Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2006

It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed; has a concise lead sections and, apropriate headings. It has no TOC due to having only three sections; and has no images as there aren't any that are suitable. (I know that a map of the ridings would be very nice, but all such maps I've come across are Crown Copyright and thus not suitable).

In the list's previous nomination, there were two main objections, which I don't feel I addressed properly at the time:

1. The layout used is not scalable. If you look at User:Tompw/sandbox3, you will find two versions of the table expanded to include future elections. The first shows that the current format can easily include the next two elections (including proposed new boundries) with minimal linebreaks, and would thus last until about the 5th election (~2016). At the bottom of the page you'll find a version with seven elections, but more linebreaks. I should point out that if a MLA is elected more than once, their box will span multiple columns, and thus their name won't have a line break.
2. There's only two elections. Firstly this number will go up. (Don't take my word for it - the Canadian Constituion says so). Secondly, the implication is that he list isn't "useful". However, this list definately brings "together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic" (the topic being Nunavutian elections)

(self-nomination) Tompw (talk)

• Oppose. Primarily, it is too short. How many votes did each person get, or what percentage? Were there any other candidates? I'm not sure how useful it is, given the brevity. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that providing the results of every single riding is too much information for an article which is a list of *elections*. It already provides the results of the election, which for consensus government means who gets elected. (For Yukon, where there are official poltical parties, the results given are the number of seats won.... again, it doesn't provide details of every riding). Tompw (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think there should be more information on the elections themselves. Other major candidates, voter turnout, maybe even background information like the age to vote, any addition to the article would be nice, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not start recording failed candidates in general elections: too much information. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Same as before: list of two. What's the rush to be featured? It's neat and tidy but just too small. Sorry. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This is not even a list of general elections; it's a list of general election winners. Not at all comprehensive (like Hink said, we don't see vote counts, party affiliations, other candidates, etc.), and as a result, not useful, thereby failing to requirements of WP:WIAFL. -- Kicking222 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no party affiliations because it isn't a party system. The only way to list the results is to give a list of winners.
• Weak support - I think it meets WP:FL? regardless of its length. However, to make it look more like a list of elections than a list of winners, let’s put links and key information in the table above the names. The link to the articles on assemblies could be moved up, and then we can add columns for premier, voter turnout, and the exact date of the election. --Arctic Gnome 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's just not too much of a list when there are only two columns of information. I agree with Colin. However, as for images, the map Image:Nunavut-map.png would work well. It's certainy a good list, just not feature-y yet until there are more elections. For example, List of Harry Potter films cast members wouldn't have really worked if there had been only two movies to show trends in casting. It works much better with five. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. After seeing your other lists this one falls short. Doesn't really tell you anything.--Wizardman 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't understand the arguments against it. Just because there are few items on the list doesn't inherently make the list useless, and I'm not aware that length is a featured list criteria. Tuf-Kat 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list can't be longer as Nunavut is a new creation. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia's best work: Each episode has a description, image, guest stars and its production code
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Allows people to view an individual season of The Simpsons
   • Comprehensive: Every episode and notable detail is mentioned
   • Factually accurate: There is a link to the official guide on the FOX website
   • Stable: The season is no longer aired, so it doesn't need vast updates
3. Well-organised: Easy to understand format
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disputes of any kind
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise

