Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2013

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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s):ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs), —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Donald is surely one of the greatest fast bowlers to emerge from South Africa. His repute as a genuine fast bowler in ODIs is evident from the fact that he captured 272 wickets in just 164 matches. Happy to have my friend ChrisTheDude as a co-nominator. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—

• Link runs
• You can change the caption since we already have thid information in the lede.
• I would place ref 6 at the end of the sentence.

Otherwise a very good list, Nicely written! Zia Khan 01:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support— Meets the FL standards! Zia Khan 18:06, 8 August 2013 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series and Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the lead, I'm concerned because you've quoted the award's description, but this is not in the source presented. Nor does anything in the source given support information in this quote (though it does support the award first being presented in 1979, just nothing else). WP:OR.

• I am sorry but I can not find a source to support the description since the Daytime Emmys have way low profile than the Primetime Emmys (I have searched for hours)...IMO, it should be left alone since the other Daytime Emmy categories, this issue has not been brought up. Also, the other thing I could tell you is that on the website of the daytime emmys, it says that ″The Daytime Emmy Award are honoring excellence in all fields of daytime″ but it says nothing about the description of a specific categorie.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. What you have done is acceptable. As long as you aren't making up quotes, I don't see any further issues. Arre 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix up ref 12

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption for the Billy Miller image is very awkwardly worded, try rewording.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're writing the year pictured for the caption beneath the images (e.g. Josh Duhamel) make all of them that way.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The captions for the images are inconsistent (in terms of wording, adding years, etc). Not a huge problem, but go through them once more.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still noticing the same inconsistency. Arre 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, there is no problem, plus the other FL in the Daytime categories, this issue has never been brought up. It should be left alone, it not a major issue.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 14:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the WP:OVERLINK issue has been brought up before, but is there a need to link titles multiple times on the winners/nominees table, while nothing is linked on the other tables?

• It has been decided that, it should be left alone in the previous FLC since the reviewer thought it was WP:UNDERLINK, but everyone agree it was not since everything is link in the main table. Also, I was told that only sortable, allows WP:OVERLINK and I did that but it cause way more problems so it has been decided that it was resolved.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, it is inconsistent to link everything in the first table, but not in the other tables. Either things shouldn't be overlinked, or link everything..JMO. Not a major issue, though. Arre 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What am I suppose to do?  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 14:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Arre 18:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk :) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Billy Miller caption still a little unclear, try "Billy Miller was nominated three times, winning in 2010 and 2013 for his role.."

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Series with most awards section doesn't need to link to series again. WP:Overlink
  • Never mind, it has already been fixed.
• Putting "(tie)" in 2007 and 2013 is probably unneeded since it is already explained in the lead, and is pretty self-explanatory.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about this one, but it looks to me that the ampersand in the infobox doesn't need to be bolded. I'd check with the mos for that.

• There is nothing bolded in the infobox, the part where it is, it's because it's automatic.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind, I found what was bolded, I fix it.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'awarded for' in the infobox could use another word, such as "most outstanding..." to clarify. Also I don't all the words need to be capitalized in that sentence.

•  Done. Also, It looks better when everything is capatilized. I think it should be left alone since it was never brought up in the previous FLC nominations.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay that's fine.

Just those little things, and I'd be happy to support.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the above reasoning.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much! This means a lot!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The years in the "Winners and nominees" table needs to be closed though. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Thanks for the support!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 04:07, 13 August 2013 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2004 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 2000, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the winning film in each category should be in bold, because it's not really clear who the winner is in each category. It would define who the winner was. Obviously a little note would have to go at the top of the table saying winner is highlighted in bold. But apart from that, I can't really fault it. So I'll Support with the assurance that winners will be put in bold.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, Winners don't need bold, but ideally need a symbol like {{double dagger}} for WP:ACCESS. Therefore, it should remain as it is. Plus, Support! Good job on meeting every single criteria!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think bold makes it clear, like on 2013 Grammy Awards. A symbol would be good too.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  2013 Grammy Awards isn't a FL which isn't a reliable source. However, I do understand where you are coming from.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't need to be an FL.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Each article about awards ceremonies is different. The Grammys have been structured like this for years (and since a few years ago, it started to include winners and nominees when in the past only winners were listed (e.g. 1965 Grammy Awards). The AA and the GA are different, especially if we consider the GA have many categories and the AA a few (in comparison). Being a FL or not may be relevant to follow or compare its structure, but they shouldn't look similar if there is no reason to be similar. Excepting for Academy Award for Best Actor (and I don't know why), none of the AA articles is bolded, why this is an exception? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I have fixed everything plus some other grammar/spelling errors (BTW, sporting does mean wearing, but I changed it to avoid further confusion).

