Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 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 12:45, 31 March 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it fills a gap, gives orphaned storm articles a place to thrive, and is informative. I wrote it mostly from scratch, and believe it fulfills all the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think, while the lead image is interesting, it's not clear to me how the NESIS value is derived still. Perhaps you can explain this more fully in the lead.
  • I'd like more description of the algorithm because the image used seems quite complex and requires some level of knowledge of moderately complicated mathematical ideas.
• How does the numbering system work? Are 8 and 9 the wrong way round?
• Ref 4 is a footnote, not a reference.
• Aren't 23 & 24 really 23=?
• Same with 28 & 29. If not then a note as to how the fractions are dealt with would be useful.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's the status on TRM's comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I fixed many of them, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how to add more information. I'd have no idea how to add the mathematical algorithms and such. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm no expert either but it's really important that the lead clearly and concisely explains how the values for these storms are calculated. Sorry if that's a pain, but I think it's essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One issue is that the method of calculation might differ from the original Northeast Snowstorms book to the current NCDC records. I'm not sure how to verify that (I'm not even sure it's accurate), but this is getting a bit difficult. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A little more history/details would be nice, such as in a section outside the lede and before the actual list. Was there ever a similar scale before that ranked nor'easters? When was the scale even created, and why? Is the scale used at all by the public, or even the private sector for that matter? You have the diagram on the top-right of the page, but it'd be nice seeing in the article how it's tabulated. My feeling is that the stubby Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale should be merged/redirected to the list, since you covered most of that content already. I just feel the current list is a bit lackluster, and maybe some of what I recommended could give it a nice touch. If I had to vote, I'd oppose per 3b, since I think those details are important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How is the list not substantial enough to stand on its own? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I privately left you comments. I feel some basic info is needed, such as when the scale was invented, and why, who uses it (anyone other than NCDC?) and why. Regarding substantialness, I feel the current NECIS article is not substantial enough on its own, especially since this scale is so new, which is why I think the NECIS should be moved to the list article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 24 March 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 04:04, 29 March 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because next in my long series of US service academy alumni FLs. Many thanks to User:Ahodges7 and User:Packerfansam for immense help on the Army alum lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No one has yet given me an adequate explanation of why the lead was just fine for so many FLs, up to just 3 weeks ago and now it's so god awful messed up. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the parallel discussion here, I can't speak to the FLC process in the other West Point alumni lists, but I'm just stating my opinion (for what it's worth), that I think the leads of these spin-off lists should include some discussion of the sub-topic. I think we're all just trying to be helpful and to help these lists become as good as possible. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:59, 28 March 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 04:04, 29 March 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is next in my series of FLs on US service academy alumni. I'd like to note and thank User:Packerfansam for his huge help on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Jespersen (talk) comments

There is a lot of content in the lead section is not relevant to the stated purpose of the list. Anything that concerns people or practices post-1865, for instance, should be in the article about the Academy itself. (Example: what relevance does the Air Force Academy have to an article about the Union Army?) The first sentence seems like it was copied from another list and modified incompletely. If there is a comparable article about the Confederate Army, you should point to it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The normal practice in featured lists is to introduce the subject in a general manner to provide context to the reader. See recently promoted lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UH, that is completely contrary to what you yourself and TRM promoted to FL here: List_of_United_States_Military_Academy_alumni_(Confederate_States_Army) just a few weeks ago. The leads in CSA and the current FLC list are set identical. Can we get some consistency? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, thought Dabomb wrote both posts there. See User_talk:Dabomb87#Consistency. My point is that if this setup/style is OK a few weeks ago in the CSA list is FL-able, then it's okay here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead of the list tells us more than we need to know about the Academy in modern times (current curriculum, lots of Rhodes scholars, lots of distinguished alumni etc) and disproportionately less about the contents of the list itself, let alone the Academy as it was then. If nobody raised this issue in previous FLCs, that doesn't mean that noone can raise it in this. If improvements could never be made, then all new FLs would still be starting "This is a list of xxx". A few other points that jump out at me before I go to get some lunch:

The same lead has been used in several FLs in this series and given one of the FL directors supports it here I'm not going to remove it just because one guy doesn't like it. I'm not saying it can't be improved but largescale changes are unwarranted given this format has made it through several FLCs without major change. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's two reviewers, actually. Bencherlite^Talk 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a consensus for a major change, certainly not when considering all the reviewers on the other FLs in this series. I don't consider this a valid objection. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not throw out Bencherlite's suggestion entirely, but I can see why Rlevse opposes this change. Let's wait a bit to see what other neutral reviewers say. By the way, I won't be closing this FLC, for the record (as I'm too involved in this already). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the idea that the leads of these spin-off lists should have some discussion on the Civil War or the Union Army. By the way, I'm new to the whole FLC, and I would apply this opinion to all of the other West Point lists --GrapedApe (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I also agree with Bencherlite on this point. By the time I'm finished reading the lead, I've forgotten that this list has anything to do with the Civil War. At the very least, the present tense used in the first sentence should be changed to past tense (educated and commissioned officers for the United States Army during the American Civil War). Jujutacular ^T · C 17:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No dab links

There aren't supposed to be any — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously, I know that; I was confirming (for the benefit of future reviewers) that this aspect is fine. Why on earth would you think that this was a complaint? Having one reviewer say "no dab links and external links fine" (or whatever) is a standard FLC/FAC thing. Come on. Bencherlite^Talk 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing's wrong, why mention it? Come on — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bencherlite wasn't trying to mislead you; these days a lot of editors make technical comments at FACs and FLCs regarding the dabs, web links and such, so Bencherlite was just making it clear these things had been checked. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text not checked as no longer part of the criteria
• External links all functioning, apart from this one

Working now, but moot as I made a bettter ref — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• John Blair Smith Todd's class year is missing

Fixed type in parameter — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• General reference b has a malformed date

Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 2 is missing a "?" at the end

Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 10 is odd ("3" isn't the title, surely?)

Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly ref 14

Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the reliability of the websources used to give them the all-clear, but this one for instance doesn't strike me as a RS, nor does this one (the website's submission policy is here and doesn't fill me with confidence). Bencherlite^Talk 13:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced both refs with better ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems to be in line with previous FLCs of USMA alumni. The issues raised about the lead have not been seen as a problem before. Not really sure why this seems to have generated so much consternation for this candidacy.  Ahodges7   ^talk 19:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrapedApe (talk) comments

• Are there any photos of Civil War/Union soldiers during their time as students? That would be better for the lead, rather than the contemporary photo of graduates.

This is used in several other USMA FLs, the "hat toss" is a huge tradition at all US military academies, this is the 200th anniv graduation, it's very historical and prob the best hat toss pic I've ever seen, I have to say this image should stay. And no, there are no know group grad/hat toss photos from that era. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I really think a link to the Confederate list would be appropriate, possibly in a "see also" section.

It's in the alumni lists in the template at the bottom. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk page has 2 soldiers who are not on the list. I can't see a reason not to include them in the main list.

The article states this list is for Union generals and the section heading informs the reader these two weren't generals in the Civil War (MacKenzie became one afterwards). The list is already large and if we included all WP alums who were in the war it'd go way beyond manageable size. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For Sherman, the phrase "treated the demerit system at West Point with disdain, which lowered his class standing from fourth to sixth" is ambiguous. Make it clear somehow that it was his running afoul of the demerit system--not his disdain itself--that caused him to receive demerits.

Can of worms. I removed it. It's still in his article. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For Joseph Hooker, perhaps note how he is known popularly (albeit possibly incorrectly, according to his article) for his name's connection to "hooker"

Hmm. Maybe best to leave that out. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. If you ask the layman, like me, "What is General Hooker best known for?" I bet most people, like me, would mention hookers. What about adding "Popular legend connects his name to the term "hooker," slang for a prostitute" to the notability section.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability sections for Alexander McDowell McCook and James B. McPherson are pretty long--perhaps trim the things that are named after them?

Done. Plus a few others. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For William H. French, the list of battles should be clarified. Did he command soldiers there, or was he just a soldier in them? Actually, this applies to a lot of entries and should be clarified in all.

Done. But notating "just a soldier" is not worth it, can be induced from not saying they were a commander. Also, where would you draw the line? Is it worth saying "platoon leader at..."? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point of not wanted to enumerate all the various positions, but I was still confused. Perhaps something in the lead could clarify that? Actually, for some of these soldiers, is it even worth listing battles where they merely served as infantry? --GrapedApe (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this include all West Point graduates who received Medals of Honor for the Union during the Civil War?

