Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2011

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 22:42, 28 February 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles other Grammy lists with FL status. Second verse same as the first...! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think "rap" is a musical genre; it is a recitative "contrived" by Afro-Americans in the United States. I think you need to change quality albums in the rap music genre at the Grammy Awards, a ceremony that was established in 1958 and originally called the Gramophone Awards to quality albums to award music featuring rapping... for example.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The infobox now states that the award is presented for "quality albums with rapping", the lead indicates the same, and I updated the description in the second paragraph based on the category description guide for the 52nd Grammy Awards. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Per MOS:TEXT#Font size the small html tags shouldn't be used. Afro (Talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, WP:FONTSIZE states "Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose...large tables may require a decreased font size". Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates." Afro (Talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Nationality column could be replaced by a sentence in the lead or a footnote—All winners of the award so far are American.—indopug (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the column not be kept for the sake of consistency with other Grammy lists? Also, it seems to me that the lead should summarize the information displayed in the table. Without the Nationality column, the sentence included in the lead would need a source to verify that all winners are American. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to include the column if the only rationale is because the other lists have it. Each article is unique. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that each list is different. Do you have a response to the second part of my reply? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support job done. Nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no issues.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ruslik_Zero 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Check the publisher of reference 19; there's an s missing from Los Angeles Times. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good catch! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:36, 23 February 2011 (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 22:42, 28 February 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, clear and simple. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I'd recommend filling the blank cells with ndashes. Also whats sourcing the table I notice some inconsistencies with the information present for Randy Horton and Ref 5. Afro (Talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 is only there to show he was MVP. The stats for Horton on that page are only for one season, and that is why they don't match up. The stats come from Jose (2003). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NASL all-star years should be changed to NASL all-star appearances. The Abbreviations in the key aren't needed as you explain NASL in the lead, also you don't need MVP as its probably better to abbreviate this in the lead when mentioned. Afro (Talk) 12:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make the suggestion you use the country name for the Nationality rather than the name for the ethnic group. Afro (Talk) 17:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this below. I really don't see what having the name of the country rather than the denonym adds; it is perfectly possible to access the country by clicking the flag if you don't know that "West German" means, for example. On the other hand, having "English" rather than "England" just looks more tidy to me. I'd agree if we were going to link to national teams (Have "United States" link to the US national team and so forth). I don't see how this is ethnic groups though; it is nationalities, surely? I'll use myself as an example: By citizenship, I am defined as "British", but I do not take this as any ethnic indicator. By the same token, I don't quite see how Werner Roth (for example) being described as "American" disqualifies him from being of a Yugoslavian background. This is all just my opinion, of course. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• -cough-Ethnic group-cough- Anyway I think MOS:FLAG applies specifically "Accompany flags with country names", though lower on the MOS it does state "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." although I'm not entirely sure the latter applies. Afro (Talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's made clear in the text what the flags and nations given refer to, I don't see how any confusion can arise from the status quo. On the subject of "ethnic group", read Google's definitions back to yourself. From those definitions, you could define Britishers, Australians, Rhodesians, New Zealanders, white South Africans, Canadians and even Americans as the same. I don't think it means the same thing as "nationality", and the link you've given actually strengthens my point. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting in a what defines an ethnic group debate when it has nothing to do with the nomination. I don't see how it strengthens your point "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags" is there a country on Earth called English or Bermudan? Afro (Talk) 21:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, what difference does it really make? Okay then. I've changed it now. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no problems with the list and it appears to meet current FL standards. Afro (Talk) 04:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments I would rewrite the nationalities to, simply, the name of the country in the "Nationality" column and rewrite the column header to "Country", as it can confuse the reader, like me, if you mean with it, that the players played for that football club (players with mulit-nationalities for example), or something else. I looked at other FL at the Football WikiProject; an I found for example this list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't completely understand you. I've always given "English" rather than "England" (for example) for my Featured lists (see here and here). Players with multiple nationalities are pointed out in the text above the table (Stritzl, Roth and Kerr). I don't see how this is confusing. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, but you may link the nationalities to the countries like in the lists above.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can already get to each country's page by clicking on the flags. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh... forget about my comment.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't worry about it. :) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I could be looking at this completely wrong, but isn't this actually a List of New York Cosmos NASL all-star players? I went to this page expecting to see a list of players, and when presented with such a short list assumed they'd only played one season. Harrias ^talk 10:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. Added hatnote to make it more clear. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "The side's commercial and on-field success declined during the early 1980s, along with the NASL itself, and entered competitive inactivity in 1985". For this to work grammatically, "it" or "they" must be placed before "entered". Right now, the inactivity reads like it's about the club's success, not the club itself.
• "Examples of these are the former Brazilian international players Pele and Carlos Alberto, erstwhile West Germany captain Franz Beckenbauer; there were many others." The part before the semi-colon seems to abruptly cut out. Try adding "and" before "erstwhile".
• "or the his birthplace if he is uncapped." Remove "his" or "the". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all done. Cheers Giants – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 01:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

Glad to see that the name issue has been resolved. A minor point about a list that looks in pretty good shape:

• I'm confused about how NASL all-star appearances sorts. In one direction, it sorts by the year: Stritzl (1971) followed by Horton (1971, 1972) followed by Kerr (1972). I'm happy with this, but in the other direction it seems to sort by the number of appearances, rather than the year. Ie, Bogićević, Chinaglia (6) then Beckenbauer (5), etc. I would expect it to sort by the same criteria in both directions, and simply reverse the list.

