Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2007

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Geraldk 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Golbez 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The map is too large. Consider reducing its size. see List of counties in Maryland. CG 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{sofixit}} Tompw (talk) (review) 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other contexts that might be worthy, but in an featured candidate context IMO it's almost rude. --Golbez 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tompw (talk) (review) 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Crzycheetah 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't see any problems with it. Wizardman 15:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just as high quality as similar, already featured, lists Acdixon 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial self-nom. Did some polishing, expanded lead, added population and etymologies. Geraldk 16:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support if and when it mentions what year the census is from. (and no, no animated map from me this time like for the RI list; I've been trying to do a map of the Arizona counties for months) --Golbez 17:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Geraldk 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, support, but a link to the online copy of the census for the counties of Arizona would be useful too. --Golbez 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Geraldk 18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where did you get the "formed from" information from? I checked the references and couldn't find it.--Crzycheetah 19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was there when I started working on the list, and I must have missed it when putting the reference list together. Just added a new reference that contains the information. Geraldk 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put a note on each header explaining where the information comes from. See List of counties in Maryland for an example. Also, I'd prefer the lead to have one more paragraph about counties because your second paragraph just explains the FIPS codes, which is good, but still there needs to be one more paragraph. The list itself looks great, great job implementing the {{County7}} template. --Crzycheetah 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Geraldk 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great job! It truly exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. --Crzycheetah 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The map is too large. Consider reducing its size. see List of counties in Maryland. CG 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mostly minor fixes needed. The etymolgy column could do with some supplemntry information. For example, mention that Mount Graham is a mountain in Arizona, rather just saying the county is named after it. Birth-death dates for people with counties named after them woudl be good. Also, Coconino County is currently down as being formed from Coconino County... which isn't useful. Otherwise, this list is fine, and I will happy to support when these issues have been fixed. Tompw (talk) (review) 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix both. Let me know if you think the etymologies need more expansion. Couldn't find D.O.B. for Greenlee, which is why I only put his death date. Geraldk 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support now the above has been dealt with. 17:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, looks good to me. Wizardman 15:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just as high quality as similar, already featured, lists Acdixon 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First nominaton

This is a list of episodes for an animated television series. It is complete in content, with concise episodes summaries. All material is properly-sourced. Second nomination. Peacent 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is epguides.com a reliable source? Is there not an official site for the programme to verify the information? Tompw (talk) (review) 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, epguides.com is a good reliable source, several other featured LoEs articles use them as a reference as well. For what it's worth, I have added ref from Tvguide so that epguide is not a single source. As for the second question, there's no appropriate official site. While the USA Cartoon Network could be considered official, and it does offer a list of episodes, this website doesn't provide sufficient information, like the air dates etc, which is why I prefer not to use them as a reference. I hope that clarifies the matter. Should you have further concern, please tell me here, I'd be more than happy to answer any queries. Thank you. Peacent 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support—The {{episode list}} template should be used, as seen at List of The Unit episodes. I'll support once this has been addressed. Cliff smith 18:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment/conditional support! While {{episodelist}} is a standard template, it's not a must for every LoE article. (Please note some other featured list of episodes articles e.g 1, 2). Using the mentioned template would require reformatting this whole article, which is not really necessary since the table can show up nicely and properly (without {{episodelist}}). If you find the table format I currently use unsatisfactory, I'd understand that you might want to withdraw your support. Peacent 02:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does work without {{episode list}}, I'm of course not saying that it doesn't. However, the only reason that other featured LOEs do not use the template is because that just about all of them made FL status prior to the creation of the template—and they are simply yet to have the template implemented. Also, you'll notice that the columns at FL LOEs are formatted in a similar yet different way than here, and if {{episode list}} won't be put in here then this list should at least look like the other FLs, which is possible without the template. (It's also the current LOE guideline to follow the example of FLs.) Cliff smith 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do acknowledge this list doesn't look like some other FLs, all the same, the table can provide sufficient information to the readers in a nice and neat layout. For the record, I followed the format of List of Dad's Army episodes, which is currently a FL. Peacent 14:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's good, and yes your table provides sufficient information to the readers in a nice and neat layout, as does the template. The Dad's Army LOE is one of those LOEs that is yet to have the template, but I understand what you have stated. Cliff smith 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't support before these minor problems are fixed.

• Put first ref to standard format.
• Need an introduction sentence or a paragraph for the movie section and cite sources (if feasible).

AW 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Apple, thanks for your comment. All done. Ref is added in the lead section, you might check the page and the references at List of Teen Titans episodes#References now. Cheers, Peacent 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, all done now. AW 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Apple! Peacent 04:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are no images of any kind that could be used in the list? Geraldk 12:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, there was an image (or two) at first but than it was told to be taken off as it was not needed. As far as I can see, the list has come a long way. Trainra 09:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I support the nomination as well, the list has come a long way since the last time I saw it. To the editors of the article: Good work =) Michae2109 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. the objection has been met. Promote. --Crzycheetah 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets all the criteria for featured lists; it is essentially useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. The lead is informative and concise. The formatting is clear, easily accessible and comprehensible. The episode summaries succinctly cover all storylines and do not read like spoilers or promotions. Overall the list is in full accordance with the criteria. •97198 talk 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The episode summaries appear to be copyvios (e.g. this or this). The episode summaires must be original writing. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have re-written every episode summary from seasons one and two, and I'll do three tomorrow. •97198 talk 08:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now re-written every summary from all three (already aired) seasons. •97198 talk 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done The subject of the opposition has been seen to. Cliff smith 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are you sure you can use the Image:Desperate titlethem.jpg in this list? Because I highly doubt you can. --Crzycheetah 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think strictly it is allowed, but I'll remove it since it provides no real significance to the list. •97198 talk 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be allowed with a proper fair use rationale. More likely images to use would be season DVD covers.

• Comment Is there a particular reason not to use {{episode list}}? 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm aware of... I've just converted all four seasons to that format. •97198 talk 07:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral It's very close, But I'm iffy with a few things, especially the redlinks.
  • Is it necessary to have so many writers red-linked? While they are not the main topic, I find them very distracting, and it is most uncertain they will be filled in anytime soon.
    • Do you recommend they should simply be unlinked? •97198 talk 07:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that would be a good idea. Circeus 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about moving the content from the "list of seasons" to the top of each season's section instead?
    • How should I go about doing this (in terms of formatting)? I was thinking to add the appropriate season's section from the table above the actual episode list, keeping only the appropriate columns. But personally I'm unsure of how to make the two separate tables "stick to each other" (without ruining the entire thing), except having two separate tables in each season (being the summary & the episode list) does look a little... odd. Any suggestions? •97198 talk 07:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about just taking the text and making the release dates into a small table:

Season one began airing on October 3, 2004 and featured a total of 23 episodes and one clip show. The show opens with the mysterious suicide of housewife Mary Alice Young on a beautiful day in the suburbs, on a street called Wisteria Lane. Mary Alice, who narrates the show from the afterlife, had four friends: Bree Van De Kamp, the seemingly perfect mother of two teenagers struggling to save her marriage; Lynette Scavo, the mother of four whose husband is always away on business; Susan Mayer, the divorced mother in search of love finds love in the form of her new neighbour Mike Delfino, who has a secret of his own; and Gabrielle Solis, the materialistic ex-runway model who cheats on her husband. While trying to be good wives and mothers, the four friends also try to find out why their friend committed suicide. The discovery of a blackmail note among Mary Alice's belongings, a therapy session tape in which she admits her real name was Angela and her widowed husband's strange behaviour really make them wonder the mystery surrounding their deceased friend.

