I've commented on and possibly anything else that may arise. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...basically this kind of linking is the same as linking to the author. It isn't meant to be a reference at all, just a "further info link" if someone wants to explore the topic further. So the author's article could also be a stub, but that would be okay because that isn't the source, only a connection. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I raised a number of issues and they were dealt with well. I made a minor edit to order references numerically but other than that it's in great shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's a very nice list. Out of curiosity, are you aiming for a Meerkat Manor Featured Topic? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• If possible, yes :D AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (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 14:39, 10 March 2008.

---

List of space telescopes

Self-nom. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• A few quick comments (from a very quick look at the article):

(1) What does "Completed" signify in the tables? (I think it means "stopped functioning" or "removed from service." Is there another term that would more clearly describe this?)

(2) I dislike the 90% font-size setting for the tables. Why make the main content of the article harder to read?

(3) The heading "Ref(s)" seems unduly abbreviated. Is this used in other featured lists?

--Orlady (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some quick replies:

(1) It unfortunately means a number of things, ranging from "funding terminated" to "Something went funny and broke the telescope" to "Fell out of the sky". "Completed" was the best word I could come up with: I would welcome any other suggestions.

(2) The formatting was taken directly from Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester, itself taken from the Featured List Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. Having it at 100% makes the columns a bit too wide for my screen (1440 pixels)...

(3) See (2).

Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Wow! This is a shockingly good list! Very nice work. I only have a few minor suggestions. I believe that the mid-sized dahses used (–) to denote lack of data should be actually be the long dash (—). Minor, I know, but grammatically speaking I believe the mid-sized one is meant to be used in sentences, while the long one is meant to be used by itself in tables. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this). Also, the in-line citations, while plentiful and well done, need a tiny bit of work. Mainly, wherever possible publisher values should be presented. Also, only wikilink a publisher in the first citation it's mentioned. NASA, for isntance, is linked everytime. Like I said, fairly minor suggestions. Drewcifer (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The tables now use mdash rather than ndash. I've removed the overzealous linking to NASA, and added in publisher information in all but two cases (those have author information instead). Mike Peel (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking much better. All the edits made so far have definately been improvements. I particularly like the little bit of introductory prose in each section. But why don't all the sections have that? Even if its a sentence or two, it would help make the list much more ledgeable to a layman such as myself. Also, another complaint about the publisher values in the citations, I think that you should be wary of abbreviations. I suppose NASA is ok (since it's article is named after the abbreviation, not the full title), but I'm not sure about ESA and MIT and NOAO. Those should probably be spelled out. And lastly, an external links section would be good. Drewcifer (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the sections will have summaries; they're just taking time for me to write. I don't like external links sections, as they aren't generally necessary and invite spam, so I won't be adding one. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the sections now have summaries. I've removed all of the abbreviations in the publisher entries save for NASA, ESA and JAXA, which I think are well known enough (and those abbreviations are used elsewhere in the list). Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• A brief explaination of what a Gamma ray telescope, X-ray telescope, Ultraviolet telescope, particle detection, gravitational waves etc is/does/why at the beginning of each section would be nice, as I and I'm sure many others, don't know the difference or even that there are different types.

• This will take me a short while... Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Now done. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why aren't telescopes that look solely in our solar system omitted? They're still space telescopes afterall.

• I was wary that this page is very long (>60kb), and that it would be much longer if I included those (>100kb). I plan to create another list at some point dealing with those, looking at solar telescopes, then each planet / other object individually, in a similar way to how this page lists telescopes according to wavelength. It seemed to me like a good division. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's good enough for me, then.

• There are a lot of red wikilinks, and I'd like to see them turned blue, by either creating stubs for them, or at a push, pointing them to a section of an appropriate article.

• I'd also like to see this. I've linked as many as I could find information about on Wikipedia; I'll work on creating stubs for the others over the next few days, when I get the time. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• What does "Completed" mean? The telescope isn't in use any more? Wouldn't "decommissioned" be a better term if that's the case?
  • Nevermind. I saw the comments above. Perhaps "terminated" would work? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why are the table headers blue? They look like wikilinks.

• They're now the standard formatting. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sortability of "Location" is all messed up. The first table for example, with the arrow pointing down, it starts from "639–153,000 km", followed by "600 km", "590–650", then it goes in order, until the last entry, "2,000–200,000 km". I'm not sure because I've never worked with sortable tables but I think this is because instead of 639000 it's abbreviate to 639. And I think the commas might have something to do with it.
  • Additionally, Solar orbit measurements come in as smaller than Earth orbit measurements, because, for example in Infrared, its sorting "0.98" against 1000".
• Why are the measurements only in metric? {{convert}} should be used unless all countries (including the U.S. which usually uses imperial measurements) use metric for this kind of thing. And even then I'd still be inclined to use it.

• After the metric vs. imperial messup that caused the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter, I'd imagine imperial units are taboo with satellites... Also, adding them would double the length of the Location field, pushing everything onto two lines, which would IMO look rather messy. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Messy, perhaps. Accessible to all, yes. Let's wait and find out what other reviewers think. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Echoing Drewcifer, there are not only –es instead of —es, but also -es being used.

• I think that these are now fixed; if they are not, please could you point out some examples? Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• It looks to be all done.

• "Earth orbit" vs. "Earth Orbit"

• I believe that "Earth orbit" is correct; I've changed the one instance of "Earth Orbit" to this. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why are some dates only the month and year, or only year? Is it not available, or you don't know it?

• It means that I haven't been able to find it. If you can find any of them, then please add them... Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well I wouldn't really know where to look, but I'll certainally try.

• The ones that haven't launched yet should probably be put in their own section (at the end), with an additional column stating which type (gamma, xray etc).

• I'm afraid that I don't like this idea, as I much prefer them being in the correct frequency section. That way you can see all of the previous, present and future missions in the frequency range (typically meaning the type of telescope) at once. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm.. I'd still like to see it done, but again, let's see what other reviewers think. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• What does "(~1 AU; trailing Earth)" mean under "Gravitiatonal waves"? Should the squiggly line be a negative sign?

• It means approximately. I've changed it to be more clear now. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regards, -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - All issues resolved, and you're probably right about keeping the future missions as they are. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Re: your earlier question about why solar system telescopes are not included: I've just come across List of Solar System probes, which deals with missions within our solar system, and have linked to that from the introduction of this article. Mike Peel (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I see many good changes to this list. One additional change I would like to see in the table headers is to change "Launched" to "Launch date", in consideration of the fact that some of these dates are in the future. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Is it a list of space telescopes or astronomical space telescopes? In other words, is the title right, the lead right or are they synonymous?

• I thought that they were synonymous: the only exception might be if you count spy satellites as telescopes. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure why the various frequency ranges are capitalised.

• They no longer are. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• " separately in each. " reads a little strangely (to me).

• Rewritten. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Space telescopes that collect cosmic ray nuclei and/or electrons are also included, under "Particle detection", as well as instruments that aim to detect gravitational waves, under "Gravitational waves". " - not sure you need this sentence in its current form. Perhaps just say that they are included and then in the relevant sections expand what is meant by the generic heading.

• Rewritten. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why are periapsis and apoapsis capitalised?

• Fixed. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• "but it these cases" - in these cases?

• Good catch. Fixed. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Gamma-ray or Gamma ray?

• It's a matter of personal choice, methinks. I've gone for Gamma ray, unless the dash is built into the name of something. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not convinced even myself, but you ought to consider imperial units converted from the metric ones as well...
• Captions which are fragments should not end with full stops.

• Fixed. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Left align the name column, it currently looks pretty grim.

• It's now left-aligned. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Location sorts badly - presumably it should sort in increasing/decreasing distance. It doesn't at the moment! In fact, I'd consider just making two columns, one for the periapsis and one for the apoapsis. Then they'd sort perfectly.
• Why abbreviate to AGN when you never use it again?

• It's no longer abbreviated. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dark Universe observatory has no launch or termination date. Why? And the Dark Energy Space telescope...

• The missions are being planned, but I haven't managed to find launch dates for them yet. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• 191709 - 191,709 is preferred.

• Fixed. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• "NASA & ISAS" vs "SRC / NASA" - either & or / but not both (unless they mean something different).

• Sorry, they should have all been "&" - and should be fixed. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Use non-breaking spaces between values and their units.

• I think that these are now in place where needed. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• 21400 - 21,400.

• Fixed. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Might just be me or the time I'm trying to do it but the nasa.gov links all timeout...

• They all worked fine for me at some point over the last few days... Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some things to consider and probably discuss before I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • So to summarise, it now needs work on the sortability (or double columns?) for the peri- and apo-apsis. I'm also concerned over the planned missions without dates just having em-dashes. It'd be worth adding a footnote to explain what that means. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Peri- and apo-apsis are sorting correctly now. I think that they're best as one column, otherwise they would need to be three ("Earth orbit", peri- and apo-), which seems OTT. How about if something like "Future" is put into the launch date of planned missions with no other date? Mike Peel (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you really need some kind of footnote there or at least replace with Future or TBA or something, whatever's most appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• They now say "TBA". Mike Peel (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support an excellent piece of work. Well done Mike. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Location column now sorts properly. I believe that there are two issues from the above that remain unresolved. The first is the red links, which I will create new articles for over time, but I'm not sure when I will get the time. The second is whether or not two units of measurement should be present - imperial and metric. At present it only uses metric, and I'm inclined to leave it that way. Does anyone think that imperial units should be used as well? If so, why? Mike Peel (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because, Wikipedia should be accessible to all users. Americans use imperial measurements. A lot of British still use them, and I'm sure many more countries around the world do too. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since distances in space are not something that people measure on a daily basis, I'm not sure that it's important (or even particularly helpful) to provide unit conversions here. WP:UNITS says conversions should generally be provided, but it makes an exception for "articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units," in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked. (The links are provided in the intro to the subject article.) I think this is an instance where conversion is not necessary, but adding conversions would not hurt anything. --Orlady (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. A nicely done list. --Orlady (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that the lead misses a little bit history, how space telescopes were beginning to be used, how they diversified, future trends. You should also include the number currently in orbit, active, to be launched, and what happens to terminated satellites. Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2008 (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 14:39, 10 March 2008.

---

List of unrecognized countries

I believe that this article is ready to become a WP:FL. It used to be a toddler article, but I now consider this article a big boy article. Gary King (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Gonzo_fan2007

I dont have time for an in depth review, but the statement "More countries are likely to recognise Kosovo in the coming months" needs a direct reference, or needs rewording because this sounds exactly like someones opinion and crystal-balling. Great list though and Im sure it will garner enough support. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Removed. Gary King (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Not keen on the bullet points in the Recognition column, only vaguely useful twice. I'd write it out as prose.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also prefer to see the columns of each table the same width.
    • They are (in my browser) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • IE7 strikes again... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Done Yep, they are for me as well. Use Firefox for any design issues that look funky in I.E. Gary King (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I fixed the table width so that it is even in IE and FF, you just need to use width="X%" instead of width="Xpx". « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Sounds good. Gary King (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Link to de jure.
    • Done--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You abbreviate "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus " and "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" but never use the abbreviation but you don't abbreviate " People's Republic of China" but you use "ROC". Inconsistent.
    • Amended so that abbreviations are offered only when they're later used.
  • Do PRC and ROC both mean the People's Republic of China?
    • No. PRC=China. ROC=Taiwan
  • I fixed one of you date fields in the Israel cite web, just to let you know!
• Otherwise yet another great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support works for me now my concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Support from --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC):

• Your map is showing the two Koreas in light green, where the rest of the green is dark.
  • Comment You need to refresh your cache. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yup. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Golbez