-Birdienest81 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I found no other issues. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:25, 9 August 2013 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets say that some games based on the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise have been released. They have not sold a lot, or being critically acclaimed, but who cares? Their list will be featured :D — ΛΧΣ²¹  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JDC808

• Support - comments addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a very minor copy-edit to the lead, but I have a couple of questions about it.

1. Why is the first game skipped in the lead? The first sentence tells us what PotC is, then the second tells us that it gained its popularity from the films, then the next sentence skips the first game and talks about the second game.
   1. EditorE fixed this and I copy-edited it. --JDC808 ♫ 01:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Why is Disney Infinity included here? There is PotC characters and a playset for it, but it's not a standalone PotC game. This also applies to the list part of this article. I don't really know much about this game, but I feel that I could make the argument that since Infinity is being included here, couldn't Kingdom Hearts II be as well? (I'm not saying to include KH2, just that the argument could be made).

   EditorE also fixed this in regards to the lead, but not the list. --JDC808 ♫ 01:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   The premise states that they are "video games focused on the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise". Pirates is a major focus of Infinity, while Hearts is not – it's a very small part of it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm still not in agreeance that it should be included, especially when Infinity's article doesn't make much mention of Pirates other than there being a playset and 3 characters. Of course more info will come later, but at its (Infinity's) current state, it's a bit confusing why it's included here and also the fact that this is called "List of Pirates of the Caribbean video games". --JDC808 ♫ 07:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I still do not agree, but I think this is a good compromise.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, sounds good. I posted at Hahc21's talk page saying if it is kept, or now readded, there should be a mention for why it's included (since Pirates is not in its name and could be confusing to someone for why it's included). --JDC808 ♫ 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. In regards to the list, although it was cancelled, shouldn't Armada of the Damned be before Lego? --JDC808 ♫ 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll fix the rest soon. I've been very sick this week and thus have reduced my wiki editing a bit. Sorry. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The para in the section should be moved into the intro, and the section renamed to "List". Nergaal (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Not standard. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Archive all online sources with webcitation.org. You can use this page (step-by-step instructions there) to manually archive all online references which will guarantee they remain accessible even if the site goes down. After this has been resolved, I would be happy to support! SoapFan12 11:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although nice, not a requirement for FLC. So there's nothing needing "resolving".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Support : Good job on meeting every single criteria for FLC! SoapFan12 16:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Soap :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Very good job, Hahc — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What am I, chop liver?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:58, 26 July 2013 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is of the characters of one of PlayStation's biggest franchises, God of War. I'm not necessarily expecting this article to pass on the first attempt here at FLC. I would like reviewers to review this against the criteria for FL and I will do what I can to fix it during this FLC process. Who knows, maybe it will pass. --JDC808 ♫ 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Good job on meeting every single criteria for an FL! SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this list needs much more images - if not with the actual characters then with the ancient gods that they are based on. Nergaal (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of images. I added the logo at the top, and added an image of four of the action figures down by Merchandise. --JDC808 ♫ 00:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Meets the criteria, high quality articles on fictional characters need to become more common, nice to see an editor making steps in this direction. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What made you choose the images in the article? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had more at one time, but was told it was too many. I don't remember why Ares was left, I guess because he was the first antagonist and who the series was named for essentially. The Hades one is to show the developmental difference because out of all the characters in the first God of War, he had the biggest change in appearance. I'm in the process of trying to find a couple more, like Zeus since he's one of the main antagonists. I've been trying to find one with a bunch of characters in it, but have had no luck. --JDC808 ♫ 21:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated above, I've added a couple more images. One is the logo because I can't find an image with a bunch of characters that I'd like to put there and the logo at least shows readers that these are the video game characters and not something else. The other image is of four of the action figures, which shows both their appearance and some merchandise that was produced for the series. --JDC808 ♫ 00:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Meets al criteria. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 16:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

