Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2010

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 The Rambling Man 08:07, 24 February 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): —User:GroundZ3R0 002_c/t 02:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of Saw media as per the new featured list criteria and that I based the article formatting and style off of List of Metal Gear media, another featured list with similar multimedia scope. The first nomination was failed because there was a lack of support votes. I have addressed all the issues noted and have been given grace by the editor who failed the last FLC to renominate this article. Unless there are issues present, please feel free to express support or fail votes to get the FLCs going along. Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick Comment - Can About.com be considered a reliable source? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think About.com is a reliable source. This is so for IMDB, too. Therefore I have to oppose.—Chris!_c/t 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not About.com? —Mike Allen 05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think IMDB can be considered Reliable, I think on the About.com's Talk page the user summed it up well I think Talk:About.com#Use in wikipedia as sources, he also gives links to numerous discussions which you should feel free to look over. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is deemed unreliable because some of its info are user-submitted content. See the old discussion on Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb.—Chris!_c/t 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of IMDB's content is user submitted. And there are no controls on it that I am aware of. Resolute 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about IMDb. Trust me. :) I was asking about About.com. I think in this instance it is a reliable source, because it's a fact (verified) that Tandera won the Scream Queens competition, About.com is just confirming that. However, if we must have a difference source reporting the same thing, then I'll look for it. —Mike Allen 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may. IMDB has been deemed unreliable for sources but has been accepted for only casting information when no other sources are present, which is the case for the sources used. Next, I do not know if about.com is reliable, but they are only sourcing release dates of the DVDs, not disputable, little-known, or opinionated material therefore they should be acceptable for this use only. GroundZ3R0 002 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen about.com pages that summarize wikipedia articles. For DVD release dates try Amazon, or pretty much any general DVD releases sites. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will add those in a few hours. Should I leave the About.com sources to compliment the Amazon sources? And I'm assuming the IMDB is fine because it is only used for casting info? GroundZ3R0 002 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are dubious it'd be much better to leave them out, also I doubt the Amazon sources need any complimenting. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk}

Okay, I have removed every about.com source and replaced them with amazon.com sources. For Tanedra Howard winning Scream Queens, I got a source from The Inquisitr site. GroundZ3R0 002 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Questions & Comments - Why is the {{-}} used? Also I understand there is a |ref= parameter within the template used, why isn't it used? also the Video Game section should be formatted similarly to List of The Legend of Zelda media. I'll also look into the other sections unless someone else can comment on them as I'm pretty sure there is a specific way to format them. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Sentence fragments in the notes should not have periods (full stops) at the end. Example: "Currently in pre-production."
• Watch out for overlinking of commonly known terms. I doubt we need to link United Kingdom, for example.
• Why are some notes unreferenced?
• What makes http://www.flixster.com/ reliable?
• What makes http://www.freeonlinegames.com/adventure-games/obama-saw-game.html reliable? After looking at this one, I can't help but wonder a bit about the inclusion criteria. Is this just some Internet game with the Saw name in it, or has it been officially approved by the company owning the Saw franchise?
• Does footnote 59 have a reference?
• The alt text is decent, but needs work. It can contain only material that can be verified by a non-expert who just looks at the image (pretend you are describing the image to a friend over the phone). Also, alt text cannot have Wiki-markup, such as the double-bracket link syntax. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to address the concerns raised above, and then feel free to renominate. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, because i have really worked hard for this article and it is the first list of tallest residential buildings in the world, in Wikipedia.It is well written as well, the peer review of this article is also been completed by a number of Users, and i have atleast made this article closer to featured list status Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The general references need to be formatted consistently
• The publishers for all references should be consistent
• For PDF files, format=PDF need to be added to the citation template
• For a list like this, I would expect to see more images

—Chris!_c/t 21:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added images to this article, i couldnt got your point in these sentances,

• The general references need to be formatted consistently
  • The two links under "General" headers need to have publisher and access date, just like the inline citations.—Chris!_c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The publishers for all references should be consistent
  • Some refs use Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as the publisher, while others use CTBUH. You should use the full name and use it consistently. Same for all references.—Chris!_c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For PDF files, format=PDF need to be added to the citation template
  • For links that are PDF files, just add format=PDF to the citation template {{cite web}}—Chris!_c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) please assist me in above mentioned queries Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I still see a lot of problems

• In the publisher in the references
  • Council on tall buildings and urban habitat should be Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
  • Emporis corporation should be Emporis Corporation
  • "Official website" is not the publisher; if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url.
• Images need alttext
• Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end.
• The prose is poorly written. I already fixed several typos for you. I suggest you ask others to go through and copyedit the article

—Chris!_c/t 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have chnaged Emporis corporation to Emporis Corporation, and as well as that of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and also removed the publisher elsewhere where there is official website mentioned.I am adding alttext to all the images.