Otherwise I'm reasonably happy with the list. Harrias ^talk 13:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, now goes by number of appearances in both directions. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great work. Harrias ^talk 16:56, 27 February 2011 (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 23:31, 25 February 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): Courcelles 08:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I haven't done one of these in many months. Forgive my rust... only five of these lists left to write in this series. Courcelles 08:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with one small comment. Why is the sentence phrased "Larkin was awarded the Roberto Clemente Award in 1993, the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award in 1994, and the National League MVP honor in 1995."? You go award...award...honor, even though the MVP is called the MVP award. I would say either leave it just National League MVP (period) or National League MVP award. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This got changed in another rewrite, though using "award" three times in a sentence sounded bad when I was writing it, so that's how it happened. Courcelles 21:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – "Sowers MLB debut came in 2006 against Cincinnati." Apostrophe needed at the end of Sowers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, done. Courcelles 01:37, 23 February 2011 (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 23:31, 25 February 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list meets all FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status. I realize there are currently four lists related to the Grammy Awards at FLC, but none of them were nominated by me! So far in 2011 I have submitted lists that I worked on in 2010 (I still have more ready for FLC), but the World Music list was completed this year so I am trying to earn a few points for the WikiCup competition with this nomination. Thanks, as always, to reviewers (and thanks to other contributors for assisting with the Grammy series)! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only major issue is that of the multiple flags. With two or more contributors having different nationalities, the flags are line-broken but the names aren't. Bit odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a recommended solution? The column width is not set, so text wraps depending on the viewer's screen dimensions. For some people, both artist names may appear on a single line, for others on two lines (hypothetically, on three or more for small screens or similar lists with multiple performing artists). The only solution I can think of is to insert line breaks to command the text to wrap ("Vishwa Mohan Bhatt<br>Ry Cooder", or something similar which includes "and"). For the sake of consensus, I have no problem with the current format, but I am happy to address your concern if you and others feel a change is necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just I saw this question on another FLC so it seems only reasonable to be consistent and bring it up here! Well then, the solution you suggest is indeed the only visual solution I can think of while still maintaing sortability. Although, having said that, I've heard (on the ACCESS grapevine) that the linebreak thing is purely visual and doesn't help screenreaders. I wonder if there's a good solution for everyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Only issue I can see is that The Chieftains need {{sortname}}. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend on using the sortname template for group names (only first and last names). Sortname forces the column to sort by last name, but there is no last name here to sort. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever things a sorted alphabetically word such as 'a' and 'the' are disregarded. Thus, please use the template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added sort command for The Chieftains. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Man, I hate to bring this up again in another FLC. I have to agree that without the flags, it didn't look that great-- but I'm still a bit worried that the flags might violate WP:ACCESS per TRM's concerns, and that they overshadow the artist in the list. Instead of looking at it as Ry Cooder's award, I might look at it as an American's, which might not be a truly accurate representation of him as an artist. For example, on a film list, would we put Bruce Willis's name down with a German flag next to it because he was born in Germany? I'm really not sure how to resolve this issue though, I really do think the flags look rather nice, but I don't want to give the wrong impression to readers. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Nomader. I'm not sure what to make of the Bruce Willis example--one would display an American flag to represent Bruce Willis because he is American, not a German flag just because he was born overseas. Honestly, I don't know how to respond. I don't have a problem with the flags, and consensus here appeared to show a preference for the flags. You are certainly welcome to express concerns, but I am not really sure of a solution (if there is one). Perhaps other/different reviewers will comment on this FLC. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what I hope too. I'm not going to oppose because of it, these Grammy lists are actually really well done from what I've seen and I actually feel that the flags are aesthetically pleasing even if they end up not being appropriate. Either way, I've looked through the list and I see no other issues. After the whole flag issue is discussed a bit more (or not) by other editors, I'll be more then prepared to support. Fantastic list, Another Believer. Nomader ^(Talk) 08:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The capitalization of non-English album articles should be address. Per WP:ALBUMCAPS, if an album or song article is not in English, then the rules of capital letters for that language applies. Use this for any language you need to know about. Magiciandude (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) I recant my above statement since this needs to be addressed on the talk page for the consensus. Magiciandude (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree with this Wikiproject "recommendation". Please use over-riding English Wikipedia guidelines and policies, this isn't Spanish Wikipedia. For those who wish to discuss this further, I've opened a talk here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is "Web 2.0 Conference" not linked?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Actually, I linked "Web 2.0 Conference" to "Web 2.0 Summit" (its new name). Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I see no more issues. Support from me.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 24 February 2011 (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 23:31, 25 February 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, same as the 2009 list, and basically the same as the 2007 and 2008, here is the 2010 list. Salavat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I don't understand why there are 3 different tables for the key. Ref 4-6 as well as all the Stats and Rosters need a format parameter. Afro (Talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The three different tables block out different items, one for statistics, one for positions, and one for the two general items that need explaining. Format has been added to all references mentioned. Salavat (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the problem with keeping it to one table? Afro (Talk) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Hows it look now? Salavat (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't the Legend included in the TOC? You mention in the lead the Czech Republic won the tournament but mention nothing of a runner-up, why?. Afro (Talk) 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Added and mentioned. Salavat (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 11:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - None of the images have alt text. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• According to my last FLC it had been removed as a featured list criteria back in April 2010. Has there been a change since? Salavat (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I'm so far behind that I didn't realize it had been removed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, alt text is part of the MOS, so a list that didn't have alt text for its images would be in violation of criterion #5. Powers ^T 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well whether its required or not ive gone and added it in. Salavat (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – Only thing I see is that "the" should be added before "tournament's most valuable player and top goaltender...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't find anything to gripe about. Courcelles 13:26, 24 February 2011 (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 23:31, 25 February 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the requirements.—Chris!_c/t 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Note that I gave a talk page review here, so most of my comments have been taken care of already.

