Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2007

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 3 oppose. Fail. MarcK 06:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpiece contribution by a now-silenced editor. Among the best work on the Wikipedia project. Covers everything about the subject, backed up by diagrams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danby2007 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose, though the content is extensive, there is only one reference. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 07:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment note that the nominator for this is a blocked sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Metros 12:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and close early per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:POINT. The "list" should be split up and referenced. Peer review may help but if the principle author really has been banned, then I suspect there is no hope for it. Colin°^Talk 12:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how this nomination relates to WP:POINT. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A nomination of a banned user's work, by another banned user, of an article far from being either a "masterpiece" or "the best work on Wikipedia" that has barely been touched in eight months. This is just a waste of everyone's time — why list its many flaws if there's nobody around to fix them? Colin°^Talk 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Needs more references. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Juhachi 04:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I broke this list off from List of Oregon State University people back in December, as the page was getting too long. I've recently made some refinements and I believe this now meets all the requirements to become a featured list. Every entry is sourced, there are no redlinks, and I feel it is comprehensive. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks fine to me. --Phoenix 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Not to be too out there, but shouldn't this list fail 1b? The very first thing we see is a notice that the list is incomplete, thus I do not believe that "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" as is written at WP:FL?.--十八 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full text of 1b says ""Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." (emphasis mine). This is a dynamic list, thus it simply must "not omitt any major component of the subject". VegaDark (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opose, surely there have been many more than 23 notable faculty from Oregon State. Also this list acieves no redlinks by simply not linking any of the past presidents. If all of these were linked there would be, by my count, 18 red-links out of a total 77, which flirts with being too many. Dsmdgold 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to your first comment, can you supply any reliable sources that list more? I'd be more than happy to include them if so. I'll do some more searching to see if I can find any more that reliable sources exist for that slipped by me the first time. As for not linking the presidents, I wasn't sure if simply being a past president of a university alone made people notable enough for their own article. I could make a stub for each saying "so and so was a president at OSU", but that would be it. Would that pass AfD? VegaDark (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Browsing through the current faculty for history department alone at OSU I find Paul Farber, Gary Ferngren, Robert Nye (historian), Mary Jo Nye, all of whom I believe would pass WP:PROF, even though none of them currently have articles. Looking at the what links here list for OSU I find Betty Roberts, Ted Lewis (computer scientist), and Katherine Ann Power (there may be more, I stopped at three) I assume that each of the past presidents of OSU have sufficient notability to pass AfD. I, for one, would certainly argue for a keep for an article that read "Benjamin L. Arnold was president of Corvallis State Agricultural College (now Oregon State University) from 1872 to 1892. He was the institutions third president." This indicates that it shouldn't be hard to find more information though.Dsmdgold 04:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone through every name on "what links here" and added it to the appropriate category (it must have been longer than I thought since I've last checked that) which includes about 10 more faculty (to be fair, though, Betty Roberts was created only a couple hours before your reply :P). I've added 5 so far, and will add the others soon, time permitting. As for going through the current faculty, it is true that when you go through OSU's pages for them several look like they could pass WP:PROF. The catch, however, is that (for many I have checked, at least) no secondary sources can be found to complement what is there, hence not being enough to write an article with (I haven't yet checked for ones on your specific examples). I will also re-link the presidents and see about making articles for them. VegaDark (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Betty Roberts helps to illustrate my point. She is obviously an important figure in Oregon's political history, not including her is failing to include a mojor component. Failing to include notable current faculty is equally a failure to include major componemts, even if it is difficult to write article on them based on what can be found on the web. (I will note that it is trivial to document that they are currently faculty members, which is all that is required for this list.) In my examples, we are talking about people who are editors of major scholarly journals and authors or editors of widely cited books. Negren for example is quoted on Wikipedia.
• Support It being a dynamic list, it cannot fail 1b as stated above, and I believe it to have no omitted major figures.--十八 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 3 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First Nom

Last Time this page was failed because of images, now that the images were forcefully removed by admins without any consensus and their aren't any images left on this list, I am nominating it again. Gman124 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The episode summaries are not summaries at all. They are teasers. I might consider changing my vote if this is addressed. Todd661 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose experience has taught me tv.com is not a good ref source. Buc 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be an external link at best. --Phoenix 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But there aren't any other sources that has the prod codes and writers listed, I only found the airdates. Gman124 10:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Todd, only a handful of the summaries do just that, summarize the content of the episode. --Phoenix 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-renominated because the issues preventing success in the previous nomination have been largely overcome DBD 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References? (not just for the "rules", but also for the names and other information in the article) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd argue that the rules are the reference for the people, by their very nature... DBD 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Theroff's Online Gotha has information about Europe's royal families. Great Britain's list starts with George I, and from there, one could trace his descendants through some of the other pages on the site. I personally have used that as a source to add missing persons to the list. In addition, there's also a list of the descendants of Electress Sophia. If these aren't already listed as references, I'll go ahead and add them now. Added! Morhange 05:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and endorse Speedy Close. No inline citations. Todd661 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Woah! Surely we can see that inline citations are exactly easy in the line - either we find a separate source for each person, source everyone to the same source(s) (i.e. repeat all the sources for all XXXX people), or leave the sources as general ones at the end. DBD 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key criteria for a Featured List says that the article should be complemented by appropriate inline citations. This article is not complemented by appropriate inline citations - it doesn't have any. See WP:REF and also my current nom for ideas. Todd661 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read "complemented" to mean required. At least two od the lists passed in April 2007 lack in-line cites, and at least three passed so far this month also lack them. No opinion of this list just yet though. Dsmdgold 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Under no circumstance should such a list be "speedily closed", when in my opinion it has sufficient referencing. --Phoenix 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article with this much prose needs in line citations. I have added some ^{[citation needed]} tags where I think they are needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd661 (talk • contribs) 15:53, May 8, 2007

So be it, but it certainly shouldn't be speedily closed. --Phoenix 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see some references, they're just not cited inline. Should be an easy fix. Instead of riddling the article with all those tags, perhaps one cleanup tagh with a talk page note that the citations need to be formatted inline is cleaner. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think it is much cleaner, if it says this sentence needs references, rather than saying...this page needs a cleanup. If this user is fair dinkum about getting this page featured, the ^{[citation needed]} tags should be gone in no time.Todd661 10:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have enough experience with featured lists to vote here, but I wanted to comment on the inline cites. I don't think that the information about the parliamentary acts should have inline cites; the sources are provided at the main articles on the acts. But information about specific individuals should be cited. Even if there is an RS with a full list of those in line, citations would be appropriate for those who are not in line, expected to be baptised Catholic, etc. Matchups 16:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that not create a ridiculous quantity of inline cites? --Phoenix 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A number of problems.

References: The list mentions four web sites as references. Given the amount written about the royal family, there must surely be a book you can find that lists the line of succession to some level of detail. All references should have author, date of publication, publisher, title, and for websites, the access date. Anyway, lets look at each one:

• William Addams Reitwiesner, Persons Eligible to Succeed to the British Throne as of 1 Jan 2001. This is William Reitwiesner's personal web site, which doesn't make it a reliable source. It is also over six years out-of-date.
• Royal Family web page on succession. This is a reliable source! It also includes some of the rules. It would make a good reference for a list of 40 names at most.
• Paul Theroff's Online Gotha. This is Paul Theroff's personal web site. Another non-reliable source.
• The Peerage: Electress Sophia. This is Darryl Lundy's personal web site. Another non-reliable source.

Before the last two refs were added, the list claimed the first ref was the source of the names.

Vagueness: Saying "At present this page attempts to list" isn't acceptable in an encyclopaedia. The woolly phrase "as well as some of the living descendants of" doesn't explain why not all are listed. The "other monarchs" section says "about nnn".

Length: The list has 1269 entries but it looks like there are bits of more to come at the end. It is very hard to see how a textual, manually generated list this long could possibly be accurate or useful. From the refs given, I don't know how someone could verify, for example, that HRH Princess Olga of Hanover (b. 1958) was #400 without a fair amount of original research.

Presentation: The layout is basic and uninspiring. Not particularly professional and not our very best work.

Colin°^Talk 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently brought this up to date and edited it to comply with the Manual of Style. Now seems to be in line with the other featured cricket lists (the last of which was List of Indian ODI cricketers, nom here). Not the shortest list in the world to be nominated for FL and whilst the lead is short it's the same as the others, so it seems adequate. Thanks. :) AllynJ 10:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Centre the text. Maybe one more ref just to back up the one you already have. Looks a bit dull being all white. The lead looks a bit short but then again it is the Dutch cricket team. Buc 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Text centring: I was going for consistency with the other lists, this isn't done on any others.

2) References should be fine really, between those linked early on and those in the External Links section there should be enough, surely? That's all that's linked on the other lists.

3) Yeah, I'm thinking a picture may help. Perhaps the Dutch flag or the Dutch cricket board logo? Not sure.