• Comments:
  • Seconding the use of bullets; not useful at all. Prose can be used in the two situations where they're actually used.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The line about UN nations is odd - you mention the PRC and Cyprus, but use a weird parenthetical form for Korea - are the Koreas recognized by one country in the UN? Doubtful. And you omit Israel from that list, even though it has less recognition than the PRC and therefore is a more interesting mention.
    • Done Gary King (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose in the Palestine entry needs work.
    • 'Done Gary King (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Standardize the language - I see both 'recognize' and 'recognise'.
    • Done
  • I see no point to giving acronyms when they aren't reused. This applies to SADR, TRNC, and UNSCR.
    • Removed
  • Lots of reference work needed:
    • There's no reference for Israel's lacking relations with 34, and lacking recognition by two.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Likewise, there's no references for the Koreas lack of mutual recognition. Also, the source for North Korean independence is a bit wanting; surely we can find something other than a Google ad farm.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Cyprus: Why not link directly to the CIA Fact Book?
      • Done Gary King (talk)
    • Some need formatting; not enough capital letters in [2] or [3], for example.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Taiwan's ref lacks any mention of the recognition.
      • Done Gary King (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In general, the references work for independence, but there's no or few references at present citing the number of countries recognizing the partially recognized ones.
  • Kosovo stands out by saying "some"; since this situation is in flux I think a justification for the omission needs to be made. Like, "it declared independence on this date, and its status is still in flux, with a number of countries recognizing it"
    • Done Gary King (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll rejudge the article later. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Awesome list! Very well done. I only have a few minor suggestions: first the footnotes should be numbered/labeled more clearly. Give each a number (Roman numerals are often used, though letters would be fine too) in order to distinguish them from each other either in the main tables or between each other in the footnotes section. Also, shouldn't reference #1 be considered a footnote rather than a reference (source of information)? Lastley, an external links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Reference 1 is part of a template and I'd rather not touch it. Gary King (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work! One last thing: the publisher values should be wikilinked wherever possible (ie International Herald Tribune). Drewcifer (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Alright, done, although I only wikified the ones that I know existed (BBC News, NY Times, etc.) Gary King (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have concerns the list is not stable, as Tamil Eelam's presence is challenged by more than one party. Maybe tighter criteria need to be noted? --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. I have continued this discussion on the article's Talk page. Gary King (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - referencing. The entries rely on other Wikipedia articles, but looking at Cyprus, where Foreign relations of Cyprus say it's not recognized by Turkey - and is unsourced in that article, so far as I can tell. I was originally forgiving about the lack of referencing for recognition/lack thereof, assuming our other articles were up to snuff; sadly, they are not. I now must ask for the statements in this article to be sourced, without relying on other Wikipedia articles. Will switch vote if this can be fixed. On the other hand, the stability issue is probably fixed. --Golbez (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Being more specific: Now that I look, the only deficiency really is the Cyprus one. The other entires are either sourced, or their 'parent articles' are well-sourced. Cyprus is the only one lacking sources in either this or the other article. --Golbez (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added this as a source for the Cyprus issue. Gary King (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah. Well then. :) I guess I have to switch to Support now. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment same named column in each table should have the same width in all tables. A more professional appearance. Hmains (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • They are, at least for me. Try another browser? Gary King (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment North Korea may not be recognized by many other countries than just South Korea; South Korea may not be recognized by several other countries than just North Korea. Fact check needed. Hmains (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with those is trying to prove a negative. The lack of recognition of North Korea by South Korea is extremely significant; a lack of recognition of North Korea by Mauritania, if one existed, is much less so. I'm still concerned the list's criteria may not be specific or stable enough... --Golbez (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2008 (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 14:39, 10 March 2008.

---

List of countries without armed forces

I believe this article is ready to become a WP:FL. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support The nominator has made a great attempt with this article, and it meets the criteria. My congrats to the editors involved. PeterSymonds | talk 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments - not many.

• Why is the lead bolded as list of countries, rather than List of countries that do not maintain a standing army or List of countries without armed force?
  • Done Good point. Resolved. Gary King (talk) 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• You should probably fix the " subnational entities" redlink in {{About lists of countries and territories}} as it was deleted today.
  • Done Fixed the link. Gary King (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• The term "standing army" should be explained, probably in the lead.
  • Done I have also used a Footnote (click the 'A' at the end of the sentence) to learn more about the term. Gary King (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead: "The Monaco, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau", except Monaco shouldn't be proceeded by the "the".
  • Done Gary King (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps that sentence could explain why they have no say in their defense matters.
  • Done Gary King (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another comment

• If Iceland does have some armed forces, just not an Army, should it be included here?
  • Done Reworded. Gary King (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - comments resolved, and a good list. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Are you telling me that Switzerland has an army?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Military of Switzerland. P.S. I hope you were joking... Gary King (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - looks good, meets the criteria. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • " U.S. " or "United States" - be consistent.
    • Done Consistent now. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not keen on some of the "Comments" - some are prose, some are just bullet pointy fragments. Consider making all comments prose.
    • Done Should be better now. Gary King (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I know it's difficult to resolve but the highlights on the map are so small I can't actually see them!
    • Done Gary King (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise it's excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - more good work Gary! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great list. Though, I think a new column for areas would be useful. --Crzycheetah 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Terrific work, definitely seems good enough to be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (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 14:39, 10 March 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon

I am nominating this list as it is clear and concise with full references. Similar to the featured list of tallest buildings and structures in London, the article brings useful information with links to the notable buildings and statistics for the ones not notable enough for an article. The article, with no frequent changes in content and style, gives a complete list of the tallest buildins in Portland. The organization is defined and allows quick lookup of the buildings. The pictures successfully describe and represent notable buildings from the area. Finally, the references show credibility to the content of the article and the quality of the article. Huang7776 (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved / fixed wrong nomination. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 08:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment In the lead paragraph, wouldn't it make sense to link to the "List of tallest buildings of insert city here" articles rather than the "insert city here" articles when stating that Portland's skyline ranks 25th in the country? After all, it's being compared to other skylines, not other cities. MeegsC | Talk 11:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree.  Done I made that change so I could support the article for FL status. --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments a great start but some issues to be resolved before I can support...
  • " 41-story" - shouldn't this be "storey"? Could be okay for US English, not sure...

    "Story" is appropriate for U.S. English, which is used here due to Portland being a U.S. city. See Storey#Notes. Cheers, Rai-me 14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Use {{convert}} template or, at the very least, ensure non-breaking spaces are placed between values and their units.
    • I am confused - where do you see this? There are non-breaking spaces for units in all context areas, and values are not represented next to units in the tables. Rai-me 14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm confused too - I saw spaces earlier, perhaps they're fixed. Either way, happy days! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah - I recently fixed them, so I must have changed it while/after you were reviewing the list. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Another notable skyscraper in ..." doesn't sound quite right for the lead.

     Done

  • "Since then, over 100 highrise buildings have been constructed in the city gradually." reads curiously - were the buildings built gradually or was the overall construction of the highrise buildings spread out over the past 100 years.

    I removed "gradually" - it has been very spread out, but like most cities, concentrated in the decades after 1960. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Portland's history of skyscrapers is generally thought to begin in 1907 with the completion of the Wells Fargo Building.[5][6] Since then, over 100 highrise buildings have been constructed in the city gradually.[7] However, many of Portland's tallest highrises were constructed in a period from the 1970s to 2000.[8] The city is home to three buildings over 500 feet (152 m)." - just think this a little too choppy, I'd look to merge some sentences to improve the prose per Wikipedia's finest work.

     Done - It would be great if you could look at it again; I merged the last two sentences. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Not keen on the list of 24 other states! Just saying 25th would suffice! Perhaps an article on the U.S. states highrises listing each state vs number of highrise buildings could be written (if it doesn't already exist) and then just linked to from here.

    This is fairly standard for all building lists - see the List of tallest buildings in Tulsa FL. I have been working on a skyline rankings list, User:Raime/Skyline rankings, but it simply seemed easier to add the city names into each list. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Fairly standard, perhaps, but that list is unwieldy, nasty to look at, unpleasant to read and really adds nothing to the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done - list removed. Rai-me 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • " where a few residential towers and an office building have been built in the past few years, such as the John Ross Tower." - "a few...", "..few years" , "A few more residential..." - a little wordy and familiar sounding, not encyclopaedic.

     Done

  • "33 story " - perhaps "33-storey"?

    Again, U.S. English is used for a U.S. building list. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, but you got the hyphen, right?

    Oops, thank you!  Done -- Rai-me 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Floors column could be centrally aligned.

    Shouldn't all columns be centrally aligned, then (with perhaps the exception of "Notes")? It would seem strange to have 5 left-aligned columns and 1 centrally-aligned column. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, the floors column is most obvious though since the heading is much wider than the content - but I'm happy to go for more central alignment! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done - Okay, the floors column is now centrally aligned. Do you think any of the other columns need that as well? -- Rai-me 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Existing structures are included for ranking purposes based on present height." - what does this mean and how do I distinguish them from the other elements in the table?

    It means that only existing structures are included at their present heights - no future buildings are included, and no planned height increases for existing buildings are included. Do you think that this needs to be reworded? Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, I think it needs to simply say that future buildings and no planned height increases are included. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

     Done - it now reads: Only completed structures are ranked; no future buildings or planned height increases are included in the list. -- Rai-me 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "world at its time of completion." - "at the time of its completion." would read better (to me, at least!).

     Done - agreed. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "The rank that each building would hold if it were completed is listed." - is it?

     Done - removed. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • For image captions that aren't sentence fragments, complete with a full stop.

    Only one (the proposed building image) is not a sentence fragment, and it does have a full stop. Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps you fixed it too, I'll check that in a moment! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A lot of the references are timing out, check this link out to check that all links are still valid.

     Done - I've replaced all of the references that were timing out, and the links now all seem valid. Rai-me 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your very detailed review! -- Rai-me 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I'm really trying to bring a set of fresh eyes to a subject which, while I'm interested in it, have no experience of the articles previously up here (except for the Manchester one which I think may still be here). I'm just trying to make sure we're going to promote the encyclopaedia's best work! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you've covered everything I noted above. I made a couple of tiny tweaks (removing over capitalisation, pluralising reference) but I really would push you to finish and mainspace that article - the in-line linking in note A, while it may have got through on the Tulsa FLC, is pretty grim. One list which all these articles could reference would be top drawer. I'll consider what I make of the article shortly (best to go away for a bit and come back I think!) and let you know. Well done for attending to my comments so quickly and thoroughly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - there's now a missing image of the Park Avenue West Tower... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Done - Removed it. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Forcing the 200px specification for table-side images may make the thumbnail images "too large" for many users. (It may force the table to be exceptionally narrow.) I suggest removing that dimensional specification, and replacing it with "upright", as in the following example: [[Image:PortlandWellsFargoCenter.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Wells Fargo Center (Portland, Oregon)|Wells Fargo Center]], the tallest building in Portland and Oregon]]. (But see what those settings do; you may not like the result.) --Orlady (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  Also  Done -- Rai-me 23:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely sourced list. --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• With all issues fixed, I think I can support now. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• support excellent list Hmains (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2008 (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 14:39, 10 March 2008.

---

List of 30 Rock awards and nominations

I am self-nominating this list regarding 30 Rock's awards and nominations because it is a fairly comprehensive article and it is, as far as I have found from my many searchs, up to date. I have tried to style the list similarly to List of awards won by The Simpsons, a featured list. I have cited references from reliable sources to all awards and statements. -- Jamie jca (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Get rid of the unnecessary non-free image (Tina receiving the award). There isn't critical commentary on that particular image (i.e. nothing special about her receiving the award). You already have two free images, one of her. The image doesn't add anything to the page, or the section. We don't need to see Tina, or anyone, receiving an award because its' obvious what that entails.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The nominees column in the top infobox should be the same colour that is used for the rest of the nominees. It also wouldn't hurt to list the total number of wins and nominees in the infobox as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Numbers below 10 are usually written out.
    •  Done-- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead is a little weak - choppy prose.
    •  Doing... Any suggestions on how to make the lead stronger? -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider linking out to Emmy in the lead.
    •  Done-- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • [1][2] in the lead could easily be moved to a more appropriate lcoation just after the full stop in that sentence.
    •  Done-- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "in its still young two year run" - I don't really like this phrase, plus this is the sort of sentence that will need to be updated every time a new nomination is received.
    •  Not done. I've removed the "young two year run part" but isn't it easy enough to edit it when new nominations are recieved? I can remove it if it has to be. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely not keen on the small fonts.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Linking the individual years in the table, is there a better link (e.g. in Television??)
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "to the Globes " familiar tone - not particularly encyclopaedic.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Image captions are too wordy.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• That's it for now.. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Further comments
  • Since when did "aswell" become a single word?!
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Link the first instance of Emmy (and write it out in full), not the second.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "portrayal of, NBC television executive, Jack Donaghy." - why the commas?
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "30 Rock has been nominated for four, and won two, Golden Globes Awards, so far, in its run." - how, many, commas?
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead has "10" but "thirty-eight" - I'd do it the other way around.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Tables seem a little untidy - the columns are really unbalanced.
    •  Doing... -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done Could it be better? -- Jamie jca (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No need for the sucbox.
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Two red links in the references, can you fix them or unlink them or write stubs?
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Further comment - Re: tidy tables, I just think you could force the widths on a lot of the tables so the columns appear the same. It's a shame you have one "nominees" with dozens of names and all the rest with just one, it unbalances things quite a bit. It's an aesthetic issue, nothing I could object on, but I'd like to see if you could do anything with it before I support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Doing... - Jamie jca (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    •  Doing... I was just thinking, I know you probably won't go for it but if I take the long nominees lists, could I relocate the names to the opening of each section and typing see above in the nominees cell? I really don't know how to tackle the problem of the multiple nominees without having massivly wide or high cells. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done I've made all the tables with Year/Category/Nominee(s)/Result sections all consistent. As I have with the tables with Year/Category/Nominee(s)/Episode/Result sections. Is it okay? Also, sorry about the time it took. -- Jamie jca (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment That image of Alec Baldwin doesn't appear to be free-use. The Flickr page credits www.drudgereport.com/ as the source, so unless the photographer for that site and the Flickr user are the same person, then it isn't free-use and should be removed. Aside from that, it looks good. Gran² 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I'll remove it but if I don't get notified that it's breaking any rules after a few weeks, i'll put it back. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further (further) comment! - I don't think four short paragraphs for the lead is particularly good, merge down to no more than three. You've wikilinked 30 Rock at least twice in the lead as well, no need to overlink. Also, not keen on the last table which combines episode awards and actor awards, the blank cells aren't particularly elegant. But nearly there! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Crzycheetah

Comment

• 1. Why are the citations in the Category column and not in the results column? I see that the Simpsons list does this, as well. I just want to know why, because I believe results are the ones that should be cited.
  2. If possible, could you use primary sources? For instance, official sites of the awards rather than IMDB or TVSquad.

