Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 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, 1 support, 3 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article lately, and feel that it has improved greatly, enough so that it meets the Featured List criteria. It is easily read and well-referenced. This is a self-nomination. Thank you for your time and scrutiny. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. The first section has no explanation of the UK/US/etc. columns (I think it is the same purpose as explained farther down the page. The lead has no mention of the videos (should they be here at all?) Whyt aren't Music videos in a table like the other sections? Why is Singles a sortable table but others like Albums aren't? Not some much about this page but why does the infobox use what looks like an anchor instead of a down arrow? Rmhermen 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have explained the music charts for each section. I have also tabled the videos and mentioned them in the lead. However, I don't understand what you mean by an anchor instead of a down arrow; whatever it is is in the template. I have made each section sortable as well. Thank you for your comments. Regards, Neranei (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Oppose: A couple things need to be fixed, IMHO:

1. Some dates are wikilinked, some aren't (in "Singles", specifically).

 Done --Neranei (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Some dates are full, some aren't (eg: "November, 1983"). That causes the sorting to be off when sorted by date.

Would you recommend removing all full dates, or what? Regards, Neranei (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Some tables have the columns in the order "Title" - "Release date" and some have those reversed. Columns should be in the same order for all the tables.

I did it for the musical ones, like albums, should I do it for the music videos? I also don't think it's a good idea to do that to the filmography; it would require moving the DVD and VHS release dates, should I do that? Neranei (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unwikilink years where appropriate (like the lede)

 Done --Neranei (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not convinced that the Canadian single chart listings are accurate as I have never heard "Window in the Skies" and "The Saints are Coming" was not a hit. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course the possibility that the information is inaccurate, if you can find a reliable source that disputes what is written, please feel free to change it. As for Window in the Skies, it is kind of a "fringe" single, if you will, it is available on iTunes. As for "Saints" being a hit or not, I don't think most people hear about things that aren't in the top ten, again, please change it if it's wrong; this is a wiki, you know! Best regards, Neranei (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to change it to. If I were to change it, I would probably remove that column. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Canadian single charts are relevant, but if you can find different, verifiable numbers, please change it. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until Billboard launched their chart, Canada did not really have a good singles chart. It just had two mediocre ones: one based on radio airplay, and another based on single sales (not digital downloads). –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 19:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so they're not really reliable until a certain date? Do you know when Billboard started in Canada? Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 7. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear, do you have any idea if there was a standard place that those other numbers came from? Should the Canada column be removed? Regards, Neranei (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical single sales and radio airplay. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • While I'm fond of the bullet-point format, I'm not opposing over it, but am pointing out it would be a welcome addition
    • How do you think that that would work in the article? Neranei (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made a mock up for Boy and October: /example. The catalog numbers and "chart position" cell are my interpretation only, but you get the point (although there is disagreement over the bolding...). You might want to look at the source: I eliminate almost all the "valign" by putting them on the row instead of the cells.
  • Please use m-dashes, not hyphens, and multiplication signs, not x letters
  • Years not in full dates aren't usually linked, and certainly neither should months+years.
  • Material not given a full release (here fan-club and The Complete U2 exclusives) are usually listed separately from those given with the chart table.
    • The The Complete U2-only release would probably warrant an extra section to tie them together.
  • Really don't like the singles table
    • "IRE" and "CAN" are used pretty consistently across our discogs for Ireland and Canada. Also, consider using the established format for the 2 U.S. charts instead of making up a new one that fails to connect them to a specific country.
    • I'm not sure the detailed dates are necessary for the singles (I think we list only years to make those huge tables more convenient). Different years, though, would be okay for notes. Besides, you forgot to adjust the header.
    • Could the albums be moved at the end?
    • Please widen the album and title columns to reduce the multi-line spread.
  • Circeus 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Several issues:

• Lead is insufficient; a two paragraph lead should suffice. A summary of the band's (major) releases with landmarks (such as compilations or hit albums) and information about record companies (for example, what is Island Records? An independent record label?)
• Several WP:MOSNUM fixes needed. 12 -> twelve etc.
• Which U.S. chart? Mention the Billboard 200 in the lead perhaps, and wikilink U.S. in the table headers to it. (Take a look at how other featured discograpies handle it).
• You may want to add rowspan to some table entries; it makes it clearer to read.

