Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2009

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [1].

---

List of lemur species

Nominator(s): Visionholder (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is complete, given the latest academic literature, and because it meets the FLC requirements. I also plan to maintain the list. Visionholder (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative text has been added for all images. Thanks for pointing this out. –Visionholder (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Great list! My only concern is that for all species, both the scientific and common names are linked, but the scientific name just redirects to the common name. Reywas92^Talk 03:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent list. Reywas92^Talk 03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'll remove the link to the scientific name. I agree that it's a bit redundant. –Visionholder (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundant links have mostly been removed. I left them under Extinct species because I wasn't sure whether to link the family name or the common name. In some cases, the common name and family name are different links, and in other cases, they are the same. If there is a concensus on how to properly clean it up, I will gladly do so. –Visionholder (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A day later, and I'm still not sure if or how to fix the redundant links in the box for extinct species. In some cases, the common name links to the same page as the scientific name. In other cases, it links to the same page as the family name. In yet other cases, it links to its own page. Eventually, two or more scientific names may point to the same page if only a genus page is created due to insufficient information. If I were to take the "pick one and unlink the other" approach, the table would look a little spotty, and people without a lot of knowledge about subfossil lemurs and lemur classification might expect links that aren't there. For those reasons, I have not made any changes to that table. (Otherwise, all other tables have been fixed as requested.) If a reviewer could offer a suggestion or simple give a thumbs-up, it would be much appreciated. –Visionholder (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Excellent job! Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "which weighs only 30 g (1.1 oz), and range up to the size of the Indri" A couple minor things: Remove "only". Fixed. Primary units (here, grams) should be spelled out on their first appearance. Fixed. Inconsistent verb usage ("weighs" is singular but "range" is plural). The verbs "include" and "range" qualify the subject ("they"), whereas "weighs" qualifies "Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur". If I'm wrong and something still needs to be fixed in this sentence, please post a suggestion. Spell out IUCN on its first appearance. Fixed. "Between 2000 and 2008" I think "From 2000 through 2008" sounds better, but that's personal preference. Agreed. Fixed. "into separate species in order to develop an effective strategy" Fixed. ", and may also have played a minor role" Fixed. I think that the third paragraph, which concerns the history, should be moved before the second paragraph, which concerns the present and future of lemur species. I looked at this, and I'd have to respectfully disagree. The open paragraph discusses the recent increase in the number of recognized species, while the second paragraph explains the drive behind such increases. The second paragraph also mentions the threat of extinction. The third paragraph goes on to elaborate on extinction trends for lemurs, while the final paragraph pulls it all together to discuss the future. I'm sorry, but the text flows well to my mind. I may need more detailed suggestions before I can make any changes. "since the introductions of humans" Humans weren't introduced, they evolved (my interpretation). I guess I don't understand your interpretation. On the island of Madagascar, humans are technically introduced species. (They introduced themselves to the island). It has nothing to do with their evolution. I guess I need clarification and maybe a suggestion before I can make changes. "They range in size from 30 g " Perhaps "size" could be "weight"? Technically you are correct, although most sources I know measure "size" by weight. It is easier to compare the mass of animals rather than dealing with their other dimensions. For example, a large giraffe can measure 17 ft and weigh 1,800 lb, while an elephant can measure 14 ft and weigh 26,000 lb. Which is the larger animal? For this reason, weight is usually used in size comparisons. Regardless, I made the change as requested. If anyone feels that it should remain "size", feel free to revert. In the introductory text in the Family sections, I think that "in all" is redundant. All instances removed. Fixed. "There are currently 25 extant species in all." "currently" is a dated statement; if you could use an as of statement that would be better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Two instances of "currently" removed. Fixed. Thank you for the thorough copyedit!! –Visionholder (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [2].

---

Crafoord Prize

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Another prize list. Based on our rather neat featured topic of Nobel Prize laureate lists, some rather cool markup used for that intricate table (well I think so!), illustrated and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, good sir, that you currently have five running FLCs. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not like they're overflowing with unresolved comments! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Weak support

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

I don't usually comment on prose, but I have some questions. ...polyarthritis (rheumatoid arthritis)" the disease... - Shouldn't there be some punctuation mark between )" and the? ...a rotating scheme (astronomy - Could you write this sentence without parentheses? ...King of Sweden (who... - Again, could you lose those parentheses? ...1982 no women... - comma after 1982? --Crzycheetah 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) All addressed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Why are you using the percentages for the columns? I previewed the table without those % and I didn't notice any changes. Well, removing the %'s for me on IE7 with a moderate horizontal resolution (<1600px) results in the nationalities wrapping round, so since it's not causing any problems, I'm going to leave it as is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Why are you disrespecting Toshio Hirano, the lone red link? No disrepecting, it was red when I found it. I didn't create any of the others. I have, however, now created a stub for Hirano. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead The recipient of the Crafoord Prize is announced each year in mid-January; on Crafoord Day in April, the prize is presented by the King of Sweden who also presents the awards at the December Nobel Prize Award Ceremony. -- presents what awards? Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) the disease from which Holger Crafoord severely suffered in his last years. -- why not just mention his first name? Fine, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Table I'll take it that the tables can't be sortable because some entries use row/colspans right? Correct. A shame, I know, but while sortability is desriable, it isn't a requirement. I wish there was an easy way (or indeed, any way) of doing it otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah it is a shame. But wikicode is something complex :P--Truco 503 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) --Truco 503 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment Images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Criterion 5b says alt text is used "where necessary". I believe I have added alt text "where necessary" already in this list. Could you be more specific if you think I haven't, based on the fact that the images are simply there to illustrate the people in question? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Take a look at File:AltText.PNG. As you can see, images without alt text or captions don't register at all when images are turned off. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Informative indeed. How is your list of FLs to be demoted unless alt text is added getting on? I imagine there are hundreds...(!) In the meantime, I'll add alt text to every single image. I'll be doing that from now on, just in case...... I'll let you know when I'm finished. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC) To your first point, I wouldn't do that. To your second point, cheers. I'll be back with a proper review later. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I'm done. I think alt text seems like a very good idea and the more lists I create with "just images" (i.e. images without captions), the more I should use it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. One thing: we shouldn't actually specify in the alt text that this image is, in fact, an image. So you can remove "An image of" from the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC) But if it doesn't show up at all when not using captions (like the image you directed me to, above), how does someone know there should be an image there and not just text? Or should I go back and do some more homework? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I think the reader will gather from the context that images are being described. Also, the images are under the "Image" column, so I think it's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Administered by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences" "Administered by" makes me think of medicine or shots. Perhaps "Awarded by" or "Presented by"? Well, technically the administration of the prize is by the Royal Swedish Academy. The prize is presented by the King of Sweden... "research in the disciplines of astronomy and mathematics; geosciences; and biosciences, with particular emphasis on ecology and polyarthritis (rheumatoid arthritis)", the disease from which Holger severely suffered in his last years. " Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "In polyarthritis, a Crafoord Prize is only awarded when a special committee decides substantial progress in the field has been made."-->A Crafoord Prize is only awarded for polyarthritis when a special committee decides that substantial progress in the field has been made. Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "Crafoord Day" No link? No, not really. I suspect any stub would end up being a redirect to this page.The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "by the King of Sweden" Comma after here. Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "The inaugural winners Vladimir Arnold and Louis Nirenberg were"-->The inaugural winners, Vladimir Arnold and Louis Nirenberg, were Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "Since its inception in 1982, no women have been awarded the prize." I'm confused, because you said that the award was established in 1980. Okay, the award was founded in 1980, first awarded in 1982. I can see the confusion. I'll rephrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) WP:PUNC, periods outside the quotation marks in the rationales. By the way, what was the verdict on using quoted rationales in these lists? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Punc'ed. And no verdict as such. Not that I'm aware of, at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The Notes don't need to have A. B. C. when it automatically makes the letters as backlinks. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Mild oppose The reason of the oppose is that although we've had no conclusion on the rationale discussion, initial reaction by MRG seemed against it and that it was unnecessary. As such, is it not possible to paraphrase these rationales? "is intended to promote international basic research in the disciplines of astronomy and mathematics; geosciences; andbiosciences, with particular emphasis on ecology and polyarthritis (rheumatoid arthritis)" looking at the source this quote has been refactored without it being noted in the quote. For example the addition of in the disciplines "of", geosciences; "and"biosciences - you are also missing a space there. It might be better to keep caps and simple remove the bullet points "is intended to promote international basic research in the disciplines: Astronomy and Mathematics, Geosciences, Biosciences, with particular emphasis on ecology, and Polyarthritis (rheumatoid arthritis)." (I have added one comma after ecology, but I think that makes the category splits clearer). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Rationales rephrased now. Is that better? And also attended to your second point. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Better yes, but I don't think it is perfect. I don't know how seriously to take this rationale thing, but judging from what I've seen MRG say in the past some of this paraphrasing either needs rewording or should have quotes again. If you look at the diff it illustrates those that have just had one word changed. See Signpost on adapting sources. Basically I've no problem with the couple of word ones, e.g. Studies of the interstellar medium. However, the longer ones like Developing and applying isotope geological analysis methods for climate study during the Quaternary period are still very close to the source (and actually without quotes may be called plagirism). I realise this argument may seem circular but it is not. Ideally reduce all redundancy where possible (as in paraphrase down as much as you can). If in some cases you can't accurately portray the rationale without extensively quoting the source then a short quote would be okay. I'd like to see a firm resolution to this problem, but to completely avoid any problems I think you must quote sparingly and paraphrase (as Signpost describes) wherever possible. I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and don't just think I'm being arsey for no reason. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Well, I've now trimmed further. These are now bare facts and I believe they cannot be copyright infringements. If they are still a problem, and we can't "quote" from the source directly as I did originally, then I am not sure I will be able to satisfy your concerns. It's a shame we haven't got a definitive answer on this as the list has now lost a great deal of its original information, and possibly for no reason. Is it any better now? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC) That is better. I'm also really wish we'd had a definateive answer but I notice the Rumford Prize is being held up by this, and this is just the course of action I thought needed taking to avoid any of these concerns. Of course, if there was a definatetive decision that the use of full rationale's is acceptable feel free to reinstate and use them in future (but I fear this will not be the case). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

• File:Alain Connes in 2004.jpg, see my nomination for deletion to see my problems with this image.
• All the others checked out fine, or I managed to verify.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dubious image removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2009 (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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [3].

---

Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominators: Cyclonebiskit (talk) and Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all FL criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure - Im a particpant in the Amazing Race Wikipedia. Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Fix the one disambiguation link: Saint Vincent Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) External links check out fine. Lead The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season that resulted in little impact throughout the Atlantic basin; the United States recorded no hurricane-related fatalities, making the 1987 season the fourth to do so since 1967. -- 1)Is the pipelink at Atlantic basic correct, wouldn't it be better if it were piped to the Atlantic ocean or something along those lines? 2)Did the US record no fatalities in the entire Atlantic area or just the US? The piped link is correct, the Atlantic basin refers to the Atlantic north of the equator and as for the second point, I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I'm asking whether the sentence is stating that the United States recorded no fatalities in the United States or in the Atlantic area itself like all the countries in the Atlantic?--Truco 503 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) In the United States, not any other country. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--Truco 503 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC) The timeline includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. -- 1)In addition the the strike-through, change the first The -> This Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) This season had 14 tropical depressions of which only seven intensified into tropical storms—an average season has ten tropical storms—three became hurricanes and one, Emily, became a major hurricane, i.e. those that rank as Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. -- I think this would read better if it were split into two sentences, and I would remove the i.e. and format what follows with the emdash like you did at the beginning. That sentence has always been kept as a single sentence, I just removed to i.e part, is that OK? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) It would read better IMO if the comma between hurricane and those was replaced with an emdash.--Truco 503 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline A lot of use of roughly, use synonyms. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hurricane Emily further intensifies into a Category Two hurricane. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Tropical Storm Emily re-intensifies into a hurricane while located about 235 mi (380 km) southwest of Bermuda]]. -- Were you trying to link Bermuda? Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Tropical Storm Floyd makes landfall in extreme western Cuba near Guane. -- extreme? Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hurricane Floyd tracks over the Florida Keys with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h). -- I don't see a need for the overlink of Florida Keys here Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) References There is an inconsistency with the linking of the publishers.--Truco 503 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Doing –Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) done where it's feasible. It's surprisingly hard to describe satellite images ("A big, spinny thing over water. The clouds are white."?) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks JC Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, I was mostly referring to the track maps. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The first sentence conflicts with the main article, which claims that the season was average. Fixed the main article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "led to the season starting"-->led to the season's starting Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "information which was not operationally released"-->information that was not operationally released Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "This season had 14 tropical depressions of which only seven intensified into tropical storms" Comma after "depressions", remove "only", and make the numbers either both words or both numerals. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "an average season has ten tropical storms" Is there a source for this? Sourced Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The usage of all three em dashes is awkward. I'd recommend putting some material in parentheses or perhaps a footnote. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "spent 14.5 days as a tropical storm" So, exactly 14 days and 12 hours? Specified it was roughly that length Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Not a big concern, but it would be nice if the inline citations were in numerical order (example: Tropical Depression Five tracks over the southern Cape Verde Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h).[9][7]). I know there's a script for this, but I can't recall which one. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Might be my bad grammar or a Br/AmEng thing but shouldn't led to the season's starting on May 25 be "led to the season starting..." Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) No, the use of the possessive is correct grammar. I changed it back. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Should of the seasons storms be "of the season's storms" Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Three fatalities occurred, I'm guessing in the Dom. Rep. because you open with the United States recorded no hurricane-related fatalities but you should clarify if this is the case. Clarified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Isn't the timeline usually linked to the individual hurricane/storms (à la Timeline of the 1982 Atlantic hurricane season) Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline should use ndashes for wind speed ranges too. Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline seems to have a something after "209" and before "km/h" which shouldn't be there. Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose/More Comments

I was about to support and then thought I should just randomly check facts were verifiable. The first think I checked wasn't correct which concerned me, and digging deeper I found more problems.

• Three fatalities occurred in the Dominican Republic due to the storm and damages amounted to $80.3 million. Okay unrelated to the verifiability this sounds like all the monetary damage was only in the Dominican Republic.
• Checking refs [1][4] on the above statement, [4] says it caused estimated $30m in Dom. Rep., and initial estimate of $35m in Bermuda, with no mention of the 15.3m difference. [1] on p946 says damages were over $75m of which estimates as high as $25m in Dom. Rep. and upto $50m in Bermuda, so where you get $80.3m from seems like complete synthesis. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't make any numbers up, I chose the most commonly used ones in reports, $50 million in Bermuda, $30 million in the Dom. Rep. and $300,000 in the Lesser Antilles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• You provide 2 references, so it can't be the most commonly used, as neither have coinciding figures. Also I can't find that $300k for Lesser Antilles in either ref. If you are taking the highest estimates, that is fine but I think you should say so. e.g. "and damages estimated as high as $whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• The ref you added says "For Hurricane Emily, the amount was $191,000", also where do you get your 2009 conversion from. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article Hurricane Emily (1987). The infobox automatically converts the damage from the year of occurrence to the latest year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can't just reference other wiki articles, I'm looking for the references for that figure. And as for the 2009 value in USD, it is calculated by the use of {{US Inflation}} within {{Infobox Hurricane}} but the inflation template hasn't been updated since 2008! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ive updated the template to 2009 figures and referenced the inflation calculator in the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The citations values still only give $80.191m at most, so you still have a discrepancy, if this is changed please also update the 2009 value. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not really, it gives $80.291 million, since the two Lesser Antilles sources are for separate islands. I just rounded it up to $80.3 so it's easier on the eyes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really understand led to the season's starting on May 25, you have said that the season starts on June 1, and the annual season summary (ref 1), makes no mention of TD1, making me think that the season didn't start early and it was just an off-season storm.

• The depression marked the beginning of the season, a few days before the official start. Also, unless the depression caused significant damage (like Fourteen) it's not included in the annual summary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for explaining. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was a bit confused by ref 2 as the text didn't mention ten tropical storms, however I guess you are getting your average from this, because reading up on it, I gather that tropical storms are when names are first assigned to systems, hence "named systems" curve being about 10. If this is the case I recommend directly referencing the gif.

• If you look right below the image you're talking about there is a table with the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, gotcha, I had misunderstood that table. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Where on earth do you get location names from? The 24 May storm is only sourced by lots of numbers (ref 4). I'm struggling to see how you get times, locations, distances from these numbers.

• Once you have latitude and longitude stats, the distance in relation to other locations is easy to calculate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I now think I understand the times. I'm guessing the four unheaded column blocks are 0000, 0600, 1200, 1800 in the day. But I'm still interested to know how and when you choose to insert locations (is it just what is near the coords), and (I might be being thick), but I'd have thought the distance calculations involve spherical coordinates which doesn't sound easy to me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I used the nearest locations to the respective coordinates using Google Earth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay I'm getting the prelim reports to work, but I can't get the ftp one to work. For example I was trying to check 8:00 pm AST (0000 UTC August 14) – Tropical Depression Four forms about 840 mi (1,350 km) east-southeast of Barbados.[6] The coordinates 155 540 from that ftp source seem to put me north-east of Barbados, or am I misunderstanding those coords. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• 150 540 = 15.0N 54.0W, that gives you a location east-southeast of Barbados. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've done this on Google Earth and it puts me ENE of Bermuda with a completely different distance figure. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Try looking at the line above that one, the coordinate you're talking about is on the second line for the depression's track. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay the coord above that (140 540) gives your direction of ESE, but I get it to be almost half the distance away from Barbados. Also wouldn't that be at a different time or do the ftp columns not correspond with UTC times? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• They're in UTC format but in the timeline I used local time zones also, if UTC goes into the next day, I put that date in the same parenthesis as the UTC time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• No I meant the column/row combination of the coordinate you directed me to doesn't seem to coincide with the time you list in the timeline. There is also still the difference in our calculations for distance (and not a minor difference). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• This concern follows through to other systems, which seem to have a similar data file. Most of them are backed up with a second ref (in the case of TD2 ref 8). This gives the times, but are you working out locations from coordinates and are you roughly approximating winds speed from knots, e.g. 40 kt -> 46.03 mph ~ 45 mph and 25 kt -> 28.76 mph ~ 30 mph. Also how are you knowing when they "make landfall", estimating from co-ords again?

• I'm not sure what you mean here. Winds, coordinates, and landfall times are all covered in the preliminary reports such as the one you linked to. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if I'm misunderstanding here. Winds: are approximations from converting knots into mph & km? The point about landfall times, is that all times are given in 6 hr intervals. Do you look at the co-ords for each time and see which is the first set of co-ords to be over land. Also, couldn't these storm have hit land, for example, five-and-a-half hours (i.e. <6) before a storm's first lot of co-ords are over land? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Surprisingly enough, many of the landfalls were at the six hour points, for storms that didn't make landfall at that mark and were not included in the MWR, I put exact time unknown. As for the wind speeds, it's knots converted to mph to the nearest five, same for km/h. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I realise quite a few of hurricane timelines have got through before, but this is the first one I've reviewed and I consider all these things as legitimate (possibly serious) concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If it has any bearing to this discussion, the National Hurricane Center also rounds to the nearest 5 unit (mph, or km/h) as evidenced by this: [4] --Anhamirak 00:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All RSMCs and TCWCs do that btw.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm now off wiki so I won't be able to stike any outstanding comments I have. I trust that the FL directors/delegate will consider my remaining concerns, check if they have been resolved and in-/exclude as appropriate when the candidacy is closed. Sorry for the inconvenience and good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm afraid the use of (current) reference 7 is very troubling. It means absolutely nothing to just about anyone, I would imagine. The references we use, along with supporting text if needed, should be able to be accessible to the general public and right now, that swathe of numbers is anything but. Is there a way in which alternative references (which are human-readable) could be used, or is there any kind of explanation that could be offered as to how someone with zero understanding (e.g. me) of this reference can go from those numbers to, say, "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)."? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no alternative reference for Tropical Depressions as they are never included in the Best Track folder of the season produced by the RSMC/TCWC's. But i have found a guide to hurdat here but i think its better if i explain it in my own words.

We will use Tropical Depression 14 Tracks as an Example

11530 TD - Strength on SSHS

11540 10/31/1987 M= 5 7 SNBR= 184 XING=0 - Card number, Date of formation, the number of days the storm was above Tropical Disturbance strength for.

                         0000UTC            0600UTC             1200UTC           1800UTC 

Card No. Date. LONG(N) LAT(W) Wind

11550 10/31* 0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*165 775 30 0*

11560 11/ 1* 175 785 30 0*184 793 30 0*195 799 30 0*201 803 30 0*

11570 11/ 2* 203 805 25 0*207 808 25 0*211 811 25 0*214 814 25 0*

11580 11/ 3* 223 818 25 0*232 822 25 0*240 829 25 0*249 836 25 0*

11590 11/ 4* 257 839 25 0*267 835 25 0*275 830 20 0*285 820 20 0*

11600 TD

The winds are in knots - I hope this helps. Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes a little more sense now, but as you can see, this source will need explanation to a non-expert otherwise, in my opinion, it isn't really a useful source. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If i remember correctly there was some talk about making an article on Hurdat a while back, i dont know what happened to it though.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the reference needs to be explained as it's simplest form is used in the article. We've never had an issue with using HURDAT before, this is the same format but a different file, it has depressions instead of named storms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As Rambo's Revenge pointed out above, sure several of these lists have gone by with similar references, but it was down to his diligence that we've uncovered a reference that is effectively meaningless to 99.999% of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What does the readers understanding of a reference have to do with the actual article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. If the vast majority of readers cannot understand the information and thus verify that the information is correct, what use is the reference? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. And what would be the point of a reference that no-one could understand, especially one which is used to derive other information using undefined techniques? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because otherwise we could not be comprenshive and cover all the depressions - I dont know if there is a way of citing that guide to Hurdat, which is located on their website.Jason Rees (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is we're not comprehensive, even now, as it's impossible to determine how you get from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are because we type the position into Google earth or watever and that tells us weather its passed over the Berry Islands. Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Obviously, this requires a WikiProject-wide discussion. One idea is to create a reader-friendly guide to the source, much as Template:Railway line legend is used for railway line diagrams. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how we would go about doing that though.Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the whole "source is too complicated" issue. I personally think you're way off here, we strive to make the wikipedia articles accessible, not something you need to be an expert to understand. But the same cannot be said about the sources, if there is the need for an "expert source" that may be hard to understand for people in general well that's unfortunate for the people reading the article but I don't see it as something to be held against the article. Next we'll be saying that printed sources are unacceptable because the reader cannot immediately verify content themselves. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The printed source is still accessible somewhere. And the printed source should immediately be able to verify the claim in the article. In this case we have absolutely NO way of getting from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". It is impossible for anyone other than the author of the list to verify the claims using this reference. That makes the claims unverifiable. Which means I believe the reference is inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there is nothing wrong with printed sources. Many times, they are more reliable than web sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is someone working on an article all about hurdat and i believe his intention is too put a guide in with it. Also we can go from that swathe of numbers to saying that "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)" by plotting the postion on a map. and converting the knots to MPH/K/MHJason Rees (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that because you know exactly what you're doing. How does an average reader verify what you're claiming? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By plotting the postion on a map - or using the guide thats provided by NOAA or even the trackmap that was made using the data for the season article. Jason Rees (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear. From this timeline list, and that reference, how does a reader know how to get from your list of numbers to a location and a windspeed on a map? Is it explained within this list exactly how to do this? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sure most readers are intellegent enough to say oh thats a location thats a date etc if theyre not then they can use the guide thats located on the same website.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're assuming far too much. I looked at that list of numbers, saw no sign of any guidance whatsoever, and no indication of what consitituted a location, a windspeed, etc. It simply is not accessible to a regular reader and as far as I'm concerned, impossible to verify the information you've derived from it without extensive notes. Perhaps one solution is to cite each set of relevant numbers, then explain in each citation what they mean and how they relate to your derived text. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is [5], which serves as a viewer of HURDAT data, but it doesn't produce referenceable URLs, so I'm not sure what to do about that one. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm trying to decipher the main concern here, as I see Rambo's comments were resolved IMO about the sourcing and now its about a key explaining some of the terms, or what am I missing?--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- How about we use easy HURDAT for the Atlantic? See here: [6] --Anhamirak 17:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We cant it doesnt include depressions.Jason Rees (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that HURDAT or HURDAT-like references has never come up before during FAC. The reviewer is right...unless there's a guide, the layperson won't know how to interpret it. How many articles do we have which source HURDAT at FA status? Dozens? I agree that the creation of the HURDAT article would explain away the issue. Who's writing it, out of curiosity? And if this is needed to get this article to FA, it should be posted as a wikipedia article NOW if it's in a sandbox, regardless of its class. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Its Seddon whos working on it - I will see if i can get in contact with him somehow. Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I managed to contact him and he agreed to its publication and so ive added a guide and published it Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know that I said otherwise, but as the guidelines on alt text have developed, it turns out we need alt text for every image. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - "Category One" should be "Category 1". Same goes for "Category Two", etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Jason Rees (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [7].

---

Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. Unfortunately there are limited sources for this article and limited information known or printed about it so the referencs are a little lean. Other than that I think its good.Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead Because ref#1 verifies the entire first paragraph, I would just have it cited once at the end of the paragraph instead of numerous times. (Alt. you can make ref#1 a general reference) Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the list itself. (Eg. First ACMC, most AMCMCs of a certain ranking, etc.) Yes each section has a prose about the list, but the lead needs to have a brief summary of that. Done. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Assistants to the Commandant of the Marine Corps Before the official title of "Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps" was adopted in 1946 the title of the position was known as the Assistant to the Commandant and prior to 1918, only a billet "Duty in the office of the Commandant". -- 1)Comma after 1946 2)Per consistency, add quotes around Assistant to the Commandant 3)the last part seems a bit awkward, wouldn't it be only a billet known as the "Duty in the office of the Commandant" Done. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) The first of the Assistants to the Commandant was Lieutenant Colonel Eli K. Cole who assumed the position April 29, 1911. -- 1)Comma before who 2)+on before the date Done. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) You need to be consistent with the formatting of the dates, either (Day Month, Year) or (Month Day, Year) Template:dts automatically sorts the dates in the tables to (month day year), while the only dates in the prose are all (month day year), except for the one in the lead that I have fixed. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) From April 29, 1911 to October 16, l946 19 men were assigned to assist the commandant including 5 that eventually went on to become commandant themselves; John A. Lejeune, Wendell C. Neville, Ben H. Fuller, John H. Russell, Jr. and Alexander A. Vandegrift. -- 1)Comma before 19 men 2)The semicolon should be a colon. Done. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Assistant Commandants of the Marine Corps In 1946 Congress established the position of "Assistant Commandants of the Marine Corps" and since then 31 men have held the position. -- 1)Comma after 1946 2)Comma before 31 men Done. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Four other as well as 4 others; Randolph M. Pate, Leonard F. Chapman, Jr., Robert H. Barrow and Paul X. Kelley. -- Four others as well as 4 others (I think you can spot the error) Done. lol. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) As with the Commandant the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps is appointed by the President based on advice and consent of the Senate and once appointed will received the grade of General. -- 1)Comma after As with the Commandant 2)Comma before and after and once appointed 3)received -> receive Done. An officer doesn't recieve a new rank anyway, so I changed that to "promoted". bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) When there is a vacancy in the office of Commandant of the Marine Corps, or during the absence or disability of the Commandant the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps shall perform the duties of the Commandant until a successor is appointed or the absence or disability ceases. -- Comma before shall Sure about that? I figured the comma went between "disibility of the Commandant, the Assistant shall..." in this case. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) References Generally, most lists have the General ref first and the inline citations afterwards.--Truco 503 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I didn't know that. The convention for articles is cites, then list... strange that lists were the opposite. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Comment -- The list meets WP:WIAFL, but before I fully support, I would like to see the last Assistant Commandant listed in the lead.--Truco 503 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC) James F. Amos is already listed in the lead. but if you meant Assistant to the Commandant, then I have added Allen H. Turnage o the lead. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC) That's what I meant =]--Truco 503 03:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Images need alternative text. Done. Although I think I need to expand some there is at least something there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I think maybe you overdid it a little bit... :P "a photo of XXX" probably would have sufficed, although I never noticed before just how the ACMC (and the CMC) were all white males. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 04:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, "Photo of XXX" is actually what not to say when specifying alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe I over did it a little but they how do you descibe a picture in a dozen words and have it be descriptive enough to be meaningful? The problem is if I just put something like "Image of a man in his military uniform" what does that tell you if you can't see it? Nothing, and you'll have a lot of pictures with the same text not descriptive enough to tell them apart. As I see it this is one of the problems with putting alt text on the image, which I agree with, is putting eoungh to make it useful but not too much without POV. Because we are dealing with a list of individuals, all white, all in a similar style military uniform, if I didn't put the names in the description how would you know which is which?. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "Prior to"-->Before (multiple occurences) Done --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "The Assistant Commandant today is appointed by" done --Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "As of July 3, 2008, the current Assistant Commandant is James F. Amos." Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "No records exist prior to the outbreak of World War I about this position, possibly because the Commandant likely had only administrative staff and no deputy." The inline citation provided does not back up "possibly because the Commandant likely had only administrative staff and no deputy". I'm assuming this is sourced from the general reference? Yes. --Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "The first of the Assistants to the Commandant was Lieutenant Colonel Eli K. Cole"-->The first Assistant to the Commandant was Lieutenant Colonel Eli K. Cole Done --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "were assigned to assist the commandant" Comma after here. Done --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "including 5 that eventually went on to become"-->including 5 who went on to become Done --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "was the first to hold the billet and eventually went on to become Commandant, as well as 4 others" "4"-->four Done--Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Parts of the second paragraph in "Assistant Commandants of the Marine Corps" are too close to the source. Please use quotes or paraphrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I checked that. It looks like a DAB link but its not. If you check the page it links to the first paragraph explains it. If you prefer I can delink it though. --Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Delink or wikitionary link would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Done. I dee-linked it! --Kumioko (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [8].

