Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2006

I hereby withdraw my nomination due to previously undiscovered redundancy. G.He 03:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: I believe that this list is fit for Featured List because it contains useful information regarding each of the states' flower, tree, and bird. I believe that this list is quite unique (to my knowledge) and that it contains balanced information through a visually pleasing and well-formatted format. It contains good pictures as well as visual flag icons to identify the states. It is well-organized in a table format for easy navigation and comprehension. Along with the English names are the names in Latin, which may be useful in scientific studies.
  
  Overall, I believe this list would be pleasing for readers. I welcome any comments and constructive criticism. Please share your opinion below. Thanks. G.He 01:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the list lacks coherency. There is no particular reason to include flower, tree and bird together, it is not a natural triplet. Why not include State amphibians? State butterflies? State grasses? We already have individual lists for state birds, state trees and state flowers (though they aren't all as pretty as this combined list and could do with having some pictures added). We also have lists of state dances, dinosaurs, fish, fruit, mammals, reptiles and even official state soils! I don't see why we should put arbitrary triplets of these together into combined lists. I fear that this list was created because the editor didn't notice state trees, birds or lists in the "U.S. state lists" navbox... however, we have so many lists of state insignia that they are hidden away under the "insignia" part of the navbox. For this reason I am going to remove the link to this newly added combined list from the navbox. This sounds really cruel but perhaps this list should be either deleted or turned into a disambig to the three other lists? It wouldn't take too much effort to turn those into featured lists and I'm not at all sure that the maintenance of redundant lists is worth doing - it's just one more thing to keep updated, keep free from vandalism, and to check that it's being kept consistent with other articles. However, I strongly congratulate the editor for the effort that has been spent on this very pretty list - my advice would be to take as much of it as possible over to the other individual lists and work on them. One thing that would be really good would be to reference the state legislation that made these birds, flowers etc "official". If I saw that I would be incredibly impressed :) TheGrappler 01:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (edited for minor clarification by TheGrappler 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Similar to List of Oh My Goddess episodes, I feel the article now qualifies to be a featured list. --Cat out 00:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong object - all pictures not only don't have fair use rationales, but also have no sources. They could be deleted in 7 days. Also, references are cited like external links. Also, lead is very miserable. Renata 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Images cant have sources as they are scans, same applies to all cd and dvd covers. What kind if a fair use rationale are we looking for? If you do not like how referances look, feel free to fix. Its only 2 links. --Cat out 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See for example the rationales on List of South Park episodes. Also if you scanned the covers or took the pictures then you are the source yourself, and that fact must be mentioned in the image description page. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Very well, I will comply. --Cat out 11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. --Cat out 11:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have also attempted to fix the lead. Since I do not know what exactly you are looking for, I am second guessing myself. --Cat out 12:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I just checked the page again and saw that the images are for DVD's. Under fair use you could use DVD cover to ilustrate text about that DVD. The list is not about DVD, but individual episodes, so I don't think fair use is appropriate here. I can buy South Park (below) argument that fair use screenshots are very helpful in identifying the episodes, but not in this case. (Please don't hate me)

  All I am looking in a lead is described in WP:LEAD, one or two nice paragraphs, that's all. About references, a nice shotcut is to use {{cite web}}. I am not fixing them myself because I want others to learn about it and use it in other articles. BTW, awesome job in re-writing the list. Renata 05:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look carefully the episodes are aligned with the dvds they are in. The dvd holds data about the episodes. Placing the picture of the dvd next to the text explaining episodes inside the dvd in my view more than qualifies as fair use. We are talking about the contents of the dvd aren't we? --Cat out 09:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Numerous misspellings and awkward phrasings. In addition, while I realize that the detailed summaries are on the linked pages, there are three or four entries (especially towards the beginning) where more than a line or two is warranted in summary. --maru (talk) contribs 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear, easy to follow, and explains much even to a complete non-fan of anime such as myself. Only issue is that some sentences need to be reworded so that fewer start with 'Ed and Al'. Is the japanese in unicode? I'm not sure if I'm missing a font or what, but I only see about half the japanese glyphs. -M^ask 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks fine on my computer, but I have japanese characters installed. I am not sure how to check for encoding... Having no understanding of kanji I copy paste it from other sites. --Cat out 07:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The kanji are in unicode, and appear correctly in both Windows XP and Mac OS X. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have cleaned up all of the episode descriptions over the last few days. Now only a handful of them begin with "Ed and Al," the descriptions are longer and more detailed, and I think I've eliminated most, if not all, of the spelling errors and incomplete sentences. Mistamagic28 11:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, image utilisation is outside the realms of fair use, lots of errors in the episode titles. --zippedmartin 02:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Utilisation is inside the realms of fair use. See recent feature list List of Planetes episodes for a nice example as well as List of Oh My Goddess episodes.

