Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2010

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:44, 30 January 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Wt is this (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate disclosure: this is a former featured list, see here for details. Primary concerns seemed to be over sourcing, lack of lead, etc, which I think I've addressed. I've also made the table sortable (after a recent FL - List of Indian women Test cricketers) and added a few images. I am concerned that the player images may cause issues on narrower browsers and will remove them if there's a consensus to do so. Otherwise, we have no dabs, all images have alt text, the columns all sort correctly, I don't think there are any typos, and everything that should be referenced, is. Finally, I have notified User:Wt is this as, judging by the list history, he did a lot of the work following the FLRC, and has been keeping it up to date in the meantime. I'm hoping he'll accept the offer of co-nomination of this list. As ever, thanks for all reviewing time, suggestions, praise etc! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience of comparison, this is the list as it looked when it was delisted. Bencherlite^Talk 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support -

• The first paragraph seems a bit blocky to me. Not exactly sure how it can be fixed, but the short sentence "England won the match by 100 runs" doesn't fit in well for me, and the subsequent explanation of T20I cricket seems a bit out of place straight after it.
  • Do you think a brief explanation of the format should be first, then describe England's entry into the format, then the individuals? Or should the format be described afterwards? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As suggested below by Bencherlite, possibly switch the paragraph around as you say, so describe the format first. Harrias (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, have done, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brilliant, that reads much better. I've moved (T20I) to the first instance rather than ask you to do it! Harrias (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Eoin Morgan holds the record for the highest score by an Englishman in T20I cricket," as he is Irish, he is an England cricketer, but not an English cricketer, or an Englishman, can this be reworded?
  • "... by an England player ..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Stuart Broad is the most successful English bowler in T20I," only if the definition of successful is wickets. In T20, it could be argued that economy is more important, and Maddy has a better average, which others may consider the rating of success. Could you rewrite it to either clarify, or remove 'successful'?
  • Tsk, I absolutely knew this would be picked up and I'm not sure why I dared to keep it in... how does "... has taken more wickets ..." suit you? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "who featured for the first time, against Australia in August 2009." No comma necessary.
  • Okeydokey. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself is, as far as I can see, perfectly fine. Well done! Harrias (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for your comments and for moving those images. Safari seemed to cope heroically with them being there, and even does when you reduce the width to barely nothing. IE7, now that's a different kettle of fish altogether.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work by TRM and Wt is this. Bencherlite^Talk 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wouldn't it be more simple to have the key in a table rather than the way its showed here? and wouldn't it make more sense for the Career column if Present was actually written out instead of a gap being left? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how it would be more simple to have a table rather than the way its laid out. And I think the note leaving an open-ended dash is as easy to understand as "present", particularly with the note (which would be necessary in either case to validate my claim of "live" members of the squad). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just thought it'd be easier if it was in a table. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 07:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, not sure what you mean by "easier" as it's effectively tabulated but in a prosey way. I don't see the need for yet another table. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it was just a suggestion, no biggy. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't reviewed the list or prose itself yet, but the images are quite bunched up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I noted this would be a possible concern in my nominating statement. So far you're the only one to have a problem with it - I'd guess you're using IE and have a horizontal resolution of less than or equal to, say, 1024? The world would be a better place if everyone used Safari.... But seriously, if it's a major concern then I'll have to remove those player images altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An alternative would be to force them narrower using "upright", (perhaps cropping Wright's photo) but not forcing image size. Bencherlite^Talk 07:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, I'll give that a try, but what is worrying is that JC is seeing these thumbs with different widths in his browser and that's definitely not good... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - Why not mention in the Collingwood caption that he has played the most T20's for England? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Mr Crick. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you also do so in the image caption? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done also. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You could indicate the captains and wicket keepers in some way (or at least the captains), such as in List of South Africa women Test cricketers.
  • Done this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How about sorting the number of wickets taken according to total runs conceded, perhaps using a sortkey? For example, when there are several players who have taken 6 wickets each, they will be sorted from who has conceded the least amount of runs to the highest. There's something similar in this list.
  • Heh. I'll see what I can do. The sorting is pretty complex, as well you know, on these types of list. I'll try not to break it... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it looks good to me. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I think I've fixed it per your suggestion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Yeah, perfect. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Just make sure you keep updating the article every so often. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course. Thank you for your interest, comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It looks great and I have no problems with it. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 27 January 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting off the new year with another centuries list. I think the legend deserves to have a list of his own ;) As always, all comments and suggestions would be most welcome. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

• "19 of his centuries were made against England, which remains the world record for the highest number of centuries against a single team": per MOS:NUM, "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark".

• Done

• The above goes for "5393 of his 6996 Test runs came from these 29 centuries", although MOS:NUM also rules out spelling out 5393, so I'd recommend rewriting the sentence.