• The lead is quite short, at two small paragraphs. Is there anything more that can be added to it?

Not really. And I don't think the lead is that short when comparing this to the one at 2008 Summer Olympics medal table—Chris!_c/t 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything citing China's medal table-leading streak (eight in a row)? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Chris!_c/t 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am tempted to oppose until a "map" of the medal winners such as the one in 1984 Winter Olympics medal table is added. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should oppose because it lacks a map. A map would be nice but it is not required. With that said, I will try to make one, though it would take some time.—Chris!_c/t 23:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added—Chris!_c/t 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support but please add a reamark that China won about 40% of the gold medals. I opposed because in a short medal table like this one, one could argue that it is a cfork of a medallist table. Also, since there are only 9 non-medal-winning countries, it might be appropriate to list them somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done—Chris!_c/t 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "Athletes from 35 NOCs (Kuwait participated under the Olympic flag due to the suspension of its NOC)[2][3] won medals, leaving 9 without a medal, and 29 of them won at least one gold medal." – it is not particularly clear which noun is being referred to in the numerical list towards the end: 9 and 29 could refer to either the individual athletes, or the NOCs: can you clarify the sentence.
• Similarly, the last sentence in the first paragraph: "Macau and Bangladesh won their first Asian Games gold medal from wushu and cricket, respectively." – Not sure if medal should be plural or not here, and you need a comma after medal regardless.
• When I try and sort by 'Total' in the table, the page goes a bit funny, and tries to redirect me to somewhere else (undefined) on the page. (It adds a hash to the end of the address bar, as if internally navigating).
• On the map, doesn't host country really represent the host city?
• Ref 2 could do with a publication date (5 January 2010). (Check other references for possible missing information too)
• Ref 32 is in the form YYYY-MM-DD, while all other references are DD MONTH YYYY

Harrias ^talk 20:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all except sorting issue. I don't know why it does not work for that particular column. It could be a bug or something.—Chris!_c/t 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look like other medal table lists (e.g. 1984 Winter Olympics medal table) have the same problem. So, this is likely a site-wide bug.—Chris!_c/t 06:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is because of "colspan". It works now after I removed it. Ruslik_Zero 16:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Harrias ^talk 18:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles 18:33, 25 February 2011 (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 19:36, 22 February 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armillaria is a genus of destructive wood-eating fungi that causes extensive losses to forestry industries around the world—but it also produces attractive mushrooms, many of which are edible, and some even glow in the dark. It seems there are no other "List of all species in a genus"-type FLs, so I'm thinking this will serve as sort of a template for future efforts of this kind (at least in the fungal realm). This is my first FLC, so go hard on me, it'll make it easier for future noms :) Sasata (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment !! Sasata, great conqueror of GAN and FAC, has come to the last untouched land of FLC! :) Two things off the bat. (1) Is this a complete list? If not it needs {{dynamic list}}. (2) What do you think about a color-indicator for the "transfer" species as opposed to those originally placed in the genus? The parentheses is a good starting point, but doesn't stand out a ton. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Stax. I have yet to wade in the waters of FS and GT/FT, so there's more virgin territory for me... 1) I'm not sure about the lingo: the list is "complete" in that it gives all the species we know of, but "incomplete" in that more species may be discovered and eventually added to the list. 2) Hadn't thought of color coding like that, I'll experiment a bit and get back to you. Is there a guideline for color usage somewhere? Sasata (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure, WP:COLOR deals more with colored text. Best I can say is look at other lists that use colors, it's probably best to stick with safer pastel-y colors so there's nothing too in your face (see the key in World Series Most Valuable Player Award for most of the common list colors I've seen). As for completeness that's actually an interesting question. I'd say that so long as this is every known species that would be complete (since you couldn't possibly add anything more), though I could see the argument the other way (particularly if there's a big chance there are more unknown species out there). Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't think formally separating "original" and "combined" species (the technical word) makes for a useful distinction. It would possibly be the first article to ever do that. The closest I know are some Paleontology article that describe the fate of species that USED to be in the genus being discussed. Circéus (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree; whether a species was originally in this genus or in another is merely an accident of taxonomic history that is not going to be of interest to many users of this list. Ucucha 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The issues I raised have been satisfactorily addressed. --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments, RexxS. I wasn't aware of the accessibility issues before, and it is something I will certainly keep in mind for future FLC submissions. You're right there should be some consistency among lists that fall under the purview of the Tree of Life project; I may initiate a discussion there sometime about the general format I used in this article. Sasata (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all legit, copyrightwise, but I note that this one is not identified to species level on the image page, nor is it used in the species article. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the epithet to the image page. The species article is still too short to warrant another pic... but I promise to make it grow soon! Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

• I guess there's no prescribed way to do this yet, but I wonder whether a "notes" column with material like edibility (if edible, poisonous or toxic), bioluminescence and any major "human interest" (medicinal/other use, state mushroom, that sort of thing) would be useful. I guess that's a big ask, so, as much as anything, I'm just wondering why you decided to include the things you did, as opposed to anything else. What about common names?