Good catch. It does now. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • --GrapedApe (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No one has yet given me an adequate explanation of why the lead was just fine for so many FLs, up to just 3 weeks ago and now it's so god awful messed up. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone here is saying the lead was just fine for the other FLs, most of us were not involved with them. I also don't think anyone is saying it's "god awful messed up". I'd welcome you to invite the old reviewers to comment here. Believe me, I don't mind if consensus is against me, all I can say is how I truly feel and why I feel that way. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was not fine before there would not be several FLs with the exact same lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there another historical alumni featured list besides List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)? Jujutacular ^T · C 18:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't speak to the FLC process in the other West Point alumni lists, but I'm just stating my opinion (for what it's worth), that I think the leads of these spin-off lists should include some discussion of the sub-topic. I think we're all just trying to be helpful and to help these lists become as good as possible. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:58, 28 March 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 04:41, 26 March 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): Jrh7925 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, after working hard on cleaning up both the presentation of the material and the references for the material, I feel it could be considered a featured list. Jrh7925 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted, old version.
• Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting long and the consensus was unclear. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What's with the random letter j in the episode number box of season 5 episode 20......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a typo of some sort. Fixed. Jrh7925 (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find the absence of references to be astonishing, coupled with the fact that majority of the reference present is from a retail source like Amazon.com. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py/List of The Brady Bunch episodes you have some duplicate IDs and some of those redirects should likely be point to a season or episode number. — Dispenser 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• What is so important about Gilligan's Island that it merits being mentioned in the first sentence of this article? Although I know little about either, for me The Brady Bunch is the better known of the two. But this may be my ignorance!
• "Even with negative reviews, The Brady Bunch managed to maintain within the Nielsen top thirty." - Sounds clunky to me, could you possibly reword the sentence better? I'm not sure you are using maintain properly either, not sure.
• "Ratings however, began to dip, and..." - As above really, the structure and wording seems off. There look to be too many commas, and yet there should really be another before "however". Harrias (talk) 20:09, 22 March 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 21:15, 25 March 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list was through FL in quite another form (List of FC Barcelona players which I'm thinking of nominating aswell). It's now completely referenced, all who qualify are definitely on the list. All comments appreciated! Cheers! Sandman888 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• At some point you ought to state what a "club legend" is, how it was determined etc.
  • FCB choose these players into a hall of fame. But as to FCB's criteria, that's not stated.
    • This list is incomplete if it doesn't describe how people are added. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree. If the criteria > 100 national caps was used, should it then state how the coach determine who gets a call-up before it is considered complete?
        • No, I'm just wondering how the club choose them. I.e. do they vote? Somebody must make the decision... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some information added.
          • The article now says: "After a player has stopped playing at Barcelona, the club decides if he is worthy of being included as an official club legend.[6]" I don't see anything along these lines at reference 6; running the only text on that page (""Aquesta secció es completarà progressivament amb les biografies de més jugadors històrics del FC Barcelona") through Google Translate I get "This section will be completed progressively over the biographies of historical players of FC Barcelona." So is this an official accolade of the club, or merely a partial list of former players that the club's website's editor has got round to profiling? Bencherlite^Talk 23:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's common usage on all Spanish football sites Real Madrid. If an English site had a "Hall of fame" wd you believe it was the website's editor who just put some random players in there? Historical shd translate as notable/legendary Sandman888 (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd come here to ask the same question as Bencherlite. The difference is that an English club Hall of Fame is a formal structure officially organised by the club to honour past players or staff, with a selection procedure publicised in the media and (since the arrival of the internet) on the club website. When a club first initiates a Hall of Fame, there's a major announcement in the local media, and the initial induction is celebrated at some sort of well-reported ceremonial. Often (usually?) fans are invited to vote for the inductees, either with a free choice or from a list selected by the club. There's often some sort of physical acknowledgment at the club's stadium, like names on an honours board or photos displayed in a special lounge. New inductees go through a similar formal procedure and again, it's well reported in the media.
              • That's very different from a set of bios of former players on the club website. English clubs have those as well, but with no formal involvement from senior levels at the club and no selection procedure beyond a discussion in the editorial office along the lines of "shouldn't we do a page on so-and-so next..." The impression I get from the note quoted above, in the absence of any other evidence, is that Barcelona's legendary players are an example of the latter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes bdfutbol.com a WP:RS?
  • widely used in Spanish football articles.
    • No, please tell me why it's reliable. I don't care if it's used elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an easily accessible version of lfp.es, which only show season-to-season stats.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quini sorts at the top of the list, above the "A"s, that doesn't seem right........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was chg for some reason. solved now Sandman888 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reasons that Struway gives above: on present evidence, there is nothing to suggest that this is a formal designation in any sense by the club or any organisation connected with the club. If this was a proper "Hall of Fame" grouping of past major players, I'd expect the list to be able to give references on when it started, who was added in which years, and who chooses the new additions. In the absence of all this, the list seems to be a pure content fork from the main list of players based purely on the fact that the website currently has a list of some former players and calls them "legends". Bencherlite^Talk 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see which FL criteria that has been violated - it seems arbitrary to deem an official list insufficient criteria and then gladly accept custom criteria as "players with 100 or more appearances or those who have received international caps while at the club or hold a club record." Sandman888 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content forks breach 3(b) of the criteria. And please stop calling it an "official list" unless you can show that it is an official list in the same way as a proper Hall of Fame list of players and officials, of the type explained by Struway. So far, all you've done is (a) point to a list on the club's website, which as I think we've established by now has no indication of who chose the names or when, let alone whether this list might even be there, or expanded or reduced, next time the website is updated; (b) allege that "After a player has stopped playing at Barcelona, the club decides if he is worthy of being included as an official club legend" but failed to give a proper reference for the sentence - worse, you've purported to verify the sentence by using a webpage which doesn't say this at all. A list based an official Hall of Fame is fine. A list based on a set of objective criteria about appearances, international players and club record-holders is fine, as you yourself have recently recognised at the FLRC for the Ipswich Town list (at least, you didn't raise it as an issue; incidentally, that Ipswich list includes a good example of a club's HoF if you still don't get the point). A list based on the fact that the club website calls them "legends" is not fine, because it is too shaky a basis; it is not an official designation. Bencherlite^Talk 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On stand-alone lists "Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" Most people wd say, yes this are famous footballers associated with Barcelona. Please say why this list fail to be a stand-alone list?
    • "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" Players does not equal legends. This isn't forking, at least you havn't established that.
    • It's official, yes. Regarding proper hall of fame that's an English custom. FCB doesn't have a town meeting and vote, that doesn't make it less official. Whether something is official or not does not depend on the way it is made (e.g. vote or not), but on the messenger, who says it.
    • "worse, you've purported to verify the sentence by using a webpage which doesn't say this at all." Really? Please explain why not.
    • "still don't get the point" - WP:CIVIL
    • The list is not "shaky", it has included the same players for at least 2 years now (since I first remember seeing it) (save Eto'o). You simply don't know this to be true. Cheerio! Sandman888 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't do "lists of famous players associated with Club X", we do lists with proper entry criteria such as Hall of Fame members, 100+ caps etc. "Currently listed by the club website as a legend" isn't in the same category as these. If this means that you have to restructure the list, then do that, rather than expect the standards to be varied.
      • Please give a reference that "legend" is an official club designation, as opposed to being a title used to describe some former players in a section of the club's website.
      • As for your request for an explanation of my complaint that you've purported to verify a sentence using a webpage that doesn't back up what's been written, can I refer you to my earlier comment, above? The article now says: "After a player has stopped playing at Barcelona, the club decides if he is worthy of being included as an official club legend.[6]" I don't see anything along these lines at reference 6; running the only text on that page (""Aquesta secció es completarà progressivament amb les biografies de més jugadors històrics del FC Barcelona") through Google Translate I get "This section will be completed progressively over the biographies of historical players of FC Barcelona." So is this an official accolade of the club, or merely a partial list of former players that the club's website's editor has got round to profiling? Perhaps if I'm wrong, you could explain why that webpage verifies the sentence in the article I've quoted?
      • Wasn't being deliberately uncivil, apologies if it came out that way. In my over-compressed way, I was pointing to what a Hall of Fame structure / set of references / news stories would look like if it was a concept with which you were unfamiliar, as your comment "If an English site had a "Hall of fame" wd you believe it was the website's editor who just put some random players in there?" suggested that you might not have understood the difference between a list of biographies on a website and an official hall of fame.
      • I'm not particularly interested in how long you tell me that website has been up, because that's not the issue. If it's not an official designation, then the website's list could change or disappear at any time as the website is revamped. In contrast, a club's Hall of Fame, with nominations and inductions etc, doesn't depend on the vagaries of the club website's structure. Bencherlite^Talk 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Found the book that is at display at camp nou.Cotrina, Jordi; Finestres, Jordi (2005). Mites del Barça - Mitos del Barça - Legends of Barça. Angle Editorial. Barcelona. ISBN 8496521036. Hope this satisfies your 'stability' criteria. The book contains the pics, bio and stats on legends before 2005. Cheerio Sandman888 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Presumably the book describes how the legends are selected then. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that looks promising at least. I look forward to seeing (properly referenced) additions to the text of the list to address my concerns, then. I'm sure you'll be explaining the status of the book and / or its authors in relation to the club, so that the list isn't just a "list of Barca footballers who are called legends in this book". Bencherlite^Talk 10:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - nominator has not edited either the article itself or this FLC in nearly a week, suggest closure as he appears to have lost interest...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Nominator has still to address the content fork issue properly - why do we need a List of FC Barcelona players with 100 caps/club records etc, and a different list for those called "legends" when (assuming it is an official position) this honour can be marked in the list of players? Bencherlite^Talk 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination will have been running for ten days by around 5pm this afternoon. I will revisit it then and make a decision on whether it should be closed. After all, it can always be renominated once the existing issues are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, two comments: 1. The book is not easily accessible, currently waiting for feedback from fcb and other sources. 2. Is the reference and description of how the list was made the only outstanding issue as of now? Sandman888 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the book is not easily accessible, then I suggest you withdraw this FLC so that it doesn't clog up the page. Bring it back when you're ready. As for what other issues there might be, there's still the (rather basic) issue of whether the legends list should exist at all, or whether it's an ineligible content fork derived from the main list of players. I haven't reviewed the contents of the list yet and don't propose to do so unless both these issues are resolved. Bencherlite^Talk 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'd also been holding off doing a full review until the above matters were sorted. However, here's a few bits to be going on with, whether this current nomination continues or whether you resubmit later.