I imagine there will be some concerns about notability, but the second season is considered one of the shows most important season because it solidified its status as a pop culture phenomenon. And no, we couldn't do a similiar list with all seasons because there are 18 and 360+ episodes, so it would be a little long. -- Scorpion0422 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as Nominator -- Scorpion0422 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The images need fair use rationales for this page. Episode summaries should be expanded, many are single sentence paragraphs. Jay32183 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summaries are the perfect length for the page, otherwise they'd be too long. THe purpose is to just give a short overview of the episode. And the only non-screenshot image has fair use image rationale. -- Scorpion0422 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The screenshots need fair use rationales, and the summaries are greatly insufficient. See List of The Sopranos episodes and List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. Both of those were promoted recently and have much meatier summaries. You can give a short overview in a full paragraph without being overly detailed. Full paragraphs are better writing than single sentences. Jay32183 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I guess you might as well, but why is it any better than any of the other season articles?--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessarily better and if this one passes, the other seasons could be nominated. This one is fully sourced as well. -- Scorpion0422 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The writing isn't that good, and I don't really see what makes the article so informative. Croctotheface 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons listed above. The overviews are not long enough, and some are poorly written. i.e.:"Lisa falls for a substitute teacher, but Homer ruins it all by acting stupid when meeting him. Then, he (the teacher) leaves." That does not strike me as Wikipedia's best work. But, the article is close, imo. Just a little more work, and it would be a FL. Resolute 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.
  • Episodes should be in quotes.
  • Television shows should be in italics.
  • References should be after punctuation.
  • "List of Episodes" should be "List of episodes"
  • Summaries should be longer.
  • It is a myth that The Simpsons beat The Cosby show. If you look at this reference you will see that The Cosby Show finished in 5th place during that season and The Simpsons finished below a 30th place. They did however beat The Cosby Show a few times. Most notably with "Bart Gets an F", but what the article writes is plain wrong (and by the way not what they said during the commentaries). --Maitch 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that this article will be defeated, so rather than leave it up, I'd like to request that it be drawn from consideration. Thanks, -- Scorpion 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia's best work: One of the most complete lists of Simpsons guest stars on the English internet, well organized.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Allows people to view each guest star by the episode they guest starred in.
   • Comprehensive: Has every creditted guest star in Simpsons history
   • Factually accurate: Each guest star can be confirmed by watching the episode
   • Stable: Is updated every time a new guest is announced and every time an episode is aired
3. Well-organised: Easy to understand format, Seasons > episodes > guests > individual members (if a band)
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: The only problem is that there are no images, and it would be no problem to add images, but I felt that since it is a general list, including just a few of certain guest stars wouldn't make much sense and could disrupt the flow of the list. -- Scorpion0422 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as Nominator -- Scorpion0422 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great work, very informative, complete, although I agree you may need an image, maybe just having one at the top, for example Ricky Gervais. And say "Ricky Gervais as Charles, an example of a guest star." Gran2 08:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Pretty much what Gran2 said. Except more than 1 picture is needed, probably because there are so many pictures you could put on. I would say having a picture of:

1. Sideshow Bob
2. Fat Tony
3. The most notable of each seasons guest stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy mci (talk • contribs)

• Comment. There are no sources for most the list. Episodes should be in quotes and the headings should follow MoS (e.g. "Season one" instead of "Season One"). --Maitch 14:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should be sourced? All of the statements and future guests have sources. Do you want each and every guest star to have a source, because there's no general source for the episodes list... -- Scorpion0422 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Season one" etc. titles look terrible. Surely a better route would just be to change them all to numbers "Season 1", like List of The Simpsons episodes? Which is also a featured list. Gran2 17:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - An excellent, comprehensive and well organised list. Nebuchanezzar 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; however, the title within the lead needs to be bolded. That aside, this obviously meets FL criteria. —Cliff smith 03:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the list has no sources. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tell me what needs to be sourced and where I can find these sources and I will add them. The guests from each episode can easily be confirmed by watching the episode plus I have links to several lists of guest stars at the bottom. -- Scorpion0422 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finding what guests have been on the show by watching the epiodes yourself is original research. Although plot does not require references by default, this is a more complicated situation. Sure there is some official episode guide somewhere on the internet, so it wouldn't be too difficult to reference. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm the one who made the list and the bulk of the guest stars I got from the two lists that are linked at the bottom. THere is no official FOX list of guest stars on the Internet. And most of the existing lists are incomplete or full of mistakes so I had to use several lists, plus some Wikipedia pages. In can throw on a few more lists at the bottom if thats what you want. -- Scorpion0422 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh please. Every single guests star is already sourced, didn't you notice the episode names and production codes next to each guest star?Nebuchanezzar 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please mind WP:CIVIL. As Michaelas10 said, that is original research. If there is no reliable source (as Scorpion0422 himself said above) for this list the nomination will fail regardless of how many support votes it gathers. Additionally, the episode screenshots are being used for decoration and not for discussion of the guest stars. These must be removed too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said it was original research. I got all of my information from the three lists that are sourced at the bottom of the page, who got their information from the episodes. Therefore, I have a source and it is not original research (on my part anyway). And what I said was that there is no OFFICIAL source, but the lists from those pages listed are relatively accurate and the information has been confirmed. -- Scorpion0422 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Nebuchanezzar and Gran2. --Rubber cat 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't really have any objection to this list.. but I'm not sure if it's a featured list. It's good and all, but.. I wouldn't call it great. I think the trivial nature of the information might have a part of this. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: There are already some pretty trivial lists out there that are featured. For example, how important are lists of general elections in Canadian provinces? Guest stars are an important aspect of The Simpsons - more than 75% of the episodes feature guest stars and the show has been recognized by the Guiness Book of Records as having more guest stars than any other Primetime TV series. -- Scorpion0422 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was impressed by the amount of guest starts. I have some ideas for the formatting that might make it stand out a bit more.. I'll leave a note on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose due to serious problems with the sources and lack of fair-use rationales for the images.