• I guess I'm still figuring out the balance between what to include on a list like this, and what to leave to the article page. Five of the species have common names (the others just aren't well-known to have been assigned them yet), five species are bioluminescent, another couple are interesting as candidates for "world's largest organism". Having a separate column for any one of these individually would result in a lot of blank spaces, but something like a "notes" column might work. But maybe this info should be instead included in the "Notes" section? Opinions anyone? Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps split notes like "The original spelling of the species name was cepaestipes" out from the references?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention the name "Honey fungus" somewhere?

• Now in the first sentence. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't mention the type species anywhere- I'd say that'd be a great lead illustration as represenative of the whole list.

• That's a great idea, done. That also freed up room below to add an image of another species. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have full names for "Volk and Burdall"?

• Yes, given in full the previous paragraph. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You also don't mention the authority/naming for the genus as a whole, which I feel would have a place here.

• Good idea, now in the second sentence of the lead. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done little reviewing at FLC, so I'm not certain what I'm looking for, but I hope these thoughts are helpful. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is well researched, sourced, displayed and illustrated. The question of what precisely to include hangs over our head, but I think we need a general discussion about fungal species lists, rather than hashing it out here- it's not fair to oppose based on guidelines which don't exist. I think a notes column would be a nice addition, but I'm certainly willing to support without it. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for helping out JM! Sasata (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues addressed; looking good. Ucucha 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

• I think lists such as this should also include species formerly placed in the genus. That would make the list a lot longer, but also more useful to people who find some old Armillaria name and want to figure out what it refers to.

• Yikes. I'm not against doing the work, but it seems to me that that would change the list from the tidy summary of current species it is now to a bloated monstrosity with over 300 entries and a greater number of references. Does Wikipedia really need that? Can't we assume that someone who's researching an old Armillaria name has the knowledge to check Index Fungorum or MycoBank for themselves? Sasata (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I didn't think I'd make myself popular with this suggestion. I can also see why we wouldn't want to include this information, but I'd like to hear what other people think. We don't have resources like Index Fungorum for all groups; for example, there is a huge number of species formerly placed in Oryzomys, but no centralized resource where all can be found. Thanks for the fixes on the other issues. Ucucha 20:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think that if such lists were to be created, they would be best kept at a separate "list of former X species" page, cross-referenced to the appropriate articles. Circéus (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems reasonable; I might try that with Oryzomys and see how it works out. Ucucha 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the last reference (Volk & Burdsall, 1995), the "(PDF)" should come after the link, not after the year.

• I just removed the format=PDF parameter; I don't know how to force the order of the template output. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The actual list is now in a section titled "Key", which doesn't make much sense—perhaps add a section "List"?

Ucucha 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a section header "Species". Thanks for commenting, Ucucha. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since NABS X has not been formally named, shouldn't the year be omitted? For the other species, it's the year of formal naming, not the year the species was first recognized. Ucucha 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I removed the year from the column and added it to the footnote. Sasata (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment References should be numerically ordered.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there was a very good reason for their being "out of order", which was detailed in the Key. Circéus (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, undone. Headcold means brain is not working at full capacity. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (yesterday I just mentioned that the references are not sorted but didn't look at the key, unfortunately :/, but now my deep review is finished) Very good list about one of my favourite mushrooms (:P), but it's a little bit strange, I thought there would be more species; are you sure they are complete? Anyway, I support this great list :D!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, and yes, I'm sure :) Sasata (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Overall, a nice piece of work. Just two small things from me: I wish the References column was shortened to Ref(s) (would save some white space), and that the Distribution column could be made sortable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may just be being picky, but I don't like the idea of the section header being abbreviated. How about as a compromise I center the refs so the whitespace is left/right equalized? I'm not convinced the distribution column should be sortable; since most of the cells are a list of items, what use could it be to the reader to have species list sorted by the first location in the distribution list? Sasata (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"saving whitespace" is a boogeyman: at 800x600, the saving hardly changes the number of lines on the first and third column that gets broken, and it obviously makes virtually no difference at all on tiny screens. I also agree sorting the distribution cells is pointless since it only sort one element out of several within them. Circéus (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments this has had a fair bit of interest and support, and it seems I'm a little late to the party, but in any case, my comments, and forgive me if they've been discussed already.

• "First treated by" this is expert-speak for me, why would anyone "treat" a mushroom? Needs to be accessible to all. Simliar with "assigned generic rank". What do these mean to the layman?
• " with a cottony or membranous veils that typically forms " singular/plural/singular
• Name col should be Name/authority in the key.
• What if there's a name in parentheses and a name (or more) out of parentheses?
• I don't like refs out of numerical order but I appreciate the key telling me why. I'm not sure why the ref's shouldn't be numerical though.
• In the authority entries, there are a lot of "Dessur.", "Courtec." (abbreviated names), why?
• NABS X has no year. At least put an en/em-dash there in the year col.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the mushroom, it's the genus that's being "treated" as a subject. It might me mildly academic, but it is not jargon as far as I'm aware.
• fixed
• It should have linked to author citation (botany) from the start, but admittedly the wording was less than ideal.
• I'm not sure why Sasata decided to put the original publications in a separate columns instead of putting them in the first and third (there doesn't seem to be much space saving or aesthetic improvement to justify it), but I respected it out of WP:RETAIN, if anything else.
• This is the standard format across botanical literature and Wikipedia when giving author citations. (if it were running, as in the second sentence of the article, there would be no abbreviation, of course). Giving the full names (which is not always possible), would not be an improvement (notwithstanding the space issues).
• fixed.

