Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2008

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:42, 30 December 2008 [1].

I think that this is a really good timeline so I am nominating it.--क्षेम्य Tranquility 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I see a lot of errors and clumsy mistakes.

• The lede is outright confusing. The 1997 Pacific hurricane season was the most active season since the 2001 season - how can 1997 be anything since something happened four years later?
• The first paragraph should mention that Paka extended the CPAC season.
• After Andres, four more tropical depressions formed
  • This sentence is vague, as it seems natural more depressions would form after the first of the season.
• This high activity trend continued into July, August too as 5 more tropical depressions formed in July and 8 in August and September.
  • This sentence is poorly written. If you're trying to explain monthly activity, you should be a little more careful and know exactly what you want.
• the trend of high activity abruptly stopped as only 5 tropical depressions formed in the months of October, November and December
  • Is it natural for such an abrupt stop? If so, then maybe explain that such a drop in activity is fairly common.
• There are three sentences on Linda in the lede - try combining them into one, as it's supposed to be a timeline, not an article.
• making 1997 only the third hurricane season since 1949 to have a storm in December
  • I think this sentence is WP:OR. I can only find one other December storm than Paka in the basin since 1949 (Winnie 83). That needs to be fixed.
• Watch out for linking. A lot of them are redirects, so you should fix them to make sure they're going where you want them to go.
• I haven't even gotten to the body of the article, but the lede is enough for me to oppose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Several errors in the timeline data.

• Add time in PDT (for storms in the Eastern Pacific) and HST (for storms in the Central Pacific) times and put UTC in parenthesis.
• Add when the major hurricanes reached their peak intensity
• Not all of the storms have a starting location, i.e. 1800 UTC - Tropical Depression Three-E forms.
• 1800 UTC - Tropical Depression Two-C forms near the International Dateline. can you give the distance from the nearest notable island?
• 1200 UTC - Tropical Depression Three-C forms southeast of the Hawaiian Islands. same as above
• 0600 UTC - Tropical Depression Four-C forms southeast of the Hawaiian Islands. same as above
• Where did all the storms dissipate?
• The image captions aren't meant to be sentences so remove the periods and shorten them.
• The 1997 Central and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons officially end. end -> ends
  • Actually, that's correct the way it is. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, right, didn't notice that it had both basins there, my bad. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The references don't need to have (in English)
• There are a large number of errors in the main body of the timeline that need to be fixed, so until they are addressed, I'm opposing this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just did a lot of formatting formatting for this.Can you consider doing so in the future (you can use this script). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since that I won't be on wikipedia that much for the next few days, I am withdrawing so I can have more time to fix the article.--क्षेम्य Tranquility 17:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:26, 30 December 2008 [2].

I've been working on this for a few days now and feel it is ready for Featured status. I welcome any and all comments, of course. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• The first paragraph is taken verbatim from the first paragraph of Order of St. Patrick. This is fine, except that it hasn't been modified for its use in this list. In particular The Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick should not be bolded, since it is not the title of the list. Order of St. Patrick should be linked somewhere too. When used in the lead of Order of St. Patrick this paragraph did not need references, as these were contained in the body of the article. This is not the case here; the sole reference which has been copied over refers only to the motto, not the other facts in this paragraph. The phrase "one officer ... also survives" is a bit misleading in context, as it could be read as meaning "the person who held the office while appointments were being made is still alive", rather than "the office still exists so its holder is ex officio an officer of the order". Perhaps something like The position of King of Arms of the order was held by Ulster King of Arms; this office still exists, since 1943 combined with Norroy King of Arms. St Patrick is linked twice (once as Saint and once as St). The word or before Latin is not necessary. (These last couple of suggestions apply to Order of St. Patrick as well.)
• Like other orders of chivalry, appointments are made to the order, rather than people being awarded a "Knight of St Patrick". The first sentence of the second paragraph would be more correct as something like The first appointments, of 15 Knights Founder, were made on 11 March 1783; in total there have been 130 appointments.
• The image caption would possibly be better as Illustration of the insignia of a Knight of St Patrick, since what is shown is only a depiction and not the insignia themselves.
• What makes http://www.leighrayment.com/orders/patrick.htm a reliable source?
• In the table there are three or four birth/death dates with a stray parenthesis.