• On the one hand is the claim that the list is effectively self-referencing (each episode is named and coded). This might just be acceptable (I'm not sure) if the episode titles clearly stated "Guest: XXX as YYY". If it didn't identify who the artist was playing (including themselves), then it is OR to identify the artist's character. On the other hand, the main author admitted lifting "the bulk of the guest stars" .. "from the two lists that are linked at the bottom", which are apparently "relatively accurate". The first is IMDB, which is not regarded as a reliable source due to its user-contributed / v. lightly edited nature. The second is Simpson Crazy, who's About page says it was started by three guys, but mostly run by one in his spare time. Bedroom-operated web sites don't count as reliable sources either. Another reference given is The Simpson Archive, which is also fan-maintained. The author claims there is no official guest list (and that most unofficial ones are "incomplete or full of mistakes"). But the first reference is the offical The Simpsons.com site, which does count as a reliable source. This site gives all the info required, but for a vastly reduced subset of the names in this list. Therefore, I could support the list if restricted to just the facts from the (one) reliable source.
• The includsion criteria are ill-defined (and tweaked again at the start of Season one). This would be solved if list were based on the offical source.
• The unaired episodes section should be removed, perhaps to the talk page.
• The ING top 25 is a copyright list (ING's opinions of the best) and as such is a copyvio to reproduce I'm afraid. It needs to go.
• The Note1/2 lines use a deprecated template and don't seem to be tied back to anywhere in the list?
• There are no fair-use rationales for this list for any of the pictures. Not all editors think such rationales can be supported for lists so you may choose to play safe by removing them. If you feel it must have them, then I would think the only supportable rationale would be for a guest star playing themselves.

Colin°^Talk 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Reply: I don't see why such a big deal is being made over sources. There is a link to the official sites episode guide, and each episode page there includes guest stars. Do you want each episode here linked to each episode there? As well, this list is accurate because I used a combination of those lists, plus they can all be confirmed on the official site. The images can be removed no problem, they are mainly there for decoration. But what are you talking about inclusion criteria being ill-defined? Every actor creditted as a guest star is included (except Marcia Wallace because eh's been in a LOT of episodes), and every non-main cast member from the first season is there because they didn't have credited guest stars at that point. As for copyvio, that can also be removed no problem. -- Scorpion0422 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a core policy. Listing one good ref amongst the dodgy ones doesn't make it all right. I think over 75% of the names on this list can't be reliably sourced without further research. Linking each episode to the official page using inline-citations/WP:Footnotes and {{cite web}} would be a big and essential improvement. It will really help to show that each episode is well sourced and discourage further unsourced additions (which are always a problem with such lists). I accept that such heavy pruning will seem like a big loss, but this is an encyclopedia that has higher standards than a fan site (esp. for Featured material). You could try to locate other reliable sources. Perhaps there are news articles that discuss a celebrity appearance in an episode? Try a Google search for the episode name and the star name.

The inclusion criteria would be shorter if you just said that the program must have credited the person as a "Guest star". The bit on Marcia Wallace is overlong and the definition of a "signficant role" isn't as objective as ideal. Perhaps just briefly say that although she is credited as a "Guest star", she has appeared in over a hundred episodes and so is not listed here. Series One would seem to be a problem, but the current list includes voice actors who aren't special just because their character didn't become a regular.

See Wikipedia:Fair use and Help:Image page#Fair use rationale for how to add a rationale to your picture. To answer WarBaCoN's point in the talk page: no you can't add them back later ;-).