please tell me about this:

• Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed this concern. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok Done, i have added alttext to all images in this article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This lists the buildings that are 90%+ residential. I personally think it should also mention the highest residences; I was surprised when John Hancock Center was not mentioned anywhere in the article, as that is around ~50% residential, and offers, for now, the highest residences in the world. So my opposition is because I feel this list is too narrow. --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why are random rows in the table gray? I see no mention of this, nor any rhyme or reason to it. --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • John honcock centre might be 50 percent residential but Emporis and CTBUH, the reliable sources says that the building should be atleast 90 percent rediential and this is the standard, and thats why i havent mention it in this article.You are wrong this list doesnt have all residential buildings, instead it list buildings whose use is 90 percent devoted to residential space, while it is the "List of worlds tallest residential buildings" not worlds tallest residentila records, so mentioning here about the tallest residences will be out of this topic.Also i have corrected the random rows with gray colour. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We appear to have a disagreement over the scope of the list. I think any list which lists the world's tallest residential buildings should at least include some mention of the world's highest residences. Just as a list of the world's tallest hotels should include the highest hotel rooms, etc. (I just looked at that list and it shockingly does not include the Trump Tower in Chicago, I suspect because there's enough condos to push 'hotel' usage below 90%) Just because Emporis uses 90% doesn't require us to do the same: I think any list of the tallest residential buildings should at least contain a second list of the tallest buildings with a substantial residential element, and a list of buildings with the highest residences. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you misunderstand about the gray: It shouldn't be there. There's no point to coloring alternate rows in a sortable table, and you may have noticed very few tables on Wikipedia do that. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I got your point about gray color, i hah removed them all, as you said very few tables on wikipedia do that, and specially Featured List have no pattern like this.

Ok i will add highest residences, can you give some content regarding highest residences and reliable sources.By saying that Emporis said so i mean that it is a standard, on which the ranking of tallest residential buildings are based, like Council on tall buildings and urban habitat that sets the standards by which buildings are measured. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment

• Shouldn't the caption The Cullinan Towers, are the 8th and 9th tallest residential building in the world say they are tied for the 8th tallest? In the table it shows them as tied but in the caption it says they're not the same height. NThomas (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had corrected them, by mistake i did that. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - A substantial, well sourced article--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Millennium Tower and Burj Dubai on 2 November 2007.jpg has outstanding copyright issues. See here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that image, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article is about those towers that are 90% under residential use, which automatically renders some opposes as pointless. Apart from this i felt it well worked and referenced. Perhaps its best list of its kind on internet (as its more informative then lists usually provided by emporis.com etc). It had some grammatical issues, which i think i have sorted out. Quit informative article btw. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because the article has that limit defined doesn't mean the limit is valid. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Featured lists do not simply start "In this list of" or "This is a list of "... please read some of more recent FLs for examples of what we now expect.
  • I have checked many FLs but all those list have starting like this, "This list of Boston", so what matters here ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "world[2][3] " punctuation.
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Metapolis is 1ft higher than its 73= counterparts.
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cities should be relinked, just like the countries.
  • How ?? please explain.
• I would expect the Building col to sort in ascending by "21st" then "340" then "1322". It doesn't.
• Rank doesn't sort correctly.
  • I have changed the whole table in order to sort the other columns and i didnt got help in this respect from any user, so please assist me how to sort the respective columns corrctly.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ALT text is really weak. It's not just a case of repeating what it is, you have to tell the reader what it looks like.
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't mix date formats in the references (e.g. ref 5 should have human-readable dates)
  • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 33 is missing a publisher.
• ditto ref 77.
• and ref 100.

Finally, I would urge the reviewers who have already offered "support" to familiarise themselves with our most up-to-date criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • reference, 33, 77, 100 have no publishers because User —Chris!_c/t said so above, that "if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url"

• Closing note This list has clearly received a lot of love, and the nominator has done a good job addressing suggestions. However, there are still a lot of issues remaining, evidence that the list not yet ready for FL status. Now, I understand the list has been through peer review twice already, so I won't thoughtlessly and mechanically suggest another. However, it is evident that work needs to be done on the list outside FLC before it is re-submitted. I would advise contacting editors who have brought skyscraper lists up to FL before and the reviewers of this FLC for further suggestions for improvement. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) and Hurricanehink[reply]

This was largely split from List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980–1999) after it got too long, but I've updated the content, added a suitable lead, and fixed any formatting issues. Now that this article is published, it needs to be featured in order to prevent the featured topic from being demoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Check External Links and Alt Text. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be sorted now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the 1st picture I count 4 segments not 2. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there are two main segments and a bit of rogue sand between them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok then, shouldn't the Rogue sand between them be mentioned. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jujutacular (talk · contribs)

• "... while May and November are tired for the least active months" – Typo.

• Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first storm to impact the state during the period was Hurricane Florence in September 2000, and the most recent is Hurricane Ida in 2009." – is this change in tense appropriate?

• I'd say so. "The most recent was" doesn't flow right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have to disagree. I'll wait for a third opinion (if consensus is against me on this point I'll support). Jujutacular ^T · C 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane Charley – source says it caused $25 million in damage in NC, not 50 million.

• Adjusted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This source is used for Hurricane Bertha, but it discusses an event in Nevada.

• Yeah, those links are dynamic and change regularly. Fixed that one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned with scope: is there a set time for this list to end and a new one to begin? Previous intervals for NC are: Pre-1900, 1900–1949, 1950–1979, and 1980–1999.

• As soon as it gets too long to reasonably navigate (around 2015, barring any 2005-like seasons in the meantime.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the requirements to warrant being a Featured List. I put a considerable amount of time into the article to ensure it is of a professional standard and meets all specified criteria. I will happily respond to queries or suggestions and add anything that is required for the article to attain Featured List status. Thankyou for your time. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the conversation below being completed. Excellent, thorough, and clear. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The general layout is awesome. A few quick notes:

• David Norris and Paul McGregor are sent to disambiguation pages. I can't figure out how to fix it. See "disambig links" in the toolbar
  • Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm having connection issues with the "external links" in the toolbar. None of them are showing "dead" though.
  • I have noticed that some of the links from "Argyle Review" take a while to load. I'm not sure why, but they definitely exist. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text (from what I understand) seems off. Adjust them to describe what you see.

• You cannot tell that Paul Mariner is "kneeling" from what the image displays
• You cannot tell that Johnny Newman is "standing infront of a building" from what the image displays

• Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Does "Level" in note 1 need to be capitalized?
  • Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the publishers in the references need to be italicized when they aren't works? Cptnono (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I went through it one more time and noticed a couple minor things. I expect I will be supporting this after your response or modifications.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Chronological items - Consider adjusting "The current holder of the award is..." just in case you are not editing when the '10 award is given. It will also be a notification to anyone to anyone reading it at that time to update it. "In 2009..." should work (the reader should assume it is current there). The "current" in the manager section might need to be changed as well.
• Do you need to link to associated football twice in the lead? I think that "player over the course of the football season." would work fine.
• Consider wikilinking "pitch" for audiences not familiar with the term.
• The "Pyramid Suite" means nothing to readers not familiar with the facility. Maybe try wikilinking [[Home Park#Structure and facilities|Pyramid Suite]] or adding in that it is the hospitality suite.

Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good, they've all been corrected. I especially like the wikilink suggestion for the Pyramid Suite, so it'll leave the reader in no doubt as to what it is.

Argyle 4 Life (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should be named Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year, since it is the main article about the award, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it if necessary. I followed the lead of similar articles regarding Ipswich Town and Norwich City.

I assume they would need to be altered also? Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I moved both of those. You can move this one when you get the chance; I'll take care of fixing links and such. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – What makes Argyle Review and Greens on Screen reliable sources? I see from the Plymouth Argyle page here that the sites are databases. Who runs them, and are they considered accurate? This is important since they are the primary sources for the table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. It looks great to me and I trust it from what I have seen but it is not a published writer with an editorial staff vetting it.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed databases maintained by supporters. The first, Greens on Screen, has been run by a man called Steve for over 11 years, which makes it older than the club's official website, and Wikipedia for that matter! In his words, it is an amateur website run as a hobby to bring supporters closer to their team. It is highly respected amongst our fanbase and I can't think of any better to be honest. Its only failing, if you can call it that, is that it isn't "officially" linked to the club.

The second runs along a similar theme, and I included sources to that one because it states when they won the award in their notable moments section. If the club's official website had a vast array of information on the past then I would use that instead, but it doesn't and I have come to rely on Greens on Screen for a number of years. I have a great deal of respect for Steve and all the work he has done there for no financial gain. If the statistics were false then the website would've been gone a long time ago.

I could link some players to Soccerbase, but it doesn't include them all as yet. Maybe that will change in the future. The official website does have small profiles on certain players. If I go through that and switch a few of the links around that would be okay? There is no guarantee all 45 players will have a profile on there, but I'll do my best. I understand your concerns, reliability is paramount. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General note on establishing reliability: To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not going to pretend I know all of the in's and out's of it, but I appreciate the help from you guys. I have found three areas so far. The first is on the main page of the site, a link at the top titled "About GoS". The second is shown here, on the main page of the database to the top left; "GoS's data has been verified using original newspaper reports to ensure a very high degree of accuracy". The third is the best I think. When Saturday Comes, a national football magazine which was established in 1986. Greens on Screen has featured on it many times, listed among "some of the very best sites".

