Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found the list, modified it, sourced it, illustrated it, hopefully it's close to featured. Thanks to the community as ever for time and effort spent reviewing the list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Thats fine. Support from me. Good work and good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good lead, good grammar...what should I say more? A really great list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it would be beneficial to have a sentence or two in the table about their contributions.Cheetah (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree, as long as my synopsis of what has been said about the individuals does not count as WP:OR because the EU don't provide a distinct citation for the award. If you'd prefer me to come up with some stuff I thought was relevant, then okay, I'll look into it. Or, if you'd like me to precis the external link I gave that's fine too. Let me know what you think. (Nice to see you around, by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for replying late, I would like to see a "notes" column added, as well. I think you just need to write a short description on everyone. I'd take it from their respective leads. For example, for Anatoly Marchenko you can say "Soviet dissident, author, and human rights campaigner". I just don't want readers to click on the names one by one just to see who they are. They can always click on the names when they want more information about those recipients, but some basic info should be on this page.Cheetah (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem on the delay getting back to me. I think you're right, as long as the Notes column would not be construed as "why the EU presented the award" (or, as Nergaal asks below, "the reasoning of the award" - that information is not succinctly available), rather, just a synopsis of the winners' highlights. I'll take a look at that shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't there a notes column (with the reasoning of the award)? Also, why are Annan and UN grouped together, while the other multiple awards are separate? Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above for why I haven't given the reason (in short, the EU don't provide a "reason", so anything I write will be WP:OR with respect to why they got the award). As for being UN & Annan joint recipients, that's how the EU have it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, but for Izzat Ghazzawi, where there is no article available, how are the readers supposed to know what he might have done to get the award? If a note column is added with entries like for Annan: "UN secretary general (97-06) during X, Y, and Z crises" would provide a context to the award without going OR-ish. Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article now available. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notes now added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support the list looks good now. Nergaal (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - In my opinion this list meets FL criteria. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:11, 22 December 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a sister list to List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, recently promoted as a FL. The first two paragraphs of the lead are identical, and the format used is the same. It is a complete list of the churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the counties of the English Midlands. The text has been copyedited. Every church in the list has a related article of at least Start Grade. The information given in the notes is not limited to a summary of the article, but often contains a fact which might be of sufficient interest to tempt the reader to click on the link to the article. All the images have alt text. One difference from the sister list is that the first column sorts on the name of the place (village, town, etc) rather than on the title of the church.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The opening two paragraphs of the lead borrow from List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, a Featured List, and does a good job of framing what redundant churches are, what the fund does and how it goes about it, and is of course well-sourced. The next paragraph is unique to this list and summarises the table; it covers the main points – numbers of preserved churches in the Midlands, spread of ages, status as listed buildings etc – and I can't imagine a way to improve it. The table is well laid out, with no space wasted and having a brief description of each church makes sense. The descriptions are concise and well-written. Although by no means necessary, it's useful to see that most churches have their own picture. A very good list and I'm happy to support it. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have deeply red this list and I must agree with Nev1. Like the prior FL, this list should pass the nomination. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentsSupport from Hassocks Sorting, coordinates and everything else are working perfectly. Just a few observations from me before I can support:

→Lead:

• This list contains the 72 churches: "describes the 72 churches" might be better.

  almost all of them in Grades I and II*. I suggest "at" instead of "in", and confirm the importance of those grades by adding "the highest" before the word "Grades".

→Church notes:

• St John the Baptist's Church, Llanrothal: overlooking River Monnow: needs "the"

  St Peter and St Paul's Church, Preston Deanery: The church gell into disuse: typo

  St Werburgh's Church, Derby: I suggest using the "Grade II*" blue colour for the Grade B cell. Use the code |align="center" style="background-color: #87CEEB"| to achieve this