4) As mentioned earlier, I think the lead is fine: more important countries have the same length (if not the same text exactly) lead. AllynJ 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no doubt this is inline with other cricket featured lists but I do wonder if these lists are worthy of featured status at all? I could see the whole series being featured but every single version in the template seems a bit much. Since I have not contributed to featured lists before, is it normal for all lists in a series to get featured status rather than just one featured status for the collection of lists? David D. (Talk) 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment, one of the featured list criteria is that they are stable. It is easy to see how this is true for lists of world cup winners or california birds, but how is it possible for the sports stats type of lists to be stable? They need to be updated all the time and this alone seems like a reason to delist all this class of list. Is there some rationale I am missing here? David D. (Talk) 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This list is unashamedley an word for word, number for number, copy of this site and this site. If it, and the other pages that are very similar are not altered anytime soon - they could be speedily deleted. In addition, the article fails to meet 1c, 2a & 2b. Todd661 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is exactly what the figures are... There's no other way to represent them, on here or elsewhere. I do also think they are relevant to Wikipedia's scope. I certainly don't think they should be deleted. Re: 1c, I don't see how it isn't? It has stats from two Cricinfo sources and one from Howstat, it's certainly verified correctly. I've covered my thoughts on 2a before, and 2c... Not sure how to tackle that. Thanks for your comments, though. AllynJ 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of the figures are irrelevant in this article. Personally, I think this list should have headings such as Name, Debut - an exact date they started, not the year, Type - such as batter/bowler/wicket keeper/all rounder, and how many matches they played. The other infomation is not needed on this site. Expand the lead a bit. Talk about the lits (which you do), then talk about the cricket team in general - when did they start, who was it against?

Sorry for the delayed reply: I've been doing some brainstorming and have personally decided that the comments here are certainly worth looking in to, if not changing to as soon as possible. I've started some discussion over at WP Cricket (see here) and if you'd like to add your thoughts they'd most certainly be welcome. I'll be withdrawing the nom now, although I certainly hope I'll be back with this particular article in the future. :p :) AllynJ 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On stability, the fact that an article or list may need to be updated on a more or less regular basis does not make it unstable. Instability is more about edit warring - major changes to the form or content of an article from day to day. You will know it when you see it! This kind of instability should not be an issue with any of these lists.

On "the whole series" - yes, in the past, we have promoted separate Featured lists on similar, closely related, topics (how about 2002 NFL Draft through 2006 NFL Draft, or List of Florida hurricanes (1950-1974) and List of Florida hurricanes (1975-1999)) and it is exactly the same with Featured articles (there are three on aspects of Saffron, for example). If there are lots of featured articles/lists on similar topics, there may be a case for a Featured topic.

A cricket reader will want all of those facts in the list (matches, innings, not outs, runs, high score, average, etc...) article: they are the important figures. The fact that several external sources provide the same information is great for verifiability, of course: the strength of a Wikipedia list is its wikilinks to articles on the players, and to explanations of the various terms.

But I see what you mean about the lists being a bit "boring". I am not sure what we can go about that: a bit of colour on every other line, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to address the stability issue. I'm not sure I meant to imply they are boring. Clearly stat heads (me for one) love poring over this type of data. One possible improvement would be to indicate which cricketers are active (possibly have two tables active and inactive). At least then there is an explicit understanding that the stats are final. I'm all for color but i don't think it needs to be done without good reason. David D. (Talk) 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I tweaked the formatting a little including reducing the font-size slightly as it just seemed too 'busy'. Those things are just personal taste but IMO it looks nicer now. Meets all the criteria. —Moondyne 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry to have left this so long before opposing, but I've only just noticed the nomination. The lead is uninspiring, and seems to leave out some important info. Looking at the first and last dates for the players, it looks like they only played ODIs in 1996, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 (and no years in between). I can just about work out why, from looking at Netherlands national cricket team and One-day international, but the history of Dutch ODI status needs to be explained in this article (an expanded lead will also help to deal with the issue of the list being "boring"). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom, I believe it's one of the best guides to the subject available on the internet, and the high quality of the photography deserves wider recognition. Twospoonfuls 09:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It doesn't sufficiently cross the line between a gallery (such as the common's category linked at the bottom) and a Wikipedia:List. The two external links are better "guides" - they give descriptions of the identifying shapes, emphasise the aspects that are unique, explain the origin of the word and explain what the vase was typically used for. Some of the photos are good but several are very blurred — the camera has focussed on something else. The "key terms" table has an odd looking first column. The rest of the list doesn't use those terms.

• 1a: either "bring together a group of existing articles" or "contain a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles". It fails the former since very few vases are linked. It fails the latter since this isn't a finite set.
• 1b: comprehensive. Taking "Oinochoe" as one example, the list only contains types 1, 2, 3 and 7. One of your external links lists many more types.
• 1f: well structured. There is no structure to the table, just alphabetic ordering. Both external links have a hierarchy of types, as did an earlier version of this list.

To be a FL, it would need to concentrate much more on words (and perhaps some diagrams) and less on the photos. Colin°^Talk 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To compare the article to other web-sites was perhaps a lapsus linguae on my part, I don't think it is a featured list criterion to be better than any other web page. It is true there are a dearth of articles on ancient Greek pottery types. It ought to be asked if it is worth having an article for each type since there is little to say about some of them beyond bare definition which would have little explanatory value without direct visual comparison with similar vases; hence the gallary, and hence it meets the second criterion of 1a. "It fails the latter since this isn't a finite set", I'm sorry I don't follow you there - there isn't an infinite number of types. As for structure, as I mentioned in the lead these names are conventions not historical fact - it is often the case that their historical use is unclear, or they had a multiple uses; I abandoned the division into uses for that reason. Other web-sites will have to answer for their own divisions of type. The blurry pictures are probably mine, mea culpa. I would suggest that they are not illegible though and can be readily replaced when better substitutes emerge. I can add descriptions to the thumbs, if that is a requirement. Twospoonfuls 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead requirement is "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." That gives reviewers scope for subjective opinions, along with the more objective criteria that follow. The fact that there are better guides, makes one suspect that this isn't the "best" that Wikipedia can do. The blurry pictures do not IMO meet "professional standards of ... presentation". The two other guides seem to divide on container-type and then by shape. Perhaps the list should be reworded to "Typology of Greek Vases". I said "this isn't a finite set" because I believed that the division of shapes was an artificial construct that resulted in a different number depending on who you asked. If perhaps there is some authoritative definition of all 42 (to pick a number) shapes that all museums use when classifying Greek vases, then I will accept it as a finite set.

