- Self-nominated. This is a comprehensive list of pressed vegetable oils. Originally the list included essential oils, but these have been moved to List of essential oils. In preparation for applying for featured list status, I've written stub articles for about 40 of the oils listed here. There are still a (very) few that don't have their own articles, but I think that it now meets the "large majority of blue links" criterion. Waitak 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks really good except for the references. Right now they are messy and in external ink format. See, for example, {{cite web}} of suggested format. Also, please use cite.php to have proper footnotes (there is one already done). Renata 11:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- References converted to use {{cite web}} and family. I would love to use cite.php, but that precludes grouping the references, doesn't it? I'd love to use <ref>...</ref> consistently, but wasn't able to figure a way to do so without just jumbling all of the references into one list. Any suggestions? Waitak 12:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dunno really, but I see nothing wrong with references being in one big list. If you use cite.php, then all the refs will be in order. So it will more or less match the TOC. Also, the references still look very messy.... :( Renata 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I get the feeling that every item on the list should be referenced. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't add comments where the blurb next to the oil is backed up by the main article on the oil. In those cases, the link itself is the reference. Waitak 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case
oppose. Please don't use other Wikipedia articles as your source. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case
- Sorry, let me be more clear. I didn't want to clutter up the List of vegetable oils page by repeating sources that were referenced in the linked page. If that was a wrong call, I have no objection to putting in external references for statements that require one. It'd make the references pretty long, though. Is that okay? Waitak 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think repeating the sources is preferable, since we cannot always expect the readers to follow the links to the main articles. If the list of references becomes too large there is a CSS that allows resizing, or you can also list them in two columns. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay... I've changed the article to use the strategy that you suggest, here and in User:Rune.welsh/FLC. Still a little ways to go, but all entries should have references within another day or two. Honestly, I question whether it helps the reader to have a source for a statement like, "Safflower oil is a colorless, odorless oil used primary for cooking", but if I'm going to err, it might as well be in the direction of encyclopediosity, I suppose. I did ask for this review, after all! --Waitak 14:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment All references have now been converted to cite.php. I've begun to fill in external references for all statements in the one-line summaries of each oil, and will finish them within the next few days. Can you give me an example of a page with a lot of references that doesn't look messy? Happy to correct it, but I'm not sure what you're after, exactly. I've already converted everything to {{cite web}} and family, with comments added after the template call if needed. --Waitak 09:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- List of European Union member states by political system uses a lot of references. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a very pretty list. Thanks for pointing me to it. --Waitak 14:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for recommending and complimenting it, I'm flattered. :) —Nightstallion (?) 23:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've now:
- included references for almost everything
- used accessdate consistently, as per User:Rune.welsh/FLC
- changed all references to use cite.php
- changed the formatting on the references as per List of European Union member states by political system
- Anything else need to be done? --Waitak 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. An excellent list - a good example of what Wikipedia does best. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I'd put the external links below the references, but I don't care either way. Excellent work!. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MUCH better. Still not quite ideally perfect (i.e. some consistency issues), but good enough :) Renata 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - good stuff, but what are the criteria for inclusion or exclusion from this list? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- It covers this in the leadin, I think but the criteria are:
- Oil is from parts of plants,
- extracted by pressing (or the more widely used equivalents)
- Basically, any plant oil at all for which there is any evidence whatsover that it is or was extracted and used on any regular basis belongs on this list. I'd guess that 99.9%+ of all commercial vegetable oil trade, past or present, is accounted for by the oils on the list. As the list is intended to be comprehensive, the only criteria for exclusion would be that it's not a pressed oil, or that it's derived from something other than plants. Hope that's helpful. --Waitak 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is helpful. The article claims to be a comprehensive list of all oils extracted from plants (except for essential oils), but your criterion was "extracted and used on any regular basis". How do you decide that? Is there a list somewhere that you have used as a reference?
- Secondly, in List of essential oils I find "Orange oil, like lemon oil, cold pressed rather than distilled".
- Don't mistake me - this is a very good list: I just want to be certain that it is indeed comprehensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fair question. In short, every oil that I've been able to find on any site anywhere that's pressed from parts of plants is on this list. Every once in a while, I find a reference to an oil that I hadn't heard of, and add it to the list - I think that the last one was thistle oil, if I remember correctly. The original list that I based this on is the one at Bulk Oil Trading, listed in the general references section, but the list has since grown quite a bit beyond what was listed there. The "used on any regular basis" means nothing more than "somebody actually cared enough about this oil to mention it in some publication or another".
- Don't mistake me - this is a very good list: I just want to be certain that it is indeed comprehensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The case of orange oil and lemon oil is a funny one. I'm also the creator of List of essential oils, which I hived off from this list for the reasons given (and just because of the sheer size of the list). From what I've been able to gather orange oil and lemon oil are the only two oils that are both (1) cold pressed and (2) considered essential oils. They're also unusual in that both are derived from the peels of the fruit. On the basis of that, I went for the path of least resistence and moved them from this list to List of essential oils. --Waitak 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fine. I think there should at least be a sentence explaining why orange oil and lemon oil are excluded. On the others, I think I am going to have to live with this being as good as it gets; on which basis, I will support -- ALoan (Talk) 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done, and thank you! --Waitak 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Suggestion: provide references backing up your reasoning for excluding
- Orange oil and lemon oil are now included in both pages. I've modified the criteria to include pressed essential oils, since this appears to have led to confusion over what's included. As of this point all pressed oils from vegetable source are included with no exceptions or exclusions.
