Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2011

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 21:12, 23 March 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): --WillC 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't nominated a list in a good while so I hope this meets the criteria, because I'm not sure if anything has changed since the IWGP Junior Tag Title passed. Okay, I'll answer all problems as quick as possible. This is a touchy title history, but I've tried to source it well enough to have no problems. Most of all, I'm glad to be back nominating lists. I got all the TNA Title articles to GA, and I have 3 lists already at FL, this is the only existing list to not be FL. If this one passes, I will work on the TV Title to bring it here. If this does well soon, then it will be here sooner than planned.--WillC 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative oppose- Kurt Angle wasn't "stripped" of the title, the decision was "reversed". Its very similar to Ted DiBiase and Chris Jericho's WWE title reigns being REVERSED and not stripped. I don't understand why his title reign is counted in the article. I'm sure all reliable sources can point this out. Until that misinformation in the article changes, I don't think it should be a FL. Feedback ^☎ 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback you are completely wrong in this case. As seen from this archived ref straight from TNA themselves, it was not reversed, he was Stripped of the title. The title is even clear with "Angle Stripped Of The TNA World Title". So for you to oppose on those grounds, you will not be judging by the criteria, but by personal opinion when the evidence is clearly presented before you.--WillC 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Well in that case STRONG OPPOSE... Nah, I'm just kidding, I Support now. Sorry for the mix-up. Feedback ^☎ 04:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'm sorry if I sounded mean. I just knew this would become an issue, and was putting my game face on as I expected alot of arguments over it.--WillC 05:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.--WillC 23:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you for your comments Giant.--WillC 03:57, 18 February 2011 (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 21:37, 21 March 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria, showcases the topic in depth, covering all of the earthquakes that year, and is properly sourced. Thanks, and comments are of course welcome Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Just quickly passing by, haven't read in detail.

• What is the inclusion criterium? Why not mention it in the lead?
• For some earthquakes (e.g. the March 3 Chile earthquake) you list the main eartquake and a number of other obviously related earthquakes ("aftershocks"?). I think that these aftershocks should be marked somehow as such.
• The main list appears unreferenced.
• Some of the short (one sentence) paragraphs of the lead should be merged with others.
• Not sure what the second image (church of Santa Cruz) shows with regard to earthquakes.
• There is one broken link and five links to disambig pages.

bamse (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, a map showing the location of all the earthquakes of that year (or all earthquakes mentioned in the list) would be more instructive than the maps of just two earthquakes in my opinion. bamse (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments.

1. The first sentence of the article should probably begin with "According to United States Geological Survey, ..."
2. In the list itself dates should be separated from magnitudes by mdashes, not ndashes as now.
3. I do not like the style: poorly written incomplete sentences. The list should be either rewritten in the form of prose or converted to a table.

Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• I think a table would be a better format, the current layout looks rather messy
• Should show the country name along with the flags. Not everyone recognize them. Use {{flagcountry}} instead
• The dates are hard to see. Should bold them.

—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose - I didn't notice that this list copies materials from a public domain source. Per Giants2008, this is not our best work.—Chris!_c/t 04:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Sorry, but I feel that a list with much of its writing copied from a public domain source shouldn't be made featured. An article of similar closeness to a PD source would be quickly declined at FAC, and I don't think FLC should act any differently. PD copies may have their place on Wikipedia (with proper attribution), but that doesn't mean they deserve a star. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose leaving PD issues asides, I am sure this list can be reorganized into a sortable table (date, location, magnitude, casualities, notes). Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per nominator request The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (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 21:42, 15 March 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): 03md 02:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the same format as the two other Man United player lists which have been promoted to Featured List. I would like feedback on any problems but hopefully the nomination will be successful. Thanks. 03md 02:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a ton of white space before the table, and more images could be added.Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (some may apply to all similar lists in the series)

• What's LYR in the LYR F.C.?

