Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2005

Sorry about the cut and paste move I couldn't get back to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes after I did it it said it didn't exist when there should have been a redirect. The edit history is intact back at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes. Everything below is archive.

Just found this list, looks like a perfect candidate. Very useful and looks great. Screenshots are awesome.  Grue  5 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)

• And Support by the way.  Grue  08:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots of red links--an eyeball estimate puts it at about 1/3 for most seasons. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 19:47 (UTC)
  • But what does it have to do with the quality of the list? Are you suggesting to remove the links or to wait when someone writes an article about every episode?  Grue  5 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
    • That has plenty to do with the quality of the ist, actually. Recently, the list of snakes from T & T was on this page, it still might be, and that was one of the things brought up. It is already a heck of a lot easier to make a featured list than article, so at least you should be able to find out more from the list than just the plain information. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is a good list but too many redlinks at present. Also table widths and column widths need to be consistent between tables. -- Ian ≡ talk 09:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. This is a complete list, with all of its historical inconsistencies explained as well as I could, and I believe it's intuitively organized. — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

• Comment Could use photos of the current and past rulers, or any before that that are available.--Sophitus July 1, 2005 17:56 (UTC)
  • I think those would fit better at the articles on each ruler. — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
• A nice list - it is nearly there, but a question and a comment: is there a reason for the choice of colours? I have moved the "legend" up to fill the white space oppposite the TOC, rather than reducing the table width; I have also made the column widths the same, but they are still not quite right. Having separate columns for "from" and "to" rather than "reign" may help... -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
  • No reason for the colors. I'm welcome to suggestions, and I agree that they're not ideal. As for the widths, both the 19em for the reign column and the 80% overall were intentional: the former makes that column no wider than necessary, giving the Notes column extra space, and the latter makes the whole list a bit easier on the eye, and makes for smoother reading. — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
    • Dan, I have to disagree. In preview mode, I changed both tables to 100%, Name col to 12em and Reign col I left at 19em and I felt it looked much more pleasing to the eye. Otherwise you've got this band of unused space down the RHS which seems a waste of screen space. Also, A photo of Albert at the top would really lift the article. As it is is only OK. Marginal Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty good to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)

• Oppose As this is the English Wikipedia, shouldn't the French go? And shouldn't it be in English (rather than French) alphabetical order? SmokeDog 28 June 2005 11:36 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Smokedog, to be useful, the list must be in English alphabetical order. If I want to know exactly who the USA sent, I will scan down to "U", not "E", and be confused. Utility is more important than the seating chart. Dsmdgold June 28, 2005 16:35 (UTC)
• Oppose, sufficient reason stated above; can be improved. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png
• Object - generally pretty good; however, in addition to the above:
  1. there are no references (unless the external link is the - sole - reference: surely there must be other reference?), and
  2. the tables also need reformatting to put each person and their title on a separate line, removing the <br>s, so the titles line up with the names (many do not for me at the moment - for example, the last two in Poland have no title opposite their names). Some "rowspans" are going to be necessary for some countries. See the formatting of the cricket lists. -- ALoan (Talk) 29 June 2005 10:44 (UTC)
• Oppose This list has plenty of featured potential, but the statements made above are all true. Having French country names in an English wikipedia is simply ridiculous. Also, I believe the first sentence is a bit awkward and self-referential. There should be a better way to integrate the title into the article.--Sophitus June 29, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  • The French order allows readers to see the seating arrangements at the funeral (which were in French). English is already provided in parenthesis. --Jiang 3 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
    • Be that as it may, with so many nations represented, this arrangement makes it difficult for English speakers to find a particular nation, and this is the English Wikipedia. Dsmdgold July 3, 2005 12:29 (UTC)
• Support. The list is based on the official list by the Holy See, which was arranged according to French alphabetical order. To look for a particular country, the search tool of the browser can already help. — Instantnood July 3, 2005 17:58 (UTC)