Strongoppose.- References lack important information. If using {{cite web}}, fill in as many fields as possible.
- Example of inadequate reference: 5. ^ Canola Oil. Retrieved on 2006-07-24. What part of the website is your statement sourced from? I couldn't find it.
- There are many, many references (both general and inline) that only include a title and accessdate. This is inadequate. At the very least, always include the publisher (this may be the name of the website).
- Some of your cited sources are in fact other articles on Wikipedia. This is unacceptable.
- Notes such as 1. ^ Orange oil and lemon oil, while both cold pressed, are considered essential oils... are unsourced statements, and need to be based on references like everything else.
- Non-standard layout. Section order should be See also, then Notes (in this case "Notes and references"), then References (in this case "General references"). See WP:GTL. Half the links currently in the See also section are redundant (already linked in text), and should be removed.
- Vague or confusing statements. Peanut oil, the original biofuel. Does this mean it was the first oil used as a biofuel? Is this mostly symbolic or practical? Cottonseed oil, both costly and lower value as a fuel.[61] Lower than what?
- All notes should be placed outside punctuation per WP:FOOT. Note that some items are missing important punctuation such as periods.
- References lack important information. If using {{cite web}}, fill in as many fields as possible.
heqs 04:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Okay, one at a time:
- Inadequate reference
- I've fixed the one you mentioned. I'm not aware of any others, but will go through the article again and fix any that I find.
- Using as many fields as possible in {{cite web}}
- This was a stylistic choice based on comments in this review. The early comments in this review were that the references were messy. One of the main factors was that I had consistently put the name of the Web site after the name of the article (like {{cite web}} does), and it did look messy. I chose instead to prepend the name of the pages with the name of the Web site. There were a few that I'd missed though, which I'm going through and fixing. If the consensus is that I should put publishers back in, I'm happy to oblige, but I'd rather not get caught in a reviewer preference conflict vortex. Comments?
- Citations are WP articles
- Thanks, I'd missed one or two. I've changed the references that point to Biodiesel - particularly the peanut oil related ones. The few that are left are legimate notes that point to sections of WP articles that the reader might not know to look at without the note.
- Unsourced notes
- I think that the orange oil/lemon oil note is the only such note. It was added because a reviewer wanted to know why these two oils weren't on the list, and requested a note.
Could you extend grace on this one, please?See the note above on inclusion criteria. The note has been removed.
- Order of reference sections
- Done. I didn't know about WP:GTL, thanks.
- Vague or confusing statements.
- Fixed the ones that you mentioned. Any left?
- Notes outside punctuation
- There were one or two exceptions that are now fixed.
Hope that addresses all of your objections. Anything else? --Waitak 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't think properly sourcing content with a widely used template ({{cite web}}) was a style issue. The references are better than before, but lacking info. WP:WIAFL describes the "...appropriate use of citations". It's important to source things properly using some kind of style, which the templates follow, and be consistent throughout the article. There are still many notes which only have a title and and an accessdate. Putting the website in the title is very confusing, because it reads like "title: subtitle", which it's not.
- I just scanned over the list, and counted seven sentences lacking periods, and one with period after footnote.
- The two statements I mentioned are the same as they were before. Also Rice bran oil, appealing because of lower cost. Lower than what? Weasel words: One of the more promising biofuel sources, according to some.
- I still don't know where you got your info for Canola oil, other than that it's somewhere in www.canolainfo.org. If I'm viewing the list on paper, or anywhere that I can't see the hyperlink, all I know is it's something called "Canola Oil." This applies to all cites of a front page of a website, unless you really got your info from the front page.
- You are still using a Wikipedia article as a source for the claim that Soybean oil accounts for half of the world's edible oil production.
This is a very good list, much better than most on Wikipedia. I think it needs a bit more work before meeting the featured criteria, though. After taking a closer look at some other FL's and FLC's, it seems I'm applying a standard that's more like what's required for Featured Article status these days rather than FL, so I'm softening my vote from strong oppose to oppose for now. heqs 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- WP:GTL is not nearly as rigid as heqs implies and even its ordering is recently under debate on its talk page. Rmhermen 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The general order of sections has been unchanged for as long as I've been using it as a guide (4-5 months, I think), and nearly all Wikipedia guidelines are in a state of constant flux. I realize that this is more of a personal objection. heqs 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Based on that, I've moved General references after See also. I really think it fits better there. I kept the other recommendations on order. --Waitak 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have done a copyedit. I hope I have found the eight periods that worried User:Heqs so much (although I imagine it would have been easier to correct them yourself rather than spotting them and raising them as an issue). I have also refactored the lead slightly and added short introductory paragraphs to most sections. I am not convinced that every entry on the list needs a footnote (although clearly the rarer ones do), nor that the cite templates are a strict requirement (I must admit that I rarely use them myself). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cite template issue - again, I'm happy to do whatever consensus says, but am not willing to get caught in the crossfire between reviewers' conflicting preferences.
- Thanks for taking care of the missing periods, ALoan
- Sorry about that. I'd fixed the peanut oil, cottonseed oil and canola oil entry problems that you pointed out, but lost an edit in a browser crash. Fixed now. I've reworded the rice bran and jatropha oil blurbs as well.