Circéus (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer why I did it that way, it's because I saw that someone else had done the refs that way, so I just copied the format. Thinking about it some more, the extra column for refs seemed unnecessary, so I removed it. How does it look now? I'm thinking that the name/authority column looks a bit crowded, and and tempted to move the authorities to a separate (unsortable?) column (as suggested by RexxS). Any objections? Sasata (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and made sortable. Circéus (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and can be made more fully accessible by marking up row headers thus: [10] and then setting "plainrowheaders"[11] if you don't like the bold, centred row headers.

I've self reverted because I don't want to interfere, but you can see how it's done. Most folks don't see much difference, but you're enabling a screen reader to navigate up and down the columns of the table and hear which row they are on each time. It's not mandatory, but worthwhile. Cheers. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that works; in fact I would very much oppose it. I would only ever do that if the table was a "cross-reference" (e.g. comparison of Internet browsers), or an election result table. This is clearly not such a case. Circéus (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the marking up of row headers to make a table accessible is mandated by MOS at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables, so you'd better get used to it. It is a necessary feature of our best work that they be accessible to all. I've been willing to accept that it is something that editors need to become acquainted with, and have not pressed the point where the structure is unsuitable (or even if it would require a massive overhaul of a table), but in a case such as this where the upgrade would be trivial, I don't feel that I can support promotion. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misunderstanding the nature of headers: they serve to identify the data in the corresponding row/column. If you need to put a header on your headers (as you would have us do), then it is not a header! By your metric the first cell in every single table in Wikipedia should be a header, that's preposterous! Circéus (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest that I'm not misunderstanding the nature of headers. At present the table has column headers, but no row headers. I'm simply suggesting that it would improve the table's accessibility to have row headers as well. If you want an outside opinion, here's a book that demonstrates exactly the technique I'm recommending: Web accessibility. You could read the tutorial for how JAWS reads tables at Tables with JAWS and MAGic to get a better idea of why having both column and row headers improves accessibility. If you want the source of these, they derive from WCAG, and there is a criterion H63 for HTML 4 that you can refer to. Please have a look at some of these, and consider whether there might be more to my suggestions than you may have initially recognised. I'd be delighted if we can reach some agreement here. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Undent] According to the page you link, we do not need header cell to have an accessible table here: scope is legitimate to use even in the absence of a header cell (and in this case, I still firmly believe full-on header, where or not they are visible, are unnecessary). I'll happily apply scope to the "name" columns. I'd like to further note that this whole arguing spans from the fact that from the point of view of basic HTML, making the data tabular is not a formal necessity (hence the arguing about the best way to apply a table to the list): a table just happen to be the only way to get sortable data on wp: (and we view sortability as particularly desirable). If sortability could somehow be obtained without the use of a table, the data would not be tabular, have no formal need to be tabular, and the entire argument would be moot. Circéus (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of the points you make. You can indeed apply scope to data cells (such as those containing names) and make the table accessible, but then somebody will have to come along when we move to HTML5 and change the markup to make them header cells. There's really no reason not to mark them up now – after all, if it is semantically a row header (identifying the data in that row), then I would think marking it up as TH would be sensible.

If you consider the data structure, a table implements a list of lists in a structured way. It also possesses the advantage that we can navigate it 'vertically' i.e up and down a column – and we go to all this trouble to allow blind users the same facility. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (might as well ) Baring people noting extra ameliorations that can be implemented or errors, I don't see how we can improve it further. Circéus (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The main table fails WP:WIAFL#5, specifically MOS:ACCESS#Data_tables, a top-priority requirement. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we need to take WP:ACCESS seriously. I don't see a problem with what RexxS has suggested, and he has an established track record of being very open-minded and fair with this sort of thing. I suggest you work with him rather than against him. Your accusations of his suggestions being "preposterous" are just short of bad faith, and as far as I can see, there's absolutely zero visual difference in the format RexxS has suggested against the format you prefer. All you had to do was use RexxS's edits; he'd done all the hard work for you... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately I consider the decision is Sasata's and I will defer to it, but I still believe that the suggestion is one of the most misguided approach to "accesibility" I've ever seen when we have so many articles that, by the same accessibility token, should never be allowed to have table at all to begin with, and the suggestion is made obsolete simply by changing the ordering of the columns (further demonstrating that no, in many, many cases there is absolutely no need for a column of header). Look at the tables in the example here, the first two are clearly similar to our examples and according to the spec, the first column does not need (I argue must not have) header cells; the second table illustrated (in the next section) has even less headers than you would expect (I would have put the dates in headers). The specs to me clearly implies that one should be conservative in the use of double sets of header. Circéus (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be wrong but I think you've misunderstood what's going on here. RexxS has responded above, it's worth taking this advice seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jumping in the middle here, but Rexx helped with my nom very easily and it didn't really change the physical nature of the list at all, so why not include it? I have no reason to disbelieve what he and others have told me about this making things easier for screen-readers, I have 0 knowledge on that front. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• <technical warning> No, Circeus is quite right to point out that under the current HTML spec, it is acceptable to specify <td scope="row"> (or | scope="row" in wiki-markup). He is mistaken only in extrapolating that to forbid <th scope="row"> (or ! scope="row" in wiki-markup). In fact, HTML4 specifies scope as an attribute for both TD and TH, so either are acceptable. The problem is that the upcoming HTML5 spec will no longer allow scope on TD, so with an eye to the future, it is better guide editors into using ! scope="row" as that is valid now and will be valid in the future. I should add that "plainrowheaders" only works on ! scope="row", so if you want to mark up row headers differently, you can't use it.</technical warning> Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You blatantly misrepresent what I said. I meant that for our purpose "scope" on a normal cell was sufficient and that a header cell was not semantically required for accessibility (not to mention a different styling is unwarranted no matter how subdued it is). Circéus (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I still agree: "scope" on a normal cell (TD) is sufficient for accessibility. The only two things we seem to disagree on is that I think the semantic markup for any table header is TH; and that I think using TD scope="row" is a bad idea because it will be disallowed in the next version of HTML. You'll find quite a few editors who will insist that the semantic difference between header cells and data cells has to be indicated by a difference in styling. But I respect your view that you don't want to see a different visual style, and I'd personally be happy to go along with it. Nevertheless, MOS:ACCESS#Data tables is the consensus guideline that requires ! scope="row" and the debate at MediaWiki Talk:Common.css/Archive 12#Bold row headers has decided the default behaviour of the "wikitable" and "plainrowheaders" classes. Neither of these are set in stone, and I'm sure that you would be able to make a reasoned argument if you wished to see them changed. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've implemented the accessibility changes as suggested by RexxS. Sasata (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The issues I raised have been satisfactorily addressed. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2011 (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 19:36, 22 February 2011 [12].