---

Templeton Prize

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Over doubled in size, illustrated, fully referenced (and importantly, from high quality secondary sources), I think this meets the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead The prize is named after Sir John Templeton, an American-born British entrepreneur and businessman, who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1987 for his philanthropic efforts. -- Do not link American Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Until 2001 the name of the prize was Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion and from 2002 to 2008 it was called the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.[ -- 1)Do not bold any other instances of the name just for emphasis, use italics or quotations per MOS:BOLD 2) Comma after 2001 and before and from Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC) The monetary value of the prize is adjusted so that it exceeds that of the Nobel Prizes, as Templeton felt, "spirituality was ignored" in the Nobel prizes -- Remove the comma after felt Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) The prize has been criticised – British biologist and antireligious atheist, Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion the prize was given "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". -- 1)I can't really tell but is this an emdash or endash? 2)Remove the comma after atheist 3) +that before the prize was given 1) Spaced en-dash. 2) Fixed. 3) Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC) The lead needs a summary of the list itself: most recent winner/first winner, other significant stats, etc. Added final paragraph. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Table The laureate column does not sort for me. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC) --Truco 503 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your review! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified to meet WP:WIAFL: list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) inc. image review

Comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Okay the infobox says country: USA, but I see British date format and BrEng "criticised". Should this be using AmEng and American dates? This is an interesting case because Templeton was British but the Foundation is American. I could script change all the dates, but I actually wanted your opinion first as it isn't clear cut. I'm happy to make it AmEng as its the Foundation that awards the prizes. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Do you have a cite for "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion" as [3] doesn't cover it. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I've found another reference for that name change, hope it's sufficient. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) That's all I have for the lead prose, it's late so I'll review the list another day (hopefully tomorrow). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "The 1989 and 1990 prizes were awarded jointly." Slightly ambiguous. Were the 1989 & 1990 prizes awarded together, or were the two winners of 1989 prize awarded the prize together, and the same for the two winners in 1990. If it is the latter I suggest having two notes, saying in 1989 A & B were jointly awarded the Templeton Prize, and similary for 1990 with persons C & D. I notice that for Mother Teresa ref 18 doesn't cover Founder of India's Missioanarys Charity and the Nobel prize, and I notice the official site does. So I'm guessing some of the notes may include paraphrasing from that latter source. This is fine, but it should be listed as a general ref. More examples: "Founder of the Keston Institute", not ref'd by [19]. Founder of Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, [22] cites "editor" not founder. Soviet dissident novelist, not cited at all in [24]. Benedictine monk and professor of astrophysics at Seton Hall University, [24] does not state where he was professor. There are more. Like I said I don't have a problem if you just want to add the previous winners source as a general ref. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, indeed. I've removed Teresa's specific reference and added the previous winners list as a general reference. I have also left it as a specific reference for a couple of things in the lead and the footnotes. I hope that's okay because I suppose if I take them away, someone else will say "no refs for such and such..." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) The title bar of the navbox at the bottom should be "Templeton Prize laureates" not "Templeton Prize Laureates" That's all I have for the list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Images File:SRadhakrishnan.jpg I've nominated for deletion on Commons, as India don't have PD-Gov system like the US. Needs replacing/removing. File:Bbrighttempleton reduced.jpg, not sure about having a fair use image here. Yes, it is the actual photo of receiving the Prize, but in a column of photos it won't stand out for that reason. I'd say no to having this fair use image personally. (If it is going to stay it needs rationales etc.) The others are fine and have been PD reviewed where applicable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hello Rambo, thanks, I think I've addressed all your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all my issues have been resolved. Well done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works." WP:PUNC, quotes inside period. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) "colleagues for taking Templeton research grants when they did not support the beliefs." Which beliefs? Doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Templeton's beliefs. Is that ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC) "suggested the prize "bridging the gap between sense and nonsense.[15]" Doesn't make grammatical sense. Try "suggested the prize "bridg[es]] the gap between sense and nonsense".[15]" made it "bridg[ed]"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) "and for her work which "inspired millions of others around the world"." Comma after "work". Commatastic. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) "The most recent recipient is French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat" Comma after here. Ubercommatastic. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hospice and Palliative Care Movement redirects to Hospice care in the United States. Removed wikilink. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) No reference for the footnote? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Not yet, but can do, will do, doing, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Images need alt text (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC) *:Could you suggest exactly what you're after in this case? I'm beginning to suspect that for these head-shot images, your mandatory requirement for alt-text will result in the removal of all images, or the duplication of text in the table, i.e. the name of the person in the image. For instance, what alt text would you add to the image of Mother Teresa? Or Freeman Dyson? And if you add alt text to one or two images, would you add it to all of them? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Ignore that rant once more. Off to a bad start to Friday morning. I'll get the alt text done asap. Must learn to read before going off on one..... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [9].

---

List of Gold Glove Award winners at outfield

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... it's been a marathon, but this monster is finally done. I hope you all enjoy reviewing it. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, check out fine. There are 3 dead links, with the code of Soft 404. I'm not sure how you are to resolved this because the links could possibly come back up, I'm not sure.--Truco 503 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Links should be fixed now. I inserted the wrong team code. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Lead Other players who have gone whole seasons without an error include Flood (1966),[22] Clemente (1972),[9] Yastrzemski (1977), -- whole seasons? I don't know but to me its a bit wordy. Is another word available to be used? It's just IMO. Could be changed to "complete seasons". Would you prefer that instead? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I like that better =]--Truco 503 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Clemente leads all winners in assists; he had 27 in 1961,[9] and American League leader Kaline had 23 in 1958. -- Shouldn't this be --> Clemente leads all winners in assists, with 27 in 1961,[9] while American League leader Kaline had 23 in 1958. ??--Truco 503 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) No, that's an incorrect use of "while", as the events didn't happen concurrently. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Well that semicolon throws the sentence off because its not being used properly I believe: to me it reads, Clemente leads all winners in assists and he had 27 in 1961..which doesn't really read well.--Truco 503 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I don't see anything grammatically incorrect about it. It's basically just a more efficient way of writing it without 3/4 commas in the sentence. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I actually believe the colon should be used here instead.--Truco 503 23:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Not so. If you break it down, it's two sentences—"Clemente leads all winners in assists; he had 27 in 1961." and "American League leader Kaline had 23 in 1958." These two sentences are joined by the "comma+and" construction, which is perfectly legitimate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm. Thing is, I'm looking at Colon (punctuation)#Usage the first bullet, that's how I'm looking at this sentence.--Truco 503 00:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) There is no deductive usage here. See semicolon: "Applications of the semicolon in English include [use] between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a co-ordinating conjunction". That is the usage here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I'll take your word ;)--Truco 503 02:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor things that I fixed. Mostly relating to references. --Kumioko (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only thing that was changed is that one reference was broken by AWB and that it unspaced the code, making it harder to read. I've reverted it back. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if it did not function as intended but I already ran it through all the articles that appeared to need a change. With that said, it is likely that someone else will happen by and make the same change eventually so its good to find that out now. Also, the MOS states that there should not be a space between punctuation and references (except after a bracket [ or ]) so thats why I removed the spaces after the last pipe and before the references. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "the scenario was repeated" "this scenario" might be a better back-reference to the situation. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "are the only family pair to win Gold Glove Awards as outfielders."-->are the only family pair to have won / who have won Gold Glove Awards as outfielders. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "Clemente won 12 consecutive National League awards with the Pittsburgh Pirates,[9] and Mays did the same with the New York and San Francisco Giants."-->Clemente won 12 consecutive National League awards with the Pittsburgh Pirates,[9] as did Mays with the New York and San Francisco Giants. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "Jesse Barfield doubled off eight runners in consecutive seasons (1986 and 1987) for the Toronto Blue Jays, but Dave Parker leads all winners with nine double plays in 1977 for the Pirates." I don't know if the use of "but" is precise here, as there is not a straight contradiction. You might use "for the Toronto Blue Jays, while Dave Parker leads all winners" or "for the Toronto Blue Jays; Dave Parker leads all winners" Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I was trying to avoid the semicolon because of my tendency to overuse them; as for "while", they didn't happen consecutively, and you've trained me well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "while" can also be used for contrasts. If you don't want to, it's not a dealbreaker (you know I'll support eventually ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) It can!?!? Consider it DONE! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alt text (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an FA discussion. To be honest, I'm inclined to withdraw this nomination just for that. I'm really against this change in the criteria. Beyond that, it means I've now got 20-odd different FLs to go over and write alt text for. It may only take "20 minutes or so" to do it for one article, but that's a whole workday. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how I feel about the criteria change, it's done now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the alt text thing has always been in the FL criteria, it's just that nobody bothered enforcing it or even knew what it was. Sorry Dabomb87 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm taking little chunks out of my workday to update alt text for all of the FLs on my watchlist and hope to have them all in line with this criterion by the end of the upcoming weekend. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support – My only suggestion is to move the double play link to where "doubled up" is used. Other than that, another good one in this series. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm actually going to link it here, because it's more of a specialized term. Thanks for catching that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [10].

---

List of CMLL World Middleweight Champions

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel like it's up to the level of my previously successful Feature List nomination and I have incorporated the feedback from those three plus a current FLc into this list as well, with each FLc I lean something, improving the next one and so forth. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) -- prose issues General Dabs, external links check out fine Lead The CMLL World Middleweight Championship (Campeonato Mundial peso Medio de CMLL in Spanish) is a professional wrestling championship promoted by the Mexican wrestling promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL). -- Me being Hispanic, I understand Spanish. So since Peso Medio is a pronoun, peso should be capitalized I did not know that, that's definitely one that goes on my checklist from now on. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Being a professional wrestling championship it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline. -- 1)Comma after championship 2)I've learned that this is a cause and effect type sentence so the semicolon should just be a regular colon, this needs to be changed in all of your lists. Fixed here, I will go through the others and edit for consistency later. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Because Lucha Libre emphasizes the lower weight classes, this division is considered more important than the normally more prestigious heavyweight division of a promotion. -- 1)Link to Lucha Libre 2)I would note earlier in the lead the CMLL is a lucha libre based promotion, same with your other lists. Not that I mind changing it (and I did) but I thought that the fact that "Lucha Libre" was in the name of the promotion was a dead giveaway, however it is another one I will edit for consistency through out past and future FLs. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) That would be like not saying that WWE is wrestling promotion just because one of the W's stands Wrestling.--Truco 503 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Blue Panther became the first champion in 1991, winning the 16-man tournament. --> Blue Panther was officially recognized as the first champion in 1991, after winning a 16-man tournament. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) The Championship lineage was interrupted in 1992, when Blue Panther left CMLL to work for rival promotion Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA), leaving the Championship Vacant. --> The championship's history was interrupted in 1992 with its only vacation [pipe link vacant here], when Blue Panther left CMLL to work for rival promotion Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA). I would never have used the word "vacation" myself but it's there now ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know what I was thinking, I meant "vacancy": I went ahead and changed it for you.--Truco 503 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) El Dandy defeated Negro Casas in a match to decide the new champion, since then the Championship has not been vacated. --> El Dandy defeated Negro Casas in a singles match [pipelink to professional wrestling match types#Variations of singles matches] on July 3, 1992 to decide the new champion. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Averno is the current CMLL World Middleweight Champion, having defeated Negro Casas for the Championship on September 17, 2006. -- 1)The link to Negro Casas should come in its first instance, which is not in this sentence 2)Uncapitalize championship, do not capitalize things like Title or Champion/Championship unless its being used with the proper name of the title. I moved the sentences around and forgot to check for first mention, fixed and fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) He is the 13th overall champion and the tenth person to hold the Championship. -- Uncapitalize Championship Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) El Dandy is the only wrestler to have won the Championship three times and also the individual with the shortest reign, 63 days. --> El Dandy has had the most reigns as champion, with three; he also holds the shortest reign at 63 days. Satánico's single Championship reign is the longest reign with 1,563 days. -- Uncapitalize Championship, the with should be 'at' Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Footnotes Remove the comma after Mephisto--Truco 503 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC) And fixed, Thank you for your input. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- I replied to a few comments in the capped box, mainly to say that I did a few fixes that I missed and general copyediting. Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "it is not won legitimately: it is instead" Semicolon, not colon. Really? I've had a comment from Truco (now hidden) that say the opposite. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Colons are generally used only to introduce lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "he also holds the shortest reign at 63 days"-->he also holds the shortest reign at, 63 days Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "Satánico's single championship reign is the longest reign at 1,563 days."-->Satánico's single championship reign is the longest reign, at 1,563 days. Fixed MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Can you change the symbol in the "Championship reigns by length" table? I find the copyright symbol usage very strange. I can yes. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) If the general ref is for title changes before 2000, what sources Emilio Charles, Jr.'s reign dates? HMMM I thought I had that one covered but it's not there, I'll see if I can find out where it went. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I found it, I had forgotten to add it during my preparations it seems. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) In the table, for the location column, could you make it so that "N/A" sorts last (or first) instead of in the middle somewhere? I could sort it like it started with "Z" MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "everyday"-->every day (should be changed in other lists, too) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) File:Blue Panther.jpg does not have a proper justification for its significance to this article, per WP:NFCC#8. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) You're right, I did not check properly. I removed the picture completely as it was the only champion with a picture on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I found a different picture with the proper rights and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• All sources not in English should be denoted as such, with the language used provided.

• I missed one, good catch. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the general references, change "MEXICO" to "Mexico" per WP:ALLCAPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• of the Middleweight weight class: Middleweight -> middleweight

• I'll fix. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Statistics correct as of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}. That is a big no no! You are basically saying the statisitics are and will always be correct!

• Really? I got some FLs to change then, but with a template that counts the days it changes every day so if I say "correct as of today's date" then that statement is tomorrow incorrect and I'd have to update the date every day. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know, I just spotted it and thought that automatically asserting that a list is always correct must be wrong. Prior to FLC related work on 22 June this is a low traffic page and I suspect if you left and someone else won the title it may not get updated for a while. Do any other reviewers have an opinion on this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sadly I agree, it probably wouldn't be kept as up to date as they see little activity right now. Maybe instead of "correct as of" I put something like "table last updated on" and a specific date? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that would be better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that it would be better. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a ref covering the locations and dates?

• The source at the end of each line cites all the information in the line, if there is no specific citation it's covered by the general reference listed in the References section, that source covers locations & dates as well. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The championship's history was interrupted in 1992 with its only vacancy, when Blue Panther left CMLL to work for rival promotion Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA). citation?

• The general citation covers basically everything up until 2000, it's clearly marked under the references. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• defeated Negro Casas appears in lead & notes. Citation?

• As above. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• defeated Satánico in a tournament final Citation?

• As above. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• after winning a 16-man tournament, link is not relevant. This looks like something that should be in the Light Heavyweight page but not here.

• You're right I pasted too much from a different article, I'll fix it.MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure a merge to CMLL World Middleweight Championship is out of the question. That page is 4,706 bytes and this is 9,946 bytes, a combined size would still be small, and this just seems like oversplitting.

• The main championship article will be expanded with more history, tournament brackets etc which would disqualify it as a list but borderline too "listy" for GA. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I still not sure but unless anyone else shares my thought I'll let this go. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• If it helps put your mind at ease then I plan on expanding the Championship page in the style of CMLL World Heavyweight Championship where I cover the championship reigns in prose form as well as a specific section on the current champion. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes that does help :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

*Comments – Promotion is linked twice in the first paragraph; one is enough. Good catch, fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC) "He is the 13th overall champion and the tenth person to hold the championship." Because the two figures are comparative quantities, they should be given in the same way. I would change tenth to 10th, but the other way would work okay. 10th it is, MPJ-DK (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Footnote: Comma after "upper limit". Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Reference 4 needs an en dash for the page range. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Someone got it already. Thank you for your input. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets the standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [11].

---

List of Wario video games

Nominator(s): -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements laid out at WP:WIAFL. The list is extensively based off of two previous FLs in format, List of Kirby media (which I guided through its FLC) and List of Harvest Moon titles. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) including reference checks

Comment. This seems an unnecessary WP:CFORK of Wario (series). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with you. Seventeen games and all their release information is far too much for one series article to hold -- there's a difference between what we have here and List of Star Fox titles, which doesn't meet the ten-item list threshold. The Wario (series) article is underdeveloped, and as such, is pretty much a bad series of list articles; the correct sort of article it should be is seen in a series article such as Final Fantasy, which talks about reception and development more than just a simple list. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I can concur with that and I suspected that it might be the case, hence my lack of opposition. One thing (although I recognise this is way outside the scope of this FLC): I think it would be nice if the forked information was removed from the series page and that would also reduce the appearance of information being forked. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) It's just fine -- I'll try to remove it within the next day. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Done. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Lead "The games have been developed by a variety of developers," any chance this can be reworded to reduce repetition of developed / developers. I changed "developers" to "companies". I think it should work better. "The Wario series" shouldn't Wario be italicised like the other occurances. I believe you meant "should", not shouldn't -- either way, I added italics per your comment. "in the vein of other Wario platform games" I just don't like the language, but it is backed up by the ref. How about "like the previous Wario platform games." or something of that nature. I corrected the language per your suggestion. "The WarioWare games are a hybrid of minigame compilations and party games which require the player to perform a series of minigames in a row at a quickening pace." don't like the repetition of "minigame" and 4 appearances of "game" in one sentence. Having not played them is the party games bit really necessary, because if we could drop that it would make any rewording much easier. Also consider rewording it and the following sentence because the repetition of pace seems redundent and I only think it needs mentioning once. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The games really are totally unique -- it was the best line I could think of at the time. I changed the language to read "... games are minigame compilations where the player is required to perform a series of short activities in a row at a quickening pace." I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with activities, but I think it sounds better. I did my best to respond to your suggestions -- see if the re-wording works better. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) List I'm disappointed and now oppose. I was working from the bottom up, and stopped because I found so many errors. Check all the references again. I found many that don't cite what they claim and that are used in the wrong place leading me to suspect that you cut-and-paste a lot of the table. Here are my examples from WarioWare: Smooth Moves down: WarioWare: Smooth Moves. Original release dates:[33] EU March 11, 2005 The Wii wasn't even out then, ref says "Jan 12, 2007" WarioWare: Smooth Moves. Developed by Intelligent Systems.[30] - ref 30 has nothing to do with SmoothMoves WarioWare: Snapped!. Original release dates:[35]April 5, 2009 ref says December 24, 2008 WarioWare D.I.Y. Original release dates:[38] JP April 24, 2009 ref says "04/29/09" not the 24th. It is also called Asobu Made in Ore on WiiWare according to [6] Paper Airplane Chase. One microgame from WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! with expanded modes and released for the DSiWare download service.[39] ref 39 doesn't mention the name of the microgame. Need ref that it is "Mega Microgame$!" as you claim. Mario & Wario. System release: 1993 – Game Boy[39], ref 39 doesn't mention it. Is that meant to be ref 40. Also wasn't it released on the SNES not gameboy? I suspect to see these changes and others because I'm pretty sure they'll be similar mistakes in them too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Dear me, that's horrible... I'll check the references today and I'll make a list of all the changes I've made below. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Ref checking per problems brought up by User: Rambo's Revenge From what I can see with the ones you listed, it seems I entered in some of the release dates from the wrong regions. It's what I get for editing at the wee-hours of day. I'm just going to start from the top and work my way down to the ones you've listed. I'm embarrassed that I have to do this, but when that many mistakes are brought up the whole needs checking. Ref 7: The release dates and release info correctly match. Contains the information used in the note -- removed incorrectly wikilinked date. Ref 8: The biography referenced only mentions that Wario appeared in the game, not that he appeared as the antagonist. The note has been so changed. Ref 9: The release dates and release info correctly match. Contains the information used in the note -- removed incorrectly wikilinked date. Ref 1: The review notes the end of the Mario Land series and the beginning of the Wario Land series. Also notes the developer, citation correct. Ref 10: The review holds the information that is used in the notes. Ref 11: The article cited contains the information used in the note. Changed "featured" to "features". Ref 12: The release dates and release info correctly match. Ref 13: The game was released in Japan in 1998: the release information has been changed to match. Ref 14: Review referenced contains note about Super Game Boy, citation correct. Ref 15: The release dates and release info correctly match. Ref 16: Review of the game contains a note about the nonlinear gameplay, citation correct. Ref 17: Received a 404 when I tried to press the link -- the link was wrong. I corrected the link in the ref, and confirmed that the release dates and release info correctly match. I have to go for now -- but when I get back later tonight, I'll finish the above list. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Ref 2: The review cited notes Wario's ability to die, citation correct. Ref 18: The release dates and release info correctly match. Ref 19: I read through the review again, and I noted that I had mistaken "first GameCube game" as a connection with "first console game" -- I kept the reference, but changed the reference to talk about the camera perspective. Ref 20: The release dates and release info correctly match. Ref 21: The review notes the fusion between puzzle and platform game, citation correct. Ref 22: The release dates and release info correctly match. Developer info is correct. Ref 23: Japanese title matches up correctly to the right game. Ref 3: The review notes the Wii remote controls used in the notes, citation correct. Ref 24: Mistook "Mar" for "May" on the release info page. Changed to March on the release dates, system release checks out. Correct Japanese title. Ref 25: GameCube game system release checks out, added it as a ref in the notes section. Ref 26: The reference was correct, but the Japanese language title (not its translation) was incorrect. I corrected it according to the reference. Ref 27: Added this ref in, as the original review didn't talk about the games as a series. This review notes that it is the successor to the original release, checks out. Added it in as a ref for the existence of the GameCube game. Ref 5: Review notes the presentation, citation correct. Ref 28: The ref's title wasn't correct -- I went ahead and fixed it. Changed release information to match Japanese release. Ref correctly names Japanese translated title. Ref 29: Japanese site lists correct title, citation correct. Ref 30: Review notes the tilt sensor, citation correct. Ref 31: Ref title was incorrect, release dates and console release info checks out. Japanese translated title correct. Ref 32: Japanese site lists correct title, citation correct. Ref 33: Review talks about use of the touch screen, citation correct. Ref 34: Citation title was incorrect, changed to the title of the page. European release date was incorrect, changed to what's seen on the release info page (January 12, 2007). Japanese translated title correct. Ref 35: Japanese site lists correct title, citation correct. Replaced Ref 31 with Ref 34 for developer information. Ref 4: Review notes the different Wiimote positions, citation correct. Ref 36: Japanese release date was incorrect, changed to what's seen on the release info page (December 24, 2008). System release info correct, Japanese translated title correct, developer info correct. Ref 37: Japanese site lists correct title, citation correct. Ref 38: Review talks about controlling the game with the camera, citation correct. Ref 39: Japanese release info incorrect, changed release information to what's seen on the citation. Removed note about "do it yourself", no reliable sources to back it up. Development information correct, console release info correct. Ref 6: Correctly cites console release information for WiiWare title, added Japanese title to notes per the source. Ref checks out for basic info about the game. Ref 40: Release date information checks out. I removed from the citation the note about it being from WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! -- noted instead that it was just "a microgame", which checks out in the source. Developer and console release info check out. Ref 41: Corrected console release information to have correct citation and correct console. All other information from the citation checks out. Ref 42: Release dates check out, NES console release data checks out. Ref 43: SNES release data checks out. Ref 44: Review talks about controlling Toad, Wario as the antagonist, and the puzzle gameplay, citation correct. Ref 45: Corrected NA release date (it listed 2004 instead of 1994). Release and development information correct -- added Ref 46 to cover information about the title. Ref 46: Added to expand on info for Wario Blast. That should be all of them, though I think I missed a few towards the beginning. I'll go back and cover them. See if the list is satisfactory now, and thanks for pointing out your concerns... teaches me to not edit at three in the morning. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Alright, I added two more refs from the beginning -- this is every ref in the entire article. Once you're done reviewing the refs, I'll go ahead and put them in a collapsible table. Thanks for noticing my error. -- Nomader (Talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, well the changes you've documented above are encouraging, and seem to be meticulous. I've checked a sample of about 5 games that I hadn't checked before and found no errors. That and the changes made per my comments above allow be to assume that the referencing issue has now been sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I appreciate it. -- Nomader (Talk) 21:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Further comment What is the criteria of inclusion for this list of games? Because it mentions "Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins" (his first appearance yes) but he's not playable and I wouldn't call it a Wario game. Similarly if it is as playable characters Mario Karts etc. allow you to play as Wario. It might be worth removing that first entry and only mentioning it in the lead as his appearance unless you can provide a reason for it to stay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I originally felt it was notable based on the idea that it was Wario's first appearance, but it was clearly a Mario game outside the Wario series. I removed Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins and worked it into the lead per your suggestion. -- Nomader (Talk) 21:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I think that makes sense. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. I'm going to support this now. My issues have been resolved, which included Nomader rechecking all of the table references. Seeing the work you put into my comments I'm confident you'll get round to addressing the more minor comments listed below by Dabomb that would lead to my support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for noticing the reference problems. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "developed by a variety of companies"-->developed several companies I changed it to "developed by several companies", "developed several companies" implies that the series developed the companies. "The Wario series has effectively split into two different directions" Changed per your comment. "The changes from the Mario Land series both stylistically and storywise, with anime-style cut scenes and a greedy protagonist, make the games unique from other platformers in the genre."-->The changes from the Mario Land series, both stylistically and storywise—with anime-style cut scenes and a greedy protagonist—make the games unique from other platformers in the genre. Changed per your comment. "The WarioWare games are minigame compilations where the player"-->The WarioWare games are minigame compilations in which the player Changed per your comment. "perform a series of short activities in a row at a quickening pace." What does "in a row" mean here? Removed "in a row" per your comment. Some of the sentence fragments shouldn't have periods at the end. For example "Includes Super Game Boy support." I've removed the period from the Super Game Boy support sentences and others -- frankly, this is coming out as my week point as FLCs. I think I've addressed the problem, but I'll try to get an uninvolved user to take a look and place periods accordingly if I didn't address it fully. "shake the Wii remote in order to perform certain actions" Changed per your comment. "Utilizes"-->Uses Changed every instance of utilizes to uses per your comment. "Asobu Made in Ore" Why is this in bold? Removed the bold format. Likewise "Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!" and "Bomberman GB"? Removed the bold format. "North America with hopes that the"-->North America in the hopes that the Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Changed per your comment. I believe I've addressed all your comments, though I'll try to get an uninvolved user to look at the period use just in case my changes weren't sufficient. -- Nomader (Talk) 01:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I gave it go. Hope it fixes the issue. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, it's missing "Bird & Beans" for DSiWare and the WiiWare game that links up with WarioWare D.I.Y. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I listed the WiiWare game in the notes of the WarioWare D.I.Y. game because I felt it didn't really exist as a standalone game -- it was just a means of playing the D.I.Y. games on a bigger screen. I didn't notice the Bird & Beans before... must be another microgame. I'll add it in within the next hour or so and check to see if there are any other microgames I've missed. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Retro, I removed your addition to the title (where you made "Paper Airplane Chase" as a subtitle of "Paper Plane"). Most reliable sources (IGN, GameSpot, and etc.) don't list it that way, so I changed it. Let me know if there's still a problem. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, I wasn't intending it as a subtitle; in PAL regions, it's called Paper Plane rather than Paper Airplane Chase. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• My bad. Alternate titles should go in the notes though – it'll look like Wario Land: The Shake Dimension's entry in the list. Either way, thanks for pointing it out -- I had totally missed it. I found an article at Eurogamer here which lists the alternate title, so I'll add it right away. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 08:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [12].

---

Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after five months of work, I think it's as good as it can get. It is complete and fully referenced, and I believe that it meets all the criteria for a Featured List. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) -- prose/ref issues General Dabs check out fine There are 10 dead external links which need to be fixed, as seen with the toolbox at the right (last link). WWE would have to choose the day after I nominated this to move all of their pages around. They're all updated now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Lead The Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (WON HOF) is a professional wrestling hall of fame intended to recognize people who make significant contributions to the sport. -- 1)Bold the title of this article 2)I researched online and I see no official use of the acronym WON HOF, did you just use this for short or am I missing something? I never remember to bold. Thanks for that. I also removed the acronym; it was there when I started the expansion, but I agree with you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) You got to eliminated all uses of that acronym, there is one left.--Truco 503 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Thought I got them all. Fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) This first occurred in 1996, when The Dusek Family, The Fabulous Kangaroos, and the Road Warriors entered the hall. -- the hall is being used as a pronoun, so it should be the Hall I'm not sure about this. I think it's more of a generic mention rather than a proper noun, so it would remain lowercase. I would prefer to wait to see what the other reviewers think, if that's okay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Its actually more of a proper noun due to its usage. It would be different if it were entered this hall but you are referring to it as entered the [Wrestling Observer Newsletter] Hall [of Fame].--Truco 503 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC) What's your opinion on this?--Truco 503 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I think it's closer to the difference between President and president. A generic reference, such as "I want to talk to the president" would be lowercase. Referring to the president by the full name, such as "I want to talk to President Nixon" would be capitalized. I think this would be the same way: the hall/the hall of fame, but the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'm still not budging on this because when you don't capitalize it, its like you are referring to hall of fame's in general like you are referring to the president in general, and not specifically the President himself. In the uses of the hall, you are using it in terms of the WON HOF not hall of fame's in general. The Hall is naturally derived from the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame, a rule of capitalization.--Truco 503 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Lowercase is still used if it is referring to a specific president without giving the full name. If one was to go to Obama's receptionist and request an interview, he or she would say, "I would like to speak to the president," not "the President." GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I guess its either or IMO, since I used it like I stated in my lists.--Truco 503 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Nine years later, The Fabulous Freebirds were also inducted as a group. -- Weren't the Freebirds a stable? If so, that should be mentioned accordingly. They were a three-man tag team, although the rules of tag team wrestling were changed to accommodate them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but the more appropriate term is stable (professional wrestling): more than 2 wrestlers.--Truco 503 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC) They were known as a tag team and wrestled in the tag team division. They are referred to as a tag team in their Wikipedia article, and they are included in WWE's list of the top 10 tag teams. They functioned very differently than a typical stable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) The hall of fame was created because Meltzer felt the need for an unbiased method of recognizing people associated with wrestling. 1)Capitalize hall of fame per its use here as a noun 2)Source for this statement? I couldn't find a source, so I toned down the language. I think the capitalization issue is the same here, so I'll wait on that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) The WON HOF now serves as one of three independent wrestling halls of fame, along with the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. -- Source that these are the only 3 independent ones? Fixed and sourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Meltzer began the hall of fame by choosing a list of inaugural inductees in 1996. -- Capitalize hall of fame, noun Same as above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to have a summary of the list, such as the first/most recent inductees, the overall amount of inductees/tag teams, etc. See WCW Hall of Fame and NWA Hall of Fame for an example. I added as much as I thought I could without going overboard. Let me know what you think. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Looks good to me.--Truco 503 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) References The Slam Sports ref needs to have SLAM! Sports - Wrestling as the work and Canadian Online Explorer as the publisher This seems unnecessary, as all of the important information is given. I have used the same formatting as the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame Featured List. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) There is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers, either link all the publishers that have links to respective pages, or don't link them at all. I agree. The links didn't add anything, so I removed them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I recommend making the section into two columns. I never think of that because the columns don't work with Internet Explorer. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) See also This section comes before the ref section, see WP:LAYOUT Good point. Moved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) --Truco 503 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Lead (continued) There are currently 172 inductees, including the 4 tag teams. -- no need for the the I think this helps it flow better, as the teams are discussed earlier in the prose. It makes it clear that the 4 teams are the ones referred to above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) It could go either way, its ok.--Truco 503 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The hall of fame has spawned an offshoot in a column written by Nathan Hubbard for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Hubbard has unofficially created "The Not the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame Hall of Fame", which is composed of wrestlers who he feels will not gain entry into Meltzer's hall of fame but are deserving of recognition nonetheless. He created this unofficial list in 2006 and added more names several weeks later. -- I don't know but I don't feel like this is necessary since it has no real tied to this HOF, its just like stated "an offshoot" If it was in any other magazine/newsletter, I would agree. Because it is in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter itself, though, I think it is a small but interesting addition that adds to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I still don't see any significance but fine by me.--Truco 503 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I would add that the inaugural class had the most inductees, since you can't really stated who was inducted that yr or it would take up an entire paragraph. I would prefer to avoid stating it, as it already says that the inaugural class was 120 members and that there are 172 overall. I think saying it explicitly would be redundant. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I missed that.--Truco 503 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Images I would remove one image because on my [wide] screen, the images run off into the see also section.--Truco 503 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC) On my monitor, it already looks empty now that I finished filling in the table. There is a 4-inch white space that I was actually considering filling with another image. I'll hold off on adding another, but there is already white space from 2004 down to the bottom of the table on my monitor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC) What's your monitor size? I'm using a wide screen, so the last image [The Rock's image] rolls over into the See also section, which shouldn't happen.--Truco 503 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) 1280x768. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I guess its' just my monitor.--Truco 503 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Remove the links in the See also section which have been linked in the main body already, see WP:SEEALSO.--Truco 503 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC) That would leave only the NWA Hall of Fame, which seems odd. Could I rewrite the prose to say "...such as the WWE, WCW, and NWA Halls of Fame..." and just remove the "See also" section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC) You could most definitely do that.--Truco 503 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I rephrased the sentence, but there are also articles for the NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes and the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame, so I put them in the See also section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "is a professional wrestling hall of fame intended to recognize people" "intended to" implies that there is a chance that the people aren't recognized. Why not "is a professional wrestling hall of fame that recognizes people"? Much better. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame" Link? I put in a link, but it's still being developed in my sandbox. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "Nine years later, The Fabulous Freebirds were also inducted as a group." I think it flows better with the "also", but I can live without it. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "employed within the professional wrestling"-->employed in the professional wrestling Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "15 years experience in the wrestling business "-->15 years of experience in the wrestling business I'm not sure what (or if) I was thinking there. Thanks for catching it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "10 years experience"-->10 years of experience Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "There are currently 172 inductees, including the 4 tag teams." Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "Wrestling Observer Newsletter" Link? Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) What makes the unofficial list worth mentioning? Many sports journalists compile their own lists of snubs and undeserving inductees; what makes Nathan Hubbard's especially notable? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) It's included in the same newsletter that runs the hall of fame, so it's a little more "official" (despite being unofficial) than just some guy saying that he wants other people inducted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Update: Since the first three people to comment all agreed that it didn't add to the article, I have removed the paragraph and just added the links to the External links section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following sites reliable (keep in mind I know little about wrestling and sources of info for the sport)?
  • http://www.oem.com.mx/eloccidental/notas/n185732.htm
    • The site is really slow right now, so I can't pull it up. Perhaps its Wikipedia article can help clarify? Basically, it's a large and well-established Mexican media company. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20070331060124/http://www.legendsofmilwaukee.org/index.asp?poll=6656
    • It's not being used to source much (a wrestler's real name that is available in countless places on the internet). It's run by the city of Milwaukee and gives the real name of a wrestler from Milwaukee. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I wasn't sure if the above explanation was satisfactory, so I replaced the reference with a story from The Washington Post. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.garywill.com/toronto/title-ctt.htm
    • Gary Will, who runs the site, is a respected wrestling historian (he's the guy who published the Wrestling Title Histories book that is used for many of the references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20080113131845/http://www.caulifloweralleyclub.org/memory_lane/ForgottenFamous.htm Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The Cauliflower Alley Club is an organization of veterans of the professional wrestling industry (wrestlers, managers, writers, etc.), so they are quite knowledgeable about the business and the people in it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Where are the numbers in the # column coming from? I see their purpose, but I don't think it should give the impression that they are official (like the order of induction).
    • It's certainly not an official order, but it's the formatting used in other wrestling hall of fame featured lists. It's just in order of year, and alphabetical from there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you think that column should be removed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
        • One idea could be to merge the list into the year colum as the sort order using the {{sort|001|1987}} template, that way you get the guaranteed "year, alphabetic" sorting you're looking for. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the bit about the "The Not the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame Hall of Fame" necessary? It's just a column and there is no proof of notability of it.
    • No love for the unofficial non-hall, I see. If all three people commenting want it gone, I guess it could go. It's only two sentences, and I believe it adds to the article and is notable because it is published in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. I'm willing to compromise and put it in the external links. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to add a column for home nation? I doubt it would be easy, but that would be a very useful one to have.
• -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • • I'm not sure that that would look like. Taking the first person from the list, Abdullah the Butcher was born in Canada, billed from the Sudan, competes regularly in Japan, and I think he has settled in Alabama. Which one would be used in a case like that? Would references be required for each wrestler, or can it be considered common knowledge? These are just some questions that come to mind, and I hope they don't sound critical, as I can see some use for your suggestion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • You're probably right that it would be too difficult to put it together, if only the WON had an official online list that included that info, then it would work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

