Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2010

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 28 September 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): Courcelles and HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am nominating List of awards and nominations received by The Bill for featured list because I believe that, after much work by myself, Courcelles and several other editors, it meets the Featured List criteria. I believe the prose is of a professional standard and that the lead section defines the scope of the list and provides a concise summary of The Bill as well as a prose summary of the awards and nominations documented by the list. The list is of appropriate length and meets the requirements for a standalone list in that its inclusion in The Bill would make that article excessively long. It is well structured—sorted by award and, within sections, is in chronological order, with section headings that aid navigation and enhance readability. The article has two images, of which one is ineligible for copyright and the other is appropriately licensed and the article is not subject to any sort of edit wars or content disputes. All comments will be gratefully received, though this is my first FLC so go easy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 02:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—I changed four redirecting links to their corresponding non-redirecting links. I could find no other problems. The list meets all the Featured List criteria. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those links and thanks for the support. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I think it would look nicer if the column widths were even, and if they year column was centered. See this as an example (I am biased, as I brought this list to FL status, but it illustrates the column widths and centered year column, apart from any sections where the main infobox interferes with the cell widths). More of a suggestion than a demand, but I think it would make for a more aesthetically pleasing list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This done, more or less. The wrench in the machine is the last table, which has one more column than the others. Courcelles 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood, not much can be done about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because it appears consistent with the featured list criteria, is not subject to substantial changes in the future, is comparable to other featured band member lists (List of Nine Inch Nails band members, List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, List of Slipknot band members, and List of Megadeth band members), and I will work on this page to make improvements as necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible withdrawl As "users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" and I also nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members/archive1. Sorry. On the other hand, FA procedure allows for multiple nominations if someone is a co-nominator and I am the co-nominator at the other FL nomination. (Cf with my talk.) If this is formally closed or withdrawn, I will resubmit after that article has passed or been rejected. Thanks for everyone's patience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend peer review (so oppose) for a few reasons:

• The lead is woefully short, you need to summarise what this list is going to talk about.
• A large number of red links in the list, is the content actually notable enough to warrant a standalone list, if only two members have their own article?
• Members section appears to be almost (if not entirely) unreferenced.
• References need consistent and comprehensive formatting.
• Timeline is pretty hideous.
• You have almost as many external (spammy) links as you do references, that should ring warning bells.

• Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn If for no other reason than the redlinks, which will not be resolved any time soon. Thanks for your time reviewing it, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of all 482 cricket grounds in England and Wales which have held major cricket in the form of Tests, One Day Internationals, Twenty20 Internationals, first-class, List-A, Twenty20 and Women's International cricket. Plus, I thought I'd see where it stands in the world of lists! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even get this page to load it is so long. Could a split please be considered? Courcelles 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

A couple of immediate issues with this:

• The lead could do with expanding, maybe explaining the concept of 'festival' cricket as a means to partially explain why so many grounds have been used, as well as the Minor counties, Welsh counties and Unicorns, in addition to older representative teams.
• Can you provide an overall source to show that the list is comprehensive, as far as I can tell there is nothing showing this. The individual references show that each ground has hosted at least one of the games you claim, but I can see nothing to show that other grounds haven't also hosted first-class cricket etc. Harrias ^talk 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now, will look into it more later, and "Oppose" split. It is informative and would be ruined if split IMO. Besides the fact that it loaded normally on my comp.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fire comments

• "This is a list of cricket grounds in England and Wales" yawn snooze! Featured lists haven't begun like this for a few years now. I suggest you read some of the recent FLs (check the log) to see different ways of introducing the subject, and bear in mind that you don't have to have the list's name in the lead or to use any bold text.
• Not sure about the title - can you find a term or phrase that succinctly expresses the scope of the list, so as to avoid the impression that the list might contain all cricket grounds in England and Wales?
• Oxford University Cricket Club is a first-class cricket team, so ought not to have its grounds in the minor counties section under "Oxfordshire". Similarly for Cambridge University.
• Incidentally, this list wouldn't load at work but will load at home. Our work computer system is clearly past it... Bencherlite^Talk 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Could easily be split at "Minor counties" - it does not break sortability so there's no argument to keep it together. If accessability is important, wp:split should be given equal weight. Sandman888 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there any reason this isn't merged with the list for Scotland (which is pretty small) and turned into a list of cricket grounds in Great Britain? Some traditional split? --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• England and Wales play internationally as one nation (England), but Scotland play individually. Harrias ^talk 17:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha, so it was a traditional split. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—the links to Alresford, Boscawen, Bowdon, Carlisle, Cowell, and Lancaster lead to dab pages; no dead external links. I agree that a split would be a sensible idea. Ucucha 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the list is too long. Even if Wales and England play together, two separate lists are perfectly reasonable. Also, there is a very large amount of empty entries in the capacity column which leads me to believe that more work should be done before deserving a FL status. Nergaal (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (just a couple)

