Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2006

Comprehensive, informative, useful list complete with references. Meets all criteria. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Support, though I'd prefer it if the references were in the right format... —Nightstallion (?) 10:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of the "correct format". Point me in the direction and I'll fix em up. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE#Complete_citations_in_a_.22References.22_section. Alright? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Have nothing else to add. Renata 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although readers with narrower screen resolutions will have to scroll to see the whole of the main table. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nicely done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by list of U.S. states by date of statehood, but much more difficult to assemble (you wouldn't believe how little information about the application dates of the first dozen there is on the internet). I tried to keep the futurology to a minimum, but included ongoing processes. Self-nomination. —Nightstallion (?) 10:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great - but there is a bit of overlap with European Union member states! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "My" article is better referenced and has more detailed dates; the other one can be merged into it later. has been merged into it now, although I left out some of the futurology (we've got enough of that at Enlargement of the European Union). =] —Nightstallion (?) 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - you have done (almost all of) what I wanted to do with European Union member states and better. Query whether the page titles should be swapped, although yours really is more of a list than an article on the member states. Well done. One quibble - the colours in the second table are a bit "in your face" - could you swap for some more pastel tones? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Somebody else tried to do that, and then some people complained that it didn't show up correctly in IE -- which is, I'm afraid, true. I haven't found out yet why this problem occurs (you can check for yourself by looking at this version with IE), but have filed a question regarding this issue (among others) at the help desk. —Nightstallion (?) 12:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and: What did you want to add? ("you have done (almost all of) what I wanted to do") I'd be happy to implement your ideas. ^_^ —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I wanted to include the futurology and debate about possible candidates, and more discussion about the details of other candidates who did not join (such as Norway). Yours has the bare bones, and is probably better as a summary of the hard facts, but does not have (and is not really designed to include) a discussion in more cursive prose. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Mh, I think futurology and in-detail discussion of unsuccessful application rather belongs to Enlargement of the European Union, doesn't it? And have you taken a look at the IE problem? I'm rather clueless about what to do with that... —Nightstallion (?) 13:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, as I said, it doesn't belong in the article as you have done it :) Re colours: pass, but the discussion on the colour scheme for {{hiero}} may help - IIRC, it uses names for the colours rather than 6-digit hex numbers. See Template_talk:Hiero. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ka-bling! Great, those were exactly the colours I needed. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - saw it before and thought, why isn't it nominated? Some suggestions: I think animation Image:Enlargement Of The European Union.gif could be used. What's TBC? Why not TBD? Great work overall. Renata 06:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Mh, I personally don't like the gif (map quality issues)... TBC = to be confirmed, which is not the same as to be determined. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rmhermen 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I wonder about East Germany not being included on the second list, though.[reply]

  East Germany never applied to join, so it's not in the list sorted by application date. —Nightstallion (?) 07:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. You also need to be careful about the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Gibraltar, all of which are "in" or "not in" the EU to a different extent (IIRC, the Channel Islands are not in the EU at all; the Isle of Man is not in the EU but has a VAT system almost identical to the UK and is in the Customs Union, and so enjoys free movement of goods in the EEA, but not free movement of services, workers, and capital; and Gibraltar is a member of the EU, but exempt from some areas such as the Customs Union and Common Agricultural Policy). I'm sure the overseas territories of other nations are in a similarly complex position. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's quite clear in this regard: The only British overseas territory or crown colony which is "in" the EU is Gibraltar. The others are only associated territories. —Nightstallion (?) 07:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; well laid out, detailed. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a very clear list, well sourced and thoroughly informative. Now, for my one quibble. The map shows Norway and Morocco in red with the label application failed. I wonder if a different wording could be found because I think Norway's application didn't fail but got rejected in a referendum. Perhaps it would be better if we had two differenet colours for Norway and Morocco. Stefán Ingi 10:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, my rationale was "applied for membership, but did not join and will have to reapply before joining". How would you formulate it? "Application rejected by the European Council" and "Accession rejected in referendum"? —Nightstallion (?) 11:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, yes. Rejected by the EC and Rejected in referendum sound good to me. Stefán Ingi 11:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ka-bling! Done. =] —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This article clearly documents information about an otherwise very confusing subject, and it meets the standards of featured status. --TantalumTelluride 06:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it was promoted yesterday! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, promote it again! --TantalumTelluride 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yay, my first featured list and already people are asking for to become twice-featured. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial self-nom (I just improved what already existed). It was on peer review, but generated only 1 comment that it should be renamed to List of... However, I looked around that all countries have their counties in this format "Counties of ..." So it would not make sense to rename it.