That's all! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have dealt with all the points above, other than the last one. Like Hassocks I had thought that Grades A, B and C directly matched Grades I, II* and II, but I cannot find this verified anywhere. I believe (without being able to find confirmation) that in the early days of grading, churches were given the grades of A, B and C, and secular buildings I, II* and II, and that later the gradings were combined into I, II* and II. Many, but not all, church gradings have been converted into I, II* and II. As I see the situation, the gradings more or less correspond, but not necessarily exactly. So the compromise I have used in the list is not to give Grade B the Grade II* background colour (leaving it uncoloured), but sorting B with II*, which seems to be the most pragmatic solution for the present. I guess that in time the A, B and C gradings will be reviewed and converted into I, II* and II. I have discussed this with Hassocks on our talk pages. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been resolved; support accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:38, 29 December 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I (obviously) think it meets the criteria. I only recently started working on the article, and the text and stuff just came about. So yeahhh, CrowzRSA 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • need delinking of US and R&B in the paragraphs Extended Plays and Compilations-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I delinked US and R&B but I don't see why Extended Plays and Compilations need to be delinked. CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend you to add a See also template at the top.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • Thank you for your comments! CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Consistency issues with the use of US. Also the Singles doesn't have the forced break for US R&B. Also I'm interested in knowing why there are question marks in the directors column of the music video section. On Ref 9 I'm incredibly confused about "Up for Discussion Jump to Forums.". Ref 14 has a consistency issue with one of the date. Ref 4 doesn't have the {{Cite web}} template. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason there are question marks as directors is because no sources gave information about the director. Many featured discographies (Slayer discography, Aaliyah discography, Audioslave discography, and several more) have question marks/other indicators that the director is unknown. Also, citation templates are not required per WP:CITE and WP:FN. The rest has been fixed. Thanks! CrowzRSA 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you use the Cite web template already in the article all I'm doing is pointing out an Inconsistency with the format for references. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 09:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay well, I changed it to the citation template. CrowzRSA 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4 and 7 don't use cite web. To cutback on space you're better adding these "style="text-align:center;"" to the top of the table code and sort out the coding for the very select cells this would cut back on space used in the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done with the references… but I don't see why changing the style code is necessary, since there are so many other FL discographies that have the same style formatting. CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Although its a very small article at the moment, its simply a suggestion to reduce space and loading time. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, well I tried doing it, but for some reason it doesn't come out right. I think I'm inserting the wrong code. CrowzRSA 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess Its alright to leave it at the moment until the discography is extended more. I'll support I have no major issues with the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Support - I also formatted the references for italics - I hope you don't mind? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and one more thing. " Featuring...Eazy-E, released in 2007, was Eazy's final compilation album" — similar case. What if another compilation is released? Is there any source to verify this? Just a confusion. That's all. Other than this, I don't see any errors. Novice7 Talk 10:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done CrowzRSA 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — All my issues were fixed. So, its a support from me. Novice7 Talk 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - im sorry but im going to have to oppose this article, with only 11 references and the main page only being 31kb in length this article seems to fail criteria 3(b). Also, Music video sections needs directors and references, a simple ? does not work as it then fails criteria 3(a). Sorry once again. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of references should not be an issue - everything is verified. Do you want the nominator to add more references for the sake of it? Also I don't think a merge is practical as it would make Eazy-E discography-heavy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also, a consensus was met to add a note to the Music videos section saying something about the question marks. CrowzRSA 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references arnt the issue, Feature articles and list must be comprehensive, i dont think this is very comprehensive and meets criteria for stand alone lists. An artist only charting in one Country (The US) and once in NewZealand doesnt really warrant its own page. It could easily be merged into the Eazy-E page. Thats my opinion, if others disagree thats fine. Im just saying i dont think it should have been split and i really oppose there not being directors, thats not comprehensive, again, thats my opinion. Once again, sorry but my oppose still stands. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Fantasia Barrino discography. Apart from one or two singles she has mostly had U.S. chartings. Eazy-E has released more albums and music videos, and about the same number of singles. If you think it does not warrant a WP:SAL, then you would support a merge, right? See User:Adabow/Sandbox4. About one-third is discography. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick Comment:
  • STUDIO ALBUMS: "[[Certifications]]" should linking to "[[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]"-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done CrowzRSA 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator's Comment I'm not sure if this will be a problem or not, but I'll be gone for a while. I have to study for exams and won't be back until the 21st. So today will be my final day on here. CrowzRSA 00:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Bold links, like the one at the start of this list, are discouraged in the Manual of Style. Since I'm sure you want a link to Eazy-E as soon as possible, the easiest fix for this issue is to remove the bolding from the opening sentence altogether. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Somebody did that already

