Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2005

The names appear twice on this list, first in order of signing, and second in alphabetical order. Anything else this needs? --Spangineer (háblame) 19:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Suppport I would add some interesting facts and trivia (such as why Rhode Island was absent) and a picture of the signatures if available. Maybe also another column to describe the profession of each signatory at the time, etc. NoSeptember 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a picture of the fourth page of the constitution, which has the signatures on it. If you'd like, I can crop it so that only the signatures are present. Also, I expanded the lead to include a few details found in the US Constitution article (some of the notable people who weren't there, the rhode island thing, etc.), but those are unsourced (I'm not sure which sources were used where in the US Constitution article, because no one over at FAC bothered to pay attention to inline citations... yes, I'm bitter). Let me know what you think of the changes. If I can find a source for their occupations, I'll add it, but I'm not sure how readily available all that is. --Spangineer (háblame) 21:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess most are lawyers and Continental Congressmen so it is not essential to add; maybe someone has a better idea for an additional column (their age at the time?) - the chart seems so bare with only two columns. I think the signature block would look nicer if it were cropped (but not too much - maybe show Articles 6 & 7 with the signatures). The list is looking good. NoSeptember 11:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cropped the image; it now shows part of article 6 and the right half of article 7 along with the signatures. Look ok? It might be cool to add a column showing how each signed their name (maybe find a higher resolution copy of the constitution image and put each guy's signature next to his name?), but that might be tough to find. Age seems interesting yet somewhat irrelevant for a general list like this one. A separate list of delegates by age might be worth making. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very nice --Sophitus 04:17, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Phoenix2 16:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Suport Dsmdgold 14:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Partial self-nom. Fine list--Gameiro 00:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, would look better as prettytables, since there are no observations for most of them it looks kind of akward. Also, a little bit of colour in the form of backgrounds on the table or a picture of the current monarch for example would be a fine addition. Phoenix2 04:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Portugal is a republic. But thanks for the tips.--Gameiro 23:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Also, some of the colours are a little harsh, since that was an issue brought up in List of rivers by length. Phoenix2 16:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, since there isn't a current King, I put a thumb of the 1st king in the intro. Take it out if you dislike it. Dsmdgold 17:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, as it now stands -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Comments: Do the colours indicate something? The tables are also a bit messy - does the first one need the "-" symbols? And the column widths should be made the same for all of them. Finally, there are no references. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested background colours to make the table look a little prettier, I don't think they mean anything in particular. Phoenix2 23:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object (but will fix myself sometime soon I hope), the prose has some grammatical errors in and needs copyediting.
• The "-" symbols were removed and references added. Can someone adjust the column widths? Thanks.--Gameiro 09:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Gito 10:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. 1) Keep all the tables a fixed width. Its easier to follow when scrolling down 2) The colour combiinations are a little strange. Is it necessary to colour each table? If you want to colour the tables then I have two suggestions. 1) Have all tables monochrome ie. shades of greens or blues. 2) Use colours which are nearby in the colour spectrum eg. VIBGYOR (its an example of the transition of colours, don't use it though) instead of abruptly changing colours for each table. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking care of my objection. Some niggles which I did not catch earlier: 1) The Manual of Style does not recommend wikifying the headings. Instead, what you should do is add a line under each heading such as "The House of ... began in ... and ended with the death of ..." something like that. Just to give you an idea. I'm not looking for detail, just two sentences would be good enough for me to support this list. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I was going to fix this, but I was somewhat confused by the dates here that seem to be slightly different to those in, for example, House of Burgundy, Henry, Count of Portugal, Theresa, Countess of Portugal and Afonso I of Portugal. Henry, Count of Portugal says that he died and Alfonso became count in 1112, and Alfonso declared himself king in 1139. According to Afonso I of Portugal, he was an infant aged 3 in 1112, but became an adult (aged 14) in 1123, declared himself king in 1129 and was acclaimed as king by his soldiers in 1139. Presumably Theresa was regent while her son was a minor, from 1112, but what happened in 1126? And what changed in 1143? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The colours are now the same for every dynasty and I've fixed the widths of the tables.--Gameiro 02:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE - although work has been done on the objections, it is not clear whether these points have been fully resolved. I propose keeping this nomination listed for another four days in the hope that the issue will become clearer, jguk 12:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not fully resolved. THe headings shouldn't be wikified. See above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support has really improved over the past two weeks --Sophitus 02:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, problems raised by Nichalp and ALoan need to be addressed. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • The objections raised are now resolved. I've improved every dynasty with an introductory text and transferred the links. The question of the dates is controversial and it's explained in the introductory text of the House of Burgundy. Please, can someone now copyedit the article because my English is a bit lame. Then I believe it could be featured. Thanks for all your objections, they made me work. Gameiro 00:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did some formatting of this list, and added a bunch of other names to the second part of it, and I now think it's ready for featured status. Comments? --Spangineer (háblame) 17:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, maybe the colour key could be under the table of contents. Phoenix2 22:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you prefer it to be right under the first section heading? --Spangineer (háblame) 03:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Negative, I just thought it would look a little better with it right under the TOC, but above the first section heading. Phoenix2 05:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how to do that—I've never figured out how to tell the TOC where to put itself. --Spangineer (háblame) 10:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • I moved it. See what you think. --Dmcdevit·t 20:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support (just visiting) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support NickC 18:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, perhaps it could use slightly lighter colours which are easier on the eye - or just colour the first column. Warofdreams 13:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the best, I think, of the element lists nominated for featured list status --Sophitus 18:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Self nomination. I listed this on PR, and after some good feedback, it's now quiet so I figured it was time for FLC. Rather than the long list of references for the missions' websites, I've integrated them into the table. It's comprehensive (verifiably so), useful, and visually appealing. --Dmcdevit 06:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Very nice. CheekyMonkey 12:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, interesting colour selection for the first sections of the table, but still a good list. Phoenix2 16:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not good with that kind of thing. Go ahead and change it if you like another color better, I was just trying to differentiate between the two sections. --Dmcdevit 19:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral The list is excellent in almost every respects. However, the formatting of the tables are somewhat confusing with regard to the horizontal lines going across them. This is apparent when more than one country is involved in a peacekeeping deployment. If this is fixed, I will change vote to support.--Sophitus 20:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean. I did that so that it would be less confusing. Are you saying you wouuld rather them on one line, or what? Sorry, could you be more specific as to what you mean by fix? --Dmcdevit·t 20:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Alright, for example, take the section for United Nations Aouzou Strip Observer Group. This is one mission, but there is a horizontal line going through the table that separates the Chad and Libya flags. Reasonable enough, but it also bisects the year and the title - "United Nations Aouzou Strip Observer Group". Perhaps I am nitpicking, but it seems that this line adds a little confusion and clutter to the tables. Does that make it clear? Let me reemphasize that the list is excellent otherwise and if you feel my suggestion is unreasonable, well, you already have enough support votes above.--Sophitus 18:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sure it's not unreasonable, no matter how many support there are, I'm just trying to understand your comment. On my screen, the white line only bisects the columns that have more than one. The year column on the Aouzou strip row doesn't have a white line through it (because I used the "rowspan" table markup). You're saying you see it differently on your screen? Or am I just being totally stupid and not getting what you're saying? --Dmcdevit·t 01:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I do see it differently on my screen, and suddenly it all becomes clear. The terrible browser I am using is messing something up. I should add that for the past several weeks I have been using someone else's computer, not my own. As such, I offer my Support--Sophitus 06:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold 00:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 19:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Spangineer (háblame) 17:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps United Nations can be abbreviated "UN" throughout the list? 63.98.108.24 14:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this before, but it failed because of too many red links. Now, thanks to other users, most of them have disappeared so I'm renominating. The previous nomination was on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Zimbabwean national cricket captains/archive1, SmokeDog 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I was concerned that one of the previous red links, when I went to look at it now, simply says "XXX is a Zimbabwean cricketer" or something like that - I thought that they had all been filled in as such minimal substubs purely for the sake of getting the FLC through. I should have known better from the Wikiproject Cricket - all the others are short but perfectly adequate articles. Good work all round again. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 10:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm going to bring this up again. The proper name for all these lists is list of national cricket captains of Zimbabwe. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) states that "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)." Zimbabean national cricket captain should be about the position itself, Zimbabwean national cricket captains (the plural) should be a redirect there, as is common, and this should be at list of national cricket captains of Zimbabwe to disabiguate the difference. This is just like what happens at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and list of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Content-wise, it's another great list, and my only question is whether there are women's teams as well, since didn't the other lists have them? --Dmcdevit 07:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't have any objection to a rename to List of ... Is there a consensus to this? - Ian ≡ talk 08:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a consensus, and I don't think a rename is necessary - I think the title implies that you'd expect to see all captains listed - there's really no benefit in making the title that little bit longer. On Dmcdevit's other point, Zimbabwe has never played a women's Test or a women's ODI, jguk 08:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I tend to agree with Dmcdevit. First, I don't see what's wrong with adding "List of". I mean, how much does title length really matter? I think it's