Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2006

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Romantic composers/archive1

This was nominated back in July. It now has refernces, inline citations, and a better lead section. Much better than last time. Nominate and Support! Dafoeberezin3494 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The references cited are not especially strong: the main reference being : Machlis, Joseph and Forney, Kristine. The Enjoyment of Music: Seventh Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. Surely there is a better reference for this period. Even the New Grove would be better!

• The catagorization is not consistent: for example : Charles-Marie Widor (1844-1937) is middle romantic, while Vincent d'Indy (1851-1931) is late romantic? Vincenzo Bellini, Mikhail Glinka, Ambroise Thomas and Jacques Offenbach are in the same "catagory" of "Early Romantic composers"? On what basis is this judgement made? This "list" needs a complete reconception and much better sources to be "featured".Musikfabrik 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't know anything about composers. I'm a puzzled why there is a difference between the set of composers in the category and the set in the list. In what way is [1] a "standard reportoire" and why is that web site authoritative? The web site says "Basic Repertoire List", which to me implies it is incomplete in some way.

• The birth/death dates should use an en dash (–). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes).
• Why are some years wikified and some not? I can't see the point in wikifying them but don't know if the MOS has a rule here.
• The date range should have a full stop afterwards, since you are beginning a new sentence. Most entries begin with a capital letter, but not all. Be consistent. Every entry should end with a full stop.
• A common style seems to be "Xxxish composer and virtuoso yyyist". Awkward exceptions include Ludwig van Beethoven (the first entry) and Johann Nepomuk Hummel.
• If you are going to add the instrument they played, do it for everyone that you can.
• Many entries give an opinion. I think that saying someone is famous for a certain piece is fair enough. But saying someone is the "father of ...", "one of the most popular", "one of the most significant", "probably the most significant", etc is too much without a source to back you up.
• The pieces should be consistently italicised and more can be wikilinked.
• Why is this list in the category "Romantic composers" – it isn't a composer? Colin°^Talk 22:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates are now de-wikified and use en dashes. Dafoeberezin3494 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was attempting to emulate the List of major opera composers. They have a list there that is smaller than the corresponding category, but is much more helpful and much easier to navigate. With this list I was attempting to do the same thing by introducing an outside source that seemed to know what they were talking about. Before that this list was over 200 composers and difficult to navigate. I wasn't intending to make that an "authority" on the subject, just to make the list easier to read. I think it would help if someone introduced more similar sources of "prominent" composers. Maybe this "New Grove" that User:Musikfabrik keeps talking about has something like that in it.
  • By the way, I'm becoming concerned about User:Musikfabrik. In two days he has made major edits to about five pages that I have significantly contributed to. He reported me to the Music Portal complaining about my edits. And I find it hard to believe that he knows about The Enjoyment of Music; I only posted this nomination about three hours ago! I don't know if he rushed out to the library and checked it out in that amount of time, but it seems that he is tracking me and attempting to revert my edits. I'm not sure if this violates Wikipedia:Etiquette, but if someone could help me out that would be appreciated. Thank you. Dafoeberezin3494 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's funny you should mention Wikipedia:Etiquette, as the first principal of that is Assume good faith. If you have a problem with me personally, please take it up on my talk page listed below, as this is not the place to do so.
  • You nominated this article for featured status. I gave my reasons why it shouldn't be featured. You can either disagree with me,or you can make changes in the article taking these reasons into account. However, as you yourself pointed out in another discussion, I do have the right to make my position known, as do others. Musikfabrik 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's funny you should mention Assume good faith, because I haven't seen that in the two days you've been editing my edits. You still haven't explained how you became so familiar with my source in three hours as to condemn it as weak. It was an old college textbook that my sister used, if you're interested. Dafoeberezin3494 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for being so harsh on this page. I just thought that a college textbook would be a pretty reliable source of info. I believe I have high Wikistress right now, maybe I should take a break for a while... Dafoeberezin3494 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not going to address the personal issues discussed here as I have already made lengthy comments on your talk page. However, given the subject at hand:
• The Machlis book is generally used in American Universities to teach music history for non-music majors. It's very good for what it is: a very basic introduction to Classical Music (with a distinct bias towards European Art music written by men)for people who know little or nothing about the subject. Almost anyone who has taught music history or who has worked in a music library would know of this book. It is not, however, the best reference available because the goal of this book is to provide minimal information and not to go into detail. It is my point of view that an article which is to "featured" should have sources which give more than just basic information.
