Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2006

This page has grown amazingly since it was originally named "List of people who died with tortoises on their heads". It's useful and has a fairly clear direction. It's quite comprehensive and accurate, being that most entries are linked to the subject articles. The format is stable and nicely-constructed. It's even been linked from other websites/blogs ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and more). I think this is an excellent example of something that deserves to be featured. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Lacks sources. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the list is well-sourced since it makes extensive use of links to our own articles, and those that don't have existing articles provide external reference links. Let me phrase it like this - are there any entries which are not verifiable? -- Netoholic @ 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is poor practice for Wikipedia articles to reference each other. If the fact is referenced in the subjects article, it will do no harm to add the source to this list as well. My objection stands. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you make me small and pointy please point me to a guideline which confirms that this is "poor practice"? This subject area is not one like List of elements by name, where sources routinely treat the list's components together. -- Netoholic @ 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Cite sources#When to cite sources. Nicely bolded. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but this is not an article, it is a list. That's why WP:FL is different from WP:FA. Wikipedia:What is a featured list? says to cite references where appropriate. This page does not lend itself to such references, since the references section would ultimately be longer than the list itself, due to the variety of subjects. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the end of the day I don't see how having the word "list" on an article's name magically exempts such article from the proper use of references. WP:FA and WP:FL differ only on the way and extent the information is presented, that's why they are separate processes, but otherwise they have equal footing as content in the article namespace. Moreover, providing references is not a flexible requirement as it is properly stated in Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly how "unusual" is the death of William McKinley "25th president of the United States ... assassinated while attending the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York."? Or Harold Davidson "mauled by a lion"? Or indeed the various people who have heart attacks, etc, while doing something? Is death through assassination, or being attacked by a wild animal, or heart attack, all that unusual? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro paragraph covers McKinley in that it also covers less unusual deaths of very famous people. The gun hidden in a cast makes it different from, say, Lincoln's assassination. Totally willing to take this back to the talk page. As for the heart attacks, the "unusual death" factor comes not from the cause but from the circumstance. For other reasons, I've removed Harold Davidson, as it seems he didn't die from the mauling itself. -- Netoholic @ 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. There's nothing unusual about most of these deaths. --Carnildo 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The objection is unhelpful - please give specifics so we can address them (per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#Supporting and objecting). -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "Eight Deer Jaguar Claw, Mixtec ruler, served as a human sacrifice." - No source, and it's my understanding that it was not uncommon for Central American rulers to become human sacrifices

If his own people sacrificed him I think this would be very unusual. If he was a king captured as a POW by others it's far less so.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "Pope John XXI was killed in the collapse of his scientific laboratory." - The article says it was the collapse of his bedroom roof, and in any case, it's not unusual for people to die when badly-built structures collapse.
    2. "Matthias Corvinus, the most successful king of Hungary, died after eating poisoned figs." - No source.
    3. "King Louis II of Hungary drowned in a stream under the weight of his own plate armour while fleeing the Ottomans after the lost battle of Mohács." - No source, and this is a common enough battle death.
    4. "Pope Clement VII died after eating the death cap mushroom." - No indication if this was an accident (common) or an assassination (less common).
    5. "Pedro de Valdivia, a dreaded conquistador, was captured by Native Americans and executed by pouring molten gold down his throat to satisfy his thirst for treasures." - No source: the article says he was beaten to death then dismembered, a fairly common death.
    6. "João Rodrigues Cabrilho, Portuguese explorer sailing for Spain (discoverer of California), died of gangrene in a broken leg." - Prior to the development of modern medicine, this was a very common cause of death.

Agree.

• • 1. "King Henry II of France was killed during a stunt knight's jousting match, when his helmet's soft golden grille gave way to a broken lancetip which hit him right through the eye." - Deaths from jousting accidents are hardly uncommon.

Umm really? Although it wasn't uncommon for jousters to die in jousting accidents I'm not sure jousting was something many did.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "Henry Purcell, composer died of a chill after returning late from the theatre one night and finding that his wife had locked him out. It is also possible that he died of chocolate poisoning" - No source on the chocolate poisoning, and dying from cold is hardly unusual.
    2. "James Otis, American patriot, struck and killed by lightning." - Nothing unusual there: lightning kills about 500-700 people a year.

In the world it's said to be 1171[6] a year. However in a year something like 57 million people die. Although things like getting crushed by reptiles is far rarer, lightning deaths are unusual.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "William Bullock (inventor), accidentally killed by his own invention, the web rotary press." - No source, and gangrene from an industrial accident was responsible for several hundred thousand deaths a year at the time.

It's that he was killed by his own invention. It's a semi-famous story if it can be confirmed.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "Charles-Valentin Alkan, composer and pianist, died when a bookcase collapsed on him when he was reaching for a copy of the Talmud from the top shelf." - Nothing unusual about that.

