Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2005

Self nom. Comprehensive "day in history" page with references and illustrations. PedanticallySpeaking 16:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Um - "comprehensive"? Are you saying that everything of note that happened on 20 July ever is listed here, as well as anyone of note born or died on 20 July? Sorry, but I find that rather hard to believe. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if that's a joke or not. If it isn't, then I'm using "comprehensive" to mean "thorough". PedanticallySpeaking 17:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a serious concern. How sure are you this list is "comprehensive" enough? And a long list is not necesarilly thorough. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a joke, I am afraid. Compare the coverage of events before 1900 to events during the 20th century: it seems that there were only two events of note on 20 July before 1700, only 2 in the first half of the 19th century, and only a dozen or so in the second half of the 19th century, but a whole section on every decade since; also, it would appear that only one person of note was born on 20 July before 1500, and only one person of note died on 20 July before 1000. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 20th century events I researched myself through the New York Times. The handful of events before that are drawn from day-in-history reference books and lists such as those cited in the references and include all of those I could find. Yes, I would like to have more earlier events, but do not know how I should obtain them. PedanticallySpeaking 15:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article and use the "What links here" link in the toolbox. Read through all the articles and pick the relevant info. Sounds like a lot of work, but I think this kind of pages are unmantainable anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object:
  1. The images Image:William Jennings Bryan.JPG, Image:Xuantong.jpg, Image:Biljana-plav.jpg have no source information.
  2. The image Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg appears to have an unknown copyright status. I can't read German, so I can't check up on this.
  3. The images Image:2002 wolympics logo.jpg, Image:Uganda-Amin-10-Shillings-cr.jpg, Image:WI-SRex-C 2x3 240.jpg, Image:James Doohan 1980s.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but are used for decorative purposes only. This is not allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.
  4. The image Image:Jacques Delors Janez Drnovsek.jpg is tagged as "GFDL". There is no evidence that this is the case, though. The source site's copyright statement seems to have gone 404.

  --Carnildo 08:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We couldn't have a featured debate without objections over the photographs. The pictures objected to in point one for having no sourcing are all public domain photographs for Pu Yi and Bryan; as for the Bosnian, the photo's record says "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose." The Hitler photograph is described as "public domain." The images described under point three are clearly allowed under the fair use page cited, which specifically mentions logos, currencies, and publicity photographs. And the fourth point mentions a GFDL license. So I don't see any objection to using any of these photographs.

Do you have any comments on the text? PedanticallySpeaking 15:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. They may be public domain, or they may not. Without a source, there's no way of checking.
2. The image Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg has a very big {{unknown}} tag and a link to w:de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Bilder aus dem 3. Reich / Heinrich Hoffmann. I can't read German, but it looks like someone's disputing that the image is in the public domain.
3. The images under point (3) are very clearly not allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use. It specifically mentions "logos, currencies, and publicity photographs for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship, or research". Further, "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".
4. The image under point (4) is tagged as GFDL. There is no evidence that it is licensed under the GFDL.
5. It is quite possible to have a "featured" discussion without me objecting on the grounds of image copyright problems. You just need to resolve possible copyright problems before nominating the article. About half of all nominations seem to manage this.

