Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2007

Almost entirely the work of Pharos04 (talk · contribs), I just spiced it up by merging in information from two seemingly useless lists, those being the lists describing which of the 32 stadiums were indoor or outdoor. I also created a dynamic map template depciting all 32 stadiums as the lead image, I think it's good to go now. If this works, NBA and NHL lists are next. -Phoenix 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks good :-) However, a few minor problems:
  1. The references to Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League should indicate what the "1639" (and similar numbers) refers to (I'm guessing page number... just put "p1639" if that's the case).
     •  Not done just yet. All the references in question use {{Cite book}}, which, or so I thought, is formatted in a way that matches Harvard/something important style? -Phoenix
       • I don't think I explained myself clearly enough... the first reference reads "(1997) Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League, First Edition, 1639. ISBN 0-06-270170-3." If the 1639 refers to the page number of the information concerened, then it should read "p1639" or "page 1639". Tompw (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
         •  Done now, thanks for clearing that up. -Phoenix 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's a lot of small text, which isn't good for those with inperfect vision. The "Miscellaneous-use stadiums" seems to be ALL small text, and I think this should be changed to normal text.
     •  Done, text was 85% in the tables, now 100%. -Phoenix
  3. The "Former stadiums" is the same. If you want to save space, then change the city names to a Orchard Park, NY format.
     •  Done, were you talking about the redirect in the second section? I fixed it. -- -Phoenix
       • What I meant was rather than having "Foxborough, Massachusetts", you can save space by having "Foxborough, MA" (piping the link to use the state's two letter abbreviation rather than the full name). I've done AFC East by way of an example. Tompw (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
         •  Done -Phoenix 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although the section is called "Former stadiums", it states "The following is a list of current and former NFL stadiums." (bolding mine). I suggest a section title like "current and former stadiums by team".
     •  Done -- -Phoenix

The list is of good layout and well-referenced, so it will have my support once the above has been dealt with. Tompw (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at it. -Phoenix 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now the above has been dealt with. Good work :-) Tompw (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose pending the following fixes:
  • Title "Miscellaneous use stadiums" is vague and misleading. Consider changing this to more accurately reflect what it is. Maybe "temporary NFL venues" or "irregular NFL stadiums" or something else. Neither of those is great either, but they are better than the current title.
    •  Done, I used a somewhat hybrid of your suggestion and went with "Temporary home stadiums". -Phoenix 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption on the link map clashes with the text on the lead. Maybe not on your screen, but it does on my screen and hurts readability.
    •  Done; earlier, I was using a widescreen so obviously there was no interference. I"m back on a normal 4:3 monitor now and I see the problem you mention. I removed it. -Phoenix 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally there is no requirement for leads to be inline-referenced. However, this one makes superlative claims with statistics. I think we need an inline reference to the source of those stats.
    •  Done -Phoenix 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the lead does not full summarize the article, since the merger of the two lists has created a sitution where there is not an accurate lead summarizing the second list. Perhaps a second lead for THAT list?
    • I'm not sure what I can put in here, I'll try to add some text as a mini-lead for the second list. -Phoenix 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these fixes are made, consider my vote to me changed to support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I know I keep doing this to you, Phoenix, but I was WP:BOLD and made the fixes myself. Does this look OK? Also, I noticed during my edits that the second list is entirely unreferenced. My sense is that this list is probably from a single reference somewhere, however unless we can find out where it comes from, I cannot change my vote to support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for fixing it up. I added references for Lucas Oil and the new Cowboys stadia, because as far as I can see those are the only two new ones coming online. As for the rest of the list, I'll drop a line on Pharos04 since he was the creator of the list. -Phoenix 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or I could give an inline citation for every team to the history section of their official sites. There must be a way to convey that without having to add 32 citations. -Phoenix 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The information has to be in one location. For example, I have a book on my bookshelf right now that has the complete stadium history of all 30 MLB teams. A similar book or website exists, and in all likelyhood was used to develop most of this list. A single inline cite in the lead is enough, with additional inline cites only for changes since the publication of this hypothetical source. If the original author of the list has the source, that is the best way to handle it.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Found it. Took 30 seconds and a google search. See: pdf version and google cache HTML version. Just cite this one (probably the PDF version) in the lead sentance and cite any changes since this list in the individual entries.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Lovely, clearly your Google skills are better than mine. I cited it right under the reference heading under bold text "Source". -Phoenix 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I cleaned up the reference a bit using cite templates. Now, since the file only covers until 2000, we need to add refs for all individual changes SINCE 2000. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Found a good ref for modern stadiums, made the changes based on that ref. Now all data should be referenced. YEAH. I support this one now.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Oppose: Looks pretty good, but it should have details about naming rights/eponyms. Things that I'd expect include length of naming rights deal, beginning, expiry, cost (if known). For stadiums without naming rights, it should mention who or what it is named after. Also, the map at the top crowds the lead on my computer, making there only be a few words on a line. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What resolution are you running? Any smaller and some of the tighter labels will no longer be legible.
  • This list is already pretty long, I wouldn't think things like naming rights and the origin of the name need to be included...clicking on the individual stadiums and getting that information isn't sufficient? If I added it, I'd probably want to add such information for all of the past stadiums, then we're dealing with a disgustingly long list. -Phoenix 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above. Naming rights is kind of esoteric, and that it is missing does not substantially detract from the article. There is a LOT of information about the stadiums that is not included, simply for space. The table is as complete as I would expect. I mean, what next: Number of Bathrooms? Ticket Prices? Simply because the information is true and verifiable does not mean its inclusion will improve the article. This one is as dense as it can get and still be usable and readable. I disagree that such a small issue should hold up this nomination.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's like list of Super Bowl champions, which I got featured for being just that. Since then, lots of extra information has been thrown in, perhaps slyly, because no references have been added. -Phoenix 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very good over all, but there are a number of wiki links that are used more than once throughout the list. --Pinkkeith 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are several, but not to the point that they need to be removed. They provide a kind of , if you catch my drift. -Phoenix 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A very good start, but I feel it can be improved. I think the playing surface is more important to current than to historical stadiums. There definitely should be a surface column in the list of current stadiums; you may wish to remove it from the historical list. I'm sure you spent a lot of time getting the map to look right, but I still think the article would be better without it. Any map lacking dots will be confusing, and on my screen, Paul Brown Stadium shows up around Chicago for some reason. The two paragraphs on how dome teams fare in the playoffs are not necessary. If you're going to point out dome stadiums, you should also point out which stadiums have retractable domes. You mention the Cardinals franchise's pre-NFL names but don't have their pre-NFL stadiums; their pre-NFL names should be removed. Finally, I'm a bit troubled by the "temporary home stadiums" section. For one, it's misnamed -- these were not temporary homes but one-game relocations. I'm also concerned about the completeness of this list. I have trouble believing these were the only 11 examples of teams moving regular-season or playoff games. -- Mwalcoff 01:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good lord. Forgive me, I'm not American and was thinking northern, instead of southern, Ohio for some reason when placing Cincinnati. I fixed that, and shifted several others. I'm running a resolution of 1280 by 1024 pixels on a standard 4:3 monitor and was doing so when I created it; so I suppose the map is optimized for that, a relatively high resolution. As for the time spent creating it, it took about 15 minutes, so I won't be shattered if it's removed. The two paragraphs concerning dome teams are in the lead because I merged two lists in prior to nomination. If I remove them the lead will be one sentence, and you, among others, will oppose for a short lead. I think they're relatively applicable. If not, what type of information would you like to see added? I'll add in shading, perhaps a light pink, on the current stadiums list for those with retractable roofs. That's all I'll deal with right now. -Phoenix 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list looks better, but remember that Reliant Stadium has a retractable roof, too. I personally won't oppose if the list lacks a large lead... I think the list is pretty self-explanatory. -- Mwalcoff 06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgot about Reliant's roof, I'll fix that. -Phoenix 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm  Done getting Image:NFL teams locations.PNG in there for the map, and it looks a heck of a lot better. Text is more legible, and there are dots, even depicting conference and division. -Phoenix 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I cleaned up the lead a bit, adding more information to provide context, and tightening up the language a bit. There are some more fixes I caught:
  • For "Playing Surface", some of the artificial turfs are named by brand, and others are just called "turf". This seems inadequate, even with the footnote at the end.
  • The field surfaces in the top list are inconsistant with the field surfaces in the bottom list.

Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to see the exact brand of turf listed in the table? -Phoenix 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its just inconsistant. Either list them all as "artificial turf", or give the brand for all of them. As it is right now, the specific brand of turf is listed for some of them, and for others it is just listed as "turf" (which is also inadequate. Grass is "turf" too...) Also, we need to rectify the fact that the two lists do NOT agree on which stadiums use grass and which ones use artificial turf. It changes more often than you think, so it is easy to see how they the two lists could get out of sync. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I initially thought that when Pharos04 (talk · contribs · logs) did the list used the surface that the stadium had at its opening. -Phoenix 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

You know, the more I think about it, the more it seems as though the merge isn't working for this list. What we REALLY have here is two lists. We have:

• List of current NFL stadiums (the first section)
• Chronology of home stadiums for current NFL teams (the last 2 sections)

They are tangentally related, but they don't really work well as one list. Maybe we should split them into 2 lists; each might be more suitible apart than the two are together. What does everyone else think?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Which list stays here as a candidate, though? I think they could be both be featured in time. -Phoenix 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, we should withdraw the nomination and then work the split and renominate the daughter articles as needed. The issue with the split is that most of this page is discussing the conjoined lists, and the split lists are more easily considered completely separate articlesl most of the above discussion really applies to trying to make the merged lists work better; the entire discussion then is not relating to the lists as separate entities. The lead and map should go with the first list (current stadiums); the second and third lists (history of stadiums) should get its own lead. At least, that's my opinion. I would like to see what others who have commented so far think about this proposal...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, we'll see if anyone else comments. -Phoenix 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • There is no need for an horizontal ToC
    •  Done -Phoenix 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorting the first list by capacity makes no sense since it's sortable. Just say "current stadium" instead (maybe mentioning that the initial sort is by capacity)
    •  Not done. There are lots of lists that still say "by whatever" even after the sortable script was implemented, probably because those that aren't running Java still see an unsortable list. In any event the "rank" column has them sorted by capacity, determining the title. -Phoenix 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The state flags are totally unnecessary.
    •  Done. -Phoenix 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Circeus 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any event, I'm withdrawing the nomination per discussion above. In the future, both the lists split from this one will be nominated. -Phoenix 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this list for the first time. It has been my passion for more than a year now and has just passed an A-class review with the WPMILHIST project. I believe she is ready for this process.--Looper5920 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. This is one of the most comprehensive lists I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's well-sourced, well-references, has pictures when needed, and is extremely organized. The lead-in is also fantastic. Wlmaltby3 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very strong, organized and eye pleasing. Joe I 07:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a great list that meets all criteria. -Phoenix 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong support. Probably the best list I've seen so far on Wikipedia! No question this should be a WP:FL. RyguyMN 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The TOC is definately overwhelming (see WP:WIAFL #2c). I suggest having a table TOC like that of List of California birds. (If you want, I can do it for you... I would have done it now, but it's getting rather late for me.). Also, move the sidebar further up the page. Apart from that, this is an excellent list. :-) Tompw (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have made the changes to the TOC. I could not figure out how to keep the USMC template without creating a huge gap below the intro so I just dropped it. Hopefully this is what you were after. Cheers--Looper5920 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though I agree with Tompw's suggestions Qjuad 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow. Just, wow. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly complete list worthy of the status Cheif Captain 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I know what I should do. I really should oppose on the basis that too many of the items are red links - in fact, across the whole list(s) they outnumber the blues. But, it's a great list in so many other ways, and the reds are (with one exception) entirely in the inactive squadrons. Hmmm, I think I'll just leave this as a comment rather than actively opposing. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - this is impressive, but it would be nice if there were not so many redlinks (all 5 of the Pre-World War II squadrons, all 11 of the Marine Reserve Scouting Squadrons, all 6 of the Marine Barrage Balloon Squadrons, all but 2 of the 17 Marine Scout Bombing Squadrons, most of the Marine Torpedo Bombing Squadrons and the Marine Fighting Squadrons, all 10 of the Marine Bombing Squadrons, etc...). Is this something that can be tackled any time soon? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are inactive squadrons notable enough to have their own articles? If they aren't (and they probably aren't), then they shouldn't be wikilinked, and those parts of the list will be fine as set of items (see WP:WIAFL 1a). Tompw (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, most of them are significant enough to rate articles. Not all will be tackled as individual articles though. For example, many of the Scout bomber and torpedo bomber squadrons will have their own articles since most saw extensive combat duty in World War II. Some on the other hand were training squadrons and will be part of a larger article on the Training Group of which they were apart. The barrage balloon squadrons will all be merged into one article on the Marine Corps balloon program during WWII as will the pre-WWII reserve squadrons since there is not a preponderance of information on them. Another example are the Marine Operational Training Squadrons. I am going to create an article on Marine Operational Training Group 81, under whose command they all fell. They will all have a mention and will be appropriately linked to. I have taken the advice on the redlinks and just in the past 2 days have created VMTB-341, VMSB-245, VMSB-243 and VMTB-151. I will be able to address the larger articles this weekend. Please bear with me as I am one man trying to take on a big subject. Cheers--Looper5920 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (but I feel bad). OK there are two editors above who feel uncomfortable on FLC 1a grounds, but don't like to oppose since the rest of the article is so nice. Since this issue appears to be actionable, and the author aims to resolve this (just probably not quick enough), can we delay promotion? Wikipedia is in no rush. There is no shame in resubmitting at a later date once it is ready. Colin°^Talk 13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with objection Even though this nomination is closed, I wanted to state my disagreement with the objection about the red links. Placing wikilinks in an article leaves an open invitation to others to create articles for those red links and shouldn't count against the information that is in this particular article or list. Downgrading the quality status of an article because of red links means that others will have to submit articles without the wikilinks that might be currently be red, which means they just have to be added later. So, what does it matter if they're there now or later? Cla68 06:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you make your opinions known at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. There have been discussions on the quantity of red links ever since FL were born. The current consensus is that a large number of red links fails criterion 1.a.1. Colin°^Talk 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list satisfies all the criteria specified in WP:WIAFL, namely:

• Criteria 1(a): The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria.
• Criteria 1(b): No major components of the list have been omitted.
• Criteria 1(c): Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations - the lengthy References section satisfies this criteria easily.
• Criteria 1(d), 1(e): The contents of the list are not disputed and there are no edit wars.
• Criteria 1(f): The list is well-constructed.
• Criteria 2(a): Lead provides a good summary of the entire list.
• Criteria 2(b): There is a proper system of headings.
• Criteria 2(c): ToC is substantial, but not too long.
• Criteria 3: Appropriate images are included.

This was previously a Good Article, but delisted solely because GA doesn't deal with lists anymore. Resurgent insurgent 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator: - For the images, I haven't been able to get many from the sportspeople at the top so the images are mostly concentrated at the bottom of the page. There are several ways we can deal with this - 1) Leave as is, and add more in as they become available 2) Disperse images around the page regardless of what section they are listed in, or 3) Remove all images except add one at the top right of the page. That aside, at the risk of seeming like a hypocrite for not supporting a nom below for too many redlinks (since changed to support, however), it looks like that one will pass nonetheless, and I feel this is the most comprehensive list of notable OSU Alumni gathered anywhere by far. The Official OSU notable alumni page pales in comparison to this, and I feel this is a valuable resource. I'm going to go work on some redlinks/improving the list right now. VegaDark 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Get rid of the sort columns. I'm not a big fan of those since I think the wiki implementation isn't anywhere close to useful. The initial order is grouped by notable profession then ordered by surname. None of the alternative orders are useful (even date attended appears useful but only changes the order within the group, which limits its usefulness, and fails when the start-date is a ?). Ordering by forename, notability or ref is a nonsense. The way the photos bunch together isn't very tidy and causes the bottom of Politics / top of Science to have about 5 [edit] links overlapping the table. Perhaps scatter the photos and include their profession after the name. Don't include the "language" parameter to the cite templates if English. The format = PDF is also a bit pointless now that there is an icon in the hyperlink. Nearly there ... Colin°^Talk 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "edit" link doesn't overlap the table on my browser, it is just pushed over above the table. Or is that what you meant? As for getting rid of the sort feature I find the sort by year helpful, and List of Dartmouth College alumni has the feature, which is a featured list, so I am hesitant to remove it unless there is a consensus to do so. VegaDark 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - way too much attention for sport. Plus lead could be longer. Renata 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A school can't help it if most of its notable alumni are sportspeople. Are you suggesting the non-sports section isn't comprehensive? If so do you have any sources that list additional non-sportspeople as alumni that should be added? I'd be happy to see such a source as to add more. I'll see about expanding the lead. VegaDark 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a quick calculation: 272 people are on the list, 56 (20%) of them are not from sport. That seems aweful low when there is no specific reason for it (i.e. that's what you would expect from a sport school; likewise you would expect alumni of an engineering school be enginners, but as far as I see it's not a specialized school). So you probably had access to sources that deal with sportspeople, or inclusion criteria for sports people was much lower than for all the other. Renata 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely disagree with the presumption of a bias towards sportspeople. It is not uncommon for a relatively high number of sportspeople who attend a major U.S. state university to attain notability. According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special cases, it could be argued that literally hundreds of sportspeople at a school like Oregon State become notable every year. Contrast that with the "barrier to notability" for other people that might be associated with Oregon State: environmental scientists, engineers, professors, etc. - it's much, much higher. The fact is that the media covers sports far more closely than it does something like soil science; there are simply many notable sportspeople out there, and the list does a good job providing reliable sources for all of the individuals listed. I believe that throwing a percentage out there that "seems low" is not a valid reason to oppose promotion. -Big Smooth 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about moving all the redlink American football folk to the talk page and merge coaches. There are more red than blue links for football, which dominates the list and goes against criterion 1a. Colin°^Talk 08:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to agree with Big Smooth. At most US state universities, at least a plurality, and often a majority, of "notable" people by Wikipedia standards are athletes. —Lowellian (reply) 05:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Appears to meet all featured list criteria. -Big Smooth 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. List looks good, however, I don't believe it's necessary to have a separate column for references in the table, mainly due to the fact that it serves no purpose sorted. The references can be moved to the person's name or notability column. Will give support once these issues are addressed. RyguyMN 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inability to specify which columns should be sortable is IMO a major defect in the sorting feature, not this article. The Notability column doesn't make sense sorted either. The refs could be moved to the end of the notability column, though they would then be much harder to spot. For a long dynamic list such as this, having a refs column makes it easier to maintain (i.e. detect which names are unsourced) and is similar to lots of other featured people-lists. It would be interesting to know what others think, but I don't see why this one aspect should prevent support Colin°^Talk 07:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colin, I understand your point and withdraw my comment about the tables since this is a Wikipedia limitation. On an unrelated note, I noticeed that there are too many red links for this list to be WP:FL. This list still needs a little bit of work to gain additional support. RyguyMN 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was