  --Crzycheetah 03:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  •  Done But, some older awards (WGA Awards '07, People's Choice, DGA for example) have removed noms from their sites. Also, some references are from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and ET, aren't they reliable enough sources that official award sites aren't needed? -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Yes, Variety, ET, and THR are reliable. IMDB and TVSquad are the ones I feel low about. I think this link may sbstitute imdb for the 2007 Directors Guild of America Awards while Variety's link may substitute TVsquad for the same section. I'd like you to doublecheck those links before substituting.--Crzycheetah 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

      • Actually, I found noms for the WGAs and DGAs in the press release sections (although you can't link directly to pages on the DGA website), so you can use those. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

        •  Done Found them on DGA and WGA, West site. -- Jamie jca (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll field the first one. The colours for the columns vary from computer to computer - some see them brighter, some see them darker - and originally I tried the citations in coloured column. However, not only did it look bad, but on my computer the citations were hard to see, so I figured it would be best to move them to one of the normal columns. I tried citations in the various different columns and personally I thought having them in the category one worked best. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In this case, I'd support a new column for refs because having the refs in the "category" column may confuse some readers(I was confused there for a moment).--Crzycheetah 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I've never liked having an extra column for refs, unless there's no other room in the other columns and it's absolutely necessary and in this case I don't think it is. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't find it necessary either, that's why I didn't include one. Also, it would take away more space and it will clutter up the tables with multiple nominees. -- Jamie jca (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Support The sources are better now, and the placement of the refs is a personal preference, I suppose.--Crzycheetah 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. A few things:
  • "During the following year, 2008, Tina Fey won a Golden Globe for her role of Liz Lemon" - you don't really win an award during a year.
  • What's the protocol you're using in linking & re-linking names? Tina Fey et al. aren't linked under Golden Globes, assumably because they're linked above, but then she and Alec Baldwin are re-linked under Emmys - maybe sweep through the list and make the linking/re-linking business consistent.
  • "In 2007, it won two awards including the much sought after Outstanding Comedy Series award" - I'd usually consider 'much sought after' incorrect grammar but that could be my Australian/British English kicking in.
  • "portrayal of, recurring character, Colleen Donaghy, in the season one finale" - wow, commas are in excess. I think you can legitimately get rid of all of those commas.
  • Any reason we have DGA Awards, Golden Globe Awards, NAACP Image Awards, Emmy Awards, Satellite Awards, SAG Awards, but TCA Award and WGA Award - the latter two not in plural form?
• Hope that helps :) •97198 talk 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • •  Done and thanks for the support. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good page, well referenced, it would be nice to have a free image relating to awards, but the current one is good enough. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I made two small wording changes to the lead. Overall, this is an excellent, well-referenced list. Good work. Cheers, Rai-me 13:06, 10 March 2008 (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 14:39, 10 March 2008.

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3)

Continuing my drive to get the season articles of Degrassi: The Next Generation to FL status, here is season 3, and season 4 (see nomination entry above). I think this article is on par with other season articles that have been promoted, and meets all criterea, even if I can't spell it! All comments will addressed. Thanks. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hello again Matthew, some points that struck me...
• "Degrassi: The Next Generation Season 3" in the infobox vs "Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) " (and this probably applies to all seasons) - not sure about the discrepancy in titling.  Not done The Simpsons season and Lost season FLs do this, and the Smallville season GAs. I guess it could be changed.
  • No worries, just noticed it and wondered why there was a difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• "The third season had twenty actors recieve star billing, with fifteen of those returning from season two." - link season two, and merge this single sentence paragraph into the next. Oh, and what does "star billing" mean if 20 folks got it?
  • I wikilinked star billing to Billing (film). Basically, it's those who are regular cast members and are featured in the opening title sequence, as opposed to those who are recurring and don't appear in the title sequence and whose names appear either after the opening sequence is over and the episode title comes up (when it lists producers, writers and director), or at the end of the episode in the closing credits.
• " Episodes fourteen and fifteen, the "banned" episodes, " - I may have missed it but this needs further explanation I think.
  • See the third paragraph in ==Reception==
• I'll properly review the episode synopses shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• More...
  • " when Stohn said it was indeed him" - confirmed it was him?  Done
  • "overall.[8] and received " punc error?  Done
  • The episode template thing is a bit weird - the column headings are variously aligned and then the content of the columns are generally differently aligned (if you get me....) so Episode# heading is left aligned while the content of the column is centrally aligned... and so on. Is this intentional?
    • I don't know why this is. It only appears to be a problem with IE, not Firefox, and the headers even have "style="text-align: center;"". I don't know how else to format it so they are centered in IE. As for the content of the columns, that all looks to be aligned correctly to me in both browsers. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• That's about it for this round! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments last bits...
  • "sixty minute" - should that be hyphenated?  Done
  • BCE seems to be unexplained.  Done with wikilink to Bell Canada
  • Still a couple of contractions (e.g. it's, hasn't, doesn't etc) in the synopses.  Done
  • "but will repeated disasters doom the couple?" - is this really what we read in the synopsis? It reads like a tabloid newspaper!  Done "it is one disaster after another."
• Now, I think, I'm done!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you!}}
• Support (took my time, I know)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I really don't like that several references are from a forum where registration is required in order to verify the source. Other than that, this list is as good as the first two.--Crzycheetah 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for supporting, and surely it's just as bad as having to register for The Guardian or The New York Times to read a news article? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right. I just hate those registrations.--Crzycheetah 20:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Very nice looking season page! A few places I noticed some possible issues:

• ...garnered a nomination for Stephen Stanley for "Outstanding Achievement in Production Design - Television Series"[11] "Pride" - seems to be missing a period or comma after the ref. Collectonian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Done There should have been a full stop. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• ...and "Best Direction in a Children's or Youths' Program or Series" at the Gemini Awards. The series also won the Gemini for "Best Children's or Youth Fiction Program or Series". - source? Collectonian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's reference [13], which appears at the end of the last Gemini-related sentence, though I could repeat it? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, since there is an mid-sentence reference, repeating ref 13 at the end would be clearer. Collectonian (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why repeat the DVD cover in the release section? Only needs to be shown once, and the one at the top would be the preferred one to keep. Also, I think release dates should be above the Set Details instead of below. Source for the DVD info? Collectonian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• For consisitency between the other season pages. I'm not sure about placing release dates above set details. Every other table that presents this kind of information does it in this order. (See List of Carnivale episodes for one FL example). The references are ref [6] and [37], TVShowsonDVD.com for everything except the Canadian airdate, which uses Amazon.ca -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can those sources be added to the paragraph as well, just to be clearer. I'm not a fan of DVD tables of that format, but if its consistent with the other Degrassi season pages, okay. Collectonian (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can any of the forum references be replace/supplemented with other sources? While it is an official forum, it would be good if some could have secondary sources too. Collectonian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I can't find anything. I was hoping that while forums are usually not reliable sources, this one kind of is, as it has been confirmed in other reliable places that the show's exec producer is the one who posts under the "ExecProducer" name. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm...maybe add in quotes for each, then, just to make it clearer and give a quicky view for those who don't want to register? Collectonian (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• ...and Neil Hope returned to play Wheels in the seventh episode, "Should I Stay or Should I Go?". - source? Collectonian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• The episode itself? The character can clearly be seen (it's not some cameo appearance, he's pretty central to the storyline), and by the closing credits. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, can you add an episode cite with {{cite episode}}. Collectonian (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Probably very nit picky, but can the season box be made slightly wider so the 3 is on the first line, or slightly narrower so the second line has "Season 3" instead of just 3? It looks a little odd seeing the 3 by itself. :P Collectonian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. It looks fine on my monitor. Perhaps we're using different sizes? I'm using 1024x768 on a 19" screen. Could I be cheeky and ask you to {{sofixit}} as I can't see a problem with it? :D -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Probably difference in monitors. I have the same resolution, but on a 14 or 15" laptop screen. Fixed it though :)Collectonian (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent list. I just have two concerns:

• You seem to explain this above, but the same images are very rarely used twice in one article. But I suppose this is not an overly pressing issue, if it is consistent with other episode list FLs.
• Also, I agree with Collectonian: ...Erica Farrell and Heather Farrell for the opening episode, "Father Figure" and ...and Neil Hope returned to play Wheels in the seventh episode, "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" should be cited with {{cite episode}}.

• Again, great job. Cheers, Rai-me 12:51, 10 March 2008 (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 07:37, 8 March 2008.

---

List of Lieutenant Governors of Wisconsin

I've been doing a lot of work to bring this up to Featured status, and I think it's finally ready, being comparable to Featured lists of governors (eg, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Colorado); I believe that it is comprehensive, well-referenced and otherwise meets the criteria. —Salmar ^(talk) 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment an excellent list. A note or two...
  • Not keen at all on the really small text used in the table. This works against our readers who aren't well-sighted.
    • Removed <small> tags in the table
  • I would prefer to see something other than the almost missable asterisk in the high offices table.
    • The asterisks seem to be somewhat "traditional" in these tables in the Governors lists, but I changed it to the same sort of lettered footnotes used elsewhere
• But minor points. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Thanks for your comments! —Salmar ^(talk) 14:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - minor concerns were addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you —Salmar ^(talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support

• Don't like the use of "and the like" in note [B]
  • Changed it to simply "resignations and deaths", for the moment, although I will change this soon: technically Spooner only served "½" a term for a different reason, although I am working on thinking of a way to word that reason concisely
• Echoing The Rambling Man's comment re the asterisk, and also dislike "otherwise left office to take." - To take what? It seems like an unfinished sentence.
  • I believe the sentence was syntactically correct, although it no longer matters, as the asterisks have been replaced with footnotes, and the sentence has been removed as unneeded