• Done

• Something about Bradman's captaincy should be mentioned in the lead. A great deal has been written on the man, and I'm sure someone has commented on how the captaincy affected his batting (he averaged about 3runs more as skipper, although that's not a huge difference considering his average when not captain was 98.69).

• Done

• The lead is left slightly open, it feels like it needs something to round it off. How about mentioning his retirement?

• Done: I've changed the lead quite a bit as well, and would appreciate your views on that.

In addition to Rambling Man's points above, I've done some copy editing myself. Everything else seems fine. The sources seem ok (reliable and consistently formatted); alt text is present; the table is sortable and easy to use. If these issues can be sorted, I think I'll be able to support the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments and copy edit. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The only remaining issue is that I'd like to see something on how the captaincy effected Bradman's batting, aside from the raw stats that he scored 14 centuries as skipper. However, it's not a significant issue and doesn't really change the comprehensiveness of the article, so I'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Most books think that Bradman was a lesser after the war, but on the other hand, Bradman also had to put up with Bodyline in his earlier years. The stats can also be altered by a few sticky wickets so it might not be all that indicative. On another note, most historians also regard the 1930s as being somewhat weak on the bowling front, so averages might not equate with ability at the time YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't add that since I thought it would look more like a batting analysis than a lead for a centuries list. I added the normal average since I thought it would show his rate of scoring, or how often he scored centuries. If this information is really needed, I can add it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "in the 1936/37 season". I'm pretty sure the Manual of Style says somewhere that slashes like this one shouldn't be used in prose. Usually en dashes are used for seasons in other articles I've seen.

• Done: Hmm... I'll remember that.

• "and scored 14 of his centuries as captain of the Australian side," Punctuation switch needed at the end of this part.

• Done: Stupid mistake.

• "In fact, he would have retired with an average of 100 had he scored four more runs in his final innings." Don't believe the first two words are needed. While they may be intended to show that a given fact is surprising, most of the time it's better to just let the fact speak for itself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Thanks for your suggestions. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The cricket project has got itself another winner here, on a subject who truly deserves it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you also add that the 334 was also the highest Test score at the time (a record that lasted near three years)? I think the list is otherwise comprehensive. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Thanks, I had missed that. Chamal ^talk _{stealth mode} 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, could you reword "In the same series, he went on to score one century, two double centuries and a triple century, accumulating 974 runs in 7 innings" to something like "...he also scored a century and two double centuries....accumulating 974..."; it currently reads a bit like the century, two doubles and the triple followed the original triple, although the total says that's not the case. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I have reworded it to make it clearer, although not in the way you suggested. What do you think? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments have been addressed. I do think Mattinbgn's comment on the name is valid, but it's not (IMO) important enough to hold up this list. –SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• You state "Bradman only played international Test cricket matches and not One Day Internationals and Twenty20 Internationals, which were not played by that time." To me, this indicates these had previously been played but weren't any longer, should the 'by' be changed to 'at' maybe? Otherwise, it all looks good!

• Done

• ''"He is also the joint record holder for the highest number of triple centuries (2) with Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara." Per WP:MOSNUM, should the (2) be (two)? Similarly with the rest of the numbers under ten that you use throughout the article.

• Done

Other than those two issues, it looks great, and it'll be good to see such a worthy recipient of FL! Good work. Harrias (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Both fixed, and thanks. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, thanks for the quick fixes, and as I said above, a very worthy article about a very worthy subject. Harrias (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Great work. However, wouldn't a more appropriate title for this list be List of Test cricket centuries by Donald Bradman? I understand why you have used the title you have (consistency with List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar et al) but it rings of false inclusiveness and anachronism if you ask me. International cricket was Test cricket prior to 1970 and sure enough the list provided here only includes Test centuries. The name isn't a deal-breaker by any means but it just rings false with me. Once again, great work with the list. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As you said, I named the article that way to be consistent with the already existing lists. I don't have a problem with renaming it if others feel the same way, or keeping it as it is. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, the name is not a deal-breaker, the list is certainly featured quality. Personally I would support a name change, others may feel differently. Perhaps others at WT:CRIC may have an opinion. If the name is the only thing holding this up, please don't worry about it. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: — Thought this may have passed by now. Great work nonetheless. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lede needs a copyedit before it reaches the requirements for featured content. The following particularly struck me:

• Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman, often called the greatest batsman of all time,[2][3][4] scored twenty-nine Test cricket centuries during his international career which lasted from 1928 to 1948.[N 1] However, his cricketing career was interrupted from 1941 to 1946 due to the outbreak of World War II, followed by poor health.[5] I think it would be better to break the first sentence after "career" and then continue "It lasted from 1928 to 1948 with an interruption from X to Y due to a combination of World War II and and ill health."
• The "X to Y" above is because I'm not sure you picked the right dates. Australian first class cricket was suspended before the start of the 1940-41. Looking at History_of_the_Australian_cricket_team#The_1930s, I would be surprised if a tour wasn't initially scheduled either for 39-40 (possibly a vist by South Africa though India and NZ were theoretically available too) or more likely 40-41 (which would fit with a 4-year schedule for a visit by England).