Colin°^Talk 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, the one source is a bit dodgy, but it is complete, thats why its listed. But IMDB and the Simpsons Archive are both accepted sources and the official site is official. Those are what I used to make this list, so adding more sources would just be overkill. I don't see why this list needs to have a link to the official page beside each episode. The List of episodes of The Simpsons doesn't have a link to the official site next to each page. As for the books, I have 2 of them, so I'll source them. -- Scorpion0422 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book and the various sequels contain all the listed guest stars. If anyone has it (I did, but gave it to my sister) then you could reference from there.HornetMike 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great source. The inline-citations recommendation still applies. There's no reason why this list couldn't become featured, but it needs a bit of work yet. Colin°^Talk 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the referencing issue, there really is no issue. Just because we don't format a template for each and every part of the article does not make it unreferenced. There is a certain level of common sense one should use. If we say "X stared in episode Y" then episode Y can be used as a reference, and no further note is really needed. To say this info is unreferenced is just silly. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episodes are a primary source. If the article is relying on them as references, it should be explict about it (so we can distinguish when it is relying on something else as a references, such as a fan site or an official site). Leaving the reader to guess which facts are supported by the episode and which come from elsewhere isn't satisfactory. Secondly, the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources policy makes it quite clear that such sources should be the exception and can only be used with great care. It appears to be well documented that the Simpsons episodes do not list the full details of the guest stars and their characters in the credits. Therefore speculation (or unreferenced insider knowlege) that a particular yellow cartoon character was voiced by Dustin Hoffman is not allowed just because you can watch the episode and it sounds a bit like him. Colin°^Talk 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to Dustin Hoffman, it's been confirmed that it was him, and I'll dig up a source for that. And you seem to be forgetting that there is an official source at the bottom of the article. The way you say it, we have no sources whatsoever. Anyway, it's been 15 days since this article was nominated, and the nomination page says a maximum of 10. Is there a particular reason why the article hasn't been promoted or denied FL status? -- Scorpion 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Scorpion, you may not promote your own nomination. There are some serious issues being raised here, and without them being fixed, this will most-likely fail. Michaelas10 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked several admins and they said there was nothing that said I couldn't promote it. Besides, it seems to me that I have addressed all of the concerns. The List of Simpsons and South Park episodes do not have a seperate source after every episode, so why shoould this one? -- Scorpion 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they link to episode lists, which provide exactly the same information as written in the list. There are no official "star guest" lists, but you could still use the book provides by HornetMike. Until then, it is original research. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Both imdb and snpp are accepted sources. Yes, the official link links to episodes, but those episode pages have guest stars. And if I DID add sources for the books, I would have to look the information on a website, and I've been told only to source books if you actually use them, which I did not. And also, the books are basically extended synopsises of the episodes and only have brief information on guest stars, and some are not even included (ie. Phil Hartman, Frank Welker). I linked every source I used. Those sources are accurate. The list is accurate. Stop creating issues where there are none. -- Scorpion 08:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue isn't as cut-and-dry as episode lists. I'm a bit worried about using IMDB as the only source on some of the entries. The more complex the list is the more we should be sure about these things before making it featured. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that this doesn't count, but I can guarantee that the list is extremely accurate. There are a bunch of fan websites with good (but incomplete) lists that I unfortunately can't source because they aren't official, such as the one included. And yes, imdb does list some guest stars (ie. Catherine O'Hara, Freddy Krieger) who never guest starred, but that's why the SNPP list is included. SNPP has been accepted as an accurate source on The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, both of which are GA or higher. And The Fox link is an official source, and yes, page viewers will have to visit individual pages, but at least there is an official source. -- Scorpion 08:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also important to note that the official source is incomplete and is missing several guest stars who played a minor role in the episode they appeared in. -- Scorpion 08:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulates information of planet-sized bodies in Solar system (planets, dwarf planets and planetary-sized moons) and their properties, focusing on those specific to planetary-sized objects and important for possible future solar system colonization. Internal structure (planetological model) of the bodies, where data exists, indicated as well. Information groupped by planet-satellite system and Solar System regions.--Planemo 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: Needs longer introduction and explanation of table colors (add a key). Rmhermen 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added--Planemo 19:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sources should be based on {{cite web}} rather than just external jumps. Jay32183 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Some comments. First, you should reiterate it is about our solar system. The title is a little vague in that regard. You should include imperial and metric conversions in the table. The color for planet and dwarf planet should be noticably different, also. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial units are not attainable in tables of this format. Also, in scientific literature of this type you NEVER find imperial units. Nergaal (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just put the sources in cite web and mention that it is about this solar system in the intro and you have my support. Also, if you can edit the images, the cross-sections are pretty useless when they aren't labelled, but that isn't enough to make me vote against it. I am going to have to disagree with Hurricanehink about the imperial conversions, those would make the table look cluttered, and I don’t think any astronomers work in anything but metric. --Arctic Gnome 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• previous FLC archive