Otherwise it looks like a really good list. Regards. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you! —Salmar ^(talk) 14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: Why have you switched refs and {ref}s? :( Hm, I guess I can see why.. because there's much less bibliography on lieutenant governors, it helps if each date is cited. And if you'd used {ref}s for references, you'd have run out of letters. I wonder if the devs will ever get around to giving the people what they want and giving us multiple reference classes? Sigh. Anyway.
  • • It's true that I would have run out of letters (although I only noticed that now); the actual reason was that I am slightly obsessed with making sure new footnotes were introduced in alphabetical order, and that was difficult to do when I was adding refs all over the place.
    • By the way, is there anywhere I can voice my support for the multiple reference class idea?
      • Last I checked, someone had taken up the job of coding it, but that was a couple of months ago or so. It's somewhere on bugzilla. I'd give you the link if bugzilla were working. --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we need the history of the land? That was included in the lists of governors because the governor is the chief executive, and I started that idea just to show the progression of leadership of the land. The lieutenant governor is not chief executive, and while the secretary of the territory is a somewhat analogous position, I'm not sure if it's needed to be mention any more than a short blurb in perhaps the intro. But this isn't a sticking point.
    • I definitely think that the Secretaries of Wisconsin Territory should be mentioned; do you think the references to the others should be cut out entirely?
      • Definitely the secretaries of WI territory, but I don't think we really need to link to all the others...
        • Done —Salmar ^(talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best if you assigned reference [F] to all of the pre-1979 acting sessions, instead of just the first. It comes across weird otherwise, since the reference is singular but the text within it is plural.
    • Done
  • A small bit in the intro about what happens if the office is vacant would be good; does the governor have the ability to appoint someone new? Can someone ascend to be full or acting lieutenant governor automatically?
    • I thought that was there ....... it seems I removed it when creating the Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin article; I'll put a brief note in about it; unfortunately I have to run somewhere in a few minutes, so it won't be until tonight. =/
      • THEN I FAIL THIS! Or wait, no, I could simply wait a little while...
        • Done; sorry for taking so long —Salmar ^(talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I know we include 'the governor is/is not term limited' on governor lists, but since there are no term limits for Lt. Govs in Wisconsin, this seems superfluous in ref [Q]. Perhaps changing it to "there are no term limits" or something better written would be better.
    • Removed entirely; it's superfluous with what's in the lead
  • I might have to adopt the ref idea from the 'other high offices held' table for the other lists. This is the first article I've seen with three classes of footnotes (though I attempted one in my early congressional delegation lists).
    • Actually, this pre-List of Secretaries of Wisconsin Territory version had four! =P
      • You're a sick, sick person, and I love you.
        • Erm ... thanks? XP —Salmar ^(talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No "living lieutenant governors" table? Is this oversight, or deliberate?
    • Deliberate; the only source I can find with bios of all the lieutenant governors is the Office of the Lieutenant Governor site, and they don't mention the deaths of at least one (two? I don't remember) of the lt. gov.s who is, in fact, dead. So I omitted it as impossible/difficult to reliably source
      • My only 'source' for the governor lists is the articles themselves, but then again, a former governor dying will usually garner some amount of national press, whereas a lieutenant governor will get state at best.
  • Excellent scholar work on references [H], and excellent table management explained in [G].
    • I'm glad you like [H]; figuring that out was irritating beyond belief. Searching through newspapers from 1864 and scanned pictures of books just as old is ... tedious.
      • You should see my Hawaii Governor list, the worst part was when typos crept in to the New York Times' OCR. I was at one point searching for Hawaifan governors. In fact, go now and vote. Do it. Now.

--Golbez (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your commetns! —Salmar ^(talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No porblem! --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, excellent work. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you =) —Salmar ^(talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (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 07:37, 8 March 2008.

---

List of Tampa Bay Lightning players

Another list nomination to come out of WP:HOCKEY. This is another list of players from a specific team, this time the Tampa Bay Lightning. While I originally first edited the list to its current format, I have to give due credit to Skudrafan1 for going through it after I was finished and cleaning up my many errors that came with doing such a project so quickly. For reference, its similar to List of San Jose Sharks players, List of Atlanta Thrashers players, List of Calgary Flames players, etc. As always, comments are welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Wow, some list! As a quick starter, I would consider some criteria for entry onto this list or else it's just like a category listing. Perhaps a minimum number of appearances? I imagine in ten years time this list will be twice the size...
• "As of January 31, 2008, 27 goaltenders and 221 skaters " - this makes the list inherently unstable and the article would need to be updated for each and every first time appearance.
• Consider linking to goaltender and skater (or similar) for non-expert readers (like me).
• en dash should be used in the lead, not hyphen, to separate season years.
• Looks like you've used em dash in the table for year ranges - should be en dash.
• "Overtime Loss" and "Games Played" and "Regular Season" - over capitalised.
• Consider the use of the handy {{sortname}} template which will still sort alphabetically by surname but present the information by first name.
• "Appeared in a Lightning game during the 2007–08 season" vs "Stats are updated through to the end of the 2006–07 season" - confused me a bit - your highlighting "current" players but not including their statistics, although in the lead you have an "as of Jan 31..." some instability.
• Notes aren't consistent - e.g. why doesn't Marc Denis have a link to the Stanley Cup or a Lightning season?
• Shame the table isn't sortable (I thought it would be, hence my other comment about the sortname template!).
• "2002-2006" - needs en-dash.
• "debut during 2007-08 season" en-dash needed again.
• "Captain, 1999-2000" en dash (check all!)
• "Jancevski, Dan" seems to have the wrong colour unless he won the Stanley Cup this season?
• Abbreviations for the notes would be good - SC, HHOF etc.

So an oppose for now, but it's a very good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about the "this makes the list inherently unstable and the article would need to be updated for each and every first time appearance" -- of course the article needs to be updated for each and every first time appearance, because when a player makes his first appearance with the team, he becomes a player in the history of the Tampa Bay Lightning, and he needs to be added to the list. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, yes, which is why I said that some minimum criterion for entry onto this list should be applied (e.g. 10 appearances). Inherently unstable lists will not be featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would not call adding every player who debuts for a team an "inherently unstable" attribute of a list. A very low number, most likely a half-dozen or fewer, players will debut for a team each season. And once the player is on the list, he is on the list forever. How does that constitute instability? As was discussed with all the other NHL-player lists that have been promoted (which all include every player to have played for a team, whether he played 1000 games or 1 game), the list would lose its credibility as a definitive list of a team's all-time roster if it did not include every player to ever suit up for the team. Should the next person to be elected President of the United States not be added to that list until he/she has served for an acceptable amount of time? Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • (a) Adding every player to a list is replicating the duty of a category. (b) "half-dozen or fewer per season" - so far this franchise has been going for 16 years and has had 248 players so, roughly, 15 new players a season, not six or less. (c) No-one said this had to be an "all-time roster", indeed if that's the purpose then it should be stated clearly. (d) The list is not sortable so listing everyone gives you virtually the same result as clicking on Category:Tampa Bay Lightning players. (e) My comments are, naturally, my own opinion. If the consensus says that all is good then my opinion will be overlooked. Until then I shall oppose this list being promoted! (f) As for the President, that's a great parallel isn't it? One man every four years versus around 15 every year whose stats change on a weekly basis! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, of course I was making an extreme parallel. Got your attention though, huh? :) Anyway, though, stats on this list don't change on "a weekly basis" -- they are only updated at the end of every season, per WP:HOCKEY consensus. And perhaps half-a-dozen players per season was an understatement (I probably should have said "about 10"), but drawing an average as you did is slanted: remember, every player who played for the team during its first season was debuting, so there's like 30 in one year right there. And it is not just a replication of the category, because the category does not include stats, seasons, awards, etc. I will bow out of this argument now, as it is not aiding in the general improvement of the list. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Have to say I'm suprised to see such a response to this list after 24 hours. I think I can help clarify some issues here:
• For starters, the general guidlines for hockey team lists are located [[28]]. That alone should help the confusion. It explains the rational to adding every player and so on.
• The list explicitly states that it includes every member of the team to play a game, doing so in the first 2 sentences.
• For sortability, I don't think there was ever any discussion regarding that. Either way, it is also ignorance towards charts on my part. I'm rather useless at doing anything short of copy and pasting them, so I'm lost in that regard.
• Everything else that has been said was mostly just poor reviewing on my behalf before submitting it. That will all be fixed up. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I got most everything done, except the sortable table and the issue about the confusing dates. I wouldn't mind hearing other views about the date part first before I go and alter that, as I don't quite have anything that would fix that. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Further comments - I took a look at the archived discussion on hockey lists, interesting I guess. However, I do like to review these lists from the perspective of someone who isn't in a directly related project and so may be able to bring a fresh perspective. Hence some of my suggestions. While it isn't a direct replication of the category, it's very close because all you have are lifetime stats (which can't be sorted) - presumably these stats are all available on individual player pages (plus a load more information). To make the list more, well, useful, I would suggest as a minimum it's made sortable - that way you can, in one click, see who has made the most appearances, most goals, etc etc etc. I'm not attempting to redefine the way the ice hockey wikiproject wish to do things but perhaps bring a different view (e.g. see List of Ipswich Town F.C. players for a different project's approach). More specifics...
  • "248 different players" and "January 31, 2008, 27 goaltenders and 221 " - so every time someone debuts the list will need to be updated.
  • "2000–01 " vs " 2000–2001" in the lead.
  • "forwards and defencemen" - link for us non-experts! And wouldn't a US article use "defensemen"?
  • "one regular-season and/or playoff game " - is it and or is it or? I would think or if you're making a complete record.
  • Don't use em-dash to separate year ranges (e.g. in "2007—08 season"
  • Some OTL entries are 0 and some are —. What's the difference? Same with the Tie column.
  • Seasons in the table are whole year–whole year (e.g. 1992–1996) while in the lead they're mainly whole year–last two digits (e.g. 1992–96). I suggest a common approach throughout, whichever way you go.
  • Ensure all names are correct with their various accents, diacritics etc (e.g. Alain Cote should be Alain Côté).
  • When players have won individual trophies, I would expect to see a reference and some explanation as to what that trophy represents - within the world of ice hockey enthusiasts I'm sure it's obvious but to non-NHLers, it really isn't.
  • Bill McDougall has a blank column where I would expect to see an em dash.
  • Do any players fit in the category "Stanley Cup winners" and "Appeared in a Lightning game during the 2007—08 season"? If so, I presume from what I've seen that the Stanley Cup colouring takes precendence. That then means that we don't know for sure if he's made an appearance during the 2007–08 season any more. Unless you can assume he has because he's got 2008 in the season column. In which case why colour the current season players? Just a point of debate really.
  • This resource actually states "The totals presented here may not be exact" - is this a reliable source? What information did you get from that site that wasn't available at the other sites? Perhaps a similar note caveating that specific information should be used here.
• That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Should have covered everything said there. Some quick comments about everything:
• The list would be updated everytime a player joins the team. It's notable enough to be included, and doesn't happen that often.
  • How often? Once a month? Not sure what this list is trying to achieve that a combination of the category and the articles doesn't already. You can't sort it so there's not a lot to be gained from all the stats - just click on the name, get the stats? If you could sort and compare with other players then fair enough but right now, it's just a glorified category.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Tried to create some uniformity towards the dates, but it will still be a mixed sample as NHL seasons are listed as 2007-08 and not 2007-2008. It should be clearer though.
• Linked everything that needs defyining. That includes awards, as listing them seperatly on the page would start to get away from the article. This includes the issue regarding the ties/overtime loss columns.
• Diacritics has been a huge issue at [WP:HOCKEY]]. A consenus was to only display them on player pages, and not team related pages. As a team related page, they wouldn't be used here.
  • Still not 100% convinced why you wouldn't use player's actual names, regardless of discussion at WP:HOCKEY... There are loads of tricks you can use for sorting etc that would still work with all the diacritics etc, and if this is to be a definitive article then you might as well get their names right... right?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Regarding the issue of Stanley Cup winners who are still on the team, there is no answer there. I've been trying to find a way to work around that, but nothing has come of it yet.
  • So I suggest a decision should be made.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, on List of New Jersey Devils players, the players who won the Cup with the team and are still on the team are given the "current player" color -- the Stanley Cup win is covered in the notes section. Thankfully, but unfortunately for me as a fan, I didn't have that problem with List of Buffalo Sabres players. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• While this source does say it may not be exact, it is indeed a reliable source that is one of the most comprehensive site of it's kind on the internet. It's accuaracy can be matched with a comparison to the other references listed.
  • Fine, but if the source itself states it might not be accurate, the least that you can do is do the same if you depend on it for some elements of your article... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That should cover everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think I understand where you are trying to go with this. Unless I'm mistaken, the biggest issue now would be that the list is not sortable. All I have to offer to that is I don't have any idea how to make lists sortable, or else I would look to do something for it. As for what you said about using Hockeydb.com as a source, you've lost me with your second comment. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think to summarise the issues which I feel still need resolution...
    • Make the tables sortable which would make the inclusion of every player tolerable (in my opinion).
      • Tables with colspans and rowspans can not be sortable.--Crzycheetah 23:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well perhaps the table needs to be changed to accommodate sortability. Otherwise, as I've said, it's bordering on a category. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The source which says it may be inaccurate - what in the list relies on it?
    • Real names should be used, not names without diacritics. Can you explain why you would not use the real name?
    • Goaltenders table also has a mixture of — and 0 in the T and OTL columns.
    • Colouring of current team members who have won the Stanley Cup.
      • The Stanley Cup winners are already coloured. Do you want current players to be coloured differently? If so, why? --Crzycheetah 23:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I just want the key to be consistent with the colouring in the table. If someone happens to be part of the current season and a SC winner then WP:HOCKEY need to work out a colour scheme. Right now it's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'll bring up the colour issue with the other members and see what can be done. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments/replies WP:LIST says to use complete data sets. Obviously, a list of players to play for a team would have to include every player who has done so. To set a minimum standard above 1 would be to introduce our own POV to an otherwise straightforward list. Categories are limited in that they cannot show each player's stats with the team, nor can they show awards won, nor images.
  • Which source's veracity are you questioning, where and why?
    • As I said above... this resource actually states "The totals presented here may not be exact" - is this a reliable source? What information did you get from that site that wasn't available at the other sites? Perhaps a similar note caveating that specific information should be used here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The NHL uses the English/Americanized spelling of names, not their so-called "real names". Per a great deal of discussion, it was agreed within the hockey project to use the NHL's formatting on NHL articles. Basically, a variation on WP:ENGVAR.
    • Fine, but I still don't know why? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Mixture of 0's and emdashes on goaltending stats relates to changes in the NHL rules beginnig 2005-06. Specifically, prior to that season, the shootout did not exist, and since that season, ties do not exist.
    • That's not clear though is it? Perhaps to you, but not to a non-expert reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead should mention how many players had worn the Lightning jersey as of the completion of the 2006-07 season. That way we need only to update once per year, which simplifies maintenance.