• What makes Review My Games (ref 38) a reliable source?
  • I've removed it, not because I couldn't refute it's reliability, but because the link is dead. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Cheat Code Central (ref 84) reliable?
  • Did some searching at WP:VG/RS, and most say it's unreliable so I have removed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• All caps in ref 93 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 9 August 2013 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): —JennKR | ☎ 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discography was in a good place when I began working on it, but I've tidied up the lead considerably. Some of the references and notes were in a poor state and some of the chart information was poorly included, so I've replaced the dead links and ensured that the references are fully cited. Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tomica

• Remove the see also from the top

• Done - Comparing this with the FA Kelly Rowland discography I'd agree. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The discography of American singer and songwriter Beyoncé Knowles,; the leads in the discographies are not started like this anymore, see for example Rihanna discography or Jennifer Lopez discography

• Done Changed the style. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the information about Destiny's Child is not needed, you should only start with Beyonce's stats since this is her discography.

• Not Done It definitely deserves a mention (as with Kelly Rowland's page); six years of a fifteen year career. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you use the information from List of best-selling music artists for consistency and accuracy.

• Not Done I think this figure is + DC sales, but I'll check it out. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tbh, I think you should add her own sales here, because this Beyonce Knowles discography, not Destiny's Child (+ Kelly and Michelle). It's about the credit if you know what I mean. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - 118 million was solo sales, but there are figures from 50 million up to the ridiculous 200 million. I've changed to 75 as it's consolidated by two sources. —JennKR | ☎ 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the sentence now, did she sell 118 million records or 75 singles + 13 albums or? I don't get it... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 118 million claim is removed. 75 million records, of which 13 million in the US are albums. —JennKR | ☎ 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dangerously in Love would go on to sell 11 million copies worldwide; please use more simple prose here.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• and the single later topped the US Billboard Hot 100 ---> remove later

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace yielded with a better synonym

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• and as of October 2012, it has sold over 3.3 million copies in the US ---> remove the month and simply say how much it has sold

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As of October 2012, million-selling singles ---> remove million-selling, it reads poorly

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It deviated towards a more traditional 1970s R&B sound, incorporating 1990s rock 'n' roll also. ---> Remove it, it's trivial and needless here

• Not Done I felt that the lead had been geared towards sales figures throughout (and this was some relief); should it be focused this way? —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's trivial and non-important, it's just doesn't fit. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (I see what you mean considering the other albums). —JennKR | ☎ 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Either add the catalog number on all the albums, or remove it

• Done (Removed)

• "Until the End of Time" (Justin Timberlake and Beyoncé Knowles song) as its title says it's a duet and not a feature; as a result of that it should be included in the Singles rather than Featured singles

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Same applies for "Amor Gitano"

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Party" (Remix) is not a promotional single (def. A promotional recording, or promo, is an audio or video recording distributed for free, usually in order to promote a recording that is or soon will be commercially available). That's not what "Party" (Remix) is; the song was released for digital download (means you can buy it) indicating it is a single. Same case as "Cockiness (Love It)" Remix.

• Done Agreed (I checked and the original version wasn't a promo either). —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another issue like this: "Why Don't You Love Me" is also a single, not a promotional single. It received digital download treatment in Germany (If I search more I am sure I can find the release in other countries too), so please adjust the original article and put it in 'As main artist' section here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 13:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove 'Album appearances', there is a separate List of songs recorded by Beyoncé Knowles article for that

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Same with 'Soundtrack appearances'

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The references have some issues including wrong {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} used in places and wrong italicizing (Allmusic should not be for ex.)