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it does meet the FL criteria as it has been modeled after successful college football coach lists such as List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches and List of Texas Longhorns head football coaches Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Everything looks good. Another great CFB HC list. NThomas (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• Shouldn't the first sentence read "The Alabama Crimson Tide football program is a college football team that represents the University of Alabama"........?

• Corrected

• "the team has played more than 1,100 games in their 116 seasons" - mixing singular and plural when describing the same thing

• Corrected

• "he accumulated a 232 wins" - should that "a" be there......?

• Corrected

• "Jennings B. Whitworth has the lowest winning percentage of those who have coached more than one game with .067" - suggest adding a comma after "game"

• Corrected

• Now bear in mind here that I know nothing about college football, so I may be misunderstanding here, but if the team did not "join a conference in the traditional sense" (whatever that means) till 1922, should the coaches prior to then not all have a dash in the CCs column like Beaumont does..........?

• I have gone through the seasonal archives and added SIAA victories to the coaches' totals as Bama was part of the SIAA between 1895–1922.

Anyway, hope all that helps..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for taking the time to take a look at this as the comments are greatly appreciated and now addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Add "an" in "for .824 winning percentage."

• Done

• One of the coaches won his only career start. Therefore, Bear Bryant is technically not the all-time winning percentage leader. If this causes a problem for the lead, you can qualify the stat like when the lowest winning percentage is discussed.

• Corrected

• Typo in note 6: "ineligiable". Also, I'm not crazy about the flow in "the NCAA ruled Alabama to". Maybe try "the NCAA ruled that Alabama must..."? There's a similar usage in note 8.

• Done & addressed additional comment

• Add "for" to "Thus the official NCAA record 1993 is 1–12."

• Done

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments! All have been addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Moderate support a real minor one, but I think it's a little odd to link Saban in a list of "led to postseason" teams, and then mention he's the current coach as the last sentence of the lead. Perhaps consider moving the fact he's the current coach from the end of the lead to the start of the lead, and therefore avoid repeating his first name twice in the lead (including once in the lead image). Everything else is spot on as far as I can tell on a re-visit (although I still hate #=number of coaches, it isn't, it's just chronological order of coaches). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good call. I placed the sentence in question in the lead as it does make more sense there than at the end since he is the current head coach. As for the # column, it does serve a purpose more than just chronological as Kines served only in an interim role and the university lists Saban as the 27th head coach, not the 28th. Thanks again for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No bother. I agree the hash column is needed but the title in the key is the odd thing for me. It's more like "Order of coach (not including repeats) in coach history" which is clearly awful, but it really isn't "number of coaches"... do you get my drift? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear what you're saying. I changed the word to "order" and added a more detailed description to the note. I know it's not perfect, but it is better now I think. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• "that represents the University of Alabama in the West Division of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision." - this is a lot of prepositional phrases in a row. I suggest a re-word because the current first sentence looks like a run-on and should be split.

• Cleaned-up

• "27 head coaches, and one interim head coach" - these are comparable quantities, per MOS:NUM, change "one" to 1

• Done

• "Wade captured"... "Saban captured" - repetitive, change one of these to won

• Done

• "Saban all won" - should be each won

• Done

• "Bryant is the leader in ... most wins" - I know that's not what you actually wrote, but that's the way the modification ends up. Change "most wins" to games won

• Done

• "wins... wins" - change to games won, with 232 victories

• Done

• "prior to ever coaching" - besides the split infinitive, the meaning doesn't suffer by removing "ever", so it's extraneous; remove

• Done

• Keep your decimal places in the table the same; if all the winning percentages are extended to three decimal places (.750), then so should be 1.000.

• Done

• Replace daggers with {{dagger}}, using alt text per ACCESS concerns.

• Done

• Also in the ACCESS vein, all rows should be marked up with the coach as the row header. The data table tutorial can help you with this.

• Done

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking the time to comment on this. It is much appriciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Support, spot on: nothing from me at all. Harrias ^talk 23:31, 18 February 2011 (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 19:36, 22 February 2011 [13].

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have made it to the standards of my other featured soccer lists (see Luton Town F.C. and follow the links). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Just one quick one: the all caps in note 4 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFC

Nice job overall, and I like what you've done with the general references.