more likely that people will click on links to get to the list, and if not, the benefit of consistency across lists probably makes up for the extra keystrokes. For the ones on office holders, I think it's especially critical to have "List of" in there, since there's going to be a big article on the office itself. However, I'm less certain for lists like these, since there may never be an article on the office of National Cricket Captain of Zimbabwe. Any information related to the office could probably fit in the lead of the list. However, if there ever is an article, then we'll have to move the list to include "List of" and change the redirect to redirect to the article, not the list. So I guess that unless someone wants to argue that an article on the office of National Cricket Captain of Zimbabwe is inherently non-notable, I think I'll support changing the names of these lists to include "List of". I also prefer usng "of Zimbabwe" instead of "Zimbabwean" for consistency's sake as well, because if the USA ever starts playing national cricket, most of the western hemisphere will be mad if we say "American national cricket captains". --Spangineer (háblame) 17:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You're behind the times, the United States cricket team has already played two one-day internationals, in which it was captained by Richard Staple, although their most famous player is Clayton Lambert. They lost heavily to both Australia and New Zealand. However, they failed to qualify for the World Cup and gain official ODI status when they only finished tenth, one behind Oman, and one above Papua New Guinea, in the recent 2005 ICC Trophy. Recently their form has dropped because of a mixture of a major political split in the game, and the selection of an aging team - indeed, I think the USA holds the record of the oldest average age of an ODI team, jguk 19:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US? Cricket? How embarassing for Papua New Guinea! Well, let me give a more extreme example. I assume Kiribati doesn't have a cricket team yet, (but you'll correct me if they do), but when they do, would it be easier to locate the list at (disregarding the "list of" part for the moment) "list of Gilbertese national cricket captains" or "list of national cricket captains of Kiribati." The adjectival form is inherently more prone to irregularities (consider French, English, Chinese, Canadian, Mexican, Kuwaiti, Congolese, Dutch, all formed differently), while the noun form, being the name of the country itself, is inherently regular, and much easier to find since we must assume that the searcher already knows the name of the country they are searching for, but we can't assume they know every irregular adjective formation. --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Kiribati is not a member of the International Cricket Council. When it does, maybe you could help the Cricket WikiProject by writing an article on the I-Kiribati cricket team:) More seriously, you describe nothing that can't be solved by expeditious redirects, jguk 22:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I mean is that for consistency's sake (as the most common construction seems to be "X of country," like Culture of Denmark, Politics of Denmark, Economy of Denmark, etc.) the main article should be at the noun (country name) and the redirect should be at the adjective. But anyway, the "list of" part is actually more important to me, as I don't like having a plural as a title. And I'd be pleased to write the Kiribati article even though I don't know much about cricket, (because I doubt that a country with a population that's a fiftieth of the city I'm living in right now is going to get an international cricket team any time soon :). --Dmcdevit·t 00:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 19:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I made some minor formatting changes. Phoenix2 4th of July! 20:51 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Phoenix2 4th of July! 20:51 (UTC)
• Nice, but some references will be required, and the images need fixing for classic skin users (I presume they are meant to be stacked vertically?). -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Yes, the images are meant to be stacked. Maybe I should switch to the classic skin to see what the lists look like there. ---Phoenix2 5 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dsmdgold 04:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This nomination has exceeded the normal 10 day process, but currently has only 3, rather than the minimum 4, supports. There is one reference now. The Classic Skin issue seems to be okay to me now, so to my mind ALoan's comments are dealt with (though if he disagrees he should say so). I think it should remain on this list for another four days to see whether it can gain the required support, jguk 07:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly oppose - the skin issue is resolved, but the single reference to the main NASA home page is too thin for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that only NASA have a space shuttle (and so only NASA have space shuttle missions), and that their own list is likely to be complete, what further reference do you think it should have? jguk 19:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, I only reformatted the list. if you think that the NASA page is too thin of a reference, any ideas as to what could be a better one? Phoenix2 23:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• I went onto the NASA homepage and did a bit of searching, and found online versions of the mission summaries. I referenced the two main sites providing links to all of the missions. Also, I found the future launch schedule (though it doesn't completely match up with this list after SRS-121) and got a link from our Buran article to reference that mission. I hope this is acceptable for ALoan and I now support. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, that table of statistics at the top of the article was copied directly from Space Shuttle program, and after looking through the external links to that article, I can't find a reference for that information. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but wouldn't it be good introductory information for the subsequent table? Phoenix2 21:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I meant the table of statistics at the top of the list. Yeah, I agree, it's nice to have it there, but I'd like to know if it's accurate or not. I'm still supporting, hoping that we'll be able to find some reference to verify it. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support great work --Sophitus 15:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• I too Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just trying to get a variety of lists on this page; if there are little things that need to be fixed please don't vote oppose, but rather tell me so I can fix it... Phoenix2 4th of July! 00:53 (UTC)