• I suggested the New Grove because it is almost always easily consultable in University Libraries and while it still has some problems, it's generally considered to be more complete and a more reliable source by many scholars. It also generally lists a very complete bibliography, so it would be a good starting place for more in-depth research.
• As I mentioned on your talk page, the List of major opera composers is edited using a collegial decision-making process. The majority of edits made on this list were made by one individual. Perhaps you might want to invite other editors interested in Romantic Music to work on this list with you to improve the quality and the overall neutrality of the article?

Musikfabrik 08:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KLF were a popular 1990s british electronica band. this article is spun off from the FA The KLF, and could possibly be FL standard. I couldnt find any other music-related FLs to compare to but it meets the 5 FL criteria, and if not i'm sure any fixes could be quickly implemented. Zzzzz 12:03, 13 August 2006

The points raised below by Rune.welsh lead me to propose renaming the article KLF Communications. Please comment below or at Talk:The KLF discography. --kingboyk 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images - with the exception of the KLF Communications logo - have been commented out pending a project-wide decision on the matter. --kingboyk 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nomintor Zzzzz 12:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (as main author). This is a companion piece to The KLF, written by the same team and I believe to the same standard. The article has been peer reviewed. I look forward to your comments and suggestions and thank you Zzzzz for the nom. --kingboyk 12:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because pictures do not conform to fair use policy. They do not provide the source, do not have fair use rationales, and some are high resolution (low resolution usually means under 300x300px). See also the whole discussion on WP:FUIL if fair use images can be used in lists at all. Other stuff: more info on movies wanted. Referencesb and footnotes do not follow a single format. Renata 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, image fair use rationales and related points were something I meant to sort out before the nomination went live and totally forgot (we've unfortunately lost a WikiProject member, so there's been a delay between Peer Review and FLC). I will attend to it and report back. Other points: this article does not purport to cover their celluloid work, which is in The KLF films. Will look at the refs and footnotes and report back on that also. --kingboyk 13:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've attended to the points as follows:
      • Image source: the catalogue number and copyright owner of each scan is now given. I don't believe that who scanned it is material, AFAIK there is no copyright in the 2D, flat reproduction of another copyrighted work, i.e. the owner of the artwork holds a copyright but the scanner doesn't. In many cases I myself am the scanner.
      • Fair use rationales provided.
      • Any images higher than 300x300 have been downsized and reuploaded.
      • Thanks for the WP:FUIL link, that's a helpful page. I see that the issue is undecided, and I firmly assert that our image use is fair both legally and morally. If it is later decided that this position is wrong, we can remove the images. I'm sure it need not be a barrier to our candidacy given that the position is unclear and therefore down to editor discretion at this time.
      • References: Excellent spot, thank you. I've tidied them; if any are still not satisfactory please inform me of which and I'll take another look.