- The source is FAOSTAT, but I don't have time to figure out all of the parameters to their new search engine to the point where I could give a simple ref backing up the statement. Since people seem to feel strongly about not pointing to WP articles in lists, I've deleted the statement. Sigh.
- I think that's everything. Can we put this thing to bed now, please? --Waitak 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what crossfire you're referring to - earlier, Renata made the suggestion to convert to {{cite web}} and cite.php where possible - all I'm saying is that you should finish filling in the fields of the template where possible. By "messy" it seems you think you think Renata meant there was "too much info" or something like that, that's not at all how I interpreted it - on the contrary, the info should just be slotted into a more standard format so the references can be more easily accessed and evaluated. Congrats on the successful FLC. heqs 09:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across this list a few days ago when I was looking for some information about past Ashes series and I was pretty impressed by this list. I feel that it is up to featured list standard. DarthVader 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- As the creator of the current incarnation of the article I'd love for this to be a FL, but think it has too many redlinks for the seasons just yet. The criteria does say: "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)."
Sorry, but Oppose-- I@n 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)- Good point. I'll try to fix up the red links over the next couple of days and see if this list can be featured. You've done a good job with this list. DarthVader 09:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- As you would already know, I've created many stubs so there are no longer any red links in the list. Obviously the stubs are not very comprehensive at the moment, but I hope that they encourage expansion in the future. I think that this list is completely ready to be commented upon by others as well. DarthVader 09:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support now with the expanded intro, picture and blue links. Good work DarthVader. -- I@n 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Object. Inappropriate lead section. Explain what are Ashes series, include some history and some facts related to the list. The lead should be at one or two paragraphs long. Plus add a picture in lead also. CG 14:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)- I've now written a lead and included a picture. Please check the list now to see if it is up to standard. DarthVader 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I removed my oppose vote. Great list. CG 15:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've now written a lead and included a picture. Please check the list now to see if it is up to standard. DarthVader 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support yet another cricket list... Renata 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support as expanded. Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support now. Good job. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
A previous FL candidate, which failed principally due to the low number of entries for which an article existed. The situation is much better now, and this list recently passed GA, so I'm going to give it another shot. SP-KP 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The tables need column headings, despite the explanation prior to the list. People want to look at a table, not read a paragraph to figure out what the table is referring to. Pepsidrinka 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: notes and inline references should be cited using [Cite.php], let's utilize the fact that WP has interactive capabilities and notes can be clickable. Renata 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I converted the notes and added headers at the top of the table. Should they be repeated in each section of the table or is once enough? Rmhermen 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've copied your headings to the remaining tables, as I think this helps the reader, without being too distracting. Thanks for doing the notes. Do we need to do the same with the inline references? SP-KP 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you can do that while keeping the Notes and References sections separate. Perhaps we could use the old footnote templates for those? Rmhermen 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I agree that something needs to be done to convert those parenthetical citations into footnotes, but without interfering with the table footnotes. For lack of another idea, Rmhermen's idea seems like the best one (i.e., use the old citation system for the references). Pepsidrinka 00:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Point me at an example and I'll do the rest. SP-KP 11:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- List of circulating currencies and Nuclear power by country, both use notes and refs. Joe I 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm starting to work my way through these. Bear with me while I sort them all out. Any other comments anyone? SP-KP 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Point me at an example and I'll do the rest. SP-KP 11:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've copied your headings to the remaining tables, as I think this helps the reader, without being too distracting. Thanks for doing the notes. Do we need to do the same with the inline references? SP-KP 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK - Done them all, I think. Someone please check through for errors. SP-KP 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I think it is all set now. Rmhermen 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot to Comment - could you set a bold article title in the first paragragh? Joe I 07:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Thnx :) Joe I 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Could we get a picture of a representative specimen for each suborder? Where's the TOC? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Re: pics - yes, we could, I'll do that now. The TOC is suppressed by use of the NOTOC tag, but doesn't have to be - I'm happy to go with whatever consensus is. SP-KP 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the list is long enough to warrant a TOC.