• Comment Very nice, will support once a reference section is added--Sophitus July 4, 2005 04:02 (UTC) Support - good enough for me, but could the reference link directly to info on ISS spacewalks at the Nasa site, rather than the Nasa homepage.--Sophitus July 5, 2005 06:10 (UTC)
  • Thanks, once again all I did was reformat the list, but I assume that the information can be found at the NASA website or something similar. Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:07 (UTC)
  • I got the reference in there, and had to remove the template {{TOCright}} because it is now proposed for deletion. Also, I narrowed the Duration column by two percent and added that to the last column. Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:28 (UTC)
  • I'll change the reference link. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)
• Support, subject to the following comments: some proper references are needed (the NASA homepage is not sufficient); in addition, it would help for more of the missions were wikilinked (Unity? PMA-3? Z1 truss? etc.); finally, is there anything wrong with the usual TOC? There are only 6 headings. If the TOC creates too much whitespace, place the image immediately before the first heading to fill the space (although you may need a <br clear=all> to avoid crashing into the first table). -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

No, there's nothing really wrong with the usual TOC, I was just testing out that kind. It wouldn't be a problem to put in a normal TOC to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

• Support assuming revert to standard wiki TOC -- Ian ≡ talk 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll revert it to the standard TOC, I was away for the weekend. Phoenix2 02:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, and just to be contrary, I like the TOC on the right. (support not conditional on it however.) Dsmdgold 03:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • No your not really being contrary because I had a custom table of contents in a kind of line format, {{TOCright}} was on templates for deletion, which is one of the reasons I removed it in the first place, but that is irrelevent since it survived the vote. Anyway, I replaced TOCright. Phoenix2 04:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • TOCright looks good to me, I just didn't like the line version. - Ian ≡ talk 04:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just fancied up this list from Super Bowl, and added a sort of timeline going down the right hand side of the page. It can be removed if you think it takes away from the list.
--- Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 2 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

• Support nice list. But for those not familiar to this sport something should be mentioned about AFC and NFC. Differences et al. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 06:09 (UTC)

I'll put something in there about the fact that the NFL is split into two conferences. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

• Support It's a fantastic list, but I have two requests - it should be mentioned at the end of the article that the proposed plan for a west side stadium in New York has been practically abandoned after the unfavorable vote a month ago. And, though my memory might be failing me, I believe that by the time of the Kansas City-Minnesota game, it was already called the Super Bowl rather than the NFL-AFL championship. Could somebody look into this?--Sophitus July 3, 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I'm not sure about when they started calling it the Super Bowl; I copied the information from the list that was on the Super Bowl page. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Well, the games that are AFL-NFL Championships were called Super Bowls, they are just under that title because they were prior to the 1970 merger of the AFL and NFL. Phoenix2 4th of July! 01:04 (UTC)

• Support, well done and color coordianted and it also serves as a handy predictor of the stock market. This link is Broken 4 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:14 (UTC)

• Support, subject to the following: there is a problem with the images: in the classic skin, all of the images are bunched up across the top of the articles, rather than (as I guess is intended) running down the side of the page. This is a known skin problem. If all the images have same width, the problem can be worked by putting all of them in a float-right table (for an example, the portraits about half way through John Vanbrugh). In addition, the tables have slightly different cell widths, which looks a little messy - can they be made consistent. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, when I have time I'll reformat the pictures on the right. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Great - one further point: the way the dates are rendered breaks user preferences (day month versus month day) - I know this is a US article, and I guess you have done this to save column width, but it is a bit annoying. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Yea, I did format it as such to save column space, I forgot about Wikipedia rendering dates differently based on preferences. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this list in Peer Review and was very impressed. Cedars 06:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A nice list, but how about a column for MVP? Mwalcoff 13:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be difficult to get in there because of the picture timeline going down the side, but I'll try. Phoenix2 02:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows much of the same format as List of North American birds, is well illustrated, and is referenced. Self-nomination. Dsmdgold July 2, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

• Full Support Oppose: 1) MoS does not recommend having the headings wikified. 2) I'm not familiar with our feathered friends, could a little info be added under each heading? 3) Are there any other references that can be added? (not a major objection). I'll support if these are taken care of. =Nichalp «Talk»=
  • 1)Corrected. 2)I need more guidance, what sort of info would be useful? There is a link to each family's article at the start of each section. 3)I've added a link to the online list maintained by the Oklahoma Bird Records Commitee. The date guide, though, is the definitive source, any other source would be derivitive of it. Dsmdgold July 2, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
    • A little info. I've not heard of Grebes, Frigatebirds etc. A small one line info would be good. A small picture in each section would be more descriptive too. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 06:04 (UTC)
      • Good work so far. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 19:13 (UTC)
        • Thank you, this is a busy week for me, so it will take a few days to get all of the sections done. It looks like all but three or four sections will have pictures. Dsmdgold July 5, 2005 04:45 (UTC)
        • Ok all of the families have description of them, and all but 8 have an image. For three of those 8 (Frigatebirds, Parrots, and Silky-flycatchers), I chose not to put a picture up because I feel that a picture gives such prominence to the bird that birds that are accidental, hypothetical, or extinct, should not have pictures, and these families only have those types of species on the list. For the other five there are either no pictures available on Wikipedia, or there are no suitable pictures available. Dsmdgold 17:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • • Great list! My full support to this. Thanks for taking care of my objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Beautiful List -- Ian ≡ talk 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent work. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 09:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well done and beautifully illustrated. Phoenix2 16:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Same format and type of content as the featured List of U.S. House Committees. Referenced, has a picture, well formatted, etc. Meelar (talk) July 1, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
• Support - Phoenix2 Canada Day! 20:15 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold July 2, 2005 15:33 (UTC)
• Object - Neutral – Will support only once the lead is expanded and info is added on the differences between the various committees. Lead is also too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
  • What other information should be included? Thanks for your reply, Meelar (talk) July 9, 2005 06:57 (UTC)
    • Mention what a joint committee etc. does in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 07:51 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the types of duties don't break down neatly by type of committees. For example, both the Senate Rules Committee and the Joint Committee on Printing are primarily internal, low-key committees, while the Joint Economic Committee is more focused on research, etc. I don't think you could accurately write more than what you get from clicking on the links (joint committee and so on) in the lead sentence. Meelar (talk) 15:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The title needs to appear bolded somewhere in the first paragraph--Sophitus July 2, 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• Support -- NoSeptember
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This list was already in pretty good shape; I did some formatting and referencing, and added atomic weight/isotope information, and included notes on that. I think this is ready for FL status. --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 17:27 (UTC)

