Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2005

I have been working on this for a week or two, adding in extra details and references. It is almost there: I just need to add links to the scorecards for the first seven instances and check them. I'd be grateful for any comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The scorecard links, etc, are fixed, so please vote. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's ten Test playing nations - at least officially. WP:NOT a soapbox for anti-Bangladeshi/Zimbabwean sentiments. ;) Maybe a few wikilinks to bowled, lbw, caught and bowled and stumped wouldn't hurt either? Apart from that, looks good! Sam Vimes 14:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will action (pace other arguments, BAN and ZIM have one official Test hat-trick each). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully fixed now. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, so I will support Sam Vimes 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak object
  • The table creates an annoying scrollbar in 800x600. A solution to this problem is to reduce the width of the "Inn." & "Test" columns. (Set the table width to 600px while testing)I've fixed it but the style is now messed.
  • Lots of red in the centre of the table. More % of blue is needed.
  • Some of the notes are not working
  • ...recently by James Franklin... --> ..."New Zealander James"...
  • A photo perhaps? You might get an old PD photo from Australia )pre-1955)
  • Q: are all the mentioned hat-tricks been taken in the same over? (You can also mention that a HT is valid for three deliveries a bowler bowls... it neededn't be valid in an over/innings.
  • You can also mention which all dismissals count for a valid hat-trick. (eg run-outs don't count)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

• I've "subst:"ed {{prettytable}} and changed the font size - better?
• I think there is clear majority of blue links, but we need people to write stubs for some more or less obscure South African and Pakistani crickets.
• I am not a note expert, and this is the first time I have used them. Which ones are broken? Can you help?
  • I think this is now fixed (see below). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed.
• Added one from Fred Spofforth, the first Test bowler to take a hat-trick
• A: No. It should be apparent from the table that the balls in a hat-trick can be in different innings (and hence in different overs) and there are footnotes for each of the hat-tricks spread over two innings - for example, Merv Hughes' hat-trick was in three different overs in two innings, over 24 hours apart. I don't have ball-by-ball details (and they are quite difficult to get for the very early matches - they may not even exist). Are you really asking for a longer explanation of what a hat-trick is?
• I'm not sure the article needs an explanation of when the bowler gets credit for a wicket - isn't that in dismissal (cricket)?

-- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Support. Would prefer it if those red links are taken care of. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Refs/notes don't work (at least for me). Clicking on the ref in the body goes down to the notes OK, but clicking on the "^" doesn't go back up. I confess I don't know how to fix that. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha - I have found out that {{ref_num}} is not intended to provide working backlinks: you have to use {{ref}} the first time and only use{{ref_num}} if you want to have the same footnote with the same number. I think it works now. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Great work - Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – in the venue col, you've linked some to the ground and others to the city. Could it be standardised please? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Good list, but more redlinks need to be cleared. Will support when there are half a dozen or fewer. Could also do with a note of the hat-trick in the England v Rest of World series in 1970 that was original treated as a Test, and about South African rebel Tests, jguk 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half a dozen or fewer" is a pretty extreme interpretation of a "significant majority of blue links"! I'll see what I can do about your and Nichalp's other points. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should aim high - particularly for the cricket lists - otherwise we could end up nominating another dozen all in one fell swoop, jguk 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the more the merrier - which "other dozen" are you thinking of? If a list has less than say 1/3 red links, that would usually be good enough for me. The national lists of cricketers should help fill in many of the redlinks in due course, but historical cricketers from some countries (e.g. South Africa) seem to be poorly represented. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of spacecraft and crews that visited Mir