Means "Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway", need to see how to add it as the name was LYR

• "The club was formed... and played their..." mix of singular/plural in one sentence.
• "in 1908 - the First " en-dash required.
• "the European Cup.[3][2]" [2][3] please.
• Worth noting that "Champions of European football" was club football, not national football.
• An awful lot on Tevez in the lead (four sentences/one image), seems a little biased.
• "despite making fewer than 50 appearances " why has 50 suddenly become relevant in this list of 25 to 99 apps?
• Be consistent with diacritics, Tevez is missing his but Murhen etc seem well equipped.
• Tevez's caption, where are all those stats referenced?

Fixed, stats, still got "titles" to ref

• Sutcliffe's caption - is a dab, doesn't need a full stop, should be expanded a little.

Dab Fixed, need to expand now

• Expand all captions a touch, and remember not to add a full stop unless the sentence is a complete one.
• O'Connell total needs looking at.
• Check refs 1 to 5 inclusive for use of en-dash.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "and" appears missing before "four Football League Cups."
• I thought Amazon.com book links were discouraged? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does Tevez get a big fat caption but not the others?—indopug (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing source for nationality. Sandman888 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good spot, but I assume this is in the general reference, which is fine for those players up-to-and-including 2008 (the year of publication of the book) but players post-2008 need to have their nationalities referenced. Same would be true for the previous list (and the next one) in this series. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do, and yes only those who started from the 2008 season.
        – HonorTheKing (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is not in the book, so I object on missing sources. Sandman888 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, well that's a shame. This info needs sourcing, as Sandman says. I know the online snippets don't have nationality info, perhaps the paper copy does? I know my Ipswich version of the same book has that info (because I'm reading it right now) but maybe the MUFC one doesn't. Either way, it would be useful to hear from the nominator in this respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I recently got List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) to featured list and this concern was not raised, as it was covered on MUFC Info I believe. But I have also been working on similar lists for Fulham where I have taken a different approach and only stated nationalities if they have played for their country. 03md 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but you'll need to answer this direct question here. Where are the nationalities of the players referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2011 (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 22:50, 14 March 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): I Help, When I Can.^[12] 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC), ℥^nding·start 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after many sleepless nights of laboring over this article, in now meets professional writing standards, is 99% verifiable, and presents all notable topics in a format that can be understood. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—

• I've always opposed separate singles/albums discographies except in the case of singularities such as Elvis. To be blunt: this article doesn't need to exist. I think a single discography article with albums, singles and videos, although a little long, would work fine.
• Lead is far too long, repetitive and uninteresting. I don't see the point of naming so many singles and their chart positions; that's the tables below are for.
  • Lead shortened. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not seeing the necessity to quote sources (in the references) so extensively (possible WP:COPYVIO??), especially since this is a discography article. How does this help?—indopug (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In sources that had a different topic, I quoted the specific claim in the article that backs up the citation. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - See WP:LEAD#Lenth as it should be longer than four paragraphs. Citation needed template in Other users. Ref 27 has a dead link template. MixKyle.com's About doesn't suggest to be reliable. Afro (Talk) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will review this list later and make comments if necessary. This list is near to get the status, but I have doubts about the quotes in the references. Also I see some mirror sites, and reliability is thus questionable.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those can easily be removed if they are a problem. ℥^nding·start 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose CFORK of Kylie Minogue discography. Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it WP:CFORK? Can you please explain? – Novice7 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both articles listed in the link I gave can be merged back into a single article. There is no point in promoting the two forks as separate FLs instead of a single FL. All the other artist FLs have a discography article that contains both the albums and singles. There might be a reason to fork those of Elvis or Michael Jackson who just have huge careers, but Minogue is not one of those. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were separated for a reason. The article was just way too big. This one alone is 60 bytes. I don't see what popularity has to do with it. The articles were huge, and full of content. ℥^nding·start 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "It peaked charts in Australia, New Zealand, and the greater majority of Europe." — What exactly is the "greater majority of Europe"?
• "She took a break in May 2005 after being diagnosed with breast cancer." — "...took a break" seems a little tacky to me so I think this needs to be rephrased. Example: "In May 2005, after being diagnosed with breast cancer, she went on medical leave until [date]." Done ℥^nding·start 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Although it may not be necessary I think it would look better if a uniform width is applied to all the singles charts.
• A comment for all wikipedia editors: Should a decision be made to have a good "rule of thumb" on when to divide a discography into two (singles and albums), such as artists that have large discograhies (i.e. Elvis Presley)? — Jimknut (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you guys are saying, Kylie doesn't have as big of a discography as Elvis. But this article is an extremely notable, as well as extremely, in my opinion, well done. Just because she doesn't have as much of a discography as Elvis, it doesn't mean that she isn't entitled, or have enough to have her own separate albums and singles discographies. As I said before, this article itself is 60 bytes. I think also, you need to take into consideration the lengths of the articles. She's also been out just a few years less than Madonna, and I find it funny how her singles discography is a FL, but here there's all sorts of problems that two articles aren't needed. Hers went by with no problem with it at all. Hours and hours went into getting this article to FL standards, and pretty much just saying this article is pointless is a quite kick to the face to the editors who worked on it. And yes, I completely aware you guys review it with your best interest, but that's just how it feels. Correct me if I'm wrong, am I missing something here? ℥^nding·start 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that Madonna article were at FLC right now, I would have opposed it as well. Related question: are "albums discography" and "singles discography" proper/legitimate terms? I doubt seeing them outside of Wikipedia articles such as these.—indopug (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's is better, in my opinion. Michael Jackson discography has like four divisions (including two separate albums discography). Size is the thing which leads to split. A discussion already took place at WT:FLC. — Novice7 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CFORK states, "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique." That what was really done here. The article was quite big, and it's, quite frankly, just going to get bigger. ℥^nding·start 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - first off, looking at the fact that we have this article, the albums discog and the videography lists, I see no major problem with forking this out. So, with that in mind, some technical considerations:

• Infobox image caption needs no full stop. Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "highest selling " shouldn't this be hyphenated? Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "produced several more singles." no real need for "more" Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I put "produced several more singles." because the singles before those are also singles from Kylie. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 21:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "of the aforementioned charts" i know you want to avoid repeating Aus and UK, but this is not ideal. Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems some inconsistency over the hyphenation of "the top-twenty" Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Table captions, probably ought to include the decade.
• "To avoid backlash " perhaps "To avoid any potential backlash..."? Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Chemical Brothers is actually "The Chemical Brothers". Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth summarising her number ones? i.e. how many in Aus, UK etc? Just a thought (as she's had so many..)
• Towa Tei -> Tōwa Tei. Done ℥^nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Check titles of references meet WP:DASH (i.e. no spaced hyphens, use en-dash...)
• Ref 11 has "Simon", who is this?
  • Note: Thats the only author name they had in the article. It was weird... I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• See ref 8 vs ref 12 for differences in formatting the same text. Done. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2011 (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 12:38, 14 March 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list received a strong clean-up by me. I C&P this list into my sandbox and pasted back to this list. With the help of Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, the history of the sandbox was merged with this article. Hopefully this will be promoted, as I see no single item that is against the criteria.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Lead needs serious English-speaker copyedit (you've been told this sort of thing before)... e.g.
  • "It is availabe, besides on computer, " typo, poor grammar.
    • done
  • "rate to 1,2 MBps. In opposition to the standard channels, the high quality have got the" - 1.2 not 1,2. Second sentence is grammatically bad.
    • done
  • "Since 2007 the countries Poland and Austria were expected to be included, but they since have not been added" - two "since" in the same sentence is poor.
    • done
    • These were just examples. The whole lead is in need of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Star TV is a dab.
  • I used dabsolver shortly after I nominated this list.
• I think you're mis-using the caption function of the table, how does "Source" help screen-readers/others understand what's actually in these tables?
  • Any suggestion?
• Channel Name->Channel name.
  • done
• "Zattoo Foreign Language Bundles". where is this referenced?
  • in the lead
• Lots of dependency on first-party source (i.e. Zattoo themselves), frankps.net looks like a blog so can't see it passing WP:RS, and I'm not sure how www.iptv-anbieter.ch is reliable either.
  • frankps.net is reliable: (from the about page)
    ...I have been writing for IsComputerOn and I was the editor of TheQtopian (a newssite about the embedded operating system Qtopia from Trolltech). But I now mostly write on this blog. I urge you to subscribe my blog’s RSS feed. If you are interested in more news from me, I also blog once in a while in Norwegian at frankps.posterous.com...My name is Frank Paul Silye (alias frankps), and I saw the light from a hospital lamp for the first time back in January 1974. My hometown is Flekkefjord, but I currently live in Oslo, Norway. I work as a computer engineer at Department of Sociology and Human Geography. If you want to learn a bit more about me, please have a look at the link section, my LinkedIn profile, my Last.fm profile and the pictures that I am constantly publishing on my Flickr account. It’s not often that I read books, but here is a few books that I have read. Oslo is a city that never sleeps, there is always something going on. More or less all culture events are listed at underskog.no, where you can also see what I and some of friends plan to attend (in Norwegian and account needed).
  • iptv-anbieter seems to be a trustworthy organisation. (from the impressum; please use Google Translator if you don't understand):
    Hinweise zum Urheberrech Sehr gern werden Anfragen zur kostenpflichtigen Nutzung einzelner Elemente dieses Internetauftrittes (Text, Grafik, Layout, …) entgegen genommen. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass alle Texte, medialen und multimedialen Inhalte (z.B. Grafiken, Bilder,…) sowie das Design der Domain www.iptv-anbieter.ch, dem Urheberrecht unterliegen. Das alleinige Recht der Vervielfältigung, Reproduktion, Verwendung einzelner Inhalte bzw. kompletter Seiten unterliegt allein dem Urheber (Maik Enrico Wildemann) bzw. durch ihn beauftragte Personen. Zuwiderhandlungen können sowohl strafrechtlich als auch zivilrechtlich verfolgt werden. Alle genannten Marken, sowohl in Wort und Bild, unterliegen dem Eigentum des jeweiligen Herstellers bzw. Unternehmens.
• Redlinked category not a good idea. Missing a g?
  • done
• Second external link "Lists"->"lists".
  • done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose

Is this even notable? The main article, Zattoo, is about 38 hours from becoming stubbed or even a redlink. Neither the old version of that or this give the sources to ensure notability... and even if Zattoo is notable, why is this?

Yes it is. Google proves it. It is one of the most popular IPTV.

And where are the independent reliable sources to show this? Why do we need both articles? Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not give you indie sources, that would be simply too much. There are a lot of sources in German, but a very few in English. So that explains that you don't see any third-party sources. What do you mean with "both" articles? The main article is (simply) about Zattoo and this about the channels.

Why are you using in-line external links as sources, instead of proper footnotes?

Don't quite understand you.

Every table has, as its header, code that presents itself as a link and "Source". That's a) not the proper use of table headers, and b) against MOS for external links.

OK done.

Why are the languages in grey and parenthesis?

Because it is the {{Language icon}} template

Why are you using this template? They are for indicating language in reference links, not for use in article body. Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So simply replace it with letters?

Why use green for two things? Has a little "Skittlepedia" feel in the usage of colours.

Don't see any problems with that, as I use keys.

Concur the lede could use a rigorous copy-edit.

I do think it is acceptable now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't. It needs careful attention from a native speaker of English. Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 10:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nomiation is premature. I suggest a thorough copyedit by a native English speaker, a check of my handy list, possibly a peer review to check through notability and reliable sources, and then a renomination here in a few weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! It has enough notability and has reliable sources, as I explained you above! The lead could be easily CE!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:47, 14 March 2011 (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 19:45, 10 March 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list meets the criteria. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see many issues here. A copyedit of the lead is needed and you may wish to check every item listed in my handy guide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, quickfail please This is awful, sorry, and too far from the standards of FLC to be bothering with here. Just three examples for now:
  • The grammar in the lead section is foul. To take as examples the first and last sentences of the first paragraph, and the last sentence of the second paragraph, "The Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film is an annually on January awarded category", "Every year the ceremony presenting three nominees from three different countries", and "Woody Allen and Mel Gibson are the only one which films they have produced/directed were nominated twice." None of those make sense in English.
    • I put this list to the GOCE.
      • Which is, I think, an admission that it's not ready for FLC. We don't have time here to wait for a GOCE copy edit, as that's unfair on other FLCs and on reviewers. Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For me the lead looks ok, but the GOCE team is very quick and will do it in a few days; more haste, less speed.
  • Directors should not sort by first name.
    • Why? I don't understand.
      • We sort by surname, not first name. Let me introduce you to {{sortname}}. Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I won't use this sortname. For example if I write "Bilie Hillie" and there are several "Billie Hillie"'s, for example "Billie Hillie (poker player)" or "Billie Hillie (car driver)" and I place the template {{sortname|Hillie|Billie}}, it goes me to "Billie Hillie". Also it is very compilicated, for example chinese names, as I don't know what is first/last. I think this template is very useless.
          • In that case you would use {{sortname|Billie|Hillie|Billie Hillie (director)}} -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colour is being used to indicate something without an accompanying non-colour element.
    • I don't understand this too. I created a key to explain this; also why List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film have colored background (a FL!!!)???
      • Yes, but colour should not be used as the only method of showing something. It's quite a simple point, and one that you'll learn more about when you read TRM's handy guide, to which he has already referred you. Oh, and finding an FL that makes that mistake doesn't make it OK here. Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, but explain me how I should mark a winner, please?