The main problem is summed up by your closing sentence. The list is currently defined by the available pictures. The pictures need to be added to the prose, not the other way round. Colin°^Talk 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No in-line references. Todd661 08:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, nothing is being asserted here other than existence and form; the forms are self-evident, their existence can be verified from either of the links or the Richter-Milne book. So what exactly is it you want cited? We really need to get beyond this pavlovian love of footnotes and ask what function they serve - in this instance none whatsoever. Besides which there are many FA lists without notes. I'll come back to the other points raised later. Twospoonfuls 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few featured articles without in-line citations too - and they are being gradually demoted. If you dislike in-line cites, you need to go somewhere else because it is a long-held and entrenched view that they increase the verifibility of an article. Anyway, the lead is way too long not to be specifically referenced. Also, Avoid Weasel Words such as "The task of naming Greek vase shapes is by no means a straightforward one". WP:L says that a list can used as a See Also list, but there are hardly any wikilinks, so how can this be the case. Also have a look at WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, specifically point 4. Todd661 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. There must be a consensus to promote, and there is none here. Fail. Juhachi 09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this page because I feel that it is comprehensive and well-sourced and is of FL quality. Everything is sourced, many of the inducters are listed in the inductee bios, and there is a link in the sources section that goes to a source for inducters. The one problem is the remarks section. I was trying to fill each blank, but I figured that it would be dificult to do without going to POV. I also almost listed them by their job, ie. wrestler, announcer, manager, etc. but I decided against that due to the fact that many of them were wrestlers and announcers. Any complaints/suggestions that anyone has will be addressed. -- Scorpion 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: Shouldn't the reference be next to the wrestlers name, rather than under remarks. Seems out of place when the remarks section has just a reference in the form of a [#]. Pepsidrinka 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's modelled after List of WWE Champions. The citations are in the remarks section because the statements need to be cited, and all the refs are over there in order to keep everything uniform. -- Scorpion 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Lead should be expanded, a picture at the top right would be nice, and remove the multiple wikilinks to years and inductors. VegaDark 07:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way a free use image could be included is if I used a picture of a random inductee. As for the lead, do you have any suggestions as to how it could be expanded? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 08:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A random inductee would probably be fine, if the caption explained the relevance properly. As for the lead, you may want to go somewhat more in to detail about the ceremony, how the induction process has evolved since it was started, who is elligible (only WWE wrestlers and the promotions it evolved from? If not, which other promotions?), perhaps something on the voting process. Perhaps mention how many have been inducted after death in the lead after the total inductees number is mentioned as well. VegaDark 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I have expanded the lead, and I added a fair use image for the time being because I feel that just throwing in a random image of a random inductee would not aid the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Conditional support pending removal of wikilinks on repeat years and repeat names in the "Inducter" column. VegaDark 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have removed all of the double links. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you really need Reflist with 3 columns here, I would think 2 is fine. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. --Phoenix (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Support --Phoenix (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Clear; Well reffed list. Neldav 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I will support this, the list is clear well reffed and easy to use. Govvy 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - First thing is the lead, there are mistakes in the grammar, for example 8 rather then eight, and the last sentence doesn't even start with a capital letter. Next is the statement "induction is contingent upon the candidate being on good terms with WWE" could this be explained? What is good terms? Also, why is there no explaination of what WWE stands for (preferably this should be included in the first sentence or two)? Could the role of inductor be better explained, and maybe it's just me, but isn't it appropriate to include the inductee's real name (rather then just stage name) in the table? Last thing, is it spelt inductor or inducter? Is there a difference between American and British spelling? - Shudda ^talk 05:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, my conditional support is also dependant on these issues being addressed. VegaDark 10:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the stage name, we go by what the name of the person is according to WWE.com and adding the original name of the wrestlers would count as OR. I will fix your other concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not going to be OR unless their name is unknown and you go and research it, but their names are easy to find I would assume. I think the list becomes trivial if the persons actual name is excluded. It's a joke the character someone plays gets inducted into the hall of fame but the person does not. - Shudda ^talk 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's how the WWE works. They recognize people by what their in-ring names are and so should we. Besides, they are best known by their in-ring names and in some cases (Bret Hart, Jim Ross, Jerry Lawler) they go by their real name. It's best to just go by their names as described by the WWE. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course the WWE don't talk about their real names, because the WWE are promoting a product. We are not - we are trying to provide a comprehensive list. To omit their real names means the list is not really comprehensive. Also, I'm still not happy with the explanation about what the definition of good terms is. I still don't really know - does it mean still employed by WWE? You may want to add a footnote expanding on "several notable alumni have not been inducted". Also - "Inductees are officially inducted by a high profile inducter who is highly promoted" doesn't explain what inducter is (btw, did you find out whether it's inducter or inductor). As far as I can work out, the inducter is the person that presents the award, and this isn't really notable (they don't list the presenter when someone receives an Emmy or Oscar. - Shudda ^talk 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify - I think the real name should be included as well as their stage name. They are also primarily known by their stage name so I'd expect their real name to be in a column to the right of their stage name. - Shudda ^talk 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about tag teams or people who used their real names? I really don't think it's necessary because people will know who the list is talking about without including real names. As for being on good terms, a recent article was published in which a former employee who is now on bad terms criticized the hall of fame. I'll clean it up and cite that article. And about the inducter section, they are heavily promoted by the WWE and in many cases the inducter is included in the hall of fame bio of the inductee. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Okay, I have tested out your suggestion (here) and I remain extremely opposed to adding "real names" because in many cases, wrestlers legally changed their names to match their ring names - Hulk Hogan, Jesse Ventura - so in those cases, what do you call it, birth names? I really think it is unnecessary because most of the wrestlers listed are best known by their ring names, and having "real names" there would simply be for curiousities sake and thus would not be essential to the list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it looks much better with their real names. It's up to you whether this is their birth or legal name (I would suggest legal), but its definitely necessary. Some of them (and I've only checked a few) don't even have wikipedia articles where their in-ring name is the name of the article - for example Ed Farhat, Harry Fujiwara, Sherri Martel, Ernie Roth, Joe Scarpa, etc etc. The good terms with the WWE is much better now, not crystal clear, but clear enough. "Inductees are officially inducted by a high profile inducter who is highly promoted." still makes no sense to me, who cares if they are highly promoted (whatever that means) I want to know how it influences the Hall of Fame. Their inclusion in the bio doesn't seem like a good justification for them being in the list. Anyway clear all that up and I'll support. - Shudda ^talk 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this was a pro wrestling Hall of Fame, then I might agree, but because its the WWE Hall of Fame, we should only list their WWE names. And as for the inducted by section, just because it isn't done on other pages doesn't mean it shouldn't be done here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely disagree. As I have stated above I think it will not be comprehensive if you don't list a legal or birth name. It's an important fact about the hall of fame members that should be included. As for the inducters being listed - you havn't justified why it should be there. I agree that just because it's not in other lists doesn't mean it should not be here, but thats not an at all adequate reason to include it in this one. - Shudda ^talk 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The WWE heavily promotes the people who will be inducting the inductees. The inducters are often included in advertisements and they are a big part of every hall of fame ceremony. It was decided by WP:PW that they were notable enough to include and nobody has ever tried to take them out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with Scorpion that birth names are unnecessary; wrestlers are almost exclusively known by their ring name in most situations, and I don't think adding their real/birth name would be helpful at all to the reader. It'd be like noting that Marilyn Monroe's real name is Norma Jeane Mortenson. MarcK 04:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support -The article seems fine outside the changes being proposed. -凶 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 5 oppose. Fail. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this is a featured list of wikipedia. I followed the format set forth through the "What is a featured list" page. I also used the List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni which is a featured list as my template. I have searched, and these are the most prominent alumni from this university. As stated this is an incomplete list, because there is no way to know every alumni in prominent positions in society.PGPirate 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose References are not done in accordance with WP:CITE. See {{Cite web}} for more help.--十八 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, web citation template is needed. --Phoenix (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Citation templates are not a requirement for featured material. However, they can help achieve properly formatted citations, which are required. Colin°^Talk 12:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't a requirement, but they make the references section of this particular list look really messy. --Phoenix (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstand me. I agree that the references are currently unformatted and not acceptable. But there are two ways to format them per WP:CITE. You can do it by hand, or you can use a template. The visual result is similar. Colin°^Talk 18:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood, thanks. --Phoenix (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose besides the references, non-free images (such as Image:MarcBasnight.JPG and Image:KevinWilliamson.jpg), lack FU rationales, and others have questionable copyright status (such as Image:Lin mac69.jpg and Image:Siaki.jpg). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and per comprehensiveness concerns. Everyone listed here should be listed in the football section, and I suspect other sports suffer the same problem. Also, this article needs to be moved to List of East Carolina University alumni per naming conventions at Category:Lists of people by university in the United States. VegaDark 08:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with the previous comments. The page is unlikely to be comprehensive, has links pasted as references, without adding information about the author, title and date of publication (or retrieval date). The page should also be renamed. _ Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Consider moving the page to List of East Carolina University alumni. Most alumni lists are names in this form. CG 11:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Juhachi 10:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First Nom
• second Nom

Nominating this page again, it was nominated previously twice. I have removed the copied summaries and I think it's ready now. Gman124 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the solution here isn't to simply remove the copied information. New edit summaries need to be created for it to be on par with List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, List of Dad's Army episodes, and List of X-Men episodes which are all featured and have what appears to be original edit summaries. -Phoenix 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• but the only way to get original summaries is to watch every episode, and it's gonna take a long time. And I was thinking about making it look like the other Batman list I nominated, since the plot already appears on the individual episode articles, I don't think we need the summaries again at the list. Gman124 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that be the case, I'm not sure the list can be featured. It's not really fair to the other featured lists if this one doesn't have edit summaries. -Phoenix 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Episode summaries are optional, but if they're used, they must be solid. Everything done here was done well, and nothing missing is essential. Therefore, I support. Jay32183 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreeing with Jay, episode summaries are really optional. And when a show has had about 6 seasons or more, rather like this, it's not really practical to try to stuff a single page with summaries and pictures. This list is similar to List of Smallville episodes (and List of The Simpsons episodes to some extent), which is FL; and even though most LOEs have color coding, this series is probably an exception due to the multiple names, etc. This has improved since the previous nomination, and because of that I support. Cliff smith 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really wild about the location of the episode number column, or that weird extra line in-between each episode line. Episode lists with summaries have this for extra clarity, since they involve two rows per episode line, but here we only have one row. Minor issues, and aside from that everything seems all well and done.. but I'm not sure if I would call it "featured" with just that, even with the formatting issues taken care of. The only reason I don't say oppose is because.. well... FLs really aren't being held to the same kinds of standards as FAs. Most of the FLs we have should really be "Good Lists" instead of being Featured Lists. The real goal of FLs is to drive improvement of the lists, and that has been done, all check marks green, the article has done what we asked of it, etc. I just feel rather indifferent about it. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Please address the respective WP guideline for all your possible objections. For example, is there a guideline indicating that episode lists should include summaries, that there is an specific location for the episode number column or that the summaries should be "original"?

