Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2006

A grim topic, but I believe this is a comprehensive & informative list. Whether it becomes a FL or not, I would appreciate any feedback on this piece. -- llywrch 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm inclined to support upon thorough copyedit and bringing the sources up to some standard formatting (I recommend using this online tool for that) Can't you get the ISBN numbers for the books? That'd certainly come handy. And a relevant image/photograph too. Great work. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately, neither book has ISB numbers to the best of my knowledge -- both were written before they were widely issued. (Pankhurst's later book, having been published by a staff for whom English is a 2nd langauge, has a number of entertaining idiosyncracies that I should share someday, although probably not on Wikipedia.) I'm not clear just how pictures of people starving to death would lend to the usefulness of this list/article -- please elaborate. -- llywrch 03:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A map? A picture of food aid convoys? No need to editorialize, of course. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yap, you need sources. Also longer intro and more descriptions would not harm, but a nice list. Good candidate for support. Renata 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Self Nomination this list was turned down FA status becuase it's a list, not an article. I think nominating it here is better. This list is fully complete, comprehensive, well written, and has every piece of Stargate tech in it except for the extremely obscure ones that only appeared in half an episode. Tobyk777 01:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Needs references. Also Image:Fn_p90_right.jpg and Image:Fn p90 right.jpg require Fair Use rationales because they are used in more than one article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the illustrations of FN P90, it seems that User:Metroplex may have access to an actual gun to create free-license pictures of. --Carnildo 07:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list, up to date, referenced, no red links, jguk 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. For god's sake, they've only played two matches. I've suggested before that the members of the Cricket Wikiproject shouldn't be nominating nascent and very short lists like this. I have absolutely no objection to cricket lists per se - indeed, I've voted to support some of them - but I don't believe that a list like this, which does very little more than regurgitate content from howstat, can really be said to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". And if that doesn't count as an actionable objection, how about this: despite having only played two matches - and according to United States cricket team, not being likely to play more any time soon - the list quite ridiculously gives batting and bowling averages to two decimal places. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renata is right - I lost my cool there. Apologies all round, especially to jguk. My objections still stand, but my language was intemperate and I have struck through what seems to me the worst parts of it. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I saw it a couple of days ago and I didn't want to vote, because it is a good list, but somehow does not live up to the featured status. The above vote is quite heated, but I think he has a point... Sorry, and very nice work on other cricket lists. Renata 08:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list with no redlinks, support, jguk 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The picture completely obstructs the upper right corner of the table when accessing the page in Firefox. Should be changed promptly. Additionally, it's "as of", not "as at". —Nightstallion (?) 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a <br>, but I don't know if that's enough to fix it or not. If not, are you or another Firefox user seeing this able to fix the problem? I'm on IE myself, and it's difficult to fix a problem you can't see. On the grammar point, I disagree - "as at" implies "at a particular snapshot in time", "as of" implies "from a particular time onwards", and I think it's best here to imply "at a particular snapshot in time" as it is on 9 January 2006 that the most recent game was played, jguk 07:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{clear}} is to <br> what Superman is to Clark Kent. Fixed. ;) That said, I don't see any reason not to support this, although I'm not really interested in the topic at all... I'll support as soon as you change the reference style to fit WP:CITE guidelines for websites. —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per my similar rationale on List of American ODI cricketers and also because the external link to cricinfo, cited as a reference, appears not to work. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The link has been corrected. As far as I'm aware this list in this format can only be found on Wikipedia - providing information not easily available elsewhere is certainly within the remit of what Wikipedia does best. Also, this list has 18 entries - is there a minimum number of entries required for a list for it to have a chance to become a featured list? jguk 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still oppose, I'm afraid. The info at cricinfo is in a very similar format (it just splits out batting and bowling). There's no minimum number of entries, of course, but common sense says to me that a list which contains lots of statistics on batting and bowling averages becomes much less useful when it's averaged across only two matches! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose needs to move to CompactTOC. No pictures. Minimal content outside of list entry links. Poor introduction.  ALKIVAR™ 16:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CompactTOC implemented! 