I believe the list is good, all pictures are free, no red links. There is also pronunciation available in ogg files. I really ran out of ideas how to improve it. Renata 09:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Support thrice. —Nightstallion (?) 10:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question, though: The two maps do not match, specifically, the Neringa municipality/Klaipéda panhandle looks very different... is it a panhandle or not? And using the exact reference style would also be nice, though I can do that for you if you wish. —Nightstallion (?) 10:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: there is this thing called Curonian Lagoon. Officially it is in the territory of Šilutė and Klaipėda district municipalities. So one map includes it, another doesn't (following a common sense). But you are right, something needs to be done. Let me think a little. But good eye for catching it!

About reference style, they are not exactly conventional references, so it is very hard to come up with a way to cite them. But be my guest to fix them as you see fit. Renata 13:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the reference style; good luck with the maps. Again, great work on the article! —Nightstallion (?) 13:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very nice AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I have changed Image:Municipalities in Lithuania.png to be friendly to color-blind people as per Rmhermen's note on my talk page. Also included coastline with Curonian Lagoon. Renata 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Informative, useful, brings together a lot of articles. Sam Vimes 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are gone, column widths are consistant, Lede expanded, references cited, ALL images now have sources cited and the correct license tag. And it complies better with Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes. See previous nominations here and here

• Support Discordance 21:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stropng oppose per lack of fair use rationale in screenshots. This was also in one of the previous nominations of this very article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry my bad missed that bit, I may be able to write the rationales over the next few days. Perhaps I should withdraw the nomination till then Discordance 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List of Oh My Goddess episodes does not have fair use rationales yet it is a featured list. I am willing to take the time to write the rationales for South Park but surely someone needs to do it for Oh My Goddess Discordance 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • During that nomination the screenshots were taken down, since they were purely decorative and the author refused to write rationales for them. I don't know about the rest of the images since I stopped following the nomination at some point. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is only a small number of DVD covers now it shouldn't take long for the editors to write the rationales. I left a note on Goddess's talk page Discordance 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have writen rationales for the two shorts and season 1, are they suitable? do i need to be more specific in the rationale what points of the plot the picture deals wirh? please read the plot summaries and the image summaries carefully as they tie in. can someone comment please Discordance 02:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - previous nom here -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Impressive collection of decorative screenshots you've got there. Too bad that's not allowed by the fair use policy. --Carnildo 19:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Carnildo as above please read the fair use rationales. I have ensured that all the pictures in season 1 help identify characters mentioned in the plot outline or illustrate the plot outline. This complies with the fair use policy and they are no longer merely 'decorative'. I still need to do this for the rest of the article so i agree it is not yet ready to be a featured list I jumped the gun a bit. If you find my fair use rationales for season 1 unacceptable i would like to hear why so i can improve them. Discordance 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming that each screenshot shows the major characters for the episode, I guess that'll do. I'm still not too happy with it. --Carnildo 04:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find it ridiculous that people oppose this nomination because of such utter technicalities.  Grue  20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ. Please read Wikipedia:Fair_use#Fair_use_policy, specifically point 10. Having said that, I've gone through the rationales of the screenshots of season 1 and believe they are sufficient. Of course Discordance still has a lot of work to do :-S -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - copyright status is a critical issue for a list with as many images as this. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) A fair use rationale has been added for each image, so I won't oppose, but I am still slightly concerned at whether the added rationales are sufficient. I will let the copyright experts decide. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - really one of the best lists. Super nice, and the pics really help to identify the episodes (I am an occasional South Park viewer; very nice picks!). Just write up those rationales. Renata 08:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The rationales are now done, every single image on the page Discordance 10:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great job! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks but id like to say the majority of the work had been done by Sfufan2005. Thank you for your work on this article! Discordance 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly not my work - I expanded the lead and added references. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's simple and straightforward, well formatted, and includes thumbnail images of every state flag. Durova 15:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although the "preceding entity" of California was either the territory of Alta California (as part of Mexico) or the very short-lived, but still notable, California Republic. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 02:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support - simple, cute, & straightforward list. Renata 05:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, if you change the reference format to follow the guidelines. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the conditional support (and smiley noted, too, btw), but which changes and which guidelines? Are you asking for one of those "retrieved" thingies? Isn't it obvious from the edit history when the reference was added? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why make the reader go through the hassle? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can add it if it really exercises you that much, but how many readers are going to worry about when I last read those web pages? If they want to know where the information comes from, they can click and look for themselves. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it's good academic practice. I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • An encyclopedia is not an an academic paper. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:CITE#Citation_styles. And then we wonder why people question the project. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 06:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is a style guide. So the problem is that the reference does not look right? Even most of the reference on that page do not comply with the mandated style! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • He, no. The issue at hand was to put the "retrieved date" on web refs, which you did anyway. I don't know where you got that idea that I don't like how it looks (style may refer to doing things consistently, by the way, cf. "writing style"). And also WP:NOT says nothing about an encyclopedia not being subject to the same rigours an academic paper has to go through before publication. It says we aren't writing a paper encyclopedia, and that only refers to limits in the number of articles or their extent. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Specifically, I'm asking for the format of "Author (last update). Website name. Retrieved 1 January 2006." or "Website name (last update). Retrieved 1 January 2006." if not author is available. —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nicely done. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rmhermen 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list, with possibly minor adjustment request that I can anticipate and fix. -- KTC 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll wait with my vote for now. I would have to object based on lack of references, reference format (WP:CITE), and so on. Use the UN members page as one reference, and try to find other references for the non-recognized nations. Good luck! —Nightstallion (?) 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can also use the CIA Factbook as reference as well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added. -- KTC 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UN document that you saw list not just UN members but also most (all?) of the other places. One of the column specificly is used to list whether the entry is UN members / dependent etc. I've now also added CIA Factbook link, and a page from EU. Between the 3 of them, all of the information in the list should be covered.