- Thanks, what do others think? SP-KP 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- It could also help to separate the lead from the actual list
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this - can you explain? SP-KP 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I meant that if you have the TOC you could still place some images to the right of it if you wanted to. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this - can you explain? SP-KP 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- and even leave more room for pictures. In any case it's up to you to decide where to put it. Thanks for the pics, btw. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support
pending the addition of some sort of table of contents and a resizing of the pictures. The image at the top is fine, but the others are too intrusive. Pepsidrinka 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Fully support now. Pepsidrinka 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) - Comment - good work on making the notes. However now it is double-referenced. For example, (Forrest 2005 [12]). If I click on that 12, it takes me to the bottom with full book title, etc (which is great) but then I don't need that Forrest 2005. It's simply redundant. Also, a suggestion, "notes" column is not really needed. You can simply add that [A] or [B] next to the specie name. Then you'll have more space for pictures other people are requesting. Renata 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi - thanks for these comments. Good point about the Notes column - I agree, it is superfluous, I'll get rid of it and do as you suggest when I make my next edit to the article. The retention of the Harvard reference format in the main text was deliberate, in that to people familiar with the subject matter of the text, some of these references will be "household names" - if I read "Merritt, Moore & Eversham 2006", for instance, I know exactly which work it refers to. If I took that out, I'd have to do two extra clicks, to get to this in the list, and back to the text, which seems unnecessary. Does that reasoning make sense? What do you think about it? Do you have a view on whether we should have a TOC? So far two editors think we need one, and two don't, though don't feel strongly about it. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus emerges. SP-KP
- There are two basic principles how to cite sources. One is footnotes (put a little asterics or letter indicating that the reader should find a note about it) and inline (e.g. (Forest 2005)). All that's good. But I never ever saw a document that would use both as this article does. WP prefers footnotes because they are clickable... So I feel quite strongly about it. I also think there should be a TOC, but I don't really care. Good luck. Renata 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Renata, thanks. What do others feel about Renata's concern - again, I'm happy to go with the consensus. SP-KP 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that this is a good example of how hyperlinked text improves on traditional methods. I don't see a problem with it. Rmhermen 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Notes column removed now - so just the issue of referencing format left to resolve? Anyone else got any views? SP-KP 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Double referencing here does seem a bit redundand although it tends to be common in the humanities (my point being that this is not without precedent). Do you know whether double referencing is a common practice in Biology as well? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know. SP-KP 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Double referencing here does seem a bit redundand although it tends to be common in the humanities (my point being that this is not without precedent). Do you know whether double referencing is a common practice in Biology as well? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Renata, thanks. What do others feel about Renata's concern - again, I'm happy to go with the consensus. SP-KP 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are two basic principles how to cite sources. One is footnotes (put a little asterics or letter indicating that the reader should find a note about it) and inline (e.g. (Forest 2005)). All that's good. But I never ever saw a document that would use both as this article does. WP prefers footnotes because they are clickable... So I feel quite strongly about it. I also think there should be a TOC, but I don't really care. Good luck. Renata 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi - thanks for these comments. Good point about the Notes column - I agree, it is superfluous, I'll get rid of it and do as you suggest when I make my next edit to the article. The retention of the Harvard reference format in the main text was deliberate, in that to people familiar with the subject matter of the text, some of these references will be "household names" - if I read "Merritt, Moore & Eversham 2006", for instance, I know exactly which work it refers to. If I took that out, I'd have to do two extra clicks, to get to this in the list, and back to the text, which seems unnecessary. Does that reasoning make sense? What do you think about it? Do you have a view on whether we should have a TOC? So far two editors think we need one, and two don't, though don't feel strongly about it. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus emerges. SP-KP
Note: extending nomination so that the issues with reference format can be addressed. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Self Nom This is bascily the current list of the Top Ten most Wanted Figitives. It has been recenlty redesigned and promoted to WP:GA status. It has a bit of history to the orgins of the list plus some statstics. The list bascily will be changing based on the current "list" so this is very stable. the FBI allows the infromation to be copied from the website, but the descriptions have been "copy-edited". --
Shane (talk/contrib) 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support.
Shane (talk/contrib) 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
*Oppose. Only one reference. None of actual list is cited. Pepsidrinka 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Pepsidrinka supports. 02:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Each entry has the reference to their own pages. Which at the top, has the header of FBI Ten most wanted. I could, if you really want me to in-line each person's URL, but I didn't think that was needed. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: This has come up before: links to other Wikipedia articles do not count as references, so please include proper references for each entry where appropriate. Otherwise it is a very good list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)- They are HTML pages to each's person page of the FBI page in there small bio. Is everyone missing these? Bugs5382 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- They look like: Gerena's FBI Top 10 Most Wanted Fugitive Alert Bugs5382 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I saw it. These must be converted to footnotes using the m:cite.php method and be listed specifically as references, just as it's done with every other list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Changed to cite format. :) Shane (talk/contrib) 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Changed to cite format. :)
- Yes I saw it. These must be converted to footnotes using the m:cite.php method and be listed specifically as references, just as it's done with every other list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Well done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Is it Osama or Usama? He's only #4? Joe I 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The "Number" on the list means nothing. They really are of equal importance. Just numbered for people to see that there is 10. Usama. Bugs5382 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The number looks as if it is related to date. The longer the person has been on the list, the higher they are. --liquidGhoul 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hostestly, I copied everything to a "txt" document and then randomly grabbed stuff. I didn't mean to do it if I did. :) Bugs5382 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The number looks as if it is related to date. The longer the person has been on the list, the higher they are. --liquidGhoul 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support, well done. —Nightstallion (?) 21:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support, Renata 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Feel it is up to feature list status. Based on Tri Nations Series champions, which is the international version of the Super 12/14.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot to add, this is a self nom! And that I support this of course.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The tables look a bit clumsy, they should be aligned. The logos before the winner also don't look very good and the references section should be organized. Apart from that, the list looks good. Mário 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Alinged tables and removed logos. I have come across a problem however, which may only exist on my computer. If you look at 2004, the Brumbies points won't be bolded. Does anyone know how to fix this?--HamedogTalk|@ 12:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Organized the references. Brumbies row still an Issue.--HamedogTalk|@ 12:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Alinged tables and removed logos. I have come across a problem however, which may only exist on my computer. If you look at 2004, the Brumbies points won't be bolded. Does anyone know how to fix this?--HamedogTalk|@ 12:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - It looks good now, I've removed the refs from the headers. About the bold problem, you forgot to "open" the bold before the team name. It is fixed now. One more thing, I think you should add fair use rationale to the badge picture. Mário 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- added fair use rationale.