• Lead section: I'd expect it to go into rather less detail about how many trophies the club won, and rather more detail on what a legend is and how a person becomes one. And to say at least something about a few of the legendary players.
  • First part equals the above, last part I'll do later.
• The list of trophies won by the club needs referencing, particularly where record numbers of titles are claimed. Likewise the "unprecedented sextuple", and the "record six players" in the 2009 UEFA Team of the Year (the cited source doesn't mention it being a record).
  • Reffed.
• Ref #2 just goes to the member associations page of the UEFA website
  • UEFA.com is horrible. found archived version.
• Best not to include statements that date, like how many years since Alcantará joined (see WP:DATED)
  • Years don't change quickly.
• In the sentence about Alcantará's and Migueli's records, could you use the actual letters of the relevant notes (B and G) rather than asterisks. Also only link Alcantará once
  • Done
• Key: It's reasonable to link the competitions again here. Copa del Rey should have a small d. Please include European Cup in the list of comps: UEFA might want us to believe it's always been called the UEFA Champions League, but it hasn't :-)
• References: Web references should have at least: title, work and/or publisher (not just domain name), author if any, publication date if any. If the webpage isn't in English, the ref should say what language it is in; there's a cite templates parameter language=
• The LFP refs seem to have the player's DOB in the publication date field...
  • handy, right? rmvd.
• Is there any reason why you use the Catalan- rather than the English-language general reference (currently ref#6)?
  • no, chg'ed.
• The FranceFootball ref doesn't actually say that Suarez was the first Barcelona player to receive the award.
  • Other ref incl.
• What's the source for the captaincy dates?
• Could you check through the Notes to make sure that their cited source(s) verify all the information in each note. At the moment, there are several which don't.
• Date format should be consistent: in the refs, you use day-first, apart from ref #2, but in the article you use month-first.
• Could you consider using normal font size for the Notes.
  • Yes.
• Image captions which are complete sentences should have full stops (periods) (see MOS:CAPTIONS)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – If this is not an official club hall of fame, then this is a content fork of the players list and therefore fails criterion 3b. For a major club like Barcelona, there figures to be some press coverage if this is an official designation, and none has been presented so far. Even if such information is in the book, we can't wait indefinitely for it to be read and used as appropriate. Either way, this honor, if official, can be signified in the players list with colors and symbols, as Bencherlite says. I see no need for a seperate page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "(...) this honor, if official, can be signified in the players list with colors and symbols", for consistency this should be applied to all player of the year/hall of fame lists and then be removed from featured status. Is that your proposal? Sandman888 (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standards change, and sure, there may be lists that don't 100% meet today's exacting standards. The same can be said of numerous featured articles. However, your role in this discussion is to try to get this list promoted, not other lists demoted. Or are you trying to make another point? I think you need to address the reviewers' concern which is whether this list is official or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to get a consistent answer - I've started making the list because there was a precedent for POTY lists. Now POTY are suddenly content forks. And no, the reviewer isn't concerned whether the list is official or not, as he clearly states in the two last sentences. Sandman888 (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said "reviewers". Read the opposes, they are generally related to this not being an official hall of fame. I asked you to show me how the players are selected. Your only reference in the lead (currently 16) is misleading as it doesn't prove anything other a page on the FCB website with some "legends". There's not a word of text on when they're selected (you state when they stop playing, where is that cited?) or how. Address that concern before you look to demote other's work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's 3 reviewers. But Giants2008 wd still oppose nevermind the sources I quote (as far as I can tell). I'm trying to get a consistent answer from him. Sandman888 (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there was evidence that the designation was official, I would probably let the 3b concern slide, to avoid setting a precedent that would endanger other featured lists. But there is still nothing telling any of us that this is official. Yes, that is my main concern, and no, I don't see why player of the year lists are being mentioned when this isn't a POY list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It shouldn't matter if other lists are endangered or not.
• I'm not able to obtain a copy of the book and have not received any information from FCB, so I withdraw the nomination or you can let it fail as it stand. Sandman888 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 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 The Rambling Man 21:27, 22 March 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list is complete, referenced, and valuable as a one-stop resource, so I thought, "what the heck?" -- Zanimum (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / possible quick-fail from KV5

This list fails the FL criteria as follows:

• Cr.1: there is no writing.
• Cr.2: there is no lead.
• Cr.5: does not comply with MOS:COLOR and related articles, WP:ACCESS, etc.

It also doesn't have any inline citations outside of the column headers; I'm sure that this could be executed more elegantly. Checklinks shows that most of the ELs are dead, there's no alt text (even though this is no longer a requirement and is immaterial to my oppose), and the nominator is not a significant contributor to the article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - no lead, daily ridership column seems to be unreferenced, as are notes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, unfortunately it's more "why the heck?" than "what the heck?" for me. Needs a lot of work before it can be a FL, as the previous commentators have said. Strongly suggest withdrawal (compulsorily if not voluntarily) and reworking this, possibly going via peer review, before a second visit to FLC. But don't be discouraged - a lot of lists come back to FLC much stronger for these additional steps. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note please check out recently promoted lists of a similar nature. This list needs, as a minimum, a peer review but more importantly needs to comply with the latest updates to what makes a featured list. Check out List of UTA TRAX stations or List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines for an idea of what we'd be looking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 22 March 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 23:25, 15 March 2010 [7].