• Comment, maybe some pictures in the space at the side? File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 30 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)
• Comment - It's good as far as it goes, but maybe it needs a bit more of a lead. One issue I was wondering was about the alternative names given. How common are they? Are they used in some English-speaking countries and not others, or are they obsolete names no longer used anywhere? In a list that's specifically by name, those sort of things are important. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 08:59 (UTC)

• Well, I started putting them in since the first one I ran into was Aluminium vs. Aluminum. After doing all of them, it looks like the majority are old names (maybe latin) that are the base for the element's symbol. For example, why is Potassium's symbol K? Because it was also named Kalium. I have no idea where or when it was named Kalium, however. All of those name differences are in that first reference mentioned. You may be right, it's just as easy to remove them (I think I'd like to leave the parenthetical references in, however). Also, any ideas for what else needs to go in the lead? Thanks for your comments. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 12:10 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that it needs more of a lead as well as pictures. I'm not sure how pictures would be included in a list like this, but featured list criteria require them. I hope these problems will be solve and I can change my vote.--Sophitus July 1, 2005 14:59 (UTC) You know what, ALoan, you're absolutely right. Somehow I forgot that exception to the photo rule. I apologize for any inconvenience, Support--Sophitus July 1, 2005 17:51 (UTC)
  • "A featured list should: ... have images where appropriate" - are any appropriate here? -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
    • It would be possible to go through and add pictures like Image:GoldNuggetUSGOV.jpg, Image:LithiumPelletsUSGOV.jpg and Image:SulfurCrystalUSGOV.jpg if that would help. I'm not sure that they would necessarily further the goals of this list though. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 20:55 (UTC)
• Support - it is a rather limited list, but it does what it says on the tin. All sorts of other information could be added (electron configuration, group and period in the period table, physical characteristics like melting point) but I think this is fine as it is. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
  • ... And now it has so much more. If anyone wanted images so that the table didn't look so dull and drab, take a look at it now =). I added colums with the group/period info, and color coded the whole thing according to the groupings on Periodic table (large version). I don't think that physical characteristics should go on this list; they should get their own list. Electron configuration is a possibility, but would take up alot of space and I'm not sure it would fit on smaller screens. It's a great idea for another list, however. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 21:59 (UTC)
• Support -- I don't like the garish colours though. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 18:03 (UTC)

• Would you prefer a monochromatic table, or colors that were more dull? I used the same colors that are used on the periodic table (and several other chemistry lists) but I'd be willing to work with you and whoever else to find a less jarring color combination. --Spangineer (háblame) July 3, 2005 20:54 (UTC)

That would be pleasing to the eye yes. How about using only greens or blues? =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Right now there are 10 different categories, so I'm not sure if there are enough shades of green and blue for the colors to be distinctive. What about using browns and grays as well, and just getting rid of the pinks/reds? Also, do you think that the color coding of the Periodic table (large version) is acceptable, or also garish? --Spangineer (háblame) July 5, 2005 14:10 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the colours are selected by a WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, perhaps?) - we should not cut across schemes that are co-ordinated across Wikipedia without asking for their input. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right; there is a rationale behind the colors. I think we might be stuck with what we've got right now, unless you prefer monochromatic, which in my opinion isn't as helpful. --Spangineer (háblame) July 5, 2005 23:03 (UTC)

No probs with that if there is an official colour listing. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 05:16 (UTC)

• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dsmdgold 19:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think this is a list. Pretty too. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:48 (UTC)