• Attention: User:Live and Die 4 Hip Hop vandalizing, by replacing the lead with one sentence and accomplishing other edits:
  • 1st vandalize:[6]
  • 2nd vandalize:[7]-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can other reviewers comment on the 3b issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why commenting on the 3b issue is at all necessary. Adabow brought up a very good point with the example of merging Eazy-E discography with the main article (See User:Adabow/Sandbox4). There are several other discographies (in length wise) smaller than the Eazy-E discography. Here is a list of discographies shorter.

• Ashlee Simpson discography
• Audioslave discography
• Billie Piper discography
• Chimaira discography
• Dave Gahan discography
• Geri Halliwell discography
• Isobel Campbell discography
• Joel Turner discography
• Killswitch Engage discography
• Lightning Bolt discography
• Lostprophets discography
• Meshuggah discography
• Nile discography
• Paulini discography
• Rachel Stevens discography
• Ricki-Lee Coulter discography
• Róisín Murphy discography
• The Kills discography
• The Strokes discography
• The Ting Tings discography
• Trivium discography
• Uncle Tupelo discography
• Willowtip Records discography
• That's nearly 16% of the assessed FLs at WikiProject Discographies. CrowzRSA 16:45, 21 December 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the first FLC was closed as all current comments had been resolved and was waiting for feedback from the reviewing editors. The previous corrections from the first FLC have been made and it the discography should meet FL criteria as of now. Candyo32 19:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• No period/full stop in infobox caption, as it's not a complete sentence

Done.

• "Peaks above 100 are peaks of the singles on either the Bubbling Under Hot 100 or Bubbling Under Hot 100, 25 song extensions of the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, respectively." - any reason for two "Bubbling Under Hot 100"s? I see they don't link to the same place, but then why do they have the same name? — KV5 • Talk • 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed. Candyo32 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Support I think I'm done for good now :). Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the first nomination was closed as WP:FLC is not WP:PR. The initial quality of the list was of great concern. Please don't nominate lists of that nature again. Glad to see it back in a better state. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion was that all corrections had been made at the time of closure. Candyo32 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I archived it, there were many, many issues. Just took Gimmebot nearly 12 hours to close it formally. Anyway, we're here now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my apologies. I forgot about the Gimmebot. Candyo32 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - The lead is totally unsourced why is this? Ref 4, 7 need language parameters. Swiss isn't a language. Ref 14 has no publisher. Ref 70 looks and probably is incomplete. "No Air" has a few unsourced Certifications. In Mixtapes, you source "In My Zone" but not "Fan of a Fan" why? Afro (Talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We established on the previous review that the lead is source as all chart positions and certs are sourced. Per WP:LEAD, refs are discouraged in the lead if sources are present in the other parts of article. No sales or anything are posted that would require sourcing. Fan of a Fan is sourced because its notability criterion is established because it has its own page, while In My Zone does not, and if not sourced, its establishment could be questioned. That's just like F.A.M.E. being sourced while all the other albums aren't. All refs in question are fixed. Couldn't find sources for other "No Air" peaks so removed. Candyo32 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Fair enough. "Fan of a Fan" is fine without a reference but "Chris Brown's Journey", "BET Presents Chris Brown" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" need one? Granted "Chris Brown's Journey" and "Exclusive: The Forever Edition Bonus DVD" are basically section redirects but "BET Presents Chris Brown" is its own actual article, I hate to sound uncivil but consistency please. Also on the Music videos I'm a bit confused as to what The directors column is meant to be sorting by. Afro (Talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the refs for all the ones that redirect to sections or have articles of their own. I'm also confused as to what you mean with the videos. I guess just to sort the names, if that is what you are asking. This was modeled after FL's that have been converted to the new style. Candyo32 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an idea just to clarify what I'm asking. Sorting Up, Bryan Barber, Chris Brown, Chris Robinson, Jim Jones, Kevin Custer and James Franck, R. Malcolm Jones, Joseph Kahn, Alex Nazari, Chris Robinson. Am I clear in my point that it sorts weirdly? Afro (Talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean now. I have no idea as to why it is sorting this way. Candyo32 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well until its sorted I am opposed to the articles promotion. Afro (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted the names and missed one. It's fixed now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be better if the names were in alphabetical order in the cells, maybe that'd be less confusing for me. Afro (Talk) 03:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll the reason they are not alphabetical because on singles with numerous performers, the main performer is listed first, and how it is credited. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afro, people are sorted by their surname, except where they have stage names. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable Candy. Support I have no issues with the article. Afro (Nice Beaver) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm sorry Candy, I came here to comment on the discography, but in seriousness I cannot support this at present. I see some persistent issues with the discography, issues which I had pointed out in the Ciara discography nomination which you submitted. Might I say that there is a pattern to it? Here are some of it for instance.
  • The first line in the lead doesnot include the mixtape, promo singles or the music video count, as well as the infobox.
  • Internationally, the single either charted at the top, or inside the top ten, of several charts -> extremely vague