Let me know when you've addressed these issues! It's a good start. CloudNine 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • We usually link a chart or association article if it exists, otherwise, just the country, as far as I know. Circeus 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, this is the way most featured discographies handle country chart links (rather than spelling out the chart name in the header). "All albums' chart positions are shown in the British, American, Irish, and Swedish charts, respectively, along with their RIAA certification." is redundant (as well as the rest); such information can be gleaned from the tables themselves (esp. if they're wikilinked). CloudNine 00:12, 31 October 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: 11 days, 2 support, 3 oppose. Lack of consensus and active discussion. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent overview of the subject of economics, and one of the best entries in the collection of Lists of basic topics. The Transhumanist    18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose There are no sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a table of contents on a fundamental subject. What needs to be sourced, exactly? The Transhumanist    03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it is obvious, it needs some kind of source, otherwise it's OR. I'm uncomfortable about supporting an FLC with no sources whatsoever. As well, the lead should be longer and there should be something explaining all of the big topics ("Nature of economics", "Branches of Economics", etc.) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What kind of sources? Would references to the entries of an economics dictionary suffice? The Transhumanist    07:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support I dont like the section on History of economics, which purely has the link to the page of that name. Either white something there, put the link in a "see also" section or something else. Red links might need an article written on them. Twenty Years 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've covered up through the Industrial Revolution. If you like the approach there, I'll bring it up to present. The Transhumanist    01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect. Twenty Years 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This is what Portals are for. Colin°^Talk 16:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: portals don't come close to serving the same purpose as these lists. Basic topic lists are outlines that serve as tables of contents to their respective subjects. They are generally more systematic and more extensive than portals, because portals devote much of their space to displaying sample articles on a rotating schedule. Basic topic lists are a breakdown of the subject in a standard cheat sheet format. Portals are a main page/project hybrid and serve editors and readers, while tables of contents (basic topic lists) are a type of article and are intended just for readers. Basic topic lists are more like site maps, and are part of the encyclopedia itself. Portals and basic topic lists are two very different animals. Portals would be much too long if the basic topic lists were tacked on to them. The Transhumanist    01:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Lists of mathematics topics in our FL crew... Circeus 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • As with the geography list, images within the article and intro text to the sections would greatly enhance the list's usefulness.
  • "Nature of economics" is of very dubious usefulness as a section header
  • Dubious use of columns in the smaller section
  • Needs actual content under "Economics scholar"
  • "Economics lists" is a pointless section: 2 of them are used as "main lists" already (one in the previous section!), and "List of economics topics" should be the {{main}} list for "General economics topics".
  • "List of scholarly journals in economics" is not a topic of study in economics itself (though it could go into an adjusted "economics scholarship" section alongside the list of economics and other appropriate articles).
  • No reason not to use {{main}}
  • Links need to be double-checked: "Seven-generation sustainability" redirected to Seventh Generation (a disambiguation page) instead of Seven generation sustainability. I fixed that.
• Circeus 03:24, 24 October 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, 3 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent overview of a complex subject. I've done as much as I can find/think of on it. But I'm sure it can be refined for excellence, which is why I brought it here. The Transhumanist    18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose There are no sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: What needs to be sourced? And in what context? The Transhumanist    03:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The field focuses primarily on, but is not limited to, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome during classical antiquity, the era spanning from the beginning of the Bronze Age of Ancient Greece in 1000 BCE through the period known as Late Antiquity to the fall of the Western Roman Empire, circa 500 CE. The word classics is also used to refer to the literature of the period." That should have some kind of source. There should also be some kind of source that confirms that these things fall under the overall topic, otherwise, it's OR. As well, the lead should be expanded. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the input. What needs to be included in the lead? And what kind of source would be sufficient to confirm an entry falls under the topic? The Transhumanist    07:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This is what Portals are for. Colin°^Talk 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - portals are "doorways" modeled after the main page, and are designed to spotlight a variety of subtopics over time, with articles and other sections that get swapped out occasionally. They are not intended to be an outline of a subject as the lists of basic topics are. Portals are meant for readers and editors, while lists are just for readers. Portals are more like collages or scrapbooks. Basic topic lists are subject outlines, and as such they are more systematic than portals, and the lists' coverage isn't sporadic like portals. Each basic list is intended to provide the overall structure of a subject, in a standard "cheat sheet" format, serving as a table of contents to its subject. So no, this is not what portals are for. The Transhumanist    01:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mostly issues identical to the geography and economics lists, plus:
  • Using columns for less than 10 articles is disputable, for less than 5 is ridiculous
  • A template must be improperly closed at some point because everything after the "Classical Latin literature" is jumbled for me.
  • Maybe add some actual external links
• Circeus 04:45, 24 October 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, 1 support, 1 oppose. Not heading towards a promotion, no active discussion. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating and such.--SeizureDog 12:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Content is good, but I have issues with linking and presentation
  • First section does not align with the others (fixed)
  • For some reason, 3 flags spill on the second line systematically for me.
  • I'm not convinced the links in the "year" column are necessary (a good search-and-replace can take care of that easily).
  • Way too much linking of the developer and publisher columns. At beast each company can be linked once per section.
  • Consider making the tables sortable.
  • Maybe add {{compactTOC}} at the beginning of each section?
• Circeus 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "First section does not align with the others" I don't see this problem. Explain or screenshot?
  • On flags: Again, not seeing this problem myself.
    • I an see why it happens (the invisible flag is not actually the same size b/c it lacks the border), but I'm not sure why it happens on Firefox only. Using the same cell size as the Nintendo 64 list would solve that problem.
  • On links in the year column: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Dates_and_numbers says to link dates (though it doesn't matter so much for years alone I guess). In any case, this doesn't hurt anything by having them.
    • "dates" here means stuff like December 28 2005, specifically not years, including "years in". That's an application of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context (+ software constraints forcing links for full dates): it's not majorly useful to link to these articles from a general list (the only good place would probably be the infobox for the game).
  • "Way too much linking of the developer and publisher columns": Disagree. A person navigating the list will likely be searching for specific entries, which upon finding will want to look directly to the right for a link. Forcing users to search for the first instance of the company is a pointless hassle. I don't see how having everything linked poses a problem whatsoever.
    • I see no justification whatsoever to for having 2 links to Nintendo in the first entry of the list, 2 links each to EA Canada and EA Sports in the first, 5-members section, then 3 links to THQ next to each others in the beginning of the A's, then 6 links to Acclaim Entertainment and so on... I can see a case for one link per section, but absolutely not for systematic linking.
  • On being sortable: never made a table sortable. I'm not comfortable doing the scripting for it. I'm fine with someone else doing it though.
    • I meant the individual tables, not combining the whole thing.
  • On compact TOC: If the list is made sortable, then sections will have to be removed. So it's one format or the other.
    • See above.
• If the content is fine, then I don't see why you're being so nitpicky over layout. It's honestly the most frustrating thing about the FL process, as every couple of months the accepted layout format is changed (this was especially problematic for TV episode lists). What I did with List of Virtual Boy games was different from how I had to do List of Nintendo 64 games which is different from how you want me to fix this list. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria only states that the list has to be "well-constructed", not that presentation has to be perfect (which is frankly an opinionated subject anyways). It gets the information it needs to accross, that should be all that matters.--SeizureDog 04:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indented table fixed, there was some vandalism in there that bumped it over for some people. --PresN 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am "being so nitpicky over layout" because duh! the featured lists are supposed to be our best lists (regardless of what the criteria says exactly, if no one at FLC believes the list is "well constructed", it's simply not gonna pass). People are being nitpicky over prose and such minor issues in FAs (FA criterion: "'Well written' means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."), there's absolutely no reason for FLs to get a preferential treatment just because they look easier to do. Also, I am not concerned with criterion 1 at allm I'm concerned with criterion 2. "It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style", because I believe (my main reason to oppose) that it is overlinked. If I had commented o the nomination for the Nintendo 64 games list, I would most likely have made a similar comment, but that list's linking standard are not what we are discussing right now. (I wouldn't mind going over the other list and fixing the linking myself, actually, but I'm trying to restrict such edits b/c I've hit flak over them recently). Circeus 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MOS guideline is clearly written in relation to prose. Overlinkage is bad in prose as it mades the article harder to read and lessens the importance of the linking itself (only important words need to be linked). Here, the linkage neither makes the list hard to read nor does it link unimportant terms. Remember, MOS are just guidelines, not rules. As it says itself, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I think this list can allow for such an exception.--SeizureDog 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely fail to see how the guideline being written for prose can invalidate its usefulness for a list. Quite the contrary from prose, making everything linked dilutes the informative usefulness of links by making it much harder to discern new from already mentioned companies. (whereas in prose distant links might warrant linking, which is why I'm saying a link per section is okay with me) Circeus 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this list be more useful if the games were in chronological order? Now it doesn't differ much from a category. --Mika1h 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Alphabetical listing is, on the contrary, the most natural listing one would expect. I'd definitely expect a list by year to be a separate entity, since it could include differing information (e.g. a completely different of cross-referencing "years in videogames" articles). A listing by year would be at "List of Nintendo GameCube games by release date" or "by year". Circeus 02:42, 19 October 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, 1 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FLC

Resubmitting FLC since last attempt did not garner any votes. Article has been dramatically improved/changed based on comments made in the previous FLC. As always, any and all comments are appreciated. Drewcifer 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral On formatting and completeness alone, I'd pass it, but I'm still at best dubious this is encyclopedic. This (and, honestly, most other side articles to that game) look more like one big game walkthrough.Circeus 22:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent I can see your point, but the same would hold true for just about any list-article for a game. The important part, at least in my opinion, is that the article meets the FL criteria. In this case, any guide/walk through aspects it might have are trumped by the fact that it "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria" (FL criteria 1a1). Drewcifer 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but where do you see a group of existing article being brought together by that specific list? Unless the numbers have articles that I missed... Circeus 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily the YZ ARG pages: Websites and phone numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game, Characters and organizations in the Year Zero alternate reality game, Year Zero (alternate reality game), and of course Nine Inch Nails, Year Zero (album), etc. To be more specific, the majority of the Media column is where other articles are linked to )the "well-defined entry criteria"). And, just for pragmatic purposes, all of the websites/phone numbers/other media are just contained within a few list article, rather than having their own separate articles, which would be slight overkill. Drewcifer 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point: it is Numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game itself that completely fails to "brings together [etc etc]". Circeus 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am missing the point, or maybe I just wasn't completely clear. The numbers article brings together Websites and phone numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game, Characters and organizations in the Year Zero alternate reality game, Year Zero (alternate reality game), and of course Nine Inch Nails, Year Zero (album), etc. The criteria for inclusion and categorization into the list, in this case, is the number associated with the particular media. Drewcifer 08:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Two problems with this. Firstly, the intro is a bit short, and doesn't give enough background for someone unfamiliar with the topic. It doesn't, of course, have to repeat everything in the Year Zero (alternate reality game) article, but this one needs to give more context on why the numbers are important and how they fit with other aspects of the game. Secondly, and more importantly, this article is firmly in the realm of original research. Virtually all the references are to primary sources - the websites that form part of the game itself - rather than to reliable secondary sources discussing the numbers. That doesn't make this article any less true or accurate - but it does make it less encyclopedic. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments OpenToppedBus. I admit that the Original Research thing is conceivably a deal breaker. However, to a certain extant, OR is unavoidable in many cases. For instance, saying "the sky is blue" without a reference would be acceptable since you can just look up and confirm the fact. Along the same lines, what if I said this: "The logo of Google alternates between blue, green, yellow, and red." That doesn't need a reference because it is completely obvious, and is a simple fact of observation. In my eyes, that example is exactly the same as saying "The number 24.14.1 is displayed on X wesbite," which is essentially what this article says, only in table format. The references are there only to make things more transparent and easy to verify.