• The provided ref clearly says "... on 3 September World War Two broke out. It was decided that cricket would continue for purposes of morale", mentions a 1st class double century in 1940, and also says that he enlisted after the surrender of France (25 June). History_of_the_Australian_cricket_team#The_1930s is completely unreferenced, so we can hardly rely on that can we? I had mentioned the year as 1941, I have fixed that.

• He assumed the captaincy in the 1936–1937 season,[6] and scored fourteen of his centuries as captain of the Australian side. Better: "He became captain of Australia during the 1936-1937 season and scored fourteen of his test centuries as captain." Answers the question "captaincy of what?"

• Reworded

• Bradman holds the world record for the most double centuries scored by a single batsman, with twelve to his name. Better "Bradman's total of twelve double centuries is a world record.
• He is also the joint record holder for the highest number of triple centuries (two) with Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara.[9] Again I prefer Bradman was the first of just three batsmen to have twice scored triple centuries in test matches. The others are Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara."

• Reworded

• Nineteen of his centuries were made against England, which remains the world record for the highest number of centuries against a single team. "How about "His total of 19 centuries against England remains the record against any one (test? international? first class?) side."

• Reworded

• It was also the highest individual test score at the time, and remained so until being surpassed by Wally Hammond in 1933.[12] better "It was the highest individual test score until Wally Hammond score 3xx in 1933."

• Reworded

• In the same series, he went on to score one century and two double centuries as well, I prefer "Bradman also scored two double and one single century that series,"

• Not done, since to me this makes it seem like his 974 runs (mentioned following this phrase) came only from those.

• And one unrelated point. Shouldn't the South African flag be the old one as he never played against the post-apartheid side?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed
• Thanks for your suggestions. I have changed the article somewhat, but I haven't done most of the rewordings exactly as suggested. Since the lead is basically a bunch of scores, I'd prefer not to have short sentences so that it wouldn't look like a bunch of statistics thrown together. Anyway, I will take a look at the factual problems and then try to reword the sentences more suitably as soon as possible. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tour by England in 1940-41 did exist before it was cancelled. There was still some first-class cricket in 1940-41 and maybe the year after as well. I don't have the book with me, but Military career of Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall, Arthur Morris, Bill O'Reilly and so forth will have sourced details of some matches in 1941... I'm pretty sure they kept on playing until Pearl Harbor YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the article some and corrected the flag. However, the rewordings are not exactly as suggested, due to the reason I've given above. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. support I still think the use of "as well" is not the superb prose expected in featured content. How about In the same series, he went on to score a further century and two more double centuries...? The triple century technically falls into both those categories at least e.g. when compiling a list of his centuries.

--Peter cohen (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds better to me too. Changed as suggested. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Built in the style of featured lists List of New York Mets first-round draft picks and List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks along with the likely-soon-to-be-featured List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks. Give me one second to fix the dab links using the tool, but review away! Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• "while seven outfielderss" - !?
• "based in the Astros home city of Houston." - should be Astros'
• "and a compensation pick from the team he signs with" - and a compensation pick from the team with which he signs

• All done! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Forgive me if I've missed something but for the notes, Vabcde... yadda ya, I was just wondering why is V at the beginning and why is it no the letter a? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea was to keep the notes semi-consistent, and this style was developed under List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks which actually gets through the whole alphabet. The idea is to use V for "Value" while just simple lower-case letters for the various compensation/lost picks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Ok cool makes sense, I have no tiffs over the list then, I Support it. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My comment have all been addressed, and everything looks to be at FL level. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One I just thought of (as I'm starting LAA draft picks, hope that's OK), maybe the section can be Selections or Picks instead of Table.Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Phew, scared me before I re-read that, I'm doing LAD in my sandbox right now. It's kewl with me, just so long as you intend on bringing it to FL status. I'm worried about TOR, SEA, and some of the other lists that have been made but not polished up (particularly TOR). And that title sounds better, how about we go with "Picks"? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, Picks seems better. BTW, you may want to make the changes suggested here to all the other first-round picks FLs. I probably would've done LAD except I saw it in your sandbox. Mm40 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Already did it when I changed the Astros list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [4].