• Done I've sorted out the templates, but I think Allmusic is automatically italicized in the "work=" parameter (unlike its publisher Rovi Corporation). —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I like it, it's a good effort and I won't oppose, but it's really too early to support. Please fix this issues first. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for taking the time out to look at this! Your improvements are much appreciated! Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice work! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• " who performs as Beyoncé" I'd stick with the wording of the main Beyonce article, i.e. "also known simply as Beyonce".

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 18:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remix and soundtrack albums aren't in the infobox.

*Comment - What are the soundtrack albums? —JennKR | ☎ 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You tell me, the lead says "and twelve soundtrack and promotional singles". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (Removed) Oh! I forgot to take that out after I removed the soundtrack singles (as they are already over at List of songs recorded by Beyoncé Knowles) —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " Having sold 118 million records worldwide,[1] Knowles is one" just "she is one..." is fine. (Please note, I didn't say "118 million" was fine, I was referring to the rewording as I suggested).

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Should have a link to explain what "certified" means.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought she was in Girl's Tyme before it became Destiny's Child?

• Comment It was before they signed to Columbia Records; should I mention this? —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart. The album produced" replace the ". The album" with "and".

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking the Billboard charts in the lead.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I heard some news about DC and Beyonce getting back together, albeit temporarily, like this talks about. This, if real, will need to be included in this list.

• Comment No, I think that's speculation (after they performed together at the Super Bowl for the first time in years). —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, "You've Changed" is (in Rowland's words) "not a Destiny’s Child track [...] it’s me featuring Beyoncé and Michelle." —JennKR | ☎ 19:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying Beyonce features on the single? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. Although it's not a single (as of now), just a track on Talk a Good Game. —JennKR | ☎ 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So it should be in the featured singles section? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As it's not a single, no. I think it should just be included in her list of songs recorded. —JennKR | ☎ 20:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This link you use to quote 118 million also refers to Beyonce as being 28 years old. She's currently 31, a couple of months from 32. This claim of 118 million either needs to be updated or caveated.

• Done Updated 75 million claim. —JennKR | ☎ 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " seven million copies worldwide,[15] and has sold over 3.3 million" comparable numbers should be formatted similarly, so either "7 million" or "over three million..."

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her third album" -> "Knowles's third album" (or "Knowles' third album" if you're like me).

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " I Am... " vs "I Am…". be consistent.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The release date for each "release", which territory is that relevant to in each case?

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 20:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For EPs, for instance, you have eight charts where nothing has actually charted. What's the point?

• Done (Removed) —JennKR | ☎ 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is "Amor Gitano" referenced?

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for "I Care".

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the non-charting promo/charity singles referenced?

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check all refs have all applicable fields, e.g. 112 is missing accessdate, 54 has no publisher info....

• Done Corrected mentioned instances and I'll scan for others. —JennKR | ☎ 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think another national chart should replace the US R&B (a bit NPOV/US-centric)

• Not Done I think she charts on it the most (as her domestic country and key genre); the FA Kelly Rowland also uses this. —JennKR | ☎ 11:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with this. With that reasoning, we could replace another (eg Swiss) chart with the UK R&B chart. The US R&B chart doesn't make a good comparison with other national charts. I'll see if other editors have an opinion on this. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*While I understand the noting of "Bubbling Under" positions, I don't think that the statements "Although X did not chart among Knowles' usual demographic, it charted at number N on chart Q" are sensible. We can't list every chart here; readers can click through to the relevant articles.