  Will be working on it; could you give me a poke one where these stray parentheses area? Leigh Rayment is an odd'un; he has not been published and does things like this entirely as a hobby. He is, however, extremely reliable; all of his information (and there is a shedload of it) comes from reputable sources. It has got to the point where we have a template for referencing his site (or cite, oh I am witty): Template:Rayment and 5+ spinoffs.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, cleared up all the concerns minus the references (because it isn't like they're important or anything) which I'll do in a bit.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  References done, I believe.Ironholds (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  All done minus the parantheses. Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed the parentheses and added fuller birth/death dates for some that were missing. Choess (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of my concerns above seem to have been addressed, though I notice the new sentence about Ulster King of Arms is not referenced. Regarding Rayment, I'm inclined to agree the information is correct, (though according to some deletion debates he has a deliberate error on every page to tell when his work is being plagiarised). However solely on the basis of what it says on his site, I find it difficult to justify it being a "reliable source" as described in WP:RS and WP:V (For example, how does it differ from the personal website of a fan of a tv series or someone who has collected a lot of sporting statistics?). The fact that there exist a number of templates to reference the site is a moot point, and in fact they seem to just give a link to the entire site, rather than the particular page relvant for a given article, so I'm not sure how useful that is. Presumably the information in the list could be obtained from official sources such as the London Gazette, or from books such as Debretts, or possibly even Galloway's history of the Order. Dr pda (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately I don't have acess to those sources (the gazette, yes, but the reference list would be as long as my arm). The fact remains that when stood up against other, established and respected sources, he is correct. Unfortunately I'm not really sure how to work that in :S. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "order of chivalry"-->chivalric order.
• "since 1943 combined with Norroy King of Arms"-->since 1943 it has been combined with Norroy King of Arms...
• "The first appointments were made on 11 March 1783 to 15 Knight Founders" How can appointments be made to someone? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

• Ref 3 (http://www.leighrayment.com/orders/patrick.htm) has some issues:
  • Per the MOS, the titles in sources should not be in all caps.
  • Add a publication date (the last updated date).
  • Needs a publisher.
  • What makes this a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See the discussion above; no need to duplicate things. All other points corrected. Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If sources are really a problem, this list carries through 1851, and I suspect the rest can be sourced to the London Gazette. Choess (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just come back from my local library where I checked the list against The Knights of England (worldcat entry), which goes through to 1904. I was able to find the rest in old editions of Burke's Peerage. On doing so I found 22 cases where the death date differed from that on the list (I didn't check birth dates), 4 cases where the ordinal of the peerage differed (i.e. 3rd Earl vs 5th Earl), 1 case where the forename differed, and 1 case where the date of appointment differed. I'm just on my way out again, I'll post the discrepancies later. I have also discovered that appendix 3 in Galloway does have a complete list, if anyone is easily able to get hold of that. Dr pda (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the discrepancies I found with this version of the list are

• Wrong date of membership: The Duke of Abercorn was appointed 21 December 1922, not 21 June. This is confirmed by an entry in The Times the following day.
• Different ordinals: In Knights of England William Pery (1892) is listed as the 5th Earl of Limerick, and Arthur Gore (1898) as the 7th Earl of Arran, rather than the 3rd and 5th respectively. This seems to be because previous creations were counted. Arthur Hill (1831) is listed as the 2nd Marquess of Downshire, and William Hare as 3rd Earl of Listowel, but these seem to be mistakes (unless I copied them down incorrectly)
• Different forename: Knights of England gives the 4th Earl of Lucan as George Bingham, not Charles as in the list, but his name was Charles George Bingham, so maybe he preferred his middle name.
• Different dates of death, according to Knights of England (only up to 1904):
  • William FitzGerald: 4 October 1804, not 20 October — Typo.
  • Henry de Burgh: 18 December 1795, not 8 December 1797 — All the peerage works I can find in Google Books agree on 8 December rather than 18 December. (There's a law case that says 10 May 1797 for some reason, but there's a reasonably good consensus around 8 December.)
  • Thomas Nugent: 7 September 1790, not 1792 — working on it; so far I've found 1790, 1791 and 1792
  • Murrough O'Brien: 10 February 1808, not 17 February — Typo in the original article.
  • Charles Moore: 22 December 1821, not 1822 (NB his article has a note about the death date) — I added the note recently; sources vary on this one. It looks like 1822 is the best, based on contemporary sources.
  • Thomas Taylor: 23 October 1829, not 24 October — Debrett's gives 23, Lodge's 24
  • John Loftus: 23 September 1845, not 26 September — Contemporary obituary (Gentleman's Magazine) gives 26 September, so also Lodge's Peerage. I'm inclined to think the 26th is correct.
  • Charles O'Neill: March 25 1841, not 12 February
  • Thomas Pakenham: 24 May 1835, not 28 May
  • Arthur Hill: 12 April 1845, not 12 September
  • Francis Conyngham: 17 July 1876, not 1879 — Typo in the original article.
  • Edmund Boyle: 30 June 1856, not 29 June
  • William Hare: 3 February 1856, not 4 February
  • Richard Dawson: 11 May 1897, not 12 May
  • Archibald Acheson: 22 June 1864, not 15 June — According to the Visitation of Ireland, he died 15 June and was buried 21 June.
  • Charles Brownlow: 16 January 1882, not 15 January
  • Thomas Southwell: 26 April 1878, not 26 August — Agreed.
  • Robert Carew: 8 September 1881, not 9 September
  • George Vane-Tempest: 5 November 1884, not 6 November
  • William Montagu: 21 March 1890, not 22 March
  • Luke White: 17 March 1888, not 16 March
  • Edward O'Brien: 8 April 1900, not 9 April