• • I think a "future/current" template is needed for season 4.
• Circeus 16:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While your suggestion of a small DVD release dates table isn't bad, the current guideline for LOEs (lists of episodes) is to follow the example of Featured List LOEs, and their Seasons sections are just like here, so it seems to be good as is. Cliff smith 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really like that idea, with the text and small DVD table, but as Cliff smith mentioned the majority of other FL episode lists have a beginning section with a list of seasons. Those lists of seasons, however, do not (that I've seen) contain extensive prose. But I haven't seen any guidelines for lists of episodes (???) unless I'm missing something! - so I'm not sure what is meant by "the current guideline is to follow the example of FL LOEs"... And the FL criteria doesn't mention anything of any help, so I think it would be okay if we just got rid of the whole "List of Seasons" section unless we were going to move only the text into the main season section and keep the DVD details up top. •97198 talk 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's at the new page for the episode coverage task force of WP:TV that says: "Until a new guideline/how-to is made, simply follow the example of other Featured lists." That's why the Seasons section should stay. Cliff smith 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay, guess I hadn't looked hard enough! But that is important as one of the criteria for FLs is to "obey" the WikiProjects it falls under. In that case, I think it would be worth moving only the prose season summary to the season section since no other FL episode lists I've seen have the episode summary within the list of seasons. •97198 talk 07:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been away a few days (absorbed in Potter) but I've just moved all the season summaries to their respective sections, but kept the other main details in the same format in the list of seasons section. •97198 talk 07:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that the prose in the List of seasons should probably be moved to the beginning of each season section. Cliff smith 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per discussion above. Sfufan2005 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per discussion above. Cliff smith 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I fixed the references section. Other than that I did not see anything wrong.--Crzycheetah 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. I am nominating this as a list in its current form. I think it is probably better to have separate sections for each year of the list rather than one contiguous list. Thus, this is an unorthodox featured list candidate, but I think a good one. It is verifiable and complete and follows all other WP:WIAFL guidelines. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Consider removing extraneous links from the "teams" and "position" columns. Circeus 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These were all recently done by someone trying to help. I have reverted them. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since my effort to fix blacklinks was reverted. They aren't "duplicate links", every table is an island unto itself. It's different when dealing with prose; I shouldn't have to hunt for a link to click. It also looks unprofessional when you have, for example in the 2005 table, only a single table linked. --Golbez 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have fixed links so that duplication is considered section by section. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as long as the additional linking I just put in place remains. --Golbez 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have posted a possible reformatting of the table on the talk page. I want to know what you think about returning to a side-by-side. It could even facilitate a continuous chart (as a completely separate consideration so that the linking problem is lessened).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply (copied from User talk page) I like the side by side one. I also like condensing the teams and positions to letters, but I'm not sure if I like it enough to do it. =p That is to say, I don't mind it, but others who are less familiar with the topic might be unhappy with it. I don't know. Lemme check something real quick... I was checking Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres to see if it does that, and it uses the full names plus abbreviations, then drops to only the abbreviations. That doesn't answer my question, though, so. I dunno. I suggest you ask the FLC about dropping to only the acronyms. But I like moving the table to side-by-side. --Golbez 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The tables of winners seem good to me as they are, but I do have an issue with two of the images. First, Johnny Damon was not a Yankee when he was voted in, and if possible a picture of him with the Red Sox should be used. Second, Nomar Garciaparra was a Dodger, not a Red Sox, when voted in and if possible a picture of him with LA should be used. This is written from a baseball fans perspective, and not a very experienced wikipedia user. Pats Sox Princess 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I chose the pictures as the best for the player regardless of affiliation. Neither player has really good contemporaneous pics. Will change for consensus depending on feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply yes I understand that finding non-copyrighted images may be difficult, thats why I went neutral and not oppose. Pats Sox Princess 16:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyIf someone echoes your opinion I will change to the other pics, but I don't like them as much. Are you aware the table formating issue raised above is something that would be implemented throughout the page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Reply I like the formatting as is right now. However, I suppose that int he future having the tables on top of each other may make the page too long. And the full team names should be used considering that Wikipedia is for all, and not just sports fans. Pats Sox Princess 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply The other featured baseball list uses abbreviations (List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame by date of induction). I presume abbreviations are O.K. even for teams. WP:ABB seems to suggest abbreviations are acceptable at times. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply feel free to use abbreviations then. Pats Sox Princess 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Reply I have changed the Nomar image, but I don't like the Damon image with all his team mates for this page. I could be convinced to change, but am not keen on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What should this page be called? Lists of All-Star Final Votes, possibly Lists of All-Star Final Votes (2002-2009) (setting up decade by decade lists). --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyThe term baseball or MLB should likely be in the title. Pats Sox Princess 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contest is named the "X All-Star Final Vote" where X is a sponsors name and not the "X Major League Baseball All-Star Final Vote". There are multiple All-Star games so MLB is needed in the name of the game, but not the contest. If it is unambiguous the league is not necessary. E.g., Pro Bowl does not have National Football League in front of it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBased on two veteran votes (plus my own) for side-by-side abbreviated (including one from the article talk page) and one newbie vote against. I am converting to the abbreviated side-by-side.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shouldn't "notes" be called "references" Buc 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I don't think so, but if I am misinterpretting Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions let me know. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I saw the other Damon image, and basically it sucks. No other problems with the page. Pats Sox Princess 20:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great list. Geraldk 13:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great list. I agree the "Notes" section has no notes and only contains references so should be called "References". If it has both, you would call it "Notes and references" but most people like to split these. In the "Team success summary", why are none of the teams linked? The first sentence of "All-Star selection" is missing a "(" and the "for decades" is imprecise. The MOS recommends you be accurate rather than hand-wavy. Can you find a date? The "with guidance by the baseball commissioner’s office" clause should probably be inside commas. I assume the bright yellow is meant to be gold? It is a bit in-your-face. Could you make the yellow/brown a little most pastel? Finally, check out WP:MOSNUM for guidelines on spelling out numbers and ordinals (e.g. 1 and 2nd). Colin°^Talk 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WRT, notes vs references, I provided the link above. Here is the applicable quote: "Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). I am using footnotes, so the proper title is notes as I understand it. I will be traveling tomorrow so I may not get all of your changes made until Friday. I will try to get to as many as I can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish the MOS was clearer. The part in parenthesis indicates only that these are explanatory footnotes (which are often, these days, done with letters and the old ref/note system). Colin°^Talk 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a color palette from another page. Which of these do you like best? If you don't like any they are just a few of the possibilities.
      • WRT MOS, I believe a player search page is a reference and an actual player page is a footnote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added some more. How about 14? Colin°^Talk 08:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought you wanted both colors changed? If not which do you want changed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I thought the yellow was too bold/bright. That's the worst of the two. I'd have chosen a slightly lighter brown, but it isn't too bad. It is a personal choice. You decided. Colin°^Talk 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed the shade of yellow.

• • I have followed all of your suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom after a couple weeks of work by myself and Marylandstater. I was hoping to be able to have an images column as in the Governors list, but the list as it currently stands has all of the public domain images wikipedia has on current Maryland delegates. The are 10 or so other delegates with inappropriate fair use images, and I didn't use those. Geraldk 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Needs a decent lead (WP:WIAFL 2a). Thins you could mention include:
  • There are districts which contain one, two or three members? Why the variance? Why the multi-member districts at all? (Which is unusual for state leglislative bodies)
  • The image mentions districts/sub-districts - what's the difference?
  • Is this the lower house or upper house? (Assuming a bicameral leglislature... or is the unicameral one?)
  • When was the last/next election? Are memebrs subject to term limits?

  Tompw (talk) (review) 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead with information form the source already listed in the references section. Let me know what you think. Geraldk 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is much imporved, well done! However, I must still oppose due the excessive numbers of redlinks (27 out of 141, around one fifth). If the number of redlinks was less than ten, then I would re-consider. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're down to 9 redlinks as of today. We should have 0 in the next two or three days. Geraldk 11:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down to five now. Support Tompw (talk) (review) 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down to two. Marylandstater 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - can I suggest a rename? For example, "List of Presidents of the United States", "List of Governors of Alabama", etc., all list *all* of the presidents, *all* of the governors. On the other hand, we have Current members of the United States Congress. So perhaps this article should be renamed Current members of the Maryland House of Delegates? --Golbez 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Will move. Geraldk 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'd also like to see articles for everyone mentioned; having blacklinks is almost as bad as having redlinks. Even if they're stubs. --Golbez 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • MarylandStater and I are both adding more articles, and I've redlinked everything for now to facilitate that. Should take a few days. Geraldk 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeMostly per Golbez' concerns. Also, I'd like the "nomination" note to specify that they were reelected after their nomination. Maybe the Canadian parliaments numbering system can be used there too? The current list is List of House members of the 39th Parliament of Canada. 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd like to take Golbez's idea for now, if only because numbering it implies that there will be lists for every session of the House of Delegates, which may be a bit much since for a while they had one-year terms. Geraldk 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support new name and good faith that the redlinks will be resolved. --Golbez 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a little concern about your move. You should have used the move button to keep previous history versions of the article instead of deleting content of the old one and creating new page. That will hinder further correction if other editors want to restore some pieces from the earlier versions.AW 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed the history. And ... criminy, the table is HTML, not wikitax. I'll ... I'll go fix it. :( --Golbez 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --Golbez 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. Still pretty new at this. Geraldk 01:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Assuming it can be kept up to date ;-) Circeus 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that. A state senator just resigned, and two different delegates are leading candidates for his seat. We'll just have to keep on it. :) Geraldk 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think the article is nicely done and has information in a format that meets FL requirements. --Kalyan 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The color scheme is useful but on the grayscale the {{Party shading/Democratic}} and {{Party shading/Republican}} templates used are nearly identical. [1] If printed in black and white or seen without color, the effect is lost. --maclean 07:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a strong enough reason to oppose. The table has a column indicating Democrat/Republican, so the information is still available when printed or seen without colour. When I print it, all background shading is lost anyway, so I don't see how changing the colour shades will help. Colin°^Talk 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the shading of the {{Party shading/Democratic}} slightly so you can tell them apart now (slightly). I saw that printing removed the background color (I didn't know that). Isn't it helpful when people address their own concerns. --maclean 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd like to see the districts sort numerically and the names sort (surname, forename), which I believe can be done using a template trick. Colin°^Talk 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much a template trick, as using a div to hide the sortable text. I'm crazy enough that I think I'll go through and do that now. --Golbez 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. :) --Golbez 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Great. Colin°^Talk 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who commented.

The format for this list was based on featured List of sister cities in Maryland.

Checking against Wikipedia:Featured list criteria:

1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.

• (a) the table is "Useful".
• (b) "Comprehensive": list all the Sister Cities relationships - active, dormant and cancelled.
• (c) "Factually accurate" The list is checked against the official list by Sister Cities International and complemented by the State of Florida lists and media articles. The lists contain only relationships that have been filed with them and remove cancelled partnerships. The goal here was to create a more comprehensive list with former and current relationships. The meta:cite format is used.
• (d) (e) (f) "Uncontroversial", "Stable", "Well-constructed": I hope so :-). The table will change once more partnerships are announced.