And Ned, could it be possible that FL lists are "featured" because they constitute good examples of lists that observed all the guidelines to go by. The way I see it is that there are some standards, if the article or list observates all of them, it becomes an example, and in order to showcase all good examples they must be featured. --T-man, the wise 05:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose!!!: Nevermind my previous comments, without the images and the summaries it sucksass big time. I can't believe I spent so much time in that article only to see it become that, its so sad. Key images are essential to graphycally identify an episode!! --T-man, the wise 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the episode summaries the images definitely can't be added. Screenshots require critical commentary. Jay32183 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. That requirement sounds a little made up, and if not, you must quote your guideline (the one stating "Without the episode summaries the images definitely can't be added). Then again, I insist the article must have both, the summaries and the images. I put all of them the first time, I'm not doing it again and I'd won't encourage to feature such incomplete list. Regardless the observations of other editors, get it to be like it was a couple of months ago and you got my approbal (remember, we're not voting here, we're reaching consensus to decide if the article fits the guidelines for a featured articles).--T-man, the wise 03:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already said the episode summaries were optional. Without episode summaries the tv screenshots will fail WP:NFCC#6 and #8. #6 = Media specific content requirements that state that tv screenshots may be used for identification and critical commentary, but not identification without critical commentary. #8 = The non-free content must make a significant contribution to the article in which it is being used. Jay32183 04:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to comment and suggest that you use the captions of the images to expand upon them and provide relevant critical commentary; it would strengthen the fair use claim and could provide appropriate encyclopedic information. --Iamunknown 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you are talking about the images already in the article and used as series logos. I can agree with that. Jay32183 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I meant the logos. That there exist no free images to replace them is only one criterion justifying their inclusion. How is the image justified? Not by a caption that states, "Batman logo from season 1". What is significant and encyclopedic about the image? Has it been noted by pop historians as being iconic for a particular movement within popular culture? Is there any particularly interesting story behind it? What character came before Batman and lead to the artist deciding upon Batman? The caption does not necessarily have to directly reflect the text, it may provide relevant circumstancial information that is not addressed therein. --Iamunknown 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Featured list criteria just says that the image must be appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status, and I think the logo images have all this. Gman124 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To determine "acceptable copyright status" we must refer to WP:NFCC. Jay32183 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has no summaries or images per episode doesn't mean that it can't be featured—and I could list you multiple featured LOEs that are similar to this one. As I stated above: "...when a show has had about 6 seasons or more, rather like this, it's not really practical to try to stuff a single page with summaries and pictures." Your opposition pertains to no criterion of WP:WIAFL anyway, and is therefore rather inactionable. Cliff smith 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • WP:WIAFL doesn't deal with images in episode list. We need to find out more specific guidelines. Also, the season logos don't have to be "noted by pop historians as being iconic" to be included (if so, point the guideline). They are relevant because they were used during that specific season the article is talking about. they are relevant and useful because they ilustrate as visual references to the respective season. It's almost the same case with the Seinfeld logos, each one is characteristic of certain seasons.--T-man, the wise 03:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...exemplifies our very best work" is my concern. This just seems run of the mill right now, as does other existing FL LOEs. -- Ned Scott 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got me thinking there. There would be 2 ways of ...exemplifies our very best work: a) By having a limited number of every kind of Featured List, so that we'd have an ever changing list of lists in an evolutive competition to be featured... (I believe this is your position) or b) by featuring every single list that meets the standard, so that it becomes clear for list editors what to do in order to make good lists. The more the merrier. the more examples of the same standards we have the clearer it becomes to know what to do (whitout knowing the respective guideline, this is kinda my position).

But the real question, as always, is which way are the guidelines currently supporting (I don't know). That alone would be the anwer to your concerns.--T-man, the wise 04:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-man, the wise, would you kindly refer me to whichever policy you are referring to when you suggest that non-free content may be used merely as decorative material "useful because they ilustrate as visual references to the respective season"? --Iamunknown 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear enough. Well, there is the WP:Image line stating "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." But I think I picked up the idea somewhere else... Let's see... This one is from WP:Perfect "the perfect aricle (...) includes informative, relevant images — including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it. Each image should have an explanatory caption." ...aaaand that's about it.--T-man, the wise 05:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget that we are dealing with non-free content? How does the current use and the use your desctribe reconcile with Wikipedia:Non-free content? --Iamunknown 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't forget it. " ...they (Non-free content images) are permitted only if they meet the restrictions of this exemption policy and can also be considered fair use under US law. If the logos don't fit that criteria, the solution is to fill any missing ( and redundant if you ask me) copyright crap. But my main point is that images in Wikipedia doesn't need images to be "noted by pop historians as being iconic for a particular movement within popular culture" in order to be included--T-man, the wise 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed. How is an image framed by the caption "Batman: The Animated Series credits logo" relevant to a list of episodes? The former details the credit scenes and the ambience surrounding the end of the film reel; the latter details the individual episodes, their content and organizes them in an accessible format. Curious discrepancy, isn't there? --Iamunknown 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, that's because that's the most memorable image of the series. It helps readers to visually identify the series that the article is all about. If the name of the series doesn't ring a bell (or makes the reader confuse it with some of the other batamn animated series), the image might. It is also relevant because it was used in the closing credits of the first, third and fourth seasons, but not the second, so it's totally relevant to the seasons. And yes, the discrepancy is curious, but that's because of it's too thorough for something that is just fine. As I said, if the pictures have their license requirements in their page in order they're just fine as they are placed.--T-man, the wise 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on... you have to reinclude the remaining title card images in the list unless you want them to be erased (and I swear this time I won't uploading them again). Without the images my say, for whatever it's (or not) worth, will ramain against making it a FL.--T-man, the wise 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• T-man, The images you uploaded didn't have any source, so that 's why they were removed, and most have already been deleted. Gman124 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of all of that. 40% are still around. You could see which ones by using storaged version in the history of the article. You'd be able to see the only the pictures that are still around. The lack source isn't a good reason to remove them, it's a good reason to source them or a good reason to change them, but not a good reason to take them all from the article.--T-man, the wise 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if the image has been on Wikipedia for over a week without a source, the image gets speedily deleted. That is, the images get deleted without discussion. Uploaders are supposed to include all copyright information upon uploading. Jay32183 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes and no. Yes, they are about to be deleted in a week, and no, they've not been deleted yet, the week is just on his 3rd day or so.--T-man, the wise 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's actually 48 hours. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatevah, the point is some of those (about 40%) are still around but are about to be erase. The message said 7 days.--T-man, the wise 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The later sections need a brief intro, in the same way "Season One" and "The Adventures of Batman & Robin" have. I'll be happy to uspport when that gets dealt with. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Good observation.--T-man, the wise 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, considering that in contrast with other forgotten series, the visual aid are all available (if not in wikipedia) all over the internet, the fact taht several attractive and featured list include them, the WP:PERFECT image criteria, the fact that articles should be as useful and informative as possible; I will support this nomination whenever it features the following:

• Title card/ characteristic images with proper source, licensing and copyright holder information.
• No more than 3, no les than 2 original Synopsis OR the original Warner Bros. synopsis in italic with one proper note indicating the source somewhere in the article.
• Section Intros. They can be brief original season synopsis.

Considering the production data of each episode must be in order, that's what I perceive a good episode list with high quality standards is made of. I currently oppose the nomination and I permanently will. I'm going to mind other issues and (finally!) shot up and stop replying here. But if the article reaches the standards I just mention, you can throw me a word at my user page and I'd gladly support the nomination.--T-man, the wise 01:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this Template:BTAS screenshot to make the process of adding the copyright info. If some data is missing it can be added directly to the template page. You only have to copypaste {{BTAS screenshot|{{{PAGENAME}}}''}} into the images missing copyright info. The template will show this:

This is a screenshot of ''{{{PAGENAME}}}'', an episode of [[Batman: The Animated Series]], an animated series produced by [[Bruce Timm]] and [[Paul Dini]], distributed by [[Warner Bros.]] and originally aired on [[Fox Network]].

If you feel the template is missing info, you can add it directly into the template page (Template:BTAS screenshot). All images were actually taken from http://www.worldsfinestonline.com .

I did about 1/3 of the images, but I won't be finishing the rest. These images also serve the individual episode articles, but the stupid orphanbot just blocked them from appearing, so somebody will have to take the work of unblocking them again.--T-man, the wise 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• it's no use ading the image back since they're being removed from all featured lists, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Clean up for the featured ones. Gman124 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 1 support, 0 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Juhachi 10:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I have worked hard over the last few weeks to get this list up to FL standards. Please let me know what you think. Lovelac7 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed a little thing in the lead. Why was the TOC in a div? I tried {{TOCright}}, as it would save a lot of room, but it sticks down into the first two tables. Perhaps a TOC like that at List of Cuban birds would work better here? Good work thus far. --Phoenix (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a new TOC using the Cuban Birds structure. What do you think? Lovelac7 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks a lot better, especially with the image. I'll look over the rest of the list. --Phoenix (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, seems fine now. --Phoenix (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This list isn't comprehensive enough. all these people should be in the football section alone. all these people should be in the basketball section. Other sports sections probably suffer the same problem. The faculty section looks far too small for a major university, I can tell that the coaches section is not comprehensive enough. All past football and basketball head coaches should be listed, for starters. I'll review further once this has been addressed. VegaDark 06:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, VegaDark, but your list of Spartans in the NFL alone has 240 people on it. Though I'd love to see all of that listed and sourced on Wikipedia one day, I am just one man. I will however, beef up the faculty and coaching lists. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Lovelac7 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That really isn't an excuse. The comprehensiveness portion of the criteria isn't at the convenience of the major editor of an article. I am developing a list of New England Patriots players. All of them. I have gotten the offense done, and it amounts to several hundred players. It took about a week. If you want this listed as an FA, put in the work...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have put in the work, but it takes a while to source every name. There are approximately 400,000 living MSU alumni in the world — so no — I can't list all of them. I based the format of this list on List of HIV-positive people, which currently lists around 250 people. It passed FLC with strong support, even though there have been at least 65 million people in this world with HIV/AIDS. I am ready, willing, and able to put in a reasonable amount of work, buy when it comes to gaining FT status, I prefer quality to quantity. Lovelac7 02:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody is asking you to list all the alumni, only the notable ones. Wikipedia notability guidlines say that all athletes that reach the professional level are notable enough to have a page of their own, and should certainly be included on this list. All All-Americans have been agreed to be notable enough for their own page as well, although I won't require you to go that far in order to have my support. VegaDark 03:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 0 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 00:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:This article was nominated for deletion way back in 2004. Since then, I have reorganised it and have brought in some strict inclusion criteria to respond to the original objections that the list was extremely POV. It is now heavily referenced, and includes links to main articles on the topics raised as well as highlighting notable software patents that do not, of themselves, warrant a complete article. Comments on the talk page from previously concerned editors have been positive and have helped to push the article through several revisions into its current strucutre.