Self-nomination. Resubmitting this list as I believe all problems from its last nomination have been adressed and it now fully meets FL criteria. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How can you be sure it's complete? Tompw (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the main references have been covered, if that's what you mean. But, like any Wikipedia article, I doubt it will ever be fully complete. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the dynamic list template. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand its a dynamic list. I should have said "comprehensive" rather than complete. Have you considered media other than film/TV/music? (e.g. radio, books, internet, comics, modern art, computer games...) Tompw (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mainly due to the references and not comprehensive wrt covers.
  • The lead paragraphs could do with some copyediting. For example, phrases and words are repeated. Adjectives are adoring ("massive"). Try to become a dispassionate music reporter.
  • Generally, IMDB isn't regarded as a reliable source as much of the content is anonymously user-contributed like Wikipedia, and has very limited editorial review. The trivia pages in particular are very much deprecated (which is the source for several movie items). The soundtrack might be a bit more reliable but if you have the film, then usually the soundtrack is detailed on the end credits. If AC/DC is mentioned in the credits then you can use {{Cite video}} and cite the movie directly.
  • TV.com has the same problems as IMDB. I can sign up and add any guff. This affects the Simpsons items. You may be able to use the episode as a primary source via {{Cite episode}}, provided you meet the WP:NOR policy on what you can glean from such a source.
  • The My Name is Earl source is a personal fan site. No editorial control means not a reliable source.
  • The Covers Project is based on data from MusicBrainz, which is user-contributed. Although this isn't a reliable source, their list of AC/DC covers should be helpful and appear to be longer than your list.
  • The "Tributes and covers by other artists" section appears to be unordered. I suggest you split tribute albums from individual cover songs (not on tribute albums). You might find it helpful to use a table (columns for date, artist, album, song, etc). The sort order could either be publication date or artist name.
  • A dynamic list such as this is rarely served well by general references (the bullet points). The general refs you list are either unspecific (the whole of Rolling Stone) or are personal fan sites (though they may be useful to you as an editor since their lists of covers gives you an idea of what to search for elsewhere).

I could list more but you get the idea. Finding reliable sources for pop culture is difficult. Try searching online quality newspapers and professional music and film magazines. Colin°^Talk 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: IMDb is reasonably authoritative on credits, since they get those from official sources. As you say, trivia, comments, etc. are user-contributed and fails Reliable Source. --129.241.210.96 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was split from List of countries by Human Development Index (a featured list) and I believe that this "companion" list should be featured as well. This is sort of a self-nomination, as I tweaked lead and eliminated overlapping of the second map with the high table, but this is largely the work of others. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The editors on these lists have taken the list as it was in October when it was featured, and effectively renamed it to include 2005 in the name. The current version of the list has new 2006 sources. So essentially, the list you are asking for FL status is the list that got featured. I don't see that a name change should lose the FL status. I also didn't think there were any problems with the main list keeping its FL status even though a major change was immenent to revise for 2006.