• I'm not sure how best to do this without unbalancing the list, so I'll leave this open-ended. But I'm wondering if there needs to be something on the league structure, particularly between 1976 and 1980. Regional divisions followed by playoffs to decide the national champion is simple enough to cotton on to. But when you throw conferences into the mix, the typical non-US football fan might not grasp it naturally.
  • I've included the Conferences under the play-offs. I think that it's clear that the "regular season" refers to division, and that anything after that is regarded as "post-season". It's a fair point, though. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think the table copes well. Like I said, it's not something I can put my finger on. Maybe it's just the fault of the NASL for making what is effectively a localised league --> regional knockout --> East vs West Championship game sound more complicated than it really is. I think we're on the same page, but I'll leave this visible in case someone else has an idea. —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the proviso that if someone else raises a concern over the playoff structure, a footnote or similar is added. —WFC— 22:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no major issues from me: though I think 'points' in the table should itself link to something explaining the points system, not just the top-scorer heading. Harrias ^talk 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:27, 18 February 2011 (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 22:48, 18 February 2011 [15].

Nominator(s): Nightw 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be a concise, comprehensive list that can be a good example for other lists on Wikipedia. It is fairly simple, but in my opinion, it effectively briefs the reader on the subject, while providing well-placed links for further information. If nothing else, this nomination will be a fantastic opportunity to identify areas for improvement. Peer reviews were conducted in September and October. Nightw 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, as it's very definitely a list. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry... Nightw 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted, old version.
• Note I have restarted this nomination because the nomination was quite long and the consensus was unclear. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments on accessibilty: Accessibility of the table is good. In theory a caption would be an improvement, but in this case where there is only one table and it is the only element in its section, it could be argued that a caption would be redundant. The images in the Standard column would benefit from alt text (as the filename is read out otherwise). --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Issues above now resolved. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I still think this should be ordered by the monarchs column, not the monarchies one. Nergaal (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sortable, so you can have it ordered by any column you like. I must admit, though, that I'd slightly prefer that the State column contained the row headers, as that piece of information uniquely identifies the row, whereas the name of the monarch does not. --RexxS (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It originally was done that way, but I wanted to highlight the actual item being listed, which is the monarch...especially since it is not allocated the leftmost column. Nightw 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – My comments were all resolved before the restart, and I don't have any new ones. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Looks a lot better. Perhaps an image of Queen Elizabeth II would add to the page, alongside the existing Japanese Emperor and Dutch Queen? Mainly with the association with 'monarch' that she has being monarch of many English-speaking countries around the world. —JeevanJones (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Despite the length of certain paragraphs the Lead I'm pretty sure conflicts with WP:LEAD#Length. Since no work was being done regarding the use of language templates, I have taken the liberty and removed them and added the correct parameter, I've also replaced the month name with the numerical value to keep it consistent with the rest of the references. Afro (Talk) 08:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing those up. I generally prefer the language icons, and was under the impression that this was okay, but if there's a community preference to use the parameters instead, then I won't object. I've merged two of the smaller paragraphs in order to comply with length standards. Nightw 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no issues and the issue wasn't that the pages are in a different language it was just there's no need to use the Language icons when there is a perfectly usable parameter in the template, it makes it easier for editors to edit the reference also. Afro (Talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing from my original comments that is still unresolved is the huge amount of WP:EGG links. A key should be added to explain where all of these go, as it's not immediately evident (or in some cases, even evident in passing). — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any instances in particular you can give, just as an example? Nightw 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Just as an example, in the "Australia" row, you've linked "Queen" to List of Australian monarchs, "Constitutional" to Monarchy of Australia, and "Hereditary" to Line of succession to the British throne. It's not self-evident as to where these links actually go. At face value (without following the links or rolling over to see their destination), I would assume that "Queen" has been underlinked (because it's only linked in some of the Elizabeth II entries, not all, that "Constitutional" links to an article on constitutional monarchy, and that "hereditary" links to an article on primogeniture or some such (the "succession" links are possibly ok as is, but the "type" links are really a problem). — KV5 • Talk • 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. Thanks. So what is the best way for the linking to be explained? In simple prose above the table? Nightw 06:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly, I would prefer that the links be removed, but that's probably not the optimum solution. I would use a tabular key rather than simple prose, as I think it's clearer. — KV5 • Talk • 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience! What about this kind of thing? Nightw 04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's a good start, but keep in mind that the key has to meet ACCESS standards too. Rowheaders and the like. — KV5 • Talk • 12:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this work? It might be preferable to have just two columns instead of four. I don't know if this affects accessibility. Nightw 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A much better bet for maximising accessibility would be two columns. And to be honest, a table with two columns can get away without row or column headers; anyone using a screen reader won't get lost navigating around such a table, but you could still put them in as an example of good practice. Optionally, the legend would fit perfectly as a list from a semantic view, but a list isn't as pretty as a table. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noticed all the markup in there. It's not needed:

Legend

Key	Description
Monarch	Name of monarch, preceded by title, with link to list of predecessors.
Since	Date of assumption of throne; coronation date listed in footnotes.
House	Name of royal family, with information on bloodline.
Type	Form of monarchy, with link to information on role of the monarch within government.
Succession	Method or pattern of succession, with link to current line of succession.
Standard	Heraldry attributed to the relevant monarch or monarchy.
N/A	Denotes where specific field is not applicable.
—	Denotes where data is not available.