• On my 8MB/s download, it seemed to take about 20s to load the page. Not good.
• Leads no longer start with "This is a list of..."
• Avoid bold links per WP:MOSBOLD.
• Lead image could be up to 300px.
• Is the caption in the lead image cited?
• Lots of empty cells indicating lack of info or perhaps something else?
• Could subdivide England and Wales as a minimum, especially as I didn't see a specific reference to England and Wales Cricket Board...
• TOC is way too long and creates massive whitespace at the top of the article.
• Would be better to see sortable tables.
• Why are all ref titles in italics?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list meets all the required material to become one. It is detailed comphensive list of episodes and their plots, with references mainly from from the BBC and the British Comedy Guide. I have mainly based my list on my previous FLs covering Peep Show and QI. ISD (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• WP:BOLDTITLE: In the first sentence, only make the title bold if it is also the name of the article, and isn't purely descriptive. Since the article isn't titled "Mongrels", the article shouldn't make that bit bold. Also, for future reference, the bold part should not be wikilinked to another article.
• Is it necessary in this article to tell us what it's working titles were? It's about the broadcasted episodes, which were all broadcasted with the title "Mongrels".
• Don't WP:OVERLINK common terms such as "British", "situation comedy", "fox", "cat", "pigeon", "Afghan hound",
• Remove words that just bump up the word count, such as "first" in "first broadcast"
• "Debbie the suicidal chicken, who was eventually dropped from the show." --> "Debbie, a suicidal chicken who was eventually dropped from the show." perhaps?
• "Following from this pilot" just doesn't sound right. Can it be rewritten at all?
• Prose in the episode summaries needs tightening. Some of the WP:TONE is somewhat informal and unsuitable, other bits are structured incorrectly:
  • "Nelson's old friend Vince turns up"
  • "urges him to break-up his friendship" -- I think it should be "break up" but "end" would be better
  • "suggests the idea of eating Destiny's pups." Does he suggest just the idea of it? Without watching the show, it seems more likely that the sentence should be "suggests eating Destiny's pups"
  • "When he discovers what he has said" --> "When he realises what he has said" maybe?
  • "a bunch of celebrities" is very informal :(
  • "to be neutered a bunch of celebrities" -- missing a "by" perhaps?
  • Can you make the column widths for the pilot episode the same as for series 1?
  • In the episode column headers, what does "#" mean? Also what does "1 (2)" etc mean? This needs clarifying. There have been discussions recently at Template talk:Episode list that might help
  • "Chicken", "Runt", etc... are these alternative episode titles? It's not clear at the moment. Where did they come from, the main titles appear to be referenced twice, but the alternates aren't.
  • "social networking login" a whaty? This is something that might be worth linking
  • "he gets a shock when he discovers the Wendy he was planning to meet is not a human being after all, but a chicken." Seems a bit clumsy. Should it be "discovers that Wendy"? Perhaps rewriting the sentence a bit more succinctly, something like: "He is shocked to discover that Wendy, his date, is not human, but a chicken."?
  • "Strictly Dog Dancing" links to Strictly Come Dancing, but it's more than a bit misleading. Perhaps you should use parentheses to clarify that it's a spoof, or whatever, of Strictly Come Dancing
  • "canine horror show" is it a horror show as in the horror film genre, or is this personal opinion?
  • "badboy" should be two words wikt:bad boy
  • "Marion finds his new life most comfortable" this sounds odd to me, but it may be that it's totally acceptable for British phrasing and I'm just not used to it..
  • "When his neighbour Vince has a litter of fox cubs Nelson is thrilled to be an uncle at last" is missing a comma after "cubs"
  • "Vince has eaten all of his cubs except one - the runt of the litter." En- or em-dash, not WP:HYPHEN
  • "only to discover that he's the sickliest, saddest, most difficult animal you could ever wish to meet." no contractions @ "he's", and it should be "one could ever wish to meet" rather than "you", but, perhaps "he has ever met" would work best
  • "Marion gets addicted to catnip and goes crazy." seems a bit short on details. Either remove the sentence, because it doesn't seem like it's one of the major storylines for the episode, or expand a little by saying how she went crazy
  • "Nelson steps in with some aversion therapy in a bid to save his friend." Who is his friend? I'm assuming it means Marion, but an earlier episode summary implies the friendship is over
  • "Annoyed, Kali plots to tempt Dean back to the dark side." -- how? does she succeed?
  • "Marion falls for the beautiful Lollipop" Is Lollipop a kitten? Just needs a little context
  • "The trouble is," is a bit unencyclopedic
  • "the legal age for dating is not three weeks - it's four weeks" Dash again, not hyphen
  • "Which should be easy, a cat having nine lives." is not a complete sentence. (semi-colon, not comma, too)
  • "However, she quickly discovers that guiding has its downside." Is not a complete sentence. Join it with the preceeding using a semi-colon
  • "It's time" -- contraction
  • "decides to go for it" go for what? Poor tone here, not really encyclopedic
  • "Yes, it seems Christian has rabies." Same here. I suspect it's the "yes"
  • I stopped checking the prose at episode 4, but I did notice a bit more stuff that needs addressing with the other summaries. Try to find a good copyeditor to go through it all
• Each episode has a box for the guest celebrities, but there is no mention of the celebrities (except Toby Anstis through a passing mention) in the summaries. If they're important enough to mention, why are they not important enough to describe what they did or their impact on their appearing in the episodes?
• Why is Guy Fawkes night referred to as "5/11"? In all the years I grew up and lived in the UK, I don't remember it being called that.
• Is there a need for that series overview box? There's increasing feeling at WP:TV that there isn't.
• Why no real details on the DVD?
• In the footnote: "This episode has yet to be broadcast..." This implies that it might be, but pilots that aren't made for broadcast rarely are broadcast so it might be worth saying "This episode was not broadcast"
• I'm very concerned that the only references are the BBC and the British Comedy Guide. The BBC refs are all primary sources, and I'm not convinced that the British Comedy Guide website is a reliable source. I noticed at it's Wikipedia entry that all the sources are self-referential, and I know that notability ≠ reliability, but.... What fact-checking do they do? How do we know they are a reliable for this series, or indeed, any series? Are there any publications, paper or online, that use this site as a reference?
• I'm also not convinced that the page should even be on Wikipedia. Are any of the episodes notable when they stand alone? The article doesn't make any indication that they are. The series itself may be notable, but the episodes do not inherit that notability.

As it is I have to oppose for now, but I have the page watchlisted so I'll check back in. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First awards and nominations list I have nominated for FLC. Hope it goes well. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Removed from WP:FLC, please wait until your older nomination receives a couple supports before re-transcluding. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought the very existence of these lists was frowned upon?  f o x  08:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon? --K. Annoyomous (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I think lists like these are now normally titled "List of accolades received by ...". Also, this list has no dab links, but dead external links to http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b189868_rob_pattinson_kristen_stewart_taylor.html and http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/2009/best-new-artist/ (the content of the page it leads to doesn't contain the title given). Ucucha 10:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't get how the first one is dead, but I fixed the latter. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is now a dead external link to http://www.weareyoungmoney.com/artistPg.jsp?id=3, and dab links to Forever and Over. Ucucha 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced link with another, and removed the dabs. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm satisfied that my concerns have been addressed and can;t see any other issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after putting a bunch of work into it I think it is ready to be a FL. Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links (one still works, even though it returns a 404). Ucucha 09:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Shouldn't the name be List of counties in Romania per WP:LISTNAME?—Chris!_c/t 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a simple table, but also provides some background. Considering this, with or without "list of" in the title is fine, but I prefer not having an unnecessary appendix to the title. Also, see 1, 2, 3, and 4 for similar examples, some of which are even more-so just-a-table-lists. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Anyway, I've turned the above into a redirect as it is a plausible search term.—Chris!_c/t 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Looks very good, just a couple of questions and comments.
• Since this list is about the present counties, the intro and history section could be shortened quite a bit in my opinion. Most of what is said there, relates to historical divisions and should go (if not already present) to the Historical administrative divisions of Romania article. In my opinion it would suffice to mention when the present division came into place, what it looks like and what was the division before it. You also might want to merge history and intro after shortening. The second map in the article (and possibly also the third) could be removed in the process.