*Comments – "and have 10 of years experience." Pair of words should be flipped. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) For the Georg Hackenschmidt, William Muldoon, and Jack Curley photos, proof is needed that they were published before 1923, not merely created. Their public domain status is questionable without any evidence. I removed them all. I replaced them with the images of Ricky Steamboat and Billy Graham. I left it at that, as Truco mentioned that the images went down too far. As a compromise to reduce a bit of the white space on my monitor, I switched the image of Bret Hart for a slightly taller image. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) In the references, page ranges need en dashes; I count at least three that don't use them. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed the dashes with Brighterorange's script. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you. It's greatly appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for Dabomb to give a thumbs-up on his source queries before supporting. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support now that the sources have been verified as acceptable, since my comments were responded to earlier. Good list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Nitpick, but "performed commentary" doesn't sound quite right. Is there a better verb that can be used? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I changed it to "worked as commentator". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [13].

---

List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area)

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured list candidate because it is the companion to the FL List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area). Its formatting is precisely the same as the companion list. The text has been copyedited. The two lists together form a comprehensive list of all the listed buildings in the area of Halton Borough south of the River Mersey. A second list has been prepared rather then combining the two lists because one list would be unreasonably large, and there are significant differences between the urban area of Runcorn and its surroundings. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - how many listed buildings are there in Halton north of the River Mersey, i.e. in Halton but not in this list or the "in Runcorn" list? Listed buildings in Widnes suggests there are 18 in Widnes - rst20xx (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are actually 20 in Widnes according to this booklet produced by the council. Those missing from the current list are the railway bridge (which is on the "in Runcorn" list) and the war memorial in Victoria Park - I suppose the road bridge should be there too. I intend to reformat the Widnes list in a similar manner to the Runcorn lists and add the missing items. Then, also in Halton Borough, is the village of Hale, which has 17 listed buildings according to this booklet - another list to do, not yet started. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you should combine this list with the Widnes and prospective Hale lists to form a List of listed buildings in Halton list, with the "in Runcorn" list effectively being a sublist of the result. If there are 26+20+17 = 63 buildings in total, then that is only 4 more than in the existing List of listed buildings in Runcorn. To make 4 lists when you could have 2 is oversplitting, IMO, and it also seems to me to be best, where possible, to try and organise such listed buildings lists around local government districts - rst20xx (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO this will not work. The urban area of Runcorn lies BETWEEN its rural district and the town of Widnes, over the Mersey; Hale is even further away. Such a combination would be illogical. A logical combination would be "in" and "around" Runcorn. But "in" Runcorn is already 49kB. It contains 59 buildings, each with an image and a description; with "around" it would total 85. Looking at the other FLs of listed buildings, only one exceeds 85 and that is List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip with 90. Neither that list, nor any of the others, contains an image and a description for every building; and the other lists contain only between 30 and 53. IMO a list of 85 buildings, with an image and a description for each one, is way too big.

The trouble with local government districts is that they change. Historically and culturally, Runcorn and Widnes are very different; the former was in Cheshire and the latter in Lancashire; Halton Borough was formed for political expediency and not for any good practical reason. Cheshire has recently split into Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East. The next move will be to take Widnes into Merseyside and Runcorn could then go (back) into Cheshire West and Cheshire.

I do not intend to combine this list with Widnes and/or Hale. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait 85? Where did the other 22 come from? If there are 85, then yeah, that's too many - rst20xx (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

59 ("in") + 26 ("around") = 85. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry I see what you did, I misread what you wrote and thought there were more buildings somewhere else in Halton. Well, the borough of Halton has existed with its current boundaries since 1974, and looking at Halton (borough) it looks likely that the borough may move from Cheshire to Merseyside as you suggest, but can you cite somewhere that Runcorn will stay in Cheshire? If sources suggest that the borough is about to be broken up then it would be a bad thing to base these lists around, but if not then honestly I am still inclined to combine "around Runcorn"/"Widnes"/"Hale" into a "Halton" list, then have "Runcorn" as a break-off, and not speculate about the future of the district (any changes can be subsequently dealt with if they occur) - rst20xx (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but shall be interested to hear what others have to say. If the consensus is to merge as you suggest, I shall withdraw the nomination. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you not create the shorter lists you want, and transclude those lists into a larger article? Or is that not generally a done thing? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any article transcluded into another one, and I don't think that technically it would be a good idea anyway for a number of reasons, not least of which is indexing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The only place I've seen it done is at List of abbeys and priories in England (see the talk page for some of the problems and solutions), which is still in an experimental stage. It's an interesting proposition and it would make it easier to handle things if/when Halton moves to Merseyside (I'm not familiar with the situation).

Usually I would advocate a list for the whole borough, but I think this situation requires a more nuanced approach. This is not a case of content forking as there is sufficient content for this list to stand alone and is covered by reliable sources (Pevsner). There's also potential for a list about the rest of Halton. Runcorn and its environs are separate from Hale and Widnes, literally and figuratively. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd argue very strongly in favour of separate lists for Runcorn and Widnes, rather than a merged Halton list. Runcorn and Widnes, being on opposite sides of the River Mersey, have quite distinct characters, perhaps analogously to their larger neighbours downstream, Liverpool and Birkenhead. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I had always felt uncomfortable of the previous organization (i.e. each rural parish with the buildings, without a clear structure); merging together those articles in a well sourced structure is a reasonable solution. Merging them with Runcorn would be in my view a really bad solution, because Runcorn is a town and as such its buildings have considerable things in common; on the other side, the surrounding is rural. While the Halton suggestion has some logic, as noticed, it would be impractical to bring them all in a single list due to its size, for the same reasons we do not list all Grade I listed buildings in Somerset under Somerset, but split them. That said, it may be of some use a List of listed buildings in Halton, but just to coordinate the four sublists (Runcorn, around Runcorn, Hale, Widnes). My only doubt is that the merging done seems to me a bit arbitrary, as simply being "around Runcorn" is in my view a bit weak as a unifying factor.--Aldux (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the titles are weak - but this gives me a better(?) idea. How about renaming the existing FL List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and name this one List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area)? We would then have the listed buildings in Halton south of the Mersey clearly defined. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist of the area, but are the villages in the immediate area known locally as Runcorn, especially considered it's already a rural area? If I can make an example, the rural parishes of Suffolk surrounding the town of Ipswich wouldn't ever be considered "Ipswich" by anybody (the parishes that have been absorbed in the suburbs of the urban area while administratively independent are different, obviously). Maybe calling them by their name could be a possibility, even if the title would be quite cumbersome: List of listed buildings in Daresbury, Moore, Preston Brook and Sutton But as I already said, also this has its problems, and I don't really understand how Clifton sits: if I get it correctly, while in the countryside this is officially part of Runcorn.--Aldux (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, everything in Halton Borough is OFFICIALLY in Halton. Whether the people of Moore associate themselves with Runcorn (as some might), or with Warrington (as some do), this is all irrelevant. It is a matter of pedantry v. pragmatism. The pedantic (official) titles for the four lists (if they ever come to completion) would be: Listed buildings in the borough of Halton south of the River Mersey (urban area), Listed buildings in the borough of Halton south of the River Mersey (rural area), Listed buildings in the borough of Halton north of the River Mersey (Widnes) and Listed buildings in the borough of Halton north of the River Mersey (Hale village and the surrounding rural area) - which would be silly (wouldn't it?).

How about going back to the start? I have submitted a list as a FLC. How about assessing it as it stands (or even with the titles I suggested above)? If it passes, well and good. If it fails, I can go and tend my garden (Voltaire - Candide). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to be touchy; also I suspect you misunderstood me somewhere - I don't doubt, nor ever doubted it is. As for my pedantry, you have to forgive me for it: it's part of my intellectual formation, and, alas, I seem myself unable to free melf of it. That said, regarding the quality of the list, I would love to contribute to bettering it, but honesltly I'm unable, being as it is structured on the model of the original Runcorn list, which I consider the best of all the lists of listed buildings. Good luck for the FLC, and sorry for being a bit pedantic. Ciao, --Aldux (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just felt we were getting away from the object of the exercise. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by doncram

• First, what is the telephone booth doing in the list? I take it that is not in fact a Listed Building. It's fine by me for a thumbnail pic with a caption about this to be in the article, as an illustration of historic-like feel of the area, but the list itself should be Listed buildings only.
• Offhand, the name as "List of listed buildings around Runcorn" does not seem right. I am not fully absorbing the previous discussion above, but it seems to me that a list-article for a larger jurisdiction (perhaps all of the "borough of Halton"?) makes sense, out of which a list-article covering the town of Runcorn alone has already been split, which is fine. In U.S. NRHP list-articles, there are now many cases, where there is a list of NRHP listings in a state, out of which some county lists of NRHP listings in ___ County, State have been split out (sometimes all counties split out, sometimes only the larger ones). Then within larger counties there are sometimes town lists split out. I don't think it matters that there would be two geographic chunks, separated by the town of Runcorn chunk, in one list of the larger jurisdiction. Also, the size of a list can be larger, up to 200 in my view (as 200 is the cutoff for proper display of coordinates in the Bing / formerly Livesearch accompanying map). There are many U.S. list-articles of NRHP sites with more than 200 listings though.
• Currently the lead is a bit odd, starting out talking about Runcorn which is not the subject of this list and in fact is specifically excluded. I think it would be more natural to talk first about listed buildings in Halton or whatever is the larger jurisdiction, that there are X buildings in total, say that this list covers all but the 50 or however many in Runcorn, which are covered in another list. For a good (although without the FL star) list example, see how List of NHLs in NY discusses upfront that List of NHLs in NYC is split out in an accompanying article.
• Will be able to comment more on July 4 or later, have this watchlisted now so should be reminded. doncram (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• The telephone box is a listed building, it's one of the quirks of the system over here :-) Here's the source.
• Addressing your next two points, I think it helps to have an idea of the geography of the place we're talking about. The borough of Halton in Cheshire (which I think is analogous to a county within a state in the US) is divided into north and south by the River Mersey. Runcorn is the main settlement in the south of the borough, and Runcorn and its surrounding area (ie: "around Runcorn") have a separate history from Widnes and Hale in the north of the borough. Moreover, the borough will at some point be divided, with the north becoming part of the county of Cheshire and Runcorn and the surrounding area merging into one of the other boroughs in Cheshire. As such, I think it's not only acceptable for this list to be distinct from an all encompassing Halton list but appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "the borough will at some point be divided" - rst20xx (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'll look into it. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I misunderstood this story and read into it more than was there. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• No citation available (my POV - I just happen to live there and listen to Runcornians). So what do people want? A basic List of listed buildings in Halton, Cheshire would be feasible, if that is what folks want. The current FL List of listed buildings in Runcorn has a description and a photograph of EVERY item in the list. How many FLs achieve this? Maybe it does not add value, but IMO it does. The current FL is 49kb. To produce List of listed buildings in Halton, Cheshire to this standard would be over 100kb. Is this acceptable to WP? If so, it will take some months/over a year (with the necessary photographs) to produce; nobody has done anything on the listed buildings in Hale yet. If a FL containing the listed buildings in the urban area of Runcorn is acceptable, what's wrong with a FL containing the listed buildings in the rural area of Runcorn? Help! I'm baffled. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well my thinking is that a List of listed buildings in Halton, Cheshire would be best, but that as that article would be too big, it would make sense to fork a section of it off to a seperate article - and the one section that would fit size-wise would be List of listed buildings in Runcorn, which admittedly would remove a town right in the middle of Halton but would leave two lists with 63 and 59 items, respectively. Any speculation about the future break-up of Halton seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL to me, but if Halton does break up then there is nothing stopping the lists from being re-arranged at that stage. After all, the hardest part in writing these lists is creating the tables of listed buildings, and these would still be valid after a break-up. But for the time-being, arranging the series of articles around Halton fits best - rst20xx (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Titles of both lists changed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice list.

• "Clifton Hall, which was built in 1565"
• "second floor level." Is a hyphen required here? I don't know whether this is referring to the level of the second floor or the second "floor level".
• The date column doesn't sort properly. I think you may need to use a hidden sortkey (see Template:sort)
• "window which matches the others."-->window that matches the others.
• "distance to the terminus at Shardlow as 92 miles." Need a conversion for the miles ({{convert}})
• "This is a former sessions house which is now used"-->This is a former sessions house that is now used Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I have dealt with 1, 2, 4, and 6 above. The milepost actually says "92 miles" so I do not think that a conversion template is appropriate. So I have added "(which is 148 km)" after the distance, and I think this deals with that comment. Regarding the sorting of the dates, I am not sure how to apply the hidden sortkey. Can you help me? Thanks for giving some positive feedback. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you give me a couple hours, I can fix the sorting for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got a slightly different method for ensuring the sorting that doesn't involve templates, it should only take 20 to 30 minutes so I'll get on it. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go, how does the sorting look now? Nev1 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. How about Dabomb87? Is it OK? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to hit this now, but the images need alternative text. See this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• So far as I'm aware, the change applies only to featured article candidates, not featured list candidates. Have the FLC criteria been changed? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, I see that criterion 5 has been updated to say that images must have "'alt' text if necessary". What exactly does "if necessary" mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure, but seeing as most of the images here don't have captions, I think we need some kind of description. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll do it. But it may not be complete until after the weekend (domestic duties). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I don't mind if it's done after promotion, and I won't withhold support over it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done it (negotiated the time!). I hope this is the sort of thing required by alt text (never done it before). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Chipping in here, but 'if necessary' means that, quoting WP:ALT: "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." ceranthor 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [14].

---

Mayor of San Francisco

Nominator(s): —Chris! _ct 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the FL criteria. If passed, this will be the first U.S. mayor featured list. Comments will be addressed promptly. Thanks—Chris! _ct 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm coming at this from the perspective of creating the template used for the lists of governors, so that's the basis of most of my statements. See List of Governors of Alabama for examples of what I mention:

Resolved comments from Golbez

I suggest a smaller party color block; we don't need the whole cell shaded. Done Vigilance People's Party needs a link, if only for having the greatest political party name ever. Done Rank can be shortened to # ('rank' is an odd name for that column anyway), and centered. Done Personally, I'd center everything in the table, but that's up to you. While I initially resisted it, I've fallen in love with a "Terms" column, gives you a good place to note resignations, deaths, etc. Don't think I can do that because the info is not avaliable—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) You can use multiple groups of <refs instead of relying on {{refs, now. What do you mean?—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Instead of using the {{ref and {{note system, you can do (as seen in the example article linked above) <ref group='group name goes here'> to set apart certain refs in another group. --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Well, I am more comfortable with the note system I am using here. If there isn't a pressing need to change, I prefer to leave it like this.—Chris! ct 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Personally I don't think you need the term lengths in the 'other offices' table, and I almost said I didn't like using brs, but that might be better than my current method of using commas. You have no way of showing if the mayor resigned to take those higher offices or vice versa; is this on purpose? I'm not saying it's required, I'm just always looking for ways to improve my template. :) Done Needs more photos. Done I'm a little confused by the succession rules. The article says the President of the Board of Supervisors acts as mayor until a special election, but the notes on several successions say that the person was "chosen" by the Board of Supervisors. Did the law change? Um, now that you mention it, I don't know. The city law specifies that President of the Board of Supervisors acts as mayor until an election. But other sources are telling me that the Board selected a person to fill the vacancies. Maybe the law did change, I don't know and will look it up.—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, my mistake actually. This says the city law requires that the President of the Board of Supervisors acts as mayor until the Board select a person as a replacement to serve out the previous term. Thi is the case if the mayor did not designate an acting mayor.—Chris! ct 00:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) So, in this case I assume the acting mayors are not officially listed? --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Yes—Chris! ct 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That's all for now. I rather like this list. --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I believe I have addressed most comments. Some are left unaddressed because of my preference.—Chris! ct 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Ongoing and new concerns: I'm guessing Whelan's start date is referenced separately because it's a day separated from the end of the previous term; is it known why there was a gap, and does the previous term's end date need specific sourcing as well? It is there because I didn't have ref for the whole list before and I tried to find individual dates. Now that a ref is find, it is not necessary and can be removed.—Chris! ct 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The refs for Whelan and Taylor are still there. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) The City and County weren't always one, were they? The changeover date should be mentioned, as it subtly changed the status of the mayor, since mayors of counties are pretty rare. San Francisco says the city and county were consolidated in 1856, but consolidated city-county says the city was established before the county. Perhaps it truly means 'established' and not 'incorporated', since the first counties in California were established in January 1850, and San Francisco was incorporated in April 1850. Done—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) The American Party you've linked to is a modern one. "Know Nothing" changed names to "American" in 1855; these names should be (and are) reflected in the table, but the links all need to go to Know Nothing, and the color needs to be the same as well. Wow, I don't have a clue about all these party history. :) Do you want me to remove the American Party link? Change the link to Know Nothing, but keep the text as American. It doesn't count as overlinking, since readers are not likely to know they're the same party. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Done, I think—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I almost wrote, "Mayor of Salem, Mass., isn't important enough to list" but since for the governor lists I list all higher and equivalent (other governorships), it makes sense to list equivalent offices here as well - being mayor of other cities. Didn't do anything.—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Might I suggest using dedicated columns for California State Assemblyman and Senator, like in the governor lists? ... then again that makes it difficult to include term lengths, which you want to keep. So suggestion made but adherence not required. :) Same here, hope I resolve everything properly.—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) That's all I've got for now. I continue to be impressed; at least most states have a large store of information about their past governors, I can imagine the process is probably much harder for cities. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. :) --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs) -- couple of issues General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead I recommend that the lead state who the first mayor was. Done Link to runoff election Done Elections The mayor is usually sworn in on the January 8 following the election. -- It would help to know when the elections are held, eg. November? Done I would link runoff to runoff election in its uses in this section. This is a redirect to two-round system, and I already have that link in the section.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) These four little paragraphs can easily be made into two, because four little ones is not proper. I made it three paragraphs. The middle paragraph is a bit unrelated to other two, that's why I didn't make it to two.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) List There have been 42 mayoralties due to Charles James Brenham's serving two non-consecutive terms; he is counted chronologically as both the second and fourth mayor. -- The semicolon should be a colon because you are explaining the cause and effect Done The longest term was that of James Rolph, who served over 18 years until his resignation to become the California governor. -- Since now the terms are limited it would help to explain why he was able to serve for so long. Add something—Chris! ct 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) The dates do not sort properly, you need to use the template {{dts}} for this. Done I find it unnecessary to have the key for the parties since the table does basically the same thing, unless you just have the color listed instead of the color and party. Done The only thing now is that 3 different parties use the color "white" (No Party, American Party, and Vigilance Party)--Truco 503 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC) That's because they do not have color.—Chris! ct 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Because this table is sortable you need to link the parties every instance or you need to remove the links and leave the key (despite the table doing the same job) Done Images I'm on a widescreen so the images run off to the next section. Not sure what th problem is. Could you describe it in detail? On my screen, the images start at the Succession section and continue down to the Notes section on the right side.—Chris! ct 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Other offices held I see this as a unnecessary because its not relevant to the position of Mayor of San Francisco. Well, I modeled this after the governors FLs. And I don't think it is unnecessary since it provides more info to readers.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Living former mayors As of June 2009[update], four former mayors are still alive. -- The month is now July =] Done Notes Note b: Link to extortion Done Note c: replaces --> replaced and it should be The Board of Supervisors not The Board of Supervisor (plural) Done Note d: So wouldn't that be three terms in total or was the temporary term not counted as an official term? She finished a term as acting mayor and so it doesn't count as an official term.—Chris! ct 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) --Truco 503 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues clarified/resolved; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) John W. Geary, who was elected in 1850" Done "African-American" No hyphen. Done No key explaining the color coding? I also note that the color for "no party" is the same as that of the American Party and the Vigilance People's Party (white) Truco said that the key is redundant since party names and their corresponding color codes are already in the table. Some parties do not have color, so they are shown white.—Chris! ct 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) "Know-Nothing" Why the hyphen? Done File:Gearysfmayor.jpeg – what makes this public domain? Well, I could be wrong, but as far as I know, copyright of image expired after a hundred years plus life of author.—Chris! ct 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC) The Date of Birth column in the " Living former mayors" section does not sort properly. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Check the toolbox, there's one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Pardon my ignorance; what toolbox and what link? --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) This. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Here's the dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Replaced—Chris! ct 18:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Prose (up to "List") limited to two terms. According to the source "There shall be no limit on the non- successive terms that a person may serve." so I guess that needs to be "two successive terms" Done I'll leave this up to you as hopefully it won't happen but for his term will expire on January 8, 2012. will -> is scheduled to? Done as they are not winnowed by a primary election. is winnowed the right word. Winnow is to do with seperation, isn't it that additional candidates from a single party aren't excluded. Not sure how to reword since I didn't wrote this. Any ideas? Well I'm not sure this bit is needed at all, but wouldn't , "as they are not excluded/eliminated by a primary election." be more correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I try to reword. But since I am not good at writing prose, the new sentence may not make any sense. So please let me know if that happens. :)—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) with the lowest votes is eliminated lowest -> least Done, though I followed Dabomb's suggestion Actually, it should be "fewest". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I think either is acceptable, but I agree fewest is better :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) If it is of any interest, "fewest" is used for countable entities (dogs, pencils, votes), while "least" is used for uncountable things (love, fear, etc.). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC) the order of succession is followed. It seems odd to say "the" order of succession, without stating what that order is. This is based on the source. I don't know what the actual order is. List gunned down bit colloquial for my taste Reword Who was Mayor on the December 5, 1869 Fixed Can you also list the acting mayor that followed Otis and Moscone. I got to the notes section :) Pond's term ended on January 7, 1891 & George Henry Sanderson started on January 5, 1891: I'm guessing there weren't 2 mayors for a bit and this is a mistake :) Fixed Not saying it's wrong, but howcome Art Agnos finished on Jan 7, at that stage it looks like it had settled to a Jan 8 transfer day. Fixed Actually in checking the sources [15][16] it seems it was right before and all the others were wrong. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed—Chris! ct 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I think that you should take the small colour strips out, and colour the party cells, which would allow you to sort that column. Also, Democratic and Union Labor are difficult to distinguish by colour anyway. I am going to do that because sorting is important although this arrangement is suggested by Truco. I can't do much about color though, since that is official party color.—Chris! ct 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, I think that is a bad idea.—Chris! ct 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) That's only because the wrong colours are being used that make the text hard to read. Try {{Party shading}} like List of Presidents of the United States uses. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I'd never heard of gubernatorial could it be put in layman's terms Not sure how to reword As I said I don;t know what it means so I can't really help you reword it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Well, it is the adjective for governor. (like mayoral for mayor). Maybe Dabomb has an idea?—Chris! ct 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know what to do here. I will ask Dabomb.—Chris! ct 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) "Gubernatorial" is correct. Maybe a wiktionary link will do the trick. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, done. Thanks—Chris! ct 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) ref 21 seems to indicate it was 38–46 not 1939–1947 Fixed Images All fine. I transferred one eligible image to Commons and have PD reviewed the others. Looking good, the only majorish change I suggested was the party column thing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support All my issues have been resolved, and I like that clever coding that gives the appearance of colspan without losing sortability. Well done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Can I ask you to cap your comments? It is getting hard to see/edit.—Chris! _ct 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• On the party color - Since everyone has problems with the color, I will make a note on what I did. I use {{Party shading}} for the color and color the entire party cell to retain the sorting function. I didn't add a key because I feel that it is redundant. The party color already correspond with the party name in the table. Several parties do not have color at all (American Party & Vigilance People's Party), so I leave them in white. Union Labor has color on the template I previously use, but not on {{Party shading}}. So, I leave that in white also. Hope I address your concerns. Thanks—Chris! _ct 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please put it back to how it was, with the small cells; we don't need the whole block colored in, nor do we need a key, I see that now. It can retain sorting even with a small color block, I'll make it work if you want. --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason I did this is to satisfy User:Rambo's Revenge's comment about keeping sortability on the party column. If you can make the small cells work with the sorting function, feel free to try.—Chris! _ct 22:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. :) --Golbez (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I made some more fixes. Sorting works properly now with the color now.—Chris! _ct 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Alternative text should be added to the images (discussion) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done—Chris! _ct 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose layout issues. Take a look at here to see how this page is viewed on IE. I tried all screen resolutions from 800x600 to 1440x900, there's no change in the layout. BUT When I took out the <div> tags, the layout got normal.--Crzycheetah 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Then the option is have it like that, or screw up the section edit links. Interestingly, I've never heard this complaint before; what version of IE is this with? --Golbez (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Rambo's Revenge already made a change here. Did it help?—Chris! _ct 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I think I fixed this. I switched to my IE browser to check this out, and had the same problem as Crzycheetah. I've managed to fix it for me there and I now have no problems in IE or FF so I guess it worked okay. Let me know if it still isn't right. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's good now! Thanks, Rambo.--Crzycheetah 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [17].