"Greens On Screen (Plymouth Argyle) Everything an independent team website should be – packed with photos, video clips, stats, clever graphs and concise match reports. “An ama­teur website aiming to add, not compete,” it says modestly. If only every team had one." - When Saturday Comes, January 2005.

I hope that helps. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another link; Neil Brown, a trusted source among WikiProject Football members, has Greens on Screen listed in its "links" section. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To offer a comment that isn't reference-related, a couple of unneeded commas after Paul Mariner and "1980s goalscoring icon" should be removed. If an uninvolved editor has any thoughts on the reliability of these sources, it would be helpful, for both myself and the nominator. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning towards Argyle Review being OK. It has received a positive write up as shown above, has passed some cross checking, and appears to have a focus on reliability. Unfortunately, it has been down for the last couple of days which brings up eve more concern. Anyone know if it is only a temporarily problem?Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Giants2008, you were right, looking back there was too many commas, so I've rearranged the citations and reduced the number of them. Cptnono, I believe you have your wires crossed, the one which has received praise is Greens on Screen. I only included links to Argyle Review because it stated on the players profile that they won the award. As you said its been down for a week or so, and I noticed it hadn't been updated for a few weeks before that. I'm not sure what happened, but it could be any number of things. The most likely is that the renewal for domain hosting was coming up and the guy who runs it decided it wasn't worth the bother because its always been in the shadow of Greens on Screen, but its still a shame to see it go. Having dead links isn't good so I'm having a look now to see which can be replaced. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is close and feel that a few days to get that sourcing issue straight would be more beneficial than closing and reopening the review. Feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page if you get stuck on some and need a hand.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a few hours to spare this morning so I've gone through the list and replaced the broken references with fully functional ones and I've added three historical books about the club, dating back to when it became professional in 1903. If you have any suggestions then let me know. I took out the FIFA links because they only cover appearances made in their competitions, so no friendlies, contintental qualifiers, etc, but I could put them back alongside what I replaced them with to add a bit more verifiability. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. In addition, there were concerns about reliability that, though they seem to be mostly addressed, might be fully resolved outside FLC. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of the backlog. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because as I believe it meets all the FLC. It is based on the existing collegiate head coach FLs. NThomas (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to include division championships, shouldn't you also mention the fact that there was a three-way tie in 2008?

• In the lead, I added co- to the: ...to the program's first division co-championship in 2008. sentence. The division co-championship for this page would be easy, its the only one. If we're going to add footnotes about which years were shared titles, including national (Nebraska), conference (almost all the teams), and division, there's going to be some long entries or a slew of footnotes. I'd say leave it go as it is. NThomas (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We've also discussed this in another FLC, but I am against including division championships but the inclusion wouldn't prevent my eventual support. Editor's choice on this one.

• I'm gonna keep it on this one. If Tech When Tech wins a few more division titles, it'll fill out better. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010

• I am not a big fan of small paragraphs. A paragraph should have at least three sentences (preferably four). The first paragraph in your lead is one sentence and the second paragraph has around 15 sentences. Can you balance these out a bit more, or at least expand the first?

• I added a sentence from the second paragraph but the first is all general information while the second is chronological history. Where would you split the second paragraph to balance it out?

• What about splitting the 2nd paragraph into two paragraphs? They may at least balanace them off a little to make the 1st seem a little less disproportionate.—NMajdan•talk 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asking where you would split the second paragraph. I went ahead and separated it from the Border Conference years to admission to the SWC, historically a turning point for TTU. NThomas (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It does look better. However, I won't strike this one to allow other reviewers to comment if they feel like it.—NMajdan•talk

• I am against the inclusion of interim head coaches as they are not considered official head coaches in the long run and are rarely included in statistics from schools and the NCAA.

• When Tuberville was announced, he was named the 14th head coach, so I changed the list to show McNeil is not the 14th head coach. Removing him completely seems like too much, I'd rather see McNeil stay on the list, as he was the head coach, but keeping the number scheme continue with Tuberville. I also included not including interim head coaches. Interim head coaches are represented with "Int". about interium head coaches in the column's note. The other solution would be to create a separate list in a subsection with the interims and their records. The same problem will arise with Gary Darnell on the Texas A&M football list as both interim head coaches only coached the bowl game. So lets iron this out here for consistency. NThomas (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious on the opinions of other editors. This may just boil down to editor's choice again.—NMajdan•talk 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as an editor (not as director), I prefer NThomas' method, but I value consistency in these head coach lists more, so hopefully you two can decide on a happy medium. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the NFL FLs, theres no consistency at all. Example: List of New Orleans Saints head coaches shows Wade Phillips as the ninth HC (even though his title was interim HC) and Sean Payton as 14th HC. On the Saints' website, it also list Payton as the 14th HC here. However, on the List of St. Louis Rams head coaches, Steve Spagnuolo is listed as the 26th HC because 2 interim HCs and a coach with two nonconsecutive terms, boost up the numbers. Spagnuolo's NFL.com bio lists him as the 23rd HC here. So there's nothing existing to help guide us.