  Errors in episode titles? Such as? They are a copy of the official website.

  --Cat out 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, starting with the first title, seems someone doesn't understand that 「」 are just like "" marks round a title, and haven't read wikip guidelines on romanisation:

  • 「太陽に挑む者」 Taiyou ni Idomusha

  Not understanding long vowels in katakana:

  • 「怪盗サイレーン」 Kaitou Saire-n

  Not understanding furigana:

  • 「合成獣(キメラ)が哭く夜」 Kimera ga Naku Yoru
  • 「軍の狗＜いぬ＞の銀時計」 Bun no Inu no Gintokei
  • 「我が内なる科人＜トガビト＞」 Wagauchi Naru Toganin < Togabito >

  Silliness:

  • 「マルコー·ノート」 MARUKOO・NOOTO

  Not understanding particles:

  • 「一は全、全は一」 Ichi ha Zen, Chon ha Ichi

  I could correct what I percieve to be errors here, but clearly the source is so unreliable there's no guarantee any of it is right at all. On the image front, it seems to me that they're serving a decorative rather than explanitory purpose, FACs with more than a couple of fair use images often questioned, as do *any* pictures that don't closely relate to the article. Complete dvd covers are not integral to a "list of episodes". --zippedmartin 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I am well aware 「」 stand for "" and they were a part of the offical kanji names as seen on episodes themselves and the official website. In english however they were not.

  I am no expert in romanization. I would welcome the corrections. I'd like to note several of the romanizatons are japanese representation of english names or words, romanization is expected to be funny. I'd wish you'd refrain from defining such as "sillyness", lets be more civil.

  The images are not there for decoration. Episodes presented are very closely related to the images, after all the content of the DVD box are the episodes. I cannot think of a better usage of DVD covers. Furthermore what other image would you prefer to have? Episode screenshots? People whelmingly opposed those.

  --Cat out 23:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I corrected all of the titles so they comply with WP:MOS-JA. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first found this list, in was nothing but a collection of links, and I proposed to delete it. When it survived that, I decided to make it worthwhile. I changed it into a table and added exact dates, elections, the prime ministers, opposition leaders, parties, speakers, number of sessions, and graphical illustrations of the house after each election. I also re-wrote the intro and added a picture. I arranged it into straightforward horizontal rows to make it easy to read. Considering that I had to assemble this information bit by bit, I believe that it is now the most comprehensive list of Canadian parliaments on the Net. --Arctic Gnome 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I really like the list, but I have a comment about the images that represents the seats in the parliament. I know that there have been a lot of work creating all of them, but why the number of seats differs from one image to another? Is it because the number of seats varies from a parliament to another? What does the isolated cell represents? And does the position of the cells really represents the position of seats? If it isn't, I would suggest using a half pie chart to represent the proportion of political parties. CG 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 1: The number of seats in Parliament has been increasing. For the first hundred years, new provinces joined the country, and they needed representation. Since then, population distribution has changed, but the relatively shrinking provinces can’t loose seats (constitutionally), so the relatively growing provinces gain them. Point 2: The isolated cell is the speaker of the house, who is an elected member of parliament, but does not get a vote. Point 3: The position of cells is where the members actually sit. The goal is to have the governing party on one side (the bottom, from our point of view), the opposition party on the other side, and let the small parties not get split up. --Arctic Gnome 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - certainly featured material, however one source to "parliaments trivia"... spoils the hard work. Renata 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one source is the Library of Parliament, which is managed by the government and is physically attached to the parliament building. You can't get much more reliable than that. --Arctic Gnome 16:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must be dumb, but I go to the link I cannot find the info, i.e. the whole list of parliaments. Can you give an exact link? Renata 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You aren't dumb, there is no one big list as far as I can tell; I assembled this information from all over that trivia site. The closest I can find to a comprehensive list on their part is the list of the longest parliaments (click the "show all" button). [1] --Arctic Gnome 16:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've broken down the sources into their more specific parts. I got the information about opposition leaders from the Wikipedia, but I'll change that as soon as I find another source. --Arctic Gnome 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tank you, that's much better. Renata 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The list is very good, however, I'd like to see a column with the number of MPs in each session, otherwise readers will have to count the squares in each picture. Along with that, some of that pictures need appropriate explanations, like the MP count to each party and a colour explanation. A note saying that further info about the distribution pictures is available in its own page would be great. Afonso Silva 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the size of the governing party in the column with the party name. I figure if people want more detailed information than that, they can go to the specific page. --Arctic Gnome 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, it's fine to me. Thanks for the seats info, good work! I support this list as it meets the criteria. Afonso Silva 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Dates need to be linked for preferences. Rmhermen 23:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they don't. It's already blue-link overload. Renata 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they do until the code is rewritten. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Rmhermen 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I cite: Wikipedians are not required to follow any of these rules. Renata 02:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object for now:

(a) Presently, one of the references is to Wikipedia. This has to change: can a replacement source be found?

(b) The "Party" column should presumably be "Governing party" (is there a technical term for this in Canada?). Similarly, would it not make more sense for the words "Official opposition" to wikilink to the appropriate article, rather than the following word "Party"?

(c) The graphics are lovely (my only criticism is that on some, e.g. Image:Cdn1867.PNG, I couldn't always link the key to the parties represented: in the 1867 example, who are the red MPs in the top right? In Image:Cdn1878.PNG, who is represented by the especially dark blue box in the top left?) but, as this conversation has established, their meaning, though well thought out, is impenetrable to most readers. Could the legend be expanded to include some of the key points brought up in this thread, e.g. that the speaker is in the isolated cell on the left, and the governing party is to the speaker's right)? In addition to an expansion of the legend used on the images, can a footnote be put in to the list itself?

(d) It would be helpful to see the seat count for the official opposition too. Perhaps this would be best accommodated if there was a distinct column for the total number of seats in parliament? Or alternatively if the total seat count was given in the "Parliament" column, next to the number of sessions? I am warming more to the latter idea; certainly the total number of seats seems more a characteristic of the parliament than the governing party.

(e) There are sometimes two speakers listed. I presume this is because the speaker changed mid-parliament: in that case, shouldn't the date of changeover be given? At any rate, some explanation should be given.