--HamedogTalk|@ 15:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive results and a good looking article, nice work Hamedog. Cvene64 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Lots of red links in the column. Joe I 10:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, alot of the Super 12 articles haven't been created, but I will try and make a few soon. --HamedogTalk|@ 10:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- All those redlinks are now articles, albiet many are stubs.--HamedogTalk|@ 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, alot of the Super 12 articles haven't been created, but I will try and make a few soon. --HamedogTalk|@ 10:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fully Support excellent list with complete and relevant information hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Joe I 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Mark 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - GringoInChile 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very solid list. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Good work on this list, but not sure if the Super 14 champions list should be seperate to this, although there are more teams. OK, leave them seperate. Jasrocks Talk 07:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. DarthVader 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I s'pose you were expecting a second European Union member states list from me, weren't you? This time around, it's a list of the member states by form of government, houses of parliament, and so on. It's referenced to death (around a hundred references), and as detailed as I could make it; if you find any flaw with it, I'm more than happy to correct it. :) —Nightstallion (?) 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. 1) Too many of the references are to non-English language sites, many of which are only to the index page of that site. 2) The article says that a section is incomplete. 3) Too much over-linking of repeated terms. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)- 1) Nope, almost all of those pages are *also* in English, with exactly nine official websites of national institutions which are *not* available in English. The link to the index page is meant to be a reference to the existence and names of the respective house of parliament or office. 2) Well, help me complete it, then; I haven't been able to find any polls or essays about the issue for the remaining three countries after googling for about 90 minutes. 3) Where, apart from linking to the country names more than once? I don't think linking to a single country twice in the text in unrelated paragraphs and once in the table is "overlinking"... —Nightstallion (?) 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Alternative sources for those nine should be found where possible, for the others the link should be directly to the English version of the home page. 2) I have no interest/knowledge about the topic so can't really help. 3) The "Listed by form of government" and "Listed by type of parliament" have a massive repeat of the same link. violet/riga (t) 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) I'll try. 2) Well, I'll try to find sources for the remaining three. 3) I think it would be non-sensical *not* to link to the countries in a table *about* the countries, don't you agree? —Nightstallion (?) 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 3) Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring to the other links ("parliamentary unitary republic", for example). violet/riga (t) 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, *that* was what you meant. Corrected that. I haven't been able to find anything regarding Luxembourg, but I've got some info on Spain and Belgium now. —Nightstallion (?) 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 3) Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was referring to the other links ("parliamentary unitary republic", for example). violet/riga (t) 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) I'll try. 2) Well, I'll try to find sources for the remaining three. 3) I think it would be non-sensical *not* to link to the countries in a table *about* the countries, don't you agree? —Nightstallion (?) 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Alternative sources for those nine should be found where possible, for the others the link should be directly to the English version of the home page. 2) I have no interest/knowledge about the topic so can't really help. 3) The "Listed by form of government" and "Listed by type of parliament" have a massive repeat of the same link. violet/riga (t) 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Links have been changed, English links have been added. That takes care of all of your criticism except for the fact that I don't have a source yet for Luxembourg; is that such a big problem? We'll find one sooner or later. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support now - thanks for the changes and well done with the article. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Nope, almost all of those pages are *also* in English, with exactly nine official websites of national institutions which are *not* available in English. The link to the index page is meant to be a reference to the existence and names of the respective house of parliament or office. 2) Well, help me complete it, then; I haven't been able to find any polls or essays about the issue for the remaining three countries after googling for about 90 minutes. 3) Where, apart from linking to the country names more than once? I don't think linking to a single country twice in the text in unrelated paragraphs and once in the table is "overlinking"... —Nightstallion (?) 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Support- I haven't checked all notes and references, but it looks nice. Maps are particularly useful. Good encyclopedic stuff.Afonso Silva19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC) - changed username to Mário.
- Question - At the time of my support, the article didn't included the "freedom map". Where does the information come from? Freedom House? It seems so, therefore, I don't think it should be included in the article. Mário 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is certainly a reliable source, and one of the most reputed agencies evaluating democratic development in the world; if you've got other ratings which you consider more relevant, please share them. —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't consider Freedom House a neutral source, this way the list should be named List of European Union member states by political system according to Freedom House. However, if the map is removed and the Freedom House considerations are moved to a secondary level inside the article, I'll glady support, otherwise, I object. I'm not saying the article is bad and that you didn't made a great work, of course you did, as always. I just don't think the opinion of an American think tank should be the basis for an article intended to be neutral, don't you agree? Mário 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you've got a better source for rating democracy and political freedom, feel free to share it; unless you do, though, I still consider Freedom House the best source available for the statement regarding the European Union's member states' democratic status... —Nightstallion (?) 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't consider Freedom House a neutral source, this way the list should be named List of European Union member states by political system according to Freedom House. However, if the map is removed and the Freedom House considerations are moved to a secondary level inside the article, I'll glady support, otherwise, I object. I'm not saying the article is bad and that you didn't made a great work, of course you did, as always. I just don't think the opinion of an American think tank should be the basis for an article intended to be neutral, don't you agree? Mário 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is certainly a reliable source, and one of the most reputed agencies evaluating democratic development in the world; if you've got other ratings which you consider more relevant, please share them. —Nightstallion (?) 16:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Informative in list, prose and maps. Personnally I could do without so many references, but I know that wouldn't fly :) Joe I 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The "Monarchism and republicanism" section reads more like an article than an introduction to a list - there are already links to the independant articles monarchism and republicanism, and the bulk of the description should occur in those articles, not in the list. I'd recommend that it be shortened to look more like the "Degree of self-governance" and "Forms of government" sections. --Tim4christ17 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Looks nice, seems to be correct. — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I Like the look and the layout. Interesting and informative topic also. Sotakeit 13:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. It's well referenced, that's for sure. --Nebular110 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Great list even though there's a little eulogy to the democratic system of the EU countries. CG 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you've got specific proposals as to how to amend the part that's too eulogic, go ahead. :) —Nightstallion (?) 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Nightstallion has impressed me a thousand times over and this is nothing less than the perfect example from one of the strongest editors here. This list - and I mean this - could be printed out and used in schools. Bravo. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow — thanks. :) —Nightstallion (?) 06:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support; excellent maps, can't find a single flaw. I second Doktorbuk's gushing praise. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose – the centre-aligned text makes the table look untidy. 2. Capitalise the first letter of the See alsos eg: form of government --> Form of government 3. Redundant words and copyediting needed: technically, incidentally, equal partners, "dawn of the" dawn?? --> more encyclopedic terms needed. 4. having a mix of black and blue in the government column is untidy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1. See below, I don't think that's a viable reason to oppose.