As for the lead, I completely agree with you, so I've expanded it just a little bit to put things into a bit more context (diff). Hopefully that is enough expansion for you, if not let me know. Drewcifer 13:46, 22 October 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, 2 support, 2 oppose. Not heading towards a consensus. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of chapters of the Claymore manga. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, and covers all relevant aspects of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - All information is reliable, up-to date and complies with WP:MOS. σмgнgσмg 05:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think such a list should include the publication dates for individual chapters too (at least a from/to for the volume), and I think volume summaries like those added in the Naruto list above (and parallelling anime episode summaries) should probably be present.
  • As a side comment, you might as well use only one color for this list and the episodes list.
  • Is it the translation that stops using "part" with chapter 57? If so, maybe a content note about it is pertinent, because otherwise it looks like an inconsistency of transcription.
  • Why not give translated titles for volumes unreleased in English?
• Circeus 22:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any need to include dates of serialization - the collected volumes are the permanent edition, and the serialized chapters are not really notable the way individual issues of American comics might be. If people still feel there is some need to acknowledge the original dates of serialization, I suggest the year and volume number of the magazine it appeared in - this information is always included in the collected edition, and is easily obtained and verifiable. Examples I happen to have on hand...Bleach (manga) volume 30 contains a note on the inside flap that says it ran in Weekly Shonen Jump in Heisei 19, issues 10-18. But this information can get really complicated; Hunter × Hunter 24, for example; Heisei 17, issues 34, 36/37 (a combined edition) - 39, 41, 42, 46, 50, and Heisei 18, issues 8-11. I feel like this information is inherently trivial, and absolutely should not be included. The date for the tankobon's release is the only relevant information. Doceirias 02:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because bibliographic information is tricky to include or locate doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Why then do we bother with airing dates for anime, I wonder: after all, they are available on DVD!. Specific dates are not absolutely necessary, but I still strongly feel something like "between X and Y" for the volume would be appropriate. A similar issue arise with Franco-Belgian comics, and the original serialization dates of e.g. Tintin or Gaston Lagaffe (the latter has two final editions, the original of which is notorious for not being in a chronological order and omitting strips) are still considered relevant. Circeus 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being tricky to include or locate was subservient to my opinion that it just isn't actually notable. It seems like people are considering adding it just because one person thinks the lists need it; I'd like to know if anyone else has feelings one way or the other. Doceirias 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more or less willing to compromise on the original publication date, but could you at least address my comments re: colors and "part"? I'm personally of the opinion that it is more pertinent to have this list reuse the color of the anime episode list than to try and have all the manga episode lists have the same basic colors. What do you think? Circeus 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Before we can call these lists featured we need to hammer out some details on their formatting and what content they should contain. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as people are consistent between the two lists currently on FLC, it should come out alright. Circeus 03:16, 15 October 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: 11 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Lack of active discussion. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done massive work on this discography. Added paragraphs, tables etc. I think it meets the standards. It has sources, it's organized.  cowbellcity45   talk  16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks really, really good so far, except for two reference-related issues: footnote 5 cites a forum, which may not be a reliable source, and footnote 6 cites Wikipedia itself, which is strictly against policy. Two sources I know of that will very likely have sales figures for at least a few of the band's albums are Billboard.com and MTV.com. The self-cite issue will be relatively easy to fix–Pinkerton is already a really good article, and any number of references could be pulled from there to cite the statement. Otherwise, this is a very well-made discography that I will gladly support once the aforementioned problems are resolved. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: While the article does look pretty good there are just a few problems. Once they are fixed I'll gladly change my vote. Years shouldn't be linked in the article. Online forums for sales data aren't very reliable. The sales numbers could have come from anywhere. Also, other articles on Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a citation. -- Underneath-it-All 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

those sale numbers actually came from a blog by Weezer frontman Rivers Cuomo. He has since deleted that blog post for some reason. Also I can easily fix the citing wikipedia thing. I'll get back to this in a day.  cowbellcity45   talk  17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per underneath-it-all, and some more stuff:
  • The second paragraph of the intro is ginormous. Either trim it yo half its size (not sure that much details are really necessary) or split it (it can accommodate 3 smaller paragraphs easily)
  • saying "debut, first, second, etc." album seems pretty pointless. This could (possibly) be replaced by the record label.
  • link to the formats only once
  • Indicate that the certifications are U.S. (e.g. "U.S."in parentheses before them)
  • Use the multiplication × symbol instead of the letter x (that symbol is in the insertionlinks below the edit window)
  • Better abbreviate the charts for the single (adding a few would be a good idea, too)
• Circeus 02:43, 16 October 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: 16 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. Lack of active discussion. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a self-nomination. The list is cricket-related and I believe is well sourced. Think it meets FA criteria but am relatively new at this. Monsta666 22:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - The lead is written a bit informally, and could do with a bit more referencing too. I'll try to reword a bit, but help me out :) Also, I see you've added a source (cricinfo) at the bottom of some of the tables - it would be better if you placed this inline (using cite.php) at the top of one of the columns. Otherwise it's good - fix up a few things, and I'll support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response - Put refs in lead (is that enough or are more needed?) and placed inline cites on tables Monsta666 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work. Support. Good luck :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose
  • Severely abusive use of flags.
    • That can easily be removed - DIY, perhaps? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This can be removed but there should be a way of telling whether a is record held by the Englishman or West Indian. I felt the use of flags was the easiest way of doing this. Any ideas how I can do this without the use of flags? Added Later - Unnecessary flags have been removed but kept flags for players. Monsta666 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How' but, y'know, just using the name of the "country"? I'm pretty most read can see that "England" and "West Indies" are different things. Circeus 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the players stats, flags should go for a "team" column. Circeus 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor formatting of tables making the sorting impossible (Main stats) or useless (records).
    • Erm, where is this sorting you speak of? None of the tables I see are sortable. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sort of my point, actually. There's no good reason they could not be made sortable (the only one is that their improper formatting prevents it.) Circeus 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand what you are trying to get at. What does sortable tables mean? Monsta666 15:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My bad, I sometimes forget not everyone is acquainted with that possibility. You'll want to look at Help:Sorting (though it's more technical than really needed for our purpose). A good way to make table more sortable is to use table captions instead of table-wide header cells at the top of tables. Circeus 05:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed some of it myself. Circeus 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combination of various tables that shouldn't (every double from "List of captains" onward).
    • Are you proposing that these tables be removed? I feel the records section is relevant but that is just my opinion.Monsta666 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I say there should 2 table, not one. The combination into one is a nonsensical space-saving device that is entirely inappropriate. Circeus 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done the tables are now split. Monsta666 15:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Captains table should also be separated and sortable (although you could keep a simplified table to show only the series and captains). Circeus 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite what is said in the article, there is no "Notes" section.
    • Fixed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed the table myself to avoid thetwo notes overtaken by the references. Circeus 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also not properly formatted.
    •  Done Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Circeus 03:57, 7 October 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: 17 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. Lack of consensus and active discussion. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first, FLC! :) After taking time to research and to expand the list, I believe it does meet the Featured List criteria. I think I have covered all the recorded songs by the band, but correct me if I'm wrong. I think the only thing the list needs is a copyedit of the prose from another person (User:LaraLove says she wanted to help out with it, but has not done it yet, so hopefully somebody else can take the initiative). Of course, I welcome some constructive criticism. Thanks. RaNdOm26 13:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just did the copy-edit. Lara❤Love 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. RaNdOm26 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm impressed. I like the colour scheme you've chosen for the tables, and how that is consistent throughout the article. Good work :) ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Spebi, thanks very much for the compliment! I really wanted to try out something special to the tables, and so I added colours. I was a little anxious if it was the best choice, but I'm glad you liked it! :-) RaNdOm26 13:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What's the purpose of using the "FBFBEF" color throughout the article? --Crzycheetah 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I would've like to see more than one colour used, but nonetheless, great work Random! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Working from DM's suggestion and per Crzycheetah's concern, I added an infobox and color categorized the different tables within that. Lara❤Love 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll just say it here that I'm against the idea of having different colours in each of the tables. There is now too much colour. The colours used in the heading bars are too strong. I noticed some colours have been randomly chosen out of nowhere... why the hell is the miscellaneous section pink? RaNdOm26 06:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have removed the distracting colours. RaNdOm26 07:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • LaraLove, even with your edits you didn't address my concern. I just don't understand what "FBFBEF" color supposed to mean. Every other cell is colored with "FBFBEF". Why? --Crzycheetah 07:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I added the colour, so.... I chose it because I felt it suited with the brown background in the headings. What have you got against it, cheetah? RaNdOm26 07:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I need an explanation. Here at Wikipedia, we color cells in lists, then explain what that color represents. I don't see any explanation about "FBFBEF" color here.--Crzycheetah 07:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I doesn't represent anything. It seems obvious that it's just alternating colors between rows. If it represented something, there'd be a key. Also, my edits removed the use of that color, so they did address the concern. :) Lara❤Love 07:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The alternating coloring was taken from our larger lists of episodes. This discography, however, is clearly not long enough to warrant alternating colors.
• ...By changing to another unknown color. Anyway, in tables with two rows, it is highly questionable whether there are alternating colors. Alternating colors is unncesary and not useful, at all.--Crzycheetah 07:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but saying that the colours are unnecessary and not useful is not completely true. They are there to aid in the presentation of the list. In my opinion, using the colours alternating in the list will present better; having no colour at all is very plain. That's all I say. RaNdOm26 08:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They would be necessary and useful if this list had a table with 20+ rows, not just two. In this case, it is very confusing to see two albums in one category colored differently. An immediate question comes to mind, "what is the difference between those two albums?". But, the point is that there are no differences between those albums whle this list implies that there is at least one difference.--Crzycheetah 08:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I'll address your suggestion. I have removed those colours. Have a look now, does it seem less confusing now? I added them in because it was in line with the alternating colours in the rest of the tables. I think it looks sort of unbalanced. How about you, does it look better though? RaNdOm26 17:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have default colors for tables. Using different colors is usually done either to mark a visual break of some sort where useful (e.g. in lists of episodes), or to add visual marking for some other information (e.g. in the lists of awards or in the drafts). Otherwise new colors just distract because you expect to be given extra information to justify that color, and there are none. Circeus 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose
  • Year links are pointless, as are duplicate links in later sections to singles and albums.
  • I am not a fan at all of the table colors. They are pretty, but they don't do anything, and I don't see why our default style can't work here. (I wouldn't oppose over them only, but since I am for otehr reasons, I might as well point it out.)
  • I really don't like the way the infobox-style summary (which in itself is not too bad an idea) act as a "foster table of content". We already have a TOC, having another, "hidden" one is pointless to me.
  • I can't figure the meaning of the parenthesised numbers in "singles".
• Circeus 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Responses to the above oppose:
  • I have taken out the duplicate links and years.
  • I am not going to change the colours until I am aware of this so-called "default style", which I have not seen stated anywhere. There is no guideline of how the discography should look.
  • It is not a table of contents, this is to indicate the number of records released by the band for each type. This is not identical to the other table of contents, some have different headings.
  • It shows the number of weeks the song has charted at number 1. Since I don't think this will be most useful to the table, I will take them out. RaNdOm26 05:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "this so-called default style" Well... Depends if you think this:

• "It is not a table of contents, this is to indicate the number of records released by the band for each type. This is not identical to the other table of contents, some have different headings." Let's not get technical. It purports to do the same jobs (links to the sections showing that data), so it is a table of contents just as much as {{TOCUSStates}} is a table of content. Circeus 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not changing it because there is no such default style for discographies. You may call it default style because the previous discographies looked the same but there isn't a written out guideline to say what the layout should be. There is also no statement from WP:WIAFL that says the list must conform to the layout in other similar lists, so it isn't right to oppose an FL based on the different layout of the list.
• No it is not because If you check it, "B-sides" and "Miscellaneous" is not in the infobox which is a heading in the table of contents. Neither should be there cannot be there because neither are a type of official release. Unlike what you stated, its purpose is not the same as a TOC, it is a summary of the official releases put at the top of the article, like what infoboxes should do. RaNdOm26 10:44, 15 October 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, 3 support, 3 oppose. There is no consensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Powderfinger discography as an example, I improved the tables in the article. I wrote the lead based on some other FLs I read. I believe it now meets the criteria. Regards, Lara❤Love 07:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not going to be fussing about the colour scheme in this list, but there are other things I will say. Please consider adding a music video section on it's own, including in it the music directors. If its applicable, add a B-sides section, only for any songs that never appear on Fall Out Boy's albums and EPs. Try also to look for any unreleased songs, they can be researched at ASCAP, (though I found zero unreleased songs for Maroon 5). Look here too for any more songs that haven't yet appear in the discography page. Thanks. RaNdOm26 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you're not opposing the colors considering I'm using {{Infobox Discography}} :). I removed the music video section because it looked terrible, most of the fields were blank, they're not discs really, and it isn't a standard for FL as I noted in reading the other listed discographies. I think it looks better integrated into the singles table. I'll look for B-sides and unreleased songs tomorrow. Thanks for mentioning that. Lara❤Love 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I found no unreleased tracks, but I did find a lot of other releases which I've added to that section. Lara❤Love 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also put the music video table back since I took out the singles table. I don't like all the empty fields, but I'm not sure where to look for directors and producers. Lara❤Love 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try looking here (it's not up to date though). RaNdOm26 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Lara, I told you on MSN what you need to add (content in the other appearances section), just making it official here so I can support afterwards. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll expand the color key to include those used on under "Other appearances" and I'll see if I can find some additional info. Thanks. Lara❤Love 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I expanded the Other appearances sections and extended the key to include those colors. Lara❤Love 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the arrow links in the infobox just link down to "Other appearances". If you want you can use span IDs and make the links anchor down to a selected album (e.g. <span id="abc" />, and when you visit Fall Out Boy discography#abc, it will direct you down to wherever you placed the span id code). ~ Sebi _[talk] 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how to do that, but I'll try. Lara❤Love 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a nicely written article and well sourced for the most part, however, two issues need to be fixed. First, I believe the chart positions the albums had need to be referenced, and second, the singles table for most of 2007 has grids, while the rest of the table does not. I don't mind if the whole thing has grids or not, but I think it should all be alike. Xihix 22:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get the chart sources. But I don't understand your second issue. The whole table looks the same to me. What is the difference you speak of? Would it be better if I used the same boxes for the singles as I've used for the other sections? Lara❤Love 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err... They seem to be fixed. My browser was probably messing up, sorry for the confusion... Xihix 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had the same problem, and refreshing my browser a couple of hundred times doesn't seem to do the trick. I'll probably have to purge my cache, no doubt. ~ Sebi _[talk] 00:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took the table out and used the infobox discography. Too many people wanting to edit these things without discussion, hours of worked reverted for nothing, so I decided to just be consistent throughout the article. Lara❤Love 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It looks nice, but the albums themselves are still lacking references for their chart positions.Xihix 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doh! I'll get it tonight. Lara❤Love 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Okay, I think I got them all now. Lara❤Love 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything looks good enough now for a Support. Xihix 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG oppose, mostly for the same basic reason as for Powderfingers: this is so out of whack with the existing discography FLs we might as well suspend any vote of discogs altogether until WP:ALBUM sets some actual standard to judge. In the meantime, in the meantime, similar data should be presented similarly, and this is unacceptably different from our established format for discographies. Circeus 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please specify what part of the criteria it fails to meet? Lara❤Love 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1(f) "well-contructed". I can't consider "well-constructed" a list that trods allover a well-established format to present certain information. That's like me arguing I should be allowed to present dates in hexadecimal because the document is in hexadecimal anyway. Circeus 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate having to drag other articles into this, but to counter this arguement, consider these already featured lists:
        • Timeline of chemistry
        • Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft
        • Timeline of Macintosh models
        • Timeline of first orbital launches by country
      • All four are currently featured timelines, all four adhear to all parts of the criteria, and all four have WILDLY different formats. All you are saying is "this can't be good enough because its not how we have always done it." That doesn't sound like an actionable objection to me. Well constructed does not say that it is identically constructed to other articles, merely that it is easy to follow and logical. This list seems to fit that quite well. It seems rather petty to hang a strong objection on such a small point, especially since it isn't even spelled out by any policy, guideline, wikiproject, that a certain format should be used. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to compare Timeline of chemistry, compare it with lists that present similar data (macintosh, orbital launches and discovery of satellites are lists ordered by dates, sequences of events related to a topic). You want to compare chemistry with Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, Timeline of tuberous sclerosis, Narnian timeline or Timeline of Australian television, who are actually geared toward showing sequences of events. As for Wollstonecraft, I've been wanting to adjust it into the other timeline format for a while. I just haven't gotten around to it. Circeus 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no official timeline format. The tuberous sclerosis, peptic ulcer, and Narnia timelines all had wildly different formats when they got featured and the latter two were changed recently by Circeus. I can't imagine how Wollstonecraft's timeline could be adapted to conform to the others and see no reason why it should. Circeus likes conformity and this is at odds with most of WP culture, which respects diversity. Every list should be judged on its own merits. WP:ALBUM is neither official guideline nor policy and can therefore be completely disregarded if required. Colin°^Talk 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That they had "wildly different formats when they got featured" does not make my subsequent changes (which have stood wholly unopposed,might I point out) irrelevant. Just because you "can't imagine how Wollstonecraft's timeline could be adapted" doesn't mean other can't (especially seeing I specifically mentioned I had a few ideas for that). And your point would be more efficient if you didn't confuse conformity, which we indeed do not consider too highly, and consistency (and in this case not exactly a whole lot of it either!), which is always a good idea to pay a minimum of attention to, lest your information becomes diluted by the difficulty in interpretating wildly different presentations of it. Circeus 01:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your changes aren't "irrelevant" per se, but the are wrt FLC. That is why I pointed out that the timelines were different at FLC. The fact that the changes were done by you, and it is you who are making an example of them, is also relevant. I am well aware of the difference between consistency and conformity. You comment on the lack of consistency and advocate suspension of such FL promotions until a standard (conformity) can be achieved. But what if no standard is achieved or desirable? What is there are as many great discography formats as there are bands? A "strong oppose" is quite inappropriate at this stage and would be considered hard-line even if WP:ALBUM was part of the MOS. Colin°^Talk 08:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not hard to interpret the information they way I have presented it. Not everything has to be wikitabled to be understandable. Lara❤Love 04:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the criteria doesn't say anything about it needing to follow the MOS and the format of similar lists. This seems more like a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The discography template doesn't differ much from the wikitables as far as the content included within, it's just presented better, in my opinion. It's a new way of presenting the information and I don't think it should be rejected from featured status simply because it's a new format. Lara❤Love 05:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agree. Colin°^Talk 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't see anywhere this violates ANY part of the criteria. Yes, it is formatted differently than some of the other articles, but honestly I prefer this format. Still, there is no requirements that any particular list be formated like any other particular list. This meets ALL of the following criteria:
  • Per 1 (a) 3: It is a complete, finite list
  • Per 1 (b): it is comprehensive
  • Per 1 (c): it is well referenced and appears factually accurate
  • Per 1 (d) and (e): It is non-controversial and stable
  • Per 1 (e): It is easy to navigate and well constructed (indeed, it is better constructed than existing FLCs)
  • Per 2: It fully complies with the MOS.
  • Per 3: It uses appropriate images.
• Also, it should be noted that "doesn't look like another list" isn't really an actionable objection. No where in the criteria is there a specific format outlined, and no where in the MOS or any relevent project is a format specified. We can't object to something that isn't violating a non-existant guideline. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, each article is to be judged of its own merits as compared to relevent guidelines and criteria, NOT by comparison to any other specific article, regardless of that article's status. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG SUPPORT. All real issues addressed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until... the sources are improved, which I think should be straightforward in most cases. The entry on Discogs.com can't be used as a source since this is a user-generated website (like Wikipedia, IMDB, NNDB, etc) and so can't be considered a reliable source. Fortunately, I think the Official Website's Discography could be used instead. The GigWise.com link doesn't seem to lead to anywhere useful. Perhaps you need to look at Archive.org to get hold of an older version of the website? The existence of and release dates for the Albums, EPs, Singles and Music Videos can hopefully come from the official site. I'm a bit concerned about the Other appearances section, which appears unsourced. Are you relying on the CD liner notes for this, or have you collated this from fan websites that may be less than reliable? If primary sources (CDs) explicitly credit Fall Out Boy for the tracks, and you've read them, then that is fine. If the information is heresay or comes from an unreliable secondary source, then I'm not so sure. Colin°^Talk 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I got the other appearances from the Discogs website because that's what the first !voter in this said I needed to do in order to gain his support. So everything in that section was pulled from that site. I'll see what I can do to find them somewhere else. I removed Discogs from the refs and replaced the dead one. Lara❤Love 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This FLC should be put on hold pending the outcome of Powderfinger discography's FLC Grim 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Compare this list to the criteria, not another list. Lara❤Love 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I can copy and paste my strong opposition criticism of the Powderfinger discography here verbatim. Shall I do that? Grim 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By all means, that would be preferred. Can't fix things that fail to meet the criteria if you don't tell me. And I shouldn't have to go look at another FLC to see what criteria I've missed. However, if it's a personal preference that isn't required by the criteria, as has been a reason for opposition above, I don't see the point in commenting at all. So either way. Lara❤Love 04:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, you don't have to. I looked at your opposition to the Powderfinger discography and did some tests. I used the Colorblind Colorlab site to test the colors used and found that all of them are considered "safe" by this site. There is sufficient contrast to distinguish each of the colors from the rest regardless of type of colorblindness. If you've found an exception, please point it out. Lara❤Love 04:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just start fresh:
Strong oppose