• Support. Entirely delightful. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 13:00 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold June 30, 2005 15:31 (UTC)
• Support, nice periodic table. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 30 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)
• Oppose. (1) Needs a better title and/or a better lead. Currently it seems to imply that huge is some sort of official designation. (2) Info from the talk page re numbers in brackets needs to be in the main article. In fact, it needs better labelling all round. What are the numbers not in brackets? I happen to know that one of them is the atomic number and the other is atomic mass, but there's nothing in the table to tell me so. (3) "in landscape mode, this table can be printed on one normal-size sheet of paper" - not on my PC it can't. Totally depends on people's printer, PC and browser settings. --OpenToppedBus - My Talk June 30, 2005 17:03 (UTC) Good work from Spangineer and ALoan - switching my vote to Support. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 08:46 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the weight in brackets (I think) is the weight of the longest living isotope of that element. I'm not sure why it's like that and not just listing what the longest living isotope is, as they do at the two references listed. Any objections to going through and changing the values in brackets to the values found at the references listed? --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 17:35 (UTC)
• OK, I rewrote the lead and added a key that explains what the different things are, and put it together with the color code box. I'm not sure how to include the uncertainty info. Personally, I sort of think that info like that, in addition to the group/period explanation, should be on the main periodic table page, not this one. --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 18:10 (UTC)

• Spangineer has done a great job (with some interference from me) - the details from the talk pages are now in a footnote, and I have moved from Periodic table (huge) to Periodic table (large version). -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:39 (UTC)

• For the record, ALoan gets credit for getting the uncertainty info into the article; I didn't do too much there. I'm still wondering if the lead should describe exactly what information is included in the table, and I still don't like having the weights of the individual isotopes in there instead of their atomic numbers. --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

• Well, I just copied it from the talk page and you made it make sense. I'm not sure I follow your last comment: the atomic number of each element is included as the first number in each cell. The atomic mass (or weight) is the last number in each cell - for most elements, we use the "most stable isotopic composition" (which is presumably the most common combination of isotopes) except for elements where all isotopes are unstable, in which case we use the most stable isotope... makes some sort of sense, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 19:50 (UTC)

• Sorry, I mispoke (err, mis-typed) – I didn't mean atomic number. I meant the mass number (incidentally, the article on atomic number says not to confuse the two!). I guess technically there isn't much difference between giving the atomic weight of the most stable isotope and giving the mass number of the most stable isotope (since protons and neutrons both weigh about 1). The problem is that the mass number is used alot more often—see [1], [2], [3], [4], for example. There are some that do it like the wikipedia table, but not any of the well known sites. And before doing a google search and finding one that does, I had never seen a periodic table that lists the weights of the individual isotopes. I'm not sure why. Maybe they figure anyone can calculate the weight of the isotope given the mass number (not too complex, since the masses of protons, neutrons and electrons are all known to umpteen decimals). But it's also easy to figure out the mass number based on the atomic weight (just round off). I guess it doesn't matter that much. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 01:49 (UTC)

• Ah - I see what you mean. If we are quoting the mass number rather than the atomic mass then we should say so. I had, perhaps naively, assumed that we actually quoting atomic masses, which just happened to be integers for the unstable isotopes. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

• OK, enough indentation. Your last edit made me see that inconsistency—that for the elements 112-118, we have the mass number of the most stable isotope, while for all the others (93-111 and a few more) we have the atomic weight of the most stable isotope. I can't do it now, but hopefully I'll have time some time today to calculate what those isotopes weigh. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 12:05 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not as easy as I thought. I changed the comment to reflect the fact that the numbers in brackets can mean two different things (mass number in the case of integers, and atomic weight in the case of non-integers), but I'm not sure I like the inconsistency. --Spangineer (háblame) July 2, 2005 16:32 (UTC)
• Support--Sophitus July 1, 2005 15:01 (UTC)
• Support -- but it doesn't seem to be a traditional list. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 17:52 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dsmdgold 19:47, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another nice list, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)

• Comment, also for by name list: should the Former members be in alphabetical order and why is Hong Kong in italics? Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 13:13 (UTC)
  • Former members are in date order (which I guess makes more sense for "by continent" as it is really "by continent, and then by date of membership"). Would you be happier if I alphabetised them in "by name"? The {{HKG}} template had italics for some unknown reason (for some reason, it does not use the {{country}} or {{ISO}} format like the other countries, but should now be fixed). Also query whether I should use {{NL}} for Newfoundland as it is called Newfoundland and Labrador now. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 14:28 (UTC)
    • Stupid of me not to notice that it was by date. I think it should be by name on the by name page. The italics are gone, right enough. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 14:31 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 14:31 (UTC)
• Support Cyberjunkie ^TALK 30 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold June 30, 2005 15:33 (UTC)
• Support, looks good to me. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 30 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that these two lists should be renamed to something like List of Commonwealth of Nations Members by .. as there are other Commonwealths such as the Russian Commonwealth of Independent States - Ian ≡ talk 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
  • Good idea - done. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
• Support--Sophitus July 1, 2005 14:47 (UTC)
• SupportNeutral -- 1) Pakistan's status should be mentioned. 2) Headings should not be wikified. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 06:12 (UTC)
  • I presume the first is about Pakistan's recent suspension? I've added details of the countries that have been suspended to both this and the other list (below): there is also a third list, List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined too... something to nominate later. Right. I will be away from now. Block me if I come back. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice list, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd like to see the former members listed by name, not date. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 14:32 (UTC)
• Support Cyberjunkie ^TALK 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold June 30, 2005 16:01 (UTC)
• Support --Sophitus July 1, 2005 14:35 (UTC)
• Support -- Some points that could be added: 1) I believe Zimbabe was kicked out. 2) Pakistan was suspended in '99 and admitted in '03(?) =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list meets the criteria for a Featured List, and it would be a good addition to the group. Guettarda 28 June 2005 03:40 (UTC)

• Support. Though the one last improvement I'd like would be fewer red links.