• It is not clear to me what you think should be chopped off from the intro. As for the history section, I think every list should have such a section. I think it is ok to have it shorter, but I do not think it should be removed completely. Other similar FLs have a section like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (I am not saying they currently pass the criteria, but that they were promoted with a history-like section). Nergaal (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to remove the history. However I think that large parts of the intro and the history section are almost identical in content. I suggest to merge the history in the intro section. AFAIK you can have four paragraphs in the intro according to the MOS. So you can have one additional paragraph. Also the first paragraph is very short and could be merged into another paragraph or expanded. bamse (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I tweaked the intro to be less repetitive. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Still too much repetition for my taste. Some examples: The earliest organization into judeţe of the Principalities of Wallachia, termed ţinuturi in Moldavia, dates back to at least the late 14th century. (intro) versus The earliest organization into judeţe (for Wallachia), and ţinuturi (for Moldavia), dates back at least to the late 14th century. (history); The 41 counties (Romanian: judeţe) and the municipality of Bucharest comprise the official administrative divisions of Romania. They represent the NUTS-3 statistical subdivisions of the European Union (intro) versus At present, Romania is divided into 41 counties and one municipality (Bucharest); these are assigned as NUTS-3 geocode statistical subdivision scheme of Romania within the European Union. (history). I'd prefer a long intro (and no history) section to reading the same thing twice. If it was a long article you could claim summary style for the intro, but here there are only two sections and the information in these sections should not be repetitive at all in my opinion. bamse (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused; isn't the lead supposed to summarize the entire article? The information in these two sentences is notable enough to warrant mention in the intro; do you have a suggestion how to trim them not to be repetitive? Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea what it is supposed to do. To me it is a bit weird to summarize one section in another section of about equal length. bamse (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that these two points are important enough to be mentioned in the intro, but there is not much more to be said about it to put more stuff in the article. They are two sentences out of 10 in the intro so it is not really a major. Unless someone comes up with an idea, I would prefer to leave them as they are now. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of suggested an idea above. Unless another reviewer worries about it, let's leave it as is. bamse (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite understand: "In a number of cases, the name of the county seat or another large city in the county is also given by that river." Can you explain?

• For example: Suceava River gives its name to both the county and the county seat. So the city was named after the river, but when naming the county one could say it comes from the city. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. So if the origin is not known (if it is not known if it comes from the city or from the river), shouldn't you mention both in that column (separated by "or")?

• I guess I messed this one up: I am pretty sure the names were given by the rivers (although I cannot find a good reference for that; for example if one goes through the counties that don't exist anymore a lot of them have the name of a major river flowing through them while there is no city with that name). The note was only meant to clarify why so many counties share the name with the county seat but the name is from the river instead. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not clear to me what I should do about this. Any ideas? Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideally there should be a reference for this. However unless somebody disputes that the name comes from the river, I guess it is fine. bamse (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm a little concerned by this link and this one. Even if they present a faithful reproduction of a peer-reviewed source (Dariescu's book), they are a possible copyright violation (see WP:ELNEVER for that) and are blogs (WP:ELNO point 11, and although the material is "written by a recognized authority", it's not actually Darlescu's blog, is it?). A possible solution would be to simply remove the links: you accessed the material and used it, it's valid, but the way it's linked to a blog is not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine with me. I will remove the links. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In a similar vein, what makes [7], drawn from [8], worth linking to? Sure, it's interesting, but it's a blog posting written by non-experts, and doesn't contribute a scholarly note to the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for fixing lots of minor issues throughout the article. The blog itself is not the reason I added it; I added it because I thought that the maps it shows are relevant to the subject, and I don't think wikipedia has such maps available. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:49, 24 September 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FLC criteria. It also follows the pattern and structure of similar featured lists like 1976 Summer Olympics medal table and 2004 Summer Olympics medal table. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per recommendations by a couple of editors I've made some copy edits to help the article conform to Featured Lists more recently promoted. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by Parutakupiu (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC):[reply]
  • Suggestion (up to you to follow): lead images can be increased as big as 300px;
  • As it's not bolded, you can link 1972 Summer Olympics;
  • "A total of 7,134 athletes from 121 countries participated in these Games. They competed in 195 events in 23 sports." — National Olympic Committees (NOCs) is more accurate than countries, since not every participating NOC was a "country". More so because there's an "NOC" instance in the medal table section and no previous spelled-out instance;
    • I also linked "National Olympic Committees". Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Men's indoor handball, slalom canoeing and kayaking all made their Olympic debuts.[1] Archery, while archery returned to the Olympic program after a 52-year hiatus." — Sentences are related and one is so short it's almost asking to be merged to the previous one; plus, you save repeating a ref. Also, mind the hyphen in "52-year";
  • "Absent from the Games were the Rhodesian athletes." — I'd remove this sentence because it's 1) weirdly phrased, and 2) the following text states this situation;
    • All the above done as suggested.
  • "white-controlled" — Hum, you should clear this better;
    • Changed to "segregated", is that better?
      • Yes, but I also linked it to a clarifying article. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eventually African nations..." — Comma after "Eventually";
  • "Three days prior to the..." → "Three days before the...";
    • All above done as suggested.
  • A very disturbing and sad highlight of these Games, but the Munich Massacre is not relevant to this list. I'd remove that paragraph entirely;
    • Interesting, I thought there wouldn't be an issue with including this information since it so colored the 1972 Games. I've removed it.
      • It fits natural and understandably in the 1972 Games article, but it adds nothing to this list, which should focus on NOC medals and notable contributions to medal tallies. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Athletes from 48 countries ..." — NOCs;
    • Forgot to mention the "nations" that comes after: already replaced it. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Led by gymnast Karin Janz—who won two golds, two silvers and one bronze—, East Germany..." — Mind the plural forms and the em-dashes;
    • You added hyphens instead of em-dashes (the "long hyphens"). I replaced them. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to place third place in the total medal count."
    • All done as suggested.
  • "swimmer Mark Spitz..." — Capitalize swimmer (it's the beginning of a sentence);
    • Oops oversight from a previous edit.
  • "It was the charismatic Olga Korbut though, who took the spotlight from Spitz." — A very opinionated statement. For example, Spitz, not Korbut, would be the first athlete I'd mention or even remember from these Games. Is there any reliable source claiming this spotlight stealing?
    • Good point, I've changed the sentence to state that Olga Korbut delivered a memorable performance.
      • Better, but I think you should find a ref to source the statement on her distinguishing personality. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What relevance has the basketball gold medal match to this list? I understand perfectly the mentions to Spitz and Korbut, as they made numerous contributions to their NOCs at these Games, but I don't see how the basketball controversy (quite a lengthy mention) fits into the context of this medal table list;
    • True, it has garnered quite a bit of copy over the years but I have been looking for ways to trim this paragraph, this is a good start. It has been removed.
  • "Japanese gymnast, Sawao Kato..." — Remove comma;
    • Done
  • Regarding the images:
    • Link the athlete names in the captions;
      • Done
    • Remove the memorial picture as it does not have relevance to the list;
      • Done
    • Can't you find more images of notable medal contributors?
      • There are more places to look but not much in Commons. Even the pictures of Mark Spitz are current, not from his Olympic performance.
        • That's no issue. I also added current photos to some of my lists. What matters is that it portrays the person; if you add a relevant caption referring to the notable feat, that surely helps. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notes" section contains refs for inline citations rather than footnotes per se. These should be moved to the "References" section and distinguished from the main sources.
    • I'm not sure I understand, what information would you like moved to the references section? This is the format that I used to reference the Olympic Games article. If the information is incorrectly placed I'll happily move it I'm just not clear on what information should be moved to the references section.
      • Nevermind. Your choice is perfectly right, afterall. I was just used to see the "Notes" sections as a repository for footnotes (as clauses or explanatory descriptions), not for specific citations of a more general source. Don't mind this, sorry. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sports Reference citations should have "Kubatko, Justin" as author, and "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com" as work parameter;
    • Noted and changed
• Thank you Parutakupiu for your thorough review and for not simply opposing but making suggestions for fixes. I'll work on the images but there just doesn't seem like a lot out there. I'll see what I can do. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're very welcome! Parutakupiu (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image caption, would be nice to specify exactly what the radstadion was.