Hope this helps!—NMajdan•talk 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Efe

I am nominating this for featured list because, as another former featured list, it appeared really straight-forward to fix. It was demoted after nobody paid much attention when it was nominated for delisting. Having looked at four further WP:FLRCs identical in nature, it was clear this could be easily fixed. And it was... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may be incorrect and I haven't reviewed for a while, but isn't this list just essentially nine items. My memory may mislead me, but I thought we went over to number-ones by decade not individual year. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I haven't opposed this as I realise I may be out of the loop). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, there have been list for decades, but I can't recall us stating it was the only way to do it... I guess it isn't our unwritten "ten items" but that's kind of unusual for a chart to have only 9 number ones in 52 weeks, so I'm wondering if this confers some notability which may supersede the minimum number of items issue. It was only delisted a month or two ago, based simply on the lack of references, hence my re-nomination... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did some digging. The only precedent I could quicky find is a for a smaller single year list here which failed FLC, then these were merged into 3 year groups and promoted here but after that a merge discussion gave consensus to make decade lists and the groups of three year lists were delisted. Have there been single year promotions since this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet Dabomb will know the answer to that. Incidentally, that list had just five distinct items so wasn't even a borderline case for FLC... I think groups of three years were an easy (and arbitrary) get-out. Most, if not all of the other Hot 100 lists meet the unwritten rule easily, it would seem a little odd if this one couldn't be at least thought about.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree and I've messaged Dabomb, the Latins were much shorter and definitely arbitrary in their threes. I just happened to know that the UK number one FLs are by decade and was wondering why and if it's worth trying to make all formats consistent (which is always asking for trouble). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worth the discussion. The merge Latin list had a total of 36 items for 10 years, at a quick stab, it looks like a similar Hot 100 decade (2000 to 2009) would have something like 130 items and could easily hit over 500 references.... perhaps a decade is a little too much for this chart? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 500 refs would take way to long to load up but, playing devil's advocate, could this be used to reference generally like Guinness hit singles is for the UK lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would be more useful if it had been published later than 2003....! But something like that (if it were up to date) would be more useful, and may reduce references down to a more manageable 130+... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, good spot. On a similar vain this Billboard source categorises by decade (to 2008) which might be useful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good link. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Rambo's Revenge is right. In fact, since that 1990s list was promoted, we have not had any record chart lists promoted, let alone a single-year chart. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RR may be right that no list has been promoted, but I'm not sure we all agreed that "decades lists" were the only possible solution here. If we did, can someone point me to that specific discussion. While this list may just drop below the unwritten ten-item requirement, there are several other Billboard FLs for a single year with plenty more than 10 entries. How could they possibly fail the FL criteria right now? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion either way. I'll look into the pros and cons of years vs decades when I do my next batch of reviews, which will probably be at the weekend. But can I suggest that the success/failure of this be tied to the current FLRCs? It seems odd to me that those ones could be kept by default, yet this one not promoted by default. As I say, I'm reserving judgement for a few days, but at a glance they're all of similar quality. WFCforLife (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping those FLRCs open for this reason; hopefully enough editors pitch in so that consensus forms before I have to close them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I have with all this is that at least two of those FLRCs don't currently fail any criteria (objectively and since they contain more than the mythical "ten items") so preventing them from being kept wouldn't make any sense. If we need to add a criterion that says "7. No single-year chart FLs are allowed" then that's a different discussion, but right now those FLRCs with ten items or more can't really be removed as a result of failing any of our current criteria. Just because a bunch of smaller lists were merged, it didn't set a precedent suggesting no more single-year chart lists could be promoted, did it? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody. I am the "latin guy". I've been checking this nomination and since I been through several revisions and opinions about the record chart lists (1 year, 3 years, decade), I was wondering if we can have a 'consensus' to work with this lists, as I'm writing articles for each song included Top Latin Songs lists and arranging them on decade-long lists in order to nominate them, (as I did with the list below). What should I do?. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a wider proposal. This meets all the other criteria, 3b is disputed. In disputes with the content of an individual article or list, the normal procedure is to restore the status quo, temporarily cease action, and start a wider discussion. Given that we're unlikely to acheive consensus between The Rambling Man and a small number of reviewers (some supporting, some opposing), I see no reason not to do the same here. The status quo is that these were Featured Lists. I therefore propose that this is promoted, the related FLRCs are closed as keeps with no prejudice to re-nomination in future, and we simultaneously start an RfC. I see no harm in us taking our time to get this right. I also think that an RfC would be less of a drain on the FL process than bringing special attention to this FLC in the closure log, while also having four identical FLRCs open. WFCforLife (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will close the FLRCs tomorrow unless someone comments there between now and then. However, I don't feel that it's necessary to circumvent the FLC process and "speedy-promote"; we might have fresh reviewers find issues on this list that nobody else had noticed. If this list meets the FL criteria, it will eventually accumulate the support needed to promote. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [7].