I didn't check death dates after 1904, or any birth dates. Given the number of discrepancies I really think another source needs to be checked for all the information in the list. As I mentioned, appendix three of Galloway has all this information, this website may also be useful.

Also

• the text in the article should be corrected to say 146 total appointments, not 130
• the notes column misses a couple of subsequent peerages (Frederick Hamilton-Templeton-Blackwood was later Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, Chichester Parkinson-Fortescue was later Baron Clermont)
• it would be worthwhile to note those knights who resigned to accept membership in the Order of the Garter (2nd Earl of Mornington, 2nd Earl Talbot), and possibly those who were appointed as extra Knights (Prince Albert, Albert Prince of Wales, Prince Arthur, Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, Prince William of Saxe-Weimar), as well as several others who were appointed as extra knights for various coronations and subsequently became ordinary knights.
• Incidentally is Rayment's page the source for the birth/death dates and the notes? He is only referenced in the names column.

Dr pda (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The birth/death dates are from the individual articles; might explain why they are incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hehe, serves me right for trusting Wikipedia. Alright, I'll get on to clearing that up this evening; at the moment I'm far too knackered from work to get involved in any serious articling. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  From Choess's excellent work (thanks, Choess) your source may actually be wrong :S. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:23, 27 December 2008 [3].

I believe this is the first time anyone has ever listed every level and type of court in the Country, including defunct courts from the past - and I have provided a reference for every single one of the active ones. bd2412 T 09:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak OpposeQuick-Fail Sorry, but you need a lot more than just a referenced list of courts for this list to be featured. Ideally, you would need some prose for each state. I am not sure that a bulleted list is the best way to organize this info. See List of universities in Canada for a suggestion. In addition, web references need publishers and last access dates added to them. WP:LAYOUT breach, those navboxes should be at the bottom of the article. A couple of images need sources and other info added to them. Sorry, but I suggest withdrawing and working on the article some more before renominating. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I moved the navboxes down - that was easy. Fixing the web references will take a while. bd2412 T 13:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have formatted the references with the Reflinks tool; the publishers still need to be tweaked though. Also, yeah, it'd be nice to have prose for each state. But overall, great job on the list so far. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The article is very nicely referenced, but I think it's too overcrowding. Could you divide the list into the Geographic Boundaries? For example, make an article called List of Courts of the United States in the First Circuit. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be odd to impose federal circuit divisions on lists which are predominantly state courts. I could just split it into a list of lists, as it were, with a separate page for each state (which would give a nice amount of room for exposition on the jurisdiction and history of each court). bd2412 T 02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway you want to is fine, as long as it is appropiate and each list should have 10 entries in it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral

I agreed with User:Dabomb87 that bulleted list may not be the best way to show this info, but I am hesitant to oppose it right away since this isn't really a good reason to oppose. Anyway, I will try to review it to the best of my ability.

• The lead maybe a little short given the size/length of this list. Try to include some historical info, perhaps
• I notice a lot of redlinks, which are very distracting. Try to create so stubs or just remove the links all together
• Some references aren't formatted correctly or missing info.