Nominator(s):--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am currently working on two topics (Topic 1 and Topic 2) on all of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's championships. That being any that have been defended there at least once; not just TNA owned titles, any from any promotion over the seven years TNA has been around that I have evidence occurred. This title was defended in TNA twice and acknowledged by the promotion, so it falls under that area. This and probably one more, unless I discover another that was defended in TNA at a house show or something, is all I have left that I plan to take here. The rest can go to GAN. That is just the first, the second is about all champions in TNA, which also involves this one. As such, I rewrote this article entirely to get it to FL standards. All comments will be taken care of as soon as possible. Thank you to all who take the time out to review.--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though I'd love to see a bit of info on the title-creating tournament, what is there is what is there. If you get the time please stop by my FLC, which has also slowed a bit and could use a fresh reviewer! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Try using {{SortKey}} so the vacated "reign" sorts as a zero, otherwise you can't actually get the max in each col at the top when re-sorting. Plus it's chronologically out of order too.
  • Will try to do that.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're lucky, Dabomb87 will be back soon and will be able to point you in the right direction here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here I am. Will try to take a look soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, date column is fine to me. Small question, should "Reign" be a sortable column? I guess it's useful to sort by reign and then by name so you get the multi-reign guys in order of their reign (though that could be done with dates as well). I ask because other than that use it seems to not do all that much, since there isn't any real commonality because "first reign" guys that I can tell. Meh, it doesn't hurt anything the way it is. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure, wasn't a big part of the format discussion done months ago.--WillC 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Oppose Maybe switch to Support if some fixes are made: First, the sorting needs to be fixed (there is no reaso for a vacant reign to be listed ahead of the longest title reign when sorting by length, vacancies should be list at the bottom. This is a problem with the sorting method Wrestlinglover wants to use, the sorting method used in FL's like List of WWE Champions do not have this problem and I have pointed this problem out to Wrestlinglover many times before). The width also needs to be fixed, no reason for columns like Location to be as wide as it is and forcing the Notes column to be so condensed. Also, Tag team names should be listed primarily and the members to be in parenthesis (not the other way around like the article currently does). TJ Spyke 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like this vote not counted in the closure. TJ is bias against me due to our constant disputes over list format, so his vote is not neutral. His example is of an article that was passed as an FL over 2 years ago which fails the current criteria today including the sorting criteria he mentions, I and others have tried to explain this to him. Also TJ, the sorting problem has been discussed above as including the sortkey template. Dabomb is to be looking into it. Also, the tag team idea could work, however, that is to keep consistent with previously passed tag team FLs such as IWGP Tag Team Championship, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, List of ECW World Tag Team Champions, List of TNA World Tag Team Champions, etc. The champions come first, before the team name.--WillC 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done some work on the days held sort problem. The table is designed to do it, it seems. After various changes, it does not change. I used several different sorting methods, and yet it still followed the same suit. However, following the WWE Champions list is completely unacceptable. The days held columns has a 0 instead. Those are not reigns and not in anyway should they have a number there at all. Also, they are mixed in with other wrestlers 0 day reigns. The columns go vacant, held up, Andre the Giant, vacant, vacant, etc. That is not good sorting either. It would be best for you to strike your oppose on the grounds of not having enough knowledge on what makes an FL, over previous disagreements and the fact you voted oppose on this during an on-going disagreement after I presented you with the link to it shows you can't be neutral on this manner, etc.--WillC 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so it should not be stricken just because you disagree with me. As for the teams issue, I will tell you what you keep claiming when you go around changing entire articles to the format you personally like more: articles can continue being improved. Just because a tag team article was passed with one format does not mean it needs to stay that way. The format used in this article (and others you want to see it in) offers no benefits over the one already used in Featured title Lists (which DO pass FL criteria). TJ Spyke 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, this isn't about me disagreeing with you on formats. This is about you don't have the ability to be neutral in your vote. When you and I are involved in a argument on another page and have history, you voting oppose or support on this page can not be taken as neutral. That is a good enough reason for it to be striken from the final vote.--WillC 04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I don't discount actionable comments because of a personal feud between nominator and reviewer. Please respond to the other comments TJ Spyke made (aside from sorting, which you've addressed), and explain why they should not be implemented (for example, why the width does not "need to be fixed", if you don't think there's a problem). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I however feel this is unneeded. If he was just reviewing the article, it would be fine. But due to his comment being posted directly after I gave him a link and he mentioning old formats, it seems more of a revenge angle rather than genually trying to help. I have looked into all of them. The location problem is vague. I don't know what would be a good width. I have decreased the section to 15% like the event column. As for the tag team being above, when the format was introduced, that is how it was agreed to be placed. See here where it was brought up again and it being agreed to in this section.--WillC 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- My main issues were fixed, but I would at least make a mention somewhere in the article (in prose or footnote, or however) that unlike other companies defenses are recorded by NJPW.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got a few minor problems which shouldn't be a trouble fixing

1. "Being a professional wrestling championship, the title is won as a result of a scripted match." it feels like this statement could be changed a little bit to specify the match is predetermined.
2. I think it could be mentioned in the 3rd paragraph that this was because of a pre-existing relationship between NJPW and TNA.
3. in the References #1, 2, 3, 7 you've listed the site as NJPW.co. which it should be NJPW.co.jp as listed in the General references.
4. References #4 and 10 you've listed as WrestleView.com and #5 and 9 its listed as WrestleView, this is minor but it's a little inconsistent.