I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by reference format. Can you please expand on your comment? -- KTC 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References need to be in a special format. Check how websites are referred to in other articles which have become featured in the last month or so. Besides, you still haven't added references for the non-recognized nations; to the best of my knowledge, they are not mentioned in either of the three links. —Nightstallion (?) 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got the time to do it. Added BBC (+1 CIA) article links as footnotes for the non-recognized nations. -- KTC

Mh. For some reason, the references don't show up for me; I tried to fix it, but couldn't... —Nightstallion (?) 10:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. That was because some **censored** IP removed them. Now, if you could change the formatting of the references to look like they should and correct spelling errors ("retrived"), I think I'd be inclined to support. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected spelling. Otherwise, now now, you're just being pedantic over the exact format of References. Apart from missing the word "retrieved" (with the correct spelling this time :P), it's in exactly the same format as all the FA & FL you're thinking of. It's not "retrieved" in a certain date because although it's a website link, those are basically publication which are reguarly updated so as to having different edition. So it's more correct just to reference a particular edition.

If you really want it in a particular format, you can always change it. (and then support) ;-) -- KTC 13:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact format is important, because this way, it includes two distinct dates: date of last update, and date when it was last accessed (i.e. certainly available). —Nightstallion (?) 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to me. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A complete and referenced list intended to complement the Flag of Mexico article which is on FAC right now. This is a partial self-nom since User:Zscout370 also contributed a lot to this article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I am very proud of what I have done, and I am very grateful for what Rune.welsh has done to this list. The only thing I wish to say is that I will try to find any new days that have been added to the various flag laws and see if those red links can become blue. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's good work. I'd like to see a bit more before I really get behind it, mainly in terms of turning red links into blue links and supporting articles for the articles items that don't have links at all. Durova 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: what do you mean by "supporting articles for the articles that don't have links at all."? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I'm a bit confused too by your wording. Also note that the article only has three red links, which is an acceptable margin for FLC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nine of the items don't have any Wikilink, such as Día del Ejército Mexicano. There are several half mast days honoring people who apparently have no Wikipedia article. I treat those omissions as implicit red links. An entire country honors them annually. I'd like to read more about them. Regards, Durova 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the items in the half-staff section have been linked already in the full-staff section of the article. Do you wish for them to be linked again or no? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • One link per subject is enough. Things look fine now. Support.
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Fito 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has yet to feature a list of people and I hope this is worthy of becoming the first. This subject is important in part because brain tumors are a leading form of childhood cancer. Overall survival statistics are not encouraging. Lists of famous people who have had this illness tend to be incomplete, out of date, or inaccurate. This presents nearly 60 people organized by professional field. Every entry includes supporting information and a reliable reference. Self-nom. Durova 06:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions did all the people who have no info in the "survival" column die because of the brain tumor? Can you prove this list is reasonably complete? (for instance, you only list one scientist). Are you implying that cricket players are not people? ;-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list does not speculate about cause of death. It only verifies with reasonable certainty that these people did have brain tumors. This information can be hard to locate through biographical and obituary reports: published sources often omit cause of death or refer only to generic "cancer." The blank spaces in the survival column refer to instances where chronological information about diagnosis and treatment is unavailable. In most if not all of these instances, however, the reports state or imply that the tumor was indeed the cause of death. Brain tumors as a class have among the highest rates of cancer mortality. Medicine does not designate long term survivors as "cured."
  • Regarding completeness, this is a revised and modified version of a list I compiled five years ago that had an enthusiastic reception within the brain tumor community. The American Brain Tumor Association sought me out to request a copy. It was by far the most complete list of its kind. I asked the community not to publish it because, in its original form, it also included celebrities who were immediate family to a brain tumor patient. Those people could help public awareness in more substantial ways. The original list is still in circulation. Parts of it appear on recent Internet pages. It was due for a revision with updated links, reverification, and new cases. Durova 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm happy with these answers. Although I do think you should make it clearer what the empty spaces in survival stand for. -- Rune Welsh