---

List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 04:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have improved it based on a peer review and believe it meets criteria. I used List of Survivor contestants and List of American Idol finalists as examples. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Big Brother 1 (U.S.) says that Cassandra Waldon is a communications director, not an ambassador. Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This FOX article confirms that. List has been updated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs and external links check out fine. Lead The lead needs to be expanded a bit IMO to explain possibly the judging/selection process of the contestants and what the show usually prefers (as in type of people). This needs to be done.--Truco 503 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I added "Big Brother contestants are chosen by the show's producers following an application process that includes a videotape submission, semi-final interviews at select cities, and a final interview in Los Angeles." Let me know if more detail is required, or if any re-wording needs to be done. That's fine. =]--Truco 503 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Neil Garcia of Season 9 voluntarily left the house on Day 9 due to an "urgent personal matter";[2] this marked the first time a HouseGuest of the American version of Big Brother left the show voluntarily. --Remove the link to Big Brother (U.S.) per WP:OVERLINK. Done. The lead does a good job explaining what has occurred with some of the contestants returning, but it doesn't really sum up the list well. I.e. most professions, most common age, etc. (summarizing the stats) As opposed to calculating an average age, I went ahead and made note of the youngest and oldest contestants. That's fine.--Truco 503 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) This list only includes contestants entering the competition with a chance of winning; it excludes visitors. The list is ordered by season and finish placement. -- 1)I would remove the last sentence because the list can be sorted so its not really technically "ordered" 2) By stating it as with a chance of winning is POV, reword. 1) Done. 2) Not sure how to re-word. Trying to differentiate actual contestants (HouseGuests) from people that enter the house as visitors (former contestants hosting a game, etc.) Well I would reword it somehow because by stating that this list only includes contestants entering the competition with a chance of winning is a point-of-view of the writer.--Truco 503 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Removed sentence for now. Personally, I feel it states the obvious anyway, I just kept it because it was leftover from previous edits. That's cool.--Truco 503 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) List The status column should sort accordingly to the day they were sent home, not alphabetically. How is this corrected? With the same sort featured used for the Finish column? If so, what should I do for the Runner-up and Winner, both of which make it to the show's finale? Use the {{sort}} template. Order the winner first and the runner ups second, and the expelled others in order. So it would look like {{sort|01|Winner}} and just change the number for each other instance in descending order.--Truco 503 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Done. Is that what you meant? The only thing is, when you hit the sort button, it sorts based on finish placement and not the actual day the player left the house. Were you wanting it sorted by finish placement or length of game play? Should I put {{sort|67|Evicted Day 67}}? Just making sure I have done what you want to see. You got it =]--Truco 503 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Images Remove the period from all the image captions, they are incomplete sentences Done. References Per {{cite web}} and MOS:NUM, spell out the dates in the publication dates of the refs.--Truco 503 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Done. The access dates too, for consistency? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, that too.--Truco 503 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Great! Thanks so much for the suggestions. Does that take care of everything? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list satisfies WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Quick comments I'll do a full review later but here are two things that stand out. "This is a list of" FLs don't begin like this. Done. I re-worded the lead sentence. Let me know if any others improvements could be made to the lead. "Neil Garcia of Season 9 voluntarily left the house on Day 9 due to an urgent personal matter" "urgent personal matter" is the same phrase that is used in the source; put it in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Big Brother is an American television show where contestants " "where"-->in which Done. "The series first aired in 2000, with 10 seasons filmed as of June 2009."-->The series first aired in 2000, and 10 seasons have been filmed as of June 2009. Done. "that includes a videotape submission, semi-final interviews at select cities, and a final interview in Los Angeles." Change "following" to "through". "includes" implies that there are other steps to being selected that you did not mention; is that the case? Done. The process includes the steps mentioned. I did not want to go into too much detail, especially in case steps vary by season. After reading the lead, I felt that something was missing. How were HouseGuests removed from the house? HouseGuests vote to "evict" a resident, much like on Survivor and many other reality shows. I assumed someone reading this list or the main Big Brother articles would already know this. "multiple seasons: In 2006," Make the colon a semicolon. Done. "8 were selected by American viewers" Comma after here. Done. "The youngest HouseGuest was Michelle Maradie of Season 4, who entered the house at 19 years old. The oldest HouseGuest was Jerry MacDonald of Season 10, who entered the house at 75 years old."-->The youngest HouseGuest was Michelle Maradie of Season 4, who entered the house at age 19. The oldest HouseGuest was Jerry MacDonald of Season 10, who entered the house at age 75. Done. "There have been 4 instances" "4"-->four Done. Readers shouldn't have to click on the links to understand the U.S. state abbreviations. Either spell them out, or create a key. This hasn't been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Ah! My apologies for forgetting. Hmm, would it be better to just combine the city and state abbreviation, like Miami, FL? I feel writing the state names out makes the column too wide, and a state key would distract from the list itself. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Assuming you're using U.S. postal abbreviations, you could direct readers to List of U.S. state abbreviations#List. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC) How would I direct readers? With maybe the following under "* Contestant played the game for a second time.": "State abbreviations can be found here"? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Actually, added link as note below table, since legend feature is incorporated with the table. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC) You need a symbol (e.g. * ^ #) to accompany the color. Done. We cannot have so many fair use images in the article, especially when there are free alternatives already there. I think they should all be removed, as they don't have any special quality that elevates them over the free images. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I am not too familiar with how images work on Wikipedia. I just copied file names that appeared on other Big Brother-related articles. Would you mind removing images that are problematic, if need be? It is a shame I cannot find more free images to use--the image column along the side looks nice. Removed most of them, unfortunately. When we have multiple free images, we can't claim that the fair-use images are vital to understanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC) While I find the list more visually appealing with the numerous pictures along the side, rules are rules and I appreciate your assistance with making sure the list complies. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much! Hope this satisfies your requests. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC) The only image that really needs it is the one of Howie Gordon. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Like so? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I edited the alt text a bit; the point is to describe the picture so that even someone who can't see has a rudimentary understanding of what's going on. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Got it. Wasn't sure how much detail was needed. Thanks so much! Anything else needed to re-gain support? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC) The picture of Jamie could be a bit more descriptive (what she's wearing). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Oh, sorry. Didn't worry about it too much since previous comment stated only Howie's picture needed one. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Check the tool box, there's one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Replaced with working link. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Ah! Thanks for the reminder. I forgot to go back and double check the information added by others. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Comment "each other to be the last Big Brother house resident and win $500,000." The monetary fact should probably have an inline citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

I'm a huge Big Brother US fan, so you better make me proud. ;D. Here are my comments: Will do! (I hope). --Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I know Big Brother once used to give a million dollars to the winner instead of 500k. Really? I don't remember that. The main Big Brother article does not mention a million dollar prize at any point, though I can do some research to verify this. Would you happen to have a source? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Laugh out loud. I since it's probably not true...since I only watched BB8, 9, and 10, I'm not familiar with the older ones...-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Unsort professions, since I don't think they need to be sorted, and eviction dates are not sorted properly. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I do not believe the profession column can be unsorted, since the entire table is a 'sortable' wikitable. As for the eviction dates, they are actually sorted by final placement rather than alphabetically. This is not my preference, but I was following the suggestion made by Truco (I believe). Should there be more discussion about the sorting of the evicition column? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I'll unsort the profession column myself. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Update: The eviction dates now sort based on length of time spent in the house, rather than based on final position. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Finally, a Big Brother featured list! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

*Comments I'm not sure how the "status" column is supposed to sort but with the arrow downwards, I get Evicted Day 9, then Evicted Day 13, then Evicted Day 3, then Walked Day 7, then 2 x Evicted Day 14, then Evicted Day 13.... all seems a little random to me. I don't think it should sort the same as the Finish position, it should probably sort for length of time in the house. In fact, that's a better column type than "status". Actually, I agree. As I said previously, the sort feature for the Status column was added by request. I do not prefer how the column is currently sorted. I believe it should be either alphabetically or based on length of time in the house. How could the latter be achieved? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Update: Status column now sorts based on length of stay in house, not on finish position. I think this is much better. I will go back and add the Day for runner-ups and winners to avoid confusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Is "Riding a bicycle around the world" considered a profession? And do we think our regular readers need to have bicycle linked? That is the profession officially listed by Big Brother's official website, and what was often stated about James on the show. I have unlinked bicycle. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Lots of primary sourcing used, i.e. CBS who run the show. No secondary sources per WP:RS? Primary sources are used in general, as I wanted the official names and professions to be used. Other sources used include Seattle Post-Intelligencer, MSNBC, and New York Daily News. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Should HouseGuests be italics in the opening sentence of the lead and not the rest of the time? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC) If you prefer, I can remove italics for 'HouseGuests' in the first sentence. I was really thinking it was there for emphasis and so that readers noted it before continuing onto the rest of the article. Also, the article title include "HouseGuests", so I thought it should be italicized in the first sentence. Can remove if needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Autumn Daly sorts out of order, and why the blank cells? Are these current HouseGuests? If so, at least add an emdash or some kind of note so we know why the "Status" col etc are empty for various folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Corrected Autumn Daly entry. Yes, blank cells represent current HouseGuests. I will make sure the table is updated after each eviction, and sorted properly. Added dashes for now. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Good stuff. Now why are those runners-up and winner's "day" in parentheses? Not a big deal. Just struck me as odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Well, originally the Days were not included in the cells at all. The purpose of the column was to display the final fate of each contestant. For most, "Evicted Day X" provided detail about how long they stayed in the house, while "Runner-up" or "Winner" indicated that they made it until the end of the competition. However, since the sorting feature for the column was changed, it seems less confusing to go ahead and include the Day (otherwise, the user does not know how long the last 2 contestants (or 3, in Season 1) remained in the house. However, I used parentheses since I didn't think "Winner Day 88" looked right. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe, since you're forcing the sort, you could say "Winner on Day.." and "Runner up on Day..." ? Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Would "Evicted: Day 10" and "Runner-up: Day 77" work? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC) It sure would. The Rambling Man (talk) Done. Looks much better! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support thanks for addressing my comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [18].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada)

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has been talking about merging this article in a very long time, so why not go ahead and nominate it for FLC. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments Lead 'Three number-one singles tied for the longest-running chart-topping single of 2007: Madonna's "4 Minutes" featuring Justin Timberlake, Perry's "I Kissed a Girl", and Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" all topped the chart for nine weeks, though "Poker Face" ended its run in the end of January 2009;[5] "I Kissed a Girl" was consecutive.' -- Could this be better formatted as Three number-one singles tied for the longest-running chart-topping single of 2007: Madonna's "4 Minutes" featuring Justin Timberlake, Perry's "I Kissed a Girl", and Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" all topped the chart for nine weeks; "I Kissed a Girl" was consecutive while "Poker Face" ended its run in the end of January 2009.[5] (I also suggest adding at the end how "4 Minutes" was also not consecutive.) Or I recommend formatting how it is in the 2007 list The song is also the longest-running chart-topping single since the formation of the Canadian Hot 100. Rihanna's "Umbrella" stayed at number one for four straight weeks, while Fergie's "Big Girls Don't Cry", Timbaland's "The Way I Are", Plain White T's' "Hey There Delilah", and Kanye West's "Stronger" stayed at number one for three weeks; the latter two were non-consecutive. References If you are going to link the publishers once, do this for all publishers, not just Nielsen.--Truco 503 00:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Done all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Truco. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak support My issues were resolved; however, I see there are still a couple concerns. Obviously, that's a moot point now that the list has been promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Three number-one singles tied for the longest-running chart-topping single of 2007: Madonna's "4 Minutes" featuring Justin Timberlake, Perry's "I Kissed a Girl", and Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" all topped the chart for nine weeks; "I Kissed a Girl" was consecutive, "4 Minutes" was non-consecutive, while "Poker Face" ended its run in the end of January 2009."-->Three number-one singles tied for the longest-running chart-topping single of 2007, at nine weeks: Madonna's "4 Minutes" featuring Justin Timberlake, Perry's "I Kissed a Girl", and Lady Gaga's "Poker Face", the last of which ended its run in January 2008. "I Kissed a Girl"'s and "Poker Face"'s runs were consecutive, while "4 Minutes"'s was non-consecutive. "making it the largest leap since the chart's establishment." "first non-North American act to have reached number-one on the chart."-->first non-North American act to reach number-one on the chart. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, although I would love it if you could find a replacement for acharts. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Done all. For the source comment, like I said on the 2007 FLC, I couldn't find one while searching for an hour. Hope you could though. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • The "issue date" info is secondary and should not be the first column. This is a list of singles; thus, singles need to be mentioned first.

• Where is the "need" coming from? Anyways, most featured lists usually first with the topic, which is the Canadian Hot 100, and then ends with the specifics, in this case in the singles of 2007. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thought you meant the lead. For this one, I'm trying to be consistent with other featured singles lists. Look at reply on the comment below. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • The weeks need to be combined in order to get rid of unnecessary white space in the table.

• Again with the "need". I'm being consistent with the other featured singles lists, but since I think it's a nice idea, it would be nice if you could suggest this to WP:RECORD. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Standards always evolve, I mean take a look at the FLs from 2006-07 and you'll notice. As for the WP:RECORD, I suppose I can suggest it.--Crzycheetah 04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• So you're telling me to compare old featured lists instead of new ones? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am saying the exact opposite. I just told you to compare old FLs to the new ones to see how standards progressed, so make this list better than the last list that was promoted.--Crzycheetah 05:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "Rihanna's "Take a Bow" is noted for its jump from 70th to 1st place on the Canadian Hot 100, the largest leap since the chart's establishment." - It's wrong! It's actually Coldplay's "violet hill" per your source.

• "to 1st place". Laugh out loud. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I meant this part: "the largest leap since the chart's establishment". The largest leap belongs to someone else. "Laugh out loud". Ha!--Crzycheetah 04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• My bad...wrote "the largest first place leap". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "Leona Lewis' "Bleeding Love" made her the first non-North American act to reach number-one on the chart' - It's unsourced! Do you actually check your references? There's nothing about Leona in your source.

• Yes, but since there is no one source that says that, I referenced it with that source, as the website contains all the Canadian Hot 100 charts in it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• You might as well put google.com as a source. Seriously, how's the reader supposed to verify that info when there's no mention in the source? *Shrugs* --Crzycheetah 04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• True, but ehh...I think it's important information, and I'll try to find a better source for that sentence. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 02:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative text for images should be added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So should the alt text for the Flo Rida image be "An African man with a purple T-shirt, rapping."? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether "African" is necessary (readers can always see the main article). You might describe his clothing, and that he is in a concert. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I have an average understanding of English, so I need a copy-edit for the alt text captions. I wrote "A woman" for the Madonna image, and I feel like it isn't needed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited the alt text, and am satisfied. Has Crzycheetah been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know this is still on, until I edited the backlog. Laugh out loud. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My opposition stands because of poor layout and poor referencing. Those alt texts don't improve the page, at all. It's like mocking the readers. Anyone who looks at the picture can see that it's a guy with purple shirt or a woman with pink glasses. Blind people who are not able to see the picture, will not be able to read the alt text anyway.--Crzycheetah 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Crzycheetah, please read WP:ALT; alt text is read by the screen readers, not by the people themselves. I also invite you to turn off images in your browser and see how alt text improves the experience. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the captions enough to describe the images?--Crzycheetah 16:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You tell me. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I can say that the caption on that image is really bad, as well. It's just repeating the info in the lead, which is very hard to verify, by the way. I can see your changes now, adding the names is a big plus. Anyway, I can see how it helps having alt texts, but we really need to be careful with that because there are three different texts that should always mention different things. They are file names, alt texts, and caption text. I have seen images with the file name "*** sings at Red Square", or captions with similar text. Now, add the alt texts and we're going to have headaches.--Crzycheetah 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue dates shouldn't wrap as long as there is white space between the table and the column of images. I could support this nomination if not for this minor issue. Goodraise 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. You might want to contact WT:RECORD, as the table formats are the same on all featured Hot 100 lists. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, meets WP:WIAFL. Goodraise 19:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [19].

---

List of cardinal-nephews

Nominator(s): Savidan, CarlosPn

This list is the counterpart to the featured article Cardinal-nephew. It is useful for assessing the frequency of the practice over its history and the variation therein. All the image are free. The first nomination failed as a result of the redlinks, but the relevant language has been removed since the criteria were modified last year. User:CarlosPn has also contributed substantially to this list. Savidan 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - dashes between years should be endashes—Chris! _ct 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. One day I'll learn the difference... Savidan 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Kumioko

Comments Just a couple things that I recommend I think that the cells that have nothing in them should have a centered emdash. In the notes column you have everything marked as a reference but there are some that I think should be notes instead of references (like when you mention that they went on to become a pope) I think that some of your references (such as 2,4 and 11) would be more appropriate as notes rather than as references. If you need an exampleof what I mean by a note take a look at what I did on this article(please excuse the semi-inappropriate irony)--Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I have split the reference notes from the footnotes as you suggest. I have added "Unknown" instead of a dash to the blank cells, because I believe that a dash implies "N/A", which would not accurately represent the situation. As for your second comment, I am somewhat baffled. The notes column contains notes (such as whether someone become pope) as notes not as references. The references are also in this column because it seems poor form to create a new column for them when the notes column is already unused on 90% of the entries. Could you be more specific about what you are suggesting? Savidan 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I think that looks much better thanks. Regarding your question you already took care of it so nevermind I wasn't explaining it very well. I noticed a couple more things also. refs 11 & 12, are exactly the same except the Maleczek, p. 111 part. I recommend you combine them and make Maleczek, p. 111 a seperate ref. refs 35 & 36 are exactly the same and I recommend you combine them refs 72 & 73 are exactly the same and I recommend you combine them--Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I have done as you suggest. Savidan 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Support --Kumioko (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment Check the toolbox to your right; there's a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I saw that earlier. The only "dead" link is to uncle. Unfortunately, the disambiguation page really is the best link in this case, as Wikipedia doesn't really have an article about uncles... Savidan 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, I was referring to the dead external links. For "uncle", it's totally up to you, but do you think it's worth linking? I'm sure most readers know what an uncle is, and per WP:OVERLINK, we shouldn't be linking common terms. Alternatively, you could use a wiktionary link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I have fixed both. Savidan 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "including every Renaissance pope." I'm being dense here, but does this refer to popes who presided (hope that's the right word) during the Renaissance? Also, the Renaissance was more of an era than an exact period of time, so you might denote it as such: "Rennaisance-era pope". "other creatures include" What do you mean by creatures? Footnote, wikilink or wiktionary link would help here. "Charles Borromeo, one of only two canonized cardinal-nephews" Latin words and abbreviations should be italicized. I saw "circa" and "c.f.", but there may be more. Just out of interest, what is your next project. Are these papal lists part of a future featured topic? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I have implemented your changes. As for a featured topic, I don't know what the third article would be. Maybe List of Cardinal Nephews, but that list would have barely more than the minimum 10 entries. If you're interested, I'm also working on User:Savidan/Economic history of the Holy See and the redlinks in List of papal elections. Savidan 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Comment The usage of pictures as symbols is not compliant with WP:ACCESS; see this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Alt text added. Savidan 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I'm referring to the images, not the symbols. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I'm referring to the two images without captions, not the others, which are pretty clear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (discussion) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I have added alt text. It's news to me that a caption is not sufficient alt text. Savidan 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Since I do not have visual impairments that force me to need a screen reader when I browse, I cannot answer for that. However, I do think it helps. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Should CarlosPn be considered a co-nominator? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

CarlosPn is certainly a co-author, having added dozens of cardinals and sources to this list, and I have notified him of this nomination. He informed me that he was preoccupied with external cardinals at the moment, and I think that I will likely have to take the lead on any remaining comments/objections. Savidan 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor things that I fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Savidan 05:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Excellent List and Images. Kensplanet^T_C 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose The footnotes should be capable of taking correctly formated references. See WP:FOOT for advice on referencing footnotes using the #tag device. "sixteen", "eighteen" - MOSNUM -> 16, 18. Not sure if we should use bold text for the cardinal-nephew column names. Check with WP:MOS#BOLD. "...of the Cardinal Nephew are denoted..." that seems to wikilink to a part of the article that doesn't exist for me. A pity the column widths from tale to table aren't the same. Per WP:MOS#Images we should avoid forcing images to sizes other than those described by thumb and upright. "unprecedent five cardinal" - unprecedented? Urban VI and Boniface IX appear to share same dates. What does published 8 November 1430 mean? Could this etc. be footnotes? Francesco Piccolomini has a blank cell for relationship. Grandnephew or Grand-nephew? "Scipione Borghese Caffarelli†" and "Francesco Maidalchini†" have no notes. Does this imply they are not cited by any of the references used here? It may be useful to know what languages your various References are. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you very much for your thorough review of the article. In many ways, I appreciate your meticulous oppose far more than a support vote. I have implemented most of your changes already. I have also asked CarlosPn to add the language information about the non-English references. It is unclear to me how to remedy three of your comments (and two of them are interrelated). First, would you mind being a little more specific about what you want me to do with the footnotes in reference to your first comment. Second, are you actually experiencing problems with the table width/image size? I experimented with the formatting in a variety of ways, and this was the only way I have found so far to get the images on the right of the table without seeing images overlap with tables or tables of different display widths. I would appreciate it if you could refer me to a list that accomplishes this within the parameters of the guidelines you have linked. Savidan 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC) You're very welcome. To be more specific about the footnotes, have a look at John Wark and his [nb 1] etc markup. These are footnotes which have references like normal citations, as opposed to the weblinks being added directly in the middle of the footnote as you have in, say, footnote 4 - "... electronic [1] [2] [3] do not mention his cardinalate ..." - those [1] [2] [3] are hyperlinks and should instead be referenced at the end of the sentence to regular references. I hope that's clearer? I'm no expert, I learned this method just recently. Second, no problems with widths, image sizes, just that it would be more aesthetically pleasing for tables containing the same information from section to section to have the same column widths. As for image sizes, I simply drew your attention to the manual of style to which we should be doing our best to adhere, so not forcing image sizes away from thumb/upright. It's not a spectacular failing, and I would be loathe to continue to oppose based upon that alone, but its easily solved. If you remove all the 150px etc from the landscape images and replace the 150px stuff with just upright to the portrait ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. One solution to the table columns is to remove the sections you have in place and keep the list as a single table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I have changed the images to upright, and--to my knowledge--all of the tables have each column as "200". Am I missing something here? I am hesitant to combine to the the sections into one large table, however, as that would reduce the navigability of the list. Taking another look at the footnotes you refer to, I am now leaning towards removing from the list all claims that a source "does not mention" a certain cardinal, and including such notes only when sources actively disagree. However, I will wait until CarlosPn has a chance to weigh in on this. Savidan 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Despite using tables a lot, I'm no expert on markup - have you tried setting them to "200px"? or "20%"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Well 200px didn't work. Can I just clarify, when you look at the tables, do you agree that the col widths of 11th, 12th, 18th and 19th century tables are different from the 13th to 17th century tables? I see the same thing in Firefox (I'm using Safari, by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I'm using Safari and they all appear to be the same width to me, both in page view and the source. Savidan 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Weird. Safari 4.0.1 and Firefox 3.0.3 (behind the times) on Mac OS X. Wonder what IE7 will make of it... If it's just me then we can safely ignore it I suppose! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I am happy to change the formatting of the tables to increase compatibility with all browsers, if you can suggest a means other than combining them into one large table. Savidan 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I'm also having problems with these tables and images overlapping (on Firefox). What I can see is File:List of cardinal-nephews FLC problem.png. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Actually I've sorted my problem, it was caused by a couple of curly quotation marks where straight ones should have been. Is everything still okay for you Savidan, and has this fixed your problem TRM? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed for me, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Many thanks. I think the problem must have originated from my copying and pasting from Word. Savidan 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Just an update on the original comments. The references within the notes and the foreign language refs have been mended. Please let me know if you have any outstanding comments. Savidan 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support all my comments well resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [20].

---

Pritzker Prize

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tripled in size, masses of lovely references and images. Comprehensive, a complete list, not a content fork. What more could one ask for? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs), including image review.

Note on images I'm not an expert on this field so would like you get someone experienced to comment. For all the builiding images (most Flickr uploaded I think) they are reviewed because the license on flickr matches our requirements. However an uploader on flickr may falsely believe they own the copyright and therefore mistakenly release something they don't have the full rights to. It seems that photos of buildings might be derivative works unless the country has freedom of panarama which, according to this, France and Italy don't have. Like I said, I'm reading most of this information for the first time, but I think it needs looking into or and more knowledgeable editor to comment on. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks Rambo, really good point. I'll go over the images and compare their location with the FOP info at Commons. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Update for your Rambo - I've checked the location of each and every image, and the relevant FOP laws at Commons - my research and conclusion is on the talk page of this FLC. The upshot is that I need to replace the Le Monde HQ image because it seems, of all the images I selected, only the French aren't happy about FOP stuff. Cheers, I've learned something today! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I've checked over the locations on the talk page and now think I now think FOP is no longer an issue. Good work there! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Rambo, I've made sure all replacement images (see User:Medvedenko's concern below), are okay with FOP - mostly all from Japan, US or UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Looked over the new images and am happy that FOP is satisfied by the new ones, however I have some questions about the portraits: I notice WP:PD states "the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States" so surely images need to be PD in the US File:Portrait of Frank Gehry.jpg, the source claims copyright by Susan King, restrictions of use: nil. Due to it being 1987, and having read this, I see no reason why this copyright has expired in the US, even if it has in Canada. File:Arossi.png, no date of creation, publication or detail of author. Impossible to determine PD status from this little info. Other images seem fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Fine, I'll remove them. But do you think you should complete your research and get those nominated for deletion (at Commons in Gehry's case) as both are used elsewhere other than this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Have done, just like I listed the incorrect FOPs for deletion. My images issues have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Review cited for "for 50 years" - extra "for" Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The jury, consisting of five to nine members each year, "experts ... recognized professionals in their own fields of architecture, business, education, publishing, and culture", deliberate early the following year before announcing the winner in spring. - the each year, "experts... seems to read funny, would "each year who are "experts [or] recognized ..." be better perhaps? Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Footnotes C. d Hadid was born in Iraq. Guess that should be "D. d" Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I think ref dates should be Month DD, YYYY as this list is American based and uses AmEng Well MOSNUM says that as long as the dates are consistent within each and every reference, that's just fine. If you have or know of a script to fix it then cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I found and used a script! Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Ref 1 doesn't include the quote in the lead as claimed (as it goes to the main page maybe it's a site redesign) Not many comments as I guess most issues were resolved through reviews below, just a few issues I found. Will support once these are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Lord Richard Rogers, winner in 2007, designed Senedd, which is at FAC. Random fact. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Presumably the images used there are okay under FOP?! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't it be more appropriate under the "example work" column to use structures that were only built or designed at the time the architect was awarded the prize? Medvedenko (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the point of the prize is specifically not to award it for a particular recent work, more to award it for a body of work over a considerable period of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point. The architects weren't awarded for buildings he or she hadn't designed yet. The example works should show works that were part of the architects portfolio at the time of the award. Phillip Johnson's example was built 20 years after he was awarded. Richard Meier and Frank Gehry examples were designed 10 years after they received the award. These examples are not representative of the reason the architect received the award. Medvedenko (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

These illustrations are examples of the architect's work in general, hence the title "Example work" rather than "works for which the architect won their award". I will, however, attempt to find works that predate their award, although it may result in some going without images, and then I'd need to add a note to say why. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, all images now from either the year or years preceding the award. Some missing since I can find no examples here, on Commons or Flickr. I'd appreciate a suggestion for what to write as to why there's no image for those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to have examples for those missing. Maybe adding a note to explain those that are from a later date briefly. That would mean extra work, so not sure if you want to do that.—Chris! _ct 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This was only a suggestion to help give a better representation of what the award was awarding. I have no problem using a later piece of architecture if an early example is not visually available. Medvedenko (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it might be a good idea to insert a hidden note telling editors not to randomly switch images. They might not aware that the works shown are near the time they received the award.—Chris! _ct 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Images are now dated (with a "completion date") in the heading to avoid any ambiguity. All architects have an image. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I echo Medvedenko's suggestion that the structures shown in example work should be the one that were built or designed near the time he/she won the award. The current choice seem a bit arbitrary. Everything else looks good, though.—Chris! _ct 02:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to Medvedenko. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see any faults, so I am leaning to support. Though I think you should note Ieoh Ming Pei's birth place. He was born in China.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Birth place noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - ok, I am satisfied.—Chris! _ct 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox to your right; a few (external) links are redirecting. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The official Pritzker website has been up and down for past few days. But since when did redirecting cause a major issue? The links still actually work for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - anyone fancy commenting on the actual content of the list, the prose, the details?! All comments are, as always, welcome, but there seems little in the way of comments against WP:WIAFL at the moment. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will provide some soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead Founded in 1979 by Jay A. Pritzker and his wife Cindy, the award is run by the Pritzker family and is considered to be one of the world's premier architecture prizes, so much so that it is often referred to as the Nobel Prize of architecture. -- Is so much so that correctly stated? Reads awkward to me. Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Any licensed architect can also make a personal application for the prize before 1 November every year, before the jury, ranging from five to nine members each year, "experts ... recognized professionals in their own fields of architecture, business, education, publishing, and culture", deliberate early the following year before announcing the winner in spring. -- The many commas interrupt the flow of the sentence, I think a split would be nice here or better format of the sentence. Simplified. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) List Those that have dashes for the example work its because there is no article or because they have no picture, or both? Fixed. See above discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) References General: The publisher is actually The Hyatt Foundation and the work is The Pritzker Prize All instances fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) See also This section should come before the refs section. Moved. --Truco 503 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I see redirects in the locations column of the table. Hopefully you have your handy redirect checker to fix things. No real need to fix redirects, but I'll do them if I'm doing something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Most of them are fine; it's just the ones with the articles at the beginning, e.g. The White House and The Art Institute of Chicago. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Done 'em... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) "a living architect whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture." Period outside quotation mark per WP:PUNC. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) "the award is run by the Pritzker family" "run by" doesn't sound quite right, perhaps "presented by"? "funded". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) "The Latin inscription on the reverse of the medallion, firmitas, utilitas, venustas (English: firmness, commodity and delight) is inspired"-->The Latin inscription on the reverse of the medallion—firmitas, utilitas, venustas (English: firmness, commodity and delight)—is inspired "Em-dashed..." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) "limited edition Henry Moore sculpture "-->limited-edition Henry Moore sculpture Disagree. I've never seen limited edition hyphenated, indeed our own article Special edition doesn't hyphenate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Objection sustained :) Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) "currently Martha Thorne" "currently" is a dated word not encouraged by MOS. Try using {{as of}}. Removed "currently". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) "The jury, ranging from five to nine members each "-->The jury, consisting of five to nine members each Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) A couple of the image captions need periods at then end as they are complete sentences. Example: "Oscar Niemeyer won in 1988" Added where appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Most of the images don't need alt text, but a couple, namely those of Norman Foster and Phillip Johnson, could use with elaboration. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC) See discussion Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm. Added "alt text" to the two images. How useful the alt text is for head shots, I am uncertain. And indeed, even though Johnson has something else in the shot, the primary use of the image is to illustrate Johnson, and nothing else, so the alt text is actually detracting from the point of the image, in my opinion. But there you go. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Please, for the third time, ignore me. Alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the links, I mean that some of the specific links redirect to the main page of the site. For example, Nomination Process, ostensibly about the nomination process, just goes to the main page. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Old link. Duplicated anyway. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Now, refs 4, 7 and 8 are duplicates. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yah. Total fool am I. Fixed now I hope. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [21].

---

List of cutaneous conditions

Nominator(s): kilbad (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating the list of skin-related conditions for featured list status as I believe this content meets the six featured list criteria. ---kilbad (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The topics I raised below have been resolved satisfactorily. There are still some red links that I introduced due to WP:ENDASH fixes (see Talk:List of skin-related conditions #Endash) but these will be easy to fix so I'll just change my vote to "support" now. Eubulides (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment. A very impressive list, unique among the medical lists in Wikipedia. A few relatively-minor comments.

• Having all the article body (aside from references etc.) in a single section seems overkill. Why not have multiple sections in the article body?
• It links to disambiguation pages (see "disambig links" in the toolbox); these should get fixed.
• Several of the citation URLs don't work, e.g., are to a web site that requires a subscription. Please see "external links" in the Toolbox for a list.
• The See also section should be removed. Its two wikilinks should be moved to the lead (with some text to include them).
• The Footnotes section should be removed. That footnote can be in the main text.
• The Further reading section seems quite a bit too long. By and large these should be inline citations, or removed. (Andrews' is probably an exception.)
• File:Gas gangrene.jpg seems to illustrate more than just a skin condition. If so, I'd remove it.
• The list is so long that it might not hurt to have a brief list (at the start) of the most common skin diseases; each item in that list can be a forward link to the relevant entry. Just a thought.
• I am no expert in the area and can't comment on whether the list is consistent or complete.

Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, this appears to be stunning work. I've had a twiddle here and there, but it sets a great standard. I say this while tapping my hat to Eubulides's suggestions above, and in advance to those of my other colleagues, especially WRT content issues. Just one issue, though: I still find it hard to consider muscle and glands (wholly) to be part of the skin organ system ... just checking that you mean all muscle and all glands in the body? (The pituitary gland?). Otherwise, why not insert change this: "the organ system that covers the entire surface of the body and is composed of skin, hair, nails, muscle, and glands." into this: "the organ system that covers the entire surface of the body and is composed of skin, hair, nails, and related muscle and glands."? Also, is there a possible wiktionary link to "interdigitates"? Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I had a look-see and provided a few pointers on this list a couple of months ago by request, along with other editors. Tony (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC) PS "Based on the distribution of these cells, the structure of this tissue may be divided based on ...". I can't work out how to fix this repetition. And "on the basis of" might clearer if you were going to retain the second one, but you may decide not to. Tony (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I'd like to echo the users above in saying this is a massive work and an impressive list. I only had a couple of minutes to look it over, but it seems very complete and pretty expansive. My only complaints would be these.

• I went through and searched out a bunch of conditions I knew should be listed and cross-referenced with a pathology texts. The only one I didn't find was Familial Melanoma Syndrome, not sure if it is missing or under a different name.
• The classification system seems to utilize many different classification systems from Etiology, to Symptom, to Location. I'd try to stick to one theme overall, you'll probably have some need to throw in something that doesn't fit overall here and there, but the way things are now is rather confusing. For instance under Blistering Disorders, I find Epidermolysis Bullosa classified as a blistering disorder and not as an autoimmune disorder. Under Metabolic Disorders, I find poryphyrias but they also are blistering disorders. You need to decide which categories will have priorities over the other so a predictable system for locating a disorder can be used. It doesn't really matter it could be priority based etiology>symptoms etc. or it could be the first thing the disorder fits into alphabetically. I think this would go a long way in helping people to navigate the list successfully, especially as it's so comprehensive and large.
• I'd try and include some more pictures if you can find any. There aren't many organ systems which manifest with the vast array of visual symptoms, so a list like this could certainly capitalize on that aspect.

Keep up the great work! Let me know if you need anything. --Syntrik (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a See also link to ICD-10 L00-L99? Bobjgalindo (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Echo the above, but we don't start lists with "This is a list of..." any more. Please see recently promoted lists for examples of engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Update 1

Resolved issues

• I integrated the "See also" section into the text and subsequently removed it
• File:Gas gangrene.jpg has been removed
• The first sentence now is worded to read "...and related muscle and glands."
• There is now a link to wiktionary:interdigitate
• There is now a link to ICD-10 Chapter XII
• The list no longer starts with "This is a list of..."

Follow-up questions/comments

• @ user:Eubulides - Thank you very much for your feedback. With that being said, could you elaborate on a few of your comments so I can better understand/respond?

• 1. Could you discuss your first comment? What do you mean regarding having the entire body in a single section?
• 2. The list will always link to some disambiguation pages, since some disease names have been used to refer to different conditions and therefore require a disambiguation page (see: Keratosis follicularis for example). However, in all honestly, I am uncertain where to find the "disambig links" or "external links" buttons in the toolbox, and wanted to know if you could give me instructions on how to find these tools so I can better look into the issue.
• 3. I have tried to use mostly free, full-text articles available through PubMed for inline citations; however, occasionally I had to use articles in which only the abstract was available (i.e. the full text article is not free). In these latter cases, if someone wishes to see just the abstract, they can go through PubMed, else the citation URL is going to take the user to the journal's login page, where they can sign-up and pay for the full text if they want. The links are working, but users have to sign-up to see the article. Does that make sense?
• 4. How would you go about integrating the footnote into the main text?
• 5. I agree the "Further reading" section has a good number of articles, but I think they supplement the list nicely, and most are free full text. I added this section after seeing it suggested at WP:MEDMOS. As the article currently stands, the existing text already has good inline citations; therefore, I think I would either like to simply keep the section (my preference), or get rid of it, but not convert the articles over to inline citations. What do you think?

• @ user:Syntrik - Thank you as well for your feedback, and I also had a few follow-up questions/comments:

• 1. I personally do not have a source discussing "Familial melanoma syndrome," and was neither able to find an ICD-9 or 10 code for it, nor find it at OMIM or PubMed. I certainly am not saying it doesn't exist, but perhaps you could find out if "Familial melanoma syndrome" is know by any other synonyms, synonyms which I can then use to do some additional research, possibly allowing me to integrate that term into the list? Regardless, as far as the list's completeness, I believe that the overwhelming majority of skin diseases and disease synonyms are found within this list. Of course, from time to time I am sure an occasional disease and/or synonym may surface that will need to be added. However, I believe this list to be essentially complete.
• 2. With regard to the list's "classification system," the list's headers/organization reflect the current categorization scheme for dermatology-related articles, which is outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. However, you are exactly correct in your assessment that the organization utilizes many different classification systems. In response to that, I would encourage you to read the last paragraph of the lead which addresses the nosological challenges that are associated with classifying skin diseases. For even more information on this issue, there is a great free article, which is cited in the list, you can read at Historical outline of attempts to classify skin diseases. Does that help clarify how the list is organized?

• Thank you all again for your comments, and I look forward to continued feedback! If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:

• I haven't had too long to read over the list, and my area of "expertise" is more in referencing and citations, so my comments will be short and in that regard.

• WP:LS pretty clearly says that "[t]he lead should contain no more than four paragraphs..." I don't know if you want to take this into account, as a list may be an exception, but the MOS is pretty clear.
• The placement of the "See also" categories is, at least aesthetically, bothering me. I don't know if there is some guideline on the placement of them, but I think they should be moved under the header, so, for example, it would read: Acneiform eruptions > See also Category: ... > so on and so forth. This would follow what other articles do with See also within the text (however, a list may have different procedures).
• To echo what was said above, I'd remove the solitary footnote and place it in the text.
• I'm split on the issue of the Further reading. It is long, so cutting it down a bit to the bare essentials might be nice, but on the other hand, you've got a huge list altogether, and the further reading has links that look (to my medically uneducated eye) to cover most of the stuff above.

• Other than that, it all looks really great. You did a good job. Hope that helps. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, lists are still articles, so they should follow the MOS, including WP:LS. That said, the Lede should be of a size in comparison to the main body, and I don't see five as too much in this case. An WP:IAR situation for me. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• The see alsos should be directly under the header, rather than under the section prose: WP:LAYOUT Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The Toolbox that contains links to find dabs and registration-required external links is at the top of this FLC nomination, to the right.
• Is Arygria listed? I couldn't find it. Something about turning skin blue from drinking colloidal silver
• You admit that this list is probably, but may not be complete. How about sticking {{expand list}} or {{dynamic list}} into the page?
• I'm a bit concerned that only the lead section has citations. I understand how inconvenient and ridiculous it would be to cite each individual entry, and I did notice the footnote, so maybe it isn't really an issue after all. As I said, I'm only very slightly concerned so I'm just noting it here for any other reviewers to perhaps comment on. If it doesn't worry anyone else then it's OK for me, too.
• Because each item is bullet pointed with no description of each condition, are there any plans for sublists - List of Acneiform eruptions skin conditions, List of Dermatitis skin conditions etc that could describe symptoms and causes? As a single page online, it's very good. But for anyone accessing it offline (a printed version, for example), it may not help them because they cannot view the relevant pages. Even for those online, they may not wish to navigate away from this main page, but at least if there were subpages with more indepth information, one could perhaps go to the Dermatitis skin condition list and compare conditions far more easily than here.
• Again, just throwing it out there, but for me, this list is more akin to an Outline than a regular list (such as we have with Outline of health and Outline of medicine.

Looks very good otherwise. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that this seems to be an outline, and a very well-done one at that. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, that's an incredible list you've compiled, kilbad! I'm not sure how the rest of Wikipedia does it, but to me, "skin-related conditions" is such a large topic that I think you should break this massive list down into smaller, more manageable sublists. That would make it much easier to add to/edit/verify the completeness and accuracy, compared to this monolithic list. It should be easily done, too, since all the information is here. Nevertheless, it is an incredibly thorough list that deserves praise and recognition! I just don't know about the usefulness of a massive list like this, compared to sublists. (Yes, I'm a splitter, not a lumper.)Danierrr (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Update 2

Resolved issues

• The "See also" statements are now found directly under the section headers
• I integrated the one, solitary footnote into the text, and subsequently removed the footnote section
• All links to disambiguation pages have been corrected
• I have added the {{dynamic list}} template

Follow-up questions/comments

• @ user:Leonard^Bloom

• I tend to think that, for the size and scope of this list, a five paragraph lead is ok; however, if there is a significant community drive to cut the lead down to four paragraphs, I am willing to pursue that.
• Again addressing the "Further reading" section, in addition to my initial comments above, I believe that for a list of this size, the number of articles listed in this section is not overkill. In fact, I believe the articles included there add a lot of substance to the list as most are free (if not all), and constitute some of the best review articles available.

• @ user:Matthewedwards

• Argyria is present in the list under "Disturbances of pigmentation."

• @ user: Danierrr

• Creating sublists in the future could definitely be an additional task pursued by the dermatology task force. However, with regard to this list, I am opposed to breaking it up into separate sublists, and this is for several reasons. First, this comprehensive list allows a rapid lookup of disease names and synonyms all in one place. Second, the list helps to guide the initial categorization of cutaneous conditions. Third, and one of the most important reasons, is that it allows for the use of the "related changes" link in the toolbox, enabling any user to immediately see all recent changes made to any of the cutaneous condition articles on wikipedia (a nice feature for new task force members who are not watching every derm page).

• Once again, and I sincerely mean this, thanks for your additional comments, and I look forward to continued feedback! If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments...

• Re: Familial Melanoma Syndrome (FMS): I did some snooping around and managed to find a slight connection of FMS with Dysplastic Nevus Syndrome (DNS) via this link: [22] (ctrl-F and type in Familial Melanoma Syndrome if you can't be bothered to read the entire link hehe). Furthermore, there is a slight connection found here: [23] between DNS and familial atypical mole-malignant melanoma syndrome (FAMMM) which does have an article on Wikipedia- so what I am getting at is: a redirect will solve the problem here once an expert can judge the info provided and confirm that all of the above are more or less the same. Further info can be seen here: [24] and here is the Google results of FMS: [25]. Now re: article itself, I think it is absolutely brilliant. I am unsure what the standards are on FL but it should definitely be passed. I would have made a suggestion to make this list into a table format (since I always see lists in that form) but then there would be a need to include more than just the name itself (e.g. OMIM, ICD9/10, discovery, epidemiology data etc etc.) which I am not sure if it would be suitable on this massive list. I suppose a future goal for this list could be to have a picture for every single disease (this is where the table format would come in handy) but again, I am just throwing things out there just for the sake of it (the amount of work you would have to put in would be incredible!) and unless the table format is there, would make the list too messy if there were so many pics. Finally, kudos on having an AKA after the name of the item on the list. Cheers and keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Could you discuss your first comment? What do you mean regarding having the entire body in a single section?" Currently section 1 is Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system, which is basically the entire list; then section 2 is References. Wouldn't it be better to have section 1 be Acneiform eruptions, section 2 be Autoinflammatory, ..., and then section 34 be References? I'm not familiar with how lists are typically done in Wikipedia, but thought I'd ask.
• "I am uncertain where to find the "disambig links" or "external links" buttons in the toolbox" I meant the toolbox at the top of this page, i.e., at the top right of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of skin-related conditions/archive1.
• "if someone wishes to see just the abstract, they can go through PubMed, else the citation URL is going to take the user to the journal's login page, where they can sign-up and pay for the full text if they want." Common practice in medical articles is to supply a URL only if the entire article (not just the abstract) is freely readable. See WP:MEDRS #Formatting citations. This provides readers a useful visual cue to identify sources that are easier to access. The DOI and/or PMID suffices for non-free articles.
• "As the article currently stands, the existing text already has good inline citations; therefore, I think I would either like to simply keep the section (my preference), or get rid of it, but not convert the articles over to inline citations." Now I'm confused. Some of the sources in Further reading are duplicates of what's in References (e.g., Alsaad et al. 2005, PMID 16311340). Other sources are not, e.g., Bickers & Athar 2006 (PMID 17108903). Often, once a source is listed in References it is removed from Further reading. Should that be done here? Or is this a list of useful sources for skin conditions? If so, perhaps it should be moved into a subarticle.

Eubulides (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Levine2112

IMHO, the first four paragraphs in the lead - while well-written and informative - don't really have a place in this list article. For me, the lead doesn't get on-point until the fifth and final paragraph when it beings to discuss the basis for skin conditions. However, I feel all that is needed here in the lead is an engaging introduction to the subject and some sort of scope definition of the list contents. The main thing is not to confuse the reader. I felt a tad confused four paragraphs in, when I felt I had just read informative and well-sourced prose about skin in general, but learned nothing about skin-related conditions nor the contents of the list to follow. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Update 3

Resolved issues

• I removed the single, overarching "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system" header
• I removed the redundant "Further reading" articles that were already in the "References" section
• I removed all links/URL's to non-free articles, while leaving all DOI and/or PMID links in place
• I added Dysplastic nevus syndrome and associated synonyms to the list

Follow-up questions/comments

• @ user:Eubulides

• Thank you for getting back to me. Your additional comments helped to clarify your initial post. I hope the changes I have since made address your feedback.

• @ user:Calaka

• I did some research, and it seems that the entity which is "Dysplastic nevus syndrome" was described at the same time by several different people around the late 1970's (Clark and Lynch being the two most notable, independent authors); therefore, as a result, this condition was described by several different names, all of which refer to the same thing. After looking at the sources more closely, I believe all of the following terms are synonymous: "dysplastic nevus syndrome," "familial atypical multiple mole-melanoma syndrome", "familial melanoma syndrome," and "B-K mole syndrome." Therefore, I have created a Dysplastic nevus syndrome stub, and redirected all the other synonyms to that stub. I hope that helps clarify things a bit?

• @ user:Levine2112

• Thank you for your comments. Currently, the lead section is based on a working outline that first gives a basic four paragraph introduction into the structure and function of the skin, followed by a fifth paragraph introducing cutaneous conditions. At the time of writing it, I felt that an initial basic discussion about the structure and function of this skin was important because a lot of dermatologic terminology can be confusing if the reader has no background in the topic. I feel that, for example, giving the brief introduction to the integumentary system allows a general reader to have a basic understanding of what "Epidermal nevi, neoplasms, or cysts" might be, or where within the skin a "Dermal or subcutaneous growth" is occurring. My preference would be to leave the basic structure and function introduction in place, but, certainly, if the community consensus is to remove it, I will do so.

• Thank you all again, and I look forward to further comments. If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Fvasconcellos

First of all, I believe this list meets all of the FL criteria. I do have a couple of nitpicks, and I must admit I didn't read everyone else's comments, so I apologize in advance if any of this is redundant :)

• The lead is much too long. While it provides an impressive introduction to the anatomy and function of the skin and associated structures, I don't think this is necessary in this particular list. Readers should be led into the actual content of the list as briefly as possible while being given enough context to understand the content; the current lead pretty much goes beyond this need, and I feel it could be trimmed considerably without detriment to the reader.
• Would you object to moving the lead image up to coincide with the first paragraph?
• Are predominantly non-cutaneous infectious diseases with cutaneous manifestations really considered "skin-related"? This isn't entirely clear from the fifth paragraph of the lead (which mostly defines the scope of the list). I was somewhat surprised to see a photo of measles as the list's second image; I thought the idea of measles as a cutaneous disease (i.e. one of the classical exanthems of childhood) was outdated. I guess I didn't quite get it :)

That's it. This is a very impressive piece of work, and serves as a perfect introduction to the WP:DERM categorization scheme to boot. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments...

• Any more thoughts on this being moved to Outline of skin-related conditions? User:The Transhumanist, who has spent at least a year working on Wikipedia's outlines feels it should be, too. User talk:The Transhumanist#List of skin-related conditions. He also raises a good point that I hadn't thought of. Why is this not "skin conditions"? Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that this should be considered an outline. I don't think that would change the FLC, though (outlines are list-class, correct?). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. The lead is not a big issue, and it is a good, if detailed, introduction to skin conditions. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) An impressive list/outline. Here are my thoughts: Unfortunately, this is not my area of expertise, so I can't offer anything content-wise. My only encounters with skin conditions have been acne, a few bouts of alopecia and severely dry skin during the winter :/ I do think this should be renamed to "Outline of skin conditions" or "Outline of skin-related conditions". Regarding the lead, I do think it could be reduced a bit. More specifically, the detail on the individual layers of the skin seems a bit much. "Functionally, the subcutaneous fat acts to insulate the body, absorb trauma, and serve as a reserve energy source." Could be "Functionally, the subcutaneous fat insulates the body, absorb trauma, and serves as a reserve energy source." The only other thing is that the closing digits page ranges in the sources should either be in full or the last two digits per MOS; for example ref 58, "pp. 1123–8" should be "pp. 1123–28" (otherwise sources look good). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC) No, the MOS does not require that page ranges end in two digits. It requires this only for year numbers, not for page numbers. See WP:MOS#Longer periods. The style "1123–8" is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia page ranges, and as part of the Vancouver system and PubMed is a very common style in medical and scientific articles. Eubulides (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) OK, so I stand corrected. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose until alternative text for images is added. It would be very helpful in this article, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC) All images now use alt attributes. Thanks for the feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC) That wasn't exactly what I was referring to, though. Alternative text is used to describe the images themselves, as in what the reader sees when they look at the image; i.e., for acne vulgaris you might use "picture of a boy's forehead with acne lesions resulting from acne vulgaris". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC) If you're interested as to why I suddenly thought of this right now, see (this discussion) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I'd like to second Dabomb87's point about alt text. "[[Image:Nailpatellakleur1fotojanwij.jpg|thumb|[[Nail-patella syndrome]]|alt=Nail-patella syndrome]]" is not right, because someone who can't see the image won't be helped by that alt text. The alt text should instead say something like "Big toe with most of the nail missing". The article's lead image has good alt text ("Young child with a red rash covering face, chest, shoulders, and arms."), but the other images don't have adequate alt text now. For details, please see WP:ALT's lead and WP:ALT #What to specify. Eubulides (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I see that progress is being made in this front. Seeing that this isn't a huge issue, though important, I've withdrawn my oppose and restored my support. Other than the alt text, which is being worked on, this is an excellent list in every respect. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I have added alt tags for all the images now. How do they look? ---kilbad (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC) They look great! And thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Update 4

Resolved issues

• The list's use of dashes now conforms to WP:DASH
• The last sentence in paragraph four now reads "Functionally, the subcutaneous fat insulates the body, absorbs trauma, and serves as a reserve energy source."
• The list has been renamed to List of cutaneous conditions

Follow-up questions/comments

• With regard to the lead length, I have read comments supporting the existing content/length, and comments stating the lead is a bit too long, and, with that being said, I am not sure what the consensus is. My preference would be to leave the lead as is, which is why I have yet to cut it down. Perhaps more people could comment on this issue so I can get a better idea of what the community consensus is regarding the lead's content/length?

• Regardless, thanks again for all the help. If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also found a reference to familial melanoma syndrome after snooping around for a while. In Robin's Pathology, Edition 7 pg 1245 it's listed as an Autosomal Dominant mutation in the 9p21 chromosome of CDKN2 gene leading to deficiences in p16INK4A and p14ARF. It doesn't have much detail outside of this. Syntrik (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could add that information/citation to the new dysplastic nevus syndrome stub? ---kilbad (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comments...

• Support - I support this article as a featured list in its current state. I like the lead how it is, and don't think it's too long. I am a pathologist at the Cleveland Clinic, and can definitely see how all these dermatology/skin terms/language could be very confusing to the general reader without some type of basic introduction. Great job kilbad! ---Bojilov (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - nice list about medical conditions —Chris! _ct 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - A phenomenal effort and a great contribution to Wikipedia. (p.s. I like the lead as is.) Sasata (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Regardless of my feelings about the lead (discussed above), this list deserves to be featured as what all Wikipedia lists should strive to be. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Avoid squashing text between images as you have in the lead per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Also, use the regular thumb and upright tags instead of forcing image sizes.
  • Have you checked you're meeting WP:ITALICS for foreign terms?
  • Otherwise it appears incredibly comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on images. I redid the images to try to address those issues; see Talk:List of cutaneous conditions #Image style. Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update 5

Resolved issues

• The lead now only has one photo, which alleviates prior squashing of the text
• Images now use the "thumb" attribute instead of forcing image sizes
• All images now use "alt" attributes

Follow-up questions/comments

• I have made some additional edits, and believe the list conforms to the WP:ITALICS guidelines for foreign terms. However, if someone wants to review the list to confirm this, feedback would be much appreciated.

• Regardless, thanks again. If possible, for sake of readability, I respectfully ask that you please add comments/responses/feedback below, and not within my text. ---kilbad (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comments...

• I wonder if Lupus erythematosus is too broad to be listed under the Conditions of the skin appendages. Besides, there is a fine list under Connective tissue diseases. How about the malar rash? Is it implied under SLE? I wonder if it ought to be listed on its own. Bobjgalindo (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I personally feel that lupus erythematosus is appropriately included in the list, particularly given all its cutaneous manifestations. It should also be noted that lupus erythematosus is not synonymous with systemic lupus erythematosus, but instead, systemic lupus erythematosus is a subtype of lupus erythematosus. Also, the term "malar rash" is simply a descriptive term used to denote a skin eruption of the cheek (hence the adjective "malar"), and is not a specific condition/diagnosis. Hope that helps? ---kilbad (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [26].

---

List of pre-Stonewall LGBT actions in the United States

Nominator(s): Otto4711 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that although it's a new list, it meets all of the FL requirements and addresses an aspect of American history that is under-represented both in Wikipedia in general and in the Featured material specifically. Note that the list is going to be featured on the main page as a Did you know... item on June 28. Appearing on the front page is a vandal magnet, so while tomorrow's edits may look like edit warring, it will likely be vandal-fighting instead. Otto4711 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, the article made it through the front page with no vandalism. Hope that's not because people think it's a boring topic... Otto4711 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Interesting stuff. I'm glad you've returned to FLC. "there were a number of demonstrations and actions that took place before that date." A bit wordy; could be "several demonstrations and actions took place before that date." Reworded. "A favorite technique of the early movement was the picket line" The movement itself didn't have a preference; could be "A favorite technique of those involved in the early movement was the picket line", or something like that. Reworded. The table should be under a separate level-2 header. Done. Have you considered making the table sortable by date and location? If you want, I can do it for you. I honestly don't see much point in sorting by date. Location would be fine, although since there are some combined entries it won't be completely correct. I sorted by location, using hidden sortkeys. I also implemented sorting by date; I hope you don't mind. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Don't mind at all. Otto4711 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC) "Over 200 gay men "-->More than 200 gay men Reworded. I noticed that this is a pre-Stonewall Riots list. If possible, you might explain how LBGT actions changed after this milestone event. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC) There really wasn't a huge change. The picket line remained the pre-eminent technique for the next year or so and pickets continue to be used. The Gay Activists Alliance initiated "zaps" in 1970, but in practice these were little different from the earlier sit-ins. Oppose until alternative text for images is added (I could be convinced it's not necessary but you might make the caption a bit more descriptive then) (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I added "alt=Gay and lesbian activists picket the White House in 1965 demanding equal rights." I'm not familiar with alt text so I hope that's all right. Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.tangentgroup.org/history/articles/motorcade.html reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's a reprint of a magazine article that was published by a homophile group. The magazine, Tangents, is described in various reliable sources as having high standards of editorial quality and control. I can back it up with another citation if you think it's needed. Otto4711 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• A backup source would be nice. The problem with reprints is that there could be transcription errors, content changes, etc. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Second source added. The other references in the same item also back up the cited information. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

*"To protest US military treatment of gay people" - Sounds wrong to me. How about "To protest the US military's treatment of gay people"? What is the "Armed Services Day"? Perhaps you could wikilink it? The acronym "CHF" need to be introduced. See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations. A very nice list. I'm looking forward to supporting this nomination. Goodraise 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Items 1 and 3 addressed. We have no article on "Armed Services Day". What we have is a list of Armed Forces Days commemorated around the world. It appears based on the timing of the US's day that "Armed Services Day" and Armed Forces Day are the same, but I can't find a source that says so and every source I've seen on the demonstration uses Services. Without a source I believe wikilinking the Forces list would constitute original research by synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [27].

---

List of Donkey Kong games

Nominator(s): -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements laid out at WP:WIAFL. The list is extensively based off of two previous FLs in format, List of Kirby media (which I guided through its FLC) and List of Harvest Moon titles. For a complete history of my work on this list, please see the history page at User:Nomader/Donkey Kong. Cheers and good reviewing. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing the style of the whole list instead of tables it would do more sense having subsections for each title as it seems that the notes take a big part of the information included in the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be totally opposed to the idea. If I were going to place it in that format, I'd probably do something along the lines of what's seen at video games notable for negative reception. I'd like to know that the format seen in that article is preferable before I go ahead and change the list to match it, though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Then again, however, I'm wary about changing from a format that's been widely accepted for other video game FLs (see List of Kirby media, List of Harvest Moon titles, List of Castlevania media, and etc.). Either way, I'd like further input from reviewers about whether the format needs to be changed. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think subsections would be more awkward—admittedly I've spent a lot of time working on {{VGtitle}}. Though some of the games have a good number of notes, not all do. The ones with only two short sentences wouldn't have enough to really fill a section. Such games are kind of common on lists like this. Also, I think that many subsections would bloat the table of contents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Personally, I prefer {{VGtitle}} because it's easier to organize the release dates of the games. That'd be the one problem with using sub-sections -- unless anyone objects, I'm going to keep the list in its current format. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Fix the 3 disambiguation links found with the first link in the toolbox at the right. Fixed. External links check out fine. Lead You should add a bit more summary of the list itself, i.e. the most recent release, which system has had the most released, etc. I went ahead and added the latest game released in the series and put in some information about the original arcade games being ported. It's tough to say which system had the most released though, because the games were for the most part spread out evenly over a number of systems so I didn't add that in. List Remove the periods from incomplete sentences, there are many which need to have them removed.--Truco 503 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and removed a bunch of periods from incomplete sentences. -- Nomader (Talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Some sentences still need to have them removed and others readded, I recommend seeking a copyediter to do it.--Truco 503 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and tried a more meticulous checking of it, but if it still isn't enough, I've requested a copyedit at WikiProject Video Games. -- Nomader (Talk) 02:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I gave it go. Let me know if it's satisfactory. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)) Looks good to me.--Truco 503 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Guyinblack25

• Maybe split the lead into two paragraphs to break up the large chunk of prose. I think it would improve readability.
• I would remove the "Games" heading and make the subsections level 2 headings. It seems kind of redundant to me.
• For the early titles, why are the Famicom and NES listed separately? Since they are the same system, shouldn't the first instance be used?
• Any specific release info on the Game & Watch DK games?
• Maybe wikilink "packaged" to Product bundling when talking about the conga.

Other than those minor issues, everything looks good to me. The sources look fine and the content looks to be well organized. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

I added in all of your suggestions except for the Game & Watch games. I'm not too happy with "Early 1980s" either, but I just can't find the games in any sort of reliable source except for later reviews. The only list of dates that I can find is here, and I can't use a Wikipedia page for my source -- I looked through all the links at that page, but none of them seem to have the release dates. For now, unless I stumble on a reliable list with release data, I just can't enter them with any degree of confidence. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably fine if that's the best we can find. I think I may have a magazine that did a feature on the whole Game & Watch line though. I'll try to find it when I get home later. I'll check one of my books too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Alright, thanks. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The only issues I see left are the release dates for Donkey Kong Jungle Fever and the use of both Famicom and Nintendo Entertainment System. I'd stick with NES since the list is intended for English speaking regions. Once those are done, I'll gladly support. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

I've changed all instances of "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System". With regard to Jungle Fever, it's an obscure Japanese-only arcade game that I almost didn't even notice existed. The only release date I've been able to find has been at GameFAQs -- it's not listed at GameSpot, IGN lists no release date, and the 1UP page on it doesn't hold any release information. For now, 2005 is what I have to go on. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The list has 2005 and 1995 for the release dates. Is the 2005 the correct one? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it is -- I've edited it to reflect that. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: My concerns have been addressed. I believe the list meets the FL criteria. Nice job Nomader. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The games have been developed by a variety of developers" C"including" is only used for incomplete lists. The one that follows this phrase is a complete list. I haven't changed it yet, because it isn't a complete list -- I noted in the original Donkey Kong arcade game's notes, "The game was re-released in a number of home console versions, most of which were not developed by Nintendo, but instead by other third party developers." That's why I said including -- if you feel that I should still change the wording with the other developers not-with-standing, I'll do so. "developed by a variety of developers"-->developed by several developers (there are multiple occurences, but don't change all of them) Changed one instance it appears. "with over forty-nine million games sold worldwide."-->with over 49 million games sold worldwide. (non-breaking space between "49" and "million") Changed to 49 million. "The game holds two modes"-->The game has two modes Changed per your comment. "one is a two player mode, where the objective is to add numbers up to what Donkey Kong is holding, and the other is a single player mode where the player must solve algebraic equations."-->one is a two-player mode in which the objective is to add numbers up to what Donkey Kong is holding, and the other is a single-player mode in which the player must solve algebraic equations. Changed to your suggested statement. "prior to"-->before Changed the instance of "prior to" to "before". "The game is only loosely based off of the original Donkey Kong: it features"-->The game is loosely based off of the original Donkey Kong; it features Changed per your comment. "if played through the Super Game Bo" played through or played "on"? Changed per your suggestion -- it's a cartridge adapter that lets games be played on a Super Nintendo console, but I figure that you're playing them "on" the console, not playing them through the console. "Utilized pegs" "used" is much nicer and simpler (multiple occurences, including "utilizing") Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Changed accordingly. I think I've addressed most of your concerns, save for the development info in the lead. -- Nomader (Talk) 19:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and added alternate text. I think it should be satisfactory. -- Nomader (Talk) 01:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC) It is, thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I just wanted to say, thanks for everyone who gave comments and supported and such. I figure I should say that somewhere... so I did. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [28].