None of these concerns should be too hard to change. While I would really like to see (d) acted on, I would probably be content if (a)-(c) and (e) were addressed (or persuasive grounds given for (b), (c) and (e) not to be acted on). These criticisms aside, there has been a lot of excellent work on this list and I congratulate the editors involved for it, Arctic.Gnome especially. Getting these last few concerns addressed would make it a brilliant and definitely feature-worthy list. TheGrappler 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • (a) Now fixed. --Arctic Gnome 04:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (b) Now fixed. --Arctic Gnome 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (c) The off-colour seats are MPs who ran under different party names, like how there were Conservatives, Nationalist Conservatives, and Liberal-Conservatives, all of which were pretty much the same party. I’ll talk to the user who made the images, because I’m not sure how to change them. --Arctic Gnome 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (d) Depending on the parliament, there are from three to seven opposition parties. I’m not sure if the exact seat counts can fit. I’ll try a few arrangements and see if any work. --Arctic Gnome 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e) I chose not to give an extra row to show the changes in speakers or opposition leaders because they change more frequently and they don’t really affect the way the government is run when they change. --Arctic Gnome 04:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking even better, thank you! Still tentatively opposing until it reaches a more stable form with which people are happy. (a) and (b) are definitely fixed now - fantastic!.
      • (c) Please do get in touch with the guy - the fact that the color-coded legend and the images don't actually match left me thoroughly confused. And a footnote on the table and perhaps a legend on each image explaining the layout of the parliamentary diagrams is, I believe, essential - perhaps the way to incorporate it into the table is to actually give the column a heading (not sure quite what: "Diagram" sounds a bit bland) and put a footnote by that, which if clicked on gives an explanation of e.g. what the speaker's position is. The color-coded legend that's in each of the articles could be altered to include these details, or some text could be copied-and-pasted into the image pages - either would be fine by me. Getting the legend to match the images isn't such an important thing from the FLC point of view, since the images are distinct from the list and their legends aren't visible in the list. However, explaining the schematic diagrams in a footnote somewhere is important, given that people asked for clarification in the FLC.
      • (d) Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - at the moment, we list governing party and official opposition party but only give the seat count for the former. The seat count for the latter is relevant and could be accommodated fairly easily; and it would also make sense to also move the total number of seats available into the "Parliament" column (it's an attribute of the Parliament, just like the number of sessions, not an attribute of the governing party). I didn't intend to ask for individual seat counts for all opposition parties, just for information about the official opposition.
      • (e) Again, I didn't make myself clear and I apologise. I certainly wouldn't want to see yet another breaking up of the row just for a change of speaker. But what about, where the speaker changes, putting something like (from 12 Sep., 1932) behind the name for the new speaker? Adds information, doesn't take up much space, makes it clear to people like me who are utter ignoramuses on Canadian governmental affairs that they aren't concurrent speakers (which is what the "slash" had actually led me to believe originally, I'd assumed it was some kind of weird power-sharing arrangement... ). Just a suggestion, but I think it's a useful one.
      • (f) This is new - I'd oppose getting rid of the leader of the opposition. If this is anywhere as important in Canada as it is in the United Kingdom, where I have a bit more familiarity with the system, then dumping this would lose valuable data. I would be concerned if this was removed. I see Renata shortened two columns into one; I have tried to reduce the column heading in length so it looks more reasonable. The Leader of the Opposition is incredibly important in Commonwealth governmental systems, not only because of their power in parliamentary affairs, but because they are the Prime Ministers-in-waiting if an election makes power change hands. It's vaguely like being a cross between Minority Leader and the opposition's Presidential Candidate. Please keep this in, though not necessarily in its own column.
        • Alright, I made it small. Do you think it's ok? Renata 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks good to me, I have finished off one you missed, and included dates in certain cases rather than use the rather ambiguous "/" (which suggested to me some kind of power-sharing) TheGrappler 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (g) This is also new - there are some formatting issues in the present version. At the top of the table there are no gridlines between columns, at the bottom there are, and in between there is a bit of a mess. Also, the inline citations don't seem to be working; by clicking on the arrow in the footnotes I arrive back at the correct position in the table, but clicking on the footnote link in the table body doesn't seem to work. This point probably just needs a tidy-up to solve (and I can't work out what's going wrong with the footnotes) but until it is sorted, I will continue to oppose. A featured list clearly should have its table format correct and its footnotes working! I hope this doesn't sound too negative - I really like the way this list has been coming on and greatly appreciate the effort that has been put into it. I just think the "featured" bar for a list deserves to be pretty high. I'm certainly not going to be impossible to please though! :) TheGrappler 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorted out the reference problem by converting to the new cite format. TheGrappler 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (h) Latest and possibly most important problem - I am concerned that the list of opposition leaders doesn't match its cited source ([2]). One clear difference is that this list contains some but not all of those listed there as "acting" leaders of the opposition. However, this is not the only issue. The differences in full:
        • Richard Hanson, 1943-5, should be Conservative?
        • Gordon Graydon, 1943-5, Progressive Conservative - missing from the list
        • Should be William Earl Rowe, 1954-5 followed by George Alexander Drew, 1955-6?
        • Michael Starr, 1967
        • Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray, 1990
        • John Douglas Reynolds, 2001-2
      • There may be good reasons why the apparent "reference" list is not being followed, but they ought to be explained. TheGrappler 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This remains my sole criticism of the list, but the fact that it doesn't agree with its supposed references is a good reason to oppose until this can be straightened out (perhaps with the use of an alternative source if the one being used is wrong). TheGrappler 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The list didn't include people that were just acting for someone else, but I've now added them so that everyone who has done the job is included. I've also added a footnote about the party membership of Hanson. Arctic Gnome 06:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a question - the table as squeezed right now. If you noticed I myself did my best to shorten the dates and made two columns into one. But I also see the names of opposition leaders and I don't like them. Would you mind if I remove them? Renata 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean listing the opposition party but not the opposition leader? I guess if that column looks really bad on other display sizes leaders can be removed. Alternatively, I can remove all of the interim opposition leaders and MPs who were leading on someone else’s behalf. --Arctic Gnome 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, list just the party and not the leader. It's not a big deal, just I feel like the table is to overcrowded and my screen shows everything in new line which is completely annoying. Renata 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment (f) above in relation to this, though I'm not sure how to deal with overcrowding. TheGrappler 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support This article provides a comprehensive list in an organized manner. Hikingdom 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not only non-linked dates but now non-standard abbreviated months. Rmhermen 00:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates do not have to be linked. It's neater like this. But I have a question: what is the policy in Wikipedia about using honorifics like "Sir"? CG 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) re date linking. Rmhermen 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to address overcrowding and squeezing info I made font size 90% and combined prime minister and speaker columns. Hope it's ok with you. Renata 06:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind the smaller font size, but the Prime Minister is too important a role to have to share a box with someone else; so I’ll have to revert that. Much of the squeezing problem on my display is caused by the fact that the image of the house extends below the text so the table can't use the rightmost couple centimetres of the page. I add line breaks to the end of the text to fix it, but they keep getting removed. --Arctic Gnome 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree: Prime Minister is an important political and governmental position, Speaker is a relatively unimportant bit of information primarily useful for parliamentary buffs. It would be odd to mix the two up, especially since they change at different times. In an effort to ease the squeeze, I merged the elections column into the parliament one. The information this loses is the exact date of polls closing - I didn't believe this was of critical importance to the list, especially as there is a distinct list of elections where it seems more suitable. I even dared to raise the font size to 100% after that, but wouldn't object too strongly if it went down again. However, if font size is reduced, I don't think we should use "small" text too, as it will become very hard to read. I'm still opposing the nomination on the basis that there are several discrepancies with its sources, but that aside I think the quality of this list is good. TheGrappler 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about as good as you can expect from a list. Sarge Baldy 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support: As said above --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. Images lack Fair Use rationales. Please read the Fair Use Policy. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree, as the images are simply used to give a sense of each episode. They're not strewn around for decoration. The screenshots are very small and it would be hard to claim that they could possibly have a negative effect on the "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". Sarge Baldy 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - see list of South Park episodes for the discussion about fair use pics. Renata 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're just asking for information on what each screenshot is about in the description of each image? I guess that's fair enough. Sarge Baldy 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am asking for fair use rationales. Actually, I just saw that Fair use images without rationales can be speedily deleted... See WP:CSD, Images rule #6. Renata 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that about %65-%75 of the images are discriptive of the episode, for example "Whatever the Case May Be", I belive that the image does explain the tension between Sawyer and Kate in which Kate tries to get the case --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 18:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I am