--Dmcdevit 28 June 2005 03:56 (UTC)

• Comment, yes, indeed the only thing that may hinder support votes is the number of red links. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 28 June 2005 04:07 (UTC)
  • I agree that you don't really want that many readlinks, but I think that the article is more valuable with the links than without them. Until and unless the articles about these species (or even the genera) get written, any list like this is going to be full of redlinks. What we need is a WikiProject:Snakes :) Guettarda 28 June 2005 04:22 (UTC)
    • Support, I am a native of Trinidad and Tobago and found this list particularly interesting, will be even better when more articles are written on specific snakes. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 28 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)
• Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Comment. It's a good list, but the criteria for inclusion mentions that there should be a majority of blue links. There are ~ 41 red and 6 blue and this figure is nowhere near the minimum criteria for inclusion. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Must have missed that one. I don't see that as a fixable issue. Guettarda 28 June 2005 12:02 (UTC) I will fix the problem. Guettarda 28 June 2005 12:32 (UTC)

Ok, 32 articles later (stubs with taxboxes, to be honest) and a few fixed links there are only 7 red links among the snakes, 12 red links in the article as a whole. Guettarda 28 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Support – excellent job done on inking the links. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 29, 2005 07:32 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. Too many red links to meet the criteria. Other issues: (1) the lead needs work (at the moment it starts with a fragment of a sentence); (2) the notes at the end of each section really should be included in the tables, as each one relates to a specific snake - awkward from a formatting point of view, I know, but it would make it much more user-friendly. --OpenToppedBus - Talk June 28, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

Further to point 2, I've had a go at a possible new format on Talk:List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago - comments welcome. OpenToppedBus - Talk June 28, 2005 08:58 (UTC)

I have converted the notes at the bottom of the tables to hyperlinked footnotes. This removes them from the table while making them instantly available to readers. Guettarda 28 June 2005 23:59 (UTC)

Excellent work - very happy to change my vote to support. OpenToppedBus - My Talk June 29, 2005 08:38 (UTC)

• Support Now that the red links are gone, this looks pretty good to me. jimfbleak 29 June 2005 05:05 (UTC)
• Support. Great job. - Darwinek 29 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
• Support. UtherSRG June 29, 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Support. Dsmdgold June 30, 2005 15:20 (UTC)
• Support. Is List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago next in line? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 30 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The daddy of them all. A complete list of all men, boys and women who have captained England at official international level, SmokeDog 21:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, wow there are a lot of cricket lists. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 03:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
• Support – that's a really long list. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 06:24 (UTC)
• Support, pity about all the red links in women's cricket, though. Filiocht | Talk June 28, 2005 08:15 (UTC)
• Support - more nice work from the Wikiproject Cricket. --OpenToppedBus - My Talk June 28, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

How many cricket lists are there :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the title (was Wisden Cricketers of the Year, but that is a redirect). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved it to Wisden Cricketers of the Year to address comments below. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)

• And how good they are. Support. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support how about putting it into a table? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there enough information here to need a table? Isn't a bullet-point list sufficient to give a date and names? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think so; tables can be overdone, too. Filiocht | Talk 10:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The "see also" section could be expanded to include more cricket-related ideas. --Dmcdevit 04:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you will have to help me out - which other cricket-related ideas do you think should be added? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In all honesty, the extent of my cricket knowledge comes from Lagaan. It's just, I see the "see also" section as more important in a list since there is less text for internal-linking in. Can't you think of a few related article that would be helpful for the reader interested in the topic? (Like cricket, which I don't even see linked there?) --Dmcdevit 07:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comments (1) Some of the names are given as Firstname Lastname, others as "XY Lastname". To be consistent, shouldn't they all be Firstname Lastname? (2) A few more pictures would be nice. (3) I think "Wisden Cricketers of the Year" would be better (for the same reason that I think "Sri Lankan national cricket captains" is the right page there, SmokeDog 07:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - but would prefer to see the naming inconsistency fixed, except when commonly known as "XY Lastname" as in W.G. Grace. Cricinfo and Wisden are fairly consistent in referring to cricketers as "XY Lastname". - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 06:08 (UTC)
  • I've moved the page to "Cricketers" and stripped out some of the initials. I am a bit torn between linking all of the names, and ending up with a forrest of redlinks, and leaving as it is. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)