Other than that I think its fine, they might not even be problems to the list. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done.--WillC 07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have no problems with it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the column widths still need fixing, but that can be done any time. The team name issue is about to be changed as so far the consensus at WT:PW is to list the team name fix. However, if the sorting feature for vacancies hasn't been fixes yet then it should go back to the previous template (which works much better than this format, the format in this article offers no benefits over the previous one). If this happens I will give my Support, otherwise I have to Oppose. TJ Spyke 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sort issue is table. That is a design flaw in the main code, something I have nothing to do with. It does it with both formats.--WillC 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the widths some more. As for the tag team name discussion, that is a discussion. No new consensus established yet. If a new one is reached I will change them, but not until then. At the moment it is pretty close. Also, vacant wise, there only difference between them is the sort templates and the days held has a 0 in it, which is incorrect since they aren't reigns and if you read the key the dashes are there to not include those columns as offical reigns.--WillC 08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did my recent edit fix the sorting as desired? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, vacant reign column still comes after the longest reign. I tried everything from sortkey, to changing the letter or number it sorts by, to placing a days held template in the sort template. Nothing changed it. Nice try though.--WillC 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for kicks, what would the list look like in TJ Spyke's format (I would like to see a sandbox version if possible), and would the sorting still not work? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • See List of WWE Champions, the vacant reign would be sorted within the official reigns. Just replacing the dash with a zero, though vacant columns aren't reigns; it would be just silly to add.--WillC 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would imagine it'd somewhat look like this [5] as he seemed adamant at the time to maintain that format before Will brought it up to current FL standards. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just put in a "to and from date" that ends up in "-1" so the reign lasted from Jan 4 to Jan 3 and it sorts like it should, lower than zero.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  11:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You MPJ, that is very helpful of you. However, I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you can point me to one of the lists you've done that has this in it so I know?--WillC 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did not work. New option — sorts as "0" and any 0 day reigns sort as "0.1" to fix the problem? Not that it's a problem in this list at this point in time.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  06:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already sorts as zero and yet still comes after the longest reign. This probably has always existsed since the days held column was introduced it seems.--WillC 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So very strange, I credited them with a "0 day" reign (Jan 1, 2000 to Jan 1, 2000) instead of "0" and that apparently makes a difference? don't know why, don't make sense but it sorts correctly right now in this case - so strange

Thank You MPJ, I did that before and it didn't work. Maybe you just have the magical touch.--WillC 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sorting function is really odd, I guess it takes an odd man to fix an odd problem ;) glad it worked, it'd suck for that to be a problem for FL.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well again thank you. The list format has yet to be perfected and probably never will. Good thing is this is one less problem.--WillC 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And now it fullfills the "No redlinks at all" criteria ;)  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk  19:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While expanding the OVW Heavyweight Championship in a subpage, I discovered another problem. The fix to this one helps, but the vacant reigns come before the o day reigns. It goes 1 day, vacant, 0 day. I've worked on it and found no solution thusfar. I've tried sorting by 0.1 on the O day reigns. I've tried sorting the vacant reigns by -1 day and nothing. Would like to find a solution. Maybe you, MPJ, have some ideas?--WillC 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was encouraged to follow up on my comments here so that the FL process could move on. I actually did not have any objections to the article, I just tried to help Will fix the sorting problem, so in that regard I made no comments that need to be addressed in the FLC Process. So good luck with it (and I'm kinda stumped on the OVW thing myself Will).  MPJ -DK  11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets all the criteria.—NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't see anything in the article about OSU's former name and moniker. When most of the people listed in the article were head coach, they were coaching the Oklahoma A&M Aggies. This sentence: The team has had 22 head coaches since organized football began in 1901 with the nickname Cowboys. makes it sound like the team has been the Cowboys since its inception in 1901. For almost 25 years, the team was exclusively the Aggies and for almost the same length of time, the team was called both the Aggies and Cowboys. NThomas (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Great suggestion. I didn't even think of that. I will add a little bit about the previous school name and nickname.—NMajdan•talk 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The changes look great. Good work. NThomas (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from NThomas (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "The Cowboys have (plural) played in more than 1,000 games during its (single) 108 seasons" - needs fixing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk

Comments - Did any of the coaches win a National Coach of the Year Award or a Conference Coach of the Year award. If so, I think that would be worth mentioning and/or integrating into the list. But that is just my opinion and if that is not needed, then the list looks good to me. Remember (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None won any National coaching award. Don't know about Conference as those are usually hard to trace down.—NMajdan•talk 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be easy enough to find. Just look for a list of Conference Coach of the Year winners and look for OSU winners. According to this, Bob Simmons won in 1997. Just look for a source. Mm40 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked for a source for Simmons winning? I quickly found this, but I'd like a higher-quality source. Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simmons' award is mentioned here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My support below is assuming you'll add this before promotion. Mm40 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NMajdan, please don't forget to resolve this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to adding the Coach of the Year mention to coach Simmons, correct? If so, this is complete.—NMajdan•talk 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm not quite sure I want to support yet, I'll recheck at some point. Note that I've commented on a few issues below. Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Support assuming you'll add the Conference Coach of the Yeah for Simmons. Also, you mix {{Citation}} and the {{cite x}} templates, such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. One should be used throughout. Mm40 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the coach of the year award. Also, I do not see any issue with mixing templates, so I disagree. You should not mix templates with plain text citations, but it should not matter which template you are using.—NMajdan•talk 15:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, cite XXX and citation use different citation styles, so mixing them creates inconsistencies, which we do not want. Anyway, I have fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that then be resolved by the template designers? I think we're getting awfully picky if only certain templates can be used together. Nonetheless, thanks for your assistance.—NMajdan•talk 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mysteries of the assorted citation templates are beyond me. The only thing that we care about at FA and FL, in terms of citation formatting, is consistency, and for whatever reason using citation and cite web/book/whatever together doesn't do that. I agree that we should do a better job of standardizing citation styles, but getting anything done in the realm of style of formatting is a huge time-waster. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks like a pretty solid job to me. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [7].

Nominator(s):  Skomorokh  03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to my knowledge a comprehensive and well-sourced collection of a highly notable author's awards and nominations. I believe the prose to give sufficient context to a reader unfamiliar with the author, while covering the most salient points of the topic, and written to a professional standard. Comments, suggestions and constructive criticism welcome.  Skomorokh  03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As good as the article on William Gibson and List of works of William Gibson which Skomorokh brought to FA and FL standard. Well done, again. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of comments:

1. Center the dashes in Notes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Make the table sortable in year, category and result.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao diaa, and thanks for the suggestions. I've made this change to add sortability to {{awards table2}}, the template used for tables in the article. I'm not sure how to make that column-specific. For centering the dashes, the only ways I can think of doing it are to have a default value in the template so that if nothing is entered, a centered dash appears, or alternatively to add <center></center> tags manually to the article. I'm not sure exactly how to implement the former, and the latter seems inelegant. Further suggestions welcome! Regards,  Skomorokh  11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps {{center}} is more elegant? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, but it would have to be added about four dozen times, and I'm not sure the benefits (aesthetic?) are worth the effort or added complexity for future editors. I'm ambivalent on this one, it's not a big deal either way.  Skomorokh  01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm40 has centered the dashes; the succession of left-aligned comments with centered dashes looks discordant to me, but again it's not a big deal.  Skomorokh  18:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• The image needs better alt text than its title.
• In any tables that have book titles in both italics and quotation marks without italics, the book without italics sort first in the nominated work column, followed by the ones in italics. It would be better if a way could be found to get them to sort alphabetically together.
• I have several queries and concerns about the sources used (keep in mind that I have no knowledge of the subject) They may well be fine, but I feel it's better to ask now just to be safe.
  • Is reference 2 (randychase.com) supposed to be an online link to a published book? If not, it begs the question of why what appears to be somebody's personal website is a reliable source.
  • Reference 3 (Project Cyberpunk) is definitely a link to information from a book, but does it say that they have the right to republish?
  • Again, does the publisher of reference 5 (brmovie.com) have the right to republish this newspaper article (assuming it isn't some official site of the paper)? If not, it should be converted to an offline reference.
  • The publisher in reference 7 (The Independent) should be in italics since it is a printed publication.
  • What makes Worlds Without End a reliable source? It's crucial that this site be reliable because it is citing a few of the tables.
  • Reference 12 should have the Seattle Post-Intelligencer added to it, since that is where the link comes from. I imagine this should also be in italics, in addition to the newspaper already given. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks greatly for your comments Giants; I've had a go at addressing them so let's see where things stand:

• The alt text for the infobox image (File:William Gibson 60th birthday portrait.jpg) reads "The head and shoulders of a middle-aged balding bespectacled white man, looking into the distance." Is this sufficient? There may be a display issue with the infobox template itself, but that should not be difficult to fix.
• Your observation that italicised works and quoted works sort separately seems accurate from what I can tell. The italicised works are standalone works – published books, mostly, whereas the quoted works are short stories that for the most part have only been published in collections. I don't know of a way of having MediaWiki treat italics and quotes the same for the purposes of sorting, but the existing division (books and short stories sorted separately) is not an arbitrary one and I think it is tolerable if nothing better can be managed.
• Speaking to the references:
  • I've added the missing content (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, italics for The Independent).
  • I've replaced the randychase.com and Worlds Without End references (though I wouldn't give up either as reliable sources necessarily). The new refs are Burning Chrome (the introduction to a collection of the author's works), the Center for the Study of Science Fiction and New Scientist. I hope these pass muster (and that no errors or omissions have been introduced therein).
  • On the issue of links to copyrighted material hosted by third parties, namely Project Cyberpunk and brmovie.com, I have included them as an aid to the reader so that they can verify the content of the article for themselves. I would have thought the issue of rights to republication is an issue for the webhosts – surely the encyclopaedia is not liable or beyond fair use in merely linking to them?