Have a look at the wikitext. The only presentational formatting that I've removed is the italic as I don't think its use is justified per WP:ITALIC. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Added. Thanks for the help, RexxS. Nightw 12:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, alt text is needed for the royal standards. — KV5 • Talk • 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Nightw 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comments have been satisfactorily resolved. — KV5 • Talk • 12:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oooh, support, very neat list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:
  • Some of the footnotes seem extraneous: Do we need all of the ones that go into detail on the royal houses? That's not immediately needed for this list, especially the historical information. The notes 5, 6, 10 (see next note), part of 12 (the first part is useful, the 'branch of' less so), the clan part of 21, 24, 31, 34, possibly 44, 45, and the bishop portion of 49. These all seem like they would be better handled in the articles on the houses, rather than crowding up the footnote section.
  • The house for Cambodia, is this correct? It would seem more accurate (to me) to say Varman, rather than Norodom, especially since Norodom does not direct to any house or dynasty. But I am not the expert. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is the surname adopted by the descendants of Norodom I. It distinguishes them from those of Sisowath, whom are also eligible for succession under the constitution. I suppose this should be further explained in the footnotes, which I suppose ties in with your first comment. I'll get to that in a moment. Nightw 04:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, so it's a weird situation. Hrm. If that's their surname, then yes, I suppose that does go in the house column, with an explaination as to what dynasty it's part of... here, let me express my questions specifically:
• Note 3: "The House of Windsor is a line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which itself is a branch of the House of Wettin. "Windsor" is the official name adopted by the royal family of the United Kingdom since 1917." I don't think we need the last sentence; renames a century ago belong in the house article, not here. I was originally going to say we didn't need the bit about "House of Wettin", either, but since another royal family is in that line, it may make sense to include it.
• Note 5: A tribe, without further elucidation, is just a tribe, without any particular royal leanings. Unless the king of Bahrain and emir of Kuwait are always from this tribe, it seems extraneous. To me, as an ignorant westerner, it almost sounds like linking two U.S. Presidents together because they were both from Ohio. Maybe Arabian tribes have more meaning than that, I don't know, which is why I bring it to you to justify the note. :)
• Note 6: After re-examining note 3 as mentioned above, I'm actually fine with this staying, to show that the two houses are linked.
• Note 10: Now that you've explained, it makes more sense, and yes, the note should explain it as you did. :)
• Note 12: Since no other monarchy presently is in the House of Oldenburg, I don't think this needs to be mentioned here... does it? I mean, how often does someone refer to Harald V as being in the House of Oldenburg? Probably as often as people mention Elizabeth II of the House of Wettin? :) Gosh, now as I'm writing these I'm starting to doubt my call for trimming them, but I think that, unless the "part of the house of ..." is relevant to the list (that is, another monarchy is also in said line), it should be relegated to the house article.
• Note 16: This is a case of clan/tribe being allowed as a house name, since the name of the kingdom actually is "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan". However, I'm not entirely sure we need it, as it falls under the "rename?" issue that maybe doesn't belong on this list? Hrm.
• Note 20: The Basotho is simply the demonym for people from Lesotho, so the first sentence redundant. As for the second half, see my points on note 16.
• Note 23: Since the House of Nassau is also that of another monarchy, this I suppose should stay.
• Note 30: See note 23
• Note 33: Another tribe, the "largest of all Arab tribes". Unless there's some rule that all Qatari emirs must be from this tribe, it seems extraneous.
• Note 38: The data seemed extraneous on first glance, but wow, that's certainly a unique way to choose a king: Choose his mother! So yeah, that's definitely useful information.
• Note 43: No other house is in this dynasty so maybe it doesn't need to be mentioned?
• Note 44: Since note 46 specifies that the ruler is always from Al Nahyan, it's relevant to explain the tribe a little bit, so this one seems okay.
• The Pope: I was wrong and you're right, it does appear his primary office is that of Bishop of Rome, and from that all other things follow. Maybe his note could be rearranged "As Sovereign of the Vatican City, by virtue of being Bishop of Rome." (even though both links go to the same place, Pope :P)
  • I apologize if I'm getting into too much detail, just wanting to make sure it's all good. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, the content has developed with very little collaboration anyway, so it's good to finally get another's ideas. I've fixed up note 3; with that extra information gone, I was thinking it could now probably be combined somehow with note 6...? I've fixed note 48, and I'll also expand the explanation on note 10 shortly.
    • You are right in saying that this information should lie in the house articles, and in most instances this is the case. In most cases, however, it is necessary to mention the main house in addition to the branch, as these are the actual houses they belong to from a purel genealogical perspective. The branches, in most cases, are just given a different name because they're not the seniormost descendants of that house. Harald is a good example. Because he descends the third son of Christian III, rather than the eldest, he represents a junior branch, but the House he belongs to is still Oldenburg (see more information). In most sources (example), his House will be identified as "Oldenburg", with the branch following in parentheses. Nightw 08:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahaaa. Okay, I think I see now. Yeah, my only experience with monarchies has been UK and Japan, and they haven't had to deal with such issues in recent history. So these footnotes are mostly to allay confusion an educated reader might have; "He's not part of Oldenburg, he's part of X!" or what not. I can live with that. Though most of the time I would say drop the "House of Wettin" bit from Windsor, except for the fact that another house is also in that, so they're linked. So that explains the houses; what about the tribes? :) --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • While tribal affiliation is very important to Arab society, you're right in saying that this probably is a bit extraneous here. The rulers would always come from these tribes, but only because the ruling clan (or "house" in this context) can only belong to one tribe. I'd probably only keep the Utub reference, as it shows the familial ties between the families of Kuwait and Bahrain, which are quite close. Regarding Lesotho, the note was added mainly for search purposes of alternate spelling ("Moshoesh", "Moshwesh"), but this probably isn't a big issue, and can be removed. Nightw 09:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Nightw 13:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thus, support. --Golbez (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeping this open pending resolution of Golbez's comments... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]