A suggestion on colour coding for players who won the Cup but are still on the roster - highlight green for current player all columns but notes, which you could highlight blue, to denote SC winner. Resolute 06:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment If the shootout began in 2005, then how come during 1992-1996 seasons Jean-Claude Bergeron has one shootout win?--Crzycheetah 07:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• "SO" in that context means "shutout. And disregard my original comment on this from last night (It'd doesn't pay to debate when tired, heh), it is the OTL column that I meant to say the NHL didn't track for goaltenders before 2005, not SO, which in this case does mean "shutout". A shootout loss would be "SOL", but is tracked as part of the overtime loss (OTL) column by the NHL. I definitely agree that those should either be linked, or stated in the key. I'll look to make that change. Resolute 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I see that the issue of using hockeydb.com hasn't been resolved, I'll provide a link that states the sites own references. As I know not everyone is familiar with hockey, I'll explain that most of the sources used are the best available. Nearly every hockey article makes use of these seperate sources in some way or another, and this site collects a vast amount of that information and stores it in one. The disclaimer that it may not be totally accurate is because maintaining the records of several thousand hockey players is a monumental task that will obviously lead to some error (just look at Wikipedia for an example). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support --Crzycheetah 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - it hasn't been an easy voyage, but I think it's been a worthwhile one! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support per above. Resolute 18:43, 6 March 2008 (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 07:37, 8 March 2008.

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4)

Continuing my drive to get the season articles of Degrassi: The Next Generation to FL status, here is season 4, and season 3 (see nomination entry below). I think this article is on par with other season articles that have been promoted, and meets all criterea, even if I can't spell it! All comments will addressed. Thanks. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments How come this is at FLC is if Smallville (Season 1), which is very similar to this, is at FAC? indopug (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I think you mean why is this listed at FLC, and Smallville (season 1) at FAC. Well I listed this (and the other Degrassi season articles) here because 14 other season articles of Featured Status are catalogued at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Media, and just as reviewers are saying at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (U.S. season 3), it doesn't matter how much prose is in the article, the article is still a list. Hope that that is the correct answer to your question. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Smallville nominator says that the Smallville (season 1) is an article because it contains more prose due to the presence of a production section. Then I must ask, why do the Degrassi lists not have a production section? Wouldn't that imply non-comprehensiveness? indopug (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so because as he says, Smallville season 1 is prose with a list, rather than these which are lists with some prose. Series-wide production info is at D:TNG. D:TNG (season 4) is most definitley a list. It lists the episodes, it lists the contents of the DVD release, it lists the cast and it lists the crew. The style for these Degrassi season pages is very similar to the Lost season pages, and slightly similar to the Simpsons season pages which contain even less information in prose — but that's allowed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK cool then; just wanted to make things clear, although I still think its weird that different shows can follow completely different formats. indopug (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's different shows per se. It's more to do with the content of the articles and the way they're written. Production information and lots of other stuff could be added to these lists, but then it becomes less of a list and more of an article. The prose in this article is all stuff that can easily be turned into lists, all except "Reception" that is, and even the awards paragraph in that section could be listified. Also, the requirements for FL status seems to be less strict than those for FA status, but that isn't the reason it's listed here. It's because it's a list. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hey Matthew, some comments (merge them with the series 3 ones for a full set!)
  • "and simply Degrassi" - or simply Degrassi?  Done
  • Consider linking "sexually transmitted infections"  Done
  • DVD Releases should be DVD releases (per WP:HEAD)  Done
  • Singer/actress - yuck - why not Singer and actress... or better still, Singer (since that's what she's prominent for)....  Done
  • "Jay and Silent Bob Go Canadian, Eh!." - double full stop warning.  Done
  • Last para in Crew is uncited - plus I'd consider merging some of those short paras.
  • "In season four an episode featuring..." - missing comma?  Done – Not sure if it was missing, but I removed "In season four" instead.
  • "A second episode with a storyline about oral sex.." - was the storyline about it or did it "contain" it? Also consider a wikilink to oral sex.  Done (and wikilinked "school shooting"). The storyline was about oral sex, it didn't depict it, although it made it clear it had happened!
• Again, a first hit, but more to follow. As ever, though, good stuff so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Matthew

• Support - again, good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think that there are too many fair-use images of DVD covers. I want to make sure that it is allowed to have multiple fair-use images in a page before I support. Is there any fair-use specialist that can help us resolve this?--Crzycheetah 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm.. I haven't found a policy at Help:Contents/Images and media, and I notice that Through the Looking Glass (Lost) has three fair use images, although I am aware of the policy regarding "this one has it, so can this one" (even thogh I can't find it!). -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I just remember long time ago many fair-use images were removed from similar pages stating that no more than one fair-use image should be used. I can't find anything now either; therefore, I support. --Crzycheetah 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can support this. Good job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 8 March 2008 (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 15:21, 6 March 2008.

---

List of Interstate Highways in Texas

I think this list meets all the FL criteria, it is well sourced with several images. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Nice list, but because of the images, the table columns are too narrow and the rows too long, which makes the table harder to read. Since there is only few pictures, I suggest you put the best one (or the most significant highway) in the lead, and the rest below the table (or just remove them). Eklipse00 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  I am working on having a map created to put in the lead, I will try putting them below the table to see how that looks. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Images have been moved to below the table. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MeegsC

Oppose for the moment, though I think my concerns can be easily addressed.
I'll start by saying that this is my first "List of interstates" review, so feel free to tell me if any of this isn't appropriate.

• The word "Counties" is missing from several of the table's "Location" cells. Alternatively, you could perhaps put "Counties" as part of the column header, and leave the word out of the table cells themselves. (If you leave them in the lists, should the plural be capitalized? I don't know the MOS for that, but it looks a bit funny...)

   Done - actually noticed that before your comments

• The text in the "Description" column could use some work. There are a number of run-on sentences which need punctuation.

   Done - I think I took care of all the run-on issues

• The article vascillates between "...intersects 1-27" vs. "...intersects with 1-27". You should chose one format or the other.

  I couldn't find any instances where "intersects with" occurs.

• DItto for "...with a junction with I-10" vs. "...with a junction at I-10".

   Done - I think there was only one usage of "junction at," changed to "junction with," describes better what is actually happening

• "I-20 begins at a point on I-10..." A point? What point? Can you provide the exit number?

   Done - I can get exit numbers Exit numbers have been provided.

• Other interstates which begin (or end) in Texas just say something like "I-30 begins at I-20 in the western portions of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex..." Again, can you provide exit numbers? If not, I'd suggest removing "at a point on" from the sentence referred to in the previous comment bullet.

   Done - Same as above

• A reference is needed for the statement that the state of Texas owns all the interstates in Texas. Knowing nothing about this beforehand, I'd have expected that the federal government owned them! : )

   Done - looking for one at the moment Reference found

• The lead is very short. Could it be expanded a bit? For instance: When was the first Texas interstate highway construction started? How long did that first one take? How about that longest (in miles) one? Was it a many-decade project or something shorter?

   Done - How long would be a good length? I have more than doubled the lead to include some history.

Let me know when you've got these sorted and I'll have another look! MeegsC

Support. Good improvements; the lead, in particular, is much stronger—and more interesting—now. MeegsC | Talk 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – the lengths are expressed (mostly) with three digits of precision, which seems inappropriate to me. It's often difficult to determine where a highway really starts and ends when you look at ramp mergers etc., so I would think a precision of 0.1 mile/km is sufficient. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  The lengths are all the official lengths from the Texas Department of Transportation. I suppose I can make them less precise though. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Well, no, if they are sourced that way, I'd keep them that way. It just looked to me like a computation issue at first glance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Some of the above comments have already addressed issues from when I first glanced at the list to now, as I look over it better, so well done.
• "Location" shouldn't be a sorted list. It only sorts alphabetically by the first entry of in some cases a dozen.

   Done

• In the description section, state why I-35E is longer than I-35W.

  Hmmm, I will have to think about a way to say why it is so or will just saying that "I-35W takes a more direct route between where they split and merge than I-35E does" work?

  That sounds a bit clumsy, but something to that effect would do for me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

   Done - okay, I kept it simple and mentioned which was more or less direct --Holderca1 ^talk 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• "I-110 is a spur of I-10", "I-345 is a spur of I-45". What is a spur?
• "I-410, is a loop of I-10", "I-610 is a loop of I-10" "I-635 is a loop of I-35E" is a loop of I-20". Do they loop around those freeways, or does it mean something else?

   Done - I have linked to spur route and loop route, do you want me to explain more on what they are or will that suffice?

  No, that's good. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• A map of the state with the freeways highlighted in red (or whatever colour is usually used on U.S. maps) should be included in the lead.

   Done - this is currently being worked Map has been added

• The first image gallery is too wide for my screen (1024 x 768). Is it possible to include them vertically, such as those in (off the top of my head) Featured List List of London Underground stations?

  The images were initially formated that way, see here, I moved them after an earlier comment. I am okay with it either way.

   Done - after adjusting my resolution and looking at it in both formats, I have decided to leave the photos below the table. Some of the rows get real long otherwise. I adjusted the width of the photos to fit on 1024x768.

  Yeah, it looks fine on my screen too now. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Punctuation/grammar changes:
  • I-40: "from New Mexico to Oklahoma with a junction with I-27" → "from New Mexico to Oklahoma at a junction with I-27"
  • I-10 "on its way to San Antonio where it has" → "on its way to San Antonio, where it has"

   Done - Took care of the second one. The first one, I changed it to "from New Mexico to Oklahoma, and has a junction with I-27," to me, your change made it sound like the entire route from New Mexico to Oklahoma was at the junction.

• Exit numbers:
  • "I-40 crosses the Texas Panhandle from New Mexico to Oklahoma with a junction with I-27 in Amarillo." What junction?
  • I-10: "it has junctions with I-35 and I-37" and "it has a junction with I-45".
  • I-45: "intersecting I-10 in Houston", and "passes through East Texas and intersects I-20"
  • I-35E and W: "intersecting I-20 and I-30".
  • I-27: "begins at State Highway Loop 289 in Lubbock"
  • I-37: "It intersects I-10"
  • I-30: "intersecting I-35W, I-35E and I-45 along the way" (and remove "along the way". It's a bit eugh)
  • I-20: "it has junctions with I-30, I-35W, I-35E and I-45"
  • I-35: "it intersects I-10 and I-37", "Just north of Hillsboro, the highway splits into two branches" – "just north" is vague, too.
  • I-110: "It connects I-10 to the Bridge of the Americas"
  • I-345: "It provides a connecting route from I-45 to Spur 366 and US 75 in Dallas"
  • I-410: "It also intersects I-35 and I-37"
  • I-610: "It also intersects I-45."
  • I-635: "It also intersects I-20, I-30, and I-45."
  • I-820: "I-820 also intersects I-30 and I-35W"

  I see where you are going, but wouldn't the list get overburdened by all these exit numbers? Quick comment regarding your comment for I-27, Loop 289 doesn't have exit numbers.