—Chris! _ct 06:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I used a bulleted list to convey the different levels of courts, with the more indented courts generally being under the appellate review of the less indented. I see that I need to explain that, and perhaps provide a smoother display of the fact. I would disagree with removing the red links. They accurately indicate what courts exist, and which ones need articles. I'd rather give a reader inspiration to make a full article on a court about which they may know, than to let them think one already exists. However, I'll start working through the missing articles. bd2412 T 18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Coming from another FLC discussion where some reviewers are hugely focused on perceived dissonance between name and content of the lists, I wonder if "Courts of the United States" is the correct name for this list. It is not a list of all courts in the United States as it does not include local ones. To me "of the United States" suggests that it is going to be Federal courts, but it includes state courts. Also, why "of" rather than "in". The courts of the United States seems Federal-only to me. In the United States would include state and local courts, in my view. How about "Federal, State, and Territorial Courts in the United States". Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The United States has two levels of courts, period - federal and state. "Local" courts are merely state courts of limited jurisdiction within the state. I can't think of a "local" court that exists in this country except as a construct of state law (with the possible unusual exception of Native American tribal courts, which really are permitted to exist under Federal law). bd2412 T 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively uninformed, obviously, but surprised by what you say. If it is the case, then I think it should be stated in the article, indeed in the first paragraph where comprehensiveness is being asserted, that all local courts are in fact state courts. Frankly, i am surprised that California, for example, would have as non-Federal courts just the "Supreme Court of California, the California Courts of Appeal (6 appellate districts), and Superior Courts of California". I would have assumed there would be lower courts below "Superior Courts". What about traffic courts, involved in enforcement of the state's vehicle code? Are those part of the Superior Court system? Traffic courts are real courts, too. What about Family law courts, and small claims courts? I assume you are right, if you say so, that these are all included, but I think it should be explicitly stated that this article covers even traffic and small claims courts, if it does. doncram (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see from the California Superior Court article that there are just Superior courts now, but if this article is supposed to cover defunct courts as asserted in the nom, the municipal and other courts previously in place should be mentioned. "At one point in the early 20th century, California had as many as six types of inferior courts of limited jurisdiction under the superior courts". What were the six? To reiterate, I think clarification in the intro about even traffic and small claims, and both criminal and civil courts are being covered. Perhaps there should be clarification that the list covers all court systems, not all individual courtrooms ("Parts"?) which are perhaps too numerous to enumerate or otherwise are not wikipedia-notable. doncram (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have changed my opposition to "Weak Oppose". Here are some comments:

• I realize that asking you to write prose for each section of the list is overly demanding and unrealistic within the time limits here at FLC. Instead, could the lead be expanded by a paragraph or two? Perhaps describe the court hierarchy a little more, and also some historical background on the formation of the current court system.
• Some of the defunct courts lack references, for example Former federal courts of North Carolina.
• Lastly, it would really help my perception of the list—and maybe translate into a "Support" ;)—if the court lists for each state were organized better than a tiered bulleted list (separate tables for each hierarchy?).
• Some references still need formatting. Also, some references that have publisher info are really non-descriptive, i.e. "Mssc.state.ms.us.", can you give the actual name of the site or organization?

Please do not take my oppose and criticism of the article the wrong way; I want to see this list become a Featured List as much as you do, and your hard work in meticulously organizing and referencing the information has really made a mark on this article. It just needs to take those final steps towards perfection before it can attain FL status—the hardest ones to do. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll work on it. I have split the page into discrete transcluded lists to make this easier. Regarding, the non-descriptive publisher info, I think the links were more descriptive before they were tool-formatted to meet MOS guidelines. bd2412 T 06:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:23, 27 December 2008 [4].

previous FLC (23:03, 3 June 2008)

I have resubmitted this list to FLC as I believe it now satisfies all the criteria. I mainly used the recent FL-promoted List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters as a model for this list. The first four volume summaries are all under 300 words, and the last one is about 380, and I'm not sure how to shorten it without a reduction in understandability and still summarize the main points of the final volume.--十八 11:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 12:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Meets WP:WIAFL. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The alien broadcasts this event over the entire planet which makes Hazumu rather famous." Comma after "planet". Why "rather"?
• "Hitoshi even starts working at Hazumu's school as a biology teacher in order to further observe humans"
• "Hazumu agrees to Tomari suggestion "-->Hazumu agrees to Tomari's suggestion...
• "concert in December which is past the one month time limit. " Comma after "December".
• "she receives from her part time job" hyphenate "part time".
• "As Hazumu and Yasuna stand in the rain together, Hazumu sneezes which causes Yasuna to rush" Comma after "sneezes".
• "Hazumu catch a cold. " "catch"-->catches.
• "The day before the annual culture festival, both Yasuna and Tomari separately tell Hazumu that they love her, though Hazumu is later seen that night crying alone on the school roof."
• "Later that night, Hazumu and her friends go to Namiko's birthday party which doubles as a Christmas party since Namiko's birthday is on Christmas." Comma after the first "party". Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and I changed the wording in a couple of the sentences.--十八 04:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but (and I should have been more clear) those were just examples of prose issues. I notice that at the previous FLC, multiple reviewers agreed that the article needed a copy-edit. Looking at the article history, there seems to have been little to no work in this area since the previous FLC. See my copy-edit of the first summary as an example of the work needed. Normally, I would copy-edit myself, but I have a number of real-life and Wiki things to attend to already. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I believe all the summaries have now been copyedited to the best of my ability, even shortening all but the last one to less than 250 words (volume 5's summary stands at 342).--十八 03:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (probably one you'd expect), but why are is the serialization being listed by date released instead of by the more appropriate cover date. Magazines are not referred to by their release date when identifying issues, but by cover date. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated to reflect the issue's cover dates.--十八 04:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Hmmm...I'm back and forth on supporting this one. The lead and referencing all looks good, but I also agree it could use some more copyediting, as I can see several places in just the first summary where the prose can be tightened up more. For example:

      "Hazumu Osaragi is pressured by his friends Tomari Kurusu and Asuta Soro to confess his love to his friend Yasuna Kamiizumi, who tearfully rejects him. Hazumu climbs the nearby Mt. Kashima to forget what happened. He surrounds himself with plants and flowers due to his affinity in floriculture. An alien spacecraft crash lands and kills him while on the mountain."

    • could be shortened to

      "Pressured by his friends Tomari Kurusu and Asuta Soro, Hazumu Osaragi confesses his love to Yasuna Kamiizumi, who tearfully rejects him. Trying to forget, Hazumu climbs nearby Mt. Kashima to surround himself with the plants and flowers he loves. An alien spacecraft crash lands, killing him."

    • -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I copyedited all of the summaries once again, now even managing to get the first summary under 200 words, and the fifth one below 300. I believe that's even more concise than the summaries at List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters which has less chapters per volume to boot.--十八 06:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify, I'm not saying the summaries are too long (as I personally think manga volumes should be allowed summaries of 200-400 words as they generally contain more content than a television episode) and I don't think Dabomb87 is saying the summaries themselves are too long either. I myself am just trying to note that the prose should be checked to ensure it is concise and well-written, while also being grammatically correct. :) There are some areas where wordiness could be cut down, while in others, things are clear to someone who isn't familiar with the series. For example, in volume 2 it says "Hazumu recalls as a child promising Tomari to one day become her bride; this leads Tomari to reconcile with Hazumu." but why did that cause a reconciliation? These are things copyeditors look for and why its important to have a third party do a copyedit here. I'd recommend restoring your summaries two tries ago, then getting a copyeditor to go through the list to make corrections/suggestions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • It caused a reconciliation because Hazumu mentioned it, like it says. Beyond that, it's analysis and attributable to OR. Let me explain the scene (OR in red). Tomari has avoided Hazumu after catching her kissing Yasuna. Hazumu, who is naive and doesn't understand why Tomari is distancing herself, does the only thing she can do: apologize for whatever she did. While she's apologizing, she brings up the childhood promise, which moves Tomari to tears for two reasons: 1) That Hazumu still remembered it and 2) That Tomari had been thinking about it when the chapter began. Tomari, who realizes Hazumu hasn't completely given herself over to Yasuna, reconciles with Hazumu and their friendship goes back to normal. So, there's nothing more to explain. Similarly, much of what I just copyedited is written in the same style which attempts to write the summaries in a concise manner and explain anything that needs explaining.--十八 07:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, maybe make it clearer that its a shared memory as right now it seems more like Hazumu remembers and Tomari forgives her without clarifying that Hazumu shares this with her nor was it clear that Tomari also remembered the promise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay; I even added the bit about Tomari crying because of it.--十八 07:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Much clearer :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay, I have read, read, and re-read these summaries and fixed anything I thought was too ambiguous, like explaining the "test of courage" in volume 2, or why Yasuna and Tomari become friendlier in volume 3, trying to read them from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the series. I believe they are clear and concise now.--十八 07:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looks better, although I was really asking for more precise and clear wording than shorter summaries. I still see glitches (taken from Volume 2):