• Add a poor mixture of date formats in the references, a "National title in different countries" that makes no sense to me (why is the title different for only some of the films? What "different countries"?), a complete lack of indication as to what is sourcing the content of the table, an external link section before a references section - and I could go on (don't get me started on the flags) - but please stop and prepare properly before coming to FLC. FLC is not Peer Review, and until you can produce a list of FL quality without help I strongly suggest you take your lists there first. TRM is too polite, but I'm not (today, anyway). Bencherlite^Talk 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean with poor mixture of date formats? I have listed all countries that produced/directed the film. The sourcing is the official website! What is wrong with the flags? See the whole Grammy lists. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you've now fixed the date formats, so that's one fewer thing to complain about. As for the flags, let's take Dogville as an example. You use ten flags to illustrate the film's country. The article about the film uses none, because the documentation for {{Infobox film}} says this about the "|country =" field: "When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale." And if the official website is being used as the source, it shouldn't be in a section marked "external links", because that title is reserved for material that is not used as a reference. Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I don't understand why you switched to its wiki article's infobox. I have actually found all these flags in the german wikipedia or IMDB or the official site of this film. And explain why all the grammy awards lists, with alot of flags, are FL now??? If you think you don't like it, please discuss not here, but for example MOS:FLAG; this is not the right place for such things.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to read {{sortname}} properly, then don't expect me to take your views about it seriously. If you're going to use IMDB as an unmentioned reference for your submissions, don't expect anyone to take them seriously. Bencherlite^Talk 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I try to do that tomorrow. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 23:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious comment please look at the link I gave to my handy guide. Read every note and check that your list meets the requirements. This list is definitely not ready for FLC, however some quick and radical changes may help. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will read this guide, but I think it is ready know (copyedited, added sortname, added refs). One thing: Should I translate the title, or is it OK so? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ughhhhh.... I see many issues, especially "Accessibility". I will correct it soon!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure this is done quickly, or I will remove the nomination as being premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I replaced the background with ! scope="row"| in the winners' row, but the text is now center-aligned. Is this correct or should I center-align each nominees' cell too?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry, Pumpkin, looks like there's a lot of problems with this list. Comments: There's been a good amount of improvement but I still have a few concerns to sort out. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The director sort doesn't work right. On one end it's "Woody Allen", on the other it's "Zhang Yimuo".
  • Mh, do you mean that chinese names should have another sorting?
    • Whoops, look like my computer did a fart or something. It's working just fine right now. No idea why there was a problem before, sorry. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The table is highly confusing. It's hard to tell who's won which year as the grayscale colors are extremely close together.
  • The prior layout had a blue background, but changed it to ! scope="row"| for each winners' row.
    • Putting the blue back was a good decision, it looks much better. I'd change the paragraph symbol to something that's more aesthetically pleasing but still meets WP:ACCESS-- maybe a "#" symbol? Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of which film won, there should be a marker outside of colors and bold font that notes which film won. Maybe a dagger?
  • That's already in boldface; a dagger is already used, but I try to find a symbol. I am really confused now; some says the background should be avoided; some says I should use this code above.
    • You should really use both, and I see you've done that. I'd change the ¶ to a # symbol just out of accessability concerns and that the # symbol doesn't really have a meaningful connotation with it other than "the number symbol". Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are some films listed with foreign language titles, while others aren't? For example, The Queen appears to have a foreign language title even though it's in English, while Madagascar does not. There needs to be consistency.
  • Yes, that's the national title; The Queen is a co-production of UK, Italy, France. The title for Italy is "The Queen - La regina"; whereby in France and UK the national title is "The Queen". "Madagascar" was only produced in the USA and the name is "Madagascar".
    • Alright, that makes sense. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The winning years seem to be centered and it looks to be out of whack.
  • Yes, right. That's this ! scope="row"| code; That's why I asked above about its usage here, but nobody replied since.
    • Sorry, I haven't really worked that much with wikicode. You might want to ask the user on their talk page for further comment. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead seems unclear. Mel Gibson holds the most nominations for what? Isn't this nominations for various films?