• Use of "ADVANCED TABLE SYNTAX" is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and such complex syntax gravely inhibits that.

That's just one of many things so I'll stop there. Powderfinger discography should be transformed to an acceptable state shortly, and when that happens, you can use it as a guide. You may also feel free to use any of the other featured lists as a guide as well. Please feel free to copy any their formats verbatim.

My main objection is that the list as a whole (save for the lead section) is in a state of disrepair. Conform to the above mentioned point and I'll likely recant my opposition. Grim 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd prefer you list the rest of your reasons for objecting along with the policy that states we can't use advanced table syntax. Also, as has been stated above, the criteria doesn't require that a list match similar lists. It must only meet the criteria. Lara❤Love 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good help me—between this and the Powderfinger discography FLC, I'm getting jaded...It's a confusing mess to have a discography be a bulleted list rather than neat and tidy template boxes. There's a reason every featured discography on Wikipedia uses almost the same exact format for conveying discographical information. This discography is in horrible shape and I'm not going to comment again until there's some remote semblance to a existing featured discography. Please see where I'm coming from. Implementing this change will only improve the article immeasurably. Contact my talk page when this is done. Best of luck. Grim 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've yet to name a policy or a criteria where it fails to meet. If you have issues understanding a bullet list, I'm thinking you're in a minority. I'm not changing it to conform to what's been done consistently in the past because it's some reader's preference to see tables. If I liked wikitables, I would have done that to begin with. But I think this format looks better, and is equally successful at presenting the information in an understandable way. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to change the list. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS backs my position. Lara❤Love 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced table syntax is now a tidy little template Lara❤Love 12:59, 18 October 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: 15 days, 1 support, 1 oppose. Lack of active discussion, as well as not currently heading towards promotion Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for Featured List because it's an ideally done sports roster; it contains all valuable information about the players, it is well organized, and is comprehensive. matt91486 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: It's virtually impossible to place specific citations. on a list like this, but I've included a references section at the bottom in which information can easily be double checked. matt91486 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The references need to be full citations, e.g. using {{cite web}}. The color of the table headers is quite ugly. Also, IMO, the list is short enough that it doesn't need to be split up by letter; one big table would have the benefit of sorting. Toohool 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The colors chosen aren't arbitrary; they are the teams' colors. I do understand your point about the length not necessarily warranting being sorted by letter at this age, but the team has only been in existence a few seasons at this point. As a template for other rosters, it would be difficult to have some broken up and some not. As for citations, I just don't know what to do about that; the information is not cited from one specific article, it changes and is on going, and the pages themselves aren't static. I'm willing to be flexible with that, but given the nature of the information, I'm not sure what the best way to go about it is. matt91486 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is just one general reference where one can find proof of everything that is in this list; therefore, there is no need for inline citations, yet. There are two things that this list is lacking right now: a lead with inline citations and an image. --Crzycheetah 02:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Lead needs proper beefing up.
  • Why could you not use the more universal "List of Charlotte Bobcats players"? I personally expected a special "all-times best" selection, but then I'm hardly familiar with sports, much less basketball.
  • I think the split by letters is not necessary. There aren't really enough members for now to warrant it, and longer lists don't do it either.
    • If you keep the split, at least ensure all tables align together.
  • The color for the headers are tacky, and not too legible, i think they can reasonably go
• Circeus 22:58, 11 October 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, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FLC