- 2. [1] seems to contradict, as does usage in many other articles; I don't think this is a must, and I think it looks untidy to capitalise terms when they needn't be capitalised.
- 3. What's wrong with those?
- 4. No, I'm afraid you're wrong on that; over-linking, as has been criticised above, would be the alternative, and there's a policy (or style guideline, whatever) for only linking terms when they first appear, generally. —Nightstallion (?) 06:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you may want to copyedit according to Nichalp's suggestion (3) before I promote the list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify what is wrong with those words or phrases, or how you would like them changed? You're also welcome to change them yourself, of course, but I frankly don't know what's wrong. —Nightstallion (?) 16:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you may want to copyedit according to Nichalp's suggestion (3) before I promote the list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - and I disagree with Nichalp's points 1 and 4. Center aligned text looks fine when some terms are spanning more than one column. And the mix of black and blue is because terms are correctly only wikilinked once. That doesn't need to change. Rmhermen 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support I just did a small copyedit of the lead, it seemed in the worst shape of all the prose. Though, I left an inline citation, so please address it. Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Addressed through simplifcation. :) —Nightstallion (?) 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I have copyedited, hopefully addressing Nichalp's objections (although I couldn't spot the specific issues mentioned - perhaps they were already picked up). My only question is whether something more interesting (and less wasteful in terms of creating whitespace) can be done than the uniform image placement on the right, and "br clears" that appear at the end of each section. I also abhor "tocright", although I can see why you used it. :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: this nomination started on June 25, 2006 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Has been a great list for my time at Wikipedia. Is regularly updated with the correct information. Jasrocks (talk)
- Comment - Sources should be cited with {{cite web}}. And what is HS and what is the asterisk for? Some footnotes explaining the meaning of the fields would be great. Apart from that, it seems good, despite the fact that I never saw a cricket match in my life. Afonso Silva 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Concerns hopefully addressed. Sam Vimes 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - An image would make it look a little better, but that's no big deal. It seems to meet the criteria. One more thing, in other similar lists the most recent players are in the top, in others don't, a standard would be great, but anyway, nice work. Afonso Silva 21:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, although I'd like to see at least a national flag, as it's been done in some other cricket lists. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Self-nominated. It's useful, bringing together information on a key subject that wouldn't otherwise be addressed by Wikipedia. It's entirely comprehensive, including details of each of the Prime Ministers' cabinets. It contains notes on key events, elections, titles, reasons for leaving office, length of tenure, etc, further expanding the utility of the list by putting it into context. It's fully referenced (although, unfortunately, they all come from the same reference). It has a proper explanation of the details of office for those not familar with the job. Bastin 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for now:I wanted to check the references but the link doesn't work for me. If it doesn't contain the information listed in the notes (I was suspicious it might be a simpler timeline) or in the information at the top of the list, then those references should be given as well. It's nice to have a dual web/paper reference, but it should be properly cited as both a paper reference and a web one (so including date of last URL access for instance). That would also mean stating which language the reference is in. Since I can't seem to check the reference for the moment, I will take your word for it if you claim that every fact given in the article and list is contained in the reference. An explanation of the repeating start and end dates would be good too. Overall I am very impressed by this list - it will almost certainly be promoted once a couple of minor things get dealt with. Good use of the easy timeline tool too! TheGrappler 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! You make a good point about the explanation of the smaller dates; I've added a paragraph at the top, which I hope explains it properly. I've also expanded the data on the reference so that it conforms to both web and paper standards, and given in-line citations for the introductory paragraphs.