Is it possible to have a tumor in your chest? | ταλκ 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I've amended the introduction to reflect your concerns. Thank you for expressing them in a productive manner. Durova 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Other articles with more extensive and encyclopedic content should be considered over lists. While lists are valuable you generally don't find lists of people as separate articles in encyclopedias. They are usually included on the articles on the subject matter the list is applicable to. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I am usually not in favor of the listomania, but I think this particular list is useful. It shows that you still have a hope for the productive life even if you are diagnosed with a brain tumor, it also make people aware that even been rich and famous does not make you immune to the disease, that may help to rise funds for the research in the area. The list is very well sourced and appear to be reasonably complete and stable. It does not duplicate any available Categories and has heaps of useful information besides just the links to the people's bios. abakharev 02:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I apologize I was in a rush and when I posted and thought this said featured articles. My sincere apologies, It is solely my mistake. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but this is more an argument against there being Wikipedia:Featured lists at all. Discussion of that should probably be on the talk page for featured lists or the talk page here. That said I'm uncertain as this list is pretty new and I'm somehow uncomfortable with a list being declared a featured list after a few days of, admittedly impressive, effort.--T. Anthony 23:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of submitting this early because most of the effort is actually five years old. Would you be reassured if I provide websites and discussions within the brain tumor community that quote the original list? Perhaps SusanLarson's disagreement with me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese artists colors her vote. Wikipedia has 157 articles and 25 subcategories under Category:Lists of people. Durova 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It had nothing to do with that discussion and everything with me misreading the title of this page. see my apology above. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and best wishes. Durova 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - comprehensive list, very well structured and well referenced. The discussion at the beginning of this nomination, and the history of the list itself is interesting. Rossrs 06:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the best list I've seen in this project so far. Although I don't approve of Wikipedia Listmania, I welcome more informative and referenced lists like this one. Let it be example for others. --Ghirla | talk 13:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I had some hesitancy, but there's a good deal of effort and research here.--T. Anthony 12:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice work. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in the article naming conventions, the rule about list articles specifically says not to include the words "notable", "prominent", etc., In this respect wikipedia has a single rule: if a person has a wikipedia article, he is notable (or vice versa). While the "definition" of the list reasonably includes the criterion of notability, as I see it, the article title should be List of persons with brain tumor ("patient" is a wrong term as well. Some notable cases were diagnosed BT only posthumously) (I copied this comment to the talk page, since this would be a proper place for discussion) Mukadderat 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on comment - List of brain tumor sufferers? Anyway, how the article is best named should be discussed on Talk:List of notable brain tumor patients as it doesn't really affect whether this list should be featured or not, jguk 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Category:Lists of people includes many lists with those words. In this instance the subjects' notability has inherent relevance. Patients, caregivers, and teachers sometimes want to know if anyone famous ever had this illness. Durova 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely a self-nom. It includes links to all the dioceses in the Church of England, organises relevant info about them and has no red links (largely thanks to other editors). --G Rutter 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The image Image:Dicoses of the cofe.jpg has no copyright information, and makes gratuitous use of the Church of England logo. --Carnildo 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support The list itself looks good, but Carnildo's right - you'll have to lose the CoE logo (which doesn't really add anything anyway) and put the copyright info on the rest - it seems to have been released under GFDL by the contributer. Also, for some reason the map is in four colours - eg York is divided between a light and a darker red. This needs to be explained. Once these matters are dealt with, I'll remove the "conditional", jguk 18:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've now uploaded a new image Image:Dioceses of the CofE.png based on Lofty's image with the required changes. I hope that this is now OK. --G Rutter 15:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Morwen - Talk 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good work. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quite comprehensive. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. I wonder if the repeated bishop links are necessary, though. Rmhermen 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your support. The links were to the Diocesean Bishops, but I've made that clearer now, so thank you. --G Rutter 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - almost out of time! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article survived an AfD vote early in its life, and has now reached what I hope is a high standard. All words are sourced to major 20th Century dictionaries, and there is also useful discussion on the words themselves, elevating the article above a list of dicdefs. I should point out (if this were not obvious) that this article is something of a self-nom, as I started it and have worked on it extensively. All objections gratefully received, and supports even more so! Soo 01:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support: This is really excellent. I'm impressed that all of these are referenced. I have one question that I think should be addressed before I offer full support, though. Have all the words in each of the sources cited been added to the article? Is it possible, for example, that, Collins English Dictionary, Third Edition has hwiqop (a word I just made up) in it somewhere and we just didn't look for it? If the authors scoured all these dictionaries, I'll be quite impressed and will offer full support. Dave (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side-note: hwiqop gets 3 Google hits. Amazing. Dave (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a hitlist of words that various random sources have claimed as legitimate. We then go about checking them. I found lots more in the process of perusing dictionaries in this way, but realistically scanning the whole dictionary is still a bit too much. Have you seen the full Oxford English Dictionary? It's about 20 volumes and as tall as me. Also the number of dictionaries published even in the last century is enormous and I don't know how you'd ever find a complete list of them. Nevertheless this is surely the most comprehensive list of such words that I've ever seen. Soo 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good enough for me. You might want to add a sentence explaining your methodology (so the reader doesn't think the list is 100% complete with regard to those dictionaries), but I'll support either way. Dave (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I've added the Dynamic List template in response to other criticism, which I think addresses that issue. Soo 16:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Yes. Support 100 times over, Soo. I'm rather fond of that talaq factoid we had earlier (that it's the only word which'll hook a Q at the end..) We're not Scrabble players in heart at this moment. We're encyclopedists. And as an encyclopedic list it is categorically the best of its kind. Bobo192. 03:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this list complete? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 08:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a dynamic list; new dictionaries are published all the time. It would be impossible to have read all of them in full. To quote Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, the requirement is: "Covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." I think the article passes on the latter criterion. Soo 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, in that case how certain are you that you're not missing any "major components" of the list? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you ever be sure of that for any list? No one has yet drawn my attention to any major class of words that are missing. Soo 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the way I understand FAC and FLC work, the burden of proof is on the nominator. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your point, but in this case it would be impossible to prove. The best we can do is to say we've looked through the most recent version of all the major British and American dictionaries (which I think is true). If you can think of any better assurance we can give then please let me know and I will do my best to achieve it. Soo 19:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Carnildo 09:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was raised on AfD (VfD as it then was). The consensus was to keep it here, since it contains more than a list of definitions, and is about the words themselves more than the things they represent. Printed dictionaries do not contain lists of word curios, so Wiktionary should not either. Soo 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting the result from the VfD: "The result of the debate was non consensus, defaulting to keep" see here (emphasis mine). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A slightly misrepresentative quote. There was no consensus on the delete/keep issue, but only one person suggested transwikiing! So I think it's fair to say the consensus was not to transwiki. Also the vote actually finished 18 keep to 7 delete, so to call it non consensus was perhaps a bit unfair. Soo 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But saying that it was consensus to keep is also inaccurate. Those seven delete votes were around 25% of the vote, so it was a fair call to close it as non-consensus. Point is, since the vote officially closed as "non-consensus" you can't go around saying otherwise, even if you don't agree with the result. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. When I said consensus was to "keep it here", I meant as opposed to transwikiing. I think you'll agree that there definitely was a consensus in that respect. Soo 19:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apart from anything else, the list doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for inclusion. Where could you possibly put it?! Soo 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object On my set-up (Internet Explorer) boxes rather than unusual letters appear in the following statement: " For example, qi is pronounced /tʃi:/ as Pinyin uses ‹q› to represent the sound /tɕʰ/, which sounds like /tʃ/ to English speakers." That is, there is a box after /t, jguk 11:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put the IPA into the appropriate template, which is a Wikipedia standard. If this still doesn't work for you in IE then there is advice on how to see these symbols here. Soo 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I can read it now. 2 more points:
      1. Can we lose the header about it potentially being incomplete - I think this is obvious, since no-one has ever listed every "word", or indeed come up with a universal definition as to what constitutes an English word?