Self-nomination. Pretty simple; i like it for the shields and scarves. not all the shields are present in a few of the newer colleges yet (they have shields, i mean they're just not on wikipedia yet). Mlm42 22:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - A good start, and it is pretty, but some comments. Do the colleges without a listed "shield" really not have heraldic achievements, or is it simply that we do not have an image? (For example, there are arms displayed on the front page of Darwin's website.) I'm not sure it makes much sense to have a separate list which is pretty much identical to the information that already appears at University of Cambridge#Colleges or in {{University of Cambridge}}, but this list could also have additional inform ation, such as addresses, etc, from here, and the other information from the individual college infoboxes (motto, Oxford sister college, Head of House, etc). Comparing with Colleges of the University of Oxford, I think you also need to add some information on the defunct colleges, and the other associated institutions, such as the theological colleges. Finally, you will need some references. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • right, that's what i was trying to say; all colleges have shields, some just aren't listed. (you may be tempted [like i was] to call them crests, which they are apparently not). and the identical list is at University of Cambridge, where i originally made it.. the other day i saw a list here (which was simply the list of names), so i copied it over. and i don't understand what more needs referencing.. there is a link to each college's website, as well as to the university's site where there is currently information about student enrollment etc. for all the colleges.
    • OK - then I think you will need to find (free-use) images of each college's coat of arms/shield. You also need a section entitled "References" which includes all of the sources used to verify the information in the list. And I still think the elements mentioned above would make the list even better. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the University of Cambridge article could have a summary of the colleges (how many, particular details - like those now mentioned in the lead section of the list) and then a link to the list of colleges, perhaps using the {{main}} template. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Caius shield.png has no source or copyright information
  2. The images Image:Churchill College Crest - embossed.png, Image:Downing College Crest - embossed.png, Image:Robinson College Crest - embossed.png are claimed under "fair use". Judging from the sources of the PD and GFDL images, there are at least a few wikipedians who are able to take a blazon and create an image from it, so there's no reason to use fair use images here.
  3. I'm not too good with my heraldry, but unless I'm badly mistaken, the image and blazon for Image:Selwyn crest.png don't match

  --Carnildo 03:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are certainly some excellent emblazoners out there, but i, unfortunately, am not one of them (though i got my father to do the Image:Corpus Shield.png). As for Selwyn, the reference he probably used was here, which includes the entire coat of arms, not just the shield. All (i think) colleges have a similar full coat of arms, but they aren't used very often as far as i know. Mlm42 04:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Selwyn's arms are correct. The full blazon includes the College's crest, which would be shown in a full heraldic achievement above the shield. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What would you think about this:

Shield	Scarf	College	Founded	Students	Ratios	Motto	Website
		Christ's	1505	411 Undergraduates 104 Post-graduates	Male:Female - 60:40 Home:EU:O/s - 83:3:13	Souvent me Souvient	[1] Map

Or is there a better way to format it? Mlm42 21:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object – no references. You need to mention the sources you've got the data from. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:27, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is a self nomination, I have worked extreamly hard on digging up very scattered information about the unique history of Northwest Territories elections. I belive this list is up to a feature standard and meets the criteria. --Cloveious 00:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is a comprehensive list with a decent explanation on a pretty obscure, and difficult to research, subject matter. --maclean25 11:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This needs a map of the current provinces/territory. Rmhermen 20:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Added one in --Cloveious 22:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object.
  1. The image Image:Canada Provinces Territories 1870.png is tagged as "public domain", but the actual license terms appear to be {{noncommercial}}, an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  2. The images Image:Canada Provinces Territories 1905.png and Image:Canada Provinces Territories 1949.png do not have copyright tags. The available copyright information appears that it's under a license of "no commercial use", which is unacceptable.
  3. The image Image:CanadaMap1.jpg is under Canadian Crown Copyright. I'm not sure if this license is free enough for Wikipedia.

  --Carnildo 00:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crown images are used in other featured Canadian articles such as Order of Canada. --Cloveious 05:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the copyright tags for Crown Copyright, If you really think its nessascary I will apply to have these three images for commercial use using this government form Commercial application Other then that, without further input I can not address your objection --Cloveious 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general, since maps can be found under free licenses, or can be created and licensed under the GFDL, there's no reason to use maps that are any less free than the GFDL or Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. --Carnildo 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops they closed the nomination, i'm just about to upload the last new map --Cloveious 00:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's my bad, I uploaded them. I'm really uncomfortable with the whole picture and rights thing so I just copy and pasted the licensing rights from the site. I don't see where it says no commercial use though. It does say that it "may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from Natural Resources Canada" for "public non-commercial use". I don't think that is the same thing. Please let me know what the appropriate copyright tag is. --maclean25 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very nice list, very detailed. Paul August ☎ 04:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support – very nice. A browser screenshot would be a good addition. Comment what does "dropped" mean? version no longer available for download? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object – Many values are not filled in yet. The newly added language/locale comparison is also incorrect. e.g. Internet Explorer supports more than English (US). The current locale comparison is a mess as well: e.g. it is hard to find why if the browser support a particular locale. The languages should go to the columns, and use Yes/No to indicate if it is supported or not. --minghong 18:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object – Good list but incomplete and with an inaccurate language/locale comparison as minghong says. --Cedars 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Its great, but its missing NetPositive web browser. --Cloveious 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have found the auto-refresh feature in Opera - which is absent in Firefox, IE and Moz - very useful. Wonder whether it is worth a mention. Tintin 09:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – wonderful, very detailed article, even if not complete.