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think role column should be sortable and incomplete sentences shouldn't have periods. Image also lacks alt text.—Chris!_c/t 04:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both the sorbability and the punctuation. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the image of characters meets WP:FUC. Anyone else have opinions on it? In any case, it'll need a much stronger fair-use rationale, not the same one used for South Park. Mm40 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "To show the four main characters of the show (present in the foreground), together with a large portion of the characters in South Park." sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – eh, this isn't how I normally prefer character lists (see List of Naruto characters, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for two examples). Where is the creation/conception/development information on the cast and the cast's overall reception? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, never mind, saw the sublists. Still don't like it though. Text entries are still better than the tables (have a paragraph or two for the sections with sublists that describes generally the characters in the list), and my point on the lack of overall conception/reception information still stands. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Th difference is that this list has way more than 20 characters who are important for the series. There are actually almost 60 of them, and having even a short paragraph on each would make this a humongous article. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a short paragraph on all of them; it's a short paragraph on what the general content of the list is. That's far better than having a table per section, and still, the list needs conception/reception information. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the conception section that I have added sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks okay, although I'd recommend others to evaluate whether it's comprehensive or not. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Excuse my inexperience but there are some things I'm questioning. The Alt Text needs to be more generic, blind users would not know who Kenny is. The tables don't seem to be the way to go, even if the list is extremely long. Also the information seems incomplete since Kevin McCormick and Stephen Stotch are missing their voice actors. The separation seems a bit in-universe though such as "South Park Elementary". Some characters seem to be irrelevant such as Mr. Kitty. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two characters are not important enough for anybody (I have seriously looked for a long time) to declare their voice actors; almost all of the male voices are done by the two creators, Stone and Parker, but putting that in would be wp:or; I was tempted to remove them, but for the sake of consistency in the families section I have kept them in. Mr. Kitty is actually relevant in several episodes. Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation section. "though he is portrayed to give the impression that the show still utilizes its original technique" Who's he? Also I still feel that the list still needs re-arranging and the tables need to be removed. If I had to suggest, the sections should be made so its "Protagonists or Main Characters" and "Other characters" with level 3 headers for "Students at South Park Elementary", "Staff at South Park Elementary", and "Others"; I suggest the others to contain the families and the supporting cast which are summarized in a paragraph. This would also solve the two characters missing voice actors. I'm inexperienced though and the character lists I've worked on were from anime and video games only. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this reply somehow. I fixed the "portrayed" part. As for tables vs paragraphs, I still believe tables are better: with so many characters that are actually notable (I think I remover about half how many entries are now for characters that don't make multiple appearances throughout the seasons), it would become just an enumeration of characters with very repetitive prose (four ppl do almost all voices), and with awkward prose to list all the initial appearances. As for unknown voices, four of them doesn't sound too much to appear problematic to me. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just noticed that some episode names aren't italicized. They should be.—Chris!_c/t 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode names are not in italics but are enclosed in quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then the episode names in the prose should not be italicized. They are inconsistent.—Chris!_c/t 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Also, there seems to be unresolved issues regarding the format of the list that I think would benefit from a centralized discussion or peer review. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of the backlog. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the style of all the rest. The one question I've got is if you guys think the odd role that Dave Anderson played in the Kirk Gibson 1988 World Series home run is worth mentioning in the lead. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why are positions linked in both the second and third paragraphs? This is particularly harmful as it makes the links to players less noticeable. Also, in Scioscia's alt text, shouldn't it be "in a red warmup"? On the Anderson thing, I don't think it's worth mentioning, particularly as there's plenty of other stuff to discuss. Mm40 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixing now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "for assinging amateur baseball players from high schools, colleges, and other amateur baseball clubs to its frachises." Check the last word again.
• "Welch was also on the Oakland Athletics 1988 team". Apostrophe needed at end of Athletics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [9].