         I don't really like it either, but it's part of the "dynamic list" template, which we need to include to qualify as a dynamic list (which, as you say, this quite obviously is). Soo 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

         Oh, you fixed it yourself. Thanks! Soo 18:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      2. A photo or two wouldn't go amiss. I see there's a picci of a cinqfoil, I'm sure there are others too, jguk 17:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

         Excellent idea. I have added three pictures. More could probably be added but I don't want to overdo it. See what you think. Soo 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object This list includes several variants and plurals listed multiple times. Tsaddiq is listed as tsaddiq, tsaddiqim (one of two plurals), tzaddiq (variant spelling), and tzaddiqim (variant of plural). If they are all the same word, they should be listed once. This occurs other places, too. A variant spelling which uses the "q" instead of a "k" would be fine, but having all multiple variants in spellings and plural doesn't work. And since many of these words derive from Arabic, which has no set system of transliteration, you could actually have many different spellings of the same word.Support Rt66lt 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't completely understand this. Clearly tsaddiq and tzaddiq are not the same word, although they refer to the same thing. It is necessary to list both spellings. You could not have "many different spellings", only those which can be found in major dictionaries. If you prefer then I could compress them into one entry, something like

  Tsaddiq (also spelt tzaddiq) – a term bestowed upon those who are righteous. Plural tsaddiqs, tzaddiqs, tsaddiqim or tzaddiqim.

  It might be trickier then to indicate which source contributes which word, since dictionaries do not generally agree on which romanizations are in wide use. However if you think it would look tidier then I don't mind doing it. Soo 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you have it above would be fine. Actually, all of the variant spellings do amount to the same word. Because two dictionaries have a word entered two different ways doesn't make it "two" words. I suspect (I haven't looked these up), that the pronunciation is identical (or nearly "ts" and "tz"), it's simply a matter of Romanizing the words from Arabic. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a fantastic list and would like to see it a Featured list, personally, but this needs to be done. Rt66lt 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've compressed the alternate spellings as you suggest. The list does indeed look neater now. Soo 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Rt66lt 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Postpone Support. There are many additional words on the discussion page that still need to be checked against the dictionaries listed there. If someone can lay their hands on these dictionaries then the list could be made more complete rather rapidly (depending on how many can actually be found, of course). Matt 00:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

  It's a more organic process than that. For a start, I don't remove words from the Talk page, because I have no way of proving that they aren't in any dictionary, but many of them seem highly unlikely to be sourced any time soon - so don't take the length of the list as an indication of the incompleteness of the article. That said, if anyone can look through dictionaries we haven't yet checked then it is likely the list could become more comprehensive, would can only be a good thing. Soo 02:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but I think there are currently too many legitimate words in the "pending" list ("legitimate" in the sense that there are many examples of genuine "live" usages in English texts). Anyway, according to the list here maybe up to 20 of them are in Mirriam-Websters unabridged dictionary, so it would be good to at least check there to see if that claim pans out. Matt 12:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

  Yes, I take your point. I'm doing my best to get a copy of M-W, but living in England, it's not easy. If any Americans reading fancy popping down to a library then I'd be most grateful. Soo 21:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I moved all the ones from M-W unabridged onto the main article. I figure M-W's own website is as up-to-date as any paper copy of their dictionary. The talk page now looks considerably sparser. A lot of those that remain are just alternate spellings, which are important but not as important. Soo 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Great stuff. Did you find M-W unabridged on the internet then? I could only find a subscription service, and, keen as I am for the article to be definitive, I wasn't quite that keen... Matt 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

  You can sign up for a free two-week subscription, provided you have a credit card. Personally I think the list on the Talk page is now sufficiently short than we can proceed to Featured status. I don't think the list is yet complete, but it's very close. Certainly we can be very confident that no major sections are missing. Soo 04:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Aha. I didn't see that. Have changed my "postpone" vote to "support". Matt 22:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