I originally had "worldwide top-ten" as I did in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it.

• • "Dreamer", a single for the AT&T Team USA Soundtrack reached the top twenty in the US. --> missing comma after soundtrack.

Done

• • In 2009, Brown's fourth album, Graffiti --> Graffiti is the third studio album.

Done

• • multiple international countries. --> doesnot mean anything

I don't understand what you mean by "doesnot mean anything", but, I originally had "international top-ten", like in the Ciara discog, but a user in the first review was against it

• • which peaked within the top twenty of several countries --> No it didn't. Either source this or leave this.

Well it is sourced in the tables, I thought that would cover it. Anyway I did have "top-twenty hit" or something like that as in the Ciara discog, but a user in the last review was against it.

• • Correct the title of "Yeah 3x" to "Yeah 3×".

The proper title is "Yeah 3X" as it is on the digital download and on the official single cover.

• • There is no mention of the release of the DVDs or the mixtapes. Are they non-notable?

Not really notable as they never charted, and I didn't want to lead to be so excessive. Do you think they warrant inclusion?

• • The music video section needs a thorough run down for merging the cells, removing overlink from them, artist names etc.

Cells can't be merged because it is a sortable table and I was told sorting tables are an exception to overlink.

• • Usage of en-dash is non-existent in the reference titles.

I still get confused about en-dash.

• • Please avoid using abbreviations like ARIA, CRIA etc.

Done

• • Check online sources and their italicizations

Done

• • Reference 32, for Canadian Hot 100, is screwed up. Please correct.

Done

• • Some references miss accessdate.
  • Can we not have the discogs link in EL, and add something from Rollingstone or Allmusic please?

Done

• • The chart providers being used. Shouldn't you have a consistency across the page? Why the sudden use of the Rap chart?

I thought it would be better to use charts that his featured singles have appeared in rather than a list of dashes all the way down of where the songs haven't charted. Candyo32 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I feel that the lack of consistency is the major issue with the article. Feel free to ping me with clarifications you need, and not a talkback please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check the internal link rot and the dab links pointed out by the bot in the talk page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good now. It says #52 redirects but it does not. Candyo32 08:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has improved but my major concern is with the peaks of Bubbling under. They are completely and utterly wrong. A peak of 22 on the Bubbling chart doesnot correspond to a peak of 122 for the hot 100. They are not even comparable. There was a strong discussion regarding this at Talk:Lady Gaga discography and such additions of BU peaks were removed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be sufficient if I removed the positions but leave corresponding notes to the peaks. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats a reasonable amendment, and please do so, otherwise I support this disc. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You have rowspan years in, say, Album appearances table but not in Music videos. I don't understand the difference. Is it simply to keep the Music videos table sortable?

I suppose. I modeled it after FL's that had been converted to the new style.