After considerable edits to the discography, I am resubmitting it for FL status. The previous FLC failed mainly due to my lack of free time to address the issues raised, but I have since been able to address many if not all of the issues that were brought up. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated and welcome. Drewcifer 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very nice work between nominations. The last thing I would reccommend would be formatting more like Nirvana discography with the year column furthest right and the release date, label, and formats below the title. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good call. Drewcifer 09:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly FL quality, good work. --Brandt Luke Zorn 09:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if only all the discographies were like this Jimfbleak 07:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Support I like what is there in the list, but one very essential thing is missing i.e Unreleased songs. I seriously suggest the inclusion of the section like Gwen Stefani discography does. Indianescence 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a requirement of discography pages now? Not only have I never heard of any notable unreleased material, and not only does a search give no results ([1]), but I fail to see how unreleased tracks factor into an artist's discography ("Complete collection of the releases of a musical act."). Drewcifer 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Drewcifer. I don't think that Trent actually has any unreleased songs that are known of by name. A quick Google search shows nothing from any reliable sources, and just looking through the band's history—severe writer's block, double album—it's unlikely that there's anything left unreleased. And even when Trent does release previously unreleased tracks (as in the deluxe edition of The Downward Spiral) they tend to be demos and remixes of released songs. The rest of his unreleased material probably consists of more remixes and demos, which don't count for inclusion in "Unreleased songs" sections. --Brandt Luke Zorn 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case, then i support. But telling that they DON'T have any Unreleased songs would not be correct. We must say we are not able to find them. But it is the definition of "Discography" that makes me support. Indianescence 06:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Just like last time, thanks for the note. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Though two things bug me...
  • The TOC is duplicated, once under the picture, then again as a standard TOC. I don't have much experience with discography lists, so that may be standard, I don't know.
  • Could the "Halo numbers" section be split into two columns? The white-space is annoying.
• Neither of those is enough for me to oppose, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the comments! The double TOC is common in discographies. I agree, it does come across a bit redundant, but I like how it has the sum totals, and it also helps unify all the discogs a bit. As for the Halos section, I split it up into two columns and it definitely looks better. Thanks again! Drewcifer 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why has no mention been made of the use of "Just Like You Imagined" in the 300 trailer? Also the article uses both Nine Inch Nails and NIN - firstly, no mention has been made that the band can be abbreviated to NIN, secondly, I think the article should stick to using only one of the two. The second problem is found in the Nine Inch Nails article too. Tommy Stardust 07:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails songs have been used in probably hundreds of films, tv episodes, trailers, etc, etc. To name them all would be impossible and not all that helpful, especially in a discography. Instead, the article only mentions original songs made for such things (like Perfect Drug, Deep, etc). As for the NIN thing, I took out all the abbreviations - I think it's ok in the Nine Inch Nails article, but isn't necessary for the discog page. Thanks for the comments. Drewcifer 08:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 more thing; isn't Bowie's "I'm Afraid of Americans" from Earthling? But anyway, I support. Excellent work indeed :) Tommy Stardust 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! And yes, I'm Afraid of American's is from Earthling, but the NIN remixes only appear on the single. Like the other entries in the table, the album column gives the release that includes the remix, not the release from which the song originated. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the album column should have either Single or "I'm Afraid of Americans" (single).... I'm Afraid of Americans gives the wrong impression that there's also an album/EP of the same name. Tommy Stardust (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I fixed it. Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 10:17, 18 November 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: 11 days, 1 support, 3 oppose. List needs to include more out-of-universe information. Fail. Raime 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns from here have been addressed. The article is comprehensive and well written. I believe that article doesn't fail to meet any of the criteria and thus should be promoted. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator: Why not? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The list consists mostly of plot details, written from an in-universe perspective. It needs to be rewritten following the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I know that's not specifically an FLC criteria, but the MoS applies to all articles. Toohool 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
• Oppose - almost entirely in-universe details. Needs to incorporate out-of-universe information. See List of Metal Gear Solid characters as a basis. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry Ashnard, it just needs some more work. See the out of universe information here (yes, the list isn't completely out of universe yet), or in all the examples given above? That's what it needs.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, Dihydrogen Monoxide, but I doubt I'll be resubmitting. I can barely find any out-of-universe information on this topic. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's pretty compact for a character list with so many members, so I give you kudos for that. A few issues/suggestions you'll want to deal with in any case: you need to bold your topic in first paragraph and drop the scrolling references, they cause serious accessibility issues. regarding the in/out balance, try writing the character from the angle of their impact on the "out-of-universe plot" (can't find a better formulation). Circeus 06:15, 7 October 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, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FLC

Self-nomination. I have addressed all previous concerns. This list uses templates, is comprehensive, accurate and stable. Most lists of television episodes do not include images and neither does this one. Circeus kindly checked if writers and directors could be linked to their own articles, but most of them aren't notable enough for that and are not linked so as to avoid this list becoming a redlink repository. I think the previous nomination failed because I wasn't around to address concerns after the deadline fell, so I'll make sure I'll be there this time. Rosenknospe 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as I was doing in the last nomination. Circeus 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Remember to put references after punctuation and a reference for the final sentence in the lead: "The last episode… ended on an unresolved cliffhanger due to the cancellation of the series" would be appreciated. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation : Sorry, I didn't notice it; I don't usually do that, must be exam nerves ;D Thanks for fixing it. Rosenknospe 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference : I'm searching for it. Rosenknospe 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) OK, I can find sources that the series has been canceled, but not that the cliffhanger is left unresolved because of this. I'llhave to check the DVDs this evening and fix it tomorrow (I'm in the CET time zone). Rosenknospe 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, after checking the episode, I must blushingly report that there is no cliffhanger at the end. No wonder there is no reference. Curse me and my flawed memories :D I have edited out that bit, so I guess your concern is addressed. Thank you for pointing this out to me and taking time to review this article. Rosenknospe 07:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but with a "but" - I've been seeing this as a new trend, and I thought I'd bring it up. In the references there is a "general" reference section and a "notes" subsection. It would probably be in the lists best interest--and really all those other FLs and potential FL's that utilize this style--to source the information in the article, instead of having an external links section masquerading as a reference section. I had to go through each of those sources just to figure out which one actually provided the airdates and production-codes that were not sourced in the lists. Those are two things that are better sourced at the beginning, then making people jump through hoops to sift through each of the sources listed at the bottom to figure out which gives what information. In-text citations are better for verification of sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have referenced the column headers; is it better that way ? I can also reference all the original airdates, production codes, etc, but I figured it was no use as they are all on the same page in the reference. The productions codes are from the actual episodes; they use a 981XX-2XX pattern, while other sources use a 981XX pattern, so I went for the actual ones instead. I also have referenced the titles but on second thought, maybe it's a bit of overkill ? Rosenknospe 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't overkill. Source #3 will need to go in the lead as well, at the end of the sentence where you say date the series ran from. Upong re-reading, I'd put "The series set in Toronto, Canada and in Paris, France" --this with the next paragraph, the one talking about what happens in the show, and begin the broken sentence with "The series features flashback...". I'm wondering if maybe you need a source when you say "typical" or "common among the franchise". If no one's ever seen the movies, they wouldn't know it was common. What do you mean by "production codes from the actual episodes"? Where were they listed with the actual episodes? 11:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)
      • Source #3:  Done
      • Sentences:  Done I have kept the past tense for consistency.
      • Sourcing typical:  Done
      • Production codes from the actual episodes: Sorry, I should have better explained. I meant, when you watch the episodes, the production codes in the closing credits are patterned 981XX-2XX, whereas in the sources they are patterned 981XX. Now I'm unsure which one I have to keep. Anything else ? Rosenknospe 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. Use the episode's code. As for past tense, all fiction articles should be written in present tense, unless the series was completely destroyed. It looks like the rest looks good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding comment was added at 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everything  Done. Thank you for taking the time. Rosenknospe 11:39, 27 October 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: 17 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. No consensus for promotion Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article fulfills all the criteria necessary to be a Featured List, after some hard work over the past week. NapHit 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dates in ref not entered right. Buc 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed NapHit 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done and ref 3 not entered right. Buc 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ArtVandelay13 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the first half of the list every manager is stated as starting on the first of the month, which makes me think these are estimates. Could these be checked using a second source? Oldelpaso 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concern has been dealt with. Oldelpaso 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed one of them but it will be very hard to find this information, however if I find them I will them to the article, otherwise it will just be like List of York City F.C. managers which passed FLC NapHit 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with two exceptions (annotated). ArtVandelay13 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why done George Kay have a "To" date and a note saying the date is unknown? Buc 11:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it's possible to leave out the day entirely, so I've done that instead on those two examples. ArtVandelay13 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
  • I would suggest splitting the last paragraph of the lead section into two parts, as it looks a bit long at the minute.
  • In the instances of the Barclay-McKenna and Evans-Houllier partnerships, I would suggest putting each name on a separate line and removing the "and". I would also recommend placing a line break between their nationality flags to prevent the flag of the second nationality being displayed on the same line as the first nationality.
  • Note #3 says that Win% is rounded to 2 decimal places. However, this is not the case for the Win% of Ashworth, Moran and Souness.
  • Souness's "From" year should be changed from 191 to 1991.