• "bronze—, East Germany " is that comma necessary after the em-dash?

• Fixed

• "This was a sign of things to come" sounds dangerously like POV...

• Removed

• ' and captured the global television audience with her personality, which stood in stark contrast to the stoicism portrayed by her teammates." sounds like another opinion, is this strictly what the reference you use says?

• Removed a questionable part of the statement and moved the ref to the right spot, should support the claim that she was very charismatic and drew a lot of media attention.

• "The East German delegation ..." caption doesn't need a full stop.
• "Mark Spitz in 2008, he won seven gold medals at the 1972 Summer Olympics." best case is to replace the comma with a semi-colon.

• Fixed all above as stated.

• Ref 6 malformed

• Sheesh how could I have missed that one.

• Ref 9 needs en-dash.

• Fixed

• Sorting by silver, I get TCH and FRA tied, but TCH above FRA despite the fact FRA had five more bronzes. I don't think this is how it should sort, surely regardless of medal colour, it should sort (a) by medal colour then (b) by golds, (c) by silvers, (d) by bronzes?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, when I sort by silver from least to greatest then FRA is listed after TCH but when you sort by silver from greatest to least then FRA is ahead of TCH, this may be a glitch. Unfortunately I'm at a loss for how to fix it.

Thank you for your review I hope the fixes meet with your approval. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. I don't like the intro. Why is Rhodesia overrepresented? Rhodesia, like South Africa, was still segregated in 1972 and yet the International Olympic Committee (IOC) voted to invite Rhodesia to the 1972 Games. Eventually, African nations protested this invitation and threatened to boycott the Games. Three days before the opening ceremonies the IOC voted to rescind their invitation and exclude the Rhodesian athletes. Also, Soviet gymnast Olga Korbut delivered another memorable performance. She entered the Olympics as an alternate on the Soviet gymnastics team, and replaced an injured teammate before the start of the competition. Korbut performed well during the team competition and captured the global television audience with her personality. I can go on with the Japanese example, but the long story short is this: the intro is not about the medal table! It is a collection of almost-trivia facts, that do not fall under the scope of the article. Japan won a notable amount of medals but it is not mentioned. How about the NOCs that won their first medals? Or first gold medals? Or perhaps how well did the newcomer NOCs perform? I might be wrong, but 50 gold medals seems to be a large number. It was the first time (excluding 04 and 08) a NOC won this many, and the first time it was not the host (the other two examples from very early games are from an era when not much traveling was done and not too much interest was shown). Over a quarter of the gold medals won by a non-host is for sure a rare achievement. Why should I care about the life story of Olga Korbut when all these issues are missed? I got all of these in just 5 minutes, which leads me think that there are much more issues that could be fixed. Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

I actually do like the lede generally, and it keeps to the general idea that these tables should not try to replace the article on the Games or individual events.

That said, I'm not a fan of the lede image, as the stadia have little impact in a medal table. Now, when Venues of the 1972 Summer Olympics finally gets written, it'll be a great image.

"took place in Munich, Germany, from 26 August through 11 September 1972." Remember that Germany was a divided nation at the time. These Games were hosted by the FRG, not the GDR.

What is actually sourcing the medal table?

Explain why there are so many more bronzes. I know it is because of Boxing and Judo's no bronze-medal match, but readers usually don't.

I know Bakaava Buidaa was stripped of his silver in Judo, so there is either two silvers in one event, or the total of gold and silver shouldn't match. Either way, this needs explaining.

There were two stripped bronze medals in cycling

The bronze medal match in Football was drawn

The Men's basketball silver... included or not?

These irregularities need to be explained, and my memory and quick research can't explain how the silver and gold totals match when accounting for the Judo result, so check the table carefully.

Courcelles 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Quick suggestion regarding the stripped medal: several other medal lists that have reached FL include a paragraph right before the medal table on any discrepancies. For something of this nature, you could the fact that Buidaa was stripped of the medal and why, along with who gained/improved their medals as a result. If there were multiple medals of the same color in an event, that could be explained in such a paragraph as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, when the Judo medal was stripped, the silver remained vacant, with neither bronze medallist was advanced to silver. Courcelles 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [11].

Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk 06:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article meets all the necessary criteria in terms of writing, sourcing and everything else. Thanks in advance, to all the editors that take place in this nomination. PeterGriffin • Talk 06:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—a dab link to Babyface, and among the external links, http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259165.xml?year=1999&type=7 leads to certifications for 1999 instead of 1998 and http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259165.xml?year=2000&type=7 to those for 2000 instead of 1999. Ucucha 09:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ucucha 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a suggestion, the Canadian references next to the position looks kinda messy, I know that the RPM archives go single by single by could you consider doing something similar to the Lady Gaga discography. For example reference 36 lists all of her charting singles in Germany without having to put a reference in every space of the table something like a sub-reference, that way the table looks cleaner. This is just a suggestion. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frcm1988, I just did as you suggested, and I think it looks awesome. Thanks for the tip, check it out and tell me what you think.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks much better now. I will see the rest of the article later, if there isn't any big problems I will support. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thank you :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I fixed the notes as you asked Rambling Man, thanks for the help!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Peter, I have to oppose this discogaphy at present since there are quite a few outstanding issues I find regarding prose, MoS, citations etc. I will list some of them

• The beginning line is so abrupt for a discography article. You need to cehck other FL discogs as to how they begin. Fixed
• Again it shows your kind of obsession with "Vision of Love". There were other #1 singles from Mariah Carey, there's not even a passing reference to them. Fixed
• "Without You" is listed as toppping the charts in Austria and Sweden, but not supported by the charts. Fixed
• Again there is a huge skip of timeline, there's no mention at all of the singles from Emotions and MTV Unplugged. Fixed
• the best-selling single of 1994 -> the best-selling Japanese single of 1994 Fixed
• US Hot 100 --> the charts name is Billboard Hot 100 Fixed
• There is absolutely no mention of Butterfly, #1's, Rainbow, Glitter. I don't understand the exclusion of the last two. Just because they were commercial disappointments doesnot mean that they should not be included. Hence there is no neutral point of view in the article. Fixed- FYI, Rainbow was not a commercial disappointment
• At the end of the decade -> which decade? Fixed
• spending the most weeks at number one of the decade (fourteen weeks).[ --> ellipse Fixed
• Reference 13 to the Yahoo blog was deemed unreliable because of its author. Fixed
• In 2009, Carey's cover of Foreigner's classic "I Want to Know What Love Is," became the longest-running song number-one song in Brazilian singles chart history, spending 27 consecutive weeks atop the chart --> trivial seeing the chart itlsef is not mentioned. REmember, this is a discogaphy, not a songography. Fixed
• The lead seems littered with trivial soundscan and BDS information from Billboard and thus catering only to the US market. Another instance of WP:BIAS and WP:POV violation. It is a similar situation, where there's no flow, cohesion and looks like a WP:DIRECTORY, as I pointed out in the talk page of Mariah Carey biography article. Fixed
• The infobox: "Singles", "Promotional singles" returns a dead link, same for "Other appearance" Help
• Moving on to the table. Carey's primary market is the US, and US certifications should be before any other market. Fixed
• For the Canadian charts, what you did for the RPM ones, you can similarly merge the Billboard Canadian hot 100 reference to make it a single one, so that you don't need two separate reference tags. The Canadian Hot 100 is 1 reference.
• Why is there a certification called Million in AIWFCIY? That's what its called in Japan
• "One Sweet Day" - Boyz II Men had featured credit, please reflect it in that way. Fixed
• Similar to the other featured credits, par "When You Believe". Added and fixed
• For AUS and NZ charts in Featured Artist, you can do a similar thing like the RPM ones. There is no need, its the same thing as with "The Official Charts Company in the UK"
• Coming to the citations: I don't understand why are online sources italicized and why are printed media not in italics?Fixed
• About.com --> online source Fixed
• Reference 3 needs volume, issue, issn, author etc. Fixed
• FL quality article shouldnt use ChartStats Fixed
• Ref 7, pubished media Fixed
• sky.org is an unreliable source Fixed
• After that so many of the references lack author name and date I have provided author and date where available
• I suggest a thorough re-checking of every reference in the article. I did that
• Use en-dash in the references please and in the artile body, wherever applicable. Fixed
• Using the template {{Mariah Carey}} is of no significance here. Fixed
• You are already once linking the albums discography in the top, then why at the bottom in the See also section? Fixed

All these issues makes me believe that the nomination was underprepared and rushed out. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed almost all the things you mentioned, as well as almost re-writing the lead. Please explain a few of your issues, as I do not understand the problem, thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 15:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got some advice from a freind,so now all the issues are fixed Legolas. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 13:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although prose has increased a little, most of it still needs a copy-edit. Also, most of the MoS issues which I pointed out regarding en-dashes and online/printed publications are still there. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose still stands as there are the MoS issues still pending, as well as some other outstanding issues now intriduced.

1. as well as her third number one single in Canada --> you haven't mention any peak position in Canada, why this one?
2. Jackson 5's classic --> Jackson 5 classic
3. became her second chart topper in New Zealand --> see b4
4. Music Box yielded other successful singles, --> You are saying that Music Box yielded other successful singles, but you mentioned only one, "Hero"
5. produced the Christmas classic --> it is noted as Christmas classic by whom?
6. The song performed well outside the US, peaking at number two in Australia and the UK. The song is Carey's best-seller in the United Kingdom, with sales of over 670,000 units --> Consecutive singles beginning with the same intro
7. I find similar instances as my previous comment, throughout the article
8. Another really outstanding issue, which I previously ignored, was the size of the lead. It is the largest I have ever seen for an article, albeit being a discography. I would suggest pruning down all the miscellaneous statistics. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I fixed those issues and removed allot of repeatedor miscellaneous mentions.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral, i'm not convinced that there's enough precision for FLC status.

• first of all there is inconsistancies for example every time a song is mentioned it should be given in Speech marks. Vision of Love → "Vision of Love". Fixed
• there is still some issues with neutrality.

• e.g. The album's lead single "Loverboy", failed to top the charts in any major market, peaking only at number two in the US and the top ten in Australia and Canada. This sentance appears to suggest that reaching number two is bad thing. Fixed
• The following singles from Rainbow were not as successful outside the US, where the album's follow-up single, "Thank God I Found You", peaked outside the top twenty in most European countries, with the exception of the UK, where it reached the top ten. reorder the sentance from best to worst chart achievements. Fixed
• It should be noted that the article uses two different types of English. As an American subject the article should use purely American English. E.g. US → U.S. Fixed

• The album's second single, "We Belong Together", became her highest charting single in years. Specify how many years. Fixed
• topping the charts in the US and Australia, and reaching the top five in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and top two in the UK. - re-order sentance from best chart achievements to worst. Fixed
• The album's second single, "Bye Bye", performed weakly on the charts, peaking in the top twenty in the US, and barely cracking the top forty in Canada, Germany and the UK what's barely cracking? surely it didnt reach the same number of positions outside the top 40 in Canada, Germany and the UK? Fixed
• Did any of her singles have particular success outside of the US that should be noted? For every single that I listed I wrote info on other territories, so I don't understand the issue. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I meant, is there any singles which performed well in the UK/internationally that didnt chart in the US? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I mean most of her singles were hits in the US, and many were hits elsewhere, so there isnt a specific single which only did well in Europe. I did express how IWTKWLI did better in Europe than US, thats all I can think of :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How successful was "Hero"? was it equally as successful as "Without You"? Less/more? Also why is there no mention of her re-release of this? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vay Unique, I can't write her whole career here. Look at Madonna singles discography, just as an example. The intro is already long IMO, but acceptable. If you want all that info go to her biography page. Honestly, I wrote the major aspects of almost all her singles. And Hero was not re-released. It was re-recorded for her "The Ballads" album, though NOT commercially re-released, so I don't think there is any reason to mention this. I will explain more on Hero's worldwide success as you ask.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [13].