Thanks again for your perceptive review, and look forward to seeing more. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

• To sort alphabetically by name and avoid works in quotations marks sorting after works in italics, you can put{{hs|Dogfight}}"[[Dogfight (short story)|Dogfight]]", and that will sort it under the letter D, not under a quotation mark. I think that the list ought to sort by name, not by whether the title happens to be in italics or in quotations marks.
• TRM's comments above included "If tables are sortable, we'd normally relink things each time as they are not guaranteed to appear top of the list if the table is resorted." I don't think you responded to it, but he's capped his comments as resolved, so I'm unsure what's happening with this one! I'd agree with TRM, as it happens.
• "Notes" columns aren't usually sortable, so I've tweaked {{Awards table2}} for this.
• "Related pages" would normally be entitled "See also"
• WP:LINKVIO, part of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy, says that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." So the issue of rights of republication is not just a matter for the webhosts, but also for this FLC.

Otherwise, a interesting and well-presented list upon a topic about which I knew nothing! Bencherlite^Talk 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments Bencherlite! I'm not sure on the linking issue (per WP:OVERLINK), but I hope to address the rest of your suggestions in the coming days. The copyrights link is interesting, but in the case of the websites, I don't "know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright" or if it's with their permission. Do we default to assuming a violation (as with images and text from website used as part of an article) or not? Like I said above, I'd prefer not to make such an assumption for our reader's sake, but will follow whatever convention the rest of the encyclopaedia uses. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All works now sorted alphabetically, thanks to Bencherlite's {{hs}} suggestion, and Notes are no longer sortable. Further discussion needed on link density (see Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Repeated_links) and copyright (presumption of violation or innocence?).  Skomorokh  18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on linking: Per WP:LINK, "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own" are a listed exception to the rules on overlinking. Thus, each row should have its information linked. The use of multiple tables, though, is an intriguing little monkey wrench thrown into the works. I honestly don't think it would be overlinking to have each title and award name linked, and regardless, I do believe that—using the Nebula Award table as an example—that the names of each award must be linked at each occurence. The Hugo Award table is a bit different, given that the link appears right above the table, but I honestly think that it does no harm to include the links and is better for the integrity of the article as a whole if links are included throughout. Other than that, I reviewed this entire list and found no errors that I could see. Well done on the list as a whole. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo KV5, thanks for the comment. I agree that it's something of a complex case. Taking Neuromancer for example, there are 19 mentions in the article (excluding references + navbox). As it stands, the article is linked twice; once in the lead, and the second time in the first section. Linking each title would add eleven extra links to a total of 13 in an article with 12 kB of prose/tables (6.4 kB readable). On my cramped laptop monitor, the article is five screenfulls long, which means an average of two and a bit links to the same article for a given view of the page...anywhere else this would be a definite link violation. I suppose I don't understand the rationale for the exception for tables ("each row should be able to stand on its own"). What's the benefit to the reader of so much identical blue?  Skomorokh  09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have sortable tables, meaning that it's indeterminate which row will be first at any given time. That's why they all need to be linked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand that the sorting tables can result in different works coming first, but that does not address the link density problem.  Skomorokh  00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with one comment. Could you include a "XX out of YY" or something in the poll section? Currently it's unclear to me how impressive say... The 4th place polling for "The Winter Market" is. Is that 4 out of 10 candidates? 25? 100? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. The Locus Awards don't seem to have a fixed number of nominees per category (click here and browse chronologically to see). "The Winter Market" coming 4th means it was chosen as the 1987's fourth best novelette out of however many novelettes the voters read that year, so from one point of view it would not matter if 16 more novelettes were listed subsequently or 86; the number of candidates = number of works published that year it would seem. Reading the self-description, I'm not sure how the threshold for inclusion in the poll results (i.e. 27 novels one year, 22 the next) is set, so the best we could do is XX of YY for every single poll entry. Would that make it easier for the reader to understand or more complicated?  Skomorokh  08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's worth either including the info (so year by year) or putting in a note describing what you've said here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look for sources to verify my hand-waving theory, and if they are not forthcoming I'll do the year by year. Thanks for your valuable help.  Skomorokh  15:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-- resolved issues, meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the points below are fixed.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm on the verge of supporting, but:
  • "Several of these garnered critical attention, receiving Hugo and Nebula Awards nominations in the categories of best short story and best novelette and being featured prominently in the annual Locus Awards reader's poll." This could be read as if the Hugo and Nebula nominations are symptoms of attention from professional critics, (or at least "semi-pro" ones in the sense used by WSFS when defining certain Hugos). The Hugos are voted for by SF fans/convention attenders and the Nebulas by SF authors. Both of these categories include critics, but I think it is better to avoid the implication that they are are awarded by critics.
  • You mention who vote for certain awards (jury panels for the Dick, writers for others.) I think that you should include indications for others. I can tell you that the Hugos and BSFAs are both fan awards, shortlisted and voted for by the members of Worldcons and of BSFA respectively and the Clarkes are shortlisted and judged by a panel. I'm not sure about some of the others, but people at WP:SF will. --Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points both Peter, thanks for the review. I'll have to dig around for independent sources, but I don't think this ought to be too difficult to fix.  Skomorokh  15:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the selection methods for each of the awards and clarified the implication that Hugo/Nebula/Locus awards were tied to critical attention.  Skomorokh  00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the directors/delegates: is there a time limit on this review? It seems as if there are but a few resolvable issues to attend to, and one or two bullets to be bitten so barring new concerns it ought not take too long, but I've noticed that this review is the oldest on the books at the moment and I wonder if there's a chance of sudden archiving?  Skomorokh  15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit as such but all nominations will last at least 10 days. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a sudden wave of opposes or the FLC stagnates for a long time I'll keep this open. Also, I'm contacting a few reviewers to revisit this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both; I hope to have it wrapped up by the weekend.  Skomorokh  23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues from Bencherlite