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all of the FLC. I've based this list off of current WP:FLC List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches and FL List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches. NThomas (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All my concerns have been addressed.—NMajdan•talk 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. List fails featured list criterion 3b. Goodraise 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? I thought 10 entries was the "unofficially official" length for an FL and even if you remove the two duplicate coaches, this list still passes that.—NMajdan•talk 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would hazard a guess that it fails 3b in Goodraise's opinion because it could be reasonably incorporated into the main article, but I guess it would be helpful to know if this is the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why this would have to be incorporated into Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball. I have yet to see a sortable coaches list within a team's article that is as large as this list is. This article is already almost half the size of the main article. Some elaboration other the a six word sentence would have helpful. NThomas (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• TRM guessed correctly. It is my opinion that this list should be incorporated into Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball, following WP:SS and WP:SIZE. In response to NMajdan, featured lists have to meet the featured list criteria, not a few editors' rule of thumb. Goodraise 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But when the criteria is very much open to interpretation then it does. I do feel this list able to stand on its own. NThomas, might I suggest incorporating the women's basketball coaches into this list like I did here to lengthen this a bit?—NMajdan•talk 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a quick sandbox experiment – I've removed the repeated history and merged it with the current Red Raiders' article. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My biggest reason against the inclusion of this list into the main article is based on the newly christened GA Kansas City Chiefs. It's head coaches section has a paragraph about the coaches then links List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches as it's "see also." What about developing a head coaches section with a written paragraph about the coaches that on Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball in a similar fashion? Any push for GA, the main article will be hampered down with that table data. NThomas (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If I were to add the women's coaches, like NMajdan suggested, would that help to satisfy 3b? NThomas (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at NMajdan's example, I have to say no. I would have opposed that article's FLC on the same grounds I'm opposing this one now. Goodraise 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So you would have opposed a 20-item list? Man, there are a lot of FLs that you'd oppose then. NThomas, I still suggest you make the changes I suggested above. Ultimately, it is up to the FL directors. They will take all supports and opposes into consideration when making their final decision. As the list stands now, I'd oppose, but again, my concerns have yet to be addressed.—NMajdan•talk 17:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<) Once again, it's a guess, but my sandbox experiment may show that this list can easily be incorporated into a main article without overloading it. Perhaps that's where Goodraise's 3b objection lies, rather than just a mere line-counting exercise? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted to get technical, I could say that this article meets 3b. 3b actually has two conditions: 1) meets all requirements for a stand-alone list, 2) is not a content fork AND does not recreate material from another article AND could not be included as part of a related article. This article meets 3b1 and since it doesn't violate all of the conditions in 3b2, it passes that as well. Frankly, if this is the stance for this article, it would apply to every coaching article. I think these should be treated as groups of articles. If one violates, they all do. I'm working towards a Featured Topic of lists and if one of those lists is turned down because of 3b, I'd be very disappointed since all others passed.—NMajdan•talk 17:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be disappointed too. But as I said, I'm only guessing at what Goodraise's continuing objection is based upon. Let's see what Goodraise has to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could see myself opposing a 20-item list (just as much as I could see myself supporting a 5-item list). TRM is correct. I am not line-counting, not now and not in general. When I look at this article, I see an improper spin-off from the main article. When I look at List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches, I see an improper spin-off from not one, but two main articles. If we in fact wanted to get technical, then I'd have to disagree with you. The implicit ANDs in that criterion don't mean that each of its parts has to be failed for the whole to be failed, but that failing one is enough to fail the whole. Goodraise 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the way 3b is written. If failing one part fails it all, then it should be rewritten to include ORs and not ANDs.—NMajdan•talk 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at logical conjunction. Goodraise 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it backs up my opinion. Your take on 3b2 is 0 AND 0 AND 1 which equals 0.—NMajdan•talk 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't back up your opinion. The article states that a "logical conjunction [...] has the value true if both of its operands are true, otherwise a value of false." In this case we have three operands: A) "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches is not a content fork", B) "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches does not largely recreate material from another article", and C) "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". For the sake of the argument, I'll concede that A and B are true, while only C is false. That leaves us with "true and true and false", which equals false. Goodraise 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said backs up my comment. 3b2 coming out false means it satisfies the requirement. As long as any one of the three are false, then is doesn't violate 3b2. One of us is confused. I hope its you.—NMajdan•talk 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try a different approach. List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article? Yes or no? Goodraise 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at, as we have already established this. I just have a fundamental disagreement with the arbitrary 3b. This list has my support and I'll let the FL directors sort out the rest.—NMajdan•talk 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. After all, I wasn't the one who wanted to make this technical. Goodraise 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This issue probably requires wider discussion, so I have started a thread at WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches" sounds very clumsy. Why not "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball head coaches"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that is the naming scheme that the football articles use. "List of <School> head <sport} coaches"—NMajdan•talk 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, well it still sounds strange. "head" should be closest to avoid any ambiguity (the coach of the "head men's basketball team"?). I think perhaps all of these lists should be moved (we can discuss somewhere else where more American football editors can provide input). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, I do not oppose a change. Obviously, this article is a bit different than the football lists because of the two-word sport title ("men's basketball").—NMajdan•talk 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I don't care, but if I were to introduce Pat Knight, I would say: Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball head coach vs. Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coach. I agree that if one gets moved, I think they all should be for consistency (not just the basketball lists). NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – To start, I do believe this is a justifiable content split. When I get a chance, I'll elaborate on FLC talk. My other comments are as follows:

• "Huffman's successor, Polk Robison, lead the Texas Tech to the first NCAA tournament in 1956". Grammar needs some work here. While working on this, keep in mind that the first NCAA tournament was in 1939, not 1956.

• Poor choice in sentence structure, it now reads: Huffman's successor, Polk Robison, led Texas Tech to their first NCAA tournament appearance in 1956 NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you don't use the abbreviation AP more than once in the lead, you can just remove it and use Associated Press Poll. Also, should "Coaches' Polls" be singular? I'm pretty sure there was only one.