- The reference is not a simple timeline (it's 238 pages), and it does contain all the information in the list. Almost all of the notes are mentioned explicitly by the text; a few (such as 'longest premiership', 'shortest cabinet', etc) were not, but are self-evident if the other data are accepted. It's a pity that you couldn't access the file; if you still have problems, there are a few details (in French) of the book here. Meanwhile, I've added a related web reference that unambiguously gives many of the data (the dates and membership of the cabinets), but skimps on the niceties. Besides potential problems with accessing the main reference, at 238 pages and 2MB, it's not the nicest link to offer. Bastin 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like the sound of the reference not being a simple time line. In the case of the references being spread around as they are, I think it's unsuitable (well, in a "featured" piece of content at any rate!) just to refer to the book as a whole. Keep going with the footnoting, and extend it to cover the stuff in the "notes" section of the table where it is non-trivial (like "shortest" or "longest"). Do that and you'll get a strong support from me (although pictures would be nice too!) TheGrappler 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've added footnotes for most of the notes. Now, all PMs have at least one citation from the Thewes book/PDF; thus, the other data can be called up relatively easily, as the correct chapter is already cited once already. I think that it ought to be enough now, but, if you have any other areas that ought to be cited, I'm fine with adding more. I've addressed the pictures request below. Bastin 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Great improvement, great list. Strong support TheGrappler 22:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've added footnotes for most of the notes. Now, all PMs have at least one citation from the Thewes book/PDF; thus, the other data can be called up relatively easily, as the correct chapter is already cited once already. I think that it ought to be enough now, but, if you have any other areas that ought to be cited, I'm fine with adding more. I've addressed the pictures request below. Bastin 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like the sound of the reference not being a simple time line. In the case of the references being spread around as they are, I think it's unsuitable (well, in a "featured" piece of content at any rate!) just to refer to the book as a whole. Keep going with the footnoting, and extend it to cover the stuff in the "notes" section of the table where it is non-trivial (like "shortest" or "longest"). Do that and you'll get a strong support from me (although pictures would be nice too!) TheGrappler 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. COuld you add pictures of Prime Ministers (see for example List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom). CG 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be very difficult to add pictures for two reasons:
- The way that I've organised the page, sub-dividing premierships into separate governments and cabinets, makes the format very rigid. Unlike the UK PM list, the 'Notes' column's entries can't go over one line, as that would move the notes out of line with the dates of the cabinets. Since adding a picture of any reasonable size (75px+) would severly limit the space for the 'Notes' column, thus forcing one to remove some of the notes for the later PMs.
- Some pictures would not be easy to get hold of. I have yet to see any comprehensive gallery of pictures (including Thewes, which includes only sketches for a few of the PMs), and introducing a style for the latter PMs, when it could not easily be extended for all of them, is perhaps not advisable.
- Of course, neither problem applies to the PMs' biography pages. In due course, pictures will be added to their infoboxes, and the educational benefit of adding pictures will be realised. Furthermore, I could add a few good pictures that can be found to liven up the page. Bastin 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice list. I also would like to see those pictures up, eventually, so keep it in a To-do list somewhere :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, this should have had four supports before it was promoted, but it is excellent. My only caveats are that the timelines are a bit wide for some screens. More seriously, the lining up of the date, coalition members notes are not ideal - some sort of rowspan for the first three columns seems to be called for. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this list qualifies as a featured list. Much like the 2005 and 2006 versions of this list, this list is accurate, informative, and the few red links present are low-rounders who have apparently never made the team that they were drafted by. The only minor improvements that could be made are possibly an extra sentence or two in the introduction. On that note, I do nominate and support this list.--Wizardman 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I would like to see a little more information in the lead and, like in the other lists, the numbers in the firs column centered. Apart from that, and after a quick look, the list seems good. Afonso Silva 12:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done with the centering. I'll see what I can do with the lead. --Wizardman 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- How is it going with the lead? Afonso Silva 09:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- If I can find a citation for the first-round trade record, then I'm pretty much set. --Wizardman 15:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- The lead shouldn't contain red links. Apart from that, the list is good and I'll support if the red link turns blue. Cheers. Afonso Silva 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- True. Article made for redlinked guy, so I guess it's pretty good now. Hopefully there will be a couple more people who can support it though. --Wizardman 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The lead shouldn't contain red links. Apart from that, the list is good and I'll support if the red link turns blue. Cheers. Afonso Silva 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- If I can find a citation for the first-round trade record, then I'm pretty much set. --Wizardman 15:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- How is it going with the lead? Afonso Silva 09:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It would be nice to have the compensatory picks color-coded like how it is in the 2006 Draft. Ideally, 2005 draft should be changed to that as well to preserve uniformity...I guess I missed that the first time around when I was attempting to make 2005 and 2006 as similar styles as possible. Once that is done, Support. VegaDark 09:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your color coded request is done (both 2004 and 2005 drafts). --Wizardman 13:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I asked a couple people to look at this, as this is only one support away without any objections so far. Hopefully this will stay up for 2-3 more days. --Wizardman 02:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah it can stay up for a couple days. Until Monday afternoon (UTC) to be precise, because I won't have much net access during the weekend. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: list is a bit red-linked. Also, your real references (i.e. where you got the list from) is cited in the external link section. Please do correct this. For right format to cite webpages please see {{cite web}}. Renata 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, though I'd love to see mention of the Giants/Chargers trade that overwhelmed the coverage of the draft. One sentence mention would suffice somewhere in the lead. Pepsidrinka 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have a reference toward the Giants-Chargers trade, although a mentiono fit in the lead would probably be a good idea. I fixed the references up a little bit but I know it still needs work. --Wizardman 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This list is well organized and eye pleasing. It holds a comprehensive set of related and connected information. Joe I 10:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