Details:

• Useful The article brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria and lists other important events on this notable topic, the inclusion of which are objectively sourced.
• Comprehensive The article is a dynamic list, since new software patents and new notable examples of software patents are appearing all the time. However, I am not aware of any major omissions - the big ones like the GIF and MP3 patents are there, for example.
• Factually accurate Heavily referenced article and I'm a patent attorney so know what I'm talking about, as are several other contributors.
• Uncontroversial The topic is controversial, as is the definition of "software patent". However, the article recognises this and explains the content of the list in the lead section such that the list itself is not controversial.
• Stable New patents are often added but there appear to be no outstanding conflicts over content or presentation.
• Well-constructed This was the toughest aspect in a topic which is so broad. The reaction on the talk page to my categorisation of patents, however, has been positive.

Looking forward to comments! GDallimore (Talk) 15:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Abstain.
  1. The introduction reads like a tendentious justification of the list and patents on software: "All modern industry depends upon programmed computers. As a consequence, a large number of patent applications filed, and patents granted, relate to programmed computers to some extent." (emphasis added) The causal link is dubious. All modern industry depends on good management. However, as far as I know, very few patent applications filed, and patents granted, relate to management. The introduction therefore lacks neutrality.
  2. The criterion for inclusion implies a grey area. The condition includes "[patents] which are notable due to their acknowledgment by the press, notoriety within the open source community or by virtue of high-profile litigation." I would suggest that it may omit major components of the subject. Example: EP0001640 (Koch & Sterzel - major opposition and appeal at the EPO).
  3. The criterion for inclusion is based on the Bessen/Hunt technique. However, this is just one possible technique proposed for identifying software patents, based on Bessen and Hunt own definition of a software patent ("We construct our own definition of a software patent (there is no official definition) and assemble a comprehensive database of all such patents." [1]). The selection of this particular technique and the omission of any other possible definition and technique for identifying software patents may indicate that the article is not comprehensive.
  4. The definition of a software patent is controversial. There is no official definition. It appears that the European Patent Office (EPO) does not use the term "software patent". The reason why the EPO does not use it but instead prefers the expression "computer-implemented invention" is not entirely clear to me, but this is a sign that there is a case for disputing the title itself. Why not using List of software patents and patented computer-implemented inventions?
  5. The article does not present a world-wide view. There is no Japanese patent and it seems there is a US bias.

--Edcolins 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty to number Edcolins objections for ease of reference and respond below:

1. Introduction changed to better reflect a statement made two paragraphs earlier in the originally cited High Court judgment.
2. I agree that cases like Koch and Sterzel are of interest to patent attorneys and are important when studying the history of law in this area, but such history is discussed in other articles at length (see Software patents under United Kingdom patent law). Rather than simply listing cases of historical interest that are already listed in these other articles, this article's criteria for inclusion means that the focus is on patent/applications that would be relevant and/or of interest to a wide range of readers, not just specialists per Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Under the Wikipedia-friendly entry criteria chosen, no major "components" are omitted per WP:FL? 1(b). Moreover, the entry criteria ensure that the article is a unique resource on the subject.
3. The fact that Bessen/Hunt is only one way of identifying software patents is not a reason for opposing the nomination as far as I can tell. The article makes clear what the criteria for inclusion are and the Bessen/Hunt technique is an especially practical and verifiable method for checking that a particular patent meets those entry criteria. The Bessen/Hunt technique is also known to provide a broad definition of "software patent" [2] so the resulting list is certainly not going to lack comprehensiveness on that basis.
4. I have already addressed this point in my original nomination. The general topic is undoubtedly controversial, but the article itself is completely open about what it is doing and how "software patents" are being defined. The article is therefore not controversial in itself. The particular definition of software patent chosen has been taken from a paper prepared by a reliable source. The fact that you (and I!) diagree with the definition and terminology does not alter that and our personal views on the topic are not reasons to oppose the nomination of the article. I've already tried reducing usage of the term "software patent" on Wikipedia, as you well know, but Wikpedians in general want articles about software patents it seems, not computer-implemented inventions. While I may not be happy about this, I can at least make sure that everyone understands what the preferred term implies and this article is an important part of that.
5. The lack of Japanese patents appears to be a reflection of the lack of litigation in Japan, not a flaw in the list. If you are aware of any notable Japanese patents, please add them! The US bias appears to be representative of the large amount of litigation in the US, and the fact that more software patents are granted there than anywhere else in the world. There is therefore no systematic bias within the article itself. I would point out that I am from the UK and therefore have no reason to promote a US bias. GDallimore (Talk) 16:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The new introduction "Patents and patent applications involving computer programs cover a wide range of topics, demonstrating the importance of the question of whether these patents, often labelled software patents, should be granted." fails verification: Paragraph 185 reads "If nothing else, the wide range of topics (...) demonstrate the importance of the exclusions." The legal importance of the exclusions of Art. 52 EPC is said to be demonstrated, not "the importance of the question of whether these patents, often labelled software patents, should be granted." IMHO the article provides an interpretation, which fails verification. The introduction is better than the previous one (more neutral) but may still qualify as original research.
2. What about U.S. patent 5,794,210? Cited here and here, and here for instance... How can we verify that the list is comprehensive?
3. ...
4. You wrote "The general topic is undoubtedly controversial, but the article itself is completely open about what it is doing and how "software patents" are being defined.". I am just wondering how the article can be "completely open" while at the same time comprehensive and stable (""Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject.").
5. ...

I will fill the "..." later. --Edcolins 21:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Edited again, although previous version was synonymous but avoiding UK-style language relating to "exclusions".
2. It's a dynamic list. If you think something is notable, add it. The fact that you can find brief mentions of a patent in a couple of papers and a press-release style article doesn't make it massively notable and doesn't mean that "major components are omitted". It's funny that I had that particular patent cited against me once as prior art...
3. ...
4. You're objecting to the entry criteria, here, not the content of the article. The entry criteria are clearly stated so there is no controversy over what they are and are clearly defined so there is no controversy over what should be included. Ergo, no controversy.
5. ...

GDallimore (Talk) 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Solved.

2. to 5. The list seems to be open and the notability criterion seems not well-defined. Also, it seems to me that this is a list of important software patents, like a list of important operas (look at the entry criterion), and a more objective criterion (for the notability aspect) may need to be added... On the other hand, some featured lists appear more "open" than others, take Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc: "The entries represent portrayals that a reader has a reasonable chance of encountering rather than a complete catalog. Lesser known works, particularly from early periods, are not included." (and the title is not Important cultural depictions of Joan of Arc..).

So I don't pretend to be an expert of featured list nominations... and I don't want to be the only active opponent down here! So, anybody out there willing to provide a third opinion? Thanks! Until then, I abstain. --Edcolins 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the second reasn given by Edcolins. The current criterion does not strictly enough define what should be included. -Phoenix 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed above, the second reason for the opposition is not that there is no strict definition of what should be included, but that the criteria for inclusion are narrower than he would like. The criteria for inclusion are actually well defined and I have responded to Edcolin's actual reason opposing the nomination above. GDallimore (Talk) 16:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, I do not agree that the criterion for inclusion is well-defined. "[Software patents] which are notable due to their acknowledgment by the press, notoriety within the open source community or by virtue of high-profile litigation" is probably not sufficiently well-defined... --Edcolins 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary response to all of the objections above. I have been going over various Wikipedia essays and guidelines, most importantly Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia which I think contain some very useful guidance about creating well-defined entry criteria for a controversial topic such as software patents. Having gone over these, I have made the following changes:

• I have changed the way the entry criteria are expressed to make clear that, by "notable" software patents, we mean software patents that are notable under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and includes a couple of guiding examples. I think this solves the problem of whether the entry criteria are well-defined on that front.
• I have added the {{dynamic list}} template to make clear that this list will always be subject to change.

The only remaining issue, I think, is whether this list can ever be non-controversial by virtue of the controversial question of how you actually define a software patent. Without doubt, the method presented by the article can be verified against every patent in the list, so there is no controversy there. The only controversy is in the choice of this particular definition as the entry criteria. I offer the following:

• The definition is presented in an paper by well-established academics in the field. The paper was also apparently quite important in the CII debate since there was so little reasearch at the time (and there still is). Finally, Public Patent Foundation used this criteria themselves to identify software patents (as the article used to point out, but the link has now died). I think it therefore complies with Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
• There is only controversy in the particular definition of "software patent" if, along with that definition, you apply the hardline view that everything that is a software patent is bad. The paper doesn't say this (although it is, sadly, generally critical of software patents) and the article itself highlights important developments as well as the more notorious patents. Therefore there is no systematic bias within the entry criteria for or against software patents and, as a result, I think WP:NPOV is complied with.