2. It complies with the standards:

• (a) the lead summarizes the list scope.
• (b) besides the lead, there is a little explanation on how the list was constructed.
• (c) There are two tables in the article. One for the entire State of Florida and other for cities and counties. Although this makes a long list, splitting it would work against the sortable feature.

3. Images: I added some illustrations showing cities on the list.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank for the peer review that some editors made.

--Legionarius 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; I just changed the reflist to a 2-column format, but with over 150 references (grand job on the referencing, by the way), maybe three columns should be used, since that's done with the similar number of refs on 9/11 (around 140) and United States (around 200). --Golbez 19:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Now that the quotes have been shortened, I think 3 columns can be used. Your take? --Legionarius 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's something wrong with ref #18. I can't figure it out. --Crzycheetah 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a wrong replace that I made before. Now it is "ref#7".--Legionarius 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you go over all of your refs? Some of the .pdf references are missing the format part, and a couple of them didn't open (I fixed them, but there may be more). I support anyway, but I would feel safe if the refs were formatted properly. :) --Crzycheetah 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some search replace screw-ups, plus some stuff that escaped my eye the first 27 reviews. I hope all are fine now. Thanks!--Legionarius 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; well done. Geraldk 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good work. 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompw (talk • contribs)
• Support. I bail for a few weeks, and come back to find a fancy box in which to place "opinion"? -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Feel free to not fill it, it was something I added in my noms (I was filling it by hand) and GeraldK like the idea and implemented it for other noms as well.--Legionarius 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 6 support, 0 oppose, and 2 Neutrals. Promote. --Crzycheetah 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a medical timeline, of which the only previous featured example is Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. Tuberous sclerosis is a rare genetic disease, first identified towards the end of the nineteenth century. This timeline includes all the key events in its history, with references to the classic medical papers associated with these events. The medical terms are, I'm afraid, somewhat long and obscure. I've introduced them in context so you should get a rough idea of what XYZ is without having to know exactly what it is. Following the wikilink or reading the tuberous sclerosis article should fill in the details, if curious. It is comprehensive in that it covers all the notable events listed in several "History of" chapters and papers; it only includes events that other researchers have indicated as notable (see the talk page for details). It has had a peer review. Colin°^Talk 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Neutral. Circeus 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, almost all of these items also needs to be in the present tense, not the past.
  • I'm iffy with promoting this and having 3 timelines (peptic ulcer, chemistry, and this) with completely different formats. If there is willingness to give this a format closer to that of Chemistry, I'll convert H. pilori myself. I have to say the Chemistry format is not perfect either, though, for longer items... Maybe the definition list format?

• Also, I'd like to see the header image given a caption that better ties it to the topic.

• Circeus 17:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We've got loads of timelines (H. pylori, chemistry, Apple Macintosh models, Narnian, discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites, Canadian elections, first orbital launches by nationality). They are all wonderfully different. I'm not aware of any Timeline StyleGuide on WP. Your suggestions for improvements (e.g. definition list format) are welcome and I'll look at it so see if it looks good. But I disagree with opposing over having different formats. I wouldn't recommend you go converting H. pilori without chatting to the editor(s) first.
• I see that the chemistry timeline is present tense. To be honest, it sounds forced to my ears and necessarily lapses to past tense at times. I'll probably ask around to see what others think about this. Are you aware of any guidelines (on or off WP) that suggest timelines must be present tense?
• I agree with the header caption. I'll try to come up with something. Colin°^Talk 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But chemistry, H. pylori, Narnia, and this one share the exact same information to present for each entry: a date, and an event, while the other present significantly different information, which makes the necessity of their format generally obvious (though you could argue that Apple Macintosh models is not that different). And actually, all three of chemistry, Narnia and H.pilori are in the present. The H.pilori is way too contrived for the information that needs presentation IMHO. The table can definitely go. Circeus 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, a date and an event is the essence of all timelines. Sometimes the event is just a word (e.g. the name of the disease that got a vaccine); often a soundbite ("Diana dies in a car crash"; "Hitler invades Poland"); with this list I've had to be a bit more descriptive. None of these events are well known enough to reduce to a soundbite. Often, it is interesting/essential to put the event into context or annotate it from a modern perspective. The Chemistry timeline doesn't manage to keep to the present tense consistently—it is very hard to do (e.g. "1754: Joseph Black isolates carbon dioxide, which he called "fixed air""). Take the following (rather medically-complex) entry:

1918 French physician René Lutembacher published the first report of cystic lung disease in a patient with TSC. The 36-year-old woman died from bilateral pneumothoraces. Lutembacher believed the cysts and nodules to be metastases from a renal fibrosarcoma. This complication, which only affects women, is now known as lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM).

Can you make that consistently present-tense? Is it improved? The last sentence may need to move to either parenthesis or a footnote, since it is a comment from the "future". The style I've used is that you should be able to read each entry as "In 1918, ....". The tense may change throughout the paragraph, but only in away that follows a natural writing style. The soundbite-timeline-present-tense style is unnatural IMO. You can get away with it for soundbites but not for paragraphs.

I've changed the format to the definition list style you suggested. It is certainly less condensed. You should realise that you started by asking for consistency among the timelines, and then proposed a different format of your own. I'm all for experimenting here, but I'm also keen to support WP's lack of rigid "house style". All these timelines are different in the detail for each entry, in the number of pictures, in the obscurity of the facts, etc. Provided a list/timeline is professionally presentable and easy to read, we should celebrate diversity.

I've fixed the caption. The jury is still out on the tense issue IMO. I'm more interested in producing a readable and consistent article, than conforming to one idea of how a timeline should work. I ask you to just view this as a list of events in time and be flexible. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the fact the events of this list tend to be so long is a good reason not to use bullet points. I really like the definition list format because it accomodates it well. I'll have a go at converting H.ilori in my userspace. Circeus 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would strongly suggest keeping this in the past tense. Describing events that have occurred in the past in the present tense just appears ungrammatical to me. I looked at the chemistry list and this uses a mix of past and present tense in adjacent entries - very confusing. Tim Vickers 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks okay to me. Because the dates are not included in the sentences, if they were, the past would be required. It's a contextual element. I agree that present doesn'twork for normal prose, and that events placed in relation to others in the timeline have to use the past, but the present looks just right to me otherwise for the main statements... Oh, and I made a conversion of H.pilori here. In addition to the bare conversion, other stuff was tweaked, especially in regard to the references and images. I also added 2 missing periods. What are your thoughts? Circeus 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't convinced me, nor have you suggested how to rewrite the 1918 example. I can't change the "main statements" to present-tense and leave the other bits as they are. That would mean I'd start each entry with an historically-based present tense sentence and then jump into a TARDIS midway to give an 21c perspective. Can we just agree that this is a difference of opinion on style, for which there is no consensus one way or another? I've addressed your other points; could you please reconsider your oppose? Colin°^Talk 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is, I'm the only one who has commented on this so far, so I'll wait before adding further comments. Circeus 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not that keen on the current H.pylori table so I think your reformat is an improvement in some ways. The pictures are perhaps a little large and less well linked to the entries (you've had to drop some too). The biggest problem is the original bullet-points within each year have been lost and we've now just got short stubby paragraphs. That doesn't look great and needs to be addressed IMO. However, you shouldn't be discussing that list with me in this FLC. You need to involve the other editors and move this discussion over to the H.pylori talk page instead. Colin°^Talk 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Restarting discussion there. Circeus 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to agree with Tim and Colin on the tense issue - past tense is usually more appropriate when describing a timeline of events. While consistency is a Good Thing, this isn't writ in stone: some of the mixed tense in Timeline of chemistry actually works (while other examples are a little jarring—rather like this parenthetical statement). I'll review the list more completely this evening. -- MarcoTolo 14:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Interesting, informative and well-written. I like the past tense, but why does it lurch into the present tense in 2002? Keep it all past, even 2006. It will age better. MOS is about to encourage numerals in favour of spelt out ordinals, if I have my way. "18th century", not "Eighteenth century". But it's up to you. Tony 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that. I've noticed a few places where the tense was a little inconsistent, but was reluctant to go through with a fine-tooth comb while there was the possibility of a major tense shift. I'll fix these tonight. Wrt 18th century, I don't mind changing that. Colin°^Talk 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy off-wiki and am now too tired to fix these few lapses tonight. Will look again tomorrow. Colin°^Talk 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've gone through and think I've found any remaining tense issues. If you spot any more, let me know. Colin°^Talk 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'm still iffy over the tense thing, but otherwise, I can't really see any other reason to oppose. Circeus 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've gone over the list once more and have no reasonable objections; I was unsure on the relevance of one entry, but that has been addressed by Colin. Congratulations—a fine piece of work in my very humble opinion :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no significant concerns. An excellent timeline on a curiously relevant disorder - nice work as usual, Colin. -- MarcoTolo 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very informative and well researched, clearly fulfills the FLC guidelines. I have no real opinion on the matter of tense. I have seen timelines presented both ways, except for a few minor instances both seem to work.--DO11.10 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is a well-referenced, well-organized article. Congrat! NCurse _work 09:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless the timeline is that of a reliable, verifyable third party it constitutes WP:OR. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why isn't there at least one more discovery that could arguably be included in the timeline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you ask two reasonable questions: Is it OR and is it comprehensive? The first I have anticipated and dealt with both in the final sentence of this nomination and also in the first section of the linked-to talk page. If this timeline had been constructed by me scanning a medical library or PubMed for papers and choosing those discoveries I believed were notable, then it would be OR. It is not. This timeline is soundly based on four timelines that are from reliable, verifiable third parties. Three of these are in my References section and also discussed on the talk page. The fourth is a timeline in MR Gómez's monograph on TSC, which while slightly different from the one in his 1995 paper, isn't that different to the one appearing in Curatolo's 2003 textbook (it adds nothing new). Both books are regarded as the authoritative textbooks on the condition, with Gómez widely considered to be the father of modern TSC research. Those timelines appear in "History of" chapters and papers, which flesh out the details a little. I have supplemented these with events listed in a few other "History of" papers. I hope this addresses your OR concern.