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I don't think it is missing anything to be featured. I wonder what others think. Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:41, 24 September 2010 [14].

Nominator: Goodraise 10:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Jinnai, Tintor2, Lightlowemon

I am nominating this for featured list because "we need more FLCs!"[15] The last FLC failed because of a reviewer taking some issues with the prose with which I simply disagreed and therefore did not address. Please take the time to read his arguments and state whether or not you agree with him. Thanks. Goodraise 10:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As it currently is as the issue from the last FAC hasn't been addressed. As I said last time, if someone else uninvolved with that particular issue or other manga FLCs disagrees with me, then I would drop it. They haven't though that still stands.

• The issue I raised was about volume release by Madman.
• In addition, since Viz ramped up their production, I am wondering if Madman has. I don't see anything on this.
• "It follows the adventures of the seventeen-year-old boy Monkey D. Luffy, whose body gains the properties of rubber from accidentally eating a supernatural fruit, as he travels the oceans in search of the series' titular treasure and gathers himself a ragtag crew of heroic pirates, named the Straw Hats." - This sentence feels a bit long and should probably be divided into two.陣内_Jinnai 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made clear in the last FLC why I did not make the changes you requested, so I won't go into that again. Your second point is merely a new facet of our disagreement and I'm not addressing it for analogous reasons. As for that long sentence, it feels fine to me. Thanks for taking the time to review. Goodraise 19:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel the sentence should be divided, but if that were the only issue, I wouldn't oppose. My point is though that the article is biased toward NA release schedule as it gives much more detail to Viz leaving the others as only mention simply because Viz produced volumes first.

On a secondary note, if this it to be a complete listing on the English volume/chapter listing, it should also not the re-release in a compilation format by Viz.陣内_Jinnai 19:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being silly. Local releases, compilation format re-releases, that's all supposed to be in the list? The original releases and, since this is the English language Wikipedia, the first releases in English are the only ones with historic significance. Therefore, they are given considerably more weight than all other releases. That has nothing to do with bias. With an ongoing manga, that may not be so obvious, but if Eiichiro Oda had lived 200 years ago, then you wouldn't insist on each instance of a company anywhere in the world trying to make a profit of his work to be mentioned here. Noting a re-release may just take one sentence, but that's beside the point. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog and it's not supposed to be complete. It's supposed to be comprehensive. Goodraise 06:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, we wouldn't note a sudden ramp-up in production by those same historical terms as production schedules always change and we often don't make mention where there are more subtle changes or temporary hiatuses. And so because Viz just happened to do it first your stating we should only briefly mention what any other English publisher does, ie that they may publish the series? That is not comprehensive; that's systemic bias. In a comprehensive history we'd also note similar tends with any major publication. Just because some company does something first does not give license to ignore coverage of the one who comes second.陣内_Jinnai 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If that were the case, we wouldn't note a sudden ramp-up in production by those same historical terms as production schedules always change and we often don't make mention where there are more subtle changes or temporary hiatuses." – Yes, we would. The first release in English language is the first release in English language. It doesn't matter if it happens now, happened 200 years ago, or happened before the emergence of Christ (ignoring for a moment the fact that English hasn't been around that long). If more significant things happen in regard to the series in that time, then those take precedence of course, but the passage of time alone doesn't take anything away from the relevance of that fact. And what the changing nature of publication schedules, let alone "more subtle changes or temporary hiatuses", has to do with the relation between the time passed since the first publication and the weight given to that publication's schedule is beyond me.
"And so because Viz just happened to do it first your stating we should only briefly mention what any other English publisher does, ie that they may publish the series?" – Basically, yes, that's what I'm saying. However, I'm looking at it differently. While the lead is usually read first, it is written last. Or rather, the lead is written to match the article body, not the other way round. This is even more so with lists than with normal articles. Therefore, the question that comes first is: What should go into the table? As you haven't objected to the lack of information in the table, I assume its content agrees with you. And since only the first English language release dates are contained in the table, I'm lead to the conclusion that you acknowledge that the first English language release dates deserve to be given more weight than later English language release dates. That leaves us with the question: What goes into the lead? As specified by WP:LEAD, the lead section should be introduction and summary. Mentioning that the series is published in English in various countries serves an introductory purpose. Mentioning Viz's accelerated publishing schedule on the other hand is part of the summary of the article body. Similar information for other publications would not play the same role, as the release dates of those publications aren't found in the tables.
"[...] because Viz [did] it first [we should cover them more deeply]? [...]; that's systemic bias." – How so? I may not agree with your opinion that the article is biased, but I can understand why you'd call it that. However, you'll have to explain to me why you think it is a systemic bias.
"In a comprehensive history we'd also note similar tends with any major publication." – Perhaps, but that's not the goal of the article. The article title is "List of One Piece manga volumes", not "Publication history of the One Piece manga series".
"Just because some company does something first does not give license to ignore coverage of the one who comes second." – Since Madman's releases are not ignored, merely covered less deeply, I assume what you want is for Madman's releases to be covered equally deep as those of Viz. If Madman's releases really deserve equally deep coverage in this article, then why don't you insist on inclusion of their release dates and ISBNs in the tables? Goodraise 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that we wouldn't note the first appearance of something. However that is not an excuse that we ignore anything else simply because something was first. If we have a finite amount of space then the argument about being concise would have more justification. Because VIZ gets there and publishes something first is not an excuse to all but ignore any other English language developments. I am not saying that Madman (in this case) needs to be equally covered either. I am saying they should be more than some passing 1-line sentance that amounts to "oh this company also publishes One Piece in English". That is where the systemic bias is - that by coming first you think a passing mention to anyone who comes second should simply be ignored unless it is of extreme notability far above and beyond that of what VIZ does.