  • Yeah, it might. I'll leave it up to you and other reviewers to decide. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikilinking – As the table is sortable, each instance of a state or city should be wikilinked:
  • I-40: Location: Potter county. Description: Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas Panhandle if available. Also consider describing "Texas Panhandle" for those unfamiliar with Texas.
  • I-45: Location: Harris, Ellis, Dallas counties Description: Gulf Coast, Dallas
  • I-35E and W: Location: Hill, Dallas, Tarrant, Denton counties Description: Hillsboro, Denton, Fort Worth and Dallas
  • I-37: Location: Atascosa and Bexar counties Description: San Antonio
  • I-30: Location: Parker, Tarrant, Dallas counties Description: Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (also, what is the metroplex?)
  • I-20: Location: Reeves county Description: West Texas and East Texas if available, and Louisiana
  • I-35: Location: Bexar, Guadalupe counties Description: United States-Mexico border, San Antonio
  • I-110: Location: El Paso county Description: Bridge of the Americas
  • I-345: Location: Dallas county Description: Dallas
  • I-410: Location: Bexar county
  • I-610: Location: Harris county
  • I-635: Location: Dallas, Tarrant counties
  • I-820: Location: Tarrant county

   Done - All have been linked with one exception, Bridge of the Americas actually links to a different bridge with the same name and I have been unable to find an article for this particular bridge. This bridge is the first one here which is redlinked: List_of_crossings_of_the_Rio_Grande#Texas-Chihuahua. Also, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area.

  I think that might need explaining then. I don't think many people outside America will understand what "metroplex" means. It should also be endashed, since the way you have it redirects to it being spelled that way. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, put in an explanation and fixed the linking. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. Hope it's of some help. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have knocked out some, working on the rest. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just one more - It appears Length was made unsortable. I think should be sortable again. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I had removed it from the length column since it doesn't quite sort correctly. I added it back in, maybe someone knows how to fix the problem. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Never having made a sortable table I'm not 100% sure, but it might be because the lengths themselves are too precise? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think its the precision. It is sorting one digit at a time, so when you sort it is saying that 96 is higher than 878 since 9 is greater than 8. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I think {{convert}} is causing the problem. Will remove the template. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmm... have you looked at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting ? If that's no good I can only suggest the WP:Help desk, or hope one of the FL reviewers reads this and knows how to do it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I have been looking through that page and haven't been able to figure it out just yet. The template wasn't causing the problem. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay, the length column now sorts properly. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - All concerns have been addressed, looks like a good list. Well done. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments whoa, I'm certainly an interstate virgin so I'll provide "3rd party" comments here!
  • "Interstate highway system" or "Interstate Highway System" (in lead).
  • As a non-American, I'm not sure what a branch route is?
  • We seem have a decimal place overload here. Nearest mile (or maybe 0.1 mile) would suffice would it not? (Is this the bit where someone says.... "Yeah, but the project/other FL did it this way?)
  • "...(I-45) was dedicated in ..." - for non-experts this is unclear.
• I hope these help a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  All good comments, should be "Interstate Highway System," branch route is now explained in the lead; decimals reduced to 0.1 mile (no, didn't see it anywhere else, just used the same values from the source); change dedicated to opened. I hope that took care of your concerns and thanks for the review. Always nice to have those unfamiliar with the subject browse over it to make sure it makes sense and isn't littered with jargon. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - looks much better than when it started, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Major concern, easily fixed: The list should be renamed to List of Interstate Highways in Texas. (An "interstate" is not actually a noun, even though it is used that way informally.) Note that this would be consistent with List of Interstate Highways in Florida, which is the only existing state-specific list of Interstate highways that I found. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually created both of these lists and I would argue that the Florida list should be renamed. Several dictionaries say it is a noun without "highways" attached. [29] --Holderca1 ^talk 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned girl for believing that "interstate" is an adjective meaning "between or among two or more states," but I happen to think that "interstates" is U.S.-specific informal usage that should be avoided in an encyclopedia. Please consider the need to make article names comprehensible for speakers of English who don't happen to be Americans. --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem you run into though is that several of the items on the list aren't "interstate highways" going by the dictionary definition of the adjective "interstate." For example, Interstate 27, Interstate 37, Interstate 45, and all of the auxiliary routes never leave the state. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After seeing List of Interstate Highways, I have reconsidered for the sake of consistency and any ambiguity that may arise to move the article. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good resolution. Most definitions of "Interstate highway" say that the term applies to any of the highways in the Interstate Highway System (also described as the interconnected system of highways connecting the 48 contiguous states). Thus, "Interstate Highway" is a valid term for the topics in the list article. --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for your patience with my comments. --Orlady (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  Great! Thanks for your help! --Holderca1 ^talk 02:47, 6 March 2008 (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 15:21, 6 March 2008.

---

List of autonomous areas by country

I am nominating this article because I believe that it meets all of the criteria required for a Featured List. Gary King (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments I was asked to take a look at this list by the nominator. Though I've never been active with lists, let alone featured lists, I've had a look around others and it appears to meet the criteria. Every country is referenced.

Resolved stuff from PeterSymonds (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A few concerns that may be completely fine (as I say, I've never reviewed a FLC)

• For Serbia, it says "disputed status". Does this need a ref?
  • Done I've updated it by removing "disputed status" and instead using a reference to more clearly explain the current status. Gary King (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• One of the references is in Chinese. Is this allowed on the English Wikipedia? Excellent.
  • Done After browsing through several articles related to China, it appears that none uses Chinese references. I've replaced it with an English one. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Although leads aren't referenced in articles, because they're discussed further on, this might not be the same in lists. Eg. "This list includes areas that are both internationally recognized and generally unrecognized"; is this referenced further on? I can't see it.
  • Done I've referenced both with examples; for instance, I've included Hong Kong as a region that is internationally recognized by using the United Nations as a reference. I've used Kosovo as an example of a region that is not internationally recognized. Gary King (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm a bit concerned that the box directly below the "autonomous areas" header is also unreferenced. Also, footnote 1 is a note, not a reference.*
• "In some contexts country and state is also used for some subnational entities." "Some" is considered a weasel word, so please be more specific.
  • Commment (to 2 items above) Nothing I can do about that besides removing the box. It is a template and was created and placed in the article by an administrator, so I assume that the person knows what they are doing. The box also exists on List of countries, which is an FL, so I left it in this article. Gary King (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's about it. As I said, because I've not had great experience with lists, I'm no expert, so my comments may be useless. Good luck!

PeterSymonds | talk 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments * I'm a bit sleepy and I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject so I only have two comments, and if either of them seem silly, just say so and ignore it!

• A Description column would be nice, if possible, to be able to explain when and why these cities, countries etc are autonomous.

Comment A column wouldn't work because some of the countries have more than one autonomous area, and each would most likely have a different explanation. I've opted to add the year that the areas gained autonomy - only if I can find it (I'm looking primarily in the associated Wikipedia articles). Hopefully this won't be a requirement for this article. If you would prefer to not see any years rather than seeing only some of the areas with years, then let me know - but I think that it's better to at least have some years rather than none. It'll become complete eventually, but it will require much more time than all of the other comments on this page combined. Gary King (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, including the years is a pretty good idea, and would suffice for me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so that's done. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• For the UK, should the Channel Islands and Isle of Man be included?

• Done Gary King (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK. But that wasn't a "they should be included", it was "should they?". I honestly don't know, and if you've included them because I said it, I would double check. Also, for this reason, I don't think I can fully support, because who knows if any others are missing right now? If you can absolutely reassure me that it is full and complete, then of course I will. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Yep, I did double check before adding them. The reason they were not there before is because that section is for "constituent country (with devolution)", which is a unique type of autonomous area to the United Kingdom. The other countries typically have areas called autonomous region so all autonomous regions are listed there; Channel Islands and Isle of Man are actually not constituent countries and therefore shouldn't have been added there. I've moved them to a new self-governing crown dependency section. Gary King (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think I found one more that is not included on the list: Kuna Yala, autonomous from Panama. I just did a Google search for "is an autonomous". There may be more that are missing, but the first 30 hits are mostly Chinese, and as this list says "over 100", it's not easy to check. So again, until the list is completely complete, I'll have a hard time supporting. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, well I think that at any point, it will be extremely difficult to prove that the list is indeed complete. Plus, for several regions, there are different definitions as to whether or not they are indeed autonomous or not and should belong on the list. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reference [1], [2], [3], [23], and [24] are footnotes, not references. I would use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} in a separate footnotes section. [23] and [24] would then need <ref>...</ref> tags placed to back up the two statements.

Done Gary King (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? It looks like only 2 were done and the other 3 were removed? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The ones that I removed were not required. They did not add anything to the article. Gary King (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Native term isn't necessary for me, as long as the description of whether it's a autonomous city, region, county, etc is kept in.

Comment I'll leave it there because I've got an entry for every country already. Gary King (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Unless the list can become complete. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I said, even if I told you that the list was complete, there would be no way to be able to prove that, because every existing autonomous region uses different definitions that may not agree with what the definition that the article uses, but you may feel that it is included. Some governments are sketchy on the exact details on their autonomy for political reasons. Gary King (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But surely the list then doesn't meet the criteria?

• 1.(a).3: "finite and complete" — I could understand it not being finite on its own though, as obviously, regions could announce their autonomacy(?) in the future.
• 1.(b) and (c): "comprehensive" and "factually accurate" — because what's to say it is?
• 1.(d): "Uncontroversial" — if every regions defines autonomacy differently, the list could find itself disputed.

I am willing to change my "oppose" if you can explain why you think it does meet the criteria, or (without being facetious) why it should be an exception.

Well, my response is that as long as an area governs itself and has freedom from an external authority, as it states in the article, then it will be included. All of the areas on the list are governed by what is much like a federal government, and most of them have their own parliament, the highest level of government possible for a region. Gary King (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And every "country" this currently applies to is definitely included in the list? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, or unless someone decides to declare themselves an autonomous region during these next few days. I wouldn't know if that happens because I don't keep up with the news :) Gary King (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - grudgingly! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Any reason why the text in the Autonomous areas section is in a box? It may be because it's like another FL but I can't see the justification for it. Most of the contents is better suited to the See also section (in fact one of the articles is linked there, one isn't...)

Comment As I've mentioned above, it's a template that was added by an administrator. I'm leaving it there because it exists on other related lists such as List of countries. I have no control over its content. Gary King (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not keen on the placement of [1], really not that unreasonable to put it with [2] after the full stop.

Done Gary King (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Also, countries that include autonomous areas are often federacies." - prove it.

Done Referenced. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Could the references be provided in a separate Notes column? (I know, I always say this kind of thing - I just don't like seeing references butted up to words).

Done Gary King (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Greece doesn't seem to have a native word for the autonomous region. In fact, several don't. Is that because a phrase doesn't exist, is in English or you don't know it?

Done I've listed the countries that are natively English-speaking. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Page ranges in journal citation need to use en-dash.

Done Gary King (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope this lot help. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support because the list meets all the criteria. A minor point: Footnotes and in-line references use the same numbers. Wouldn't be less confusing to use letters or Roman numerals for two footnotes instead of Arabic numerals that are already used for references? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done Gary King (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - good work, you didn't make a notes column although you said you had, but it's not a deal-breaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what you mean by Notes column. I thought you were talking about a separate Footnotes section - could you please elaborate? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I meant a separate column to contain the references instead of having them butted up against the country names. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ah; I think I saw an article recently that was like that. If you can point me to one like that then it'd give me a better idea of how to go about it. (Design-wise, etc.) Gary King (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• How about something like the Source column at List of countries by population? Gary King (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that kind of thing, but keep the references (i.e. [1], [2] etc) instead of in-line links. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done Gary King (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my only issue is whether you can combine the rows for the "references" column for countries with multiple types of autonomous reasons (i.e. China, Russia) to better show that the reference is citing all of them. Otherwise looks good. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're starting to get into fancy referencing styles that I know nothing about. If you could point me in the right direction, then I'll see if I can get that done or not :) Gary King (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not that big a deal, and I can't see how you would do it anyway. Struck. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The map does not mesh with the table - e.g. UK is not highlighted. Fixed

• This isn't something I can do much about besides contacting several cartographers to build one for me. I've contacted a few in the past few days, but have only received a handful of replies, all either saying that the user is too busy, or that the user's computer won't work. If you know a cartographer who could update the map, then be my guest. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate the problem. but as the map is not accurate, I suggest it should not be used. Currently it misleads; never a good thing. I'll have a think about whether anything else can be done to attract a cartographer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I spent the time to learn my way around it and managed to color in the UK. I can color in between the lines! Gary King (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Gridlines appear half-way through the table. Not orthodox. Looks like a CSS bug in Firefox?