It's not as usual as you think. I don't even think he's Jewish which if correct makes dying while reaching for the Talmud more unusual.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "1898: Austrian empress Elisabeth (affectionately known as Sissi) was assassinated with a nailfile while boarding a ship." - Assassination almost qualifies as "natural causes" for royalty.

The unusualness is the method of assassination.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "William McKinley, 25th president of the United States, was assassinated while attending the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York." - See above.-Agree this one isn't unusual.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "Jack Daniel, founder of the famous Tennessee whiskey distillery, died of blood poisoning due to a toe injury he received after kicking his safe in anger when he could not remember its combination code." - Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, infection was a very common cause of death.

It's not about infection, but how he got it. If he got an infection by juggling razor blades while riding the back of an elephant it also wouldn't be "infection, how normal."--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "François Faber, Luxembourgean Tour de France winner, died in a trench on the western front of World War I. He received a telegram saying his wife had given birth to a daughter. He cheered, giving away his position, and was shot by a German sniper." - No source; people were killed by the thousand by snipers during WWI.
    2. "Saki (the pseudonym of H. H. Munro), English satirist, novelist and wit, was killed in France, near Beaumont-Hamel during World War One by a sniper's bullet, having reportedly cried "Put that damned cigarette out!" to a fellow officer in his trench (lest the smoke revealed their whereabouts), thus alerting the enemy to his presence." - See above.

Agree on these.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "Young princesses of the Romanov tsar dynasty had to be slaughtered with bayonets, after their communist captors' bullets bounced off their garments, stuffed full of hidden family gems." - No source.
    2. "Barcelona's star architect Antoni Gaudi was run over by a tram." - Common enough cause of death.

Agree more or less.

• • 1. "Leon Trotsky, the Soviet revolutionary leader in exile, was assassinated with an ice axe in his Mexico home." - Assassination, again. Pretty common.

The tool of assassination is unusual, but this is borderline.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "Lady be Good, a USAAF B-24 bomber lost its way and crash landed in the Libyan Desert." - Nothing unusual there, unless they were supposed to be bombing Tokyo or somesuch.
    2. "Austrian author Ödön von Horvath was killed by a falling branch during a thunderstorm in Paris." - Not as common as lightning strikes, but still not unusual.

Considering lightening isn't all that common this could make this more uncommon. However I think death by falling debris during a storm is more common than lightening deaths. So agree, but for different reasons.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "Movie legend Clark Gable died of long term heart disease hours before his son was born." - Not unusual: heart disease kills millions each year.

Agree--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "John Fare, Canadian artist, decapitated by a robot during an art performance" - No source.

Agree, Now I'll skip to the end.--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. "Péter Vályi, finance minister of Hungary fell into a blast furnace on a visit to a steelworks factory at Miskolc." - No source.
    2. "Tom Pryce, a Formula One driver, and a 19-year-old track marshal both died at the 1977 South African Grand Prix after the marshal ran across the track beyond a blind brow to attend to another car and was struck by Pryce's car. Pryce was hit in the face by the marshal's fire extinguisher and was killed instantly." - Nothing unusual about auto-racing deaths.
    3. "Jessica Savitch, NBC television news anchor, drowned after the car she was riding in fell into a canal, flipped over, and sank in mud, sealing the doors shut." - Less common than dying from an impact car accident, but not unusual.
    4. "Richard Versalle suffered a heart attack onstage at the New York Metropolitan Opera after delivering the line "Too bad you can only live so long" during a performance of The Makropulos Case." - No source.
    5. "Orchestral conductor Giuseppe Sinopoli collapsed at the podium of a heart attack while conducting an emotionally charged scene in Aida." - No source.

    --Carnildo 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object as much, but actually I do object. I don't think it's featured list material as too much is unsourced or even unverifiable. Therefore Oppose."--T. Anthony 13:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- This list can never be complete as 1. there are no cutt-offs to what can be termed as "unusal" 2. Even of #1 is fulfilled, can you vouch for *all* such "unusal" cases throughout the world? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated once before unsucessfully, mainly due to the absence of references. I have added one (well, upgraded an external link to an official source to a reference, because it is) and some other omissions are now corrected. I think this is now good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, same as before:
  1. The image Image:Caius shield.png has no source or copyright information
  2. The images Image:Churchill College Crest - embossed.png, Image:Downing College Crest - embossed.png, Image:Robinson College Crest - embossed.png are claimed under "fair use". Judging from the sources of the PD and GFDL images, there are at least a few wikipedians who are able to take a blazon and create an image from it, so there's no reason to use fair use images here. Also, new versions of the coats of arms would better match the style of the other free images.