In that regard, listing the first publication date for every volume isn't necessary for Madman, although and last (the latter of which has yet to be announced) is. Furthermore its by language, not region. While it doesn't apply here specifically, other divisions do divide by region, such as video games and in that case it would be important to note Madman's first publication for each and every one if we divided it as such. It would also be notable to make the publications if Madman, took its cue from 4kids and altered the manga to come out with their own unique publication style.

The bottom line is I'm not disputing with you that VIZ by virtue of being first has more importance. I'm saying that status doesn't amount to all but ignoring Madman save for one lone sentence.陣内_Jinnai 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I will ignore the first two paragraphs of this post as they are borderline gibberish, and since making sense of them would require painstaking guesswork on my part. Considering that you identify as a native speaker of English on your user page and obviously deem yourself knowledgeable in matters of English grammar,[16] I find your writing in this manner to be an imposition.

"I'm not disputing ... that VIZ ... has more importance. I'm saying that status doesn't amount to all but ignoring Madman save for one lone sentence." – So, you're saying Madman Entertainment's releases should be covered less deeply than those of Viz Media, but in more than one sentence, right? Why? Their releases are already covered more deeply than all non-English, non-Japanese releases combined and equally deep as the releases of Gollancz Manga. Why do their releases merit deeper coverage? They're only selling Viz's adaptation under a different name.[17] If anything, they're already given more attention then they're due. Goodraise 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the stricken passage above: After several hours of doing other things and after reading those paragraphs another few times, I realize that I may have overreacted a little. I apologize and hope no feelings were hurt. However, the fact remains that your writing is often hard to understand for me, perhaps not lastly because I'm not a native speaker of English. Goodraise 18:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: As for the re-release, yes a sentance is enough, but as re-releases are noted in other FLs, it should be noted here.陣内_Jinnai 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That other articles fail at something is no reason to repeat their mistakes. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Goodraise 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not comprehensive to not state a widespread republication in a completely different format. That kind of info is expected for a feature-class article; reprints that have little to no change aren't.陣内_Jinnai 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"completely different format" – I have read the description on the Amazon.com page you linked to above. I have browsed Viz's product description pages.[18] I have even read a review of the first of these volumes.[19] But if there is anything so different about these volumes that it would merit the attribute completely, then I must have missed it. Please, enlighten me. Goodraise 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read volume 1 of that I can say there are some notable differences. The biggest is probably the Zoro/Zolo translation was retranslated to Zolo for these translations. There are also additional production errors not seen in the original and that are easily discernable to the average reader.陣内_Jinnai 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As in the previous one, I support it. Although the sentence may feel long, dividing it into two could wouldn't feel good. This issue seems somehow trivial, and making not pass just for that doesn't feel good, considering article's good state.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:47, 21 September 2010 [20].

Nominator(s): Neo139 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the featured list criteria. The list is a former featured list candidate (July 5, 2008), you can see the old discussion in archive1. The list is now complete and all the dead links have been fixed. Certifications are updated. And the style is the suggested in the Discographies WikiProject. Music video and video albums sections added. ... Neo139 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose The article has almost no lead. The lead is supposed to have engaging prose, covering their entire career and giving the reader a broad overview. Also, you shouln't include so many certifications as it looks messy. Additionally, the size of the certifications should be consistent, considering some are small and some large. The big isssue here for me is the small and un-informative lead.--AlastorMoody (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, I just added some lead at the beginning. Now all the certifications are in small. About not including all the certifications mmm, I wouldn't like to delete a certification considering it less important than other one. Also the idea of hierarchical importance in certifications it's messy because some of them are based on sales and some of shipments. At this moment Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE says to include Certifications and do not specify a maximum number, but it's a good topic for later discussion. Some discographies have lot more certifications than this one like the Michael Jackson discography. -- Neo139 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Woahh. Only ten charts should be in the singles, certifications should only be of charts listed, tables are out of whack, and lead isn't very sufficient. First of all, don't use Michael Jackson discog as an example to go by. Please go take a look at decent actual featured lists like Rihanna discography, Lady Gaga discography, or Kesha discography.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyo32 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some things. Now 10 charts on everything. Tables are fixed. About the certifications only of charts listed countries, I didn't find about that in WIkipedia:DISCOGSTYLE --Neo139 (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. This article needs alot of work. WP:LEAD, the lead does not accurately summarize the body of the article and is poorly written. Your references are a mess; None contain proper work and publisher fields, you use blogs. References shouldnt be sourced like this. You use multiple refs the same time but are not linked, a,b,c,d they are just reused. You have incorrect titles. WP:MOS. Your not using "en-dash", your using simple "-". WP:OVERLINK left and right. Linkin_Park_discography#Soundtracks does not need release dates, further, your release dates arnt sourced.
  

For the reasons stated above which i noticed in 5 minutes the article needs a few peer reivews rather then a FL nom. For reference on a proper FL please see Kesha discography(which i wrote) or Lady Gaga discography. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:43, 13 September 2010 [21].

Nominator(s): BigDom 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the FL criteria. The list is an accompaniment to the List of Burnley F.C. players (100+ league appearances), but contains those players who played between 50 and 99 league games for the club. Anyway, the table is fully sortable and the use of colour and symbols meets WP:ACCESS. Dablinks etc. have been checked. Thanks in advance, BigDom 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's good, but before TRM gets here, I'll go ahead and point out that when ordering by games played, they should be subsequently ordered by goals scored. The reasoning being that those with higher score are better or something. For an example see List of Athletic Bilbao players. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 09:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I know what you mean, but that sounds odd to me. How can one compare a goalkeeper and striker who have played the same number of matches, and come to the conclusion that the striker was better because he scored more goals? BigDom 09:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are multiple valid ways to sort players with the same number of apps - my own lists sort players on the same number of apps by the dates when they played. There is no reason why the list must use number of goals as the second sorting criterion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This list is created in alphabetical order rather than number of games, hence the secondary sorting key is surname, rather than number of goals. BigDom 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record I agree it's odd and since the two of you are against it, I'll join the bandwagon. However if we do have a secondary sorting system it should be somewhat consistent across lists and not be a mix of alphabetical/chronological/goals scored Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all checks out fine. Sandman888 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look! BigDom 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I would list notes and references in separate columns but its just a matter of taste. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• By criterion 2, the lead section is supposed to provide an introduction to the subject. Given that the subject is Burnley players 50-99 apps, shouldn't it say at least as much about the players in the list as it does about the history of Burnley F.C.? Or at least something about some of the players in the list.
• Did you consider using the FB/HB/IF/OF/CF positions, as used at List of Watford F.C. players, for players from the days when formations were different? Saves on guesswork for centre-halves, if nothing else. I was thinking of converting the BCFC lists, if I ever feel brave enough.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

• Not sure what to write in the lead, do you have any suggestions? There's no precedent for this type of player list where none of the record-setting players are included and the ones who are there have mostly just had generally mediocre careers.
• I didn't consider doing that, but I can if you would prefer.