---

List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches)

Nominator(s): Dabomb87 (talk), Chrishomingtang (talk)

Co-nom with Chrishomingtang (talk · contribs). We hope that this will be the first successful nom of a future featured topic on the Basketball Hall of Fame. Thanks in advance for your comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support- I cleaned it up a bit, fixing the starting position of the chart and de-sorting the reference column, but now it has my full support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Very well-referenced list. Excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- Excellent list, the only thing I have to say is why not actually mention who the first 3 coaches to be inducted were? In addition, do the 2009 inductees not have achievements?--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They have achievements, obviously. But since we use achievements that are listed on the hall's official entry online and the formal induction doesn't come until September (and they don't update the site very often), the entries are emptied. As for the first 3 coaches, I will add that shortly.—Chris! _ct 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] I'm planning to help out with the BHOF FT drive, just so you guys know. Great! Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't this be (coaches) instead of (head coaches)? The term head coach probably came after the inception of the BHOF. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Good point, and the HOF website agrees with you. I'll move it. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Don Haskins was also part of the 1966 Texas Western champions, just so you know, since you guys didn't include that into the article. So what about this one? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Not sure what you're saying here, but his entry in the table says "NCAA championship (Texas Western, 1966)". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I'm saying that he was also inducted with the Texas Western team, and should be included in the lead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Well, that statement is inaccurate. The team is inducted as a whole, but the induction doesn't extend to each individual within the team. That is why Haskins was inducted separately.—Chris! ct 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Right. See this LA Times article, which makes no mention of his being inducted with the team. I did add a sentence that he was head coach of the team. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC) No lead picture? We have a lot of them in the article right now; which would you suggest? Or do you think we should use another picture of something besides a player? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I would suggest Auerbach, Daly, Krzyzewski, Jackson, or Riley, since those are probably the most notable coaches with images. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Done, but I put Wooden up there. I daresay he's well known among anyone who knows basketball well. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I barely follow college basketball, so sorry if not listing Wooden on my suggestions bothered you in any way. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "...seventy-nine more have been inducted since." --> "...a total of eighty-two coached have been inducted." Done, though I worded it differently. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "Three coaches have also been inducted as players: John Wooden in 1960, Bill Sharman in 1976, and Lenny Wilkens in 1989." - So are the years their player induction years, or their coach induction years? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I think it's pretty clear from the context that those are player induction years, and you can easily look at the table if you can't tell. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Just wanted to know if it could be clarified more. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Not really. I think it's clear enough, and adding more info might actually confuse the reader more. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "...led his teams to NBA-record 25 consecutive postseason victories (1996–2003)" - "postseason victories" --> "postseason series victories". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Good catch, done. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) There's probably more on the table that needs clarification, so it would be nice if you could check some of them. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I couldn't catch anything else along those lines that needed fixing, although I made a couple other minor fixes. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Though I would suggest you list achievements for the 2009 coaches, even if they don't have a BHOF website yet. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Handpicking which achievements to include involves with NPOV issue, that's why I preferred not to do so.—Chris! _ct 23:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree. I'll probably be helping with the BHOF awards, just so you know. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Easily meets and exceeds FL standards. I did a review on the article's talk page before it came to FLC, and a second look turned up nothing of concern. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose but probably a lot of Brit-nonsense that can be ignored... Was it always called the "Naismith Memorial.... BHOF"? If so, should the list be name that way or is it a case of COMMONNAME here? Basketball Hall of Fame is the common name. Naismith Memorial.... is the full official name.—Chris! ct 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) You say the Hall of Fame is "located in Springfield". Now call me too British for my own good - we have "halls of fame" here which are more abstract, i.e. people are elected to a Hall of Fame, but no physical location/hall is required for this. Could you just clarify that a bit for my taste? Well, it is a tangible building. Would "...the campus of which is located in..." work? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'd probably mention that the HoF is housed in a building or similar - perhaps your words are more appropriate, not sure. Either way, yes, I think it needs clarifying for us Brits....(!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I gave it a shot. What do you think? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Is it a worldwide award? It seems to imply that it might be from the lead. If so, I'd state it, if not, I'd state it... No explicit mention, but it is awarded to anyone who is considered a major impact on the sport (my paraphrase). There are foreign inductees (Aleksandar Nikolic), but you have to consider that the HOF is based in the US, and basketball originated in the US, so the bias is heavily American. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Okay. I think the idea of "foreign" inductees is worth a mention, even if they have plied their trade in the US. You understand my problem at the moment though? It's not clear to a complete novice what the scope of the award is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris! ct 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "8 Big Ten championships..." why isn't that "Eight Big Ten.... "? See below. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Not keen on inductees being centrally aligned, but won't oppose on that. Is the "National Basketball Coaches Association" different from "National Association of Basketball Coaches "? One is linked, the other isn't, and it's a touch confusing. They are different, as the source is very clear on it. I was considering redlinking the former, but Google searches revealed nothing, and the only mention is here, so I don't know if there are RS's out there to warrant a redlink. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Hmmm. I think perhaps some more thought or investigation here. Unfortunately it's an area that I (clearly) know nothing about. It may just be a typo in the sourcing? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) NIT is used abbreviated before explanation in the table. Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) And shouldn't it be "four NIT berths" instead of "4 NIT berths"? There are a few others, am I missing something - I'd prefer MOSNUM but I may have misinterpreted the old "numbers below 10 in words" thing. First bullet in Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words: "In tables and infoboxes, quantitative data is expressed as numerals; numerals will also fit better in limited space. Numbers within a table's explanatory text and comments should be consistent with the general rule." Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Now that is interesting. I wonder if we should seek exemption for lists (as "tables" probably currently covers lists) because our featured lists are a little bit more than just "tables" - I imagine an everyday Jo's impression of a table is a set of numbers etc, not a set of detailed prose. Perhaps another thing worth discussing in a wider forum? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) "high-school" or "high school"? Removed hyphens. I had put them in there because they were compound adjectives, but on further evaluation decided they weren't necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Sortable table, consider relinking things like Sports Illustrated so we don't necessarily have to go hunting for it. The 2009 inductees have zero achievements? Since "achievements" is such a subjective category, we've been going by the official Hall of Fame website, which summarizes their most important achievements. They haven't put up 2009 yet. Do you think we should put up a footnote explaining this? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I think a footnote is appropriate, at the very least. Otherwise I imagine others would ask the same question I just did... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed comments. I've replied to some of them, and will get the rest of them later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) You're very welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) TRM, can I request you to cap/strikethrough any resolved comments? It's hard to see what's resolved and what's not right now. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Also, I'm working on adding links to abbreviations and spelling out numbers under ten; other Wiki and real-life things have held me up, but I'm hacking away at it. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'll see what I can do. You need to clarify what context "foreign" has here (I think) but, assuming you hit abbreviation links and MOSNUM, you're virtually there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC) OK, all numbers under 10 spelled out except where they are in comparable contexts with larger numbers or in phrases such as "Figure 8 offense". I'll hit the links and foreign thing tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Cool, well please ping me when you do. Real life (i.e. work) is making my time hit-and-miss at the moment. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I think I got everything. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Isn't "Basketball lists" a supercat of "Lists of basketball players"? And if it isn't, shouldn't it be? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, and done. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support thanks for addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Eight of the inducted coaches were born outside the United States: Cesare Rubini in 1994... I know it isn't, but can't help thinking that it sounds like 1994 was the year Rubini was born in etc. Could this be reworded at all? Coached Passaic High School to high school record 159-game winning streak; seven high school state championships (Passiac High School) -> "Coached Passaic High School to a high school record 159-game winning streak and seven high school state championships." I think there should be an "a" and also combining avoids repeating Passaic High School. United Press International(1961–62) space after International This source gives some achievements to Stringer's 2009 induction that could be used in the absence of the Naismith source. This gives info for Stringer and Sloan. I think it would good to add in information for them. File:TTU Bob Knight.jpg, marked as OTRS pending. It was uploaded November 10, 2008 with OTRS pending tag. It expired without confirmation and the user claimed again yesterday the had "resent" OTRS. Now the uploader's history isn't great but they sent me a message on Commons explaining themselves. In trying to AGF I'm just going to say this is one to watch. Other images checked out fine, I transferred 2 to Commons and PD reviewed others where appropriate. Couldn't find much wrong with the list. I would have commented on MOSNUM as the current way wouldn't have been my interpretation, but I can see you've been running in circles with it, so I'll leave it be. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I'll reply with corresponding bullets to make it easier to follow the discussions: I'm wondering if I should just remove the years altogether. They aren't that crucial, and I think the second paragraph is information-heavy anyway. What's your opinion? Good suggestion, done. Good eyes, done. It might be inconsistent with the other inductees, but comprehensiveness is more important, so I'll put it in. Doing... Done. I used the nba.com ref since that was the official release. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Could you contact me if the issue isn't resolved in a reasonable amount of time? I'll comment it out until the issue is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Actually just removing the years might be a good idea. For your last point I don't understand what you want me to do. The image is still present in the list, so are you asking me to remove it if OTRS doesn't come through within a reasonable amount of time? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I removed the years; that should also resolve similar issues raised by SRE.K.A.L.24. As for the image, I'm just going to comment it out until OTRS arrives; I'll watchlist the image page. Is that alright? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I don't get how this resolves the issues raised by me... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC) The ambiguity problem; see your comment: "So are the years their player induction years, or their coach induction years?" Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'd assume Dabomb meant that with no years there is no possible ambiguity as to whether it is year of induction as a player or as a coach. And yes Dabomb that is fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Well done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks to everybody who has commented and/or supported. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [29].

---

List of Space Invaders video games

Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just moved this list from a draft in my user space to article space, but had been working on it on and off for about a year. I tried to make this list as comprehensive as I could, but omitted clones which tried to capitalize on the original's frame; mainly because most are non-notable.

There is one source which could be construed as dubious: Handheld Museum. I used a page that has photos of the subject in question that displayed the copyright year in the image. The specific link is here. Other reliable sources have described the Handheld Museum as a reliable resource.

• CNET Asia- an article that was originally on Tech Republic.
• Kotaku- an article from one of their associate editors.
• Retro Gamer- issue 42 p. 107. (Sorry no online version)
• Author David Ellis- listed them as an additional resource in his book Official Price Guide to Classic Video Games. (Sorry no online version)

Any comments are welcome and would be appreciated. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment Spaced en dashes should be used as spaced separators instead of em dashes (see List of Kirby media). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Switched. Thanks for the catch. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment: Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Date_autoformatting, it's no longer desirable to wikilink dates (including release dates).-- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and can we have them converted to a more readable format? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Comments from -- Nomader ^(Talk)

Lead

• It also inspired several other games. – The sentence seems a bit isolated. Could you either list some examples in the sentence (i.e. It also inspired several other games, including F-Zero X and the Metroid series)?

List and References

• For citation #24, you listed the author as the IGN Staff (and linked to this page at IGN) when in fact it's a Nintendo press release (the same page can be seen here on Nintendo's site). The author needs to be changed accordingly.
• WonderSwan and Playstation 2 were never wikilinked in the list -- the first appearance of a console should be linked in the system release section.

That's about it for my kind of brief look through. I'm not too experienced with these things, so I probably didn't catch a lot of stuff -- but from what I saw, the list looks stellar, good job Guyinblack. If you can make those few changes, I'll support. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your comments about the list and refs. For the lead, I used a semicolon to connect that sentence with the proceeding one. Hopefully, that'll explain it better. I tried downplaying the clones for two reasons: I felt the focus should be on the real games and digging up sources for the many different SI-inspired shooters is kind of tough. That's why I put Galaxian in the "See also" section; it's the most notable game based on SI. Let me know if it still needs tweaking. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

• Support Problems have been fixed, looks good. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox to your right; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I found another page on Taito's website to source. Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Fix the one disambiguation link: UMD Fix the one dead external link, check the toolbox at the right to fix both of these issues. Lead Space Invaders (スペースインベーダー, Supēsu Inbēdā?) is a Japanese, shooting video game released in 1978 by Taito. -- No need for the comma. It was developed by Tomohiro Nishikado who drew inspiration from other media: Breakout, The War of the Worlds, and Star Wars. -- +Comma before who drew The games have received different receptions; the Atari 2600 port of the original became the video game industry's first "killer app", while some sequels were regarded as insignificant updates -- The semi-colon should be a colon. It also inspired several other games; many companies created clones that copied its gameplay, while others built upon the original's gameplay. -- Semi-colon should be a colon. The lead should summarize the list a bit more, such as stating what has been the most recent release, which platform has had the most releases, etc. List Remove the periods from the notes which are not complete sentences, there are many of them.--Truco 503 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I've addressed your comments except for the semicolon/colon issue. I thought colons were not meant to combine two sentences like that. I've been using semicolons to connect related sentences. Would you mind clarifying why a colon is more appropriate? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)) See Colon (punctuation)#Usage.--Truco 503 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, I've seen that. However, I used semicolons in the list and several other articles based on Semicolon#English usage. So my question is which is most applicable (an appositive or closely related independent clauses) and why? (Guyinblack25 talk 02:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)) Okay, ignore point 4 in my lead review. However, for the other one you need a colon because of point 2 in this link under the colon section. Semicolons are mainly used to compare or as a replacement for and, while a colon combines/separates sentences while still maintaining the original meaning.Truco 503 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Stupid English grammar. Still not quite wrapping my head around it, but I've made the change. :-p Thanks for the explanation and link. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I removed the Handheld Museum reference and replaced it with a book reference. I also did a little condensing of content related to the LCD games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Taito" No link? "who drew inspiration from other media"-->who was inspired by other media "gameplay options; for example, moving defense bunkers, zigzag shots, invisible aliens, and two-player modes."-->gameplay options, including moving defense bunkers, zigzag shots, invisible aliens, and two-player modes. "many of which have also been remade on multiple platforms including home consoles and handheld devices. " Remove "also", and comma before "including". "It also inspired several other" Notes that aren't complete sentences shouldn't have periods at the end. For example: "Attributed to a shortage of yen in Japan, which led to an increase in production of 100-yen coins." "Early 1980s handheld electronic versions are consider collectables." Wrong tense Mininvaders: "It was released only in Japan." No source? "two player mode"-->two-player mode "commercially-released" No hyphen after -ly adverbs. "original's 25th-anniversary and Taito's 50th-anniversary." No hyphens. "plug and play game controller"-->plug-and-play game controller "The title is a compilation of Taito's classic arcade games." Source? I see several notes of this nature that aren't source; is there a reason for this? I'm assuming that non-linked games have no chance of having an article created? Unusual, but I think the See also note (released in 1979) needs a reference, especially since the main article doesn't reference it. "Coca-Cola Company "-->The Coca-Cola Company "Colecovision"-->ColecoVision Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Dabomb, I've made the changes you suggested above. In regard to the statements without citations, I tried consolidating statements to a single citation. So if a note is missing a citation, the information will be found in the citation of the next note. All the "compilation of classic arcades" are like that. I believe most non-linked game do not have enough notable content to be created. I did not come across much for them in my research for Space Invaders and this list. One of the reasons I started the list was to give them a home. In fact, most that are already linked and the ones in {{Space Invaders}} should probably not exist. I may redirect them here down the road. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)) Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and added it for Guyinblack. I think it should be satisfactory, feel free to note if it isn't. Out of curiosity though, is this a criterion yet for FLCs? -- Nomader (Talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, alright cheers. Either way, I added the alt text for the image. -- Nomader (Talk) 02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support, tries as I have I can't really come up with anything except maybe suggest that all game titles are linked even if no article exists right now, WP:RED would indicate that this may be a good idea, but that's just a suggestion on my part. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I made that suggestion too. See Guyinblack's response in the capped comments above. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [30].

---

List of 2006 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Another exciting Olympics list, fashioned in the mold of the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs, external links check out fine.

Lead

• In total there were six more events than in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, United States. -- +Comma after In total

• Fixed.

• Eight new events were held: Snowboard cross,[4] team pursuit (speed skating),[4] team sprint (cross country skiing)[2] and the mass-start race (Biathlon). -- Now looking at the article, Snowboard cross has so many spellings, is it Snowboard Cross, Snowboard cross, or snowboard cross?

• I'm going with "snowboard cross", which is what the IOC uses.

• The classical men's 30 km and women's 20 km distances, which were held at the previous Winter Games in 2002, were not held in these Games, as these events were alternated with freestyle events of the same distances. -- Me being unaware of how the Olympics work, these distances were part of skiing right? In addition, are these the official titles of the races? If not, then I recommend adding a conversion template for the km.

• They are the official titles. I added that it is cross country skiing.

• Athletes from 26 National Olympic Committees won at least one medal, while 18 nations won at least one gold medal. -- Unlink NOC, per WP:OVERLINK

• Done.

• American Apolo Anton Ohno and Chinese athletes Yang Yang (A) and Li Jiajun have all won five medals total -- so this extends their records right?

Changes in medal winners

• Russian biathlete Olga Pyleva won a silver medal in the 15 km race, but tested positive for carphedon and lost her medal. Germany's Martina Glagow was given the silver medal and fellow Russian Albina Akhatova won the bronze. -- The thing about the conversion template applies here, unless I'm wrong, disregard

References

• Inconsistency with the linking: I would link the general IOC and then not the specific ones, unless you are planning on linking all publishers on all instances. If its the latter, than link the other IOC publisher.

• Fixed.

• The sports-reference.com ref should have Sports-reference as the work and Sports Illustrated LLC as the publisher, or just the latter by itself.

• Done.

• Per {{cite web}} and MOS:NUM the dates in the refs should be consistently formatted as they are in the main body of the article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it doesn't matter if the ref dates are different from the body of the article; the only thing is that the refs have to be internally consistent, and the body has to be internally consistent. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Format consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• So why does {{cite web}} stated that they need to be the same as how they are in the body?--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comments: I've made some edits to the article, mostly copy-editing the lead and adding more relevant information, so basically this is top notch for me. The only issue that needs to be resolved by the nominator is the same mentioned by User:Truco in the 3rd bullet of his "Lead" review. Whoever reads that sentence, cannot identify which sport is associated with those distances, and the reference does not ellucidate as well. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Heads up I'll be going away for a week starting tomorrow. I hope to be able to find a user who can address minor concerns and keep this open until I get back. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "45 events were opened to men, 37 to women and two were mixed pairs events." Make them all numbers or all words per WP:MOSNUM. Done. "cross country skiing"-->cross-country skiing (multiple occurences) Fixed. "further cementing her lead in this sport" Suggest "extending" or "increasing" instead of "cementing". Done "Aino Kaisa Saarinen"-->Aino-Kaisa Saarinen "Giorgio di Centa"-->Giorgio Di Centa "Daniela Anschutz-Thoms"-->Daniela Anschütz-Thoms "Eric Bédard"-->Éric Bédard "Ahn Hyun Soo"-->Ahn Hyun-Soo "Li JiaJun"-->Li Jiajun All done. There are a couple other redirects where the last names don't match, but I'm not sure what's right and what's not. Plenty of names to check, I'll be doing it though. User:Splarka/dabfinder.js makes it a lot easier. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "Athletes that won"-->Athletes who won (this should be fixed in other lists too) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for your help. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - On List of Olympic medalists in badminton, I removed the rankings as the IOC ranks the medals by country by golds, not total medals. The ranking will also be confusing and false, since the readers don't know how the ranks are ranked, and two people who have the same exact medals should be tied. I'm going to suggest this to WP:OLYMPICS unless you think the rankings are really needed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is anyone going to reply? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I actually didn't give it much notice, until you mention it now. I think that if the athlete medal table is sortable, allowing the reader to rank them by either gold, silver, bronze, or total medals, then there's no need whatsoever to have a specific column displaying a rank based solely on one of the previous items. I'm not against removing the ranking column from the athlete medal table (as you did with badminton), if other reviewers are not as well. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and notify WP:OLYMPICS. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments –
• "Two disciplines were open only to men, nordic combined and ski jumping." Change the comma to a colon.
  • Done.
• "In cross-country skiing, some of the events involved different distances from those in the 2002 Games or alternating between classic and freestyle techniques." The "alternating" bit is confusing me. Should it be "alternated", and what does it have to do with the rest of the sentence?
  • Wow, with all the editing I completely forgot to remove that extraneous sentence, which, as you said, doesn't have anything to do with the rest, anymore. Thanks for pointing it out.
• Dmitry Dorofeyev link goes to a disambiguation page.
  • Linked to skater page.
• Reference 17's publisher should be Sports Reference LLC, not Sports Illustrated LLC. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that policy. These images are certainly not essential to the page, and all it does is add extra length to some already very long captions, which already give a strong indication of who the image depicts. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I was a bit hasty in posting these opposes. The first picture, in fact, is an excellent description of the image. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think, though, that the other images would benefit from alt text, although I won't oppose over it. See (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [31].

---

List of pre-1920 jazz standards

Nominator(s): Jafeluv (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the first part in a series of five articles that were split from List of jazz standards for article size concerns. It has been completely rewritten since, and I'm nominating it for FL because I think it now meets the FL criteria. A peer review was made when this article was still a part of List of jazz standards (before 1930), which has now been split in two. The archived peer review can be seen here. Much of the lead and a part of the list items have remained the same since the split. Jafeluv (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment - Is JazzStandards.com a reliable source?—Chris! ct 01:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC) See here for information on the writers. For information on their selection process, see here. In my opinion, it clearly passes "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" as required by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Jafeluv (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, just making sure.—Chris! ct 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "; some of the tunes listed were instant hits and quickly became well-known standards, others were popularized later" Comma splice—the comma should be a semicolon. Done. Is it ok that there's two semicolons in one sentence now? Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm, perhaps we should reword. Maybe "; while some of the tunes listed were instant hits and quickly became well-known standards, others were popularized later"? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I replaced it with "; some of the tunes listed were instant hits and quickly became well-known standards, and others were popularized later". Is that better? Jafeluv (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Better, perhaps change "and others" to "while others" to emphasize the contrast? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Jafeluv (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "The origins of jazz are in the various musical traditions" Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) You might use spaced en dashes to separate the year from the descriptions. For example, "1901 "High Society"." to "1901 – "High Society"." Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "19th century British folk"-->19th-century British folk Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "Despite being banned from the radio," For what reason? The source doesn't say that, I'll have to find another one. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Couldn't find the source for the reason why it was banned, and the ban was only mentioned in two of the umpteen available sources, so it's probably giving the ban undue weight to have it mentioned in such a short summary. I've removed that part. Jafeluv (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "The song is often called simply "The Saints"." Unnecessary word; readers can tell that this is a simpler version because it's shorter. Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "biggest selling rag"-->biggest-selling rag or maybe "best-selling rag"? Done. Replaced with "best-selling rag". Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Link "chord progression". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Quick question based on personal preference - chould the page title be List of pre-1920 jazz standards? I hate parentheses in titles if they can be avoided. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure. That's how they were originally titled in my sandbox, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. I'm moving the others as well to match the title. Jafeluv (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [32].

---

19th Golden Melody Awards

Nominator(s): Arsonal (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the most complete and thorough article for any Golden Melody Award-related articles. It is the most recent award ceremony excluding this year's awards which has not occurred. The awards is dubbed the "Chinese-language Grammys" (actual citation in the GMA article). There hasn't been any changes to the article since I updated it in December and nominated it for a DYK. Arsonal (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'll do a full review later, but please note that we do not link dates in articles anymore (see WP:MOSNUM); I already fixed this in this article, but keep that in mind for future reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead Initially, there were 10,632 submissions from 185 companies in the music industry, making it the largest submission pool to date. -- to date is WP:WEASEL, I would instead use something like "in the Awards' history" I was wondering about doing that because the nominees for the 20th Golden Melody Awards are already out. Although the number of submissions for that is out somewhere, I haven't had the chance to look for it, and I'm not sure if it surpassed the 19th GMAs. Arsonal (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Well I would start by looking that information up so you can make the necessary changes.--Truco 503 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Done The 20th Golden Melody Awards only has 7,982 submissions, so submissions for the 19th is the largest in GMA history. Arsonal (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Winners for artistic and traditional music categories were announced on June 21, 2008 at Taipei County Hall in a ceremony separate from that for popular music categories. -- Unlink traditional music and popular music per WP:OVERLINK Done Arsonal (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) In contrast, artists from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, and Canada attended the awards ceremony for popular music categories, which was held at the Taipei Arena on July 5, 2008. -- 1)I'm confused, artists came from Singapore and Malaysia or from Singapore, Malaysia? Which is it? If its the latter, you should just mention it as Singapore. Well, Singapore is not in Malaysia, so they are separate. I'm not sure why the other locations were delinked by Dabomb87. Arsonal (talk) Oh okay. He unlinked them because of WP:OVERLINK-- do not link common geographical locations.--Truco 503 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Chua's seven nominations for her album Goodbye & Hello was also the most ever received by a female artist. -> "Chua's record seven nominations for her album Goodbye & Hello are also the most received by a female artist." Done Arsonal (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) However, Chou's primary lyricist Vincent Fang was present to receive the award of Best Lyricist for Chou's song "Blue and White Porcelain" (Chinese: 青花瓷; pinyin: qīng huā cí). -- I would +"on his behalf" after receive the award Done I changed it to the song because it was Fang who was supposed to receive the award anyway. Arsonal (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) List Checks out fine References I'm not an expert on international sources, so what makes Yam.com and StarNest.cn reliable sources?--Truco 503 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I guess they are some of the numerous news portals in China. I deferred back to previous FA articles related to Chinese music, particularly Jay Chou and S.H.E, which also used a few of these news portals as sources. Arsonal (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me.--Truco 503 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; meets WP:WIAFL.Truco ₅₀₃ 02:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment Check the toolbox to your right; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC) The tool reads it dead but the links are alive and well.--Truco 503 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) No, they're still dead for me. [33], [34] and [35]. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "In contrast"-->By contrast Done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "This is the second time that Chua has won this award. She last won the award two years prior in the 17th Golden Melody Awards."-->Chua won the Best Mandarin award for the second time; she last won the award in the 17th Golden Melody Awards ("two years prior" seems unnecessary to me). Done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "are also the most " Done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "due to his tour schedule in China" Tour schedule, or tour? I think the latter. Done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "However, Chou's primary lyricist Vincent Fang was present to receive the award of Best Lyricist for the song "Blue and White Porcelain" (Chinese: 青花瓷; pinyin: qīng huā cí)." I don't see why "However" is here; this sentence does not contradict the previous one. Done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Why are award names italicized in the image captions? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Done I removed the italicization. Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources are mostly good, with the exception of the dead link. I don't mind, though I'm not sure what other reviewers will say. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• The dead links need to be resolved.

Partially done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed the GMA2008.asia website from the list of external links.
• I have removed Ref 10 because I don't think I can get that data back, and none of the pages from this GMA2008.asia page is archived. At this point, that detail seems too minor anyway.
• Ref 11 (now Ref 10) now has a Google archive. The content is readable.
• I have added a new reference for the performers section, but I don't know if I can get one for the award presenters section because that list also comes from the unarchived GMA2008.asia website (Ref 5). I have been unable to find a replacement. I am reluctant to remove it completely because that is a lot of content. This list can be cross-checked with the mirror article on the Chinese Wikipedia, which was added prior to the addition of the performers section here on the English Wikipedia.

*Ref 9, add format=PDF to the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Arsonal (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Image comments

• File:Jay Chou in Seoul.jpg needs a source and author.
• [[:File:ChurchoftheLight-jAdore.jpg]] – is this vital to an article about an awards ceremony? I could see it being in an article about the music video, but not here. Strongly suggest removal. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the image. Please discuss before reinstating it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Add alternative text to the images]] (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor errors that I fixed. I will come back and look at it closer soon. --Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [36].

---

Mercury Prize

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Following my literary success, the music one is next, hence my attempt here. List is 50% fatter than when I found it, is now appropriately cited, formatted nicely (in my opinion), illustrated with both free and fair use images, and is not a content fork. I'd be thrilled to bits to receive as much comment, suggestion, support or otherwise as possible. And, by now, you know that I'll be working 24/7/365 to fix up anything standing in the way of the list's promotion. Thank you, as ever, for your precious time in reviewing and commenting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Great work =] Lead The Mercury Prize, formerly called the Mercury Music Prize and currently known as the Barclaycard Mercury Prize for sponsorship reasons, is an annual music prize awarded for the best album from the United Kingdom or Ireland. -- Wouldn't it be "and" as opposed to or? Either is fine I think. The official website uses "or" so that's what I've gone for. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC) It is often observed that bands who are nominated for, or indeed win the prize experience a large increase in album sales, particularly for the lesser known nominees. -- +Comma after win the prize Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC) However, despite being regarded by many as highly prestigious,[7][8][9] it has been suggested that being nominated for or winning the Mercury Prize could be a curse on a career in music. -- Is there like a main reason as to why its regarded as such?--Truco 503 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Details added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "followed in 1998 by Technics,[3] in 2002 by Panasonic,[2] and from 2004 to 2008 the Nationwide Building Society. " Maybe I'm missing something, but what about 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2003? Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "or indeed win the prize" Not sure what "indeed" adds here. Gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "while Talvin Singh, the 1999 winner, was dropped by his record label soon after the award." "after the award" seems vague? Try this for size: "while Talvin Singh was dropped by his record label soon after winning the award in 2009." Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "Lanegan not being British"-->Lanegan's not being British to be grammatical Replaced with being American. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "is scheduled to be awarded on 8 September." You could do away with "scheduled". Done. PJ Harvey: Spaced ("P J" in the image caption), but unspaced in the table. Fixed caption. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "BRIT Awards" redirects to "The BRIT Awards". Actually, it redirects to "The Brit Awards" where it says "The Brit Awards, often simply called The Brits and stylized as The BRIT Awards..." - so I assume that any of those is acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The following comments all relate to redirects, or inconsistencies with names of people and albums. To save me from having to do this next time, I suggest you insert User:Splarka/dabfinder.js into your monobook.js. The script checks for redirects as well as disambiguation links. "Stereo MC's " According to the Wikipedia article, there's no apostrophe. "His'n'Hers"-->His 'n' Hers "Seven Last Words from the Cross" redirects to "Sayings of Jesus on the cross". "Caroline Mathilde" redirects to "Caroline Matilda of Great Britain". You might double check that all links are going where they're supposed to. "(What's the Story) Morning Glory" Question mark at the end. "Second Toughest In The Infants" "In The" not capitalized. "The Spice Girls" No "The". "Life Thru a Lens"-->Life thru a Lens "Chemical Brothers"-->The Chemical Brothers "MJ Cole" Dots after the M and J. Night on my Side redirects also, but Wikipedia's not consistent on it, so it needs to be sorted. "Boy in Da Corner"-->Boy in da Corner "Black Holes and Revelations" Ampersand, not "and". "Maths and English"-->Maths + English "The Young Knives" No "The". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Fixing... next time, just point me to the script, I'll do the work, that's my job. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Interestingly, that tool highlights the redirects but then says "don't fix them"... how curious. I'll get on and fix them anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I think it was referring to [37] Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I think so too. But still, you wanted 'em fixed so they are, indeed, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC) All fixed, including the ones you didn't highlight. Neat tool, thanks, it's good to learn new stuff here! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I thought the alt text was unnecessary as each image's caption described each image within the context of the list. However, I have added "alt text" regardless. It now reads a little childishly but I could not think of anything useful to add in each case. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Ignore that rant. alt text added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, will meet WP:WIAFL once alt text is added. Goodraise 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [38].