  Thanks! Soo 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Jono 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A complete side note - I fail to see how they are English ;) (ie all(?) originate from some aother language, most from Asia). Renata3 04:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  A vast majority (probably somewhere in the region of 99.9%) of words in the English language do actually originate from other languages. The reason these are classed as English words are because they all appear in an English dictionary. We've covered citations to English dictionaries, and discussed the citations (especially about the more controversial words) here. To suggest they're not English words when we've explicitly outlined their English language dictionary sources is contradictary to our work and our sources. Bobo192. 05:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I'd go as far a 99%. Yet I'd agree in a general sense that English is an inclusive language with a long and lively history of adopting foreign words when they express concepts better than native terms. Durova 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a complete side note, not anything serious in any way. But now I took another look at it and came up with some serious ideas: first, you have plural form for every word, so maybe it would be a good idea to separate alternative spellings (and other notes) and plural form into 2 separate columns? It would be easier to find and would eliminate that annoying word "Plural" in every cell. Second, you should consider adding another column for origin. Most info is already there, but that's optional. Third, you need to decide what you want to do with pictures. Now they seem to have no place whatsoever (except for nasta'liq writing). After all, I love the idea: flying like Phoenix from surviving AfD to featured ;) Renata3 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The plural idea is a sound one, and will allow us to compress the table horizontally a bit. I agree about origins and have been thinking about that for some time. I'll see how many of them I can track down - most of them are obvious but the root word would be nice to obtain, although the non-English alphabet might prove challenging. As for the pictures, they were always purely decorative, but decoration is nice, and pictures are one thing that Wikipedia seems to lack on the whole. That said, if they start to impose on the content then clearly they must go. I will see how many of today's ideas I can integrate tonight, unless someone else does it first. Thanks Renata, Silence et al for your constructive criticism. Soo 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me just clarify what I said about pictures. It's ok to have them, I love decorations, but they need to find a place in the article so the article would look nice and tidy. Now they create big white gaps before and after the table. I looked at it again and moved the pics. Not the best way, but it was the best I could come up with. If you find a better way to eliminate the gaps - feel free :) Renata3 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a lot of problems with this list going through it, like spelling errors, aesthetic problems, poor linkage, and a generally chaotic and unprofessional-looking system of conveying the relevant information, making such errors as overusing bold, using redundant and misleading and broken links, and clustering images in odd points on the page (i.e. two images on the top of the list, none for most of the rest of it, then suddenly another image). However, rather than voting against this FL on a very interesting topic with a lot of potential, I decided to just try my hand at improving it myself and see what others think. So, how's it look with the new table instituted, and the other changes I've made? I'm also considering replacing the [1], [5], [13] etc. with live footnote links so people can simply click on them to get to the dictionary they want. Some more info on etymology will also probably be germane. -Silence 07:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's very good of you. I'm sure we can bring it up to a standard that pleases you. Soo 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could I suggest using a system like the one used on List of elements by name? Most of the elements have links to at least one of the five notes at the bottom. A similar system could be used here, if I'm not mistaken. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I enjoyed this list, but may I suggest using abbreviations for the sources, instead of numbers? Something like [OED] [M-W] etc. I think that would reduce the amount of scrolling up and down. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Another excellent idea. Even if this list doesn't make it to FL then it will have been improved significantly. We'll have to be careful with the abbreviations but overall it seems smart. Soo 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object until stable. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to withdraw my support for the moment. I've been following this page for a couple of days, and it's just not stable enough yet. There are an enormous number of edits being made. More seriously, there appear to be fundamental disagreements between editors about exactly what constitutes a valid word for the list. I really want to see this featured, but these issues need to be resolved first. Once they are resolved, please feel free to prompt be to change my vote back to support again! Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, fair enough. Listing the article here has caused a flurry of editing, and the article is still rapidly improving. Hopefully it will calm in the next few days. Soo 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, not comprehensive enough. It is lacking in many important terms. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Weak support, after seeing these comments. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you be a little more specific? Soo 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's lacking in important items, why not add those items and support instead of contesting its completeness as per the word sources provided in the bibliography? Bobo192. 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Or at least tell us where you found these "important terms", so we can research them for ourselves. Soo 13:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there are too many to list. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, okay. How about you give us one to start us off? Soo 00:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And the location in the specified sources in which these terms are to be found..? Bobo192. 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My reason for attributing cultural relevance may seem trivial to some editors. I expect certain readers will plunder this list as a Scrabble reference. Good work. Durova 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sister article to List of Test cricket records which is already a featured list. This list also is well referenced, has few redlinks, has a good intro and is up-to-date - although given the nature of the list it will always need changing. An active editing community will keep it so.