hoping to have some time this past weekend to make improvements but I didn't get a chance. If this needs to be renominated in the future to pass, so be it, I'll renominate if so when I get a chance to make additional changes. VegaDark 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - excessive redlinks. If someone isn't notable enough to have an article, they shouldn't be considered not able to be on this list. This is especially the case for the American Football players. Also, the lists states that "the people listed may have only attended the university at some point and have not necessarily graduated"... in which case, they are not alumni, and shouldn't be included on the list. Tompw (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone doesn't have an article yet doesn't mean they aren't notable enough to have a page. Every person on that list is notable enough for a page, they just don't have them yet. Also, "alumni" consists of anyone who attended a university, not just graduated. See Alumni. A graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. VegaDark 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apolgoies on the Alumni issue - I think this is a UK/US English thing. However, to become a FL, this list must be a "group of exsisting articles" (WP:WIAFL 1a) - which means that the vast majority of links should be bluelinks rather than redlinks. Currently there ~95 redlinks, which I'm afraid is just too many. You could either remove all the redlinks (possibly to the talk page), or create 95 articles. Tompw (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After expanding the lead, summaries and fair use rationale for each episode I believe this article is a potential featured list. In line with critera it is useful, well laid out in accordance with other featured lists and complete. Qjuad 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, yeah. Self nom and support Qjuad 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I like it. I like being able to randomly pick any image and find a fair use rationale for it. I haven't gone through every image, but I've clicked about 10 of them and they had fair use rationales, so I was pleased (it's something that's easily overlooked). But, I didn't find any for the DVD covers. They need them just like the screenshots do. Since those are copyrighted I like all the plot summaries kept to a decent size. The individual episodes seem nothing more than expanded plots, but that doesn't matter here. Also, the last paragraph, that talks about Paramount having ownership of Region 2 DVDs and that being the reason why the extra information from Region 1 isn't on them, that needs a source. It comes across as original research because it appears to be drawing conclusions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending paragraph (outside of a forum post from a cast member, there is no reliable source for it) and updated the fair use rationale for the DVD covers. Qjuad 03:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I give the article my support. The lead is pretty much straight forward and to the point. I think the only thing that I might tweak would be the line about its pilot. Every show's pilot is called "pilot"; I think it would be fine to just say "The show first aired on ..... in the US". Unless it first aired as a movie, like The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series) where the pilot was really a 2 hour made-for-TV movie originally, then i don't think it needs mentioning. Other than that, great job.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose excessive fair use images. It is entirely possible to have a Featured List without images for very single episode (e.g. List of Dad's Army episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes). Tompw (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to object, because it's also possible to have one that has an image for every episode. See List of South Park episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also object; many other featured articles, including the aformentioned List of South Park episodes and List of The Sopranos episodes have images. Qjuad 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qjuad is right. Also, your comparison of this to The Simpsons is inappropriate—it has a separate article for each season, and those have screenshots like this and many other lists of episodes. Cliff smith 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support just as with the List of The Sopranos episodes page which is now Featured Article status, Qjuad has done an excellent job in shaping up and improving the article to FA standards. I give my support fully. Sfufan2005 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per Sfufan; just like back at the LOE for The Sopranos, yet another job well done. Cliff smith 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This article already does all the things I usually request when I object. Jay32183 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great job! -- Underneath-it-All 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Simpsons and South Park are featured lists just because they came way before WP got serious about fair use. There is no need to have more such "offenders". Renata 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are proceeding with a one person vendetta of opposing any lists of television shows, especially those that have images or colors. But I don't see you bringing the fight to the very small list of featured television shows that are in opposition of your opinion. But that is neither here nor there, as this is a discussion about this list. Every image has a fair use rationale, and there isn't even a remote opportunity to get "free images" for such things as they are screencaptures of episodes. Since this particular list has little synopses of each episode it can be nice to have an image to illustrate the show. If someone has never seen the show (like myself) then it is beneficial to know what it looks like. Since you cannot get "free images" for such a thing, then saying "oppose on the grounds of too many fair use images" should really read "oppose because it has images".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refrain from personal attacks. Tompw (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The objection is based on a gross misinterpretation of FUC#3. The limiting of fair use images does not mean there cannot be more than a certain number, it's there can't be multiple unfree images serving the same purpose. Each episode is unique, therefore each image serves a different purpose. Renata has made this objection before, and it has been ignored before. Jay32183 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's objections ever get "ignored", and excessive use of fair use images hasbeen a reason to fail a candidate for FL. Further, please refrain from personal attacks. Tompw