Are there any other criteria for objecting to this definition of software patent in an article titled "list of software patents"? GDallimore (Talk) 21:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest the list should include the 'Freeny' patent (assuming it counts as a software patent), which caused many software & web companies trouble worldwide; see e.g. [3] Ben Finn 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it yourself (as it appears to meet the software patent definition) but I know nothing about it and the article you cite doesn't give much info.GDallimore (Talk) 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know enough about it. Ben Finn 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment. The new notability criterion violates WP:SELF. In addition, don't assume the Wikipedia notability criterion to be stable and clear. The entry criterion is still unclear IMHO. I oppose.

What about creating a criterion, which would not contain any self-reference, such that:

For a software patent to be included in the list, its number or a clear and unambigous reference to the patent, must have been cited in at least five (ten?) of the following sources:

• New York Times - Washington Post - BBC News - The Times - Guardian - FT - Die Welt - Le Monde - Le Figaro - Wall Street Journal - International Herald Tribune - epi Information - Intellectual Asset Management - Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice - Managing Intellectual Property - Patent World - IEEE Spectrum - Nature - Scientific American - Slashdot? The Register? Heise News Ticker? .. what else? Japan, Chinese newspapers?

Sources would need to be provided (of course). The criterion for entering the list would be explained clearly at the bottom of the article. The list should preferably be based for instance on a published list of ten most influencial newspapers in the world, and the like for the scientific, economic and legal communities. The list of reliable sources should be justified to ensure stability of the criterion. Just a suggestion... --Edcolins 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's just silly. Even though I don't think that it what WP:SELF is talking about, I've changed the article to simply say "notable" and give some examples of how notability might be achieved. "Notability" is a clear concept and the suggestion that it isn't clear when opposing this nomination is, frankly, stunning in light of the huge amount of effort that has gone into the WP:Notability guidelines.

You suggestion of requiring 5 citations in a list of particular sources is massively onerous on any editor - I doubt that I could find five such references for a single one of the patents currently cited in the list and wouldn' expect an editor to go that far. It's also rule creep (or whatever the term is) when such precision in identifying something that is notable is simply not necessary. Compare the definition of "software patent". That is extremely easy to apply to any patent you may want to check against the entry criteria. Same for "notability". If you can find a couple of reliable sources, then you're fine - not only do you not need to insist that the sources be from particular places, but you don't want to because such a list might bring with it systematic bias.

So, I think you opposition on this point is flawed and groundless as well as not in keeping with Wikipedia guidlines. Your suggestion for a different entry criteria seems equally flawed. GDallimore (Talk) 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back over this last comment, I think I need to explain better why I think the current reason for the opposition is untenable: If notability is an adequate requirement for whether or not an article can be on Wikipedia, then it must also be an adequate requirement for whether a particular patent can be included in this list. Therefore the entry requirements are clear. GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Regarding your edit summary "you could have fixed this youself".. Well, I have not fixed it myself, because I could not see any satisfactory way to fix it. Since your fix is a come back to the previous version [4] which I already commented, I have nothing to add. I don't think my suggestion is massively onerous to contributors. Google can help and some research might be necessary indeed.

My suggestion might not be enough anyway, it still leaves untouched the issue of the verifiability of the comprehensiveness (Wikipedia:Verifiability, ""Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope ... in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." - 1. (b) WP:FL?). How can you help us to be convinced that no major component is omitted?

I am not an expert in this kind of nomination. Third opinions would be welcome on the following suggested question:

• Can the notability of an entry in a list constitute a criterion for inclusion which is sufficiently clear and precise for the list to become a featured list? If yes, in which circumstances and under which conditions?

Thanks. --Edcolins 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comparable example can be found in this discussion: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people. That article had a discussion of clear entry requirements (notability was considered a perfectly adequate entry requirement and was, in fact, an assumed entry requirement) and comprehensiveness ({{Dynamic list}} addressed the concerns). GDallimore (Talk) 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this featured list of HIV-positive people. I didn't know this one. The inclusion entry seems to be: if there is a Wikipedia article, then an entry can be added in the list. This ensures that a proper debate is possible for each entry. The present list is different in this respect. What about using the same criterion: if there is a Wikipedia article for the software patent, then it can enter the list. (Does this violate WP:SELF? I dunno)

Other suggestions for improvement:

(i) What do you think of the new layout? It improves readability I think. The current layout is a bit confusing IMHO.

(ii) We need an automatic tool for checking whether the patent/patent application description meets the Bessen/Hunt technique. Otherwise I don't see how to easily check the Bessen/Hunt criterion against a European patent. A macro parsing the esp@cenet description page would be needed.

(iii) The entries in the "miscellaneous" section do not fit with the remaining categorization. The patents in this section should be merged into the other categories (otherwise they could appear in two categories - since there two classifications). Only one categorization criterion, the technological field, is needed.

--Edcolins 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 0 support, 3 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to submit this list for review as a FL. Yes, I know, it got fair-use images (and some of you might think of it as excessive), but so do the FLs List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of South Park episodes and all the sub-lists from List of The Simpsons episodes, thus in there shouldn't be a different treatment for my suggestion.
The list does, as far as I can tell, meet all the criteria of a FL, but I need some other opinions about it. Except for "too many FU images, thus it's bad"-comments if possible ;-) --SoWhy ^Talk 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object The episode summaries are single sentences at times. They should be a solid, but short paragraph that summarizes the episode from beginning to end. The images don't have acceptable fair use rationales for this list. The specific use must be explained. Claiming the image is encyclopedic and aides critical commentary is not sufficient because you could say that about any image anywhere. Jay32183 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the guideline for LOEs (lists of episodes) is to follow the example of other featured list LOEs (pictures are optional, due to the FU controversey), so I would recommend that you model this after an LOE like the ones you listed, or also like List of The Sopranos episodes or List of The Unit episodes. Cliff smith 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually did. The layout is from the SG-1 list, apart from the short summaries (as Jay said above), what differences do you see? --SoWhy ^Talk 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Color-coding, and a Season table to go with it. SG-1 was FL long before the more recent consensus on how to do LOEs. It's not an extreme difference, but even the template for episode lists—{{Episode list}}—provides for color coding. Cliff smith 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are too many redlinks, and the episode summaries are far too short. The summaries don't summarise the plot - they just give a teaser, as would be found in a TV listings magazine. For example, "A Marine dies in a night skydiving accident, but Gibbs thinks it was murder." That tells me nothing beyond the first few minutesof the episode. Why was the Marine skydiving at night? What sort of accident was it? Who is Gibbs? Why does he think it was murder? Why is Gibbs thinking it's murder such a big deal? Who is suspected of the murder? Does it turn out to be murder? The sentence makes me want to go out and watch the episode, but it doesn't summarise the plot. Tompw (talk) (review) 11:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are right of course, just like Jay32183. Being the only active maintainer of this list, I will go over the list and fix that as soon as possible, which tho will take some days. I don't see the redlinks as a big problem tho, because the purpose of the list is, as you said when criticizing the short summaries, that you can find out the important information about an episode from the list without need of a subpage (if there is none). --SoWhy ^Talk 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally, with list items, you don't redlink all remaining terms until there are very few left. If every item of the list deserves an article then it should probably have before becoming an FL. There's the possibility that not all the items deserve articles, especiially if those articles will just be detailed plot summaries. Wait until you have production and reception info to build individual pages, and leave black text on those for which you have not found that info in the mean time. Jay32183 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps it would be best to "postpone" the nom. till all the episode pages are created and the summaries are completed? I don't watch NCIS so I can't offer much help. Also, what about converting to {{episode list}}? Matthew 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it has screenshots. JuJube 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't anymore. Jay32183 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. No consensus to promote; also fails WP:WIAFL 1a (it's not a list of exsisting articles). Fail. Tompw (talk) (review) 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-nominated list that details records for all professional seasons played by the St. Louis Rams in their franchise history. The list displays regular season win-loss-tie records for each year, including playoff results. It is properly formatted and no additional research is required other than updating the list at the conclusion of a completed season. It follows a similar format to Chicago Bears seasons, which is a WP:FL except for the player/coaches awards which are located at St Louis Rams statistics. I wanted to keep this list about the franchise history and not about individual accomplishments. Support as creator. --Pinkkeith 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This list still needs some additional work before getting my support vote. First, wikis need to be cleaned up for duplicate entries (i.e. playoff teams). Second, the "One Game Playoff Birth" legend is not necessary if not used in your list. This should be removed. RyguyMN 06:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment, I cleaned that up. --Pinkkeith 10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a good list, just like the others. But if I were you, I'd keep it in line with the other lists, and add awards. Wlmaltby3 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, fine. -Phoenix 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tompw (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there should be an article per season. Also, going by Minnesota Vikings seasons, the first column should contain links to NFL seasons, then there should be a column with links to the team's seasons. Tompw (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Witholding support pending one fix: The 1950 season says they won the National Conference championship, yet the list also indicates that they belonged to the west division and that the league did not organize into "National" and "American" conferences until 1951??? One of those things is wrong. Also, I too would like to see the awards added so that ALL of the lists are consistent and have the same format, but I will not hold up my support for that issue. The 1950 entry needs fixing, though...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, the 1950 season is when the league went into National and American conferences. I still don't feel that individual awards should go into a list that is about a franchise seasonal record. --Pinkkeith 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • now fully support. Though, I still have some reservations, per the comments below (no awards column, season results not linked to individual articles). This really should be nearly identical to the Bears and Vikings articles, as THOSE were featured, and so consensus holds that the format should look just like those...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose template should link the actual season articles, of which there currently are only 4 (the template at the bottom makes it clear they are aimed for creation). Circeus 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment keep it in line with the Chicago Bears seasons, Minnesota Vikings seasons, and New England Patriots seasons lists. An awards column is needed and the font needs to be reduced in size...if these changes are made then I will give it a vote of support. --Happyman22 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Absolutely agreee Happyman22. There is a growing trend of inconsistency with these latest season lists up for WP:FL. Let's keep in line with Bears and Vikings. I followed the Bears to a tee when I made the Vikings list because that qualified as FL. Thanks. RyguyMN 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I actually made this page back in October and modeled it after the Bears list format at that time when it was made an FL. Yet, I will add the awards section. I was also thinking of adding the team awards as well. --Pinkkeith 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I added the NFL seasons and league awards to this edit [5], and I also added the team awards to this edit [6]. Let me know what you think. The first edit had Jerome Bettis' OROY award in the incorrect column, but that can be easily fixed. --Pinkkeith 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also noted that the 1944 season was missing the link to the 1944 NFL season. That has been correct. --Pinkkeith 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Tompw (talk) (review) 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. I created this article over three years ago and am responsible for much of its content, but it has received hundreds of valuable edits from many (I would estimate around 50) other Wikipedia editors as new sets were released. This is probably the most comprehensive single page on the subject that exists on the Internet. It has already been cited by the official Wizards of the Coast Magic: The Gathering website as a comprehensive reference to Magic sets (see http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1006). The page is stable; as seen from the talk page, the last content dispute of any length was two-and-a-half years ago, and the content consists of verifiable and cited facts. I recently decided to try to bring the article up to featured status, by adding more citations, adding ALT text to images, etc. You can see the differences from before and afterwards. I believe it now satisfies all the Featured List criteria. —Lowellian (reply) 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose pending the following changes:

• External links in body text. Need to be removed.

Hm. That's it. Otherwise it looks good. Make the fix, and I would change my vote.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find one instance of an external link (it was a link to the MTG Gatherer database) within the body text, and I have converted it into a citation reference. If there are any more instances, please let me know. —Lowellian (reply) 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support Problem solved. No more issues. Great list article! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • vote changed again, see below. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good now. -Phoenix 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not all of the release dates are sourced. Same goes for the set counts and codenames. The images don't have fair use rationales. The image in the lead will probably not have a possible rationale. There's no reason to show either of those cards. Jay32183 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address these objections:

• "Not all the release dates are sourced."

I originally only sourced the exact release dates (the ones that give an exact date rather than just the month). I have now sourced the inexact month release dates as well. Every single set now has either the prerelease or release date sourced (as discussed in the article, the prerelease is always a Saturday, and the release is always (from 1996 to 2003) two Mondays after the pre-release or (from 2003 onwards) two Fridays after the pre-release.

• "Same goes for the set counts..."

The set counts are sourced at the top of the table column, rather than for each set individually. Both the official Gatherer database and Crystal Keep give all set counts, the former giving card-by-card details and the latter giving rarity summaries as well as checklists. I have cited both sources. Within the table itself, I give additional citations in special cases (for example, to explain why Alpha has 7 fewer cards than Beta and Unlimited even though the three sets were originally intended to be identical, and to address "secrets" like the ultra-rare in Unhinged).

• "...and codenames."

All development codenames are now cited.

• "The images don't have fair use rationales."

The expansion symbols are being used in an educational manner, to explain how to identify cards and their sets. The expansion symbols on this page constitute only a minor part of the product (Magic cards) that Wizards of the Coast is selling, and has no effect on Wizards of the Coast's ability to sell their cards. Also, keep in mind that rather than objecting to this article for its use of expansion symbol images, Wizards of the Coast has directed its official website's readers to this Wikipedia article precisely for its comprehensive explanation of those expansion symbols (see http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1006).

• "The image in the lead will probably not have a possible rationale. There's no reason to show either of those cards."

As the image caption explains, those two cards are being used in an educational manner to show the location of expansion symbols on the cards and as two examples of cards from different sets and of different rarities to show how expansion symbols identify both set and rarity of a card. These two cards are a bare fraction of the sets that Wizards of the Coast is selling. Wizards of the Coast sells boxes, tournament packs, and booster packs, not individual cards as singles. I assert that the low-quality images of these two cards has no effect on the ability of Wizards of the Coast to sell Magic cards.

—Lowellian (reply) 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images still do not have fair use rationales. That's not something you get to decide, all unfree images must have fair use rationales. Please read WP:FUC. Not harming Wizards of the Coast only satisfies FUC#2, there's still the other nine. The lead image definitely fails FUC#8 because you're showing cards without explanation for those cards. I don't need to see a picture to understand that the expansion symbols appear on the right side of the middle of cards. Jay32183 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fair use rationales are there. Going through all the criteria on that page:

1. There is no free equivalent for either Magic cards or expansion symbols. They are the subjects of the article.
2. As explained above, they do not replace market role of the copyrighted material.
3. Very little copyrighted work is being used, the minimum possible. The two cards shown are in a low-resolution image.
4. The material has indeed been previously published, both in real-life (on and as cards), in books like the Magic Encyclopedia, and on the Internet.
5. The material is encyclopedic. It serves an educational and informative value within the encyclopedia.
6. They meet Wikipedia's image use policy.
7. They are used in at least one article (specifically, this one).
8. They do contribute significantly to the article. I don't see why you say it fails FUC#8. Explaining that an expansion symbol is on the right side of the card is not the same as a picture showing exactly where it is — and hence it serves an educational and informative value. And the expansion symbols are clearly needed; you can't just say something looks like a globe on a helix, which could be imagined hundreds of different ways...you need to show it for the reader of the encyclopedia.
9. The images are only being used in the article namespace.
10. The images are identified as originating from Wizards of the Coast.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand why you say these images don't fall under fair use. —Lowellian (reply) 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There must be a fiar use rationale on the image page of all unfree images. The image in the lead does not make a significant contribution, as there is no critical commentary on those cards or on magic cards in general. That image needs to go. No one really needs to see it, just saying it is educational doesn't make it educational. Not one of the images passes FUC#10. Jay32183 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I look at the image pages the fair use rationales are not there. You can't argue your way around it. The rationale is either there or it is not. I checked and it is not. Jay32183 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now added fair use rationale to the image page of every single image appearing on the page. —Lowellian (reply) 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "cookie cutter" rationales are insufficient. To satisfy FUC#8 it has to say why "this image is in this article". Simply saying that the image contributes significantly is not enough, you must explain why the image contributes significantly. As for the image in the lead, my objection stands as long as the image is in the article. If it is not removed I will continue to object because it makes zero contribution to the article, since text adequately conveys the same information. Jay32183 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the language more specific. I hope that helps. —Lowellian (reply) 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the image at the top, of the cards. I will quote the caption given on the article in full here:

"Two Magic: The Gathering cards, from different sets. The expansion symbol can be seen on the right side of the cards, below the art and above the text box. The card on the left, Worship, is from Ninth Edition, and the expansion symbol's golden coloration indicates the card is rare. The card on the right, Fireball, is from Darksteel, and the silver coloration of its expansion symbol indicates the card is uncommon."

Now, the caption makes it clear that the image is doing three things of informative value:

1. the exact location of the set symbol on cards, and its position relative to other elements on cards
2. through an example, how set symbols of two distinct sets differ, as seen on a card rather than in isolation
3. through an example, how set symbols of two different rarities differ, as seen on a card rather than in isolation

These pieces of information simply cannot be communicated as effectively via text alone. I specifically chose two cards from different sets and with different rarities for the image precisely in order to get across these points of information. Thus, the image has informative and educational value within the article. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • No fair use rationales
  • Improper title: It should be at least "List of Magic: the Gathering sets"
  • no spaces before refs, and they need to be after punctuation, per Wikipedia:Footnotes (prime example of footnotes thrown on another lines by this.
  • I believe the article would gain from splitting the long content notes separately from the references themselves with templates (e.g. as in List of European Union member states by political system.
• Circeus 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can address the first three objections:

• "No fair use rationales"
  • See above, for fair use rationale.
• "Improper title"
  • In this case, I think putting "list of" in front of the article would actually make for an improper title, because the article is not really just a list, but rather one of those article-list amalgamations. The Magic: The Gathering article does not discuss sets, but the Magic: The Gathering sets article does explain the subject of sets, and in considerable detail. Not all Featured Lists start with "List of"...it depends on the subject matter. Featured Lists that do not start with "List of" include BAFTA Award for Best Film, Periodic table (large version), ISO 3166-1, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, Nuclear power by country, and Territorial evolution of Canada, to name a few.
• "No spaces before refs, and they need to be after punctuation"
  • I have gotten rid of all spaces I could find before refs, and I have now moved them after punctuation. (Edit: For a few instances, such as for example:
    • 359 cards (110 common, 110 uncommon, 110 rare, 20 basic land, 9 starter[III])
  • I left the reference before the end punctuation because the reference refers to the 9 starter cards specifically, rather than the entire rarity breakdown in parentheses. —Lowellian (reply) 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC) End Edit.)[reply]

—Lowellian (reply) 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it took more work, but I have now addressed the fourth objection as well:

• "splitting the long content notes separately from the references themselves"
  • I have done this.