The problem I have is that I'm really not convinced Wikipedia needs all these versions. The HDI goes back to 1990, and will presumably continue for many years to come. Only the current one is notable enough to be of encyclopedic value. Whilst historical data has a certain value, I don't think Wikipedia is an archive. Is there a precedence for this? What do others think? Colin°^Talk 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It allows comparisons of how each country has changed. If you like this list can be renamed to something like "List of countries by Human Development Index (historical)" or the like. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, let's assume that sometime in the future, new rankings are published for 2007's HDI. Following your rules, we would have to either automatically demote 2006's list or automatically promote 2007's list. Are you prepared to do that because, after all, 2007's data would be an update and a split? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of dynamic (featured) lists. They don't all spawn off a historical snapshot each year. I'd be quite happy for List of countries by Human Development Index to maintain its featured status as long as the editors keep the standard high. Otherwise, it would only need reviewed if significant changes were made, aside from keeping the numbers up-to-date. The HDI website appear to have changed so I can't find the old articles. When I last looked, they specifically discouraged doing trend analysis on each year's data - since the formula used changes from time-to-time. For that reason, they specially prepared a historical trend report using the 2005 formula over the decades. The 2006 Statistics Trends provides a very visually appealing web page. It is encyclopedic for Wikipedia to contain details and (sourced) discussion of significant notable changes in HDI for countries or continents. That's quite different from just supplying the raw data, which is more than adequately done by the external sites (which we rely on). Whilst the past is a different and interesting place, last year is mundane. Colin°^Talk 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has had a failed FLC before. To somewhat copy my last opening comments, let me first say that I am completely aware of the red-links problems that this list has, and I am (slowly) doing my best to deal with them, short of de-linking all of them (which I think would be unfair to both the list and the readers). If that dooms this FLC to failure, so be it. I unfortunately had to drop the last candidacy due to outside work, but I hope to continue where the last nomination left off. I have standardized the website references around a more standard citation formatting, although I have declined to use the cite web template as such, mainly because I prefer the simpler way to render what is essentially the same text. Our last discussion also included debate over whether or not inline citations were necessary (I'm neutral).

So to quickly summarize what I anticipate to be some of the issues:

1. Reference formatting
2. Inline citations or not?
3. Redlinkage issues

Many thanks in advance for your comments, Girolamo Savonarola 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can one format have been first used in 2007? Rmhermen 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...that edit seemed to have slipped below my radar. I'm assuming that it means that this format won't have a premiered work until 2007. Let me investigate further on that entry. Any other comments in the meantime? Girolamo Savonarola 03:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the 2007 one, since the list doesn't count formats which haven't been completed. (I can't find enough information to fully document it as distinct from the Ultra Toruscope format anyway.) Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I'm afraid you've anticipated the problems- there's too many redlinks and I think you definitely need inline citations, so you can actually check the data from the very long list of references. Less constructively, the table also breaks the scroll lock, which is a bit of a pain and I'm not very keen on the format of it (although I haven't got any suggestions on that I'm afraid). (sorry forgot to sign earlier) --G Rutter 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. What does "break the scroll lock" mean? Girolamo Savonarola 22:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... did I mean that? What I was trying to say was that the table is too wide for my screen resolution (1024x768, so fairly standard), so I have to scroll sideways to read the whole table, which is a Bad Thing (at least as far as I'm concerned). On the redlinks issue, it depends whether you think that the lists are a good thing in and of themselves (which I probably do), but the Wikipedia definition of the point of lists is "bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic"- therefore redlinks are the most important issue. You might want to argue with that, but that is one of the main criterion for currently creating a Featured List. --G Rutter 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object too many red links.__Seadog ^♪ 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really all that can be said? I simply don't see how either delinking the redlinks or making trivial stubs of them really adds any value to the list. I'm more than happy to tackle other issues, but if redlinkage is the only objection you have, then it seems to me that an Object is more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Basically the content might as well be worthless? Girolamo Savonarola 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across that way...I was just pointing something else out. I could have said more but it has all been said. — Seadog 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Yes, creating a stub on each redlink is usually adviced in such situations. I myself don't see the point in a list of non-existing articles. No, this isn't my only reason for objection, actually there are a lot more, but I think it would be pointless to provide them all until the most important problem gets fixed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list, while not complete, contains the major superseded scientific theories in many areas. It's been surprisingly uncontroversial and stable, except the occasional addition (and then removal) of "creationism". There are a couple of images that suit nicely, including a photo (i took) of some giraffes that i think illustrates Lamarckism beautifully. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - fine in principle, but the selection criterion is not clear (you seem to be admitting that it is not comprehensive) and it needs references. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - it just doesn't have enough detail about the things on it to really be interesting, plus it needs references. The description for Spontaneous generation implies that modern abiogenesis is the same as it, which it isn't. Caloric theory appears twice; none of the chemistry theories have even a perfunctory description, and saying "part of Dalton's law" is superseded tells very little. Saying continental drift was superseded by Plate tectonics is inaccurate: Plate techtonics is the mechanism of continental drift. I like the idea, and would like to see this develop, but don't think it's there yet. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - no references, I really doubt it's complete, not consistent descriptions of each item. Renata 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose while nice I belive that a FL should provide adequate references.__Seadog ^♪ 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As someone said on the talk page, it is a bit of a mixed bag of theories, hypotheses, models and "branches of enquiry". The subheadings could be briefer and more general (why is the Flat Earth geographical and not geological?). How about just "Physics", "Chemistry", "Astronomy", etc. I agree with the above comments re: inconsistent detail. I'm surprised at the lack of controversy, but that might just be because it hasn't been discovered by the radicals yet. I really doubt you can define a NPOV entry criteria. For example, why include Astrology and not Homeopathy? Colin°^Talk 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete, useful, referenced list with links and good notes about individual members. --Arctic Gnome 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. --Arctic Gnome 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - lead is too short. Explanation of colors? Renata 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead explains what the Leader of the Opposition is, how one becomes an official leader, and who the most recent people to hold the post were. What else should be there? If someone wants more information they can go to the main article on the topic. --Arctic Gnome 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment what would you think if wikilinks to the political parties were only in the color explanation chart and not repeated (duplicated) in the actual list? Hmains 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, though I had to add an extra row in the colours table because links are hard to read on blue. --Arctic Gnome 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is the image necessary? (It is fair use, not free.) Rmhermen 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to a less copyrighted image. --Arctic Gnome 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been spending some time redoing this article and I have cross checked it with the criteria for WP:FL and it passes all of them. All the info on the characters is verified and all plot summary is kept to a minimum per WP:FICT, so yeah, I'd like to see what the community thinks.