    • Thank you, and I hope these points have been cleared up to your satisfaction. --kingboyk 12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There's also WP:MUSTARD, proposed policy directly affecting images in discographies (currently flat-out against). Something else to consider. –Unint 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I count 8 different editors in the history of the Talk page, so it's not had great community involvement yet :) My problem is this: I don't want to downgrade the article (removing the images) to get it promoted, when at the moment the issue is undecided and later on we as a community might decide the images are OK. If, on the other hand, the article gets Featured and we later decide that the images must go then go they must, automatically. I don't see any impediment to promoting the article in this state because it's Featured status won't make it immune from a future policy which says these images can't be used. So, what to do? I'd prefer to leave the images there until the issue is decided one way or another, because I feel the article is improved greatly by their presence; but if the only way to get this list Featured is to remove them I suppose I'll do it. It's been a long stated aim of WP:KLF to get this article to Featured List status and I believe we've done it, so if I have to make such a change I guess it's worth it. Help me please! Can the images stay for now or must I remove them? --kingboyk 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "My problem is this: I don't want to downgrade the article (removing the images) to get it promoted". That is, unfortunately, what I think is going to happen. I cannot see the value of having the covers in the article, especially when the albums themselves are so prominently linked and have articles of their own. In addition, current Fair Use discussion makes me hesitant to promote lists with so many Fair Use images. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I see. You know the ironic thing is that KLF is said by many to mean "Kopyrite Liberation Front"; they've deleted their entire back catalogue and have no further commercial interest in it. I know that's not likely to change the minds of those who have fair use issues but it causes me a little frustration :) Anyway: I hope to get some more comments on this issue, and will also when I have a moment try to reformat the article without the images save for the KLF Comms logo. --kingboyk 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not saying it's not up for discussion. Going to try to initiate that at MUSTARD. –Unint 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, indeed, and thank you for the heads up. --kingboyk 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - With the recent F.U. changes, this looks pretty nice and now properly supported by fair use claims. Wickethewok 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Apart from the covers I see the following issues: references are not properly formatted, title and scope of list do not coincide (the films and books are not part of the discography, a more proper name for the article would be "The KLF publications" or similar). The whole section of KLF communications should be moved to its own article with just the summary being left here. Purpose of the "additional communicators" section is not clear. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments.
  • In what way are the references not properly formatted? Objections should be actionable, so I need to know what's wrong with them :) They're consistent and in the same format as The KLF. The references aren't referred to in the footnotes because they are general references for the list data.
  • The other sections - about their record label, publications and the additional performers on their works - do indeed increase the scope, and are intended to. Let's examine the sections:
    • KLF Communications. I think this is on-topic for a discography, and to split it out to another article would introduce a very short article of no great standalone merit. Having it here introduces the reader very nicely to their collection of work, emphasises the independence of their activities, and defines the scope of the following lists.
    • Bill Drummond & Jimmy Cauty discography. The meat of the list. This is all of the published music of Drummond and Cauty (The KLF); most of this work was on KLF Communications but see my point after this bulleted list.
    • Other KLF Communications releases. The work of The KLF spinoff band Disco 2000, and Cauty's Space album, released by Drummond & Cauty on their KLF Communications label.
    • The KLF filmography. The films were works of KLF Communications. We might change the name of the article, then, or we could remove this and have a See also entry for The KLF films.
    • KLF Publications bibliography. Again, a KLF Communications piece, so we can rename the article or move this to a see also.
    • Chart performance
    • Additional communicators. This was originally part of the main article, but it was chopped out when The KLF underwent FAC due to length issues. For a short while it was a standalone article, but we felt that the information on who besides Drummond and Cauty appeared on their recordings was suitable material for the discography. Again, if we rename it to KLF Communications "additional communicators" makes more sense. Alternatively, we could split it back out to The KLF personnel.