• Not sure what you mean, unless you are talking about how entries such as China break up into five different rows, which in that case is done purposely. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was seeing something odd at homre on firefox, which I'm not seeing this afternoon in work on IE. I'll get back to you on this one.--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to be a general CSS glitch in Firefox; I get the same problem (sometimes) too. A hard refresh usually resolves it. Gary King (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. I've not characterised it, but it has, for the moment, gone away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And is back. I've asked for a second opinion on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#CSS table border problem showing up in Firefox, though I go with your firefox explanation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, although I don't think it's caused by my article, otherwise I'd be using some very trippy CSS :) Could you try other articles with tables and see if they have the same issue after a few reloads? Gary King (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the behaviour before, having looked at far too many wikipedia pages. But I'm not about to hunt out more tables for this eventuality ... I accept that your page is blameless and so this is not really an FLC matter so much as a WP:VP matter to be puzzled over. Hopefully we'll snag ourselves a table/css expert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Instances (areas became autonomous on the accompanying year) table header begs a question about the lack of dates against many items. Happy

• This was an additional request made on this nomination page; it wasn't originally there, so I am just scrapping together the years that I can find for each area. Some are very difficult to find. If you would prefer to not see years at all rather than only some, then let me know, although someone has mentioned that they'd prefer to at least see some, while I prefer that, also. I have changed the text to add (areas became autonomous on the accompanying year, if available) and hopefully that helps. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's as much as you can do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I like the changes that were discussed and you have incorporated. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Is the native term field suppose to provide a transliteration or the term in native script? Look the difference between China and Iraq. Eklipse (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done They are all transliterations now. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, but this column still confuses me. How is "autonomous province" a translation of English-speaking country (in Papua New Guinea and Philippine) or "Islami-Jamhouriyat-e-Kashmir" of "autonomous region" in Pakistan as indicated in the lead? Eklipse (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • English-speaking country is just saying that there is no transliteration other than the English phrase, which is listed on the second row like for other entries. Removing that line would make people think that there should be an entry there. For Pakistan, their area is a special case for them, so they do not have a unique name for their autonomous areas, even though the region fits within the article's criteria for inclusion. Gary King (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (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 15:21, 6 March 2008.

---

List of Governors of Hawaii

I think this list is up to the standards of the other governor lists we've had (most recently: CO and WI), even though it's a bit shorter. It's very well referenced I'd say, though admittedly I need to doublecheck some of the territorial dates (the sources for most are when they were confirmed by the senate, not necessarily inaugurated, but in some cases that's the best we're going to get, and I'll note that), and the intro might need work, but I'll let y'all point out what you need. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - a very nicely illustrated list. Some comments and questions...
  • Is Hawaii correct? Most, if not all, of the articles say Governor of Hawaiʻi.
    • The only place I used an ʻokina was in the name of a reference from the governor's site itself; I'm open to using it in the whole article, but the name will have to say at Hawaii, as it is for all other Hawaii-related articles. Note that it's barely used in Hawaii itself.
  • Why is first table right column right aligned? All other tables are centrally aligned.
    • It serves as a header table, like the other governor lists. It's certainly more dramatic on things like the Kentucky list, where there's six rows. :P
  • You have A-U for references and 1-9 for notes, I've only ever see it the other way round. I don't suppose it makes any difference, but it just stood out to me.
    • Like the other featured governor lists, footnotes are handled using the reference system, and references handled using the older ref/note system. This is a unique circumstance in that there were (many) more references than footnotes; compare with the Alabama list, which has 24 footnotes 1-24, and only six references A-F. I would dearly love to use the native ref system for both, but a bug request I filed some years ago for multiple classes of references has only recently been taken on.
  • "Before then, Hawaii was a monarchy; see List of Monarchs of Hawaii for the period before 1893." I never like "see... " in the prose, isn't there a better way to intelligently pipe to this article?
    • That sentence is essentially a timeline in prose, so I thought it would be better to be straight out with it rather than hiding it. An example from the another lists is "See the lists of governors of Mississippi (1798–1817), Georgia (—1804), and colonial governors of Spanish Florida (—1810) for these periods." In other words, it describes what the history was, then tells you where to find the information, without hiding links or trying to be coy. Prior to switching to a prose style, these sentences were contained in bulleted form and were much less friendly, IMO.
  • I would consider having a bit more on the Organic Act which is linked to using "organized" - it took me by surprise.
    • That was a last-minute addition, and I realized it had an article, so I figured, why not link it? Perhaps it would be better to link to the article on organized territories there, rather than the act itself. I'll do that now; it's not a necessary link for the understanding of this list.
  • Obviously the [citation needed] must be sorted out.
    • Done.
  • Ref [A] in note [2] should be placed after the semi-colon.
    • Done.
  • "During the military rule, the territory was essentially governed by Generals Walter Short, Delos Emmons, and Robert Richardson." - essentially? Could use a citation.
    • Done.
  • Note [9] states Lingle is term-limited - surely Waihee and Cayetano were also?
    • Yes, but she's the current governor; she's term-limited, and therefore she will not be serving after the date in the footnote. It's just a note to let people know. If it were her first term, it would say "her term expires on this date, and she is not yet term limited", meaning she could run again if she so chose. It's just a little addendum to her being an incumbent.
  • Probably worth noting that the jstor.org reference requires a subscription.
    • Almost all of the references do - but the free synopses, all of which supply the information being referenced, do not. :D In that case, I wasn't sure if I needed to note it was a subscription, since the information can be verified using the free portion alone. I made sure only to cite things actually available on the net.
• Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Responded to all. --Golbez (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - okay, not all of my concerns were addressed but none of them were deal-breakers. It's a good list, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well-written and well-referenced; seems to meet the criteria to me. Can't even find any typos to complain about =P —Salmar ^(talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support Could you expand the last paragraph of the lead? I always believe that it's unprofessional to have one-sentence paragraphs in the lead.--Crzycheetah 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Might be better, so if you had specific requests, I can do it. --Golbez (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Something along the lines of the last 2 paragraphs at the Wisconsin list would be better.--Crzycheetah 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Better? :) --Golbez (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • You know it! Well done.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 5 March 2008 (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 15:21, 6 March 2008.

---

List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross

The list is complete and reflects the same style used in List of Knight's Cross recipients. Therefore it should qualify for FLC as well.MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Firstly, just wanted to check that you were expecting this to be a FLC, not a FAC as you've written above? Done FLC was what I wanted.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• "following List of" - why captialise List? And you've used list twice in the first sentence which reads oddly. Done
• Actually the first sentence reads badly all round, it says the same thing twice. Done reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid single sentence paragraphs. And avoid text in parentheses. Done
• "another countries military service" - in "another country's military service"? Done
• "The first enactment Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573[1]) " - what does this mean? Why the ")"? Done removed the )MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• "the war" - so far you haven't said which war. Done
• If you want the table to be sortable then don't say " The recipients are ordered chronologically." Also, wikilink countries etc on every row even if they're repeated because the table could appear in any order.
  • Comment The last time around (review of the List of Knight's Cross recipients I had to add sorting to a chronological list. Now it should be removed? What shall it be? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I wasn't involved in the review you refer to but when you have sortable tables then it seems a little illogical in the lead to say the table is chronologically ordered when it potentially isn't. I just think the sentence is unnecessary, but it is, after all, just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Where's the reference which proves these awards were given? Done
• Sort out the date format used here per WP:DATE. Done
  • Comment I believe the sorting feature contradicts WP:DATE requirements. I could use some help on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the {{dts2}} template - does the hard work for you and should be good here! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done Thanks! That does it!MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• What does "+31 Mar 1944" mean? Done
• Look at splitting references into general and specific.

Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Further comments

• First sentence of lead is now nearly 100 words long. Too long for my small brain. Done I reworded the first paragraph.MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• "or its higher grade the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, plus one recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords." - I would say "or its higher grades, KC with OL or KC with OL and swords". (expanding the abbreviations!)  Donesee aboveMisterBee1966 (talk)
• Why order the tables differently?
  • The German Archives keep records for the lowest grade, Knight's Cross, in alphabetical order. Every higher grade is numbered (only the Germans) but the foreigners are ordered chronologically. I think Wiki should list them this way too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps a note of explanation is appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Move the citations per WP:CITE if possible - in a number of cases you could move the refs to the end of the sentence they're used in, immediately following punctuation. Done
• "1945 I S. 11[5]) " - why the closing parenthesis? Done
• My opinion, but I would list them in ascending order.
• "Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords" - suddenly in quotations. Done
• " (Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 613)" - you have said this once already, and why now in parentheses? Done
• "commander-in-chief" - some level of capitalisation required I would think. Done
• "non German" - hyphen missing? Done
• IJN points to a disambiguation page and ought to be expanded on its first use anyway. Done
• "Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 849)" closing parenthesis again, why? Done
• Consider using the {{sortname}} template so you can list the names in a more natural manner without losing the ability to sort. Done Now some red links in the table!MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If you read the sortname template instructions, you can pipe an additional parameter, namely the article name. This should restore your blue links! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pointing this out. What I meant is that the template always automatically creates a link. I understand how to tweak the template (3rd parameter). But I don't know how to make it not do this.MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I beg your pardon. I hadn't realised that the template enforced a link. You're absolutely right. However, it does raise a question - why shouldn't the red linked articles become blue? If they're notable by virtue of receipt of such an "honour" then perhaps you could consider writing, at least, a stub for each one? A great way of expanding the Wikipedia?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No I don't mind the red links. Would this be a show stopper for this review? And yes maybe I will create some of these articles. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what criterion you're suggesting this should be a FL. Reading WP:WIAFL, the first criterion suggests bringing together a set of existing articles (which I think this is trying to do). If the articles don't exist but you expect they should then there's a good chance this nomination may fail unless you have articles in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Well I think it fulfills all of the following criteria: useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. My interpretation so far was that the list has to fulfill these criteria and may contain empty buckets/articles. Are you telling me that only once every item of the list is created, will the list be eligible for FLC? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
              • No, I don't believe that's what I'm saying. I'm just suggesting that to make the article more useful then it should accommodate a set of existing articles and collate them into a useful list. Quite possibly the list meets one of the other two criteria but no harm in making it even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• "(Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573)" - why in parentheses? Done
• Ranks in the last table are all unlinked - can this be improved? Some of them are very jargon-ish and need to be explained to help the non-expert, as do the divisions in which the recipients served e.g. "OB d. ungar. armee" means absolutely nothing to me. Done
  • No, not done as far as I'm concerned - the divisions are still undecipherable to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I tweaked the article a bit more and now addressed the units. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Consider making the widths of columns in all three tables consistent so the page has a consistent look about it. Done