86.140.74.50 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed problem with pictures. Xxxxxxxx 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Featured lists tend to be in table format. I'd like to see date, location, and cause of crash for each entry. That would be useful information for people who plan to book flights. For example, I've heard that La Guardia is the most dangerous of the three New York City area airports. The runways were supposedly built during the propeller plane era and cannot be lengthened due to local geography. A more developed version of your list could help confirm or dispel such beliefs. Durova 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table format isn't a requirement or anything. List of North American birds isn't in table format. The downside of table format is it makes adding new information a bit more difficult. (It's also an upside as that discourages frivolous false additions) That said it's a bit ugly and could be more informative than it is. So I think it's probably not ready yet.--T. Anthony 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not a requirement. Usually it's a good idea as an organizing principle. I agree this list doesn't look ready. Having given it a few days, I don't think it will become ready by the end of the nomination period. Object. I'd be willing to change that: surprise me. Durova 17:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - looks very ugly, needs to be in a table format with more info (dates, locations, fatalities, etc.), I doubt if comprehensive, some flights are linked, some are not, etc etc etc. Renata 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The images Image:Crash air france.jpg, Image:Crash gulf air.jpg, and Image:Crash twa.jpg have no source information, and all of them have the dubious tag of {{promophoto}}. I'd suggest replacing them with a single, larger image at the top of the list, preferably of a well-known crash. I'm sure the FAA has no shortage of public-domain photos of airplane crashes. --Carnildo 07:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified sources and/or actual images in view of objection. FAA was indeed a good source. Sticking with multiple images throughout the list for the moment. Xxxxxxxx 23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Image:Crash gulf air.jpg is not under a free license, I'd suggest removing it. There's nothing that distinguishes this crash photo from the millions of other crash photos out there. --Carnildo 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replaced with public domain photo of Japan Airlines Flight 123 crash. Xxxxxxxx 11:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. More info can always be added, but I don't think it looks that bad at the moment. "Grouped" lists often don't work so well in table format. It's definitely better than some existing featured lists. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak (self) support I've just started working on this, and I like the page for the amount of content and, given its dynamic nature, ease of adding information. Yellowspacehopper 12:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO Is this a comprehensive list? I see Transat Airlines is missing. They have had quite a few mishaps, haven't they?

Alinor and I have done our best to improve this article from a simple list of trade blocs to a comprehensive list of active trade blocs, with maps, information about future changes, integration stages, and so on. A peer review garnered no comments at all, so we thought it was probably good enough already. ;) Let us hear your thoughts, then. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No references, jguk 00:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What kind of references should we add? Links to newspaper articles about changes? Links to the blocs' websites? —Nightstallion (?) 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming the blocs' websites list what members they have, then yes - if not, some other reference that says what members each trade bloc has and, where there is more than one type of membership, what sort of membership each entity has. Also, the table on the Comparison between regional blocs is entirely unreferenced. Also the bit under "Other states and entities" appears to contain a number of conjectures - eg that China is not a member of a bloc because of its political system and size. These conjectures should either be removed or referenced (eg by saying that "[Reputable source] suggests that this is becuase China is not a member of a bloc because of its political system and size", jguk 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the blocs' websites list their members. About the table - many of the "in force/proposed" texts are actualy links to corresponding articles. These that are not links are in most cases explained on the page of the bloc in question. Your other comments - yes, links for these are omitted currently. Alinor 11:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support References are mainly another wikipedia articles. Alinor 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not good enough. References need to be on this page, jguk 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator, naturally. —Nightstallion (?) 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What is the distinguishing factor between a trade bloc and an unlisted free trade agreement? I'm thinking of [1] and possibly others. If memory serves, the United States is in negotiation with several other Pacific Rim nations. Durova 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Trade blocs are multilateral, bilateral FTA are bilateral. There are a couple of multilateral which double as trade blocs in the article — EFTA, NAFTA, PAFTA, if I recall correctly, and Agadir and COMESA are little more than glorified FTA at the moment, as well. Niggers trade here frequently. Anything else you need to know? Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is complete, comprehensive, useful, has pictures, and is referenced. As this is a dynamic list, future Category 5 hurricanes will have to be added as they form, but this is all of the known Category 5's up to now.