This is along the lines of the other country lists. One shortfall is refernces, which I will correct in the next few days, but please let me have other comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks like featured material, pending references. Phoenix2 18:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments Dates of joining could be precise to the day, rather than just by year; it's not too big a page, some info on the special member state territories could usefully be added here - eg noting that the French DOMs are in the EU, Greenland is the only territory to have left the EU, jguk 07:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done --Sophitus 19:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – the European Union page has a better map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: Only 3 supports (so 1 below the required level for promotion). Let's leave this to 22:01 UTC on 6 September (ie so that it has a fortnight on FLC) to allow for further comments, jguk 09:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find it a little strange that you list the Maghreb countries but not other Eastern European countries. Even Serbia and Montenegro, for example, is "regarded as a future EU member". Mwalcoff 01:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess this nomination should be withdrawn - I've not had the chance to do the work that I wanted to this article to address the comments above. I'll renominate when I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting and useful list, but would be interested in any comments. I didn't feel a list of just any rock and roll albums would be very useful, so I decided to combine various critics' best-of lists to produce a sort of meta-list. Tuf-Kat 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose No images, plenty of redlinks. Also, I don't think there can be any definitive or complete list of what is a notable rock and roll album. --Sophitus 18:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added some album covers (every album with at least six references). I think there's pretty clearly a majority of blue links (a "large majority" is certainly debateable, though it's worth noting that virtually every performer has an article, even if all the albums don't). Your last objection is not actionable; it includes every member of its defined set (the lists given) and does not miss any major component of its set (the lists are varied, and, taken together, include all the major rock albums). Tuf-Kat 23:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment By my count there are 307 red links out of a total of 1282 for a blue link percentage of 76.05%, which meets my definition of a "large majority". I'm undecided at this point on the merits of this list otherwise, although I would note that the criteria that objections must be "actionable" is rule for Featured Articles cadidates. Lists have failed before because they, by their nature, cannot be complete. Dsmdgold 15:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That seems kind of silly. I thought the whole point of featuring lists was to encourage the improvement of every Wikipedia page instead of just articles. Tuf-Kat 16:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose – agree with Sophitus. Have you also included groups in India, Pakistan and the many other countries that do have rock groups (in English that too)? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • The methods I used to create the list are explained at the top of the page. I'm sorry that there are not more critics who make lists of albums with Indian and Pakistani bands on them. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of rock albums; it is a list that combines best-of lists from various sources. I can't help that those sources don't include any Indian rock bands -- there are at least eleven countries represented on this list, from Iceland and Mexico to Jamaica and Germany. Would moving it to rock albums that have been considered among the greatest ever please anyone? Tuf-Kat 23:19, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Considered might be a POV. How about groups that have won international awards, or by platinum sales? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inclusion criteria are too arbitrary and fuzzy. Jonathunder 16:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Added images, adjusted column widths. Phoenix2 04:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'd be a little more comfortable supporting if the state acronyms are defined somewhere in the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Has been addressed. Phoenix2 04:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Would also like to see jguk's colour coding issue resolved. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Kim Campbell.jpg is used under "fair use", but no source or fair use rationale is supplied. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what needs to be included.
  2. The image Image:Paulmartin1.jpg is used under "fair use" and "Canadian crown copyright", but neither set of rules has been followed. There is no source information, and no fair use rationale.

  --Carnildo 07:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - subject to the image concerns being addressed. But I agree with User:Nichalp about explaining or linking the abbreviations (although the {{Canadian First Ministers}} helps). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments I agree with Nichalp about expanding the acronyms for the provinces, which aren't familiar to people outside North America. Also some explanation of the red and blue colours on the left hand side of the table would be useful. A brief description in the introduction about the significance of the prime ministership of Canada would also help: I think they are heads of government and have the most senior political post in Canada (with the GG being obliged by constitutional practice to accept any advice given by the PM). Is this right? Is the Time almanack the best reference, rather than say an official website of the Canadian PM? A link to the latter would be useful regardless, jguk 19:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional link and reference have been provided. Phoenix2 04:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• as to the red a blue on the left side designating the party, is it neccessary with the seperate party column? User:Say1988
  • I think it's OK as is, if you want to change it go ahead, welcome to Wikipedia. Phoenix2 18:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)