Such use of fair use images not only violates WP:FUC #3 & #8, but also Wikimedia Foundation resolution that says: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to ... complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works.[1] Having 50 fair use images on a page is nowhere near "narrow limits." Renata 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(#8) is a subjective call. If many editors believe that the use of these "50 fair use" do contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, then there is nothing wrong. Wikipedia does not provide a set limit to fair use images in an article, especially when dealing with a list of episodes article. Since Wiki doesn't say, "oh you can have 3 FU images, but not 5, maybe you can have 4", then (#3) is also a subjective call. It's based on what the article is illustrating, and how easily one could come across free images for that article. Free images for a television article are probably 100% impossible, unless the owners decide they dont' want the show anymore and released it into the public domain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments echo both Jay and Bignole. Qjuad 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent). Yes, each episode is unique, and each image's inclusion is definately be justified in an article on the relevant episode. However, we are dealinf with the *list* of episodes. WP:FUC #8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article". As there are thirty-six such images, none of them can be held to contribute significantly to the list. Further, #3 states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". It is possible to have a list of television episodes without screenshots, and still be a featured list. Tompw (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once you recognize the case as unique you can't base your argument on a different case. Just because one list doesn't need image does not mean this is the same case. If you have a problem with any particular image though, please bring it up. There is no absolute number that cannot be exceeded though. Jay32183

Yes, its true that a list of television episodes can be featured without images; but it is not necessary. Each image highlights an episode and a key moment therein (I honestly don't see how "none of them can be held to contribute"). Until the foundation decrees that television images should not be used, I don't see why they should be removed at all. Qjuad 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was hardly personally attacking Renata, I was making a personal observation based on their recent edits to other lists of articles and their comments on another users page. I didn't call them a name, nor did I attack their conviction or character. It's about subjectiveness. Saying it doesn't "significantly contribute to an article", is the same as saying it just violates this guideline, or it's unencyclopedic, or not notable. The arguments don't even make sense. Citing FUC, and then saying there are too many FU images, is not the same thing. FUC is the criteria for an image to be classified as fair use, not the criteria for how many images you can have. Almost all of the images are used on both the list page and the individual episode pages. Those that aren't on both are not because the individual episode pages do not exist (here's to praying that never do, most indy ep pages don't support themselves as articles). What constitutes "significant contribution to the article"? According to the bullet, it must "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". I don't see too many images that don't illustrate what the little synopses are saying. But I haven't seen the show so I can't verify every single image with the plot, but some are rather obvious. It's a subjective call on whether to include the images or not. If there is a summary of the plots, it may be good to provide an illustration of that, for better clarification. Again, it's my contention that the number of fair use images is a subjective call based on the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. Well done! Everything looks terrific! RyguyMN 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good to me.--Wizardman 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I find the objections given unconvincing. —Lowellian (reply) 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on grounds that have nothing to with fair use images. The list does not constitute a "group of existing articles", as demanded by WP:WIAFL 1a, because a lot of the episodes do not have articles. Deadwood episodes are clearly notable enough to have their own articles (many do, and are linked to from this list), so this list cannot qualify as "set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles". Tompw (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what of the list of Dad's army episodes? None of them have individual articles and yet that is a featured list. Qjuad 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really doubt the individual episodes are notable enough to stand on their own as articles. The current episode articles fail the expectations of WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#IINFO #7. Jay32183 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 21 out of 36 episodes have articles of their own, so it seems they *are* notable enough to have their own articles. I cannot see how some episodes could be notable but not others. For example, A Lie Agreed Upon, Part 1 exsists, but not A Lie Agreed Upon, Part 2. (The standard of the articles doesn't affect this list's nomination). Tompw (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually making the claim that none of the episodes are notable enough for their own articles. If there aren't reliable sources for real world context, then the episode isn't notable. Jay32183 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In which case, shouldn't they be AFD'd? Tompw (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the clear points on the WP:Episiode page is that you shouldn't do mass AfDs. It's in the "Dealing with problem articles. It says to merge them in with another page (e.g. either the show, the list of episodes, or the seasonal pages...depending on what the show has available, and what is best for the episode article). AfDs take a lot of time, and we would do nothing but create more backlog for hundreds of articles that should not have been created in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you PROD one of the articles the closing admins won't have a problem. A problem won't arise until you run into a user who insists that the no AFD recommendation in WP:EPISODE means the articles can't be deleted. It actually says AFDs should be avoided because of the burden it would create. If you felt an AFD were necessary it would not be speedy kept. Jay32183 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Televisions are rarely, if ever, notable enough to be able to support their own article without being nothing more than plots and trivia. Pilot episodes could probably do it, 100th episodes could probably do it, series finale episodes could probably do it, but generally not your run-of-the-mill episode. Any random episode from any series probably could not even remotely defend an AfD, it's just way too time consuming to do one for every episode that deserves it. Aquaman (TV program), for example, is something that a fellow editor and I worked on. You don't know how hard it was just to get relevant information for that 1 show, and it was a show that was never picked up, and had a ton of publicity. Episode 17 of Show X isn't going to have too much publicity, other than a trailer for the regular viewers, unless there is something special about it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • So, is this list supposed to be "a group of existing articles" or "a set of items that ... are not notable enough to have individual articles"? At the moment, it's isn't either. Tompw (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should have started out as a set of items, and when enough notable information can be found for one of those items then it can become an article. Not every episodes deserves to be an article, but I'm sure some do, and there is no FL requirement that states that you MUST have either all items wikilinked to their own article, or none linked at all. Even a group of existing articles is technically a set of items, but, it should fit #1a(3), because it is a "complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles.". The unfortunate fact is that even though they are not notable enough to have individual articles, that didn't stop their creation. Now, as you pointed out on the Featured List criteria talk page, any problems with daughter articles are not reflected on the mother article. The fact that these indy-ep articles are not notable is irrelevant to this article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's actually very easy to defend episode pages, I've defended oodles. Matthew 08:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only easy if you alert every editor that loves this pages of plots and trivia. Not if you find unbiased editors that understand WP:TRIV and not being indiscriminate collection of information. I'm kind of curious as to how easily it would be to defend the existence of an episode article (which, per wikiproject television's centralized discussion is supposed to be a last move), that is nothing more than a blow-by-blow of the episode (I see almost no reason why a 22/42 min episode needs a plot the size of, or sometimes larger then that of a feature length movie), and a plagarism of trivia from IMDb.com. If you've defended the existence of countless episodes, then I say, how many have you promoted to FA stats. Don't say it can't be done, because I know it can. We end up defending the existence of episode articles under the guise that we will get them in a more appropriate format, yet we never do, and they sit there with nothing more than plots that run the length of the show itself, because there is not that much notable information to be added to the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, colours should be changed to ones that blend with Wikipedia's design (Wikipedia errs on the side of brightness) - trying to imitate DVD colours is.. silly. Preferably the LOE should use {{episode list}} as well. Matthew 08:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this request. You are opposing because you don't like the DVD colors? There are plenty of other examples of LOE having colors in their article. I'm curious as to where the MOS is that says you shouldn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated amendments in order to address the objections raised against the previous failed nomination
(see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Roman Emperors/archive1).