• Done (Reworded) —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Amor Gitano" and "I Care" still have notes which are undue Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What would you suggest (it needs to be said they were singles - is this enough alone?) —JennKR | ☎ 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They are under the singles section, so that is already clear. Adabow (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All uncharted singles must be sourced someway. —JennKR | ☎ 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then just place a reference beside the title - no need for a note. By the way, that fact that the chartings are sourced doesn't verify a song's single-ness... so I'm not sure why the releases of uncharted singles must be referenced, but not those of charted singles. Adabow (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (Not sure either). —JennKR | ☎ 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those sources don't verify the fact that those songs were released as singles, which is what I thought you meant needed sourcing. There's no point providing a ref for a charting which is not included in the list. Adabow (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated both, they should be ok now. —JennKR | ☎ 10:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is [7] a reliable source for single release?

• I've replaced it with one from the Spanish publication La Nación that gives some background to the song (and the fact it's a single). —JennKR | ☎ 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't verified any chart positions

Adabow (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Star Spangled Banner" redirects back to this page.
  • I suggest linking to The Star-Spangled Banner. Adabow (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment The text doesn't link to The Star-Spangled Banner, it links to Performances and adaptations of The Star-Spangled Banner#The Star Spangled Banner (Super Bowl XXXVIII Performance. —JennKR | ☎ 13:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Still many ref problems. Please go through each and examine each citation for reliability and formatting. For example:
  • Discogs is not a reliable source.
    • Comment The Discographies WikiProject allow its reference (see here). —JennKR | ☎ 13:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref for Fever (currently #91) is of a different title format to other iTunes refs. Ref for Si Yo Fuera un Chico (#89) specifies "Apple" but not "iTunes Store".
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some iTunes refs specify the country of the store, while others do not. Be consistent. I would suggest removal of countries.
  • Inappropriate italicisation in refs 8 (MTV Rapfix), 10 (IGN)
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RadioScope is down indefinitely. There is an archived URL listed at WP:GOODCHARTS
    • Comment How would I go about obtaining the source for the platinum certification for Dangerously in Love (2003)? The archive only goes back to 2008 for albums. —JennKR | ☎ 14:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://nztop40.co.nz/chart/albums?chart=1251 Adabow (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 21:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NZ charts can and should be linked to individually (ie a chart that lists the relevant certification)
    • What do I do if the single (as is the case with "Crazy in Love") gains its highest certification when it isn't on the chart. I can only find "Gold" certifications for that single and also "Baby Boy" (when this page and the page of the single says they were both Platiunum)? —JennKR | ☎ 22:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have identified a potential offline source, which I should get my hands on sometime tomorrow (7/7 NZ time). Adabow (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only certifications that the book gives are "Crazy in Love" gold, Dangerously in Love platinum and B'Day gold. These are as of 2006/2007, so I doubt that they actually went higher, seeing as the RadioScope refs cover the time since this. Go with the highest certifications that are verifiable by RIANZ or RadioScope. Adabow (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done I have sourced two, but three out of the five that needed sourcing could not be, and either certified after they fell off the chart or never at all (and someone has introduced factual errors here). Either way, the RIANZ is rather inaccessible at the moment, so we can only work with what we have. —JennKR | ☎ 13:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I removed the unverifiable certifications. Lastly, tidy all the RIANZ refs up so they are consistent and include the chart dates in the citation templates. Adabow (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done I think I've got all of them. —JennKR | ☎ 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until 1 January 2010, Billboard was owned by Nielsen Business Media, and the publisher parameters of citation templates should reflect this.
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref for Irish release of 4 (110) is dead
    • • Done Replaced —JennKR | ☎ 13:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some publishers are given in brackets, while others are not.
    • Not Done: I'm sure this is the cite web / cite news template; with news citations the publication e.g. Billboard is italicized with the publisher in brackets "(Prometheus Global Media), however when citing using the web template, the publisher isn't bracketed. If your referring to a specific source like Billboard (where the publisher is sometimes in brackets and sometimes not) this will reflect the reference of news articles which require the news citation template, and the charts which use the web citation template. —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billboard - Hot Digital Tracks" (#94) uses a WebCite archive, but should also list the original URL. The title should be "Hot Digital Tracks", the date entered into the date parameter of citation template, and Billboard.biz→Billboard (Nielsen Business Media)
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 23:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I still disagree with listing the US R&B chart rather than another national singles chart, but this may just be personal preference. Adabow (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to directors: I am a somewhat involved editor in this list, although many of my edits have been as part of this FLC. Adabow (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The contributor seems to be really engaged with its quality, so far his doings have impressed me, the list structure, its content and source are really well formated. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS specifically states "On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. In the song's article, just indicate it as a Bubbling Under peak, so long as it is verifiable" - therefore Hot 100 positions of 105 for "Halo (live)", etc should not be shown -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 09:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Note F: "except for in South Korea were it was distributed...". "were" → "where".