†he Bread 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please expand the lead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done it, how's that? †he Bread 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - messy layout, unnecessary bolding & linking, poor layout. Why Main and Other Characters don't have descriptions? Renata 23:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't have descriptions because they are in other articles, or have their owna articles, there's no point having an entry here when there is already one somewhere else, also what bolding and hows the layout messy? †he Bread 23:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were right about the links though, they've been fixed †he Bread 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Incomplete (featured list criterion 1.b.) - nine major characters have no description at all, they simply have their articles wikilinked to. Unverified (featured list criterion 1.c.). Images with no source information (featured list criterion 3). -- Steel 02:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has pretty much been seen to. -- Steel 11:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, what is unverified? Two the images have sources they are from a press kit, Three, why have descriptions of characters who already have their own articles †he Bread 02:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Unverified as in "no sources". 2) Where is this press kit? 3) Because otherwise you could reduce the article to this and call it a featured list. I strongly suggest you take a look at some current featured lists of people to see how they do it. -- Steel 02:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Urggh, source what? The plot summary, I can't compare it to other lists as there is no precident for a character list, the closest thing is this, which isn't helpful at all. †he Bread 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Content in Wikipedia needs a source. This is pretty basic stuff. And I realise there are currently no FLs of game characters, but there are still lists of people. -- Steel 02:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak object. I think this is almost there. There's a bit more that can be done:
  • The refs kind of suck, formatting-wise. I'd suggest using {{cite web}}; if you don't do this, I might end up doing it myself.
  • We can probably ditch {{Metal Gear series}} since this list isn't linked on it.
  • I haven't had any luck finding a properly sourced copy of the images of FOXHOUND. My suggestion would be to use the shadowy image of FOXHOUND from the intro; screenshots are easy to source, and it would be one image in lieu of several. If that image isn't at all useful (which is possible; I've not played MGS in a while) screenshots shouldn't be hard to find.
  • We can probably ditch all the redlinks to voice actors, unless a reasonable stub (which is more than "Foo Bar is a voice actor. He was the voice of Quux."
  • A copyedit is desperately needed. I noticed several typos, as well as some mangled prose.

  I'll do some cleanup when I'm in the mood to fiddle, but the copyedit and the image issues need to be resolved before this can be featured. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, what guild is the intro talking about? A wikilink could help; an explanation might be better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guild as in union? i'll see what I can do, and I've got 1/3 screenshots up and errors fixed †he Bread 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the red links last night actually, and about the shadowy image I'd like to Use it but where to put it, also I'll try and find the closeups of each characters face (well Wolf Raven and Manits at least). I have been using {{Citeweb}} though, though I may have missed it in places.