Still a way to go before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - okay, hopefully this is the last bunch!
  • Heer needs disambiguation.
  • I think it may also be useful to place in brackets what each branch represented.
  • "fore instance " - not fore, for, and I'd say "for example".
  • Link to the diamonds and golden oaks leaves articles.
  • I would expand KIA - I know most of us know what it means, typically you'd expand an acronym before using it.
  • "Swords May 27..." - perhaps "Awarded Swords"?
  • "Fieldmarshall-Lieutenant" - Field Marshal-Lieutenant? (in English)? (Question really...)
  • Division needs disambiguation.
  • Split references into to General and Specific.
• Then we're getting there! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sticking with me. I believe I have addressed every comment. Thanks!MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No problem. I'll recheck the article tomorrow and let you know how I think it's going! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Last ones, I hope! MUCH better now than when I first found it - hope you agree (do a diff, you'll impress yourself!) but a last few bits...
  • Use the {{Cite web}} template for your web citations, nicer look and feel. Done
  • I'm wondering now if Country should be nationality?
    • I hesitate because the person served in this countries military service and may have been of other nationality. Nationality, to me, implies that this person has this nationality.MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. Good call. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't capitalise Submarine. Done
  • Should "chief of fleet" be capitalised? Done
  • Consider using a cross rather than an asterisk to denote posthumous award.
    • I hesitate because a cross may affiliate that this person is of Christian belief, which I don’t know. I therefore used the asterisk, just like on the lists of Medal of Honor recipients MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I completely agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• And that really really is that! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That's a pretty short list, is there any reason why it can't be merged with List of Knight's Cross recipients, which isn't particularily large? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I mentioned the reason for the separate list in the second paragraph. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph where? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "It should be noted that the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht did not assign a numbering scheme to 'foreign recipients' and have listed them separately from the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS recipients."MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That's highlighted another problem - there's a lot of jargon (for want of a better word) here - it's quite inaccessible to the non-expert. Featured content needs to be accessible to all so I think you need to do some work on explaining the context further, trying to de-jargonise or describe the German further... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, then the list is too short to be an FL because such a short list does not represent "Wikipedia's Best Work". Several other FLCs have failed because of the same reason. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I take it that your comments, Scorpion, were in response to MisterBee's, not mine?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I explained my reasoning more explicitly and expanded the intro a bit. I believe this addresses the issue.MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question, would it make sense to merge List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross and List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves? I had broken them into two lists because they refer to different grades of the same award and make navigation via the Template easier. To both list the same paradigm applies that the recipients were not members of the German Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS and have to be listed separately because historically they were listed separately. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge sounds perfectly reasonable to me. No reason why Wikipedia should list them separately. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I have merged the two lists. Hopefully the combined material has enough substance for FLC.MisterBee1966 (talk)
• Support - a lot of hard work has gone into this since its initial nomination, all thanks to the dedication of MisterBee1966. I satisfied that the article is now suitable for elevation to WP:FL, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would be nice if the same column in each of the tables had the same width. Right now, there is a sort of 'wavy' appearance to the tables. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't see that. Every table starts like this

{|class="wikitable" style="width:100%;"

|-

! width="25%" | Name

! width="9%" | Country

! width="14%" | Rank

! width="24%" | Unit

! width="10%" | Date of award

! width="18%" | Notes

|-

If this can be improved I don't know how. Comments/suggestions are appreciated. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as well. It would seem to depend on the OS/browser. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support Asterisks are really bothering me. The explanation is really easy to miss. I'd suggest to denote posthumous receipts with something more obvious, like a)coloring a cell, or b)use {{note label}}.--Crzycheetah 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • done! MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's better.--Crzycheetah 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:17, 6 March 2008 (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 23:35, 4 March 2008.

---

East Carolina Pirates football seasons

I believe this list is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. It is the first list that covers this much information. I believe it also complys with WP:MOS and has a photo. PGPirate 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Support as nom. PGPirate 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This list compares well with the list of Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons that has already reached featured status. I'd strongly suggest inserting in-line citations in your lede paragraphs (I personally think they should have been used with the Iowa list as well), but other than that, I really like the color coding and the streamlined nature of the list. Excellent work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This user was asked to support this nom. [30] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed I was. I wouldn't have given it if I didn't think it was deserved, however. The article is pretty much the same as the Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons article, and if that article can make it, there's no reason that this one can't as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Your vote should be discounted. Blatantly asking people to support a nom is a huge no no in my books because what's the point of the process if you can just get project members to support it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I believe my actions in improving the article speak for themselves. Regardless of what was asked for, I followed correct procedure in examining the article, making suggested changes, and giving support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Use en-dash to separate scores, game records, years etc.
  • "comprised of"? - Came from Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons
    • Doesn't necessarily make it right! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "football program" - I don't understand this. - Would football team work? Came from Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons
    • Sure does. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Year ranges - don't put spaces between the year and the en-dash.
  • "bowl games" - not clear to a non-expert reader. Perhaps a wikilink?
  • "The first three seasons of existence " of existence is redundant.he w
  • "he was here" - write from third person - so "there".
  • Second paragraph of lead reads really choppy, a lot of short sentences.
  • There are a number of claims in the lead that need to be referenced, e.g. "He never coached another conference championship team again.", "The administration decided to join the Southern Conference in 1965. ", "Coach Emory lead the Pirate football team to the first AP Poll top 25 year end ranking." etc.
  • Table isn't rendering properly for me (IE7 Windows XP), unless the big L-shaped blank area at the top is intentional? If so, what does it mean? - Note 3 and 4 tells why the L-shaped blank is there.
    • Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "00" in total? Why not just 0?
  • References/Notes could be combined into a References with a Specific and General subsection. - Like that? Again, it came from Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons.
    • I've adjusted it accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• At the moment, the lead needs some considerable work in my opinion so I have to oppose right now, I don't think it represents Wikipedia's best work right now. But it's not insurmountable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So now just the lead to work on, the citations to add against the claims in the lead and one more thing, why is the heading in the table "Conference(s)" when the Pirates only ever appeared in a single conference per season? I could guess... it was on the Iowa Hawkeyes article?! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Take a look at it now. I copyedited for grammar and flow, except for the first paragraph—I'm not really sure how an intro to a list article should read. The rest reads a lot better now, I think, but there may be some remaining Wikipedia style problems. If there are, let me know and I'll fix them. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Further comments
  • "team's to the present."..?
  • "Football was called off for the 1942–1945 seasons due to World War II.[6] After the two year hiatus, " - that reads like three seasons, four years (as in the table as well)....And consider merging the very short first sentence with the second. - Sorry, I can't add:)
  • "only time in school history the team won two conference championships in a row. " - citation needed.
• A lot better - try to get down to four paragraphs in the lead maximum, but otherwise, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. I've got all those fixes except for the citation. I'll leave that to PGPirate when he wakes up and sees this. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JKBrooks85

• Support - a lot better than when I found it. Good work to both JKBrooks and PGPirate... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• User:B's list:
  • The coloring is confusing. I don't think you need a separate color for NSC championship vs SC championship since each row tells what conference they were in. (In other words, pick one color for a conference championship.)
  • Also, for the last two seasons where it says they finished 2nd in CUSA, is that second overall or second in the division? I'm assuming that CUSA does the same thing the ACC does where there are only divisional standings now and there are no conference standings any more. So the table should indicate in some fashion that these are divisional standings, not conference standings. Suggestion: change the conference label to "CUSA Eastern" (or whatever the name of the division is) - that way it is obvious what you are talking about. - B and I are trying to come to a consensus to this question. PGPirate 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) - came to consensus/understanding - PGPirate 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed My last thought is that there is a little inconsistency with how "things that don't exist" are indicated. Ties were done away with in the 1990s and so that entire area is empty (no cell borders). The coaches' poll didn't exist before 1950 and so that entire area is empty (no cell borders). But then, during WWII when ECU didn't play football, that area has cell borders. It's at least worth considering making it rowspan=4 colspan=7 and having a message ECU did not play football due to WWII or something. That way, it's more consistent with other things that didn't exist.
  • Regarding this sentence - "In 1965, the school's administration decided to join the Southern Conference", is this the best way to phrase it? Did they walk in to conference headquarters one day and say, "we're joining"? Were they invited and they accepted the invitation? Did the administration (as opposed to the athletics department) make the decision? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it sounds like this sentence is embellishing on history when the only thing we know from the sources given is that the school joined the conference.

Agreed, rewrote sentence, and found cite. PGPirate 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• --B (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Everything looks fine. --B (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (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 01:36, 5 March 2008.

---

List of Peep Show episodes

Self-nomination. I believe that this list is of a high enough standard to become an FL. The introduction is comprehensive, the image in the article is given a full fair-use rationale and the article is well referenced, with synopsis' of all 24 episodes currently broadcast. ISD (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Good to see that somebody else got around to doing this before I did, I suppose I can claim for about 10% of the work... Anyway, looks pretty good, the show won Best Comedy at the Brit Coms in 2007 as well, which might be worth mentioning (David won Best actor as well). Gran² 15:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comment - I've added the other award as requested. ISD (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, some minor points before I support.
  • Any reason why you're wikilnking Mitchell and Webb and not David Mitchell and Rob Webb on their own, as is the case on the Peep Show page?
  • "...point-of-view of the characters..." - perhaps worth emphasising that it's from the physical point of view (i.e. you're in their heads) rather than their emotional points of view?
  • "The beginning of series..." - should this be clarified? It's either "the beginning of series one..." or "Early episodes...." or something.
  • "co-worker" - maybe just me being old-fashioned but British English used to call these colleagues, but no drama either way I guess.
  • "He also falls in love and later marries American Christian Nancy (Rachel Blanchard), whom later leaves him because the marriage was arranged to get Nancy a visa. However, it is clear that Jez loves her. Mark gets Sophie to love him, although by the time he does he no longer truly loves her. They get married, though Mark does not want to, but then Sophie leaves Mark just after the wedding ceremony.[3]" - this reads quite clumsily, I'd suggest an independent copyedit of this lot.
  • "The first series started on September 19, 2003.[4] As of 2008, four series have been broadcast, with a fifth series in production." - merge these two... "2003, and as of..."
  • Order references numerically (so each use of [4], [14] (except in front of [13]!), [21] (except for [20]!) and [28] (apart from [27]) in the synopses should be first).
  • "Mark gets into trouble with his love Sophie as she sits on his hand, with Jez after laughing at his musical work and with some children who are bullying him" - can't quite make this out. Perhaps just a semicolon after trouble or an em-dash?
  • "experiments on drugs" or should it be "experiments with drugs"?
  • "Jez has is stomach pumped."?
  • "thus damaging Mark's chances of her loving him" - clumsy.
  • "World War II" - British English - "Second World War".
  • Wikilink "tenner" for our non-English readers.
  • Wikilink "sectioned".
  • I know the synopses are supposed to be summary style but the prose leaves a little to be desired in my opinion, sentences can be better flowed into one another. Something to consider working on, while not essential for FLC, it would improve the article immeasurably.
  • " 'El Dude Brothers'" - first and only mention.

Hopefully some of these comments are of use, good luck with the FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment - I've carried out most of the requests you asked for. ISD (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reponse to comment - I've tried to improve the prose as well. ISD (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments
  • Any reason why the episode numbers are centrally aligned with the column heading while the other two columns (whose headings are also centrally aligned) are left-aligned?
  • "Mark tries to impress her while Jez attempts to attract Toni's sister, whom Mark incorrectly tells him has cancer." confusing.
  • "His anger leaves Mark needing therapy." - him needing therapy.
  • " in an unusual sort of date" strange wording.
  • "Jez;s life"?
  • "...her about dying of his uncle's..." - him dying.
  • " gets revenge" - strange wording - and how, exactly?
  • "stops Mark for seeing Sally again." - stops Mark from seeing Sally again?
• Probably needs another copyedit in my opinion - try WP:LOCE... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to comments - I've carried out all the edits, and have taken the article to the League of Copyeditors. ISD (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - good work, just the right balance between detail and conciseness. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• The episode titles should be bolded so that they are easier to distinguish.
• I am not at all familiar with the series and the first thing I noticed when I was browsing it is that no episodes aired in 2006. Is there a reason for this and if there is, perhaps it should be mentioned.
• The writers and directors should be included in the list.
• I would prefer to see this list use the {{Episode list}} template that other FLs like The Simpsons (season 6) and Lost (season 3), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2), etc. use. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to comments - I've tried to carry out all the edits you asked for. I can't find a source saying why there wasn't a series in 2006. As all the episodes are written by the same two people, it is probably redundant to mention them in the tables, but I included them in the introduction.

• Object at present. Could you explain a bit on the British Sitcom Guide source? From the "about us" page, it seems to be written by contributors just like a wiki. I've got to object on WP:RS for now, but if you can explain the situation, I'd understand. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Response to objection - As someone who works for the British Sitcom Guide, I know how the site works. The site is controlled by a set of internal editors, with anyone wanting to make any changes having to email them to the site. Someone who works for the website then carries it out. Therefore, I would claim that the site is a reliable source. ISD (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment wouldn't that be a conflict of interest, linking to a website you work on? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Response to comment - I have made one edit to the overview page. The page had did not include one of the director's names. I normally work on the news section. ISD (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Support. Thank you for the clarification. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

CONDITIONAL support

• The table headers are hard to read. Could you change the text to white. Also, the bg colour for season 3 is really, really bright.
• Question: Are there no actual episode titles for the first two seasons?

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Response to conditional support - Rather than changing the colour of the text, I've changed the colour of the table readings so that they are now all white, thereby making the text easier to read and making all the tables uniform. None of the episodes in the first two series have titles. No titles are listed on the DVDs, the IMDb, the Channel 4 website or on any other site. ISD (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, that's fine, then. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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