Nominator(s): Jujutacular ^T · C 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets criteria. I have greatly expanded it over the last week or so. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I haven't really taken an expansive look at the article but the References could use a little bit of organising, like for example Black Eyed Peas discography#References. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, using Black Eyed Peas discography#References as an example. Thanks for that. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hate to do this to you, but all the images (including those in {{countyrow}}) need better alt text. The lead image should describe the shape of the state and describe general trends, such as the larger counties tend to be in the center. For the highlighted maps, describe the location ("high on the panhandle"), the size, and maybe the shape. See List of counties in New Jersey for an example. Also, be sure to exclude "in red" per WP:ALT#MAPS. For other things, the main table is centered while the other two aren't, retrieval dates are in different formats (YYYY-MM-DD vs. Month day, year), and EPA should be spelled out in ref 5. Mm40 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Gunsmoke is a television classic that warrants a good episode list. This is a long one! 635 episodes! Please help improve it if you can. I've already had help from a peer review, now lets "fine tune" it some more.

Two things to note:

• One of the show's producers was named Norman Macdonnell (small "d"), not Norman MacDonnell (side note: the Wikipedia article on him needs to have its title changed. Can we do this?)
  • Sure, you can move the article, although it would be nice if you could cite a reliable source verifying his name was indeed spelled that way. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Episode 554 is titled "P.S. Murry Christmas" and not "P.S. Merry Christmas" Jimknut (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the fair-use image significantly increases readers' understanding of this article. It definitely belongs in the main article Gunsmoke, but nothing here helps out with understanding the episodes as a whole. Most episode lists that have been recently promoted do not include fair-use images for this reason. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the image. In its current format, this list has my support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One other item: It seems fairly common in episode lists that have achieved FL status to have a home video release chart. I have one for Gunsmoke but it's currently in a hidden text mode. One of the above commentators objected to using Amazon.com as a reliable reference, although Amazon has been used frequently in the past. Personally, I think that Amazon should be okay, since they're a worldwide business that's been in operation for many years. If Amazon is clearly selling Gunsmoke DVDs and displays them on their website this should be obvious proof that the DVDs exists. As for release dates, number of discs, extra features, etc., I presume that Amazon receives this information from the manufacturer of the DVDs (which in this case would be CBS). That Amazon would list this information inaccurately, while possible, seems (to me at least) to be highly unlikely as accurate descriptions of merchandise is mandatory in any retail business. I'd like to reinstate the Home Video section but I know of no other reliable source (CBS's web page does not give release dates). Any comments? Jimknut (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes, home video releases are usually noted. I (personally) agree with your view of Amazon as a reliable source. I would reinstate the hidden text and see what others have to say... The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found three. They're fixed now. Jimknut (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [11].

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards of other featured lists, as well as the criteria neccessary to be featured. It also has been peer reviewed. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Alt text, contributors, dab and external links all check out fine.

Lead

• Introduced in 1986, the information was compiled by the Billboard chart and research department with information from 70 Spanish-speaking radio stations in United States and Puerto Rico. -- formerly its the United States

Fixed!

• Those radio stations were selected based on their number of listeners. Stations were asked to report their playlists for the week, and this information was entered to the Billboard computer system, calculating points for every song. -- how about, Those radio stations were selected based on their number of listeners, and were asked to report their playlists for the week. This information was then entered to the Billboard computer system, calculating points for every song. ?

Fixed!

• According to the Billboard electronic database the first one was "La Guirnalda" by Spanish singer Rocío Dúrcal in September 6, 1986. --> According to the Billboard electronic database, the first was "La Guirnalda" by Spanish singer Rocío Dúrcal in September 6, 1986.

Fixed!

• By the end of that year another of Gabriel's compositions, "De Mí Enamórate" sung by Daniela Romo, also reached number-one. -- comma after that year

Fixed!

• So with Rocio and Juan, was their an official listing as to the first one?

While researching for this article I found the Billboard magazine online and Juan Gabriel was at number-one in the first chart published, but Durcal appears as the first number-one song in the Billboard electronic database.

• Cuban singer-songwriter Gloria Estefan became the first artist to simultaneously peak at number-one in the Billboard Hot 100 with "Don't Wanna Lose You", and the Billboard Top Latin Songs with the Spanish version titled "Si Voy a Perderte" on September 16, 1989 -- no need to link to the Latin chart again per WP:OVERLINK--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!

• Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [12].

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk), Andrzejbanas

Been working on this and its many sister-articles for some time now, mostly in my sandbox, and then eventually on the page itself. I came across these articles in a bit of haphazard shape, so it's been my goal to organize and streamline the entire series of lists. This is the biggest and most inclusive of them all, so the success of this nom will probably have an affect on the other lists I plan to work on soon afterwards.