• Comment Did not notice the order. Am working to sorting this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support iff the list is according to the official order. — Instantnood July 4, 2005 07:42 (UTC)
    • Then I guess this is an oppose then. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Comment The list no longer has French spelling, but it is still a mess with plenty of countries out of order. I would try to correct it myself but my browser is having a hard time with the article for some reason. It's a pity because this would make a great featured list, and it only needs several corrections.--Sophitus July 5, 2005 06:13 (UTC)
• Comment I suppose the list is no longer up for normination so that's why i'm just commenting. I support the list being in French alphabetical order because both the official list provided by the Vatican and the physical seating order were done according to French. The French names are to be included because otherwise it would be a confusing list to someone who doesn't know any french. There are enough mention within the article why this list is arranged this way. One wouldn't list the planets of the solar system in alphabetic order would they, or the number system alphabetically? --Kvasir 19:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC

Looks like issues from my nomination a number of months ago have been cleared up. PhoenixTwo 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. PhoenixTwo 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Before I even read the details of the article, the fact that a {{unsourced}} template exists in the Longest rivers that have probably existed in the past section immediately disqualifies this article. Please go back and reference this section before considering this list a featured one. In addition, the word "probably" in the section name probably isn't such a good idea. Can you reword it so it (pithily) suggests that some sources believe these river existed? In addition, a lack of inline citations poses a major problem to this list. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried rewording the section and adding a few references. PhoenixTwo 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It still lists averages from several sources, without telling us which sources or what they give as the lengths. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, not even close enough to say "no cigar"
  • Title is misleading. It's obviously a List of rivers longer than 1000 km. The fact they are ordered by length is just a natural extension of the scope.
  • Maybe that "River systems that may have existed in the past" section would be better off as "Hypothesized former rivers"?
  • Agree that it's under-cited: every entry should have separate citations for the numbers.
  • Too many multiple links. Atlantic Ocean and Amazon River are each linked over 10 times, for exemple.
  • Choice (twice the Nile?) and position (could be better spread) of images are dubious.
  • The drainage area and discharge columns are mostly empty, a tribute to not looking for enough sources. I'm sure a large number of these can be filled up by looking around for sources. I recall an Atlas of Canada with drainage area for most important rivers that could fill several of the empty ones.
  • Why is there a dagger at the beginning of "Definition of length"??
• Circeus 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only the first instance of a country's name should be wikilinked; use either "USA" or "United States" throughout - not a mixture. Tompw (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the colors for Asia and Europe are too close to readily differentiate; can a different color/shade be chosen for one of them? Hmains 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list of everyone who's captained New Zealand at official international level, SmokeDog 09:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Good list, but only one picture considering the number of people? File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 02:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 05:47 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»=
• Object for now. A lot of the captains are red links. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:22 (UTC)
• Object, I don't like that the entire women's sections, and even some of the women's teams are red. It kind of makes the navigational purpose of that part of the list pointless. Would support with fewer red links. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 20:16 (UTC)

A complete list of everyone who has captained Zimbabwe at official international level, SmokeDog 22:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The criteria state that "a large majority" of links must be blue, and of the 16 different people listed, half are red links. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 13:53 (UTC)

A complete list of everyone who's captained Pakistan at official international level. This one's got more pictures too, SmokeDog 07:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Is there a difference between "drawn" and "no result"? And could we line up the columns? --Dmcdevit 08:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, Test matches can be "drawn" (or "tied"); ODIs cannot, but can end in "no result". -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A test match which lasts for 5 days is drawn; if either team cannot force a win on the 5th day. An ODI match which lasts for 7hrs is called off N/R if at the end of the alloted time no play is possible (certain other rules also apply); for example due to rain. A tie is if both teams land up on the exact same score and no further legal play is possible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to line up the columns. If someone can do it on one list, or point me to another page where it's done, I'll copy the technique into the other national cricket captain lists, SmokeDog 20:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • See, for example, list of Test cricket grounds - it is done by specifying the width of each column (either absolutely or with a percentage). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Good list; in addition to Dmcdevit's comments, why not wikilink the country names in the location column? And generating some stubs about the more proficient women and youth cricket captains would be helpful too, to reduce the number of red links at the bottom of the page. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• A good list, but most of the images seem to be flagged as {{PUI}} - are there any with acceptable copyright status? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 06:10 (UTC)
• Oppose - too many red links. The criteria state that "a large majority" of links must be blue; 16/24 in the test captains is fine, but there are virtually no blue links among the youth and women cricketers. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 14:00 (UTC)