    • Refs/footnotes/see also/external link
  • We could call the article "KLF Communications", which might be a better description than The KLF discography. The only problem with that is that 3 of the Drummond/Cauty releases (Waiting For The Rights of Mu, an at best semi-official release; and the post-KLF K Cera Cera and Fuck the Millennium) were on different labels. --kingboyk 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well written and comprehensive. No way that this could be improved upon. Me677 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The album cover guideline at WP:MUSTARD has been discussed more informally before, and I'm the one that added it to that page. I think their fair use claim is questionable, in that they are not very informative in this context. Also, it adds considerably to the length of the page without adding a lot of encyclopedic value. Tuf-Kat 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I see which way the wind is blowing on this, so for now I've removed the images. What do you think about renaming the article? --kingboyk 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also renamed the article KLF Communications, so we can now see it under a new name and without the fair use images. --kingboyk 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way are the images anti-fairuse? While the rename is more suitable (especially given the various names used) the removal of the images has left the article appearing to be poor quality and unfinished. While still comprehensive the overall effect is negative. I know we have to obey guidelines but The KLF having issues over kopyright? Don't make me laugh.... Me677 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support but I'm biased. On the renaming (and non-discography content) question, I think the article should be at KLF discography and I don't think it matters if it has extra releases that are not records (I'm sure there is a precedent, e.g. Factory Records - many record labels or groups have official "releases" that weren't actually records). However I do think that the KLF kollaborators should be in their own page. Pages that are a list of "minor characters" are the encouraged practice - this list of KLF kollaborators can then have sub-headings and hence they can be wiki linked from other articles. My main problem with the move is that KLF Communications, because of the capital letter should only be used for the KLF's label/organisation - if you want to make a page that acts as a discography but contains non-record items then that should be at KLF communications or KLF communications and publications. cheers Drstuey 10:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This isn't really a standalone-list, it is an article that contains two quite separate embedded lists. The first is a list of releases by the record label and the second is a list of guest contributors to albums. I think the problems with the name and the history behind the various sections and where they came from shows that the KLF project are having difficulty finding the correct home for this material. This article is currently a bit like a collection of stuff that didn't make it to The KLF (i.e. The KLF Vol 2). You might expect to find this material as sections within The KLF - but that article is too big already.
  • The first section of KLF Communications could be a short stand-alone article on the record label. See Apple Records. This could also include info on any products that weren't produced by the band.
  • The second section could be either of two things. It could be a list of releases made by the record label (See Apple Records discography) or it could be a lists of releases by the band (See The Beatles discography). You could have both but I suspect that's overkill. I think most folk are more interested in the band than the record label. So you could create a stand-alone list (KLF discography) with just the KLF material. If there are a few releases by the label that don't fit here then they could go in the KLF Communications article.
  • The third section is a problem. As a non-fan, I'm really struggling to get excited about such a collection of bits and bobs. If each album/single's page mentioned who contributed to that product, isn't that enough? Sometimes having too much information means that the important stuff gets lost. Perhaps you could add a short section/paragraph to The KLF that listed just the important/significant collaborators.
  • You've written tons of stuff on The KLF. It is hard and painful, but I think you need to condese it to make it more accessible. Less is more and all that.
  • So, if we remove the top and bottom, could a stand-alone KLF discography be a featured list? I should note that I haven't managed to find a version of this article with pictures of albums/singles on it, so can't comment on what that looked like. The current formatting won't win any prizes and there are many other discographies that I think are presented better. The track listings are particularly hard to read. The singles list doesn't contain track listings so would be more compact in a table format perhaps.
  • A discography could be a featured list, but to "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." it has got to be quite impressive. I really doubt the KLF have produced enough material for one to be impressed by any list. To win this point, we'd have to be able to say that this was one of the very best discographies on Wikipedia and can be held up as an example to others. In addition, it has to be unique on the Internet. Many web sites (official and fan) have very, very good discographies so that is a hard challenge. IMO, it really does need thumnail album/single covers.