Well I'd prefer a consistent approach, either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing changed yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a bit of a crossroads here now because I used the sortable because all the FL's now converted to the new style made usage of sortable tables, including Fantasia Barrino discography, which was promoted after the new style was implemented. I believe sortable is used because of the different directors, and multiple artists, but I am not sure. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to hear from DISCOGS as to why video releases table should be sortable while the other tables shouldn't. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot sort the singles and albums tables cleanly, but you can with videos. I think it is an editor's choice whether to use sortability or rowspan on videos. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no formal decision about it. It's quite practical. The contents of this table is different from the other tables. And it is handy to be able to sort the content by director or artist. Dodoïste (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have all reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Legolas a few days ago, now I am notifying other two reviewers. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I really don't understand the big fuss over the article. It reads well, the peaks look fine and referenced. Heck, I'm supporting!--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• Missing "on" in "peaked at number one the Billboard Hot 100".

Done

• In the third paragraph, commas should be added after Kevin McCall and F.A.M.E. Minor point, but it would improve the flow of the sentences for readers a little.

Done

• What makes http://acharts.us/ (references 21, 22 and 34) a reliable source?

Due to Billboard glitches, those peaks will not show up on the site and from WP:BADCHARTS, acharts.us can be used as an alternate source.

Since I don't know that much about the kind of sites these lists use, I'm leaving this one unstruck in case the regular reviewers in this genre have anything to add. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason it was added was because it wasn't included in the Billboard reference, and a reviewer above told me to use acharts. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 13 lacks a publisher.

Done

• Period needed after the link in reference 30, for consistency with the other citations.

Done

Would you mind checking the formatting of this reference? It's showing up in the article. Looks like the closing brackets were accidentally removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it wasn't closed then, but it should be fixed now.

• Another minor point, but reference 33 could use an indication that the link is in PDF format. The format= parameter of the cite templates works well for this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : The only thing i find annoying is having three references in one box. They should be merged like so to avoid overlapping and clutter. Once this is done throughout the article i will gladly support if i fail to find any other issues. To be more clear on what i mean, under Chris_Brown_discography#Singles US section, you have three references, they should be merged into one with proper titles and explanations. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to do such, but I have a problem in that some of the refs are named. So I tried to combine, and name the ref as a whole, but then it kept showing up as an error. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 17:02, 17 December 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [9].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC), Jaespinoza[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status (see profile page) and I believe that it meets all FL criteria. I am co-nominating this list along with Jaespinoza, who assisted with its expansion. Thanks, as always, to reviewers and directors for all of the work you do! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after a quick once-over, nothing more to correct, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: (once as a member of the Caribbean Jazz Project and once as the leader of the group known as the Paquito D'Rivera Quintet?). The band's calling "D'Rivera Quintet?" or "D'Rivera Quintet"? That's all I found. Regards (again great list).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Paquito D'Rivera is the leader of the group "Paquito D'Rivera Quintet?" (question mark included). The album cover even contains the question mark, so I made sure it was included in the list and lead. GOP or other reviewers, please let one of us know if this needs to be addressed somehow. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Went through the list and didn't see any problems. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:20, 17 December 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another NBA list about the player-coaches that were common in the NBA until the league prohibited them in 1984. — Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after a tiny tweak, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why not to split the tenure(s) into its own column?

I could split them, but it would not work well with Wilkens who have two separate coaching stints.

I don't see a problem with two tenures separated by a line break. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've split them, but on a quick glance at the table, it looks like Guerin had two stints with two different teams. I still think the previous arrangement is better. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks better. But I'll leave this discussion open so people can make their own minds up. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am indifferent about both arrangements.—Chris!_c/t 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a really cool little list, I like it a lot. One question, though none of them has won Coach of the Year, what do you think about including a general awards column to include any player honors (MVP, DPOY, etc, etc) if anyone won those? I'd be just as interested to know about exceptional player-seasons while coaching as I would be interested in outstanding coaching while playing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, I'll work on that soon. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the honors and awards column. I'm still looking on the All-Star Game coaching honors and will add them as soon as possible. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, lemme know when you've checked that and I'll support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Waiting on the below, I missed that source issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I buy MT's argument below on this source, and beyond that it looks great! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Please check the sorting in the playoff columns. I'm getting some random oddities in the form of numbers sorting by one digit only.