I've tarted this up in the past few weeks and think it is quite nice. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Do you think the lists really need an "Official Name" column? It makes it very wordy as probably 95% of the grounds have basically the same name as the common name. If a reader wants more detail they can click on a link. Also, there are a lot of redlinks for a featured list. - Ian ≡ talk 01:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have merged "Official name" and "Name". Redlinks - well, the list is comprehensive. I could always delink, but it would seem a bit odd to link the some grounds and not others. Most grounds in Australia, England and New Zealand - come on India/Pakistan/etc! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 06:12 (UTC)
• Support – I wonder what will be the outcome once we put up the List of ODI grounds here. Some points abt this list: 1) The columns are badly spaced out. There's too much spacing on the right; the left cols are badly squeezed (800x600 resolution). 2) Is it neccessary to label all sections as Province, Region or Country? Instead use county for Eng, States for India, Countries for WI and so on. 4) The Lucknow venues, and the two earlier Bombay venues are not used for TC anymore. Infact the Bombay Gynmkhana Ground is not used for official cricket matches anymore (though it hosts international rugby matches). Sector 16 stadium and the Jalandhar stad. are out of action AFAIK. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there a list of One-day International cricket grounds? (1) I've tweaked the columns, but please let me know what widths look best for you. (2) State, etc, corrected (it used to be one list, rather than one per country). (what happened to (3) ?) (4) Please add a footnote, if you have any information on disused grounds to hand. If not, I'll check what cricinfo says. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the England and Wales table. It looks good on my resolution now, though I had to cut back on font size. 2) I don't have any data on when the stadiums were last used, but these are the ones which are currently "dead". =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments: I'd like a longer lead. Also, could we find some pictures (presumably just by searching the blue links in the list)? And a "See Also" section would help navigation. And could there be a good "External links" section (I only say this because I have a feeling many of those Test cricket grounds have their own websites, or there are ones for bigger organizations). And finally, the red links are not that bad, but ugly. Perhaps those don't all need to be linked, especially in "common name" and "official name" where most are red, since most have little likelihood of creation. None of these are important enough to object, but all of them together make me want to suspend my support vote until there's been a response. --Dmcdevit 07:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What would you like the lead to say? I've added the one image I like (MCG) - all of the rest show, at best, one stand and a small part of the ground, which is next to useless, IMHO. If you know of external links, please add (perhaps these should be in the table itself? (the link to the cricinfo list provides, indirectly, links to the cricinfo pages on each ground). Not sure what to do about redlinks - which grounds do not deserve to be linked? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comments (1) There are at least 10 pictures of cricket grounds if you follow the links. These should be added. (2) I don't think the "Province, Region or Country" column offers much, I'd rather have "Domestic home team". (3) Some more info - such as capacity and details of the first match (ie who between) might be useful. (4) The numerical order in which the grounds were used for Test matches should be added. (5) Number of Test matches played in each venue would give an indication of how important a ground each of them is for cricket. (6) Could be augmented by listing Supertest grounds (6) I agree with the comments above, that we don't need two "name" columns, SmokeDog 08:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (1) I've added the one image I like - which others should I add? (2) Done. (3) Hmm - capacity may be a good idea, if I can find the information; I can certainly research details of the first match, but does that add very much? (4) Again, I can add numerical order, but that is really another list (List of Test cricket grounds by date - this list would become List of Test cricket grounds by country) (5) I deliberately left off the number of Tests to avoid having to add an "as of" and the need to update every time another Test is played. However, I have tried to notie disused venues . (6) Supertest? (6b) Done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your comments (I realised that this was not quite there, but thought I'd have a better response here than on WP:PR ;). I'll try to action them in the next few days. Further comments welcome, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Phew - please see replies above. Let me know what more needs to be done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sadly, the list doesn't have details of all the "Ends" (which were helpfully added recently) so I'm not sure this is good enought yet. OTOH, I hope the format is looking a bit better. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)
  • There are only a couple of "supports" above and its 10 days are up: the article has changed a bit since the votes were cast - can I ask people to look at it again. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)