  --Carnildo 03:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Renomination. Previous at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Canada/archive1 but it has been substantially reworked recently. I believe the previous objections have been answered. Rmhermen 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: (1) template usage is ridicilous - you have a huge templete for background color! And the table itself comes from a templete. (2) Picture copyrights are one huge mess, fair use pics don't have rationales. Renata 17:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why using a template is so objectionable (I note that I did not create it.) I thought all the images were now tagged correctly. Rmhermen 16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the objection is the lack of separate fair use explanations; however, the tag already states

"It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person in question,

in the absence of a free alternative, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use.

As well, permission may have been granted to reproduce this image for noncommercial-only purposes, but this image does not fall under a free license. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should also consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights."

what more could be added? Rmhermen 17:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the template makes the list completely redundand with Prime Minister of Canada. Also, users cannot edit it directly. Also, I quite strongly oppose such templates as Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Liberal. Images still do not have fairuse rationales, like Image:Paulmartin1.jpg. Also, I don't know if you can use such images here since its pretty much decorative. I leave that to experts. But in any way, they need rationales. And in any way, I object the list being featured. Renata 03:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't said what more the fair use claim needs that isn't in the tag already. Also I don't beleive that "direct editing" is a criteria to become a featured list. Rmhermen 18:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Renata. Use of templates to set colors is unnecessary and a waste of system resources. As per the rationales of images I quote point 10 of the fair use policy: "For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question." (Emphasis mine). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is one of the most detailed lists in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year.Daanschr 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Far too many red links. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, though it is detailed, there is no lead, and sections are formatted incorrectly (beginning/references). Phoenix2 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - Many of red links already exist, should fix them. Kmorozov 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is of a good quality.Daanschr 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.Object. Needs references. The TOC would be more useful if aligned to the right of the article. The text of the lead needs expansion, probably making a mention of the different dynasties. All those capital letters make the tables look a bit messy... but then that's how Latin used to be written so I'm not really sure how you could fix that. Also, most of the names in a row link to the same person (for obvious reasons) and that's redundant, so please link an article only once. Finally you need to explain why "Personal name & Title..." and "Imperial name" is missing from some Emperors. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Latin is written/punctuated like modern English, with capital & lower case letters. (I have a number of books in Latin that follow this format; the Latin Wikipedia also follows this standard.) The more more significant question concerns the letters "j" & "v", which did not exist then: do we add them or omit them -- there are good reasons for both. -- llywrch 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure classical Latin was written all capitals but anyway, I think the issues you raise belong more in the article's talk page. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.Object, I agree with him regarding the imperial and personal names. They are also sometimes confusing(Caesar Nero's personal names, for example. It also was not mentioned that he later added Imperator to his imperial name.) --Anglius 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object The introduction looks choppy. Convert it to paragraph format. Otherwise the formatting is excellent. I can't comment on technical accuracy.

Partial Self-nomination. It is a fine and complete list based on List of Presidents of the United States (already a fetured list). I've worked very hard on this one and I think that now it meets every featured list criteria. Thanks. Gameiro 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: You missed a big one:
  1. The image Image:Cavacosilva.jpg is listed as a possibly unfree image
  2. The image Image:Mario Soares.jpg is tagged as "public domain" but has no indication as to why it is in the public domain.
  3. The image Image:Costa Gomes.jpg.gif is tagged as "copyrighted any-purpose", but the actual terms seem to be unacceptable: no commercial use.
  4. The images Image:Antonio de Spinola.jpg, Image:Americo Tomas.jpg, Image:Craveiro Lopes.jpg, Image:Oscar Carmona.jpg, Image:Mendes Cabeçadas.jpg, Image:Bernardino Machado.jpg, Image:Teixeira Gomes.jpg, Image:Antonio Jose de Almeida.jpg, Image:Sidonio Pais2.jpg, Image:Bernardino Machado.jpg, Image:Teofilo Braga.jpg, mage:Manuel de Arriaga.jpg, Image:Sampaio.jpg have no source or copyright information.
  5. The image Image:Ramalho Eanes.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but the source indicated is not the copyright holder.
  6. The image Image:Younger salazar.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but the source indicated does not appear to be the copyright holder.
  7. The fair-use image Image:Cavacopresidente.jpg is redundant with Image:Cavacosilva.jpg. Use one or the other, but not both.

  --Carnildo 07:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To encourage you - the list itself looks veeeeery nice. Renata 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Support. A great list of very cool events (with plenty of good, detailed split-offs for the really big plays). Staxringold 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. There is currently a POV dispute that has not been resolved yet regarding the "Honorable mentions" section. See Talk:National Football League Lore#Honorable Mentions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong object. Please sort out POV issues before nominating. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object per above users. Deckiller 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meets criteria, has gone through extensive overhalling, processed through peer review, and properly refernced. Much time has been spent on making this list as comprehensive and as high-quality as posssible. -Zero^Talk 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object:

• List is not comprehensive; does not contain robot master weapons.
• Needs inline citations for non-obvious statements such as [The mega buster] is a particle-based energy weapon that uses compressed solar energy to create physical impact.
• Images need fair use rationale.
• Check the licensing on this image and others from the same source, is that correct?