Everything done except for the line break which I am unsure about how to do, if anyone could fix that it would be an immense help 14:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

- PeeJay 12:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "line break" I meant adding <br /> between the nationalities. - PeeJay 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done NapHit 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • Lead needs some work:
  • It needs a bit of referencing, especially the bit about Dalglish not coping
  • It needs to be checked to make sure it makes sense... e.g. and a year Liverpool won the FA Cup. (???)
  • FA cup triumphs, only FA Cup should be wikilinked.
  • Other than the WP:LEAD, the actual table and list looks good. Just give the Lead another run through. Woodym555 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have gone through the lead and referenced it NapHit 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i think the lead is long, almost too long, i agree that it would be hard to trim. The actual content of the lead has improved and i now Support. Woodym555 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  • Content - by taking Soccerbase's figures on trust, you've omitted half of David Ashworth's games - see http://www.lfchistory.net/managers_gamestats.asp .
  • You reference both lfchistory and soccerbase, the lfchistory stats have a few more games against some of the managers than do soccerbase. e.g. Dalglish 307 as against 297, Welsh 234/232. Do you happen to know what they're counting that soccerbase aren't?
  • Lead para - does League Title need capital letters?
  • player-manager could be wikilinked
  • the punctuation needs a bit of a copyedit, if you don't fancy doing it i'd be happy to have a go. Struway2 | Talk 07:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the odd differences in some of them may be lfchistory.net is more accuarte with historical data, as Rafa Benitez's games are the same on both. NapHit 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Oppose at the moment, the following need to be resolved.

• Soccerbase only counts statistics for matches in its database. For List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers it proved highly inaccurate for earlier managers so other reliable sources ought to be sought.
• Citations should be placed per WP:CITE.
• "They were replaced in 1896 by Tom Watson, Watson proceeded to win two Division One championships." - reads poorly, replace repeated "Watson" with "who" perhaps?
• In general the lead needs copyediting - the prose is poorly constructed and grammatically it's weak.
• "Player-manager" - no need to capitalise.
• Is that the best image of any Liverpool manager available? Bearly discernable that it's Benitez really, but I do appreciate how hard it is to get hold of images...

Let me know if I can help. The Rambling Man 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've addressed all the issues you rose thanks for your comments NapHit 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Better picture, it needs a fair use rationale for this specific article.
• Lead is four paragraphs - too long, see WP:LEAD.
• Consistent ref names "LFChistory" or "lfchistory"...

Very close to being FL standard now I think. The Rambling Man 16:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have done all you mentioned, I am not sure I can take much else off the lead, and I don't think the first sentence can count as a paragraph NapHit 17:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose:
  • Lead is too long, and first sentence is too stubby to count as its own paragraph. Perhaps some of the lead can be moved to a new History section, situated above the list? This strategy works well for hockey trophy lists.
    • Whilst i do think that the lead is too big, i don't think a history section would be very good. This is already covered in several history articles.Woodym555 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. A history section relating specifically to managers of the club is completely relevant to this list. History of Liverpool F.C. discusses the history of the club in general, not the specific history of the managers. I see no problem with including a history section, although I do not think it is necessary for this to be a FL. Rai-me 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flagship image is very weak. Perhaps an image that relates to the entire club can be used? I would think that any images of actual managers should be aligned to the right of the list, not in the lead. Can any other free images of managers be found?
    • I think that the image is perfectly acceptable. As the longest serving manager it has a high relevance to the list. The image should be specific to the managers and not the club, it is about the managers after all. A crest would be the next best alternative although they are all fair use and should not be used. In terms of alignment, right aligning would compress the columns and make the list look unsightly. I think it looks good where it is at the moment. Woodym555 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally like this choice of image, and think that it is very suitable for this article. Robotforaday 14:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is definitely suitable for placement in the article, but I question whether it should be used as the lead image. I agree, copyrighted crests should not be used. I was thinking something more along the lines of an overall picture of the club or an image of the Shankly gates. Of course, the lead does not need a flagship image. However, I strongly disagree about the right alignment; I have performed an edit preview, and the column compressment is not a major problem. Also, if this format were used, Image:John McKenna.jpg and Image:George Kay.jpg, which are also completely relevant to the article and should be included if possible, can be used. Rai-me 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking in tables - I don't think that England, Scotland, France, etc. need to be continually wikilinked in every entry. Only the first entry of each country needs to be wikilinked.
    • It is part of the flagicon template that is used. {{IRL}} for example. Anyway, given the fact that the table can be sorted, the first mention would change with each sorting. Woodym555 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, my mistake. However, a format similar to that in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: W-Z could be used, without flag icons. As for sortability, as long as one link is wikilinked, this is not a major concern, and does not warrant repetitive wikilinking. Rai-me 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not suggest using small font in list entries. There is really no strong reason why normal font size cannot be used.
    • Agree Woodym555 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is like this because i followed the precedent set by other manager lists which do this NapHit 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the other lists should probably change rather than this list remain as is. Rai-me 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why is the To column not in sortable format?
    • It would be redundant, the from column does exactly the same thing given the fact that when one ends the other begins. Also, they start off in date order to begin with. It is common amongst football manager articles. (That is not to say that it is correct) Woodym555 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it is slightly redundant, I think this would make it easier for readers, and therefore the column should probably be made sortable. Rai-me 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall, these are fairly minor concerns. I will re-assess my opinion if they are addressed and/or explained. Rai-me 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. Two things, both of which would not be that hard to sort, but I am in work and so can't do them right now:
  • Mention should be made of Houllier's illness and Phil Thompson's standing in for him during this period.
  • McKenna's flag is incorrect, as Ireland was not the Republic of Ireland at that time.