Thanks, BigDom 10:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Lead) Do any of the following apply to players in this appearance-range (please bear in mind I know nothing about Burnley F.C., their awards or their record-holders): youngest/oldest player; first Burnley player capped for anybody; first (any?) capped for England while at Burnley; played in the title-winning sides; played in the Cup Final sides; Player of the Year; any of your footnoted top goalscorers also divisional top scorer; went on to manage the club. That sort of thing.
• (Positions) Up to you. I was convinced by User:WFCforLife's argument on the subject at the Watford list FLC re halfbacks, sources and original research. Though I'm not sure where his 1965 as a "changeover" date to modern positions comes from.

Replies:

• (Lead) Youngest player: Tommy Lawton (25 apps), Oldest player: Jerry Dawson (522 apps), First international (was also first England international): Jack Yates (29 apps), so none of those are included, and AFAIK Burnley don't keep a record of their Players of the Year (it's not in the official history book, on the official website or even on any of the fansites). However, I will add some information about the players in the cup-winning/title-winning teams and managers etc.

Cheers, BigDom 08:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have no objection to the playing positions not being converted to pre-post 65; left thread open because WFC's passing comment would otherwise make no sense. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Passing comment: Judging by player appearance records at the end of Watford Season by Season (which I am temporarily without), 1965 appeared to be the approximate time of the switch from 2-3-5 to 4-4-2, although I wouldn't submit it for a second FLC until I had a more concrete answer on the year (or alternatively, until I cross-referenced every pre-1998 position to that book, citing Jones' designation as what the list is going by). --WFC-- 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "and the following year they won the FA Cup for the only time in 1914". That's a pretty obvious prose redundancy.
• I'm going to agree with something I saw above, in that the lead really has little relation to the subject of the list. It's not like nothing could possibly be included on these players, either. Subjects like capped players, players with 99 appearances, and top goal-scorers among those on the list are but a few possibilities.
• Reference 5 should include a note that the link is in PDF format.

Replies:

• Removed
• Ref 5 - is the PDF icon not enough?

Cheers, BigDom 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to complete the lead at the moment, I just don't have time. I might merge this list with the 100+ players and re-submit the larger list at FLC at a later date. Otherwise, I may get round to writing something for this one and nominate it again. Anyway, thanks to all the editors who left comments in this nomination and helped me to improve the list. Cheers, BigDom 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:57, 7 September 2010 [22].

Nominator(s): —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first medal event of the first Youth Olympic Games, so it has some historical merit. It will probably the first of many 2010 YOG articles that will soon appear in FLC for consideration. If successful, it can be used as a template for future candidates. I believe it meets all the criteria for inclusion as a featured list. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. This nomination could allow a lot of FL's, as I what believe are the only two featured-class works on individual events; Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race and Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race are featured articles. I don't have a problem with it, though- I always thought these events worked better as lists than being forced into articles anyway. What I do have a concern about is the FL requirement that a minimum proportion of the items be redlinked, when here they're all redlinks. I'm going to have to think about this one. (For an actual comment... sort-ability for the various times would be nice to have) Courcelles 02:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this should be a developed article like the road races. It is not a 'List of' anything. Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I don't think lists need to start with "List of". But otherwise I agree with the Reywas92, this should be developed into an article. As for the redlinks, if the girls don't meet the WP:GNG, they don't need to be linked at all. Regards, --WFC-- 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it must not have that in the title, but it does need to be a list of something. Reywas92^Talk 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Clarification on the redlinks; I believe they have merit. It's true that most do not meet notability requirements at this moment, but I have no doubt we will see some familiar names at the 2016 Summer Olympics (as many have already indicated that they will attempt to qualify for these games). I'm less inclined on using general notability guidelines because, for example in Indonesia at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, there are sources interested covering the YOG and their athletes. Instead, their notability should be assessed under WP:ATHLETE. (2) In my defense, I was not aware that those two road race articles were at FA status. I presented this article/list for consideration in FLC because most of the information is in tabular/list format. It might also be fair to say that the YOG will never receive the same amount of detailed coverage as the existing Olympics. The prose that has been written has already exhausted all possible sources on the topic. Of course, consensus for action is up to the community, but I thought I needed to make some clarifications. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having read your explanation, I agree with you on redlinks. I'm inclined to point out to the directors that this proves how stupid our current "minimal proportion of redlinks" criterion is, but I don't know if I have the energy to start that debate again. I sypathise with you on the potential difficulty in deciding whether this should be a list or an article (I've had similar problems in the past), and will wait for further clarification on that matter. Given that articles and lists develop in different directions, it's quite hard to review something until there is consensus on which way it should go. Once consensus has been reached on this matter, drop me a line and I'll be happy to give the list/article a review, whether that's here or as part of a peer review or informal review on the list/article's talk page. Regards, --WFC-- 00:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - do any of these athletes meet our notability guidelines? Please specify which ones do. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is this simply a list of the result of one competition in one minor tournament? We have lists of senior Olympic medal winners for a year, or lists of senior Olympic medal winners in a sport, but this is neither. Is this list in any way notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking myself the same thing, TRM. A similar article was sent to AFD, where a no consensus close appears likely, but I can't convince myself these are notable. I could go with three potential FL's for each Youth Olympics, Venues, Medal Table, and Medalists, and I'd be least sold on the last one. I truly think in the fervor of the Games ongoing we went a little crazy with article creation for the YOG. I'm going to have to land with an Oppose for this list; questionable notability, pretty much a sea of redlinks, and I think event articles- for the real Olympics or the YOG if we keep them around- are just that; articles. Courcelles 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Knowing that it is possible to write a featured article on an individual event at an Olympics-type event, I don't believe that something like this should be purely in list format. If this became an FL, how many old Olympics events would we be willing to consider here? There are articles and lists, and this (assuming it's notable) should be the former. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wanted to say that there ought to be some introduction-cum-description of the event in the article. We need to know the finer details of the event. Right now, it's just pure lists save for the lead-in. Oh, and it's not the first 2010 YOG article nominated for featured status btw - I've got one right now. Haha, but I would love to see more of such nominations - keep 'em coming :) ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A structure similar to the that of the two FAs stated earlier (Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race and Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race) would do well for the article. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.