The other concern is whether this is comprehensive. Unlike, for example a Timeline of Apple Macintosh models, this timeline involves a degree of judgement (and I've left that judgement to others). Sure, someone might come along and argue for the addition of another discovery. Provided they can find a source that backs up their claim that it is a truly notable discovery, then it could go in. In that sense, it is a dynamic list. It is not as dynamic as some lists (such as the people lists) and not as static as others (we can be fairly sure we've captured all the Candadian elections to date). The fact that this is based on other published timelines shows that it is much more likely to be comprehensive than if I'd plucked a mention here and a note there from 50 different papers. It does not "omit any major component of the subject", which is what 1b requires. Colin°^Talk 08:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am a little concerned that you had to combine four lists. Why not 3 or 5? What makes the combination of these 4 the official list. On the other hand, they are third party lists. Still a little hesitant because I am not convinced another scientist would agree these are the proper 4 sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little like saying "I don't accept your article because it is based on a review in The Lancet. Why didn't you base it on the review in the BMJ." Both are excellent sources. Using one source might cause a subtle variation compared to another source. That's natural and allowed. There just aren't 10 different contradictory timelines out there. This is a rare disease. I reckon most timelines are based on Gómez's, and that probably first appeared in the 1979 1st edition of his book. Every author since then adds and subtracts a few events according to their judgement, but mainly to cover new discoveries. By combining timelines, I ensure the list is comprehensive and yet also reinforce the entries since most of them are repeated. I'm not saying this list contains the only definitive set of events; that would be impossible. There are certainly no major events missing; all my sources agree on this. Colin°^Talk 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My neutrality is not a statement against your list. I am just averse to supporting lists that are not capable of being described as the only list. That is just my philosophy on FLCs. You can see on this page I remained in opposition of some such lists. Neutral is pretty good from me for such a list. I prefer lists such that judgment is not necessary to determine whether the list was complete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The referencing work is just beautiful, and for a topic that must introduce complex terminology, the prose is very digestible; yet another example of Colin's fine attention to detail and organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative effort between myself and User:Golbez. Fully referenced and contains much useful information. Acdixon 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  1. I don't think it's necessary to split up the notes. It's kind of confusing to see two different number 2 notes in the lead, then there is a third ^[2] note in the main list.
  2. You already have a link to Governor of Kentucky in the lead, so just get rid of the See also section.
  3. The "Kentucky was part of Virginia until 1792; see List of Governors of Virginia for this period." sentence can be moved to the lead and the Earlier governors section can be deleted.
  4. The Living former governors section needs expanding (add dates of birth) and mention an exact date(i.e. Living former governors as of July, 2007)

That's all for now.--Crzycheetah 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all except for the splitting of the notes; it seems very ugly to not only have the footnotes for that one table way at the end of the article, but to have references mixed in with footnotes. This is a shortcoming of the wiki software. I'll try changing the numbers at the top. --Golbez 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put in all the suggestions and re'numbered' the references to be letters instead. And in the meantime, I'll work on coding a patch for cite.php to allow for two classes of references. :P --Golbez 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nicely done. I'd suggest to create stub article for the red links since some people hate to see red links on a featured content. --Crzycheetah 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a note to explain why there was no Lieutenant Governor after John Caldwell? --Crzycheetah 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Died in office. Perhaps minor notes to that regard should be added, but I think that information is more apt in a "List of Lieutenant Governors of Kentucky" article. --Golbez 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you have notes for all "none"'s except that one, so I think it needs to be added for consistency.--Crzycheetah 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done; and in the meantime, I cleared out four lieutenant governors that I'm not convinced were actually lieutenant governors. Oy. --Golbez 08:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the list of living governors really need a date? I browsed around some other similar lists (living presidents, length of vice presidential terms, etc) and found no date disclaimer. --Golbez 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually my suggestion in case one day when one dies and no contributor remembers to take that name off this list, Wikipedia won't look too stupid. --Crzycheetah 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it looks very encyclopedic myself, and I'm counting on members of WikiProject Kentucky (myself included) to update the list when such a major event occurs. That said, if consensus is to keep it, I'm not gonna bark. Acdixon 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you guys are giving exact dates, all I wanted was " as of July, 2007" and not something like "as of today's date". Please, read WP:AO for further info about this stuff.--Crzycheetah 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the "as of" policy. As such, I'm definitely fine with it either way. Acdixon 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support though since I was one of the two who worked heavily on it I dunno if that's entirely kosher :) --Golbez 11:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, an extremely solid list that provides value you couldn't get from anywhere else. --Agamemnon2 11:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Needs images per criterion 3. Also add some text in the "living governors" section. Otherwise looks pretty good to me. Circeus 16:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has images. What text do you propose? --Golbez 20:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did it myself. I'd like to see the images in the table, but if the result ends up looking like the Alabama table, I can see the issue.support Circeus 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great work. The list is excellent. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Geraldk 21:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now: Apart from the first few symbols - others lack references. Till the time references are added, i don't think this article meets FL criteria --Kalyan 06:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maryland Manual Online, which is the reference listed as number 1 and placed at the title of the table, is the reference for all the information on the table. The references next to a number of the early entries are simply explanatory notes. Geraldk 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Geraldk notes, There is a master reference covering the entire list. Maybe switching it to a not-note and leaving the content notes might be better...

Good to go on this point. However Neutral till the 5 redlinks in the page are addressed. Add atleast a stub level article. --Kalyan 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, except I dropped the links on the last two because I don't think they meet the notability guidelines as I understand them. Geraldk 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • I'd like to see all the symbols linked, if not blue-linked.
  • I see no need to bold the symbol column
  • I think the Latin names should be put in parenthesis
  • If you move the master reference into a non-note "references" section, rm the "Maryland symbols" table header.
  • Consider removing the dividing headers to make the table sortable (I think having the possibility to order them by year adopted is a good enough plus).
• Circeus 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Without the subsectioning, dropped the background color scheme too since it no longer made sense. Geraldk 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few tweaks and will now support. Only 53 states to go! Circeus 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Neutral My main concern is poor referencing. There are no references for the intro paragraph and the notes appear to be referenced but the website given does back up everything stated (i.e "the flag had been used since colonial times.") You show 26 items in the list but only 21 items are given in the one reference provided. Other concerns:

MoS says that the intro paragraph does not need separate referencing unless there are specific quotes contained therein. It should be a summary of information referenced in the body of the article. All of the statements in the lead are either specifically addressed in the Maryland Manual source or are just restatements of what's obvious from a glance at the table (e.g. most of the symbols were designated in the last few decades). And the Maryland Manual source does address 24 of 26 symbols: two are listed under 'sport', two under 'theater', the motto is described under 'seal'. The colors were simply derived from the flag, and are visually obvious to the extent that I hadn't thought they would need a reference, but they are not official and nothing in the source states that they are unofficially Maryland colors, so I've removed them. The remaining symbol, the nicknames, now has its own separate reference in the references section in addition to the notes section, which is where the reference existed before. Geraldk 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of inline citations in the lead is still being debated at the MoS. An ideal FA (note, not FL) would have a lead that is a pure summary of the extensive text that follows. With an FL, this is seldom true. While the lead may summarise some of the facts presented in the list, it often also serves as an introduction to the subject. In addition, some of that summarising requires an interpretation of the data that may go beyond what we as editors are allowed to do. I mention this purely because some of the MoS is written or discussed by editors who think about FACs more than FLCs. It is not a specific comment on this list, which I haven't looked at yet. Colin°^Talk 10:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not super familiar with the MoS for lists, but I can find nothing in that website about anythig "not being formally adopted". Not mentioning anying about formal adoption, is not the same thing as saying something was not formally adopted. Personally I think that However, two of the more famous symbols of Maryland, the state motto and the state nicknames, were never made official by the state government. is completely orginal research. The source neither say they are more famous than other sybols, nor that they are unofficial. In any event you took out the worst of the unreferened bits so I will not oppose.--BirgitteSB 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point now. But I'm not sure it's original research. Every other entry on the MSA site specifies when the symbol was officialy adopted, and it just makes sense that the nickname and seal were not separately adopted, because their is no such description. I just think it's hard to prove a negative. Geraldk 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is original research doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong or doesn't make sense. Original research has just as much chance of being right as it does being wrong. It just isn't allowed. This source doesn't prove that negative, some other source might. Unfortunately we are slaves to our sources.--BirgitteSB 17:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Criteria 1c: I have problem with the factual accuracy of some of the images. Image:Tortie-flame.jpg is not a calico according to the image page. I am uncertain that Image:Horse-racing-4.jpg shows Thoroughbred horses. It is a horse race in Munich and doesn't state the breed. Image:Jousting renfair.jpg does not show ring jousting, which is actually a sport, but rather a sort of theatre.