--Pagrashtak 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus was already reached on the talkpage to not include the robot master weapons. If we did so, we'd have to include EX skills from Mega Man Zero, varible weapons systems attacks from Mega Man X, and a full chip listing from Megaman Battle Network. If we do document those attributes, they'd warrent a entire different list. This documents the weapons that stay consistant between versions and have full analytical basis. Sometimes the community confuses "the comprehensive interests of Wikipedia" with having exhaustive lists on the most trivial of aspects. Go figure.

03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) I think this will most likely end with this Flc concerning the List of Mega Man weapons, and not the List of Mega Man skills which you are refering to. I've no idea why your opinion is on this, but I do have a knack for coming up with something reasonably sensible regarding Mega Man series criteria. As for the images, I'll rectify that; many thanks for bringing that to my attention. -Zero^Talk 07:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the image info. Anything else..? -Zero^Talk 11:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still have images marked as public domain, which I very much doubt is correct. I don't see the consensus you refer to on the talk page, which only two users (including yourself) have edited. Even if consensus does exist, a list that is not comprehensive by consensus is still a list that is not comprehensive. My other points have not been addressed. --Pagrashtak 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. See your talkpage. -Zero^Talk

Yes, I saw your comment on my user page and have replied. --Pagrashtak 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright info fixed. -Zero^Talk 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:What is a featured list? (point 2 - useful) says that a FL should bring together several related articles through links. This list doesn't meet this criteria, but I am happy to support if we were able to ignore that specific part (the list is useful, and seperate articles for each weapon would be unrealistic and unnecessary). Secondly, could it be more specific than saying things like "it's only useful two missions" (Aqua blaster) and "this weapon doesn't do much damage" (reflector arm)? AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Zero^Talk

• • That is an interesting point. Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Radiant_>|< 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: Layout could certainly be improved. Currently the TOC is bloated with subsections that consist of only one line. I suggest replacing with a bulleted list or even a table. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at. Some weapons aren't as expansive as others, and are placed here for complilation status. Certainly can't object to its neatness, and the subsections allow easy refernce. -Zero^Talk 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I mentioned in the CVG peer review. Having multiple sections with approximately two sentences each creates a page that is harder to read and an unwieldy TOC. They should be reformatted into one section. --Pagrashtak 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. -Zero^Talk 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where this has been fixed. --Pagrashtak 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to hit "save". Problem fixed. [7] -Zero^Talk 03:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vastly improved now, good work. The references section still needs some work. For instance, you need to provide information on when the sourcebooks where printed, authors and ISBN if available. The link to gamefaqs is not useful unless you point to the section that deals with Mega Man. The link to the fan site should point to the subpages you used as a reference (this means you probably have to list several subpages if necessary). The web links in general also require last access date, date of copyright and author. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lot of work went into this list and it looks like a good reference for people who are interested in the Mega Man games. It's a very good list. I'm not sure it's a featured list. The three main difficulties are inconsistent format, lack of line citations, and difficulty of reference. The format issue might be related to differently structured games within the series (I'm not a Mega Man player). Line citations on featured lists normally include footnotes, Harvard referencing, or external links. What I mean by difficulty of reference is, the list isn't really structured in a way that a player could pause a game for a few seconds and glance at the Wikipedia page for quick information.

I suggest adding a table just under the introduction for quick reference. List every weapon and the game it appears in with a single sentence description and an internal link to the full description farther down the page. My other concerns should be easy to address:

• The introduction should explain which weapons were omitted and why.
• Consecutive images break up the text in some places. I suggest alternating right aligned images with left aligned images to fix this.
• Weapons appear out of alphabetical order. What is the organizing principle within a given Mega Man game. Is it relative weapon power? If so, the text should say so and explain whether the order is ascending or descending. Durova 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MegamanZero has a work in progress here that is how I envisioned this article looking. --Pagrashtak 04:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a step in the right direction. Durova 09:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but please refrain from misunderstanding. This is intended to be a second article entirely, and is only meant to enfore the comprenhensive aspect of this list (via links) and the encypledia as a whole. I still stand by the current layout of the List of Mega man weapons article (with some small changes of course). -Zero^Talk 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the format for the skills and special powers page. I'm not asking to merge the pages. I am asking to imitate that format on this page. Also, I still don't understand the logic for presenting skills or weapons out of alphabetical order for a given game. If some other principle is at work then please explain it. Durova 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the list in alphabetical order and added links from each section regarding the other list in each subsection. -Zero^Talk 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I appreciate the work, I just can't get behind this. Too much white space in some places, too much chunky text in others. It's full of information. It just doesn't have the ease of reference that characterizes Wikipedia's best lists. Durova 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]