Robotforaday 12:36, 10 October 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, 0 oppose. There is no opposition, but there is also no support, so it is a Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit this is an odd list article, so I'm submitting this with a grain of salt to test the waters a bit. I'll come right out and mention some of the potential issues this article might have in an FLC (as well as some potential arguments against them):

1. Mostly in-universe, though because of the nature of the numbers there's a fine line between in-universe and real,
2. Lacks in-line citations, but for the most part the media themselves are the only source one really needs, especially since nothing here is controversial/contentious,
3. Pretty limited scope, though that's not necessarily a bad thing for a list article.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome. I'm submitting this somewhat to gauge the FLC possibilities of the other Year Zero ARG lists, so general suggestions would also be helpful. Thanks! Drewcifer 10:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page looks good, but I think it might fail FL criteria 1a3: "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". I'm not quite sure if this could be considered a significant topic of study, but I'm not going to oppose yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, and it seems like a tricky one to respond to. That particular criteria seems to be wildly up to interpretation (is List of Kylie Minogue concert tours a "significant topic of study"? Howabout List of Formula One fatal accidents?) Shouldn't the main quality needed to pass that particular criteria simply be notability? ie does the article deserve to exist in the first place? If it does, therefore it is a notable field of study. (Replace the word "significant" with "notable," and that's my point in a nutshell). Drewcifer 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the two articles you mentioned passed because they met criterion 1a1: most items in the list should have their own article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But that's not actually what 1a1 says at all: "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." Each number is representative of a particular piece of media, and although none of those media actually have an article all to themselves, they are discussed more thoroughly in other articles (all of the YZ ARG pages really, bu mainly Websites and phone numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game, a little bit of Characters and organizations in the Year Zero alternate reality game, and of course Year Zero (alternate reality game)). Drewcifer 04:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've semi-followed this whole Year Zero campaign thing and I'd always hoped that some of the YZARG lists would become good enough for a nomination here. However, I think that a few issues need to be worked out:

• The entries to the list itself seem inconsistent in presentation. For example, the additional information for most of the numbers is presented as a continuous paragraph, while 24.4.1 has separate two lines and the second line of 24.24.2's information has an extra indentation.
• This may be organized better in a table.
• The sole reference doesn't properly link to the news it mentions, which would be housed at an archive here.
• Is it just me, or should telephone numbers from the game (currently residing at Websites and phone numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game) should be merged into this article? It would seem more relevant in a list about numbers than being lumped in with websites.
• After looking at the one reference, it contains no information about what it's being cited for, so this article is practically reference-less.

There may be a few more things, but I think that this has potential to be featured. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for the comments Brandt. I'll try and address/fix your comments:

• The reasoning behind 24.4.1 and 24.24.2 being formatted slightly differently are somewhat simple: 24.4.1 was for some reason given to two piece of media. The extra thing in 24.24.2 applies to 24.24.1 and 24.24.2, so I just put it on the second one and said "both lists" instead of putting it under both numbers. That said, those aren't necessarily good reasons for them to be like that. So if you think I should change them that would be easy enough.
• I think I tried the table thing out when I first started to make the page, but I'm not sure about that. The only problem I could forsee with it is that there's basically only two columns needed: number and description. In my experience tables tend to look kind of silly with only two columns. But I'd be willing to give it a shot if you think it's a good idea.
•  Done fixed the citation. Good catch.
• I don't think that phone numbers should be included in this list, as it's meant to be kind of a list of the media by their associated number. That said, we can take your point in another light: maybe the article is poorly named? Perhaps "Media of the Year Zero Alternate Reality Game"? Any ideas? That strays from the intention of the article, but in realistic practice all the media has a 24 number, so it might not make a huge difference.
• I put that reference in there because hints leading to Exhibit Twenty Four were discovered in some of those multi-track files - but the article doesn't mention anything beyond just the files. Maybe I could reword it, since it does seem a little bit misleading. As far as the referencing goes, that's pretty much the main issue with the article. The problem is two fold: no sources that I've been able to find go into enough detail to be relevant, and the websites/phone numbers/etc kind of act as their own source. If I were to put in an article "Website X has a red background" that wouldn't need a source right? The way I see it, that's no different than saying "The Mailstrom has the numbers "24.1.1" in it." It's kind of an interesting meta-uber-Wiki-question: does Wikipedia require sources simply for the sake of sources? Drewcifer 06:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just merge the entry information together into one paragraph. As for the table, a column for the number, website found on, additional notes, and a footnote to the website on which the number was found could be used. I still think that phone numbers should be included here–from my perspective, it seems as though this list should be more of a collection of all numbers within the YZ ARG than a list of YZ ARG media organized by numbers. You're probably going to want a source for each of the numbers from the website that it originates from, or from a page on the YZ ARG phenomenon such as this; even if the sources aren't really needed, it can't hurt to have them. --Brandt Luke Zorn 08:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started to turn things into a table (diff). It's lookin pretty good so far. But it does bring up some issues that are ... interesting. Namely, how do you reference a phone number? Howabout a USB drive? Maybe I should just leave those blank? And in some cases would it be appropriate to cite something that mentions the media itself? For instance, 24.4.2 is about the AIR kits. So I put two citations about the kits, but those citations don't actually mention the numbers. Whaddya think? And I imagine that I'll just drop the images on the blank section to the right (I've got more pics coming). Drewcifer 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Well, I've vastly changed the article today, and it's looking awesome, I must say. Everything is in a table and is referenced were appropriate. A few issues with references still remain (phone numbers, USB drives, etc), but were possible I've included some images. Speaking of images, I've added a bunch more, and I have a few more coming my way soon. Hopefully everything looks tip-top. Also, does anyone know of a way to center an entire column? The citations look strange left justified, and I'd rather not do the whole <div align="center"></div> in every cell. Drewcifer 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Way, way overlinking in the references. Circeus 06:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Strange, I thought I already fixed that. I might have accidentally reverted it since. Anyways, only the first instance of "YZ ARG" "NIN" and "42 Entertainment" are linked in the citations. Drewcifer 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll want to remove some images. The article currently fails the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. You want to use an absolute minimum of copyrighted images, and since you have 3 free images, the other probably have to go. Circeus 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definately agree with you in principle, but some of the fair-use images do seem somewhat important to me. Going through the important ones:

• 24.1.1 gives the best example of a hidden number on a website, soemthing which is impossible to get from a free-image. It's also the first, so is somewhat significant in that, as opposed to some of the other options.
• 24.10.4 could probably go.
• 24.19.1 is an email copyrighted? I honestly wasn't sure how to tag it.
• 24.24.2.1660 - 24.24.2.1669 seems somewhat important because it a) lists a bunch of numbers as opposed to just one, b) is directly discussed in the prose, and c) there is no free equvalent.

Do these assessments seem fair to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewcifer3000 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can make 24.10.1 free (or more free) license by taking a screenshot from Audacity, although it would still be a derivative work of a presumably copyright recording. A --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of you: 24.10.1 is a screenshot I took from Adobe Audition. Did I mistag it? Or would a screenshot from Audacity be more free? Drewcifer 13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It won't make it completely free, but it'll stop it from being a copyright violation on proprietary software. IMO, Image:24-24-2.jpg, Image:24-10-4.jpg and Image:24-19-1.jpg ought to be removed, as they hardly add any information that isn't already presented some other way. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, took out 24.10.4 and 24.24.1. But as for 24.19.1, what exactly is the copyright status of an email? I don't believe letters and general correspondence are copyrighted, so I don't think email would be either. I'm not copyright expert though. I'll see about asking the people at WP:FUC. Drewcifer 00:57, 9 October 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, 1 support, 2 oppose. No attempts to meet the opposition. Fail. Crzycheetah 04:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. List is (I believe) complete, sourced, stable, uncontroversial, and presents the data in a more useful fashion than other presentations of the same data I have seen. -Sarcasmboy 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too many redlinks. Tables hard to follow in some places. I am not sure that many of the redlinked names will ever have articles. Rmhermen 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on where you find the tables hard to follow? I can't deny that there are a lot of redlinks, and that many of them are not notable enough to have their own article. But one of the Featured List criteria is (emphasis added):

3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles

so I wasn't under the impression that it would be an impediment. Would simply removing the wikilinks and turning the redlinks into regular text help at all, in your opinion? -Sarcasmboy 21:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of those redlinks will never be created, so it's best to delink them. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will go through and delink the ones that obviously will never have their own article. I think there are still a number of redlinked people who are notable enough in the history of Michigan that they might end up with their own article at some point, so I will probably leave them linked. -Sarcasmboy 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few things that bear additional explanation:

• How could two men hold all thirteen professorships of the Catholepistemiad?
• Something should be said about the Superintendent of Public Instruction in the lead for the 1852-present table.
• How do the regent elections work, e.g. what are the term lengths, are they all elected simultaneously?

Toohool 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added clarification that I hope addresses your first two points. Your third point was touched on in the Current Board section, I think, but is now also mentioned again in the expanded text I just added. -Sarcasmboy 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Agree the table format chosen is less than ideal (it's already troublesome in political articles, let's not spread it unnecessarily).
  • Far too many redlinks
  • "List of Members of the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan (and its predecessors)" is a laughable headers. I can't believe "Members of the Board (and its predecessors)" couldn't do the trick. You could even get rid of the "(and its predecessors)". THe other headers can also support shortening.
• Circeus 06:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]