†he Bread 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object a little messy for me and also the concerns raised by others.__Seadog ^♪ 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the page as I last edited it. All sketches have been replaced with sourced screenshots (It turns out the shadowy FOXHOUND pic had no source and it wasn't really effective at showing the characters), given a copyedit, all characters now have descriptions and plot summary is sourced. Are there any other things that need to be done to done to the article before it is a WP:FL

†he Bread 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but why do only a few characters in the middle have images? Isn't it good to be consistent? bibliomaniac15 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally I’d like to give all of them images, but WP:FU (WP:FUC? I can't rememeber) states to use as few fair use images as possible, also Snake, Fox, Meryl, Liquid, Ocelot, Mei Ling, Roy Campbell all have images in their pages or sections in pages. Also giving them all images would created alot of whitespace as we discovered at List of Metal Gear Solid 3 characters. I came to the desicion to give Wolf, Mantis and Raven images because of all the ones left over who don't have images on other pages, they were the only ones whose appearance was fairly distinct. Baker Anderson and Housemen are just old men in suits (pretty much) and Naomi will eventually be moved to List of recurring Metal Gear characters where there is enough plot summary to justify giving an image without creating whitespace and she only appears over the radio in the game we never actually see her whole body. Thanks for the support, hope the reply wasn't too longwinded or preachy†he Bread 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The characters who have images are the FOXHOUND members, who are various outlandish soldiers with unusual specialties and appearances, whereas the characters who don't either have their own articles (which have their own image) or are just talking heads (the codec support team, the guys in suits). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think i've fixed the refs if you'd like to check them out, they're either {{citebook}}, {{citeweb}}, {{cite video}} or a quote, and now I have got a relevant wikilink in the place of the union sponsered thing. Do I have your support? †he Bread 09:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: lead is still too short. There is no need to bold character names. Renata 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded, how about now? †he Bread 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: It's well-written and passes guidelines, but some things are a tad confusing.
  • In the Meryl Silverburgh section, it brings up Roy Campbell without explaining who he is or what he does. This could be remedied by bringing up Roy Campbell in the Solid Snake section.
  • Same deal in the Gray Fox section, except this time mentioning Otacon and Liquid Snake.
  • In the Revolver Ocelot section, who is Kenneth Baker? The Solid Snake section mentions the ArmsTech President, but not his name Kenneth Baker.
  • Big Boss is brought up in the Sniper Wolf section, but who is Big Boss?
  • In the Jim Houseman section, it says he is the mission controller via AWACS. Can you give a small iteration to what this is? (technical terms need to be explained)

Nice work. I also suggest making things a little more comprehensive, but it's not as important as the above issues. Information on Big Boss may be a help too. Once the above points are fixed I will change to a normal "support."--TheEmulatorGuy 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-nomination. The page contains a brief explanation of Austria's record in the ESC (and I can add more and/or fix what's already there if that's a problem for anyone) as well as a list of links to the relevant songs. There will presumably be an addition of another song in the first few months of next year, but it's about as stable as these things can ever be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No inline sourcing. Lede is a bit POV "Austria's entries have been unusual and seemingly out-of-step with the rest of the contest." It seems rather short. Are there any other lists you can add in? Also, you only plan to have it about Austria candidates and not overall Austria in the contest, you might want to rename it as List of Austrian candidates in the Eurovision Song Contest or something like that. If you want to keep it about Austria in general in the project, you might want to expand it and ultimately go for FAC, not FLC. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inline sourcing I'll fix (I was hoping that citations at the end of the relevant facts would be enough, but evidently not). Ditto the lead. In terms of the title, it's in line with the other articles on "X in the Eurovision Song Contest" - some have more information on the country's involvement, some have less. Certainly I've been told in the past that there's no obstacle in calling this a list, even though the title doesn't begin with "list of ____". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing has been fixed and I've tweaked the sentence in the lead which was attracting attention. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good. I think you should explain why Austria wasn't involved in 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 98, and 01. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's currently explained in the articles on the relevant songs (so 00 explains why they missed 01, f'rinstance), but I can see what you mean about the main article being a better place for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Titles are not capitalised in German. This looks awful. On the other hand, it can easily be changed. Then we'll see. <KF> 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I wish I knew why that had slipped my mind earlier on in the piece. I've de-capitalised all the non-noun (and non-title-initial) words in the German language titles. The only songs with full capitalisation are those with English titles, those with proper noun titles in German and the one in Spanish (about which I don't know the capitalisation rules). I'll physically move the pages later today when I'm not trying to do too many things at once. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]