  • For his produced/directed films. I don't know how to describe it better. You can put a suggestion here.I deleted it
    • That works. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I think that's more then enough stuff to throw on the pile-- I don't want to add to the flames, but it needs a lot of work. Good luck, Pumpkin, we'll see how it goes. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take another more detailed revisit the next time I get the chance, but the list has definitely improved from the first time I dropped by. Nice work-- I've struck my oppose. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per MOS:BOLD, Bold shouldn't be used for emphasis. Only visual appeal on the article are the flags. Totally confused over why the winner is aligned tot he center. I'm concerned over the amount of red links in the Navbox. On another note the references have no language parameters. Afro (Talk) 00:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is the !scope="row"| code. Still waiting for consensus (it seems like the reviewer don't read my question above). I will create other articles later. Language parameter added.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reverted this to where the winners' row are in a blue background and added a key describing what the background means. Additionally I added a second sign to mark the winner (but this is looking odd now).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to have something other than colour because people with colour blindness problems might not be able to see the colour, that's why you need to also have a symbol. Having said that, it would be enough to put the symbol against the film title, you don't need to have it in every single column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally you could elaborate more on the lead, is it significant that some directors and/or producers have had more than one nomination for example? I would also like to clarify I'm still opposed per WP:FL? clearly seems to fail 5b. Afro (Talk) 17:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but I don't think a media file is a must have, is it? Also there are no free spaces to add pictures. I increased the lead.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So an image of Mel Gibson who's won the award twice wouldn't be appropriate? Afro (Talk) 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm struggling to see in refs [1] and [2] where "is one of the two most prestigious entertainment award ceremonies in Russia" is referenced.
  • But it is logical that they are the most prestigious awards for films; if Nika Award is the "Russian Academy Award" and the Golden Eagle the "Russian Golden Globe", that automatically means they are the most important.
    • But it's you saying they're "the two most prestigious" awards, you opinion based on what those refs say. Your point of view I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed sentence and replaced with a sentence about where, who and when.
• "Each year, three nominees are selected from as many as three different countries." the table seems to contradict this as some years have many, many countries noted.
  • I don't understand you. It says "from different countries".
• "Though infrequent, there have been occasions, such as in 2003, 2008, and 2010, when all three nominees came from the same country" again, the table disputes this, e.g. for 2003 it says France, Germany, Poland and UK as "Country" for The Pianist... this is confusing.
  • I am confused now too :/. Seems like the CE is not really great. But how to reword that?
    • I don't know. You have an inconsistency between what you're defining as "country" in the lead and "country" in the table. It needs to be fixed using reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed Germany-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for your comments!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of sounding like a cracked record and repeating myself, or things mentioned above that are still problems:
  • What's sourcing the list of countries from which the film comes? IMDB, as you say above? It's not the reference given in the refs column, if the year I chose at random (with the help of Google translate) is anything to go by.
    • No, mostly from its official site but also from its wiki article (mostly not the english wikipedia).
      • For <expletive of the language of your choice>'s sake, what on earth are you doing including information in a list based on what other Wikipedia articles say? That's a textbook example of the use of unreliable sources. Source the "countries" column properly and reliably, please. Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth does "Each year, three nominees are selected from as many as three different countries" mean? It makes no sense at all in the context of, e.g., 2002 where the three films came from four countries in whole or in part, let alone 2003 where eleven countries apparently had a hand in the films.
    • Removed
• Oh, and the names in the lead ought to be linked. Bencherlite^Talk 14:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked (but they are linked below)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that's not the point. Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• • Lack of alt text.
    • No need; please give me a guideline first.
      • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Images. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgot to add it. Done.