  • In summary, I'd recommend you create small to medium sized articles covering cohesive KLF-related topics. If individually these aren't impressive enough to be featured, then you'll just have to accept that. I don't think combining them does the reader any favours. I would like to add that I think your devotion to the topic is quite remarkable. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 11:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I see a consensus on the contributors issue; I've commented that section out and certainly it looks better without it. I'm not sure yet whether to split it back out to another article or dump it. I'm not a fan of short, context-free articles so I might quietly dump that section. Images have been restored (you couldn't see a version with images because it uses templates for the formatting). It just isn't the same without them, I agree with you. I'm happy with the article as it now stands; if it can't get Featured as is and there are no actionable suggestions to make it so, I guess you are right I shall have to accept it and be content with Good Article status. All that said, the article should be judged on its merits not on how impressive the band were and how much of an impact their catalogue made or didn't make, and I still maintain that's it's one of the best discographies on Wikipedia. It's the only one to be listed as a GA, too. Thanks again for your comments. --kingboyk 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. You don't need to show me Apple Records discography, the Apple articles are largely my work too :) :P P.P.S. With regards to formatting, it's not my stroing point. I'm a writer/editor/geek, not, alas, a designer :)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I started researching this and making the maps back in May, and after two months of work, I finally popped it up. Everything is either referenced in the articles linked, or in external links, but I can add other extlinks if needed. I don't really know what else to say here, except I think it might be ready for nomination, so here I am. :) --Golbez 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I found this page on DYK the other day, and I was very impressed by it. Lovelac7 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Provide a general source of all items; otherwise you have to source each item individually. Additionally, the sources you already have are not properly formatted with {{cite web}}. The irregular intercalations of text make the whole article look ugly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on it. --Golbez 23:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cited it out one of it's orifices now, replete with cite-webs. As for the ugliness, any suggestions? --Golbez 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hehe, thank you. You could use two columns for each decade, but the cost would be making the maps smaller. Or maybe you could alternate the side on which the maps are (say 1880s left, 1890s right) Try experimenting a little, if you've got the time. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe in part it could be addressed to putting on more text explaining the territorial change. There would be less white space and therefor not that ugly & more informative. Renata 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've guffed out a lot of the entries, adding the present-day states and such. A little more might be able to be done, but in many areas, I'm not sure what I could add. I suppose I could add all the capitals. ;) --Golbez 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because it has no lead (1 sentence, does not qualify as such), but I have to admit that is one interesting & good list. Renata 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to flesh it out a bit, but it's difficult. --Golbez 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gosh, I want to support it :) But you could say in the intro why the territory changed, were those peaceful changes or not. You know some sort of very general overview what happened. Renata 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about now? --Golbez 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to support Renata 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very informative and well-presented. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Could use a bit more work on the introduction, and a picture at the very beginning of the list (by the introduction) would be nice. But an excellent list overall. --Tim4christ17 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but calling the article Territorial evolution of the United States and failing to include the United States territories is not acceptable. Joelito (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on them, but technically, they are no more part of the United States than the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I'm wrong. --Golbez 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, U.S. territories are still very much a part of the United States. I note that several territories are already listed - the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Territory, etc. It's just common sense that its other terroritories - including the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and past holdings such as Cuba - be included. --Tim4christ17 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alaska, Louisiana, etc. Territories were incorporated territories, incorporated into the borders of the United States. Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc. are unincorporated territories, possessions of the US government but not part of the country. A prime example: A war about 140 years ago told us that incorporated parts of the country do not have the right to leave, but I do believe Puerto Rico would have the ability to leave, were certain conditions met. --Golbez 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a full list of unincorporated territories to the Notes, and there's a possible draft of a list on the talk page, but I am still very much against including them in the main timeline. No one challenges one whit that Arizona Territory was part of the United States; however, you might annoy some people if you call the CNMI or Puerto Rico part of the United States. (And you might annoy some people if you don't - there's no winning). --Golbez 07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're born in Puerto Rico, you're automatically a U.S. citizen. I guess I've always figured that meant it was part of the United States.... --Tim4christ17 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to United States nationality law: "Children born in the United States (including not only the 50 states and the District of Columbia, but also, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone before it was returned to Panama), are U.S. citizens at birth" In other words, the unincorporated territories aren't quite equal to the states, whereas I don't think there has ever been any difference between the incorporated territories and states as far as citizenship is concerned. Also, people from American Samoa, while U.S. nationals, aren't U.S. citizens, possibly because the territory is unorganized. And finally, Puerto Ricans have representation in neither congress nor the electoral college. It seems to me to be the difference between "part of the United States" and "a possession of the United States". --Golbez 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have gone on a different direction. The article is talking about land and you are talking about people. The article is concerned with the United States territories. Territories includes incorporated and unincorporated territories. Wikipieda does not care if it annoys some people we are here to present verifiable facts. Joelito (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The verifiable fact is, unincorporated territories are not part of the nation, and incorporated territories are. --Golbez 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support - Great. Love the use of maps aswell. Sotakeit 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too many questions on the talk page. Article is probably not stable yet. Rmhermen 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent list. Top class. Rmhermen- probably not stable? I'm not seeing too many questions, I'm seeing editors discussing how to address comments here- perfectly valid. If you weren't allowed to change anything during FLC or FAC, nothing would ever pass. --PresN 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this list while bumping through the encyclopedia. It has references, notes, and meets the criteria. It should be featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The references cover only the information I added to the article. Information such as boiling point, melting point, year of discovery and discoverer were all added later and are not referenced within this article. This would need to be fixed before this could be featured. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice that. I'll see wha I can do to find references for those. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Spangineer. The additional info was dumped from an unknown source and is partly contradictory to chemical elements data references. Femto 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional semi-related discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

This is a screenshot of ''{{{PAGENAME}}}'', an episode of [[Batman: The Animated Series]], an animated series produced by [[Bruce Timm]] and [[Paul Dini]], distributed by [[Warner Bros.]] and originally aired on [[Fox Network]].

I've been working on this list for about a month or so by adding tables, synopses, airdates, and production codes for each season, as well as expanding the heading. The title screenshot used also has fair use rationales. Please give some feedback as to any other improvements that can be made. - Zone46 07:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: you need a proper fair use rationale for use of the logo in this list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a fair use rationale. I said that already. - Zone46 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I read it and none of the reasons listed qualify for this list, just for the actual That '70s Show article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same for the List of The Simpsons episodes. - Zone46 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realize, I hope, that somebody else's mistake does not justify yours. In any case I removed the offending image from the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake, I misread your statement before. I thought you meant the whole list of episodes in general was only relevant for the That '70s Show article, not the fair use list. I didn't know you were talking about the image. - Zone46 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• References? Renata 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The external links were the references, I just mis-labeled the section (it's fixed now). I got most help from TV.com and the show's official website, as well as watching the episodes (obviously). - Zone46 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Although WP:LOE is still getting off the ground, the recommendations there, as well as what's seen on most lists (including the other 6 episode FLs) have the synopses under the row with title, air date, etc. I don't think formatting needs to be exactly the same, but at least that should be done for number 4 on Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. -- Ned Scott 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I think there should be some consistent widths for the columns and the tables themselves. -- Ned Scott 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Abusing table markup for decoration. HTML is a structural language; structurally, half of this article is made up of empty table cells that serve no purpose. I also find the colors to be distracting and completely unneccesary. If you want to color code it, I think it should only be done in the table header. Punctured Bicycle 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, what? There does seem to be an empty cell in each entry, likely where the summary should go as I suggested above. I'm guessing the table code was copied from another list, but not filled out correctly. But even with that, I'm not really sure I understand the comment "abusing table markup for decoration". This