Switched out calico, dropped the other two pictures. Geraldk 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Criteria 3 All the images lack "alt" text, also Image:Maryland state seal.png has no source. --BirgitteSB 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "alt" text. If you're referring to captioning, my understanding from looking through existing featured lists is that when used to demonstrate something in a list, no captioning is necessary. I think the problem on the seal picture is solved. Geraldk 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"alt" text is what I did on the thoroughbred picture (mouse over the pic). It is for people who don't load pictures or use screen readers and is list as a requirement at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria--BirgitteSB 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Never knew how to do that. I've done it for all of the pictures. Geraldk 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've made some edits to the list wrt footnotes, layout and sections. Let me know if you hate any of them :-). I preferred the grouping that was present prior to making the table sortable, though I've reintroduced it using sections to allow TOC navigation. Sorting by year is IMO unlikely to be particularly enlightening. Much better to make the list directly accessible by grouping and sectioning. I made the images a bit larger and centred the image/year but removed the overall centring since that doesn't appear to be a common style on WP. Birgitte has a point about the OR wrt lack of formal adoptions. I'd also prefer if the lead was a bit longer. Perhaps you could write something about state symbols in general (sourced, of course). Could you think of how to comment on the lack of date, without explicitly stating "there is no date"? How about if the footnote said "The Maryland State Archives give no date of adoption for this symbol." If you can expand the lead in other ways, you might be able to drop the contentious aspect. For example, can you find out some history behind the choices; why were certain things chosen as state symbols? Colin°^Talk 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless this list stops growing it is almost by definition incomplete. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why hasn't the state declared an official turtle symbol since the state is identified with terrapins.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think you've got the wrong idea of what 1b is about. We have lots of featured lists that aren't finite sets, forever cast in stone. This list, as its main references, uses a government list of official state symbols of Maryland. The reference is comprehensive and detailed. (here's another that backs it up). There is no reason to believe the (very reliable) references is incomplete so why should this list be incomplete or not-comprehensive. And you're example of the terrapin gives me reason to believe you haven't really studied the list or its reference. The State Reptile is the terrapin. It is in the list. Colin°^Talk 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportI wholeheartedly support a list derived from an official list of the government.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nothing wrong with this list. --Crzycheetah 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Tompw (talk) (review) 17:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wait for my FAC and my FPoC to get noticed, I figured, "why not a featured list candidate too?" I've tried to stay consistent with the other featured discographies. Let me know what you guys think. Teemu08 05:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose
  • I really don't think the whole 3-way split between "official material", "miscellaneous" and "Videography" is needed.
    • Fixed Teemu08
  • Might as well add a small Chart listing for the singles.
    • Fixed Teemu08
  • "by Wilco or any related bands." doesn't make any as the list doesn't seem to include material by "related bands" in the first place.
    • Fixed Teemu08
  • Either don't put links at all for A Ghost Is Born Bonus EP and Sky Blue Sky EP or create articles for them. (I'd personally favor the latter option.)
    • Fixed Teemu08
  • As far as I can see, only Jeff Tweedy discography is pertinent to this particular article. The rest of "See also" is either not linked to the discography itself, or mentioned in the lead.
    • Fixed Teemu08 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Circeus 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might go through our 3 featured dicog at some point and removed the duplicating A-side links, but it's certainly not something to oppose for. Can't seem to find anything more to nitpick over,but then it's past midnight. Tentative support. Circeus 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-oppose
    • The New Zealand ref still links to Sophie Ellix-Bextor results.
    • Consider switching the Sweden, Norway And Belgium charts for more relevant countries (e.g. Australia, Ireland, Germany, France).At least include one extra English-language country.
  • Circeus 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Fixed, and switched Sweden to Australia and Belgium to Ireland. Teemu08 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should replace the "Year" column with a "Date" column and drop the "Release date: ...", to make the tables more compact. I also think we should split the "Sales and certifications" column into two columns. The "Collaborations" sections could be converted to use a "Chart positions" section as well, for consistency with "Albums". (I already removed the explicit width on one of the tables, because the widths were very screen size dependent.) Anyone object to these changes? --PEJL 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that the years and dates are inconsistent. Perhaps the years intend to refer to the recording date. Both (if they are to be separate) should refer to the release IMO. --PEJL 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed one date that I mistakenly forgot to fix, but where else do you see it? Teemu08 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A.M. --PEJL 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently I need to get my eyes checked. Fixed. Teemu08 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about replacing the "Year" column with a date column? Besides making the table smaller, it will also simplify the table, as it removes some redundancy (and ambiguity, in that a reader might think the years and dates refer to different things). I just did this, and also moved the formats into their own column. The result is a table that is about 20% wider, but less than half as tall. --PEJL 09:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support. All my concerns have been addressed. Circeus 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Tompw (talk) (review) 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. (excluding the nominator) Promote. --Crzycheetah 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who commented.

(The reasoning is the same I used for Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture)

This list has been redone, adding missing years and nominees. I plan to do the same to all Golden Globe Awards lists; Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama just got promoted to FL Status.

Checking against Wikipedia:Featured list criteria:

1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.

• (a) the table is "Useful".
• (b) "Comprehensive": list all the available winners and nominees.
• (c) "Factually accurate" The list is checked against the official list. Missing nominees are referenced; the meta:cite format is used.
• (d) (e) (f) "Uncontroversial", "Stable", "Well-constructed": I hope so :-). The table will change once a year.

2. It complies with the standards:

• (a) the lead summarizes the list scope; there is not much to add.
• (b) besides the lead, I do not think anything else is necessary.
• (c) The table of contents is split in decades.

3. Images: The only picture I added is of the award itself. Adding pictures of movies would have to be necessarily fair use, and would clutter the long list.

--Legionarius 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think there's any need for the references to be small. It's not an overly long list, and it makes it harder to read. Same goes for the Best Director nomination as well. Geraldk 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.  Done--Legionarius 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose See below under "best director". Circeus 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support See below Circeus 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Legionarius 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now. Geraldk 14:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crzycheetah (talk • contribs)
• Support Underneath-it-All 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is closely modelled on the Featured List List of counties in Kentucky. It is useful (pulls together information not otherwise available in one place), comprehensive (includes all current counties), factually accurate (with references), stable (assumeing Rhode Island doesn't change the county cboundires for the first time in 250+ years), uncontroversial (no disputes)and well-constructed (clearly laid out); the lead explains the historical context, and the headings and TOC are appropriate; and images are all the quick-loading SVG versions. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: well done. 45 states to go. Geraldk 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Miwanya 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm not sure this is quite long enough for FL. I wouldn't oppose it in a Featured Topic, but for a FL status of it's own, I have second thoughts. Circeus 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • can't you just pick out a single map for the lead?? Circeus 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had the same concerns at first too, but the criteria don't have a specific minimum number of entries, and I felt like there was enough information here to justify it being presented in list format. 5 is probably my minimum, though. Geraldk 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We certainly can and do reject lists because of too little material. Tom should know. He was the one who nominated the twice-failed List of Nunavut general elections (although that one is admittedly even shorter in material). Circeus 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand. But in the absence of specific guidance from the criteria, it ends up simply being a subjective judgment call. I'd love to see more objective criteria on this point, but I'm not sure how one would word that - number of entries? independent pieces of information? Geraldk 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don,t think we can expect any Featured Content criteria (cf. the lengthy guidelines about FA criterion 1(a)) to be completely objective, which is why we have those complicated "notability guidelines" and Consensus is the default decision-making process. Circeus 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I added a map to it, lemme know if it 'works' with the article. --Golbez 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice animation. What is the purpose of sorting "Etymology" and "Origin"? Why does reference 6 call "West Kingston" the 'administrative city' of Washington County? --maclean 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the sorttable class allows you to pick which columns are sortable. All or nothing. --Golbez 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 9 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list started as a dense section at the end of the poliomyelitis article, sourced only to a geocities web page. In keeping with WP:MEDMOS, this list was split off and reliably sourced and expanded by me, DO11.10 and MarcoTolo. I believe this now meets all the criteria for a featured list. At 183 notable individuals, this is the most comprehensive list of polio survivors to be found. Colin°^Talk 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think the list is great. I just wanted to add one more detail with respect to voting on the FLC. According to FL criteria, it states "in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." and thus this list is qualified for the same. Just an observation - the reference list is long. I am not for sprucing it down but for adding a structure to reduce the page space it occupies. I shall implement a solution shortly and if anyone has any objections to it, please feel free to remove it. --Kalyan 06:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for trying to help with the references. Unfortunately, the solution (scrollbox references) seems to be very controversial at the moment. It doesn't allow the references to be printed, and there are concerns wrt browsers adapted for disabled readers and the ability of mirror-sites to reproduce them. Until WP comes up with a solution to this (probably user-preference-based) I think it is best to avoid. Thanks anyway. Colin°^Talk 08:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: extremely comprehensive, excellent referencing (to the point of obsession, in fact). Geraldk 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The images could reasonably go to reduce the article's visual length, especially on sizes below 1024. Circeus 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I would like a reference for the sentence "Others remember the fear and isolation" in the lead. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a ref that I think backs it up nicely. Colin°^Talk 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I didn't even think of it as a list when I first stumbled across it, it's so lush with text and references. Major thumbs up. -- Zanimum 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: Judith E. Heumann... is there a better public domain picture? Like, the picture is great, but it's so small. Is it possible to find a larger version of this image, perhaps without the name embedded in? If so, or if not, could you download, resave, and reupload the image as a JPG or PNG? GIFs should be avoided. (I can help with that part, if you don't like/have photo editing software.) -- Zanimum 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A great list on an unusual topic. DSachan 08:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great job! --Crzycheetah 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this is a fine piece of work and most certainly meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. --Stormie 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 23:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up working on the article awhile ago when I couldn't find any sales figures for her second album. I've searched since then but haven't turned up any, so I'm convinced that had any reliable sources published them, I would have found it by now and I may as well bring the article here. The United World Chart does indicate that it has sold at least 2 million copies, but the reference won't be useful once the album leaves the chart, so I haven't included it. If the reviewers disagree, I wouldn't object to adding it. ShadowHalo 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that with all the time I spent searching articles, I missed the fact that Media Traffic has an archive of its charts. The 2 million sales figure is in there now and sourced to a permanent version of the chart. ShadowHalo 00:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Have you considered using a Wayback Machine link, if any?
  • As it's a discography of stuff she did, these two tribute albums clearly do not belong. If you want them linked, do it in a "See also" section.
• Circeus 00:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wayback Machine hasn't archived the page since March, before the album reached 2 million. I've renamed "Tribute albums" to "See also" and simplified it to a bulleted list. ShadowHalo 00:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There are pages archeived after March. There is a page for May 24 which clearly shows that The Sweet Escape has sales of 2 million+ User:Luxurious.gaurav