--Carnildo 00:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object – Agree with ALoan. I don't think a date or year can ever be called 'thorough' or 'complete' to qualify for FLC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I disagree that date and year pages can never reach "Featured List" standards. It may be a hell of a lot more difficult than with normal lists, but it should certainly be possible, just as it's hypothetically possible for almost any article to reach "Featured Article" standards; "comprehensive" means "extremely thorough", not "perfect". Renominate this once it's less chronologically biased towards recent events. Incidentally, now that User:Calton has removed all the images from this page, readers will be infinitely less likely to actually read more than a couple of lines of the page. People need prettiness. In enormous lists more than anything, to keep the article grounded in actual people, places, events, etc., and not let it just slide into a giant sea of words and numbers. -Silence 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. PedanticallySpeaking 15:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This list was originally an incomplete list of PC games added to Dungeons & Dragons. I spent several hours researching this and expanded it. It was spun off back in December 2004, since then it has recieved extensive overhaul to include other platforms and appears to be quite comprehensive. Support  ALKIVAR™ 04:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Seems to have a random selection of non-free images for decorative purposes; ie. no critical commentary. This doesn't seem to meet the rules of Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 06:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding, and perhaps I am wrong (but I did run this by people on IRC) that these screenshots as they are related to both the software name as well as the article still qualifies as a fair use.  ALKIVAR™ 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide a fair use rationale for each use of the image in an article other than the one directly concerned with the image (e.g. why the "Baldur's Gate" cover is more useful in the article than any other random one). The fair use images in Cyberpunk do this very well, for instance. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object No references, jguk 22:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JG, the only references I needed was my stack of cdroms, and wikipedia itself. I cant very well put that down as a reference now can I?  ALKIVAR™ 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know your stack of CD-ROMS is complete? jguk 07:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt and I never claimed it to be. No list will ever be complete, they are still making the games!  ALKIVAR™ 08:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created by SuperDude115 on 2:58, 10 June 2005 (UTC). Since that time it has expanded to list every song that "Weird Al" Yankovic has released commercially on his 11 studio albums, 5 compilation albums and Peter and the Wolf. It also lists "Spy Hard", the theme of the film of the same name that was included on the Spy Hard soundtrack.

The list is in tabular form where it lists the name of the song, the album/s of which it appears and whether it is an original, a parody of a song, or a parody in the style of a particular band or artist.

Originally this listed all songs and albums in "Title Caps". I have since changed this to conform to the current naming convention, as set out at Wikipedia:Naming convention#Album titles and band names, where states that "the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (to, over, through) or articles (an, a, the, that)."

The list also conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) where it states that italics should be used for titles of musical albums and that titles of shorter works, such as songs, should be enclosed in "double quotation marks".

With regard to links, only those songs that have their own article are linked and only those artists or bands, whose works that were parodied, that have their own article are linked. Whilst on other Wikipedia articles sometimes the song is linked to the album on which it appears, it is not the case with this list.

With regard to the presentation of the table, the songs are listed in alphabetical order and both the song and the double quotation marks are bolded. (As a side note, there is currently no policy or guideline on whether when placing a song in bold, or anything else for that matter, that the double quotation marks should bolded or not. That is, whether it should be "song" or "song". I personally think that the first option looks neater and that's how it is throughout this list.) Where the song appears on more than one album, the albums are listed in the order of their release, from the earliest to the latest.

All of the information that is presented can be verified by the references that are listed.