isn't far off from what most lists use, including our other 6 featured episode lists. The color separation row is very common, and I really don't see that as a problem (but if I had to nitpick, I'd say lose the pink). -- Ned Scott 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tables are for tabulating data, not for facilitating visual effects. In other words, creating empty data cells for the sole purpose of coloring them in is wrong. That's what CSS is for. See List of The Simpsons episodes for a good model. Punctured Bicycle 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it'd be fair to say that the synopsis of each episode should be written to uniquely identify an episode (in the context of a list such as this). As in, someone who has seen the show should be able to generally know what an episode is based on these short summaries (reasonable that this might not be fool-proof, but should generally yield positive IDs). I have not seen most of the episodes from this show, would anyone more familiar like to comment on how effective they feel the descriptions are? This will help us see if the list passes part 2 of the featured list criteria. -- Ned Scott 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I got a number of synopses from TV.com and the show's official website. Anyone who has seen and knows the show more than I do please feel free to contribute. As for the layout, why can't it be different from the others? Does every TV show FL need to look alike? - Zone46 15:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you interrupt part 4 on the FL criteria. There is a WikiProject List of Television Episodes, although doesn't have a lot of members, still reflects the common layout seen on TV lists, as well as on the other featured lists of episodes. Without nitpicking, I'd say this at least includes consistent table column widths, summaries under the "title row", basic info (such as original air date, title, and episode number/ prod code), and tables grouped by season or other logical system. You've got two of the four that I've listed there. -- Ned Scott 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you make the widths consistent? They turned out the way they did after I made the tables, and it's been bugging me on why they aren't. Also, what do you mean by "basic info (such as original air date, title, and episode number/ prod code), and tables grouped by season or other logical system"? Aren't the production codes, airdate, etc. grouped in their specific seasons? Please expand on what I'm doing wrong. Thanks. - Zone46 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me, basic info and grouping the seasons are two things you are already doing correctly ;)

As for the table widths, code such as ! Title !! Number of tacos eaten !! Reason for not wearing pants can become  ! width="100" | Title !! width="200" | Number of tacos eaten !! width="200" | Reasons for not wearing pants. I'd recommend not defining the width for title, though, and then at the very top of the wikitable make {| class="wikitable" into {| class="wikitable" width="98%"(You can use 100% if you want, it just helps sometimes to use 98% because of the way some browsers, such as the MSN browser, renders tables. I'm not sure why.) Using a percentage width for the over all table, and then not defining the Title width (or another column), will make the table able to change with the browser window size but still make all the columns line up. An example using your current layout, I would define a width for Title and instead keep Synopsis undefined, shown as:

{| class="wikitable" width="98%" |- ! width="200"| Title !! width="120"|Original air date !! Synopsis !! width="25"|Production code !! width="25"|#

-- Ned Scott 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, I've fixed the widths of the tables and it looks much better. - Zone46 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also deleted the extra row underneath each episode. I really don't feel the need to place the synopses underneath the title, production code, etc. Wouldn't the page get much bigger? - Zone46 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if I'd call it required for the FLC, but it would help. It might make the page longer, but not significantly. It would be more constant with the style of the other 6 featured episode lists (well, 5, actually, since List of Simpsons episodes doesn't have summaries on that article, but instead on sub articles), and the emerging guidelines of WP:LOE. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So do you suggest changing the format so that the synopses go underneath the other details (ie list of South Park episodes? If that's how it has to be in order to become an FL, fine, but I just think something different wouldn't hurt. - Zone46 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In the status that the list is in now, I support, since no one else is commenting. If anyone wants to make any other major changes, go right ahead, but I don't know how much longer the list will be up for nomination.- Zone46 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have only been involved in a handful of FLC, but I would think that gaining featured list status wouldn't be based on a lack of opposition, but rather, should be done when there is strong support. It's not that I don't think it's a bad article, it's a lot better than most, but a Featured list is supposed to "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." -- Ned Scott 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, well thanks for everyone's input. I tried, failed, and now I can finally focus on something else. (You don't know how many times I've checked this page over the past week). Thanks again. - Zone46 23:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that you have failed. You've already improved the list greatly by including it in this process, and I would say it's not far off from FL material. Remember, featured status is something that is supposed to be very challenging, or else everything would be featured. You've done a good job on this, so I hope this FLC isn't a discouragement to you. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. The list has improved greatly during this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]