• Comment I don't know the guidelines on discographies, but shouldn't there be a list of songs which those two albums contain? I mean the track listings. For the misc. songs, shouldn't the table contain the producers' names and the length of the songs, like, in this article? --Crzycheetah 02:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The large majority of the discographies I've seen don't include any of those things since WP:MUSTARD recommends using summary style. Entire track listings seem excessive, and song lengths don't really add to one's understanding of the discography and releases since a song's length has little obvious impact. I'd say that the producer probably isn't a necessary thing to include either, not nearly as important as the performer, though if other disagree, it wouldn't be hard to find. ShadowHalo 03:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  When I am reading the Gwen Stefani discography, I want to know what songs she sang and how many songs she had. That's what discography means to me. Since this list lacks several songs of Stefani, I oppose on the basis of it failing 1(b) ("Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set). It definitely does not include every member of a set. --Crzycheetah 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A discography is not a list of songs. The discography article defines it as a "study and listing of sound recordings", Wiktionary as a "collection of the releases of a musical act", and Webster as a "list of recordings". The article does include every member of the set since the set is of all of the releases, not of all of the songs. To be considered one of Wikipedia's best works, the article must conform to WP:MUSTARD, the standards of WPP:MUSIC, which clearly states that the article should be in summary style. ShadowHalo 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Having the list of songs does not break WP:SUMMARY. It will still be in summary style.
  2. I have another concern, I read above that you worked very hard to find a source for the sales figure for "The Sweet Escape" album, but this link does not show that it sold 2 million copies. It just shows the "79.000" figure which looks like a weekly increase, but not a total. And then there is a red triangle next to the name, which I assume may be a symbol of 2 million for that site. If so, then you need to point that out in the references for other readers.--Crzycheetah 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I assumed that the archive included that note about the triangle. You're right that it doesn't, so I've added a note to the citation linking to the note at the current version of the page. You and I obviously disagree on how WP:SUMMARY applies to discographies. Would you be willing to take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and go by whatever consensus emerges there since it's an issue that applies to more issues than just this article? ShadowHalo 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for adding that note. No, I am not going to go and start a discussion there. I am not as sure as I was before about this issue. I believe some time in future that rule (listing all songs) is going to come, though. I am going to abstain, for now. I really think that it can be more useful and more comprehensive than that, but I don't have any more suggestions. --Crzycheetah 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I found one suggestion that you may like it. What if the {{hidden}} template is used to show/hide the contents of the albums? It's an attempt to show the contents of the album without actually going to the album's page and come back to this one.--Crzycheetah 17:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Any attempt to introduce track listings in such articles is entirely inappropriate and verges on indiscriminate information. The Beatles discography is ridiculously long and thoroughly hard to read; An attempt to turn Red Hot Chili Peppers discography or Celine Dion discography (which is so long it was split in two) into a similar format would make the page simply unusable. If you insist on something similar, what you want is a List of Gwen Stephani songs (or tracks), not a discography. Most importantly, it (totally unnecessarily, at that.) duplicates information. Circeus 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because they produce too many songs should not harm their disco pages. If it's too long to read, just split it, rather than not to list some info.--Crzycheetah 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  [outdent] It works for me. The information is by default hidden, so it doesn't mess up the layout of the page much since there are only two albums, unlike The Beatles discography, which is simply unreadable. 17Drew 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for adding the track listings. I support.--Crzycheetah 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • I think it should include the Video clips, if the Goldfrapp and Sophie Ellix-Bextor discographies are anything to go by.
  • Unreleased song should be dated: "as of July 2007 [...]"
  • It's not a Video, it's A DVD. A note indicating its scope would probably be a good idea.
• Circeus 05:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added the music videos. I didn't include the mvdbase reference since the director should be referenced to the video itself (when broadcast, the director is included in a caption at the beginning and end of the video). I also only included the videos where she's the main artist; I can add her three guest appearances if you think it'd be a good idea. I've added the note too. "Video" seems like a more appropriate title since a DVD is just a format. For example, the singles are identified as singles and not by their formats (gramophone, CD, digital, etc.), so video releases should probably use the same standard. I'm not sure what you mean by scope; are you referring to what the video contains (e.g. "Contains a live performance of Stefani in Anaheim, California on the Harajuku Lovers Tour")? ShadowHalo 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was suggesting "DVD" because, to me, "Video" actually implies "VHS," and because both other featured/candidate discographies used it. And actually, some headers, such as "A-side" DO specify the format.

  The music videos sound fine to me. I don't think it made sense to include videos of songs that are not otherwise included in the discography.

  As for the note, that would be quite fine. Circeus 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uneasy Support. I'm not sure how appropriate is is arguing over the wording of a header. Circeus 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-oppose I've been over neglectful in reviewing this.
    • Chart positions need reliable sourcing. All of them.
    • Links should point to the precise chart article, if it exists, not country article.
  • Circeus 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the chart positions are already well-sourced. The reference for each song is easily identifiable in the References section since inline citations are not required and would look distracting, especially in a table of numbers. I've corrected the link targets. ShadowHalo 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • *is an idiot* I need to better look at stuff >.< support Circeus 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -It is a real good list article. Never saw any other list article which is so well sourced and maintained. List article are often taken for granted and never maintained. User: Luxurious.gaurav
• Support This list should serve as model for discographies on Wikipedia. Tompw (talk) (review) 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely disagree. Track listing on all Discographies? That's way overdoing it. Circeus 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The track listings are in a show/hide box, which I think is the best way of doing it. Anyway, 17Drew's right - this is beside the point. Tompw (talk) (review) 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I do not believe there is any good reason to encourage the inclusion of any sort of track listing in these articles. Circeus 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, this really isn't the place to decide whether or not track listings should be included. That's a discussion that applies to way more than just this discography, so I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Track listings in discographies. 17Drew 01:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is the Maximum Gwen Stefani album not listed? link --Crzycheetah 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Maximum Gwen Stefani isn't an official release. It's more in the category of a tribute album. If I remember correctly, it's a biography of her. On a similar note, I should mention that the See also section will probably be removed once the AfD on the two tribute albums is closed. 17Drew 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood, thanks. --Crzycheetah 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Tompw (talk) (review) 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Promote. Tompw (talk) (review) 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list fulfills the criteria as well as being consistant with the four other featured lists covering different areas. Self nomination as I have done most of the recent changes. Thanks Suicidalhamster 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Maintains the high standard. Good work. Colin°^Talk 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Data well presented and references provided (as PDF files) for all sites. --Kalyan 06:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Pretty straightforward indeed. I'd recommend linking the master list under a "See also" section, though. that's the usual way to do it. Circeus 04:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 11:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complete listing of all municipalities in British Columbia, by population, area, date of incorporation, and regional district. --maclean 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list has a great deal of wihitespace (effectively wasted, longer scrolling):

• I realize there's been a great deal of work into superimposing the maps, but they seem of little use
• Table width at 100% just stretches the table on large displays, could do without
• A comment might be added as to the higher concentration of incorporated settlements in the Lower Mainland and the Kootenays.