I've tried to simplify things, but I am open to any and all formatting and logistical suggestions any of you may have. Specifically, I have one question I wasn't sure about: do you think it's worth noting the upcoming releases in the way that I have? I would say ideally yes, but since the release dates are so staggered, I feel like it's just inviting trouble, and will more often then not be out-of-date. So I was thinking about removing the denomination altogether, but I wanted to ask before I did that. Also, what do you guys think about the box-set table format? Any ideas?

Also, I had a bunch of help from User:Andrzejbanas, so you could consider this a co-nom, if you like. Thanks for taking the time to look. Drewcifer (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fantastic list. I'm a big fan of criterion, and since their website is kind of hard to navigate, I'm sure this list will prove very useful. I haven't checked the details yet, but one thing that strikes me after a first look, is that the directors aren't sorted by last names. Is this because there are japanese names in the list? The Ministry (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They're alphabetized like that because I don't know how to do it any other way! Anyone know how? Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been taken care of. Drewcifer (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox.

I have; the two left are intentional. Take a look at the context and the actual dab pages, and I think you'll agree they're the most fitting links possible. Drewcifer (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Very Good list, I would think it would be easier for the user if the Key (or Legend as you've noted it as) was in a table similar/along the lines of this page. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done. Drewcifer (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:COLOR, all colors also need a symbol; this is for those who can't see color. Also, all linkable items in a table should be linked at every mention, not only the first. This is because you don't know how the reader will sort the table, so you don't know what will be on top (I hope that makes sense). Mm40 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I believe this is being sorted out with the † symbols. Is this what you suggested? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've already added the little cross thingies. As for the repeated links, I'm not so sure about this. WP:LINK says in tables it's at the editor's discretion, and I don't really have a strong opinoin about it, other than the fact that leaving it as is is easier. That said, if it is redone so everything is linked, I'd like to wait until (if) we figure out the last-name sorting thing mentioned above. Doing the two together would save some time/work, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting can be done with the sortname template. I think all names should be linked, if you sort by original release for example lots of directors aren't linked on their first appearance. Smetanahue (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right per Wikipedia:LINK#Repeated_links. I've added the sortable names, but some of them have the nolink banner. You want to fix this up drewcifer? I'm out to see a film! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I was actually in the middle of doing the sortname thing just as you did yourself. Good work! I could go either way with the linking every name thing. It seems like there's two people in support of it. Any other opinions on it? I'll take care of that eventually, but I'll wait until (if) there's more opinions on it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the directors should be linked every time. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Although not in the two short tables "Merchant Ivory Collection" and "Other releases") P. S. Burton (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've linked all of the director's names. Drewcifer (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You list 79, 100, 339, 495 as Various, I'm just wondering why aren't the Directors listed? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 16:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were listed like this before just because of the sheer amount of directors listed to these compilations. I've listed them in there now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any particular reason why the Keys need to be dented? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 09:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe is it pushed out a bit more to make it more apparent that it is separated from the list below. I can't find any information from WP:LIST to say what to do in this situation, so if it is really disliked, we can move the spacing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the dent really needed is the point is what trying to get at, I'm sure people can deduce easily that its a different table. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not really essential, but personally I like it, since it does visually seperate the two. I don't think there's any guideline/policy or otherwise on this. Really, this is small potatoes, but I'd prefer to keep it. Drewcifer (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Spine No. and LD no. columns does not sort correctly when clicked on several times. To fix this please see m:Help:Sorting. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is seriously the most unhelpful help page I've ever seen. Can anyone tell me what to do? Drewcifer (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My earlier comments have been resolved. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [13].

Nominator(s): 03md 22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe with a bit of work it could be ready to become a featured list. The list is complete (to my knowledge) and well referenced. 03md 22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You also have List of best-selling singles of the 2000s (UK) at FLC. Note the instructions at the top of WP:FLC: "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I don't personally have a problem with it, but others might as it creates a backlog. I would suggest putting this on hold until the first nom seems clear to pass. Mm40 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, images need ALT text and there are three links to dab pages (see here). Mm40 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about the title. Perhaps "List of Pop Idol contestant music releases"? Let's see what everyone else thinks...
• 3rd, 4th and 5th "other releases" are unreferenced.

Should I just remove them completely as I can't find Reliable refs.

Without RS, the information probably should go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed the uncited parts. 03md 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2010 (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 Dabomb87 15:43, 20 February 2010 [14].

Nominator(s): ResMar, Awickert

This list is the end result of a split from Hawaii hotspot, when it got too long to manage. I'm nominating it for FL because it's well-referenced and well-written. However, this list is a bit bold, because it has issues with completeness that can never be really surmounted, that is that in addition to the stuff listed, there are countless more. The list covers signifigant seamounts, but I can't find a clear distinction between what's listed and what's not, other then that the vast majority of what's not listed has a coordinate and a name, sometimes not even a name. ResMar 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. All issues have been resolved. bamse (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]