• Fixed both. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 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 23:00, 12 March 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status as I believe it meets the criteria, and it has received a review. Discussion about the linking (or not) of players is likely to come up, and indeed I invite it, although I ask reviewers to read my comments on the matter at the peer review. WFCforLife (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I'm in the wikicup. WFCforLife (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cptnono I am already a fan of the nominator's work and this list is great. I do want to make some comments to make sure there are not any loose ends before supporting:

• Wikipedia standards and what is best for the reader can create a gray area that are not always easy to work with. The notes are perfect in providing the information while still hitting aspects like WP:FLAG. Meeting the requirements of WP:ATHLETE is another beast that has been tamed in my opinion. Overall the layout is good and the information is thorough. Alt text, dablinks, and altviewer all check out.
• The first paragraph is a good overview of the club while the second gets into the players. Should there be a little bit more about players in the first paragraph since this is a list of footballers? Please disregard if the current format is standard for lists.

• My understanding from doing reviews and from previous nominations is that we should start by setting the scene for a complete novice. A brief outline of the league history is somewhat relevant to the players- making 50 appearances in 1977 could be considered a somewhat different achievement to making 50 appearances in 1983. It's not this list's place to make that judgement, merely to give the reader an opportunity to make that sort of distinction, if they deem it relevant.

• Cool.

• The lead might be underlinked for someone who is not English or not a fan. Consider wikied pipelinks to the game During WWI or the English league system.

:*I've linked the English league system. I'm sure the average reader will know what the First World War refers to without the need for a link.

• Oops. I missed the league system. I meant Association football during World War I up above not the war but that might be bordering on overlinking.

• Do the images need summary tables? I recall someone mentioning a proper description for images to meet featured criteria.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you may be talking about flags. There should be a key if is used, but it's not required if  Turkmenistan is spelt out (or has been previously spelt out). WFCforLife (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I wasn't clear. A couple of the images do not have Template:Information. File:AndyHess2009.jpg is a example. It has a summary that might be sufficient but I am under the impression that the template is standard.Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I admit to knowing very little about the template. But judging by Awadewit and Eubilides' comments here, I don't think they're compulsory. WFCforLife (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2

• The sourcing leaves quite a bit to be desired. I'm happy with the book source covering the players up to 1996, and with Soccerbase for club appearances and goals thereafter. However, for players whose career runs after 1996, there aren't any sources for international appearances, or for specific playing positions, e.g. Helguson as Centre forward / Right wing where Soccerbase just has Forward. Ross Jenkins the younger is noted as an England youth international, but the note [nb 7] is referenced to the 1996 book, when Mr Jenkins would have been starting school. Similarly Scott Loach as an under-21 international, where note [nb 4] is referenced to the book.

• International sourcing should be fine now, for both senior and youth players. Helguson is a case in point (he played right wing under Vialli and the start of Lewington's reign, and that does need sourcing). Where we're giving multiple positions this should be sourced (and if it cannot be sourced, removed), but if a player has one position I think it's unnecessary. WFCforLife (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the many disappointments of the FA's website is that they can't provide proper profiles of their international players, the way the Scandinavian countries and others do, giving full details of appearances at all levels. It'd make life much easier... I might have added individual references for the under-21s to the notes column, rather than expecting the reader to click on the string of links at the end of note [nb 4] to see which one applied to a particular player. As to positions, possibly one reason why previous player lists stuck to the basic GK/DF/MF/FW positions was to avoid sourcing/OR issues.

• I take your point that I should go along with the sources, and have therefore changed post-1996 ones accordingly.

• You raise a wider issue though. For an editor to call wing halves "defenders" or "midfielders" involves a degree of original research. Some would consider them analogous to modern day attacking full backs, others that they were midfielders, others still that it depends on the formation a "wing half" played in. Similarly, deciding whether wingers are midfielders or forwards can depend on the system used ("The Pyramid"/2-3-5 vs 4-4-2), or even on what an individual decided to call a 4-5-1/4-3-3, which can depend on whether the writer wants to criticise or praise the team fielding that formation. For these reasons, I don't think I can roll the change out for other players. Unless the sources of previous lists made the decisions for them, they were wrong to ignore these issues. WFCforLife (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have no problem with that. And the wider point is one I had considered, particularly in relation to centre-halves of the past. If someone were to write an article called Half-back (association football), I'd be more comfortable with linking centre-halves to that, than calling them the anachronistic centre-backs. Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if that's all sorted, I'm going to have to Oppose on the number of redlinks. Although I've never understood what redlinks have to do with "visual appeal", much preferring the concept of "usefulness" which disappeared when the criteria were revised, current criterion 5(a) says there should be a "minimal number" of them, and 40% of the notable players (~100 out of ~250) isn't minimal. I think your stated approach of creating the player articles gradually, going for quality rather than speed, is absolutely right, and would respectfully suggest you bring this list back when the number is rather closer to "minimal". (Disclaimer: depending on what other reviewers think about "minimal" redlinks, obviously; wouldn't be the first time people have disagreed with me.....) I know saying "there's no hurry" doesn't always go down well, but there is no hurry. And sorry again for not having got to the PR. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's some fantastic feedback, which I'll attempt to action over the next few days.

• With regards to criteria 5a, which I will get my claws into below on the FLC talk page, 100 (~80 by the time a three week review runs its course) of 340 items are redlinked. ~70% of the players are bluelinked or correctly delinked, and fewer than 10% of the total links are red. The statistics are all a matter of interpretation. All I will say is that 70% is a large majority, while less than 10% would be a minimal proportion, depending on interpretation of 5a. Argument against criterion itself moved to WT:FLC.WFCforLife (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In my day, we weren't allowed redlinks, at least we knew where we were with that :-) but I'll leave the procedural arguments for those who like that sort of thing. If my interpretation of "minimal" differs from how it's understood by the community, then the directors will doubtless disregard that part of my opposition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Sorry about the long-winded nature of my reply. Far more important than this FLC, or even FLC itself, are suggestions that help improve our content. I really appreciate your feedback, it was excellent. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a pity you felt the need to remove the longer part of your earlier reply. Makes my response to the part that remains sound a bit sniffy, even for me..... Struway2 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, as someone who would is leaning heavily towards supporting you still come across OK!Cptnono (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked at the list myself to maintain neutrality. However, I believe the criterion was left ambiguous so that reviewer consensus could decide what constituted "minimal" in each case. Let's see what other reviewers think about the redlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This falls within the balance of both meeting protocol (which is vague in this instance) and the need to provide thorough information to the reader that I referenced up top. I personally don't have a concern with the amount of red but I am not as familiar with the history like Struway is.Cptnono (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for clarification of the numbers, so we're sure what we're on about. Surely criterion 5a applies to the listed items, in this case the players, not to total links. There are as I write 109 redlinked players, which is a third of the items on the list. Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For consistency, either all or none of your RSSSF refs should have accessdates. Also, that abbreviation should be spelt out on first use.