In summary, this list complies with all the criteria as set out at Wikipedia:What is a featured list, it complies with the Manual of Style and the appropriate naming conventions. It is a useful, comprehensive, accurate list, well presented in tabular form that deserved to class to one of Wikipedia's finest. May I strongly encourage you to support this nomination. Thank you -- Ianblair23 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It would be useful if the lead could have a brief explanation of who "Weird Al" Yankovic is. Also, are the external links really references or are references absent? jguk 13:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. As a hard core Al fan, I think this list should attempt to also incluid songs not released comercially such as "Belevdere Cruisin'" and "Take me to The Liver" for the title to be accurate. --The_stuart 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the introduction should be longer; for instance, you could elaborate on why some parodies are wrongly attributed to "Weird Al" instead of just providing a link. The list would also be served by a picture of "Weird Al" or some other relevant image. You could make the table a bit more visually appealing by adding class="wikitable" to the syntax; I won't do it myself since it really is your call to decide and it really isn't that important. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Ok, I have addressed the above concerns. I have expanded the intro quite significantly by explaining who "Weird Al" is and what he has done. I have also added a picture of "Weird Al" and added class="wikitable" to the table. Would you now please reconsider your vote. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that this article should be integrated into the main "Weird Al" Yankovic page, and not be a seperate page. If you don't wan't to do this, there should at least be a link on the main "Weird Al" page pointing to this page. Thanks! swat671 01:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informative, referenced, stable, large majority of blue links, and with good introductory material. Doesn't have a picture, but that's not a requirement. Not really a self-nomination as I've only made one minor change. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Sorry it took me so long to discover that the list was nominated. Didn't know about nominations, or featured lists for that matter. I've now registered (67.161.117.149 and 209.124.189.39 are me; I tend to get logged out while I'm pondering the edits) and made some edits following below suggestions. It's nice to get feedback! - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A couple of possibilities for an image would be a map of the area, or a picture of Mount Everest. --Carnildo 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Satellite image with the location of some of the peaks now added.- Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm. The image showed up quickly last night, but today it comes very slow or (during peak hours?) even fails to arrive. We could make it a thumbnail, but it is nice to be able to look back and forth where the peaks are. - Afasmit 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks good. A map would indeed be very nice. More importantly, where is the information coming from? Is it all from the "High Asia" book mentioned at the end? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also a lot of links cited - RachelBrown 21:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right, but this is not what I meant (sorry for being unclear). As the page says, determining the heights is a tricky business, and different sources state different heights. As an example, Annapurna I is listed with a height of 8091m. Which source did this fact come from? Or do in this case, most sources agree? For some mountains, it is noted explicitly that the heights are taken from "High Asia"; can we have more of these notes? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A complete list of references would be rather long, but I will try to add links for some disputed heights in the near future. I've currently copped out by adding a few more general references. For picking the heights, things are easy where there is a consensus without any otherwise reliable sources disagreeing. This actually happens. Otherwise, here's roughly the order in which I would believe a height: (1) Recent articles or sites discussing a mountain's height, in which the author clearly is aware of the next sources () > (2) High quality, recent (mostly post-"High Asia" publication) topographical maps. (Danish survey of Nepal > Snowy Mountains of China > Alpenvereins maps & Russian 1:100,000 maps) > (3) the High Asia book > (4) The Alpine club library > (5) The list of high prominence mountains being prepared by Jonathan de Ferranti and friends. They haven't gotten around to High Asia yet, but these people are serious about this kind of stuff and their data will soon be the most reliable. (6) Anything else. Prominences are generally not mentioned, so they come from maps only and from the prominence-list people of course. Is there any need for me to spell my methods out like this. I haven't seen quite so much detail in other wikipedia articles. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object – 1) no lead, text needs a copyedit. 2) table looks ugly in 800x600, reduce the font size. 3) map + images needed 4) The status of Kashmir should be clarified. Without it, it may be a POV. Why 70 highest, why not 100? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I've extended the lead a bit. (2) How do you change the font size in a table? I've not been able to find instructions for it. (3) Done (4) See Poetlist's reply to that. I hope Tibet and Sinkiang are not considered POV either; they narrow the location a bit more than just China. (5) Why 70? The real reason is that Rachel Brown had started this page by copying a top 70 list from Ari's basecamp. However, a cut-off around 7300m is prudent, as many mountains reach that hight in areas for which no good maps are located. I've added this reason to the considerations text. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the initial list didn't just use Ari's basecamp - I altered quite a few heights after checking other sources, which were listed - though indeed that's why I stopped at 70. RachelBrown 21:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – a substantial and useful article. I suggest that the point about Kashmir is trivial; anyone who clicks on the link can find out about it, and it's peripheral to the list. Of course, you can always say why shouldn't the list be longer - why not 150 0r 200? You must stop somewhere! Poetlister 22:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will change my vote to support after a map is added. It can be just a dot map, like for the cities. Renata3 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map added, but I would like to make it fancier. Is it possible to add a graph with clickable links to the entries in the table? Probably not. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't think it's possible. However, the red numbers are extremely hard to see. And it is not complete clear what are the map shows (ie the scale). But the beginning is nice. Renata3 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - another fundamentally fine list, but (i) the lead needs to be longer than 11 words in one sentence; (ii) it needs some images (e.g. from Mount Everest and, ideally, a map showing where they are; (iii) there is no "References" section. Does all of the information come from the single listed "Source"? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by some of this. There are two sections of text after the contents; what would be the point of having them before the contents? There is also a list of external links in addition to the hard copy source. - RachelBrown 12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find this baffling. Please look at the requirements in Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, particularly the referneces to Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Cite sources. In short, the lead section (the section before the contents) needs to give a succinct summary of the whole article, setting the scene for the casual reader; and a "References" section should capture in one place all of the sources used to create and verify the information in the article. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what the lead section does; in accordance with Wikipedia philosophy, if you're not happy with it, please feel free to edit it. Would you be happier if the hard copy reference and the external links were in the same section, rather than adjacent to each other? - RachelBrown 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • (i) Made the lead a bit longer (though I think Rachel was right ;-), (ii) done (iii) Much of the data were found on the linked sites, but I've added some general sources. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think there is a very nice NASA sat. picture of the Himalayas somewhere in WP or Commons (I think it may even be featured) that would really enhance this article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I took the one that covered the region just right. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: On http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=List_of_highest_mountains I encountered #26 Chomo Lonzo rated at 7804 m / 25603 ft. However the current reference for this is pointing to "Makalu", which lists "Chomo Lonzo (7,818m/25,650')". I've updated the list page to reflect the elevations for Chomo Lonzo as on the Makalu page. -- {andyraff 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