Done Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See also should come before the notes.

Done Switched. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In ref 52, MusicWeek should be italicized as a print publication. Also, does it have the space between words like in ref 44?

Done Italicised, and it does have a space, so I've updated that also. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphen in ref 127's title should be an en dash instead for style reasons. Giants2008

Done Updated. Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk) 20:25, 12 July 2013 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the ICC Champions Trophy the other day, I noticed that Luke Ronchi has a rather odd distinction, in that he's played ODI cricket for both Australia and New Zealand. I looked into it a bit more and discovered a small group of men who have played for more than one country during their international career. These are they. Thanks to any of you have the time and energy to review and comment on this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick comment from me at the moment, bug me for more later: could we at least make the name column sortable? Harrias ^talk 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that's possible! I'll see what I can do. Although with row spans, when sorting it'll double up on the names. Is that okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, yeah, I didn't think about that. I'll let you play with it and see whether you think it is worth it. Harrias ^talk 22:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks pretty grim. You can play with it yourself by simply adding "sortable" in the wikitable class, then sorting by name (or anything else)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd also like to let people know that the article is also currently undergoing a DYK nomination. As reviewer of the DYK, I will reflect here what I said there that I thought that the article should have a list that includes Twenty20 matches. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't any players who have played T20I for more than one country. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes there is, Geraint Jones has played for England and Papua New Guinea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Papua New Guinea T20Is aren't considered first class, are they? Cricinfo certainly don't believe PNG's T20Is to be relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cricinfo also lists World Cup qualifying matches, must be relevant if they do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, they list under-19s too. But see this. In any case, I've added a caveat to the list. This is about First class or ICC tournament players, not the vast array of the dozens of associates and affiliates to the ICC. Incidentally, you could work on the Geraint Jones article, it's clearly incomplete right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • By the way, I emailed Cricinfo, and (wow!) got a reply, Jones' appearances for PNG are not classed as internationals hence why they wouldn't be included here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Interesting. Didn't know that Cricinfo denied the existence of PNG as a cricketing nation despite playing World Cup qualifiers. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You could always email them to ask why I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wessels is listed twice, so I don't see why Ed Joyce can't be listed in a T20I list as well as the ODI list, and Dirk Nannes included in that list too? Harrias ^talk 22:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Joyce and Nannes could have their own list, true. That would just leave poor old Gavin Hamilton on his own. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done the T20I list now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the lead include something (a brief overview) on how it is even possible for a player to represent more than one country....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it could. I'll have a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added some words, not brilliant, and will do some more digging, but early days it was a free-for-all, these days it's passport-based (so to speak) with a prominent case of Fawad Ahmed's re-nationalisation being fast-tracked in time for The Ashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a typo in Wessels' date range in the second table.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• In the above-table note, the first word of "First-class cricket" probably shouldn't be capitalized.
• There's a typo in the publisher of ref 4 ("BB Sport").
• Ref 33 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got 'em, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Another solid list, fairly easy to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A few little comments…

• Some of the quirks of cricket could be made a little clearer. Exactly what "international cricket" is (for the purposes of the article) should probably be better defined, i.e., what distinguishes the upcoming Test matches between Australia and England from a match between Vanuatu and Nigeria or matches at West Indian domestic level, which are both "international" in a more general sense…and hence why players like Michael Di Venuto (Australia and Italy) and Frank Worrell (Barbados and Jamaica) are not included in this list. Maybe just a little ^[note] saying "For these purposes, international cricket refers only to Test, ODI, and T20I matches, blah blah blah", or maybe altering the note just above the table of contents—"tournaments accredited by the International Cricket Council" covers a lot more than just the three major formats.
• Could the title of the article be reduced in length? Something along the lines of "List of cricketers who played for multiple international teams", or even just omitting the "have"…i.e., "List of cricketers who played for more than one international team". I wouldn't really be too fussed if the current title stayed.