• "why Tomari starts avoiding her" Why not just "why Tomari avoids her"?
• "During which, Hazumu recalls as a child promising Tomari to one day become her bride."-->Hazumu recalls her childhood promise to Tomari to one day become her bride.
• "Hazumu and her friends go to the beach where Asuta deals with newfound feelings towards Hazumu" Comma after "beach".
• "Hazumu runs away in fright to the biology room where she finds her friend Ayuki Mari." Comma after "room".
• "but is content just watching that person." Add with after "content".
• "When summer vacation comes" "comes"-->arrives.
• "Yasuna suggests to her friends to go with her to the local aquarium amusement park, but only Hazumu and Yasuna end up going."-->Yasuna suggests that her friends to go with her to the local aquarium amusement park, but only Hazumu and Yasuna go with her.
• "track and field club's"-->track-and-field club's
• "where Tomari tells her she will not lose to Yasuna for her affections."--where Tomari tells her that she will not lose to Yasuna for her affections. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting the feeling that it'll never be copyedited enough, not that that's really going to change anything.--十八 00:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that what you need is a pair of fresh eyes to look over the text; perhaps post a request for copy-editing on relevant Wikiproject pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I posted a note at WT:ANIME, as if anyone's even going to care; I'm the only one who's been trying to get this list up to FL other than the few that actually posted comments on this FLC over the past two weeks. I'm getting the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that unless your manga is super popular, you won't really get any help. --十八 03:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I can also copy-edit myself in a few days' time if you do not get feedback. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, hey, hey. A grand total of two people (me and Snapper2) worked on List of Naruto chapters (Part I) to get it to FL status. That's the amount of attention our "super popular" series received. People aren't working on this list because people simply aren't familiar with the series and as a result, are hesistant to copy-edit. We aren't exercising a group conspiracy theory towards less popular series (a good chunk of my episode/chapter lists were one-man crusades on not very prominent series). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ANIME simply doesn't have that many good copy-editors. Which is also a main reason, why we don't have an A-class review process. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 02:46, 24 December 2008 [5].

previous FLC 1, FLC 2

This article has been nominated because I have attempted to restore it as far as possible to when it was orignally listed as FA. I have updated the article consistantly, added new images and re-written sections to keep unecessary detail out as far as possible. I know it has reached FA status owing to the way the article looks as a whole; I believe it matches the criteria for FA-List Class in it's encyclopaedic form. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As per above. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 23:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy fail – summaries are far less than adequate (short, poor prose, not comprehensive at all). I remember thinking about working on this list a few months ago (as I watched the series a while ago too), but writing 51 decent episode summaries was a bit daunting at the time. I highly doubt you can crank out 51 good episode summaries in the scope of this FLC. Aside from that, I detest {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} for the atrocious formatting, we don't autoformat dates anymore, lists shouldn't start with "This is...", the film doesn't deserve a mention anywhere here since it's not an episode, and the OVAs have no release dates. A host of problems that you can't solve in the scope of this FLC. Withdraw it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy fail per Sephiroth BCR and one of the list primary editors disagreeing with nomination before it was even made. List has way too many issues right now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail per above (note that nominator's support is assumed and the FLC directors probably will not take the extra support into consideration). Also, please convert the ISO dates and expand the summaries before relisting. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy fail per Sephiroth, Collectonian, and Dabomb. Also, featured list standards increase continuously. Simply reverting to a revision that was featured and filling in missing episodes isn't gonna do the trick. The list as it is now has no chance of promotion. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Fail The standards for a featured list of episodes has evolved to include complete plot summaries for episodes. One sentence cannot summaries the entire plot of an episode. In fact, it was because of the too short episode summaries that was the primary reason the list to be demoted in the first place. Also the table format is far too cluttered compared to the table format of {{Japanese episode list}}. The funny thing is, the version before the nominator reverted the list was far closer to featured list standards then the version he "restored" and re-nominated. My suggestion would be to revert to this version and continue to work from there. --Farix (Talk) 00:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've restored use of {{Japanese episode list}} as well as readded the English airdates which were improperly removed. However, the episode summaries are still too short and incomplete for this list to be promoted. --Farix (Talk) 02:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking over the article again, one other thing I notice missing is the lack of information about the series director, much less who directed and wrote the individual episodes. This information should be easily found since the series has been released in English. Also, the OP and ED songs and artist who performed them is missing from the article's lead along with the companies that produced the series. In fact, much of the information in Fullmetal Alchemist#Anime should also be mentioned in the list. --Farix (Talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy fail/Recommend withdrawal per Sephiroth BCR. The FLC listing is premature, and the list of issues are too numerous to quickly be fixed, especially the lack of proper episode summaries. Recommend reverting to this version (per Farix) and continuing work from there. G.A.S^talk 10:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 00:56, 17 December 2008 [6].

previous FLC (20:02, 8 September 2008)

This is a list in an underrepresented category (royalty, nobility and heraldry) that is fully compliant with all of the FL criteria. The previous nomination simply failed because reviewers did not take the time to come back to the nomination page once they had written their comments; had they done so, they would have noticed that all of their remarks had been promptly taken into account. Therefore, I hope this time reviewers will not only make comments, but be kind enough to support if they realize that all of their objections have been addressed. BomBom (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photographs of Tawfiq Pasha and Abbas Helmi II have been replaced with images that are confirmed to be in the public domain in the US. The seven other "problematic" images, whose publication date could not be determined with certitude, have been removed from the list. The article in its current form thus only includes free images, and so the image review is now completed. Thanks a lot for David Fuchs’ help and patience in dealing with this. BomBom (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 00:56, 17 December 2008 [7].