--JohnArmagh 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  1. Section headings should not be wikilinked (see WP:MOS). Use {{main}} instead.
  2. An explantion of terms like "Pontifex Maximus" and "Pater Patriae" would be good
  3. The Eastern Empire section would benefit from having the same level of information as the rest of the list.

  Tompw (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Haven't worked out how to integrate that yet

2. Briefly introduced the main titles with wikilinks

3. I agree

--JohnArmagh 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comments: no particular value is added by wikilinking every standalone year and year-month. Only year-monty-day should be linked for date reading preferences. Hmains 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  1. The term "optimus" could be better translated than "the best"
  2. As per Tompw no.2
  3. Too much dense CAPITALS in the columns with the latin names. Doesn't make it easy to read.
  4. Though consistent and comprehensive, the formatting is uninteresting/dull. The page is not aesthetically pleasing.

Witty lama 15:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Lead full of short one-sentence paragraphs. Needs to be expanded and flow. Please supply ISBN (and possibly edition) for the book references. Colin°^Talk 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Oppose due to issues with lead mentioned above, and also complete lack of images. Tompw (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there a definition of the word 'list' such that it is mandatory for such to contain images? --JohnArmagh 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination and support The release dates for the Pokémon RPGs were cited well. It has a good lead section and the list was divided into 2 separate tables. All of the RPGs are in there making it comprehensive. Funpika 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It has a lot of references, a lot of things are missing, that would be on normal articles. However this is a list, so these things, (such as many sections) aren't needed. TheBlazikenMaster 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it doesn't really have a lot of references, they're all the same source; as mentioned below, it's not really a reliable one. Oppose for that reason. -Phoenix 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not all from the same source. 3 separate sources were used. Though better sources are apparently needed (probably all from the official nintendo owned websites since any other site would probably be considered "unreliable").Funpika 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A professional site with employed writers and editorial oversight would do. It need not be official. I know that WP:RS is difficult for pop-culture lists/articles. There is so much "information" out there that is user-contributed and may well be of a high standard. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, so has higher standards – especially for featured material. Colin°^Talk 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The page doesn't look like a fansite page to me. It looks like a list. How is it different from "list of Disney villains" and "List of fictional pirates"? TheBlazikenMaster 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't suggesting this list was fansite material. Merely that fansites are happy to share information that perhaps can't be reliably sourced. Wikipedia cannot. Colin°^Talk 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That still doesn't explain how it's different from the lists I mentioned. TheBlazikenMaster 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is GameFAQs not proffesional? It isn't run by some random 16 year old who spends $20 a month on web hosting+domain. So it obviously isn't a personal site. The site is owned by CNET. Funpika 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • And YouTube is owned by Google – don't expect Academy awards any time soon. Who generates the content, who vets it? The release and credit data on that site is clearly user-submitted, by anyone with an email address who wants to register. Colin°^Talk 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, source reliability is in relation to the subject at hand. However, no article should ever need to use GameFAQs, except maybe to check the game script for plot cites. If one uses self published sources, one should only use those that have a staff, with contact information, disclaimers, and sources cited (some of flareGAMER's articles fall into that "reliable for certain topics" category). Even then, one must make sure it's in relation to the subject at hand; if there is a more reliable source available, one should attempt to use that instead. — Deckiller 07:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per short & choppy lead. Also, I believe, RPGs should be spelled out in the title. Renata 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment*Instances of "RPG" have been replaced with "Role Playing Games". The lead seems to be at decent length. If you want to say how long it should be then do so. And it is "choppy"? The Wiktionary defintion says "(of the surface of water) having many small, rough waves". Is this article the surface of water? Also I bolded "oppose" since you forgot to do so. Funpika 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to prose, "choppy" means it doesn't flow well (kind of like water). This can be fixed by adding transitions, more succinct, yet complex sentences, and avoiding stubby paras. — Deckiller 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.
  • This table of statistics, offering little content beyond statistical content, which could easily fit into, say, Pokémon (video games). Why does it need its own article?
  • This does not sufficiently explain why or how the "main" series is different from the spinoff series. Also, how are Pokémon Trading Card of the Stadium games not role-playing games? The differentiation between "main" games and spinoff games isn't justified, merely assumed.