This is a self-nomination. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now - quite nice and close to featured. However, wording needs to be revised. Eg: no self reference ("The scope of this article is..."), the first paragraph is one sentence that just repeats the title, you might want to expand "Statistics" section to give more background (like don't leave the 1st sentence in the section alone), revise some awkward phrasing (like "strongest winds were not measured due to the lack of technology in reaching the strongest winds" or "but no one was around to notice them") or strong words (like "excellent geostationary satellite coverage" or "was badly underestimated"). I believe these can be fixed quite quickly and then I will move to support. Renata3 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the lead, revised awkward wording, and changed the strong wording. The reason for the self-reference is because not everyone knows that only eastern Pacific tropical cyclones are called typhoons. Should I still remove the paragraph about the scope? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The language is a little better (but not excellent). You don't need to delete anything, just rephrase to eliminate the direct self-reference. But then I took another look and I saw that Statistics and Climatology setions are in need of expansion, they are just too short. I know it is supposed to be a list, but still they look very stuby. Also, an optional thing, but could you find a map of the region (north of equator and west of dateline) so it is very clear what are you talking about. There should be plenty of free Pacific maps. Renata3 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the explicit self-reference. I added included an explanation of why Category 5's are rare outside of El Nino years and included the definition of sustained winds. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article looks quite good, but I'd try to change the following: I'd align the tables side by side to get rid of the whitespace in the middle of the article. Also it would be nice (but not mandatory) to have inline references, since this is a longish article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is an informative article. It has lots of information and good pictures. (and it has references). If it's not good enough, it would be interesting to hear any recommendations for the article. Cmdrbond 04:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article, unfortunately is not sufficient for a nomination here, or at the intended featured article candidates page. Cmdrbond, this page is for featured lists, that is lists, check WP:FL for examples. Before you quickly change this to an FA nomination, I reccommend you check some of the nominations on the WP:FAC page and then nominate this at peer review. Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia featured content! Phoenix2 05:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of episodes for the TV show Stargate SG-1, the longest running scifi show in US history. Because of that, I want to make this point right now: yes, the article is long!. We discussed splitting it, but came to these conclusions:

• That would disrupt the list and make it inconvenient for a reader trying to find an episode.
• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which is why this kind of list works well.
• Most of the apparent article size (in KB) comes from the multitudinous table code, not from the content.

So I am submitting this list to be a featured list because I think it is:

• Absolutely complete
• Very clear and well laid out
• Is referenced, has small episode summaries for each episode (and the individual episode articles have references too)
• Is well illustrated
• Provides a spoiler, image-free version of itself at a subpage for reader convenience

On the point of the illustration. In the past people have complained that the images are being used inappropriately, however this is a misconception easy to make if you're not a watcher of Stargate. The pictures are not used for decoration; on the contrary they have been selected (and appropriately Fair-use tagged, see WP:FAIR) because they encapsulate the episode they correspond to particularly well. Hence they add to the list's informative power significantly.

I humbly submit this list to be featured. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: self-nomination. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Picture problems now sorted out -- Alfakim --  talk  14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - pictures. You cannot use fair use pictures for decoration which pretty much what is done here. And in any event you need fair use rationalles to use a fair use picture anywhere for any reason in WP. Sorry, awesome list, but... Renata 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I point to the last paragraph of my submission above. The pictures are not decoration, although it's easy to construe as such. The rationale is that they are particularly illustrative of their corresponding episode, and add to the informative content - not only do they remind a reader of that episode (by depicting something unique to it), they also provide an illustration of the mini-synopsis that goes with the list-item. Furthermore - they are the same as the images used in the actual articles, hence the correspondence is natural, and their use in the articles is certainly fair-use as a low-res pic for illustrative purposes (like any TV mag). See other featured tv lists. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle the picture use is no different to at here, just that to an outside viewer its not as obvious that the pics are more than decorative (because you dont know the episodes).
    • If you look at the pictures linked from the featured List of South Park episodes, you will see that each of them has a fair use rationale for their use on the list - see, for example, Image:Ep 113 cartmangangster.gif. My view would be that these pictures would be acceptable if they had a similar fair use rationale. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems to deprecate the use of the "TV Screenshot" licensing category. By placing the screenshots into the TV screenshot licensing category isnt it implicit that we believe they are not breaching copyright and are fair use for illustration? Also, if we really must provide such explicit rationale, can it not just be said in one place rather than at every single one of the 194 images? (considering in every case it's "picture illustrates the episode very well") -- Alfakim --  talk  19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's the reason it's not deprecating the "TV screenshot" category: fair use is completely different to the use of licensed images in Wikipedia precisely because the image is not licensed suitably for general use in Wikipedia and the only type of use that would avoid copyright infringement is one that is compatible with the rationales given at Wikipedia:Fair use. We are on the face of it commiting a copyright infringement unless we can show that we aren't, and that goes for every single page that makes use of that image. I