• Expanded the abbreviation on first use. Accessdate usage is consistent though- record appearances are subject to change, whereas past results are not. I've also corrected the title for the Northern Ireland results.

• Fair point. <rant warning>Though I do struggle with the time taken up in discussing things like the precise circumstances under which accessdates are not required, or whether citation templates are evil because they make copyediting prose more difficult, time which could be better spent in improving the encyclopedia, and discussions which generally come down to one or two editors with bees in their bonnet. A cynic might wonder if the decision to include or exclude the accessdate was original research...</rant> ;-)

• I don't know if you intend keeping the current players' appearances up to date after each match (I wouldn't, if it was me :-), but if so, you'll need to update the accessdate for Soccerbase 2009/10 in the general references list each time. It's out of synch at the moment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out. Going forward, I plan to update whenever a player reaches 50 (Don Cowie is on 41 right now), at the end of a season, end of the calendar year(ish), and a few days after each international. As we've just had an international, I'll do an update on Saturday evening or Sunday (by which time I hope the Icelandic football association will have caught up), and I'll fix the accessdates then. WFCforLife (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• There are a lot of redlinks in the table here. I won't oppose over it, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable supporting when so many of the notable players don't have pages. Some other editors, and I count myself among them, would have gone on a stub-creation spree before/during the nomination process. Your seeking to spend more time on each article is admirable, but unfortunately it is difficult as a reviewer to go off of anything other than the list's present condition.

• I understand. As I said previously to Stuway I'm disappointed, but if made to choose between the success/failure of this FLC, and the creation of stubs that I probably won't to return to, I'd choose failure. All I'll add is that I see your last two sentences as both an understandable interpretation and a damning inditement of 5a.

• The reason access dates have been used in references is to make finding links easier when they go dead. I normally push hard for their inclusion, but can understand leaving them off of links to printed publications, where removing the link and adding a page number leaves a perfectly valid citation. The question I have is whether these club/association pages have good archival systems or not (you'd know better than me). If there is a good chance that these pages will be gone soon, then I would suggest the access date for ease in finding a correct version. If they will stay, I won't complain too much. I do find it odd that you don't want the access dates for some of the news stories from websites, since they strike me as more likely to disappear than RSSSF pages and such.
• Prose looks very good overall, though I'm not a fan of "whilst" as a replacement for "while". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll consider your other comments later. Ironically the plan for the next few days is to spend my wiki time this weekend creating a few articles :-) WFCforLife (talk) 23:59, 5 March 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 23:00, 12 March 2010 [9].

Nominator(s): OK Airbag (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a great page. I used many sources and it seems that it could be on featured list.OK Airbag (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What are the qualifications for inclusion under the other awards and honors? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only other awards and honors.--79.46.21.193 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 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 23:00, 12 March 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): Twilight Helryx 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after working on this for some time and comparing it with a few other similar lists, I believe that it meets the FL criteria. Twilight Helryx 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "This is a list of episodes of The Secret Saturdays..." Featured lists don't begin like this. Please see recently promoted lists, such as List of Baccano! episodes and List of Supernatural episodes for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's odd, because the List of Yu Yu Hakusho episodes began that way. But I understand and will fix that in a second. Thanks for the comment. =) --Twilight Helryx 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done [11]--Twilight Helryx 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Yu Yu Hakusho list was promoted more than two years ago, and standards have risen a lot since then (perhaps I should have said "Featured lists don't begin like this anymore") . Also, I removed the {{done}} template; we don't use them at FLC because they slow down load time and clutter the FLC pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry about that. For the FL standards, apparently they're not the only ones that have risen. ;P Anyway, is there anything else that needs fixing?--Twilight Helryx 02:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an FL director (i.e. editor who archives these discussions), I like to stay uninvolved on FLCs so that I don't have to worry about having a conflict of interest. However, if this FLC doesn't get many reviews in the next two weeks or so, I'll take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks!--Twilight Helryx 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The citations need to be fully filled out (half are okay but half are bare URLs). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 08:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the episode prose yet, just thought I'd get you something to be getting on with. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know where to look. Could you tell me? ^^" --Twilight Helryx 03:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of dab links is here. FYI, the toolbox is at the right hand corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• facepalm* that goes to show what an idiot I am. Anyway, Done.--Twilight Helryx 03:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I believe I've addressed all the issues brought up. If it's all right, can this be passed before Friday (Feb 26) as soon as there's enough support? Because, the deadline for Wikicup submissions is that day.--Twilight Helryx 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

I don't feel this article is ready to be promoted. Here are a few things that need to be worked on-

• Seem to be a number of unreferenced statements in the lead; could you please make sure everything is referenced?

Done I think...--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Image seems a little large- could it possibly be reduced?

Done--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Saturdays search" Apostrophe?

Done--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "a fact that not even Zak was aware of" -> "a fact of which not even Zak was aware"

Fixed--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "on Zak and" Who? Link to article on the character, or at least an entry on a list?

Done

• Rather than the hidden comment, can we have the fact that there are only two seasons referenced in the article?

Done: Removed comment and replaced old ref with a clearer one.--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add italics in the image caption.

Done

• Not wild about the references in the section headings

Done--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Random italics in references

Fixed--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References one and two are incomplete
• The article seems to rely entirely on primary sources, most of them forum and blog posts. I'm not sure if this is generally ok for featured lists, but it's certainly something with which I would not be happy in a regular article. This is telling me just to oppose and be done with it, but my lack of familiarity with FLC is holding me back.

Well, the sources are from the show's creator, Jay Stevens. There are no others more reliable than from him.--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually how it works. Please read our guidelines on reliable sourcing. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 7, "see comments" is not part of the title. If you are citing a particular comment, cite that particular comment.

Done

• Sources- Cartoon Network? What?