This are just suggestions, not requisite for FL status. --Qyd 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned the maps don't add that much extra whitespace. No worse than, say, List of counties in Texas. Circeus 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is formatted based on that Texas one...didn't even bother to change the colours. I understand your first two points, though, and am testing options. On your third point a map has been added showing regional districts (census divisions) by population density (by census subdivisions would be preferable). --maclean 06:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I really can't find anything to bitch about. Circeus 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another excellent Canadian list. The layout looks fine to me. It even sorts correctly :-) Colin°^Talk 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Well written and the only point i have is with regards to the lat-long data presented in the last column. wouldn't it be a range of lat/long than a singular point? or does the singular point represent the HQ of the municipality? --Kalyan 06:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the larger district municipalities it would be their seat, for towns, villages, cities, a single point is customary. Where I added coors to community pages, they were centered on the town hall (or such). --Qyd 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent work. Tompw (talk) (review) 23:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. As stated at WP:FLC, the original nom ination counts as a support vote. Promote. Juhachi 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of Kylie Minogue's concert tours since 1989. I'm nominating it because I feel that it is well referenced, written and organized. -- Underneath-it-All 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good. Just what a FL should be. I've got a few points. Consider using a spaced ndash rather than an unspaced hypen for your date ranges. See WP:DASH. The Kraftwerk comment on KylieFever is sourced to IMDB. This generally isn't considered a reliable source and I couldn't actually find any text to support it. The external link to Kylie.com isn't specific enough to this list to be suitable (the references already link to the tour-specific stuff). It features on the main Kylie page, which is where it belongs. Colin°^Talk 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have added your suggestions to the article. -- Underneath-it-All 17:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support: there is quite a lot of coverage in the article. However, i think there are a few niggles:
  • i think the format of the data used wrt dates of tour is very confusing. for example - "The Hitman Roadshow/Disco in Dreams - UK tour October 1989" is not part of the article "The Hitman Roadshow/Disco in Dreams".
  • One additional data point that would help is the number of concerts per Tour. --Kalyan 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the number of performances per tour to the list. -- Underneath-it-All 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • I'm really not sure that "notable concert" is necessary.
  • Year links have to go.
  • Can we get rid of these annoying "Notes:" bits? The notes themselves are okay, but I think the bold text is unnecessary...
  • The flags are not enough, integrate a list of countries for the entries (though that might require reworking the format significantly).
• Circeus 03:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notable concerts and have just left the dates that the tours were between. Full tour dates and where they took place can be found on each tour's own article. -- Underneath-it-All 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Countries toured is a crucial information. I added some formatting to help visually separate the entries. Circeus 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the dates with the countries/or continents in brackets. -- Underneath-it-All 01:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me now. Support Circeus 02:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Buc 09:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list is now comprehensive enough to make it a credible candidate for featured status. This is its first nomination. It is also a self nomination. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • There shouldn't be 4 sections for different criteria (normal, population, size, heigth). Tables are supposed to be used *specifically* for that!
  • "Bridged islands" is verging on the irrelevant ("List of bridges from Scottish Islands" is the real topic there), and it's 5 sub-headers make the section take too much place in the Table of Content.
• Circeus 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow your first point. Are you saying the tables should not be in separate sections? This is easy to fix, but the first list in particular is very long and it would make navigation problematical. The List of London Underground stations has 26 alphabeticised sections. List of molecules in interstellar space has several short tables in one section, but different tables in separate sections. List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type has tables in four separate sections. These are all featured lists.

Re the second point, 'Bridged Islands' is actually a rather an important section and the focus is on listing the islands connected, not the bridges themselves. The Churchill Barriers are one of the more notable features of island life and there is minor controversy as to whether bridged islands should actually be considered to be islands (see footnote 1). However, these sections are very short, and I have removed the sub-sections. Hopefully that helps. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this list, contrary to the ones you link, lists items multiple times, which, when you can do something like this (an example mockup with the first 4 items), is totally unnecessary. I have nothing against "tidal" or "former islands" (thought I think the main list needs renaming to "Sea islands" because of "Freshwater islands," but I'm getting sidetracked), however, relisting the elements multiple times for the sole purpose of changing the order is unnecessary. Circeus 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I understand the general idea and indeed there is a sortable table for 'Inhabited Islands' but the sorting only works with one field (population). The same is true for the new table you kindly provided above, which sorts alphabetically, but not otherwise. Furthermore, as mentioned on the Talk page, I began a new table similar to the one you suggest (its still here [[2]] but abandoned it for the reasons specified i.e. the very large number of islands (perhaps 790 in all) would mean that there would have to be a first list of all islands larger than an arbitrary number (say 100 acres) followed by a second list of smaller islands because for most of the smaller ones there would be no population and no area measurement available. Height would be available, but it would involve an enormous amount of original research checking maps. Thus, you end up with two lists anyway, which would make it harder for anyone looking for a name without knowing how large the island was, and (unless the sortable function can work in a more intelligent way than I am aware of), you couldn't sort by population and area and height etc. anyway. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the Mediawiki page 'Help:Sorting' and it certainly indicates that multiple sorting is possible, although its not clear to me how this is created yet. Nonetheless, this approach would still require two separate tables to make sense and a huge amount of additional information, and there are further complications (a few inhabited islands are very small for example.) Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have misunderstood something, or have a browser problem. If I take a look at List of United States cities by population I can toggle the list up or down by rank by clicking in any of the table column headings, but I can't create an alphabetical list by city name or state. Without this feature a large list of islands simply wouldn't work as you couldn't rank them by more than one category. Any assistance gratefully received. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really strange, you should be able to sort with any column (And I have no problem obtaining alphabetical sortings for List of United States cities by population), at least as there are no multi-row or multi-column cells. What browser are you using? Circeus 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safari & OSX. I have downloaded Firefox and, hey presto! - it works. I wonder how many other users have the same problem though. I will track a few down and ask.

Re the freshwater islands issue, they are numerous but few are 'notable' in that they have their own article and none would make it into the first one or two hundred islands in terms of size or height. Its only population where there are a few that would be on an 'fresh plus salt' list. Nonetheless the existing nomenclature is ambiguous and I will add 'offshore' in a couple of places to clarify this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, re the main list, clearly it is possible to have 'multi-toggling', but there are still problems with this approach, principally I suppose because it is a list of natural features, which so inconveniently fail to correspond to our human desire for neat categorisations (which is one of the reasons I am drawn to it). It would be quite possible to amend the main list to include (say) the first 100 islands in terms of size with the addition of height and population, but this would certainly exclude some inhabited islands - perhaps they could be included at the end and the list would be of 'larger and inhabited islands', followed by a long list of 'smaller islands' per the existing list. I will look into this and find out how many islands not in the first 100 are either populated or amongst the higher ones. This would make 2 (non-overlapping) lists instead of the existing four. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything against "Freshwater island" as is. It just seemed obvious that it would require the renaming of the first section as "sea islands" (because otherwise, you have one section that is "list of islands" and one "freshwater islands" which is a bit confusing).

As for the main list, I was thinking that the base order would still be alphabetical, and only when relevant would elevation and area be mentioned. I don't even expect it to be possible that all of them will be traceable. Circeus 14:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the 'freshwater' issue is now fixed. Re the main list I understand what you are suggesting, although my concern is that re-creating the data in this way will create objections to FA status that the main list has blanks for 30% or more of the fields. I realise that you can only offer a singular opinion, but are you saying that you could support the list if re-drawn in this fashion? Are you aware of any similar featured lists? Thanks for continuing to engage with this issue. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with setting a threshold for size or height, as long as that is indicated somewhere (likely in a note for the header cell). For similar situations, see List of United States cities by population (inclusion threshold is set at 100,000) or the singles table in Goldfrapp discography. List of volcanoes in Indonesia also has "unknown" in a number of place for last eruption. Circeus 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A highly informative article with a lot of information. And I don't have Circeus' problem with listing the islands multiple times under different criteria. Lurker 17:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To continue the above dialogue with Circeus, the choices appear to be:

1. A list which attempts to have a main list which is as inclusive as possible with subsidiary lists showing the main criteria individually (per the current list) or,
2. A list which limits the inclusivity to islands meeting certain thresholds. That is not this list, and if it were, there would need to be a second article so that notable islands not meeting these criteria could be listed, or
3. An article with a main list of larger/inhabited islands with sortable criteria and a secondary list of smaller islands without, or
4. A large list of all islands sortable by all criteria.

The first is the current list, and obviously I am happy with it. The second makes no sense to me. Islands are not like cities, for which by and large bigger = more notable. Staffa is one of the more famous isles, but it is tiny. The fourth strikes me as being logically credible, but likely to result in lots of empty boxes (for about 120 islands on the existing lists no data is easily available for area or height and they are no longer populated). The third is possible and to me an option, but I'd need to know there was a genuine purpose in undertaking the significant effort involved. I realise the FL criteria cannot be expected to cover every contingency, but I can't see any obvious guidelines or references that require this approach. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - informative and comprehensive; you've put in some great work on this category. But I do agree with Circeus about the presentation of multiple lists which could probably be nicely combined. Perhaps we could do a quick mock-up to see whether it would work? If it does, then I'll support, and if we try it and it doesn't, then I'll support the current list.

As a minor point, it would also be good to have articles for a few more of the red links - at least the inhabited islands. Warofdreams talk 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments - its not by any means just my work btw. There is a draft mock-up of A-F for no 3 (above) here [3]. The remaining islands that would either be in the second list in option 3, or in the same list but with blank entries for the numerical fields can be found in the A-F section here User:Ben MacDui/Sandbox2. As you can see, 40 plus per cent of the islands are in the latter category.

Re the red links, you are quite right of course. There were still two inhabited offshore islands in this state. I have created Eilean Shona. Flodaigh/Flodda is a bit tricky as although the Census figures list it as a separate island it is one of these beastly charming but hard to define tidal islets by Benbecula and as there are several 'Flodda/Flodday' type names with variant spellings it may be difficult to create a properly researched article in short order. If I can't make any substantial progress I'll just create a stub.