previous FLC

I have fixed the minor problems in the first nomination as well as added a "remarks" column to give informational content beyond that of the main list of Prime Ministers. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Can you put the color backgrounds on the names instead of the numbers?
  • The colouring may not be ideal, but I have the colour on the numbers so that it matches the style of other lists about Canadian politics, like the premier lists, several of which are already FL. I wouldn't mind changing the colour setup, but I'd rather get a consensus from the wikiproject to change all the lists together rather than have this one stand out. Doing that might take a while, but I'll look into it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this list has to be updated every day since there will always be a Prime Minister, I suggest you note that the list has been last updated on (date).
  • The list already mentions the date at which it's accurate twice: once in the lead and once in the incumbent's row. I don't understand what else you want. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just scanning through the page, so no worries.

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment

• "...is the incumbent prime minister as at November 29, 2008." "as at" --> "as of". -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use to use "as of", and it is clearly the more common one, but then someone changed it on one of my pages, and after a debate with them, they convinced me that "as of" doesn't really make much grammatical scene. We say that something happened at a given time, not of a given time. I need to find a grammar book to figure out what's going on with that phrase. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could be wrong, but I think the phrase "as at" is incorrect. Even if it is the right terminology, I think you should use "as of" since it is far more common.—Chris! _ct 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• • I just want to know which reference is verifying the "Remarks" column. I can't seem to find it.—Chris! _ct 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the the refs linked in the header of the remarks column, the first is an online source with biographies of prime ministers up to 1994, and the other three are encyclopedia entries for the three prime ministers since then. Is there another way I should have the refs set up? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I see them now. I support.—Chris! _ct 19:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Prime ministers of Canada do not have a fixed term of office, instead, they may stay in office as long as their government is supported by parliament under a system of responsible government." Make the first comma a semicolon.
• In the Remarks section, the last sentences of some of the remarks end with this type sentence construction: "with [insert name here] taking over." This with + -ing sentence structure is ungrammatical, and needs restructuring.
  • I can't find any mistakes in the "with +ing" sentences. What specific grammatical errors do you see in them? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't make for smooth sentence flow, see User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources: Refs 1 and 3 need publication dates added to them.

Comments

• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:51, 13 December 2008 [8].

Very extensive, detailed and well organized. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose
  • There isn't a prose.
  • There are no references
  • Tables should be sorted.
  • The "External links" section should be gone.
  • The references aren't even citing the achievements.
  • Physical statistics aren't achievements.
  • I suggest a peer review.

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per SRE.K.A.L.24. Too many problems for a FLC. Suggest withdrawal and a peer review. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per the above, not enough prose, references, and needs formatted tables. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - nothing is referenced, "Other Interesting Notes" heading is extremely unencylopedic (and not MoS-compliant), no lead. There's more, but I think that more than suffices for an oppose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [9].