Done: Got rid of it.--Twilight Helryx 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there not a category for the show?

These comments come without even looking at the main body of the list (fact-checking and copyediting as appropriate). This really doesn't feel like a good FLC to me. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 25 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 23:15, 12 March 2010 [12].

Nominator(s): BLUE_DOG^TN 06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is up to the same standards the other three articles are that are FL List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions, List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions, which I was the one who got the last two up to FL status. I know that I cannot get some scores because they were not official slam tournaments, and are unsourced anywhere on the web, which means I would have to do original research for Pre-1925 tournaments. This is not allowed on wikipedia. I know their is disputed champions, which are the 1941-1945, and are only listed here as historical figures, but the slam does not recognize them as champions. The scores and runners-up for this time period are unknown!BLUE_DOG^TN 06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you site grammer as your oppose tell me how to fix it, or what needs to be fixed, which if you don't do that fix it yourself.
  • Note that it's not the reviewers' responsibility to "fix" the entire article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that, but the last time some just kept on saying grammer for their oppose, which how am I suppose to know what grammer they are speaking about,! I will fix it if they point it out, but if they don't point it out what exactly it is I cannot fix a mystery.BLUE_DOG^TN 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is often helpful if reviewers provide examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

• Ilie Năstase and Robin Söderling should sort as Na... and So... repectively.

I fixed this.BLUE_DOG^TN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but don't remove the diacratics, it's part of the name. Instead keep them and read about and use the sortkey parameter in {{Sortname}} and use that. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made the appropriate corrections to include the diacratics and sortable in the right places.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately there is some serious double about the Lendl photo, other images are okay.

I removed it.BLUE_DOG^TN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note f needs a source that doesn't list them. You give sources that do list them but as they are disputed, you need evidence of them not being included as well.

I addressed this.BLUE_DOG^TN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually I realise this is actually in the general references. You can leave it as is if you want, but it might be useful to point the reader there in this case.
• Sourcing. What is your source for the set scores. Ref 5 doesn't give them. Ref 10 gives a few but ones such as 1891-1895 and 1904 are completely unsourced.

Can't find them, so tell me if you want me to delete them because they were here by someone else before I got here.BLUE_DOG^TN 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". That said I suspect with some digging you might find them. Books, is there a winners board at Roland Garros? This seems to cover 1904. Additionally, this seesm to suggest the first final was 6-3 6-2 (not 6-4). Regardless, it should be reliably sourced. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to go to the library to check and see if I can find some sources on the score late next week, until then, I will just fix grammer errors in this article!BLUE_DOG^TN 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status on these comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is still not verified as yet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've refrained from getting too involved in this review, but I'm pretty much on the same page as Rambo. I would be able to support if this were dealt with. WFCforLife (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note f: Few things I noticed here. A space is needed after references 4 and 5, the bold italicized DISPUTED should be toned down, and "souces" is a typo.

Fixed, I hopeBLUE_DOG^TN 01:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References 14 and 15 need publishers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think, soBLUE_DOG^TN 01:32, 27 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 23:00, 12 March 2010 [13].

Nominator(s): Frickative 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, having worked on it for several months based on the format of other featured television episode lists, I feel it now meets the FL criteria. Frickative 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• "below" is spelt wrong in note 1
• I can't see where note 2 links back to, unless I'm being really thick
• What's the source for the episode titles, writers and directors? The BBC page listed in the external links doesn't seem to give this level of detail and only goes back to 2003 anyway. Is it in one of the refs that I've missed? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed the typo and note 2, which links to series 8, episode 2 but wasn't working due to a typo in the transcluded article. The episode titles, writers and directors can all be verified using the opening and closing credits of the episodes as a primary source. Is it a requirement that they also be covered in a third party source? They're given at IMDb and TV.com, though I appreciate they're not considered reliable sources. There is a BBC microsite that details them, but it only goes back as far as 2007 [14]. Frickative 09:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reviewed a TV episode list before, so I'm not 100% sure on whether or not the episodes themselves are considered appropriate sourcing for the titles, writers, etc. I'll await other people's comments on this point...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 19 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 23:00, 12 March 2010 [15].

Nominator(s): Savvi72 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have done extreme work on it for several months to ensure it is up to FA quality. The information available is extensive and everything has been referenced. A recent peer review found very little wrong with the article and whatever problems were found have now been fixed. Savvi72 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't this rather be a featured list candidate, like all other discographies which are currently featured? Ucucha 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Ucucha, should be a Featured List Candidate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, was unaware of the different types of featured pages. It's my first time nominating an article. Thanks for shifting it! Savvi72 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to Gimmetrow, it is now a featured list candidate. I just checked and the page has no disambiguation links, no dead external links, and good alt text. Ucucha 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Chart Stats should not be used as a source. Goodraise 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chart Stats is allowed as a source. It is even mentioned on the Wikipedia:Charts page. This source is also used on already featured lists such as the Madonna singles discography and the Pink discography. Despite this, I have added an extra source for the UK chart positions (but have still left Chart Stats). Thanks for taking the time to comment. Savvi72 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Record charts is a style guideline. Discussing reliability of sources is not its job. Even if it was, it would be trumped by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. As far as I can tell, Chart Stats satisfies neither. As for the other featured lists, you're welcome to fix those as well. I'm sorry, but as long as Chart Stats is used, I'm remaining opposed. Goodraise 10:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for pointing out those two wiki articles. I'll give them a deeper read. I have now completely replaced the Chart Stats source with the official source I added earlier. Thanks again for taking the time to comment! Much appreciated. Savvi72 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• EveryHit.com only covers the top 40 places. The lower peak positions will need to be removed or sourced differently (preferably the later). Goodraise 04:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed using The complete book of the British charts: singles & albums as a source. The data in the book is taken from the Official UK chart from 1952 onwards. A preview of the book can be viewed using Google Books (check the citation for a direct link).Savvi72 (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, but according to the citation, the book was released in 2004. Can you make sure that the 2004 box set 100,000,000 Bon Jovi Fans Can't Be Wrong is covered? Then there's the 2007 single "Lost Highway". What is the source for that? Goodraise 14:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah no worries! Fixed again! Savvi72 (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]