They should definitely be linked, even if that means a lot of red - we'll presumably want articles on all of those people eventually. The solution to a "forest of red" is to write more articles! (That's not a criticism, by the way - it's absolutely astonishing how many of these are already blue). If they are linked, I will support. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about the requirement for a "large majority" of blue links? -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

I know, I know. I very nearly opposed it, and I really should do, for exactly that reason. I have done on some of the other cricket lists (and would with Bangladeshi captains if I'd looked at it in time). But it's just so impressive that as many of these articles exist as currently do, that I just can't bring myself to be the obstacle standing in its way. I reserve the right to be inconsistent and illogical from time to time! OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Sorry to break the cricket streak. Well, I really like this graphical representation of our already-features list of popes. The refs, see also, and lead are just copied from there. I think the only problem right now is that it's an orphan (and if anyone could help me with that I'd appreciate it). --Dmcdevit 03:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, definitely an excellent list, but unfortunately, it's only partially translated from German (most links after 752 are dead at the moment). I did some cleanup work a while back, but have to admit that I never got around to finishing the complete list. If and when all the links are fixed, I'll definitely support. -- Ferkelparade π 07:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've had a further go, but a few names eluded me, and we need to check the pope/antipope colours. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I feel stupid :) Well if they're in the right order, we should be able to copy the names from list of popes, right? I'll try to find the time. --Dmcdevit 23:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. At the very least, it needs an explanation of when the timelines break when they do. Is there something special about the year 461. Also, each section works to a different scale, making it difficult to easily compare between them - for example, the green bar for John Paul II's 27 years is about the same length as Alexander II's 12 years. OpenToppedBus - Talk June 28, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure they break so that they fit on the screen without horizontal scrolling. --Dmcdevit 28 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Not on my screen (800x600) it doesn't! OpenToppedBus - My Talk June 29, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

Changing to Support with new format. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

• Comment - while I like the overall article, I don't like the fact that some of the graphs cover 500 years, others 400, others 300 - it's better form for all the graphs to cover a fixed amount of time, thus making the reigns of various popes directly comparable. Guettarda 30 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)
  • Support now. Guettarda 1 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
• Support now - I have standardised on 400 years (which is about right at the beginning, to long in the middle, and too short at the end) but I think it does the job very. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

Someone wanted the numbers... here they are. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• support would also like to see the no of tests each ground has hosted. Is this data available? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but, as below, I would rather not give that information for all of the current venues otherwise there will be a massive overhead in keeping the list up-to-date. I have commented out details of the ones that I know are no longer used and will add footnotes from the notes in due course (unless someone beats me to it). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fair statement. I've inked all the India venues BTW. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 05:56 (UTC)
• Support Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:21 (UTC)

A great list of all Indian districts. Comprehensive and neat. Mostly User:Brhaspati's work (See: User:Brhaspati/indiadistricts. He hasn't made an edit since mid-May. I've only neatened and dab'ed this work. 600+ rows and 7 cols = 70+kb. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - good work - but a few minor niggles. (i) The lead section needs a copyedit (I'll try myself when I have time) (ii) Does the article need two lists of the states of India? The key to the map could be merged with the big blue list in "Overview". (iii) Shouldn't the number columns be left-justified, so they line up properly (compare Guntur and Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh)? (iv) Are there no relevant paper references - maps or Government documents? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions: 1) I've removed the extra list of the states. 2) I've left-justified the table. 3) I've included an official link 4) I've made some minor corrections in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, brain failure - I meant right jutified, so the least significant digits line up. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right aligning; It will have to be done manually (!shudders!) I'm not sure if the piped table supports HTML <cols> which would save my energy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - comprehensive. Wish we win back Brhaspathi from his real life ;) -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support pending print references. Also, why are there so many repeat links? If something has already been linked to in one section, normally it shouldn't be linked again. But good work all around. --Dmcdevit 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) I've added a print reference. 2) I've reduced the overlinking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Support Dsmdgold 17:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but some minor niggles: 1) Since the main part of the table is divided up by state, does the first column ("State") need to be there at all, as it will be identical throughout each section? 2) The "Density" column is apparently in km² - would that be better shown as /km²? OpenToppedBus - Talk 10:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Scratch the second point - I've done it myself, as it was obviously right (and very quick to do). Didn't want to be too bold about the first without some feedback (and it'll take a lot of work). OpenToppedBus - Talk 10:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen one or two instances of the district code being written as IN.AN.NI for Nicobar Islands. This nominclature though, is not widely prevalent in India (PIN codes are used instead). It will take me a while to do this. Should it necessarily be removed? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily - I just wasn't sure it added much. But it's no big deal to leave it. OpenToppedBus - Talk 15:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, FWIW - it uses up a column unnecessarily (presumably there used to be a single table for all of the states, rather than tables with section headings). OTOH, it is hardly a fatal error. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 06:15 (UTC)