This is number 5 of 6 Laureate lists. I'm planning on getting the main Laureates list to FL eventually (plus the Peace Prize one) and take it to WP:FTC. As always, all concerns will be addressed by me. As for the images, I was a lot more careful in the ones I added this time, so I think most of them should be good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks great! I'd like to see more pictures in the table though. I know it's a long list to work with, but there are still a lot of empty image fields, and the respective person's articles usually do have an image. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is an awfully short article, it's unlikely to be lenghtened much, and a majority of the information is repeated in this list. Is there any way they can be merged? Sorry, but I'd like this related main article to be taken care and more images in the table of before I can support yet. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither concern is actionable. He's under no obligation to improve the article on the prize, regardless of how crappy it is. It's a 100+ year award and immensely prestigious, so separating out a 55K list from what should be a large article is more than appropriate. As for the images, he's limited by the images with good rationales and the images available. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have expanded the page for the main Prize. I think that there is more than enough material out there to justify having a seperate page for the award and list.
• As for the images, I would love for every row to have an image too, but there are two main problems:
  • Any images would have to be free use images (several of the ones you've seen have likely been fair use.
  • Many of the free images out there have outdated tags, and incomplete licensing information and thus can not be used.
• The lack of images is not due to negligence on my part, I went through every page and added whatever free image I could find. The only way I might have missed any is if they are not on the Laureate's page. If there are any free images with proper licensing out there that I have missed, then by all means please add them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "While commonly referred to as the Nobel prize in Medicine" Shouldn't "prize" be capitalized?
  • Yes.
• "Laureates have won the Nobel Prize in a wide range of fields relating to physiology or medicine." "relating"-->that relate.
  • Done.
• "One winner of the Nobel Prize, German Gerhard Domagk (1939), was not allowed by his government to accept the prize"-->Gerhard Domagk (1939), a German, was not allowed by his government to accept the prize. This eliminates the repetition of the idea of winning the prize.
  • Done.
• Have the pictures been checked by an experienced image reviewer? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but I was much more careful when adding them this time. Besides, David might block me if I ask him to do another review. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would still be more comfortable in supporting if they were checked. As an example, Image:RobertKoch cropped.jpg is missing an author. Ask User:Awadewit if you are afraid of David. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am reviewing the images on the article talk page. The list was becoming rather extensive for an FLC page. Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Awadewit left a review on the talk page. I have removed all of the bad ones. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. I would like to see Awadewit approve all the changes and fixes made before supporting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose in current condition. The names and countries would be better sortable. Everyone always wants to know how many there own country won, and see any multi-winners. Making sortable is easy, but then names should have sort key so they sort by family name.Dillypickle (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of sortability has been discussed in previous FLCs for other Nobel lists. I prefer having the image column without its own header, and many years have had multiple winners and some who won for the same thing. Making every single winner have its own individual line would make things a lot more confusing and thus it would be harder to pick out such instances. The years would have to be duplicated, so one would have to repeat the same summaries, which would lead to a lot of unnecessary repitition. Also, there is a List of Nobel Laureates by country. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [10].

I believe that this list meets all the critera. It has a good introduction, with a suitable image and appears to have good prose. ISD (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good! The list is well written, referenced and very interesting. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - my review was resolved, but there were many prose issues, but it now meets WP:WIAFL.--TRU_CO 02:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. I think author / publisher column should be seperated, and those that have nameable authors not currently mentioned (if any) are filled in, and likewise the name of the first publisher for those that only have an author. If publisher is interesting info, it should be for all books, not only those that are easiest to find because the award stated them.Yobmod (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to comment - That may be difficult. Some books have only been given the name of the publisher, or the editior or the author. By having the one column, I think it makes the table look better, and it also gives some guide behind the people or the company behind the work. ISD (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, but actionable. I just spent a week tracking down publishers for such a list. The prize website gave the title and author, but not publisher. The info is findable and citable, so should be included. Our list should be better than the official list if possible - if it only replicated the info directly found from the prize gives, it seems useless. Knowing the publisher is obviously useful, or it wouldn't be given for any of them. Hence i oppose based on this.Yobmod (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to opposition - Can you give me these links please, then I can use them in the table. ISD (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:30, 2 December 2008 [11].

I am submiting this list because I think its ready to achieve featured list status, Jaespinoza (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - another great list, good work and it meets WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment "making her as the first Hispanic singer to accomplish this feat"—What feat? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC). Answer: Debuting at number one in the Billboard 200. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It only has 5 distinct entries, streched out by date. If formated to actually be a list of albums with dates of being nuzmber one, it would be five lines long! Not suitable for a FL imo. If all the info can be attractively presented in 5 lines, needs a very good reason to be 52 lines, which i don't think it has. Should be merged into a decade long list.Yobmod (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: Actually I am glad you bring this up. I will have the same issue with the list for 1993 (1 album), 1994 (3 albums) and with this one, I do not know if its better to make a list for the number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995 altogether or something else. Any suggestion? Jaespinoza (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support if it were merged into a year range of contiguous years. With the individual years as redrects, it would save time and look better. I saw that other years are long enough to meritt seperate articles, but even they are not huge. Is it feaible to merge all of them into 3 or 5 year periods?Yobmod (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Answer:It is possible to merge 3 years on the same list, let me work on something, Jaespinoza (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposition for the merged list: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995 Jaespinoza (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight oppose this list for now; weak support for merger. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995, merged list. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you going to redirect this page to the 1993, 1994, 1995 list then? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need an opinion about that, the lists for 1993 and 1995 have all the refs for every week at number one, should I put those refs on the merged list so I can redirect them? Jaespinoza (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand, you're problem is that each ref only covers one week, and most of these artists have been number one for more than a week, which could lead to a problem with over-citing? As well, if you are going to merge the pages, then this one should be withdrawn. I can close it tomorrow, if you like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The refs only cover 1 week each. I can place 150 refs in the merged list, but is that overciting? Jaespinoza (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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