• • No third party sourcing for the award. Obviously, a primary source will often be best to tell us who has won, and that's fine (although third party equivalents are preferable when known to exist). But following on from the previous two poinnts, there is no third party confirmation that anybody external to the awarding body and recipients take note of these awards.
    • That's because there are no third party sources... Also it is the official website.
      • It is always preferable to have third-party sources, and as WFCforLife says, we need evidence that the awards themselves are considered notable by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—WFC— 07:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I added one.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I don't understand your oppose. Everything seems to be OK; if not the reviewers above would say the items you mentioned.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true, all reviewers approach reviews from different points of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict with TRM) I've already made the point above that IMDB is not reliable, and I'll make it again. You just don't seem to get the need to have reliable sources for all the information you put in a featured list. Find a proper source for the films' "countries".
    • (edit conflict) I will find if I can.
    • I replaced with the imdb links with movies.yahoo.com links. Also I deleted some countries and just put the producing country.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ALT.
    • ok
  • National Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences of Russia is a redlink, and that's the awarding body. What WFC is saying is: unless you tell us why the NAMPASR is important and why its awards are important, why should a list of its awards be worth featuring? (Or, indeed, why should it be even included in Wikipedia?) Does the NAMPASR have coverage in independent reliable sources? Is there enough to write a proper article about it? Do its awards have coverage in independent reliable sources? The Oscars and the Golden Globes do, so lists of their awards will be fine. But if you are admitting that there are no third party sources for the awards, that does tend to suggest that nobody apart from the organisers has thought them worth mentioning in connection with the films. A Google search doesn't throw up many hits, and most of them are Wikipedia and its mirrors. But there may yet be something out there...
    • I am pretty sure you google'd in english; this here has much more results then this for example; and it includes another "Golden Eagle"s, for example the CINE Golden Eagle Award or the Chinese Golden Eagle Award. I can add youtube as a third-party source, but I am sure you will find it not reliable, won't you?
  • GreatOrangePumpkin, please don't get the idea that comments from the latest reviewer(s) aren't valid just because nobody mentioned them before. That's not how reviews work. You can't argue for approval on a particular point from silence.
  • This FLC has been running for two weeks now. It is still some distance from the standards of a featured list and it is draining reviewer time. All this ought to have been sorted out at Peer Review first. It ought to have been quickfailed. Bencherlite^Talk 11:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has distance because of the sourcing; IMDb seems to be not a reliable source.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to revisit so that this can promoted soon as part of the nominator's campaign to progress into the second round of the Wikicup. I'm not going to support without some attempt to address the issue about whether these awards are notable. A lack of Google hits in English for an award given to a number of English-language films does tend to suggest that nobody in film or journalism cares about these awards, and without third-party sources for the notability of these awards, Wikipedia shouldn't care about them either. Bencherlite^Talk 14:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first round was already finished; you are a bit late. There are a lot of third-party sources; I put one some days ago.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about my comment above, where I said there are no third-party sources. I was at that moment a little bit irritated, that after at least one month another reviewed this list and gave an oppose. How much third-party sources should I include to prove that this awards are important?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any third-party sources about the awards would be a start... As far as I can tell, you've added third-party sources about the films' countries, but not about the award itself. Bencherlite^Talk 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two references in one cell in the "Ref(s)" column; one third-party and one to the official website. The Yahoo! link is the second third-party source.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.