  • You can lose the "see also" section; they're already linked in the lead. 4.245.23.121 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Which of the criteria makes a table of statistics so bad? Specify the one that says this. Funpika 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It just seems to me that this table would fit into Pokémo (video games) neatly, so there's little reason to give it its own article, especially seeing as the criteria seem arbitrary. 71.17.29.209 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose GameFAQs.com is not a reliable source as it is user-contributed (e.g. "Information and/or credits for this game contributed by American Gamer, ph201, johnboy16, LordShinin, and Ubersuntzu."). The way the inline refs have been placed implies they only support certain release dates, but not any other info in the list. You may wish to have some general refs (bullet points) to cover the other points. If each ref supports all the info in a row for your table, then consider moving it to either after the name or in a column on its own. Colin°^Talk 13:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How nice, now I get to translate the Japanese Nintendo.com. I did find GameFAQs reliable because they appear to check if the dates are accurate before accepting. But I am sure that you knew that already. Funpika 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be enough to provide both references. If you can't translate japanese well, i know there are a few people at the project who could get you the correct links and double check the dates at the official sites. so cite the offical sites and then provide the gamefaqs as a convenience link. as for developer info, cite the games themselves and once again provide gamefaqs for convenience. Also, it seems you missed Colin's point about the ref placement. As it stands it looks like you are only citing gamefaqs for the release dates and not the developer info. You should move the english ref to the last column. Also, i would cast in my !vote, but there really isn't much to say that already hasn't been said. the lead is still choppy, with no thought given to why the next sentence says what it does (each sentence should build on the ideas before it to express the main point of the paragraph. the current lead could easily be converted into a bulletd list.). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because of that choppy lead section. Plus Pokemon Ranger isn't included. -Amarkov moo! 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - GameFAQs is somewhat reliable in regards to release dates and whatnot. They are as reliable as any other game database on the web. Some dates are user-submitted, many were added by the main site administrator, some are added (directly or indirectly) by GameSpot people (usually for official dates for newer games). The best way to source release dates would be to get the information from an official source (developer's website) or try to find some press releases from around the time of the launch of the game. If you have to use one of the many online databases, just keep in mind that the reliability of all of them is about the same. There is no large database that has great fact-checking. --- RockMFR 04:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the reason why the author was using gamefaqs is because it's an english site that lists japanese release dates, it's not hard to find the US release date on nintendo.com, but gamefreak is a japanese site and nintendo likes to pretend nothing happens in japan on their english site... so we're left with only a japanese "official" source. You'd also be hard pressed to find a press release in english discussing the japanese release date of Pokémon Green. (the extra bonus is that the gamefaqs site lists the same developer info that this list does). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Amarkov - If Ranger isn't on the list then it can't be a complete list of Pokemon RPGs. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are you standing here for? Wouldn't the best solution be to add it to the list? TheBlazikenMaster 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS CLOSED PEOPLE'This closed a LONG time ago. Someone forgot to take it off the main page of WP:PCP. Funpika 11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the person nominating this list did not start this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gman124 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose, unreferenced, no lead. -Phoenix 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no lead or references. Renata 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I will not object (since it could probably be fixed up somewhat quickly)... just wanted to add that in the last 30 or so edits columns have been added to the table making for an extra empty column for each row. gren グレン 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on previous discussion that lists are not to be brought to this page with the intention of major changes being made, and that lists are not to be nominated without a reference section, I thought it safe to "quick-oppose" here. -Phoenix 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine to me. Though I'm not associated with the article at all I'll try to look into any objections. PhoenixTwo 07:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall a pretty good list, but some states need sources. Electronic sources for some states are hard to find; I've looked for many of them.— Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 17:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per tiny lead. Renata 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that a chunk of your objections here cite a short lead. Anything in particular you want to see added here? -Phoenix 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ya, well, this is especially big "sin" of lists: leads are usually one sentence self-reference ("this is a list of..."), so featured lists should set example for the rest, therefore the objection. Lead should give background info on the topic, introduce terms, and highlight general trends. So for the capitals some statistics could be added: the first capital, last change, biggest capital, etc. Why did capital change? How capitals are changed? etc. Renata 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree with Renata that the lead could do with more info. I suggest you include a definition of what a capital *is*. Tompw (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the following reasons:
  • Lead could be expanded some and rewritten some, to remove self references, and better summarize the evolution of capital cities in the U.S.
  • Formatting issues: the Leesburg Va. entry is signifcantly different than the rest, its glaring. Also, the National capitals are a bullet list, while the state capitals are a table? Why the change in format? Also, the Louisianna ref tag needs to me moved for consistency
  • References: Someone added this information while reading something, I am certain. Where are those sources for:
    • CSA
    • Rep of Texas
    • Kingdom & Rep of Hawaii
    • A whole BUNCH of states