I admit it could do with some images, but that's a perennial problem and there's nothing in the vault that's suitably licensed and which could be added to this at the moment. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now that I've edited it. I really wish people would remember to remove stub tags when articles get expanded. There are far too many perfectly decent articles marked as stubs. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the tag. Stub tags seem to be so common I tend not to notice them anymore. There must have been 50 edits since the tag was no longer needed. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have added an image from Sachin Tendulkar as he is mentioned three times and we actually have an image of him. Selected images of other outstanding individuals could also be added, if we have any. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed as it's clearly under copyright to http://www.newindpress.com/sports/worldcup2003/ -- Ian ≡ talk 00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: the image Image:Tendulkar.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but seems to be used for decorative purposes only. This is not permitted under Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sorry - is it "fair use" in Sachin Tendulkar? It does illustrate the problem with images. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably "fair use" there, as it has a more direct connection with the subject of the article. --Carnildo 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I also have the following comments: (1) If Bermuda's to be added into the list straightaway, shouldn't Ireland also be there? Arguably so should Oman (although it's not clear at present whether the 2006 Asia Cup, for which they are qualified, will be played). (2) "Highest successful run chases" might be better than "Greatest successful run chases" - after all, some run chases were greater achievements and spectacles! :) (3) Are the lowest team totals for an innings where the number of available overs has not been restricted (eg by rain)? If so, it would be useful to say this. (4) The guide at the top (which is very useful, I think) says that those currently playing cricket are in bold - wouldn't it be better to have in bold those who have played at least one ODI in the last year, or since 1 January 2005, or some other empirical measure?, jguk 11:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - great suggestions. 1) removed Bermuda as I feel it would be best to leave teams off the table entirely unless played at least one ODI match. 2) Changed to "Highest successful run chases" for reasos you gave above. 3) none of those matches were rain affected: all had the team batting first losing 10 wicket before the 50 overs had been played [1]. 4) slight disagree with an empirical measure of bolding or not bolding. "Curently playing" gives a bit more flexibility. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the players not in bold are playing, what about someone playing professionally for Lashings, say, or playing amateur cricket. That's why I don't like "currently playing", jguk 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed criteria for bolding to Record holders who are currently playing One-day International cricket, which should make it less ambiguous. -- Ian ≡ talk 17:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - could you make collumns in tables of equal width? The tables themselves are good (equal), but the columns are not. Renata3 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'd be difficult, as each table has different numbers of columns and each needs different widths based on content. Some tables have 3 or 4 wide text columns but others eg. the Matches played table contains 6 numeric columns which only need a few pixels each. The browser (now) cleverly adjusts col widths to the optimum for users' viewing pleasure :) . -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object for these reasons:

1. There should be a minimum number of matches played for a team to get in the team sections. I mean, if a team with three matches played is ranked just behind a team with many more, it doesn't really give a real indication of how "good" a team is, right?
2. Internet references should have a date of access because the internet is an elusive, ever-changing will o' the wisp that will never be static; and yearly published sources really should have a year, too.
3. This is not comprehensive.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. As well as a ranking table (which is secondary, really), the first table is a complete list of all countries with ODI status and the matches they have played. The table therefore records every ODI match ever played. The ranking is just that - a ranking based on the matches each has played. An arbitrary minimum number of matches in any of the teams tables would a) make the list incomplete and b) introduce endless arguments about what the cutoff number of matches should be.
2. The last updated date in each table is the date the Cricinfo reference was accessed.
3. How? A list of this type will never be complete - this is a list of the main ODI records - there are probably hundreds of potential records tables which could be included, but it is not practical to do so because of the maintenance effort rquired to keep them up-to-date. There are several database driven websites in the =References= which include the more obscure tables. If there's any specific table/s you think need to be included, you could leave a note in the talk page and I'm sure someone will find a source. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not comprehensive because there are no women's records. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see. You raise a very good point. Women's cricket in Wikipedia is very poorly covered and needs to be a focus for WP:Cricket in the future. Project particpants have had a few attempts at expanding women's cricket articles in the past but much moore needs to be done.

However, the convention is that when referring to men's cricket we say One-day international cricket and for women we say Women's one-day international cricket; or Test cricket and Women's Test cricket. This is the norm in Wisden [2] also. In a sense, Women's cricket seems to be thought of as another form of cricket, much like Test, ODI's, Twenty20 and Women's cricket. This article is thus meant to show men's records only. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm promoting this list. Ian is right - the scope of the list is clearly just men's ODIs, not women's ODIs, jguk 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]