• Very, very pedantic points, I know :) Great list overall, definitely FL material (and sorry for the late response). IgnorantArmies 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, pedantry is not a bad thing here, so thank you for your comments. I have extended the note and linked out to "international cricket", I'd rather leave a page move to after the FLC (it's just a logistical issue) but would be happy with any community consensus on making it shorter. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title is too bulky. Why not 'List of cricketers who have played for two international teams'? Since they've all had exactly two, 'more than one' is almost misleading, and it's unlikely someone will play for a third team any time soon. Reywas92^Talk 09:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokes, moved the lot (the page, the talkpage, this page etc) to your preference. Thanks for the interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• those players who played for more than one international team were generally those why not just lose the last "were" and "those" for "international team generally...".
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• who had been born in one of those countries and whose family had emigrated to the other "Those" is overused in this sentence, and I feel like the phrase "one of those countries" is ambiguous.
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Files are OK. Alt text looks OK. No DAB links, no dead links.
  • Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The final two paragraphs are dry. I don't mean to make the lead too large, but if you could add in a half-sentence explaining why some of the players switched, other than their parents moved, that would be appreciated. The more recent players would be of more importance for this rule.
  • I'm afraid that information probably resides within the brains of the players who switched. Unless there are reliable sources saying why each modern-day player made the switch (I suspect "in order to get a game" which they're hardly likely to say out loud), this would be speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What does the asterisk mean in the table (for instance "20*" for Ferris)?
  • Key added (it means not out). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the table what do "HS" and "BB" stand for?
  • Key added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What purpose do the colors serve?
  • Just a visual cue to break up bowling, batting and fielding more easily. It's commonplace and doesn't, in my opinion, detriment the visual appearance or utility of the list. Quite the opposite. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is he "Nawab of Pataudi snr" in the table but "Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi" in the caption?
  • Fixed for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You use "location" on reference 5 but on no other newspaper references.
  • Actually on use it three times, but I've made it consistent since all news refs are linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't support at this point. The comments above are minor and could/should be addressed, but I would really like to see this table sortable. Personally, I would remove the rowspans and the "Batting", "Bowling", and "Fielding" subheaders and just make a second row for the different country of the same player. Are the statistics for individual countries comparable in your opinion? Albacore (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I firmly believe that sorting is not required here. These players played in different generations of cricket, their side-by-side comparisons are really irrelevant. What is relevant is how they did for each country. And that's nice and clear since the stats are side-by-side on each table. Thanks for taking the time to review the list in detail, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "In the late-19th and early-20th century, players who had represented two international teams had been born in one country and whose family had emigrated to another." -- prose?

  Any suggestions? I've tried to work around this concept a couple of times, had several suggestions, perhaps you have a more satisfactory solution?! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just not sure it's clear. It definitely reads awkwardly though. Maybe "In the late-19th and early-20th century, players who had represented two international teams had been born in one country, before emigrating with their families to another." Of course this, and the original sentence may both be interpreted to imply that they played for one nation, before emigrating with their families and playing for another. But I'm not sure this is what you mean to say. -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " More recently, legal citizenship has become the defining attribute as to whether a player can represent another country." -- it might be good to say exactly who decides on how one qualifies, or even explicitly what the criteria is (rather than talking of the defining attribute). I understand this could be complicated for countries such as England and Scotland. I'm assuming it is the ICC that sets the crtieria, or is this decided on a nation-by-nation basis?