Overall, the article looks good, but I cannot support this promotion until these problems are fixed. If they are, I will change my vote. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There were two areas that stuck to me that needed improvement. First, the lead-in to the list needs to be expanded to give a little summary about the history. Second, it was difficult to read going from bullet points to a table. This list could be done using strictly tables. I like what you've done here, but it just needs a little more work to reach the guidelines established by WP:FL. RyguyMN 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments...I reiterate, I didn't do any work on the list, just saw it and though it looked alright. I'll work on converting the bulleted section to a table. -Phoenix 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this list, because not much has changed since the nomination (diff), and so I don't feel the objections are being "actively addressed". The list is sound, but the poor lead and lack of references mean it cannot pass as it is. Tompw (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tompw has already failed this list I would like to note that I would have oposed on the grounds that the Oklahoma list is incomplete. There are dozens of Indian tribes in Oklahoma, and most have a declared capital. (For two exaples, the Osage capital is Pawhuska and the Lenape tribe has capitals in Bartlesville and Anadako. Dsmdgold 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list I stumbled upon is cited for every move, sorted, and has good pictures to support it. Therefore, I nominate it and will help improve it if need be. The Placebo Effect 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lead is inadequate and too self referential. Put guidelines for editors in the talk page. It isn't acceptable to use bare URL hyperlinks for featured material. A full citation is required (Title, Publisher, Author (if one), Date (if given), Access Date, etc). "The Documentary Blog" isn't a reliable source, which gives a problem with the number 1 film, which only opened to a handful of screens (according to IMDB). Screen It are a "husband and wife team", only one of whom is full-time. Don't think that counts as a reliable source even if the site has been around a long time – there isn't the editorial control and fact checking you'd expect from proper publisher. Many of their reviews seem very vague (at least nnn times; hard to hear; difficult accents; etc). The two big negatives are the US bias and failure to specify which edition of the film is being counted (would appear to be mostly US DVD's). Editions for Europe or screened in theatres may well be different. Would different US states have different rules? The term "commercially released film" is inadequate as it would include the sort of films that "Family Media Guide" and "Screen It" wouldn't lower themselves to watch. You seem to include some TV-movies/straight-to-video/dvd? This makes me doubt the list is comprehensive. The "Other movies" section is weak. A lot of the links are redirects or just wrong (Rounders). Colin°^Talk 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate: Seems to follow standards made in other anime episode lists. Note that lack of episode links shouldn't be a reason to object, unless you want 14 stubs of pure plot summary. --SeizureDog 06:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Short, but so was the show. Notes the weird episode order, clean, simple, useful. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, gets the job done. PhoenixTwo 20:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Include in the lead the date the series began airing and how many episodes it reached so far. CG 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the number of episodes to the lead, but I don't think that the start date is really needed since it's quite visable without having to scroll down. Included the year that the entire series ran instead.--SeizureDog 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Fair use rationale for each screenshot does not describe why it is being used for the respective episode. An additional note on each explaining why (i.e. it is highlighting a particularly important moment in the episode) would greatly benefit the list. Also, some of the episode summaries could do with expanding - they should all between 2-3 lines; by the looks of it only a handful need to be lengthened. Qjuad 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm with Qjuad. Fair use rationales should be detailed, as in "This image in this article because...". Also the expanding of summaries. A good, but short paragraph is what should be used. Also, could Tatsuya Ishihara be mentioned in the lead as the director of the series? Jay32183 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Short, clear, and gets the job done.Kazu-kun 07:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was so bold as to apply the DVD order to the list. I have two concerns here not raised above:
  • Shouldn't it be possible for a viewer to sort the list according to the desired order? "Sortable" made a right hash of it, but perhaps it could be improved/fixed?
  • Would it be better to wait for the second season? --GunnarRene 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sortable version in testing, see Talk:List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes#Sortable episode format. -- Ned Scott 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very good list with all dates cited. Feel free to leave comments. Tarret 14:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Off to a good start, but needs some work.
  • Title can probably be revised to "Chemical elements by date of discovery" (cf. "List of U.S. states by..." and so on.)
  • Lead needs better writing, and bolded topic.
  • Needs images
  • For the most part, the dates are pretty undisputed, so I don't think every entry needs a specific citation (except the most recent). You'll do fine with the general ones
    • If you keep them, delete the spaces in front of notes.
  • Seaborgium was only truly "discovered" once, even though both institutions reported it the same year, they did not do it at the same time. That should be noted.
  • Way, way overlinked. Multiple links to the same places have to go.
  • Some redlinks probably should go too (initialled searchers for the GSI, for example.)
  • The origins of uses of a few of the ancient elements by humans are roughly known fromarcheological data. That should be accounted for in notes.

Circeus 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with Circeus that this is a good example where the Element-Date-Person information does not need inline citations. The two references are compact enough for any reader to locate the info. In addition, trying to insert a new unsourced mythical element would be hard – compared to a dynamic list. However, your Notes should be better sourced. I agree that the Antiquity section is weak. The tables need to be formatted such that they are all equal width. You should include the element number for all of them. The chemicalelements.com site appears to be a personal web site of Yinon Bentor [2] and as such isn't reliable enough for WP. The About.com article isn't bad but is a tertiary source. I'm not sure what editorial control is in place, but the author of that article appears qualified. The individual element pages indicate their source. Ideally, your article should be based on secondary sources like those (see WP:RS). Colin°^Talk 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment wouldn't it be more helpful to have a single table with sortable columns so the reader could sort by discovery date, atomic number or element name, as desired? Some of the tables currently do not even have a atomic number. Hmains 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Obviously a lot of work has gone into this, but it needs a lot more. The second reference link does not currently work. Both the first and second references are not peer reviewed or published by reputable presses, which should be the case for chemistry articles and lists (and is the case for the rest of the refs). For this topic I would use books such as Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements or even a CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and not the chemistry.about.com site (which is ref 2, and says it is moderated by someone with an undergraduate chemistry minor). I agree about the sortable tables and think the blanket term "antiquity" for dates of elements is misleading - in most cases more interesting and specific dates are known. See the article on silver for example: it is mentioned in Genesis and archeologial evidence shows it being mined or at least separated from ores by 4000 BC. Finally, if a reference is used for almost every element, I don't think it needs to be shown on every element as an inline citation, just cite it early and note that it applies to all (or almost all) elements. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I would only support if the list is reorganized into one table and if there are more sources. – Zntrip 02:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with all of the notes above, and have a few more:
  • Some elements have an unclear history of discovery. Oxygen, for example, can quite possibly be claimed to have been independantly discovered 4 times (by Priestly, Scheele, Sędziwój, and Lavoisier). A case can be made for each being the first "true" discoverer. The table makes a definitive statement about Preistly being it. Interestingly, the book "World on Fire" by Joe Jackson is an excellent book on the subject, and might make a worthwhile reference here.
  • Likewise, Davy may have discovered Aluminum instead of Oersted.
  • Likewise, Technetium may have been isolated prior to Perrier and Segre.
  • Several transuranium elements have contested first discoveries.
• To be sure, some of these disputed discoveries are controversial, but they are also well documented, and to ignore them in the list is to violate the "comprehensive" aspect of WP:WIAFL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Like others have said, the most reliable references for this subject would be books about the elements (such as Greenwood), books about the history of chemistry (there are many, but one I have on my shelf is The Chemical Tree), or even better, books about the discovery of the chemical elements (again, there are several, but the only one I've read is Asimov's The Search for the Elements). Direct citations of the publications disclosing the discovery of "recent" (18th century and later) elements might be nice to have in addition to the book references, but not required. --Itub 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]