---

List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons

Nominator(s): Mlaffs (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it satisfies the criteria. This is my first nomination via this process. I did not create this article — it was created some time ago — however, I did make significant enhancements to it following a review of existing featured lists that are similar. I have also sought feedback at the relevant project talk page and via a peer review, and have made further changes based on the comments provided. Mlaffs (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - When viewing the article in a 1024x768 resolution, the images in the "Regular season results" section creates a big ugly white-space before the table starts (see here). The only way to fix it is by removing the images or somehow make the table smaller. TheLeftorium 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The pitfalls of working on a 1920x1200 setup, I guess — good point. I'm trying to recreate the problem by changing my resolution, but it's not creating the same problem as is obvious from your screenshot, so it's tough to solve it short of just stripping out the images. Question — how legible is the current font size in the table itself on that resolution? The table is set at 95% font right now. I've tried reducing it to 90% and it shrinks the width of the table by about 3/4 of on an inch on my screen, which I suspect may solve the problem. I'm just worried about it making the size too small to read. Mlaffs (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You'd have to reduce the text to around 75% for the problem to be solved on a 1024x768 resolution. I don't know if that is too small, but removing the images is a better option in my opinion. TheLeftorium 16:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • But they make the article look so pretty! No seriously, I was already a little worried about 90% on my large monitor, which is why I was asking the question in the first place — I don't think 75% would be a good idea. So, unfortunately, I'm off to nuke the images. Thanks for the feedback. Mlaffs (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Are we sure that it's the resolution causing this issue? I don't see any difference between List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons and this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
          • The only difference is the how the notes are formatted in the tables. List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons uses "[a]", while this list uses "[nb 1]" and thus makes the table longer. TheLeftorium 12:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see. I think that the pictures add a lot too, so I'd like to see them included. Might you consider either a) re-formatting the footnotes into the other system or b) putting an arbitrary linebreak so that the notes sit under their entries in the header rows? Also, while I'm here, all win-loss record should use en-dashes, and I would prefer that the "21.5" and "21.0" decimals be re-formatted as "21½" and "21", respectively. Looks cleaner. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Either way is fine with me. :) TheLeftorium 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I'd absolutely consider that — I'll have a look at the Phillies article and see how the coding on it is different from I've done here. Mlaffs (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I've made all the changes. TheLeftorium, I'd love it if you could let me know whether they've fixed the layout problem with the images. Mlaffs (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
                • I had to resize the images a few pixels but it works now. Also, in the lead, wouldn't it be better with an image from the inside of Rogers Centre (such as this one)? TheLeftorium 17:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, can't argue with that — nice find. Changed. Mlaffs (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Little known fact: I used to be a big Blue Jays fan, I was at game 2 of the 1993 World Series and the opening game of the 1994 season. If only I'd had the foresight to take pictures... But, I digress. A few comments, would it be possible to add in a table for their post-season record? That is a bit of a gaping hole at the moment. I think you should either add more images so that there are images alongside the entire table, or remove them all together. I'm leaning towards the latter, because they do crowd up the table and I'm not sure if they add a whole lot to the article. Rather than having the notes towards the bottom, perhaps you should instead add a key above the table, that would be of more use as it would be easier to find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm at about 15-20 home games a year myself, and was lucky enough to have a chance as a student to intern for NBC during the '89 ALCS, including time in both locker rooms after the game. Those would have been some pictures. Anyway... There is a column for the post-season showing their record each season, as well as a row at the bottom totalling their post-season record — did you have something else in mind? I'd love more images myself, but they just don't exist either here or on Commons that I could find, otherwise I would have included them. I'm reluctant to go without entirely — see discussion above — so I'd like to wait and see if there's any more feedback on this point, if you don't mind. Similarly, I'm kind of torn about the key above the table; among the other featured lists like this one, the Mets and Yankees articles use the key, while the DBacks, Phillies, and Rays articles are set up like this one. The Cardinals article doesn't provide any explanation of the abbreviations, and it's moot for the Red Sox article, as it doesn't include award winners in this manner. Again, if you don't mind, I'd like to chew on this a bit. Mlaffs (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

<rant directed at no one in particular> One of my pet peeves is the inconsistency of team articles of the same sports topic (e.g. seasons, Opening Day starting pitchers, managers, etc.). One of these days, WP:BASEBALL needs to come together and decide on a format. That would make reviewing these a hell of a lot easier</rant> ; Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I'm not a project member — more of an interloper, really — but a consistent approach would be great. Us gnomes can really make magic happen when we have an approved model to worth with. That being said, reminder below that there was an open issue served to remind me that there was an open issue up here as well. Scorpion0422, in case you're still watching the discussion, I think I'd prefer to stick with the notes rather than moving to the key. As with the totals issue, personal preference mostly, but there's also no real consistency among the existing featured lists in this series, nor has there really been any consensus among the comments here. Mlaffs (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the NBA coach lists have been remarkably consistent with each other. Making these lists consistent has been on my to-do list for ages. Scorpion's on vacation, by the way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• 'Toronto made their MLB debut in the 1977 baseball season, as an expansion team.' -- Better formatted as -> Toronto made their MLB debut during the 1977 baseball season, as an expansion team. Also, do not pipelink the word "the" in the link.
• 'After a stretch of unsuccessful years following their debut, the team's fortunes began to turn, resulting in them capturing the American League East Division in 1985.' -- A bit wordy, can't it just say that they won their division? Something like After a stretch of unsuccessful years following their debut, the team rebounded by topping the American League East Division in 1985.
• 'They lost the American League Championship Series (ALCS) to the Kansas City Royals, in a series that went the full seven games.' -- When was this?
  • I think that I'd want to address all three of these points by rewriting the text as follows: Toronto made their MLB debut during the 1977 baseball season, as an expansion team, and were unsuccessful for several years. They first made the playoffs in 1985, by capturing the American League East Division, but lost the American League Championship Series (ALCS) in seven games to the Kansas City Royals. Mlaffs (talk)
• 'However, in 1992, they became the first Canadian-based team to win the World Series, with a pair of six-game victories over Oakland in the ALCS and the Atlanta Braves in the finals.' -- Since this is a new paragraph, its not the best way to start with "However". How about In 1992, however, they .... Also, why do you call it the "finals" here and in the sentence that follows you call it the "World Series"? Be consistent.
• The lead should state something about their recent years.

Table

• It would be best IMO if the acronyms and other things that stand for something be explained above the table and not in the notes, thats what a key would be for.
  • That's two votes for the key approach versus footnotes — I've been mulling this over. Mlaffs (talk)
• 'These statistics are current as of the end of the 2008 Major League Baseball season.' -- Can this be at least like accompanied with an asterisk or seomthing that says "Note:"?

Images

• I'm not too big of a fan of how the captions are formatted, but how would "Name (pos., year-year)" fit?

References

• For the mlb.com refs, replace this field with "Major League Baseball" in the publisher field (w/o the quotes)
• For the baseball-reference refs, add "Sports Reference LLC" to the publisher field
• For the sportsillustrated.cnn.com ref, remove this and just leave "Sports Illustrated" in the publisher field.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything else above that doesn't have a specific response, and I'll work it all in shortly. Thanks for the detailed feedback. Mlaffs (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes vs. key I've created a duplicate version of the article in my userspace for comparison purposes, using a key at the top of the table for the column headings and the abbreviations, rather than having them in notes. Please see here. Mlaffs (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed both formats, and I think that a key of that size is much too large in comparison to a table of this length. Just my humble opinion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: have you considered using {{tooltip}}? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if WP:ACCESS would be very happy with that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not... Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, here it is in WP:ACCESS: "Don't use techniques that require physical action to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I hadn't considered it, as I didn't even know it existed. Wicked cool, though. Thinking outside the box, all of these "List of TEAM seasons" articles probably use essentially the same column headings and abbreviations. Would it be too weird and wacky an idea to have the key be a separate page — say Key of column headings and abbreviations for Major League Baseball List of seasons articles — to which all of the articles could point from a note right at the top of the table along the lines of See here for an explanation of the data and abbreviations used in this article. Too outside the box, right? Never fly? Mlaffs (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not as a page, but I don't see why that couldn't become a template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen many lists with keys of that size, some don't even use tables. I find it fine to use in the list.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

*Oppose – Found quite a few issues with the list during a close examination: "Toronto made their debut during the 1977 baseball season, as an expansion team". Tense issue, with singular (Toronto) and plural (their) items together. Changing the beginning of the sentence to "The Blue Jays" would take care of that. Also, move the reference here after the comma. The last few paragraphs have many uses of "they". Please consider changing a few to the team's name for more compelling prose. Does the given reference cover Toronto being the first Canadian team to win a championship? If not, a cite for that should be easy enough to find. That sentence has a redundant re-use of World Series. Not the easiest one to fix, but would be helpful if it could be done. Merge the last paragraph with the previous one to avoid having a stubby paragraph at the end of the lead. Also, the part about them regularly finishing behind the Yankees and Red Sox isn't cited. Consider adding a note saying where the year links in the table go, so readers will know that they are for team and league seasons and not just years themselves. The Yankees and Mets lists have them, if you need a guide. In the table, think about de-linking all instances of AL and East after the first season. This will avoid overlinking, which is undesirable. Could use a note on Alfredo Griffin being named co-Rookie of the Year, saying that the voting finished in a tie and naming the other winner. None of the See also links are necessary because they can be accessed through the team template at the bottom. Italicize the publisher in reference 13 (Sports Illustrated). The Toronto Blue Jays category is a main category and can be removed, since a seasons subcategory is included. Disambiguation link to Aaron Hill. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. First of all, let me just say that given what my usual area of focus here is, I'm mortified that Aaron Hill was a dab link — absolutely mortified. Otherwise, I've made a series of changes that I hope will address your concerns, and I'd be thankful if you'd have another look. The only point you've raised that I haven't addressed is in the seventh bullet above, regarding the multiple links to "AL" and "East". This section of the MoS suggests that each line of the table needs to stand on its own, and so the links should be retained. Mlaffs (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another idea I came up is to seperate the all-time records into their own table, as is done in the Yankees and Mets seasons lists that I worked on. It's not crucial enough for me to withhold support over, but I do feel it would improve the appearance of the bottom of the table.

I'll have a look at that. Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been left untouched. If you don't want to do this, feel free to say so; as I said, it's not a deal-breaker. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry — can't even blame it on the holiday weekend, as we had ours on the 1st. I just forgot to come back here. I think both approaches for the totals are good, although I think I prefer the way it is. More pragmatically, though, if I look at the other articles in this series that are already featured lists, it's consistent with more of them in the current form. Dabomb87 in their !rant above has a good point, though — would be worth knocking some heads together to come up with a consistent standard. Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's something that can be added to potentially improve the structure of these managers lists, like Giant's suggestion, by all means add/edit and make the other articles conform; if you need help coordinating the efforts to bring about consistency, ping me. Congrats on your RfA, by the way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I remember being told during the Yankees season list's FLC not to restrict the font size of the table identifying the colors. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, although not by me. Thanks, Dabomb87, and for that fraction template too — I've never seen that before. Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem; we learn something new every day! Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going on a short vacation starting tomorrow and will be unable to return until at least Monday. With the one comment unresolved unstruck, this gets a weak support from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to explain further before I go, I can't consider the unstruck comment fully resolved when Dabomb indicates that he would support the change; now I'm not the only reviewer who feels that way, although he's supporting. Most of the recent sports seasons FLs have seperate sections for all-time records, and I've found this method to be useful in my own work on FLs. As I said, however, it's not a deal-breaker for me, though I am tempering my support. It would be great a set format for the baseball season FLs, by the way. Something for me to think about when I come back. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice job. "Prior to"-->Before "and were unsuccessful for several years." Seems a bit POVish (success means different things to different people); also, you say right after that they made the playoffs in 1985 so it is understood when their first real "success" was. Em dashes in blank cells please. Don't abbreviate positions in the image captions. The first image caption should not have a period at the end since it's not a sentence. Notes h, q, and r need references. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC) All changes made. Thanks! Mlaffs (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until alternative text for images is added (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I have the coding wrong, I've already included alt text for all three images. I'll go back and read the instructions again in case I've done something wrong. Mlaffs (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I was looking at a different baseball FLC. Sorry, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [39].

---

List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's next in my series of USMA alumni lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

;Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) "at the United States Military Academy 2002-06-07" ISO format dates not usually encouraged in prose. Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Eisenhower needs endashes in all his date ranges. Wouldn't Dabombs bot have fixed that? I'll ask him. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Almost certainly - I wasn't aware you'd be using it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC) That's strange. I could have sworn it said nothing to be fixed. I see Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) fixed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "General of the Army; World War II;" why the semicolon between his rank and the war? why not a comma? Because it's a rank and this makes it consistent with the other entries. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Refs 25 and 26 have pp where p is needed (I would guess at pages= is being used in the template insted of page=) Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead 'A few graduates each year are given the option of entering the United States Air Force, United States Navy, or United States Marine Corps.' -- Wouldn't it be A select few graduates..? No, that implies a select process but it's mostly a matter of personal choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 'Before the founding of the United States Air Force Academy in 1955, the Academy was a major source of officers for the Air Force and its predecessors.' -- Is 'The Academy' an official title for the USMA, why not use USMA instead? Consistency throughout not only this list but the whole series of lists. There are several nicks for them and it's best to stay with one instead of flip flopping. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 'Other notable graduates include 2 Presidents of the United States, 18 astronauts, 4 additional heads of state, 74 Medal of Honor recipients,[6] 70 Rhodes Scholars, and 3 Heisman Trophy winners..' -- 1)What do you mean by 'additional heads of state'? The 'additional' is throwing me off. 2)Remove the extra period. Fixed both. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 'Among American universities, the academy is fourth on the list of total winners for Rhodes Scholarships, seventh for Marshall Scholarships and fourth for Hertz Fellowships.' -- Inconsistency, is it the academy? or the Academy (capitalized or not)? UC'd it to match all the others as it's a specific one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC) References If you are going to link one publisher, you either need to link all that can be linked or just remove the link. if you meant USDeptEdu, I unlinked it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC) --Truco 503 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "British Royal Society" redirects to Royal Society, and I've never seen any instance where the "British" is included. Then how do we know if it's British, Thai, Danish, etc? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It's usually known as the Royal Society of London. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That's not the article title. I'll just make it match the article title. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "founded of University of the South" Something's wrong. Either "founder of University of the South" or "founded University of the South" Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "longest serving superintendent"-->longest-serving superintendent Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "son Frederick August Mahan graduated from West Point in 1867" Readers might not make the connection that "West Point" is the same as USMA. Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "professor or mathematics" Typo? Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "author of Manual of Instruction for the Volunteers and Militia of the United States which was in use for over 145 years" Comma after "United States". Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "and died of complications eight days" What type of complications? I assume medical. Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I see inconsistency in ordinals; "1st Military Governor" but "fifteenth chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh". Words or numbers? changed to 15th. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "political science professor at University of Chicago (1982–present)" Comma after here. Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is ref 37 a magazine, newspaper or journal? If so, it should be italicized.

An online mag. To me that's a web ref, not a journal ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) about this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

She hasn't replied. This is hardly a major issue, so I don't mind letting it go. Also, I've seen other webzine Wikipedia articles that don't italicize, so I'll go with that. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [40].

---

List of Turner Prize winners and nominees

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Renominating. Despite having considerable support last time round, User:Tyrenius raised a number of concerns which caused me to withdraw the nomination and work the list up a bit. Hopefully I've addressed most, if not all of his concerns, and in doing so have created an even better list than the one I first nominated. Comments, concerns, questions will, as ever, be handled as quickly as possible. Thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes rather than quibble about minor things here; feel free to revert if I've accidentally reintroduced misphrasings that were picked up last time round. Looks good to me, so unless someone comes up with something I've not spotted, I'll support. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as I can tell, you've done nothing more than polish the existing markup (and inevitably claim that dark blue is the colour...) As ever, charmed, enchanted and grateful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - looks good —Chris! _ct 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I made a couple minor tweaks [41], and the bulk of my concerns were addressed last time around. Nice job. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• CommentSupport -- Looks good, I did a few minor tweaks but other than that the list meets WP:WIAFL. However, one thing: in this sentence 'Winners' reactions to the award range from Hirst's "A media circus to raise money for the Tate and Channel 4" to Deller's "It blew me away, people's hunger to see what I'd done".' -- It could use a link and full spelling of these winners.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All "first time links" are linked, including Tate Britain which wasn't linked anywhere in the prose (I think....!) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support as I did before...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [42].

---

List of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champions

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am submitting this for Featured List consideration as I feel like it's got the quality for it, I've worked in comments from previous FLCs. I know that right now the state of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship article doesn't initially warrant that the list is split off, but I am planning on expanding it pretty soo. As always I'm open to anything, major or minor. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead 'The CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship (Campeonato Mundial Semi Completo de CMLL in Spanish) is a professional wrestling championship promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) since 1991.' -- Based on the List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions list, it should be is a singles professional wrestling championship with a link to championship (professional wrestling) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'Being a professional wrestling championship it is not won legitimately; ' -- Comma after 'championship' Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'Being a professional wrestling championship it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline.' -- Link to storyline Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'The official definition of the Light Heavyweight weight class in Mexico is between 92 kg (200 lb) and 97 kg (210 lb), but the weight limits are not always strictly adhered to.' --> The official weight limit of the Light Heavyweight weight class in Mexico is between 92 kg (200 lb) and 97 kg (210 lb), but are not always strictly enforced. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'Because Lucha Libre puts more emphasis on the lower weightclasses, this divison is considered more important than the normally more prestigious heavyweight division of the promotion.' --> Because Lucha Libre emphasizes the lower weight classes, this division is considered more important than the normally more prestigious heavyweight division of a promotion. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The second paragraph should start with saying who the first champion was, not the current. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'Ephesto is the current champion, having held the title since May 26, 2009, this is Ephesto's first reign as Light Heavyweight Champion and he is the 11th overall champion.' -- This sentence needs to be reincorporated somewhere else in the second paragraph like in the list I mentioned above, it also needs a bit of rewording like it is in that list. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'As of June 26, 2009, Dr. Wagner, Jr. and Atlantis are the only two wrestlers to hold the title twice, Dr. Wagner, Jr. is listed as an unofficial three time champion in some places due to a title change that took place in 1996 in Japan, but the match was not sanctioned by CMLL and is therefor not officially recognized.' --> As of June 26, 2009, Dr. Wagner, Jr. and Atlantis are the only two wrestlers to hold the title twice; Dr. Wagner, Jr. is listed as an unofficial three-time champion, however, it is not recognized by CMLL. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'The first CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champion was Jerry Estrada who defeated Pierroth, Jr. in the finals of an 16-man tournament that took place between September 15 and September 26, 1991.' -- This should be the opening sentence, but reworded as The first champion to be recognized by CMLL was Jerry Estrada, who defeated Pierroth, Jr. in the finals of an 16-man tournament that took place between September 15 and September 26, 1991. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'Ephesto is currently the wrestler with the shortest reign, with &0000000000000030.00000030 and counting, the second shortest official reign is Jerry Estrada with 175 days, while Ultimo Guerrero has held it the for the longest period, at 1,309 days.' --> Current champion Ephesto's reign is currently the shortest reign, at 30 days, while Ultimo Guerrero's [state what reign this was] has held for the longest period, at 1,309 days. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Mention that Aquarius' reign that is not recognized by CMLL is actually the shortest. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Table Remove the period from the Aquarius reign. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'CMLL does not consider Dr. Wagner, Jr. a three time champion as they do not recognize Aquarius' title win.' --> CMLL does not recognize Dr. Wagner, Jr. as a three-time champion as they do not recognize Aquarius' title win. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Footnotes 'The most obvious case of this is Mephisto, who currently holds the CMLL World Welterweight Championship, a belt with a 78 kg (170 lb) upper limit despite weighing 90 kg (200 lb).' --> The most recent case of this is Mephisto currently holding the CMLL World Welterweight Championship, a belt with a 78 kg (170 lb) limit despite weighing 90 kg (200 lb). Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 'In the age before the Internet, "unofficial" title changes occured from time to time especially if the regions were far apart, but if they were not officially mentioned by the promotion they are not considered part of the official title history.' --> Reword, confusing better?. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified to satisfy WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "but are not always strictly enforced" "are"-->is (only one definition) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "The current champion is Ephesto, who is the 11th overall champion" Fixed MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "two wrestlers to hold the title twice"-->two wrestlers to have held the title twice Fixed MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "Dr. Wagner, Jr. is listed as an unofficial three-time champion, however, it is not recognized by CMLL"-->Dr. Wagner, Jr. is listed as an unofficial three-time champion, but he is not recognized as such by CMLL Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "Current champion Ephesto's reign is currently the shortest reign" You already said that Ephesto is the current champion, and "currently" is redundant. You are correct, since he's a reigning champion I'll have to watch on the length of his reign if it surpasses the second longest. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Em dashes (—) in the blank cells please. This is not within the standard of the professional wrestling championship lists, not even the most recent Featured Lists, I do not see what the dash accomplishes than the current empty note cell doesn't. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Most non-wrestling FLs use em dashes. I think they look better, and they let the reader know the cells are supposed to be empty, not that the list is incomplete. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Note 2: "Internet" should be capitalized, and remove "ever". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC) The ones I saw with em dashes still did not use them in the notes section, it was used in sports under various stats to indicate that there were none but the notes were still empty. I'm not trying to intentionally be contrary here but it goes against the standard of pro wrestling lists and I have myself been trying to tell people who edit wrestling that there need to be a reason other than "One person says so" to change the general way to do things. Let's be fair here, it's the notes section people will realize that if there is no notes then nothing unusual happened. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) It's not a major issue, so I won't pursue. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Good, I searched high and low to be sure they're reliable. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – "who defeated Pierroth, Jr. in the finals of an 16-man tournament that took place between September 15 and September 26, 1991." "an" → "a". Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Some of the notes in the key and table have periods, while others do not. Any reason for that? No periods in key now, only one in the note where it's a fulls entence In the secondary table, de-capitalize "Of Reigns" and "Days" in the column headings. This is not the first time I've mentioned this problem in wrestling title lists. I've never seen it mentioned but it's definitely a very quick fix, something I'll be sure to check in the future. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Footnote 2: Remove space before comma. Fixed MPJ-DK (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Replace the spaced hyphens in the book page ranges with unspaced em dashes. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And done, thank you for your input. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Support – I believe it meets the standards after the resolution of the capped comments. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 04:57, 8 July 2009 [43].

---

Dream Theater discography

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki (talk), Burningclean (talk), and Blackngold29 (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the request of add sources for all the directors (music videos section), and reword the lead section were done. Cannibaloki 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Checked.--Cannibaloki 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) There are a couple of references that are broken 5, 39 and 17.--Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The threesome"-->The trio Done. "The group signed with Mechanic Records and released its debut album When Dream and Day Unite in 1989." Comma after "Records". Done. "LaBrie's debut album was Images and Words, which remains the band's only gold-certified album by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), for sales of more than 500,000 copies."-->LaBrie's debut album was Images and Words, the band's only gold-certified album by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), having sold more than 500,000 copies. Done. "the band's lastest studio album Systematic Chaos." "lastest" is not a word. Try "the band's latest studio album, Systematic Chaos." Done. "and DVDs in throughout the world. Done. What references the bootlegs and the fanclub releases? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The band's official website: www.dreamtheater.net--Cannibaloki 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Can you make it a general reference or something? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Kiac (talk)

Comments - Howdy. Instead of Long Island, I would have thought American would suffice in the lead. Reworded to "an American band from the United States." Is this LIVE capitalisation correct? MUSTARD doesn't really allude to it, but I think it is dubious because it is merely a self-adopted style issue and not really necessary in a title. I changed to the standards of Wikipedia; originally just copied the title of the article as it is today. (understand?) Understood. You have an extended denotes releases note at the bottom of the Studio and video album tables, any reason for this? Otherwise, you may wish to make this consistent to remove any chance of confusion. Done. ("—" denotes releases that did not chart or the info was removed by some vandal.) hehe :) Chaos in Motion: 2007–2008 live album it says Roadrunner Records, should be → [[Roadrunner Records|Roadrunner]] "Chaos in Motion" is a double DVD, which was also released in a 5-disc special edition including a live album (total = 2 DVD + 3 CD). Crappy explanation on my part - just meant change Roadrunner Records to just Roadrunner... Perhaps put the Peak chart positions row in above the charts in the Singles table Done. What makes these "Fanclub releases" notable? Just out of curiosity. If they haven't received any significant coverage besides their own website, then I'm not entirely convinced. Nevertheless, I'm not going to deny an FLC over an issue like this. I agree with you, but these "official fan club releases" were not added by me. (see Revision as of 22:43, 25 April 2009) Caps in the Fanclub section: The Making Of Falling Into Infinity → of Once In A LIVEtime Outtakes → in a Cleaning Out The Closet → the Scenes From A World Tour → a Four Degrees Of Radio Edits → of Taste The Memories → the A Walk Beside The Band → the Images And Words → and Sources look fine. That's all I've got. Nice work Cannibaloki. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Well done sir, well done... Cannibaloki 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Building on the comments below, I have a few helpies. Source for the director. Roadrunner issue was re-phrased above. For release dates, add external links to Allmusic, Discogs and Musicbrainz - whilst adding gen. refs to their website, Rolling Stone and Allmusic discographies. Will happily support following these. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC) All done.--Cannibaloki 19:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all resolved. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Oppose. I don't usually review discogs because I'm not very good and have no experience. However here are a few comments because the closure log is requesting reviews on this. I have citation concerns. 1993, Live at the Marquee: There are 10 country of release columns and only 6 entries. The last four are missing. So did they not chart (mdash) or have you just not found the chart positions for it in the NLD, NOR, SWI, and the UK yet. Live at Marquee was incorrectly moved from EPs to live albums section, but I fixed it. (understand?) This piping, U.S. chart peak, is misleading. Anyone who didn't hover over the wikilink would probably think that is meant on the main chart (which is the Billboard Hot 100 if I recall correctly). However this is just some more minor chart. I transformed this whole circus into a table "totally excellent!" I want to check that this is not the case for "Japan chart peak", and that it refers to the main Oricon singles chart. Yes, Oricon singles chart. What is the criteria for having seperate tables for "Singles" and "Other charted songs". I'd have thought it would be something to do with a physical release, however this seems to indicate there was a physical release for Pull Me Under. Other charted songs = "radio-promo-only-singles" Surely if there was a CD of Pull Me Under, it wasn't only a radio-promo-only-single. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Product Description: 2 Track Radio Advance Single 1 Pull Me Under (MTV version) 4:49 2 Pull Me Under (edit) 6:01 "2-Track Radio Advance Single" = promo-single (ha! John)--Cannibaloki 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) What makes Zobbel (ref 16) a reliable source, because I didn't find it listed here. All the other sources used were listed there or were from the direct charting company Zobbel use books as sources, see Bibliography of Chartography That RIAA site for certifications doesn't seem to make a distinction between "Images and Words: Live in Tokyo" and "Images and Words: Live in Tokyo/5 Years in a LIVEtime" as you claim in the table. I find only mention of the latter. Fixed. The Billboard ref does not cite "Images and Words" at no. 60, it doesn't even mention it. Images & Words peaked at number 61. (the ref. was added) Ref 39 claims to cite Pierre Lamoureux as director but has no mention of it. These are serious problems and should have [ not in citation given ] tags. There may be others like this as I haven't checked them all. Take a look again, please. Yes you fixed it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Is anything citing any of the release dates? General ref. for Allmusic I see you recently added this, but it still doesn't always give the Month DD, only the year in some cases e.g.[44][45]. You'll also need something to verify the Month DD bit. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) All fixed.--Cannibaloki 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Consistency issues e.g. Live albums: 2008: Chaos in Motion: 2007–2008 - Label: Roadrunner Records, wheras in Studio albums you just call it Roadrunner "Chaos in Motion" live album? Yes, there used to be one there but you removed it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Not a live album.--Cannibaloki 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. The reason I don't really reviewing discogs is because there is little variety and lots of refs to check. But check out they do and I have no further problems here, so I'm happy to lend my support. Well done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments I also know little about reviewing a discography's but below are a couple suggestions.

• I ran the article through AWB and nothing turned up there.
• The lead and table structure looks good.
• I think a little verbage would be useful for each of the sections of the different types of albums. I personally don't know the difference between a studio album and a compilation album is an I hope I am not alone.--Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there is a link to studio album and compilation album in the first sentence of the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's what wikilinks are for. It is very common terminology in the music industry. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose It still has many issues though. The lead section for example, is much too short.--Matthew Riva (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:29, 5 July 2009 [46].

---

List of Gold Glove Award winners at shortstop

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So I've grown tired of "I am nominating this for featured list because...". Same stuff, different day. I hope we all enjoy reading about the defensive exploits of one of the most defensive positions in all of baseball. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: this is your fourth running FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I didn't know if there was an issue with that. I try to keep on top of them so there are no outstanding issues for an extended period of time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your FLCs are usually low-maintenance, and you're an experienced FLC editor, so I'm not worried. Just making sure you knew. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't plan on having more than this open, because the outfielders are coming soon and that one takes FOREVER... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Wow, no errors. Meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Ozzie Smith has won the most Gold Glove Awards at shortstop; "the Wizard of Oz" took home 13 awards in his 19 seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals" It's not clear that Ozzie Smith is synonymous with "the Wizard of Oz". The DYK reviewers didn't seem to have a problem with it; it's pretty obvious to me (maybe because I wrote it) that the entire sentence refers to one person. What would you suggest? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) A slightly longer, but more clear sentence (IMO): "Ozzie Smith, known as "the Wizard of Oz", has won the most Gold Glove Awards at shortstop; he took home 13 awards in his 19 seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals." Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "Dave Concepción won five awards,[10] and four-time winners at shortstop include Tony Fernández and Alan Trammell." The connection between five- and four-time winners isn't close enough to warrant a comma, maybe a semicolon? I didn't think five words was enough to warrant the usage of a semicolon, plus I tend to overuse them as is, so I was trying to keep the number down. It's not really a length thing; more of textual flow and boundaries. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: exercises in textual flow (ex. 3, question B) for what I mean, because I can't explain it well :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) OK, well, I don't need an excuse to use another semicolon. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "Hall of Famers to win Gold Glove Awards" "to win"-->to have won or who have won Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "and the American League leader is Belanger (552 in 1974)"-->while Belanger (552 in 1974) leads in the American League Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Incorrect usage of "while", isn't it? They didn't happen concurrently. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Caught me! Use "and" if you wish. The main problem was the phrasing, which didn't read quite right. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Rephrased a bit. Better now? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I couldn't find any problems either. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

I also ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor things that I fixed. Mostly related to references.--Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What AWB did was break references that were intentionally placed where it considered to be "misplaced". Please don't run AWB on the other articles; they are in a different order intentionally. If you need to know why, I can tell you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if it did not function as intended but its too late I already ran it through all the articles that appeared to need a change. With that said, there is no way for AWB to know if the references where placed due to personal preference and it is likely that someone else will happen by and make the same change eventually so its good to find that out now. Aside from the personal prefence placement of the references the MOS also states that there should not be a space between punctuation and references so thats why I removed the speces before the references. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But the spaces that you removed were not with punctuation. I'm well aware of the MOS and its reference requirements; the spaces that were removed were all in tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Um yes your right it was in the table but only in the references column of the table. I am going to drop a line on the AWB site to have them modify the logic so it does not remove the space after a pipe and well see what they say about it. I still think that space should be removed in accordance with the the MOS. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it makes no difference in the way it displays, WP:MOS#Internal consistency should apply here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:29, 5 July 2009 [47].