  There's no de facto solution for this, citizenship is defined on a country-by-country basis. If a player is a citizen then they can represent their countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, the footnote [9] doesn't actually support the statement. I know citizenship is defined differently everywhere, however does each national side use citizenship to determine eligibility? Are stand-down periods decided on a case-by-case basis? -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Found ICC's regulations -- haven't read through them yet though. -- Shudde ^talk 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Three cricketers moved from representing India to Pakistan in the 1950s" did this have anything to do with when Pakistan won independence?

  Don't know, and trying to link that in may be borderline original research, unless you have a specific source backing it up? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah just wondering if you knew. -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a deadlink in the caption for the image of Nawab of Pataudi snr

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know that File:Billy Murdoch.jpg was published in Australia? Would it be good to have a PD-tag for the UK as well (not sure how these things are handled) ?

  I'm not going there, not my speciality. I'll replace the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Others section, is it worth noting that Scotland do not have Test status, so once he switched Gavin Hamilton could never have been included the the changing Test affiliations section?

  Well I thought Note: These lists include only those players who have played first-class cricket within Test matches, ODIs or T20Is accredited by the International Cricket Council. would cover that, but if you feel an explicit note for Hamilton is required, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just wondering if the casual reader will ask why he never represented Scotland in Test matches? If you think they would – add a note. If you don't – don't add one. I'm happy either way. -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments are pretty minor. Quite a quirky and interesting list, well done. -- Shudde ^talk 05:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Shudde, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support— Since there is no reasonable concern left, however I thought an image for the lede may be an improvement. Good work, meets the FL standards. Zia Khan 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me, I put an image in the lead which I think livens it up a bit, but this is just personal preference and doesn't affect my support. I feel this meets the FL standards, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my series of lists of German warships, this is a list of the coastal defense ships built by Imperial Germany during the 1880s-90s. This list caps this Good Topic. It has just passed a MILHIST A-class review, and I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this list represents Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Well written with good citations and references. Well done! I would just add alt text for the image at the top. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2013 (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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after having redeveloped its prose section and tables, I believe that it now may satisfy the featured list criteria. Holiday56 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is a great list. I'd link troupe though, if it can be, as I don't know what this is.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Troupe" is more or less a synonym for "group"; it's a commonly used term when referring to groups of comedians. I suppose I could link it, but that may be considered a violation of WP:OVERLINK. I'll wait for more opinions for now; if more people feel that linking to the term would be appropriate, then I can do so. Thanks for the support! Holiday56 (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Can't see any glaring issues, although you could take out the "25-song extension" bit in the notes, as the length of the Bubbling Under Hot 100 has varied over the years. (Some Swedish certifications for "I Just Had Sex" and "Jack Sparrow" that you might want to have a look at, as well.) Good job! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Performed the suggested changes. Thanks! Holiday56 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2013 (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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and is structured in a similar manner to other featured lists of municipalities including List of municipalities in British Columbia and List of cities and towns in California. Thanks. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, why have the links been removed from all of the images? 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links seem to be working, can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the images resulted in nothing, normally it would take you to the file page. User:Hwy43 has since linked them to the city articles. Is there a featured article guideline, that I am unaware of, which recommends links to file pages be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little pair of boxes just to the lower right of each image which takes you to the file pages. Is that what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't previously seen or used the link parameter before. Yesterday's efforts were trial and error efforts to figure it out. Just moved a link parameter outright. Upon click, you go to the file's page, which is what I'm accustomed to. Returning the link parameter but leaving it blank prevents clicking altogether. In both scenarios however, I'm failing to see the alt parameter generate as a hot tip on the image. I suggest we remove all link parameters. No point in linking the image to an article if a wikilink in the caption does the same. Simply redundant. Still don't know how to get the alt to appear though. Hwy43 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the alt is for "situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment). I believe it is primarily for blind users. So you are not supposed to see the alt. "The alt parameter text is not normally visible to readers but may be displayed by web browsers when images are switched off". So I think it's good as is. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely the alt text was appearing when the three maps were nested in the gallery template. Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]