I've drawn up a sample table at User:Warofdreams/Scottish Islands. How does it look to you? I've included all the islands currently listed up to Boreray, although there are a few with no current article which do not seem to meet any current criteria (which appear to broadly be area > 40ha, population > 0 or notable prominence). The islands too small for Haswell-Smith I've marked as "< 40"; the heights I've taken from the Ordnance Survey maps (which admittedly are not guaranteed to mark the highest point on the island, but generally do, so a note could explain this). Warofdreams talk 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much what I had in mind when I suggested the merge. Circeus 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. The table itself makes sense to me and the logic is a modified 3. I imagine the smaller islands with no articles and very little data over and above their name still need to be listed. Perhaps this is a separate page per List of fresh water islands? I will get onto this asap but I have along standing engagement to meet a friend for a couple of days (The Old Man of Hoy), who lacks broadband. I should have it done by the weekend. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don,t think 2 different pages are needed. Just make sure the two parts of the main list are labelled as "freshwater" and "sea" Islands. rather than sea islands not being identified formally. Circeus 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists with offshore islands only will be identified. However the two lists are not 'sea' and 'fresh', but 'large' and 'small' offshore - plus inhabited freshwater water. This structure, which is now in draft form here allows the 'inhabited' and 'area' lists to vanish, but I would intend to keep the list of highest islands as this contains additional information about the name of the peak which won't comfortably fit on the main list. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

\me likes, and I'll happily support that. Circeus 18:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with these changes. There are a small number of blank fields where the height data will have to be extracted from Ordnance Survey maps, which I will get tomorrow and an untidy footnote about South Walls that may need some further thought. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well written, comprehensive, factually accurate (there can be few better sources than Haswell-Smith) and neutral. Even better if table combination is possible, although I have my suspicions that "not available" may spoil that. Thanks for the work you have put in. Finavon 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The new layout looks great! I just have two small naggle before I support: make all the images next to the main table the same size (the larger ones overlap with in in my browser), and remove extra links from the "smaller island" list. Circeus 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. Re the former I have reduced the size of the images to 200px. For the latter I have removed a duplicate in the smaller list. There may be one or two I have missed here. I will double check that later today and treble check the list is complete (re Warofdreams'comment below). Thank-you both for your patience. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - new table is working well. Are you confident we now have all the islands over 40ha? I found a few more yesterday. I'm aware that you have added many more since; have you now checked as exhaustively as possible? I've also done a touch of tidying, and raised a query on the talk page. The article is now one of Wikipedia's most reliably sourced and well presented lists. Warofdreams talk 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 12:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ninth and final active WWE championship history to go for FL status, the list is fully sourced and modelled after all of the other title history FLs, which in turn are modelled after List of WWE Champions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could we get a picture of somebody with the belt like all the other WWE champion lists? DrWarpMind 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no free ones that I could find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found one now and put it in the article. -- Oakster  Talk  12:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: same outstanding quality as the others DrWarpMind 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, a great list. --MarcK 05:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: looks good. -- Underneath-it-All 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: it's up to snuff with the other WWE title lists that are Featured Lists. Good work MPJ-DK 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The first "see also" isn't required as it is mentioned in the lead. Colin°^Talk 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Davnel03 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 12:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is new, although it is based on a list that was formerly part of the Maryland article. Even though it's new, though, the subject matter is very stable. Geraldk 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moerzheim may be a mistake - neither English nor German Wikipedia finds such a city, spelled oe, o or ö. Rmhermen 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing. I found a newspaper article that lists it as Morzheim, but that doesn't show up either. Not sure what the deal is, but Frederick seems to think it's one of their sister cities so... Geraldk 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google asks if you mean Pforzheim, but that's not in the right state, according to this list. Could that be a mistake? Tuf-Kat 08:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's some google presence for "Morzheim, Germany", including this little tidbit: an interracial dating site, which specifies that it is for Morzheim in the correct state. Tuf-Kat 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose over various style issues
  • Reduce overlinking.
  • use a proper table caption
  • no categories??
  • The format for "accessdate" in cite web is YYYY-MM-DD.
• I'll be happy to support if these are fixed,though Circeus 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cut down on overlinking on the Maryland cities side. If more need to be done, let me know.

 Done Changed table caption based on my understanding of MOS, but I'm pretty new to lists, so please inform if not correct interpretation

 Done Added categories

 Done Changed accessdates - Geraldk 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made various edits to the table (it's tricky to get good-looking list tables...). Just remove the extra links in the country columns, and replace "Holland" with Netherlands, and I'll support. Circeus 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught them all now. Geraldk 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yay! Support. Circeus 05:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you please add the years when exactly the cities(or regions) signed the agreements. I think this list is not as comprehensive at the moment as it could be.--Crzycheetah 09:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my original intention, but it seems that the information is only there for some jurisdictions (largely because there are greater or lesser levels of formality to a lot of the sister city relationships, with some being run by small volunteer committees). So I was worried about a. not having the information for every entry and b. it being original research. But if you think it's essential, let me know, and I'll drop in what I can find. Geraldk 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think it is essential to have the years. It helps the residents of those cities find out how strong of a relationship their cities have with each other (the longer it is, the stronger). I'd suggest just add the years you find, don't worry about not having the information for every entry as long as you add more than half of them. I noticed in your references, they have the years, so I don't think it will affect WP:OR.
P.S. In the Annapolis article, Tallinn is listed under sister-cities section. Could you check that out, please?--Crzycheetah 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did my best, and added Tallinn. I think a lot of the Estonian twinnings are very recent, but can't find much about them. Geraldk 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added a couple of years myself, too. I'll be looking for them. After reading this page, I assume that all Estonian twinnings started in 1993. I am not positive, though.--Crzycheetah 04:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Crzycheetah 05:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think that is essential, when having a years column, that all the entries have the year the ties began and a reference. From WP:WIAFL, it most certainly fails the comprehensiveness requirment. Surely if there are partnerships between these cities, then there most certainly should be some kind of record of when it started. Perhaps try contacting the city themselves, or city employees that could direct you to finding this information. I would venture to say that all the applicable information would be found in city meeting minutes, you just have to find out where. Pepsidrinka 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that fall under the category of original research? Or am I not understanding what original research refers to? Geraldk 20:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research refers to taking primary sources and basing statements solely from that. Like taking a verse from the Bible and saying it means such and such, as opposed to taking the opinion of a scholar who says the Bible verse means such and such. For this list, you need any kind of valid source to verify that partnership did in fact occur in that year. Surely the ones that don't have years started at some time. If they aren't sister cities, then they shouldn't be on the list. If they are, then they started at some point in time, and then therefore should have a year. Pepsidrinka 20:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a couple days. Geraldk 22:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of them are done now. Geraldk 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. I feel that most of the article is up to featured status, there are minor things, in my opinion, need to be improved. The images Image:Rotterdamochtendmist.jpg, have depreciated public domain tags - also Image:Paide.jpg. They are also lacking a source. I have notified the uploaders and added the appropriate tags to the iamge pages. They should probably be removed until the information is corrected.

Perhaps consider improving the lead, as it doesn't talk about sister cities in Maryland, rather just a general what sister cities are. The only Maryland-specific sentence is that is done through Sister Cities International. Also, the table should probably be sortable so readers can easily sort the years, and/or, countries. And a minor thing, IMO, the flags column would like nicer if they were centered. Pepsidrinka 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switched out the images. Expanded the lead. Tried to fix the flag column by pulling out the Wallonia flag, which was out of place anyway since no other country had a sub-national flag, but the sorting arrow kept the column wide. Only problem with making the table sortable is that the sub-headings screw up the sorting, so I've split the table in two. If people prefer it as one table, let me know. Geraldk 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pepsidrinka 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 12:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I tried to (re)create the list based on FL principles. --Legionarius 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • I'm not sure if the table format is absolutely necessary, but if you insist on it, the header for each years are totally necessary, a format like this (which I've seen somewhere, but can't locate.) is by far preferable.
  • The list is not comprehensive; it lacks too many nominees. If there were none (or none were disclosed), it should be noted appropriately.
  • Category:Film awards is redundant with both the Golden Globes and Best Picture awards categories.
  • Your "producer" note reads "When there is more than one director [...]"
  • Remove the "Main article" at the top and use a proper wikilink in the lead sentence. Main article is used for sub-articles of the current article, not the other way around.
• Circeus 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Please see my actions below.

• 1. great suggestion. Changed it already. I removed the gray difference because it wasn't working, specially in the 1940s. The original format came from another feature list, that's why I chose it.
• 2. That's true; I am looking for a WP:Rs citation that they were never nominated (or that the nominations weren't released)
• 3. removed. I had kept the ones that were before.
• 4. fixed.
• 5. fixed.

Please let me know what else I have to do to "pass". --Legionarius 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the awarded movie should be outlined as in the original. Until the holes are filled, my oppose stands. I'll keep an eye on the nom page. Maybe you could try for paper refs, though? As nice as web references are, sometimes you really need to get books to find what you need. Circeus 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I trusted the original page too much, and missed some inconsistencies. Now those are corrected and the data is referenced (the data was "hidden" in the GG site). I brought back the gray outline. Do I need to ref every single award or just the top ref is good enough?--Legionarius 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]