The same reasoning as in previous nomination which failed mainly because there were too many red links. There are less of them now, so I think this list should be promoted to featured status.  Grue  18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.  Grue  18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. A rather impressive collection of restricted-license images there. If you're going to use them, all of them need to have sources indicated, and they all need to have fair-use rationales indicating why use on List of South Park episodes falls under the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law and the fair-use rules of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for more information. --Carnildo 22:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Lead needs to be expanded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can you make the tables the same width? 'cause now they all are different. Renata3 02:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - it is fundamentally a fine list, but (i) there is am image licence issue; (ii) the lead needs to be longer than 14 words in one sentence; (iii) the column widths should be made consistent, otherwise the layout looks a bit messy (see other FLs for examples of widths set by pixels or percentages); (iv) there are no references (set out in a section saying that that is what they are). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, regretfully, as per ALoan and Carnildo. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not a regular on FLCs, I'm not too sure of the "standard" of FALs, but I ran across this article (really a list of the Greek letters) and thought it was comprehensive and formatted nicely. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object References? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Must have slipped my mind. :-) I'll see what I can do in finding sources for some of the facts and footnoting them. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Tell me whem you get the references.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object I can't make out, on my browser, which is IE, the little digamma (which I thought looked the same as the capital digamma, although you may be looking for a sigma as used at the end of a word), either capital or little san (which is strange as they both look like the letter M!), either capital or litte qoppa (which I think look alike), and little sampi (which I thought looked like capital sampi). And that's just the sidebar. There are many other bits in the text that don't appear. Shouldn't there be a brief note on the iota subscript and how some ancient Greek words are nowadays deliberately written differently as the Ancients would have written them - for example τιμαω would really have been written as τιμω would it? jguk 18:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Small digamma: Some rare characters (e.g. lowercase digamma) simply don't appear in many fonts. The Web in general and Wikipedia in particular don't have a good way of dealing with this. Ideally, you'd have some way of including an image when a character was missing from a font, but there isn't any way to do this in HTML/Javascript. And if you do use an image, it doesn't resize correctly when you change font size globally....
• Shape of san: almost no fonts include San. It does in fact look an awful lot like an "M", but I agree that Latin M shouldn't be used to represent it.
• Iota subscript: this is discussed in Polytonic orthography, as it is more a diacritic than a letter. But I agree it should be cross-referenced.
• Differences in Ancient and Modern orthography: this is an article about the alphabet, not about grammar and spelling. The language has evolved over time, and in fact there were dialectal and usage differences in Ancient Greek, too, so that the contraction αω => ω is not a modern/ancient issue.

--Macrakis 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]