—Lowellian (reply) 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not hapy with the title, but I do seem the only one having issues with it. On the otehr hand, your "date" fields in {{cite web}} needs to be properly linked so they don't show up as ISO dates. Do that and I'll support. Circeus 12:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for (on User talk:Circeus) and am waiting for some clarification on what change needs to be made to address this. —Lowellian (reply) 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• change vote to oppose Re Fair use: NO... the rationale you list here doesn't fix the problems with the image pages. The text you put above is VERY good, but it needs to be on each individual image page. Simply listing it here doesn't do any good. JayG has noted that the rationales are NOT on the image pages. That MUST be fixed. I am cool with the title, since not EVERY list does not need to be boilerplated with the "List of" title, especially since this article has a lot of text, and is a hybrid list/article. Fix the image pages, and I will change my vote back (again!) --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added fair use rationale to the image page of every single image appearing on the page. —Lowellian (reply) 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would qualify as a non-"excessive" use of fair use images to you? SnowFire 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renata, this time, I agree with you. Showing the each logo three times? Also, there isn't any text to illustrate. I thought there was an agreement that simplying mentioning something wasn't enough to justify the use of an unfree image. The logos should probably be limited to the set pages, where there is detailed discussion of the set rather than just the set's name and release date. Jay32183 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are three logos for each set, so three logos are shown. When a company releases three different versions of a product, each with a different logo, to reasonably explain the product, all three logos should be shown. To show less then all three logos would render the informational content of the article incomplete. One will not do, for the reason that the three set images illustrate the three different rarities in each set. In some of the sets, especially the more recent ones, there are actually small design differences between the three versions besides coloration. —Lowellian (reply) 04:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, given that the fair usage rationales are placed on each image page (which is an easily fixable matter, and seems to have already been done?). There is no magical threshold above which further fair use images become "bad;" each and every one of those icons is useful as an identifier of cards from the set, and irreplaceable by another image (I can draw my own scimitar, but it won't be the actual logo people use to identify the set which renders it useless). There are a lot of Magic sets, and that's all there is to it. These are not pretty decorative pictures; these are symbols that are the main way people differentiate Magic sets, since the back of each card is the same.

As for the title matter, eh, it's a push. There are vague arguments either way for "List of" vs. no list, and it's not worth the effort. Either title is fine, so the current one wins by default.

The card images on top of the article... are somewhat less vital, I will grant. Still, they provide a useful contrast for the rarity coloration issue, and provide an introduction to the card face for those completely unfamiliar (a good thing, no?). If they're the only thing holding the list back, I'd say to go ahead and remove them, but I think a case can be made there as well, though they are more relevant to the "article" content of the text rather than the list portions. SnowFire 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now. For real this time. No take backs. And, for those that complain that there are "too many" Fair Use images on this page, I am not sure that there is any policy that says you can only have X number of fair use images on a page. They are all small, they illustrate the sets in question, and other featured lists, such as: List of South Park episodes. That articles uses Fair Use images with at least the same frequency as this one, and the images serve the same illustrative purpose.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't an specific number, but showing the same symbol multiple times is a violation of FUC#3. "Don't use multiple unfree images when one will do" Jay32183 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment above on this issue in response to Renata's comment. —Lowellian (reply) 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not one of the images in the article contributes significantly, as there is no discussion of anything in the article. Mentioning something is not the same as discussing it. The logos are fine on the set articles, the image in the lead is not suitable anywhere on Wikipedia. Jay32183 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most television episode Featured Lists show a screenshot from every single episode without discussing the screenshot's setting, characters, etc., in the context of that episode. However, the screenshots are allowed because they serve as a visual identifier for each element of the list, that is, each episode. Similarly, in the case of the current nominated article, each set symbol serves as an identifier for each element of the list, that is, each set. Furthermore, the article also discusses how each set symbol identifies the set and how there are three different set symbols for all the more recent sets. It does explain in a short phrase what each set symbol is supposed to represent. —Lowellian (reply) 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not retract the objection until all the images are removed, because they all fail FUC#8. By the way, there are not three logos for each set, there is one logo in three different colors. Jay32183 05:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "discussion of anything?" Could you be more specific as to what kind of discussion still germane to a featured list rather than article would make these images fair use? I'm unclear as to why they'd be fair use on the set page, but not the list page (which is the entryway to the set page), and the images act as identification.

Perhaps some analogical reasoning might help. Suppose that there was an IUPAC-specified logo for each element in the periodic table, and furthermore that these logos were used extremely often for identification (on every single container of sodium would be sodium's logo, and the letter equivalent Na would be used only rarely). Would it be appropriate to identify each element with its logo on a fair-use periodic chart? SnowFire 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be appropriate to put the logos on the periodic table, and this example is actually worse than the actual list we're dealing with. Using the symbol Na is completely free and therefore the logo would fail the fair use criteria in any article not specifically discussing the logo. The logo for Ravnica can be used in the Ravnica article, the logo for sodium could not be used in the sodium article because there is a completely free way to do it without losing any information. You can't show an unfree image just because something is mentioned, it has to be discussed. Jay32183 01:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we have a bit of a disagreement on criteria 8. To quote:

The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

The standard is significance, and a direct example used was "identify the subject of an article." These images meet that standard by being a clear improvement to the article, and not decorative presentation-improvers.

As for the periodic table example, the letter versions would not "adequately give the same information," since in this hypothetical example most people are familiar with the image logos and few know the letter equivalents. I was focusing more on FUC #8 with the example; didn't mean to confuse the issue with #1.

I will also again repeat my request before: what kind of discussion would make these images fair-use in your view? If you have something in mind, then it can be probably added to the list. SnowFire 01:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These images to not identify the subject of the article. The Ravnica logo would idnetify the subject of the Ravnica article, but not this list. There isn't any text to illustrate. The way the logos are used isn't the same as most of the episode lists. If you compare it to an episode list then it is one with images but without plot summaries. There has been pretty universal agreement that that is not allowed. I believe there has been a debate about sports logos in the past with the outcome that the logos couldn't be used just because the team was mentioned. The same rule should apply here. Jay32183 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The multiple expansion symbols are not excessive, if this article stood alone. However, if you take a look at some of the individual set pages, you'll see that they only show the common (black) expansion symbol. But each set's individual entry should have more information that the page listing all the sets, not less. Therefore, I suggest taking one of the following actions:

a) Swap with the individual entries. That is, put the three in each set's page, leaving the common version on the list.

b) Move the symbols. That is, put all three in each set's page, removing them completely from this one.

c) Copy what the individual pages do; just leave the common version here (and remove the description).

d) Remove all the symbols (and their descriptions) on this page.

I would personally recommend c, to be consistent with the individual entries. But even with that accomplished, I would still be hesitant to support this, as the majority of the article reads like a list right now. And again, the important details of each set should go in that set's page. The tables are nice for comparison, but it really is information overload right now. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got confused between featured list and featured article, sorry. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I find this to be one of the best suggestions so far. It makes sense that each individual set page has a stronger fair use rationale for including all three. Only a couple demonstrative side-by-sides need to be shown. Perhaps just use the Time Spiral symbols to illustrate all four varieties, and only include commons for each of the other sets. Cool Hand Luke 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Since a lot of the discussion on this page has turned around the question of the use of the images, I wonder if this featured article has a problem, or if the solution used there is effective? Every image I checked on that page had both a fair use rationale and apparently permission for limited use from the BSA. FrozenPurpleCube 08:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per non-excessive usage of fair use imagery. Matthew 08:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:MOS (and WP:WIAFL #2), the notes and references should be in seperate sections. I suggest using {{note label}} and {{ref label}} for thoe notes. Tompw (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now split out the notes and references into separate sections as suggested. —Lowellian (reply) 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdraw opposition on those grounds Tompw (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I will point out that the set symbols being used on the article are greatly reduced in size from the full versions released by Wizards of the Coast. For instance, (Image:Magic10thedition.jpg) is much smaller than http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/mtgcom/arcana/1271_10E_ExpSym_Rare.jpg and (Image:21pixTSBexpsymbol.png) is much smaller than http://www.wizards.com/global/images/mtgcom_feature_364_picMain_en.gif. —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm still unhappy enough with the article,s title not to actually support the nomination.Circeus 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]