can use a PD picture as often as I like in as many pages as I like, because that image is inherently free for use in Wikipedia articles; the only restrictions on where and how the image is used are basically editorial (E.g. is it appropriate/informative/relevant?). If I use a fair use image, the restriction on its use on any given page is not only editorial but also legal - we have no right to use an image in a way that breaches copyright. Using a fair use only image in a completely irrelevant page would clearly be a breach of copyright but at any rate editorial restrictions would prevent it any way (just as we wouldn't add a completely irrelevant PD image to a page). This leads many people to confuse the two types of restrictions. However, it may be considered editorially desirable to use an image decoratively - this is often the case in a list that needs livening up. If an image is PD then there is no problem here, so long as there is editorial consensus its use is appropriate. However, if an image is fair use only, then this use is legally impossible - decoration is not an instance fair use. So while the PD image can be used anywhere we like, and no particular legal rationale needs to be given for any individual use, a fair use image can only be used in instances where fair use applies, which means its use in one page may be fair use and its use in another page may not be fair use. This means that its fair use character needs to be justified in each instance that it used. In turn, this requires an individual and specific rationale given on the image page for each and every use. The fact that a screenshot hits all the conditions on the screenshot template doesn't guarantee that it's fair use, it merely indicates that it is a copyright image of a certain type, which may be "fairly used" on some Wikipedia articles. This is why the category itself is not deprecated: its purpose is to say "here are a bunch of copyright images which may potentially be fairly used in articles - someone needs to keep an eye on them to make sure they aren't being used in a way that violates copyright" not so say "these images are copyright, but feel free to use them anyway, their only screenshots". TheGrappler 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object until (1) image copyright sorted out. In addition to previously noted concerns, the use of images for Series 10 is certainly decorative and that at the very least needs to stop. Unsure about the rest of the images. (2) References need sorting out properly. Why not pay a visit to WP:CITE to find out how to do it "properly"?1 TheGrappler 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I couldnt be bothered to read that huge rant up there, I was already persuaded we need to sort out the images. What's wrong with the references?-- Alfakim --  talk  21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Support I have been waiting for this to become featured for a long time. One of the greatest pages on all of WP. Tobyk777 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong object until the issues with the images are sorted out. Please read the Fair Use Policy. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-vote recinded. Issues about image fair use conceded, will resubmit when this is sorted out. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Resupport: self-noming again - I added rationales to all the pictures. Work in progress to make the rationales more detailed but I think they currently suffice; further work will be an extra. -- Alfakim --  talk  20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Support [moved from above section so in context:] I have been waiting for this to become featured for a long time. One of the greatest pages on all of WP. Tobyk777 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, many of the plot summaries from Season 10 are identical to those at GateWorld.net. Many of the plot summaries are simple and could use a more descriptive exansion (to at least two sentences — almost every episode has a main plot and a sub-plot/side-story) while strategically hitting key words of elements (technology, ship names, special characters, ie. naqahdah, Thor) used in each episode (to allow for easy searching using Edit->Find in the browser). While there is no original research in this article, one of the references, "Wikipedia users who've watched the episodes themselves", does not conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Peer Review 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the point of the copies to the listmakers. However, they didn't think it was a copyright infirngment since the site was linked to. However, I think we should modfiy them to make ourselvevs unqiue. It is treu that a primary ref is wikipedia users who have watched the episodes. Whether it's proper or not, its a ref. Tobyk777 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time, we didnt have the "Wikipedia users whove watched the episodes", we were told we needed it. Anyway i'll remove it. As for season 10, it hasn't aired yet, so we cant add anymore information than that: that's all that's known (refs in the actual articles).-- Alfakim --  talk  01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The references are fine as I am able to find all the information in this page in them. The official site (MGM's StargateSG1.com) gives the official title sequence and episode number, GateWorld.net gives air dates and both give plot outlines of each episode. There are quite detailed episode summaries at each of Season 10's articles (see Flesh and Blood (Stargate SG-1) for example) so an original plot outline can be written from them (remember to use careful, strategic wording). The See Also section is unnecessary as the SG-1 and Atlantis links (and its episodes) are in the Topics in Stargate template below and the DVD link is prominently linked in the intro. I'm ok with the images but continue to work on finding ones that better fit the plot outline. For example, what is the image for episode Need (205) supposed to be illustrating. A better summary of what the screenshot is showing would be useful at the actual image page too (those image pages are often neglected). Also the intro could use some improvements (the second paragraph is gold, but avoid "is considered..." in the opening sentence and addressing the reader with "anyone wishing for a...". Peer Review 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. the Need image illustrates the mining ship/thing, the sort of central location for the episode and the first time we'd ever seen such a thing. could be better, yes, although what's needed really is just more of an explicit rationale at the individual image page. I'm in the process of making all the rationales more detailed, but it's going to take me a long time. however, I dont see why that should hinder the article, considering they've all been fair use tagged now with an explicit rationale (its just an extra that i go and make the rationale even more explicit), so i think the image problem is solved. As for the Season 10 episode summaries, I'm not entirely sure we want to be any more revealing than that - considering the plot outlines at gateworld aren't 100% official and could change. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you cite references in an improper manner. Please use {{cite web}}. Renata 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted citations as appropriate. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, references are still not cited properly. They are still cited as simple external links. Second, please do not strike/remove comments by others unless they specifically ask you to. Renata 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't remove it. Striking is quite standard practise actually. Go look at FAC debates - you strike when someone has made a small point that you've addressed. And I don't see what you mean. I have used your requested citation template - what is a "proper" citation? -- Alfakim --  talk  23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Finally worked it out and converted to {{cite web}}. -- Alfakim --  talk  23:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now, after rationales were written. May I also ask you not to refactor the nomination page to avoid confusion. Thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I know you'll hate me... but the pics also need sources... Where did you get them from? I just noticed it now. Also, you missed one pic while adding fair use rationales (Image:Stargatesg1season3dvd.jpg). Renata 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on that pic too now. Tobyk777 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes I missed that one - solved. As for the sources.. uh... you could have mentioned it before. I'll add them now.-- Alfakim --  talk  08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source information fully added. -- Alfakim --  talk  09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support enough torture ;) Renata 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol... your points were valid though of course, so thanks for pointing them out, and i'm glad i could bring this up to your support. -- Alfakim --  talk  10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If-this-doesn't-pass-I'll-shoot-myself-with-a-Zat Support how can you not, its so pretty... American Patriot 1776 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This list always was my standard for episode lists, so I'm happy to support. Staxringold 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Perfectly fixed, it should be used as an example for featured lists of that kind. --Tone 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well laid-out, and the image thing is totally within copyright bounds.--Zxcvbnm 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a pretty good list to me. Mlm42 20:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - very nice, and I have made some minor changes, but there are still a few wrinkles - (i) Most importantly, there are no references (towards the end, in a section entitled "References"). The catalogue notes and some of the external links may be such, but need to be in a "References" section. (ii) I know the text explains this, but it would be useful to have a visual key explaining that colours approximate the colour of the star's spectral class (OBAFGKM) (iii) What epoch are the RA and Dec? B1950? J2000? (iv) It may be neater to use the {{note}}/{{ref}}} format for the list of sources. (v) More categories (Astronomy? Lists? Stars?)? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What qualfies as a near star? One could argue that near means 2 billion light years. The article needs to define the word near. Tobyk777 21:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - The first line says out to a maximum of 5 parsecs (16.2 light years). Mark¹ 13:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks fairly good list. However, I'd use less dark gray background color for the red and white dwarfs, now the text may be difficult to read. Spectral classes may be somewhat cryptic for those who are not familiar with them, and the article has no images, so I recommend adding some sort of icons for different star types. Otherwise, I'm ready to support this article.--Jyril 01:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent list. I'm a little concerned about using red to show unconfirmed figures; don't we have a guideline that colours should not be used to show information not otherwise displayed (for those on monochrome screens or with colour blindness)? The other uses of colour in the article are fine as the information contained in the colour is also shown in the text.-gadfium 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of Mexican billionaires current as of the last iteration of Forbes' list. Personalities have no redlinks (although businesses may be an issue). Still, I think it meets all the criteria, so let's see how this one goes. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't this a copyvio? jguk 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same reason List_of_billionaires_(2005) and related lists aren't. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what's that? Forbes put a lot of work into coming up with how to measure wealth and then measuring it - it's not a case of them quoting freely available statistics. I'd be interested to know why it's not a copyvio, jguk 21:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevant discussion is on the talk page of the article I linked to above (sorry for not mentioning that, see here). Since this has been discussed in WP:CP before and it was agreed that it should be kept, I didn't think there would be a problem with this article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, however, that discussion is far from encouraging. I'm very nervous about saying something isn't a copyvio because one editor, who isn't as far as I'm aware a US copyright law professional, voted "keep". The case Guanaco quoted (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) does not seem to apply directly. There is great creativity in coming up with measures of wealth - what value to place on land, unquoted shares, etc. - how to determine what assets are held or within someone's control. Forbes also has to consider whose wealth it chooses to assess to see if they would qualify for their list. In Feist it appears that the Supreme Court of the United States decided there was no creativity at all in Rural's directory. There is considerable creativity in Forbes's list. Of course, I'm no US copyright expert either, but my reading is that we have a potential problem. If you know a US copyright lawyer who could usefully comment on this, it would be great, until then Strong Oppose jguk 10:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, of course. Let me see what I can do. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request for copyright examination and also made an announcement in the Village Pump to request more input. Let's wait and see if anything comes up to shed more light on this. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suggest delisting the article as a FLC until the issue is resolved. Do you have any objections to that? jguk 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]