ConditionalStrong support,ifnow that referencesarehave been added. —Nightstallion (?)10:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Oppose; notes layout currently ugly and unwieldy; use {{ref label}} and {{note label}}. That would link straight to the correct bit of the notes section. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)- Support; lovely! smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example where this is done, I never can figure things out from instructions. :) Joe I 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Look at Nuclear power by country, specifically Lithuania and North Korea. For your list, at British Virgin Islands for example, put a label like {{ref label||Mills|17|17}} (to match your current numbering system) and in the notes section, put at note 17 "{{note label|Mills|17|17}} 1 cent equals 10 mills (mill singular, also spelled mil)." smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Like so...? Joe I 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Look at Nuclear power by country, specifically Lithuania and North Korea. For your list, at British Virgin Islands for example, put a label like {{ref label||Mills|17|17}} (to match your current numbering system) and in the notes section, put at note 17 "{{note label|Mills|17|17}} 1 cent equals 10 mills (mill singular, also spelled mil)." smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example where this is done, I never can figure things out from instructions. :) Joe I 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Only thing is that this kind of a list can and will change frequently so it will need to be kept up to date. --Nebular110 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- It shouldn't need that much updating, but yes, when it does, I'll be all over it :) Joe I 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I think double lines could be avoided if you shrink the "Fractional Monetary Unit" and "Number to Basic" columns. Its just a formatting thing, but I think it would look better. Along with that, and before Renata shows up, I think you should use {{cite web}} when citing sources (List of municipalities of Portugal#References for an example). Apart from that, the list meets the criteria. Afonso Silva 18:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Width of columns - done
- Will {{cite web}} work with {{note label}} and {{ref label}}?Joe I 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- They work in different ways; you keep the <ref> tags in for the cite web, like so: <ref name="foobar">{{cite web|author=Bob Jones|accessdate=2006-June-17|url=http://www.example.com/foobar.html|title=A study of Foo's in bars}}</ref>smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
- Perhaps it doesn't work. However, you can transclude the text that would appear with the template and include it in the notes. Check Nuclear power by country. Afonso Silva 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I added when the URL was last accesed, but none of those have an acreidited author. OK? Joe I 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it doesn't work. However, you can transclude the text that would appear with the template and include it in the notes. Check Nuclear power by country. Afonso Silva 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment/Question - Do I need to keep all the notes that say what a specified money splits into? Such as 1 jiao equals 10 fen. and 1 piaster equals 10 fils., since the appropiate denomination page should have that info. Joe I 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would say yes. It makes it easier for people needing just the basic information. That's just my opinion though, removing the column wouldn't change my vote. --Nebular110 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - It looks very good now. About the subdivisions of fractional monetary units, I would keep the notes, they don't make the article ugly, or something like that, and represent interesting information. Afonso Silva 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - An interesting and well presented article.Abcdefghijklm 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for now. The real references (i.e. where the list is from) are presented as "external resources". Also two different footnote systems are used: now there are two notes numbered 1. Renata 13:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Placed ISO and Worldbank in references. The numbering is thrown off, not sure how to fix that. I didn't see the two "1" you refered to. Joe I 13:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, one "Note 1" refers to "The Indian rupee (₨, INR, paisa, 100) is also legal tender" and the other to "Dollarization.org URL accessed 20 June 2006." Also references should not be cited as simple external links. See {{cite web}} for format. Renata 19:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Indian rupee should be note 1, the dollarization is ref 1. I did {{cite web}}, I can't really fill in the other info. Joe I 01:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think I understand what you are saying. Would you rather have the notes be identified with letters instead of numbers? – Zntrip 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have changed the first set of notes to letters and the references are still numbers. – Zntrip 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank You, Zntrip. I couldn't stand three of the refernces being numbered and the others not, so I added :4. , and now the numbers don't align. Will this be ok, or should I revert? Joe I 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed it. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's fine now. Not perfect, but ok. Renata 12:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank You, Zntrip. I couldn't stand three of the refernces being numbered and the others not, so I added :4. , and now the numbers don't align. Will this be ok, or should I revert? Joe I 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support — I think it is a great list. – Zntrip 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - Western Sahara needs to be sorted out. It's currently listed as a de facto state, which is just about the only thing I've never heard it referred to as! It is often described as the precise opposite - a de lege state with extremely limited de facto existence. Certainly it has strong international recognition and is a member state of international organizations, including the African Union. But the government has only very limited control of any territory (only a very small portion of the territory it is generally recognized as possessing) and basically governs over a couple of (large) refugee camps in Algeria. Classifying it in the same way as Somaliland (an unrecognized de facto state) is simply incorrect. Further, if unrecognized states like Somaliland are included, where is the line being drawn? Was the choice of the unrecognized states listed basically arbitrary? Or simply that these are the world's more successful unrecognized states, and the only ones stable or effective enough to manage their own currencies? TheGrappler 01:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, since Western Sahara is on List of countries, should I just unbold it? Joe I 04:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Western Sahara is on this page because it is considered a “sovereign state”. Somaliland is on this page because it has its own currency. Both states have a de facto existence because they lack full international recognition. So I don't understand what the problem is. – Zntrip 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem either. The list is titled "List of circulating currencies." I take that to mean that the list will include all distinct currencies whether the state is recognized as independent or not. --Nebular110 19:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Very attractive list, and extremely useful to boot! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)