• Minor prose issues noted by Peter cohen (talk · contribs)
• More linking, as has been mentioned above.
• Remove links to copyvios. I've had a look at the site and can't find any indication that the works (or others) are hosted with the permission of the rights holders.
• Fix sorting of the problematic Locus table as suggested at the Village Pump - I had an interim solution but reverted myself when I saw the more elegant solution, but don't have time at present to do this for you.
• I don't agree with Truco's suggestion about a semi-colon before "though".
• Apart from this, I think we're done. Bencherlite^Talk 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Bencherlite, thanks for returning; I've addressed the sorting and Peter and Staxringold's suggestions for adding context. The linking issues (which I am not to concerned about either way) remain. The issue with internal links has yet to be comprehensively stated (i.e. the happy medium between helpfulness and overlinking), while in the case of external links to copyrighted material, WP:LINKVIO seems to indicate that only links to pages which are known to be in breach of copyright ought be removed, and I'm not sure anyone here has claimed such knowledge. Cheers,  Skomorokh  00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Skomorokh. Well, copyvio sites are hardly likely to say "we're hosting this in breach of copyright", are they? There is an awful lot of material on the site with no details of copyright given. I can't believe that Gibson has consented to lots of his work being hosted for free. Using common sense, I think we can fairly say that it's a linkvio site. At the risk of sounding like the lawyer I am in my day job (!), knowledge can be taken to include shutting one's eyes to the obvious... On linking, I could understand if you were linking once within the awards section and once within the polls section, but you're not: some are relinked in the polls, others aren't. If people read through the tables and think, "Oh, I wonder why that book won? What's it about?", they then have to hunt back to see if there is in fact a link, and if so where it is. At present, you're assuming that people will "jump off" the first time that a book/story is mentioned, when they may not want to until later on. I think the list as it stands is too light on helpfulness. Even WP:LINK allows relinking "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legal and moral angles are interesting here, but I think ultimately we are in a grey area ultimately pitting copyfighting against respectability. As it happens, Gibson does not mind unauthorised reproductions and derivative works as long as they don't make any money (my income from the list has been disappointingly flatlining so far). The linkvio issue has come up at another peer review I have a hand in so I think I will cave on this one and remove the links in deference to what seems to be the prevailing convention. I don't see an easy answer to the link density issue with the unforseseen complexity of multiple repetitive small tables, but I will revisit it shortly.  Skomorokh  15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Well done for all your hard work before, and during, this FLC. Bencherlite^Talk 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see no further problems. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I see nothing really wrong with it, though the article could do with internal linking some of the stuff in the References as by example you don't link the British Science Fiction Association at all within the references. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the links to the questionably-hosted copyrighted works and increased the internal link density of the list such that each work is linked approximately once per screenful or major section.  Skomorokh  16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 04:46, 21 January 2010 [8].

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of St. Louis MetroLink stations, List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations and List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations). Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ≈ Chamal (sock) ^{Master · talk} 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is it possible to avoid placing footnotes in the middle of sentences?
• Additionally, all stations include works of public art as part of the DART Station Art & Design Program. - "Additionally" is redundant here.
• 2-column reflist?

Otherwise good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]