Added hidden sortkey, sorting should be fine now. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm a reliable source? It looks like somebody's personal website. If a better source wasn't out there for this fact, it would surprise me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it qualifies as a RS. The site is maintained by Larry Coon, who is often called an expert on NBA salary cap by media including The New York Times. He also writes for the ESPN.—Chris!_c/t 03:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Coon's self-published website should qualify as reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH which says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Enough editors have come forward to convince me that the source is decent, though I still think something of a higher quality could be out there. I don't have any further issues. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried to find a better source. I've been looking through the complete CBA documents here but I couldn't find anything about coaches' salary. Then it occurs to me that coaches are not part of the National Basketball Players Association, which explains why their salary are not counted in the salary cap. So far, Larry Coon's CBA FAQ is the only source I could find which clearly stated this information. — MT (talk) 05:30, 23 November 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [11].

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't done this in a while. So here goes... —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - The key looks awkward can't it be formatted like the second table? if not why is "Pos., SPG, Ref." bolded and not "G, F, C"? Afro (Talk) 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You should repeat some of the references for the second paragraph in the lead. I'm a bit confused about Scottie Pippen in the 1994–95 since you list his position as "F/G" how does this differ from "G/F"? Afro (Talk)

Is repeating the refs necessary? From my experience, this is not the case. As for positions, the one listed first is primary.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not after looking over the para again. Afro (Talk) 12:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Note9] doesn't direct me anywhere when I click it. Afro (Talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caused by a typo, now fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 09:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no problems on a quick re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [12].

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently also under FLC review), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - You only use RSD to in pointing out the abbreviation, is there any point in having it in the article? Same with JG 3. WASt doesn't need re-abbreviating in Note 11. AKCR is also abbreviated in the lead, I hardly think it needs re-abbreviating in the notes. Afro (Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentSupport

The list starts at number 58 a note could be added to the indicate that 1–57 were issued between 1940–1941 or whenever.

I was thinking of adding the followin text: "Listed here are the 111 recipients of 1942, ranging from sequential number 58 to 168. The 8 recipients of 1940 ranging from 1 to 7 are listed here, the 50 recipients, range 8 to 57, are listed here. The range 169 to 360, denoting the 192 recipients of 1943 can be found here. In 1944 328 men, listed as recipients 361 to 688, can be found here and the final 194 recipients of 1945 ranging from 689 to 882 are listed here." Would this address the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In note 2 handled the case in 1981 and decided: Swords yes, can this be reworded handled the case in 1981 and decided to award him the Swords ?

In note 4 According to Scherzer as Staffelkapitän of the 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 - should that not be III./Jagdgeschwader 77 ?

Nope, 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 is correct, it denotes the 3rd squadron, I double checked MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In note 6 and others there is no need to link the ranks they are already linked in the table

I was once advised to err on over-linking since the list can be sorted and one does not know what sort option the reader may have chosen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In note 7 while Prien states who is Prien.

Prien is the author of Jagdgeschwader 53 A History of the "Pik As" Geschwader May 1942 – January 1944. Listed in the Bibliography section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translate some of the more obscure German Aufklärungs-Abteilung for example.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note reagding the nomenclature of German military terms. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure having two separate lists for 40-41 and for 42 is ideal. I would prefer a single 40-42 one since it would be shorter than the '43 one. Nergaal (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this general consensus? If not I would like to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm against it. I would rather split up 40-41 article on a half in order to simplify things and have tidy article for every year. Current format could make people wonder if there is some another quality reasoning behind such a breakdown besides saving some KB's or one list simply being shorter. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The merge of 1940 and 1941 was requested at the WikiProject Military A-class review. I also had preferred to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't find anything to add or complain about. Great article. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [13].

Nominator(s): Hylian Auree (talk), --Hurricanehink, Jason Rees

I am nominating this for featured list because the problems previously stated have been addressed. Hylian Auree (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the list, I am co-nomming. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After discussions with Hink ive been alowed to co-nom.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now supporting. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no major issues with the article. Afro (Nice Beaver) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]