---

List of Olympic medalists in snowboarding

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been debating with myself for a few months about whether or not I should try to take this page to FLC, because the main portion of it is rather small - 14 items, and some may believe it fails 3b. It doesn't help matters that Snowboarding at the Winter Olympics is basically a stub (although it could easily be expanded quite a bit). However, I think it passes based on its notability and because WP:OLYMPICS has a long-established guideline and the page is simply following it. I guess notability is relative, but I've always seen 3b as being more against small lists of questionable notability rather than against all small lists. So, this is one of the smaller lists I've worked on, but I decided to try it because even if it fails, it'll still be a near-FL page, which is good enough for me (and, in 8 months, it will grow).

You'll notice that the table is a little different than some of the other similar FLs. I decided to try using {{flagIOCmedalist}} rather than {{flagIOCathlete}}. I also used a "details" link, similar to what is used in the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medalists. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good, but I prefer consistency. I slightly prefer the details link because it is more obvious, but since the Olympics medalist lists are so related, the same should be done for all. I also significantly prefer the athlete template; if you changed due to the comment at WT:OLY, I disagree with that discussion. The linked abbr is better than having the flag and the italisiced name and the abbr. Whatever you think, but I can help changing if it's a lot. I do like how you described what the events are in the lead. Reywas92^Talk 22:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC) And I have no problem at all with the length. There is subtantial information, will (eventually) grow, and can be separate for consistency. Hopefully the main article will also be expanded. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I switched to the athlete template because since the details are used, the rows are double spaced, and using the template filled them. I'll switch back to the old one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support All looks great. Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead 'Swiss athlete Philipp Schoch is the only snowboarder to win two gold medals, having won the parallel giant slalom in 2002, then successfully defended his title in 2006' -- IDK, but I think defending would sound better here than 'defended' Fixed. 'In the men's half-pipe event, Americans have won six of nine medals, and in 2002 Americans won all three medals in the event.' -- Comma after 2002. Added. References Link to IOC and ESPN.--Truco 503 02:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Added a link to IOC, but ESPN is already linked once. As always, thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--Truco 503 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.Truco ₅₀₃ 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "was one of few new sports or disciplines added to the Winter Olympic programme between 1992 and 2002, and was the only one not to have been a previous medal or demonstration event." Instead of "few", can you add the actual number? That's a typo. It's supposed to say five. Fixed. "to win two gold medals"-->to have won two gold medals, Fixed. "It is the only medal sweep by one nation to occur in snowboarding."-->It is the only medal sweep by one nation to have occured in snowboarding. Done. "14 medals, including five gold medals, more than any other nation" "14...five" is a bit jarring. Make 'em consistent please. Done. A lot of the red "details" links could be fixed by using section links. For example, women's halfpipe in 2002 could go to Snowboarding at the 2002 Winter Olympics#Halfpipe. I'll see if it's possible (because a template is used). My problem with doing that is that if pages are created (and they likely will be eventually), then the links would not be correct. "Medals per year" Per WP:MOSBOLD, we shouldn't be using bold for symbols (maybe italics). This should probably be remedied in other lists too. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - I am hesitant to support fully because I don't like how the main article is still a stub (3b concern). But I agree with nominator that the Olympic Games is notable and that lists should be consistent. Also, the list looks okay.—Chris! _ct 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – "In snowboarding cross, competitiors race down a course with jumps". Typo hiding in here. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The typo was fixed during a round of changes by Parutakupiu, but I found a couple of new glitches that crept in. It's common for this to occur, but they should still be fixed before promotion.
    • "In 1998, four events, two for men and two for women, were disputed in two specialities". I wouldn't call Olympic events "disputes". There was nothing wrong with "held", the word used when I first reviewed the list.
    • "In this event, competitors race against each other down a a course with jumps, beams and other obstacles." One typo was traded for another. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Reverted the verb change and fixed the typo. Thanks for pointing out those. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Support – All my comments were addressed, and everything seems up to par. It is a short list, but the main article could be expanded in a similar way as the wrestling title articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:29, 5 July 2009 [48].

---

List of national parks of Sweden

Nominator(s): TheLeftorium 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list status because I've been working on it for a few days and I think it meets the FL criteria now. It is partly based on the featured list List of National Parks of Canada. TheLeftorium 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question Shouldn't this be "List of National Parks of Sweden" with capital N and P?--Crzycheetah 00:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

These nation park lists seem very inconsistent, some have capitalization, some don't. I think it should be in lower case unless it is used as proper noun.—Chris! _ct 01:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that in the case of List of National Parks of Canada, "National Parks of Canada" is the name of the actual organization, so I figured that was the most suitable title for it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't review the references, but besides that, it seems like a solid list. Eklipse (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I noticed no problems when read the list. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the capitalization issue is a separate one and doesn't seem to affect the list much as a move will fix that quite easily, hence my support - also color should be accompany with symbols per WP:ACCESS—Chris! _ct 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

EPA? On the first use of Environmental Protection Agency mention EPA Done "200,000 ha (490,000 acres)" - write hectare in full and link it; link acre, too. Done The first section needs to be renamed. "National parks", maybe? Because "list" is very ambigious; also, there is a list in the second section, too. Done As Chris mentioned, color shouldn't be the only indicator. Done "A river delta in Sarek National Park." - no period is needed Done For the last three captions in the first section, add some info. Be creative! Just the park name is very dull. Done "Dalarna, Gävleborg, and Västmanland County" - Dalarna, Gävleborg, and Västmanland counties Done "Örebro County and Västra Götaland County" - Örebro and Västra Götaland counties Done Same with the location column. When I sort it alphabetically, Örebro County comes last. Same as above. The {{Sister}} template should always be located at the top of the last section in the article. Done Could you also add the English translations for the publishers? Done

• • It's very confusing to see Ängsö National Park listed last. Assuming the list is alphabetical, most readers expect to see it at the beginning, don't they?
    • "ÅÄÖ" are the three last letters of the Swedish alphabet.
      • en.wikipedia.org is an English encyclopedia.--Crzycheetah 05:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I don't know how to fix that. When you sort it alphabetically, Ängsö and Örebro County still comes last.
          • You could try "{{sort|Angso National Park|[[Ängsö National Park]]}}", and move the row to the correct location. That's how it's aphabetized in English. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks, all fixed. TheLeftorium 10:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Since you added the map, there's a useless horizontal scrollbar. Are you able to fix the template?
    • I don't know what's causing that either. I'll ask Reywas92.

--Crzycheetah 01:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! TheLeftorium 09:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Please have titles of the NP articles be consistent. Many links in the table with "National Park" in the title redirect to a title with just the name, like Dalby Söderskog National Park, which redirs to Dalby Söderskog. Please check all of them and move some to include the full name. Unless it's a special exception or is not only an NP, they should all have National Park in the title. All official names seem to include it [49]
  • Done.
    • Great. I think Muddus, Padjelanta, and Stora Sjöfallet could be moved as well, and Sonfjället National Park should be changed to Sånfjället National Park.
      • Yeah, I need to add them to Wikipedia:Requested moves delete them with Template:Db-move first.
        • All done.
• Can we have a map? The article I linked to has a simple numbered map already on WP, and the EPA site has a pretty colored one with names, but I don't know if it's useable.
  • Would a map like the one used here be good?
    • A clickable map? That would be great! You can use File:Sweden location map.svg. I've also worked with these. See Template:Indiana NHLs map, replacing "USA Indiana" with "Sweden". I can help if you get me a set of coordinates. Reywas92^Talk 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll try to make it look Template:Indiana NHLs map. I have started on it here.
        • I have added the map now.
• Perhaps you could have a link to each NP's site from the EPA.
  • Done.

I don't know. The list is good, but I think that neither this nor the Canadian one is the best it can be. I wrote the FL List of National Monuments of the United States, which has more info. There could be a photo for each NP, but only if that's possible. I would really like a short description of what's actually in the NPs. We've got a nice list of names, but why are they special? Reywas92^Talk 15:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can add something. Thanks for taking a look! :) TheLeftorium 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All done. TheLeftorium 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Great job!! Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support All looks alright. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose No need to relink Swedish language in lead. You mention World Heritage Sites in the lead but not Protected Area Network Parks. Could you briefly cover what that means please? "is comprised of " is generally considered to be incorrect. "is composed of" or "comprises" are more generally acceptable. "Baltic Sea that is dominated " that is=redundant. "and the waters of " the waters of=redundant. "Deciduous forest surrounded by a 56 meters (184 feet) wide earth bank takes up a large part of the park" doesn't read well to me. Is there a missing "that" after bank? "with abound 30 " about? "meadows rich with flowers " reads like a tourist brochure, not an encyclopedia. " moraine hills that are covered with virgin forest " that are=redundant. " borders to Norway " remove "to" "deep valleys sculpted by the sea" tourist brochure again. 4192 ->4,192 Establishes heading is odd - Date of establishment? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC) All done, thanks for reviewing. TheLeftorium 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - nice to see what you have done with this article in the four years since I last edited it. Fine map. / Fred-J 11:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Please double check your future nominations for plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Strong Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Plagiarism concerns: The basis of my opposition. These are just three examples picked at random; I'm afraid to look for more: Article: "Garphyttan National Park consists of landscape which has been formed by humans through agriculture and forestry" Source: "Garphyttan national park consists of ancient cultural landscape – land which has been formed by people through agriculture and forestry." Article: "Norra Kvill is a well-preserved ancient forest" Source: "Norra Kvill is something unique - a well-preserved ancient forest" Article: "The park is known for its ancient farm landscape in the archipelago environment, the spring flowers, and the varied bird life." Source: "The foremost sights of Ängsö are the ancient farm landscape in the archipelago environment, the spring flowers and the varied bird life." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Other things: "system of protected areas which represent"-->system of protected areas that represent "An additional six parks will be established between 2009 and 2013."-->Six parks will be established between 2009 and 2013. "are covered with broadleaf forest and together only cover approximately 2,000 ha (4,900 acres)." "with around 30 islands located in " "around"-->about I see text copied from the source,: Woah, whoa, hold on a sec. I would never plagiarize a source on purpose. Seriously, I meant to add quotations to the POV-ish sentences but I simply forgot. I will immediately do that where I feel they are necessary and rewrite as much as I can in my own words. TheLeftorium 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not saying you did it on purpose, only that this is a serious issue that needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Alright. "Plagiarism" concerns have been taken care of: [50] (I think there's some copyediting in there too). TheLeftorium 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The rest has been fixed as well (though I'm not sure what you mean about "I see text copied from the source", as I can't find anything else that has been copied from the source). Thanks for taking a look! TheLeftorium 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Comment I had to remove most of those quotation marks. Although they are the same words the source used, they should be used as paraphrases, not quotes. You can quote a sentence, but not just a generic word. Quotation marks around a single word are misconstrewed as scare quotes and are taken the wrong way. Either just write it as a paraphrase that happens to use one of the same words, or find a synonym. Reywas92Talk 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) That I did not know. I have reworded the sentences so that they don't sound too much like the source. :) Thanks, TheLeftorium 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Comment There's a dead link (check the toolbox to your right). I'll try to revisit today or tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "used as a landmark for seafarers" Can this be rephrased? It is the exact wording as that used in the source. Further spot checks revealed no problems. Dead links need to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks! TheLeftorium 10:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:29, 5 July 2009 [51].

---

List of convicted computer criminals

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is round 2 for this article. All the problems/comments were resolved during the review process except for a request for a good copyedit. The copyedit has since been completed so resubmitting the article. Esemono (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• The list looks great after the copyedit, and my comments were resolved in the old FLC; however, the only thing that stands out now is that the publishers in the refs need to either be all linked (those with articles) or do not link any at all. I.e. link to CNET Networks.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done -- Esemono (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment - does the list contain all notable convictions of computer crime? I just want to make sure per the comprehensiveness criteria. I am leaning to support—Chris! ct 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC) All entries on the list are either notable computer criminals or their crimes are notable thus ensuring that all entries are notable convictions of computer crime. -- Esemono (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I seem to hark on about this, but reference dates should be consistent. Currently I see two formats "Month DD, YYYY" and "DD Month YYYY". Both are fine but it should be used consistently, per this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to consistent fate format. -- Esemono (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I copy-edit the article slightly, and do not see any serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oppose for now. In the introduction, the last sentence mentions Ancheta who was convicted for controlling botnets "to do his bidding". I think some specific details are needed here, what were the botnets used for? Spamming? ID theft?

fixed -- Esemono (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the sentencing dates have specific dates, and some do not. I was unable to verify the date of sentencing using the reference provided for Jan de Wit, and the Richard Jones reference specifically states he pled guilty on June 3, 1993. The penalty for Gerald Wondra is missing a cite. These inconsistencies are no small issue and seem to indicate a lack of thorough copyediting. If necessary, I would add citations to the sentencing dates for full transparency and just to be sure there are no errors. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cleared up the confusion for de Wit and while Richard Jones reference states he pled guilty on June 3, 1993 that doesn't mean he was sentenced the same day. Wondra's cite while was in the conviction column so I also added it to the sentencing dates for full transparency and just to be sure there are no errors. Also double checked, and confirmed all dates for the rest of the criminals. -- Esemono (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• It looks better, but some entries have the year only, while some have dates. Are some of the specific dates not available? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah I can only find the year for Abene. I know when he started the jail sentence, Jan, 1994, and who sentenced him, Louis L. Stanton, but no specific date. Same with the Australian hackers Phoenix, and Electron. Their case too I can only find the year. -- Esemono (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• According to Abene himself, he was sentenced in 1993. Is he mistaken about the exact year, or am I missing something? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cool you found a recent interview! But no more specifics eh? No exact date?-- Esemono (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you when he was indicted. I found another link that narrows it down to in the "last week". And this one which seems to indicate it happened on Nov 3. But I couldn't find any specifc dates for anyone else either, so I'm satisfied. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "criminal convictions were rare because there was an informal code of ethics." Can you expand on this? It doesn't really explain how the ethics prevented convictions, nor the people who followed the code. Cleared up -- Esemono (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC) OK, but you didn't really explain what kind of "ethics" they follow. It's obviously not ethics in the conventional sense since hacking, simply put, is not an ethical practice. Also, "white hat hackers" is overlinked now. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Has this been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I think you're confusing the subject of this article. This is a list of computer criminals not a detailed history/explanation on hacker subgroups. The intro should just BRIEFLY touch on the main points that correspond to the list. If the reader wants to find out more then they will click on the links to Hackers. -- Esemono (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC) True. I won't pursue. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "He then went on to sell the botnets"-->He then sold the botnets fixed -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The numbers are inconsistently formatted in the table. We have "9 monts" (typo, too) but "Fifty seven months" and "400 hours". If you're going to spell out all the numbers, numbers between between 21 and 99 use hyphens (e.g. twenty-one and ninety-nine). Generally, though, numbers under ten are spelled out and everything else is in numeral form. Fixed to follow numbers under ten are spelled out and everything else is in numeral form format --Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "US$8,054" But "AUS $1,000 " fixed -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "One year jail sentence"-->One-year jail sentence fixed -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "Six month prison sentence"-->Six-month prison sentence fixed -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "One year six month suspended sentence"-->One year and six months suspended sentence Dabomb87 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) fixed -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Magazines, journals, and newspapers should be in italics. You can achieve this by changing publisher= to work= in the citation template.

• The article doesn't cite any Magazines, journals, or newspapers. The cite templates used are book and web. -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• The New York Post and Wired are publications. It doesn't matter if you use their websites; you still italicize their names. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed as requested -- Esemono (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since this is the English Wikipedia, you don't need (in English) in the citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose

• My concerns are not so much with the prose, the sources or the technicality of the sorting etc. My problem is: what's the criteria for inclusion? How is it decided who goes on the list and who doesn't? What's the lowest cut off point? And frankly can a list with such an "open" definition ever be exhaustive? I just don't see how this list is complied and thus would not know how to add to it. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The criteria is listed in the intro and only those who are notable criminals or have done notable crimes are included. -- Esemono (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The criteria for what constitutes a "Computer criminal" is defined yes in a very broad sense, in this definition hacking your boss' mail would make you a computer criminal. What makes one a "notable criminal" however is vague at best. I mean if say "Mark Abene" had only been convicted of the misdemeanor would that count? He's a criminal, but maybe not "notable" - and there is no way to say that these twenty-something criminals are the only "notable convinced criminals" out there? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes stealing and reading someone's mail is a criminal offense. Not sure where you're getting the ages from, the list ranges from early 20s to early 40s which makes sense considering the computer industry is only a few decades old. And Mark Abene wasn't only convicted of a misdemeanor and a quick google search will confirm that he is quite famous and notable. Also, the article will be able to handle the notable question just like other featured lists like, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, or the List of Dartmouth College alumni -- Esemono (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not ages, there are 23 entries on the list, does not sound like it's a very exhaustive list, just the 23 that you happened to find sources for. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• As talked about before, this is a comprehensive list of Notable computer criminals. The people are chosen because they are notable or involved in a notable crime. I was able to find references for these people because they are notable. The list will be able to be controlled by limiting the amount of people to just notable people much like the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, or the List of Dartmouth College alumni -- Esemono (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, it seems like it has not been a problem in other articles, I withdraw my objection. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor errors that I fixed. I will come back and look at it closer soon.

• I also noticed that there are a couple of unformatted references (missing brackets or missing the proper cite template). --Kumioko (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:29, 5 July 2009 [52].

---

List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees

Nominator(s): Strikehold (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. Strikehold (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – looks good to me, very informative, useful and accessible. That's quite a compliment, as I know absolutely nothing about either American football or the Terrapins. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Got two questions. Why is the All-Americans table aligned center? And is there a reason why the tables are not sortable?—Chris! _ct 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not really. Is that better? I nested the key and All-Americans table inside an invisible table and aligned the table to the left margin and centered the key above it.
• For consistency and appearance mainly. The All-ACC table is really long, and would make scrolling a pain, so I cut it into thirds. Making it sortable like that would defeat the purpose of sorting (if that makes sense). Ditto the UM Hall of Fame table. Strikehold (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I see what you mean. I am closed to be able to support, though I would like other more experienced reviewers to look at the prose before supporting.—Chris! _ct 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - —Chris! _ct 01:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support — I was asked to do a pre-FLC review and copy edit, which I performed. Even with that, I didn't find very much to fix. It's a clean and clear list that simply looks nice. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – During a review I did before this came to FLC, I noticed two photos that were licensed as in the public domain, but no evidence existed on the images' pages that they were published before 1923, as stated. Has an effort been made to research this further? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• For everyone's awareness, Giants2008 is referring to the lead image (Maryland/Johns Hopkins) and the last image (Curley Byrd). Both were without a doubt produced before 1923, but there is a question as to whether they were actually published before then. The source (Univ. of Maryland library system) is not clear on that point. I replaced the lead image with one that was published in 1915, and am looking for a suitable replacement for the Curley Byrd image. I might also send an e-mail to the Univ. of Maryland to see if they can shed light on the publication dates for the two images in question. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Still haven't found a definitive answer to this, so I removed the picture. I believe this addresses the image issue. Strikehold (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "and it has participated in the sport " Alright I changed that. "During periods of both ascendancy and mediocrity, individual Maryland players of exceptional ability have received various accolades." The first phrase "During ... mediocrity" and "of exceptional ability" seem superfluous to me. The first is irrelevant, and the second seems obvious; players with ordinary abilities probably wouldn't win the award. I don't think it's superfluous, because it is seemingly contradictory. One would expect great teams' players to get awards and honors, but not necessarily ones on poorly performing teams. As shown in the list, they've had players get these even when the teams were bad (e.g. Dick Shiner in the 1960s and LaMont Jordan in the 1990s). "Terrapins have won several prestigious individual awards, including the Chuck Bednarik Award, the Dick Butkus Award, the Lombardi Award, and the Outland Trophy, each of which recognizes the best player at a particular position in a given season. " What makes the awards "prestigious"? How about nationally recognized? I don't know, do you have a suggested change? "nationally recognized" works for me. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Okay, replaced. "Over time, the sources used to determine the consensus selections have varied." I've slightly retooled that and the following sentence based on the comment below, but that word is still necessary for clarity's sake in my opinion. It indicates that it has been a gradual progression of selectors being recognized and un-recognized by the NCAA. "Currently, the NCAA uses five selectors " "Currently" is a dated word. If the number changes often, you may want to use {{as of}}. I used that since I didn't know what year they started using those five. I've found that information and added it. "In 1923, end Bill Supplee was selected" Link to end? Okay, linked. "which made him the first, and thus far only, Maryland player to receive the honor twice."-->which made him the only Maryland player to receive the honor twice thus far. Suggested change is awkward in my opinion. "and twelve Terrapins received All-Southern Conference honors a total of fourteen times." "twelve"--12 and "fourteen"-->14 per WP:MOSNUM WP:MOSNUM: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million". I changed to make this usage uniform. "second or third teams an additional sixty times"-->second or third teams an additional 60 times Ditto. "then-school record "-->then-school-record Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not certain that anything should be hyphenated here actually. I've avoided the problem by changing to "a school-record six...", since it is clear in the next sentence that that record did not stand. The "All Conference honorees" table has "References" at the bottom but only provides one reference. Changed to singular. "Comparatively speaking, Maryland's" I've never heard the word used like that, so I changed to "By comparison" "eight different organizations" Changed. "At 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m)" Primary units (feet and inches here) should be spelled out in full on their first appearance. Expanded. "who had led Maryland to a school-record 22-game winning streak and an upset victory in the 1952 "Game of the Century"." You might mention the team Maryland played against in the Game of the Century. Changed. "and he coached Maryland for two" The ideas here seem separate enough to warrant independent clauses to me. "With a loss in the 1977 Cotton Bowl, Maryland narrowly missed an opportunity for the national championship." "With" is usually a poor connector, and this case is no exception, as it connects the clauses poorly. Try "Because they lost the 1977 Cotton Bowl [to team], Maryland narrowly missed an opportunity for the national championship." Reworded that. "Additionally, since 1982" "Additionally" is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I've removed it.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I gave this a pre-FLC review, and it looked like a very strong list even then. The FLC process has strengthened it further. There was one New York Times reference without an access date, but I added one myself to expedite my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:29, 5 July 2009 [53].

---

List of highways in Essex County, New York

Nominator(s): Mitch/HC32 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this, after 15 months, have been finally finished. I worked hard and recently got help copyediting for grammar and other errors. All comments are welcomed. (NOTE: If you have prose concerns, can I ask that he or she put out an entire list of issues? Grammar is not a strong point and would be helpful. Thanks.) It meets the criteria and has the precedents of List of highways in Warren County, New York (to which this is based), and List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan. Mitch/HC32 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mitch/HC32 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this article to be a FL:

1. Why are there citations in the lead?
2. Can the headers for the list of routes be changed to match what is in List of highways in Warren County, New York.
3. In the table for State routes, U.S. Routes, and Interstates, I-87 and US 9 should be listed before the state routes rather than mixed in with them.
4. Are the formation dates for any of the reference routes (besides NY 915K) known?
5. Request shields for the county routes.
6. Can lengths be added for the county routes? Dough4872 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations are allowed in the lead if the comment doesn't come later in the body. Fixed the second one. Fixed the third. For the fourth issue, that is really doubtful, as 910L (now 185), and 915K are really the only two with ways to have it. The fifth thing: Requested, don't think you'll get them in time. The final thing, it would take weeks to get all those in, and besides, Warren doesn't have him, so its following a precedent.Mitch/HC32 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Since my issues have been addressed, I will Support this for FL (By the way, the shields have been created). Dough4872 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Plenty of prose problems, but I'm willing to reconsider. "There is one interstate highway in Essex County, which is Interstate 87 (better known as the Adirondack Northway)."-->The only interstate highway in Essex County is Interstate 87, better known as the Adirondack Northway. "The only U.S. highway in the county is U.S. Route 9. " "The next level of highway, state touring routes, with which there are eleven of them." Not a grammatical sentence, and numbers over ten are usually written in numerical form. "All of the six reference routes in the county are short connectors" "There are over sixty county roads" "sixty"-->60 "There is one interstate highway in Essex County, which is Interstate 87, stretching for"-->Interstate 87 is the only interstate highway in Essex County, and stretches for "There is only one U.S. Route in Essex County, U.S. Route 9, which continues for 58.99 miles (94.94 km) in two segments."-->U.S. Route 9, the only one U.S. Route in Essex County, continues for 58.99 miles (94.94 km) in two segments. "The first, a 57.83 miles (93.07 km) one enters from Warren County near Schroon Lake and the second, a 1.16 miles (1.87 km) stretch from both lines of Clinton County."-->The first, spanning 57.83 miles (93.07 km), enters from Warren County near Schroon Lake and the second, spanning 1.16 miles (1.87 km), stretches from both lines of Clinton County. "Route 9 was assigned in the area in 1926 and remained relatively unchanged since." Add "has" before remained. I'm stopping there because I think that's enough to show you that you need a copy-editor—Juliancolton (talk · contribs) is a good one. The issues are easy to spot, but I've neither the willpower nor the obligation to list them all. No need to ping me when the copy-edit is done; I'll be watching. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Done with the comments above for now. Hired JC for copyediting.Mitch/HC32 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)  Doing..., though I am confused by this sentence: In Keene, there are five county routes along NY 73 that are former alignments of NY 86. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed it days ago.Mitch/HC32 13:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I made a few more tweaks, but there are some areas that I simply don't understand, and I don't feel competent to fix them. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I copyedited the article myself, which isn't easy for me, so I hope its to your liking.Mitch/HC32 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Around this time, there was an addition of New York State Route 915K" Not sure what that means; what was it added to? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)\\ Clarifying, the highway system.Mitch/HC32 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Done.Mitch/HC32 21:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC) "The next level of highway, state touring routes, which has 11 currently designated highways." Not sentence. Perhaps stuff was deleted by accident? "Elizabethtown–Wadhams Road" Is it "Elizabeth" to "Wadhams Road", or is "Elizabeth to Wadhams" Road? If the former, the en dash should be spaced. Also, there should be em dashes in the blank cells (notes column). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Done :) - Mitch/HC32 15:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) What about the em dashes in the blank cells? When that is resolved, I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) {{done}} –Juliancolton | Talk 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) "about 697 miles (1,122 km) of the highway system in New York, with 339.6 miles (546.5 km) of state roads and 357.4 miles (575.2 km) of county roads", but the ref says 330.6, where have the extra 9 miles come from? Also this will affect the total. Recalculated and fixed. "including New York State Route 192 (now part of New York State Route 86,[7] New York State Route 427 (now part of New York State Route 73, and New York State Route 86A (also part of NY 73)." You have three open parenthesis and only one closing one. Fixed. "promote New York State Route 910L to a touring route, now designated NY 185" don't link both because the first redirects to second Fixed. "The lowest is CR 2" lowest? makes it sound like it is the one of least height above sea-level or something. Similarly for highest. Reworded I think it looks quite messy when the roadnames seperate from the icons they are next to wrap onto the next line. Can you force the names & icons to stay in one row. Fixed. (Templating is not my thing). Consistency issues between tables. First has header "Locations" the other "Towns crossed", first is sortable, second isn't. Fixed. When sorting buy route in the first, I'd expect US 9, and NY 9N to sort above "NY 910K" or am I wrong there. Its going by order of importance of the designations (Interstates (87), U.S. Routes (9), Touring Routes (9N), and Reference Routes (910K)), Therefore, as I suggested, shouldn't 9 go before 9N which should go before 910K..., when sorting by route? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) No, its going in order of functionality and importance, which NYSDOT follows. What I'm saying is when you click the by "Route #" the order given is shown in the collapsible box. I'm saying shouldn't NY 9N go before NY 910K when listing alphabetically. I'd also argue that US 9 should go before that, basically shouldn't it sort by the numbers of the roads. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Extended content I-87 NY 185 NY 22 NY 28N NY 3 NY 373 NY 431 NY 73 NY 74 NY 86 NY 910K NY 910M NY 912T NY 913Q NY 915F NY 915K NY 9N US 9 What is the order of the Locations listed? By order in which they are approached. I clarified that in the article. These are two-way roads, approached from which direction? And say so in the list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) You seem to have clarified this with this edit so I'll strike this now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Does the order merit sortability considering it is only the first being sorted by? The sortability should be for the first, second and third. However, I can't fix that. Why won't {{sort}} work? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I notice you've made these unsortable now? Why, and also what was the relevence of first, second and third. I might be able to help with the sorting code if you want it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The length obviously is sortable for learning's sake, and so is when they were designated, the other two would make it hard.Mitch/HC32 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry we had completely crossed wires here. I thought you were saying Location should be sorted by "the first, second and third". I now realise you were talking about which columns should sort. Anyway I'm fine with this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Ref 1 and have 2 New York State Department of Transportation as publisher, and others have it as author making it come first in the ref. Be consistent, I think publisher is better too. Fixed. You should use <ref name="1926 map">[[Bureau of Public Roads]], [[:Image:1926us.jpg|United States System of Highways]], November 11, 1926</ref> one the first occasions and <ref name="1926 map"/> on all others. Similarly for references named "jimapco" and "quad86". Fixed. What is the point of these 4 links that redirect to this article, i.e. just refresh the page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Redirected elsewhere. I hope all of your concerns are resolved.Mitch/HC32 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) More things You should add class="unsortable" to the Notes column. Done. Why the missing years in the first table? There is no official documentation to when the reference route system was first started, and the reference routes without them are just completely unsure of. 915K was recent, and thus has a referenced year. Why is 910M and 913Q linked to New York State Route 73? Done. Similarly why do 915F and 915K link to Interstate 87 which has no mention of either. Done. Reading above comments I'm not happy with your answer to Dough4872's question "Can lengths be added for the county routes?". There is no WP:DEADLINE, and Warren was promoted over a year ago. Additionally would it be possible to also add years? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Then there will be over 88 yahoo maps references, and will be a massive eyesore. As for the years, county routes are hard to come by as jurisdiction is not controlled. We can be sure that they were in by 1969, (For almost all of them, but we cannot be inconsistent. Also, the New York State Department of Transportation and Essex County Highway Department do not use the same highway designations, so its really hard to tell when which was established. Warren itself is another 80 and also would be an eyesore.Mitch/HC32 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Lots of references won't be an eyesore. You can make the reflist into multiple columns. For example this recent FL which has 92 refs. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Not sure my comments are needed here but I didn't see it mentioned and I think a legend to tell the readers what the meaning is of the different signs are for clarification. I also recommend if you cannot determine the distances then put an emdash centered in the cell like you did for the first table. That way the readers won't think that the table is incomplete. --Kumioko (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I had to go to an interview, so I got interrupted.Mitch/HC32 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I am done, this was a major headache, and now instead of 15 sources, there are 104 - meaning 89 sources. Wow. I hope this now gets your support.Mitch/HC32 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Well done. I'm really do see that as an improvement to the list. I have struck the oppose, but would like the possibility of numerical sorting (my only unstruck bullet point) to be discussed/implemented before giving my full support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC) After 20 minutes of fiddling - I got it the way you put it above. :) - Hope it gets your support.Mitch/HC32 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC) That wasn't quite what I meant. I've fixed it to what I meant, if you disagree please do say or revert. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done, I realise as a result of my review you've had to put in a fair bit of time to this list. I'm glad you persevered, and I can now support this list. Congratulations, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks good! iMatthew ^talk at  15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I can't put my finger on any problems. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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