replacing the Images that you guys say is not disctiptive with ones that apply with the episode's discription, so if you please be kind enough to list me those episodes that you think are violating this rule and I'll upload ones that are discriptive, thank you --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair use rationale is not replacing "undescriptive" images with more decriptive ones. It's adding a detailed reasoning to each image saying why you believe it qualifies as fair use. Please read the image copyright policy. Renata 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Image:Lost102.jpg has a valid fair-use rationale attached to it (see Image:Lost102.jpg#Fair use for List of Lost episodes). However, Image:Whiterabbit LOST.jpg has no such description as to why it qualifies as fair use. Specify in the introduction why the episodes are listed like this (are they one-shot stories that can be viewed in any order? or are they chronological with an evolving storyline?) Specify in the references which source was used to establish this order of episodes (is there an official source? abc.com?). Peer Review 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: over the last couple of days I updated the images by replacing them or by uploading a new version of the image in a way so the image is discriptive (Such as Jack helping the marshal in Tabula Rasa) and not just decorative (such as Clair sitting nicely on the beach), so if you would be kind enough to see the List of Lost episodes and look at the images (PS. don't forget to refresh and clear your cache), thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - very well organized, constantly updated to be highly accurate, and the images are small summaries in themselves, I almost don't have to look at the description for any of the episodes. It would be wise to make this a featured list, it has a very professional layout and exemplifies a greater quality and standard than one would find in any list in any other encyclopedia. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The pics are very small Tobyk777 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they can are just to show an idea of the episode, and also to make the page load faster, a larger picture can be displayed when clicking on the episode link, I think those who opposed because of the pictures should changed their minds because that factor is no longer a problem since all of the pictures that didn't draw a picture of the episode where replaced with ones that did. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• HEY! so now the pictues are removed by force... are you gonna add it to the list? ha i don't think so, this list is crappy now, even I who made this list what it today I strongly oppose this list --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this list for a while now. I am still in the process of getting more example photos (hopefully two in the near future), but the rest will take some time. It is comprehensive, and most of the photos are good copyright, and great quality. I will be happy to add more info into the columns if anyone requires, as I cannot think of any more. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Support --liquidGhoul 00:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Perhaps some mention about what distinguishes the 3 sub-orders? I understand why some photos are missing, but why are several example species missing? Also, perhaps listing the number of genera and species for each family. Does the list include extinct species? -- Samuel Wantman 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I will add the distinguishing features for the sub-orders soon. The reason the example species are missing, is because that is linked to the photo. Each photo in the table is the example species. As I don't know what is going to be added in the future I can't really name the example. Maybe the title of that column should be changed to explain that? The list does not include extinct families, they do not fossilise well, and it would not be comprehensive enough. Also, listing the number of species in each family is impossible. There are far too many species to be accurate, and something like 30-100 new species of frog are described every year! I will have a look into listing genera number, but I suspect it would be pretty similar (thoguh not as bad). --liquidGhoul 10:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I still don't think there is enough introductory text. Can you separate the the different families into separate lists, and describe (briefly) each family? While this is a list, it should also be an introduction and overview of the topic. Also, is it possible to get the tables to be the full width of the window? I'm getting close to being able to support. -- Samuel Wantman 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not ready yet. Every family should list an example species - and I found two more pictures that could be used as well. Some blank boxes have - while others are just blank. Rmhermen 23:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will add an example species for every family, even without photos (it can always be changed when a photo comes). It will be very easy. --liquidGhoul 00:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would like to see a longer intro so that the table is pushed down below the taxobox. You have plenty of things to talk about: what separates each suborder or even unique features of families. I also fixed references... Renata 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis.jpg is tagged as "fair use". There's nothing particularly significant about this image, so it doesn't qualify for use on Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Fair use.
  2. The image Image:Arthroleptis tanneri.jpg indicates that the source is "from the French wiki". That doesn't really tell where it's from. I assume the original image was http://fr.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Image:Arthroleptis_tanneri.jpg - that image is tagged as being "fair use", and it doesn't qualify for fair use: see above.
  3. The license tag on Image:Brachycephalus ephippium.jpg indicates "free use", while the description text indicates "fair use", and it clearly doesn't qualify under "fair use": see above.

  --Carnildo 04:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed those three images, although I completely disagree with your first point, that is to be brought up elsewhere. --liquidGhoul 09:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress The main objection was to the length of the introduction. I am currently trying to expand it, with the description of the differences between the sub-orders. I am finding it hard, as there is no definite differences, except, I think, the number of primitive characteristics. So far, I have done Archaeobatrachia, other two I am still researching. I tried to split up the table (I like the idea), but it came out really bad. The columns no longer line up when they are split, and I cannot find a way to set the widths properly. Anyone know how? I have also added example species to all the families. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 06:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Progress The explanation of the sub-orders has now been expanded. I think that is all. Thanks --liquidGhoul 07:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving nomination a little longer to gather more comments. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A self-nom. The list is comprehensive; None of the entries in the list is a red link and thus the list and its links serve as a good resource. I believe it adheres to the FLC criteria, hence the nom. --Gurubrahma 10:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - the text needs a copyedit, years should be unwikified, the template on the right needs a margin. Also why was the award not given in '94. Those red links in the template look untidy too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have copyedited the page and amended the template to list awards as per hierarchy. I am unable to add a margin to the template, please do so. Now, I find on the official GoI website a listing slightly at variance with what obtains in the page; here it is, note that as per this website, the RGKR has been conferred every year. The current list on the page appears to be sourced from webindia123.com. Can I change the list? Regards, ImpuMozhi 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. And also references need to be cited properly, i.e. not as an external link, but using {{cite web}}. Renata 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, but references are fixed now. Good job! Renata 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A minor issue with consistancy of style. In 2002-03, Anjali Bhagwat's full name is given while for Beenamol only surname is used. The template on the right should have more margin per Nichalp. Red link issue also needs to be fixed. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support. I have been bold and updated the reference style. Now I feel that the list is worth being featured if the issue of whether the award was given in 1993-1994 be resolved. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be possible that the award was given in 1993-94 and that Kunjarani and Leander Paes may have been awarded it in different years. However, I'm not very sure about the veracity of the link provided by ImpuMozhi because it doesn't mention Anjali Ved Pathak in that list. --Gurubrahma 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is a possible explanation. I do remember that there was a major controversy on the matter. AFAI remember, Beenamol alone was first recommended, which led to protests from Anjali's friends. The committee then revised its decision and nominated both. It is possible that the episode was deemed unseemly and finally only Beenamol was given the award, but we need something definitive. I don't see what we can do apart from use the official website. Any official publicatons at hand? ImpuMozhi 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  However good the article/list may be written, it cannot be given FL status till its comprehensive and complete. Please resolve the issue fast as otherwise it is unlikely this FLC will succeed. It is a very good list and it would be unfortunate if it fails. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the most acceptable source to resolve this issue would be the official government list - [3] Rama's Arrow 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Full Support I feel the issues have been addressed. Regarding the non-conferral of the award in 93-94, I don't think an explicit reason is available, and since there is information that the award is considered non-mandatory, its acceptable to give that as a reason. Rama's Arrow 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a good article but I am not sure if it qualifies to be an FA. Hikingdom 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Featured List, right. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the grounds that the list of recipients is not the central part of the article. Eventually, if more information is added, the article should go through FAC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Welsh— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar-Guardian (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. Per Welsh. Also no explanation is given for 1993 non-event. Anwar 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RuneWelsh is right. I visited the article in the day this candidacy was submitted and I didn't knew what the article was about. If it is a list of recipients of the award, it should have that name. If it isn't, it should go to FAC. This last option seems better, as the list is a bit short and it makes more sense inside a broader article on the subject. But anyway, it is a good work. Afonso Silva 20:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the few articles that can ever be considered "finished"; the event was months ago and thus the list is stable; the list has everyone who participated and thus is complete. I recently split this off from the article about the national team because the 2007 IIHF WWC roster may be different. I added references, a flag of Canada (there is no logo of Hockey Canada for fair use reasons), and see alsos (these exist because it is bad to have links in section titles, and adding text about the position has nothing to do with the players who play that position). and a brief explanation in each section. This list does not simply regurgitate what the reference says because the reference provides information in French as well, and I don't want to simply regurgitate what others have said (doing so would violate copyright IMO). This list meets all of the criteria, and should be featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's good as far as it goes, but I do think it would benefit from more information about the players in that tournament - goals scored, for example. I also think that it needs to make more explicit that it is talking about ice hockey. I would prefer the article to be moved to Canadian national women's ice hockey team 2006 Olympic roster, rather than relying on remembering that 2006 was a Winter Olympics year to know that it's not field hockey (which is what most Brits will assume is meant by the word "hockey"). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article lacks information about the performance of the athletes in the games and the clubs they play for. I also find the title confusing, if the sport is ice hockey, that should be present on the title. Afonso Silva 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added tournament statistics. Information about the players stats outside of this tournament should presumably be in their articles. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There also needs to be a mention of how the players made the team, did they try out? Did they roll over from the previous national team? Surely the team had a coach or a manager? Tell us more about the team. Pepsidrinka 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Saskflag-thb.png needs to have a more appropriate template on its page concerning the liscensing of the image. Pepsidrinka 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to include ice hockey in the title as per your suggestions. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Um, this overlaps considerably with Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics rosters (women) (which has lots of extra stats not included here) and Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics statistics (women) (the first section of which looks a bit familiar).

Assuming it makes sense to have a sepearate page, could, perhaps, all of the players be listed in one table, with additional columns for "position" and "games" (that way, you could list the alternates with the main team, with a "zero" for games). The pages would look a bit neater with one table (all columns the same width, for example). It would also be good to expand the lead a little - "the team won all 5 of its matches, heading Group A, beating Finland in the semi-final and Sweden in the final, to win the gold medal". "SA" and "GA" don't link anywhere helpful, as far as I can see, and both Plus-minus and PIM link somewhat confusingly to disambiguation pages. See also Canadian national men's ice hockey team 2006 Olympic roster, Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics match stats (women), and the two pages mentioned? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dablink problems and incorporated your suggestions. By the way, this list is more accurate and complete than the two lists you say it overlaps. For example, the rosters page you mentioned only included the Big 4 in women's hockey. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with the changes that have been made. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extending nomination until 23:16 (UTC), May 5 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom: recently created, but effectively serves as an overview of the dances falling in the category of "DanceSport" around the world. Also gives competition-related details for each of the dances. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]