Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2010

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legend continues, we're now up to F in our long struggle to get every governor list featured (notwithstanding misfits like Wisconsin and Utah, but I prefer to go in order!), and with each iteration, things change. Taken from the recent Utah FLC are: Moving the constitutional information on succession down to the state (needed more prose down there anyway) and added more information on the territory to the introduction. New in this version of the template: Prose in the "other high offices" section! It always seemed a bit sparse. I have one question for our voters: Should the "other high offices" table include the years they served those other offices? I've always omitted them, because 1) If you really wanted to know, you'd click their article, 2) Some people serve non-contiguous stints in congress, and 3) It would heavily clutter up the table with, in my opinion, negligible gain. What do you think? That asked and said, I present this list for your consideration. --Golbez (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent read. A commment tho. Sandman888 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Most sources state Walker was a Democrat; the state archives say he was "Conservative"" Be ware of OR in the claim of "most". Also include said sources.
  • Every source I've found says he was a Democrat, I could include the NGA reference as an example. The only one that says otherwise is the official state archives, but those being the official archives, I felt they merited some form of inclusion (and I'll throw in a specific reference to that). They likely mean "Conservative Democrat", but they don't say. Do you have another way of wording this? --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All issues resolved. Parutakupiu (talk)

• Comment If you would like to move the list to "Governor of Florida", feel free to do it now. I'll take care of the rest of the paperwork. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, considering that it currently lacks much information you'd expect to find on such a page (eligibility requirements, powers, etc.) it makes more sense to keep it here. I doubt it's of featured quality for a main article at present. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So to clarify, you do intend to create a "Governor of Florida" article at some point. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or add stuff to this one to fit the requirements thereof, but I'd rather not race to shoehorn that in just to match the demands of the name. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) and Golbez (talk)

Currently, congressional delegations from Indiana is the only FL congressional delegation list. I've tried to use Indiana and sort of the same format as the recently FL list Governors of Utah Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. by statewide popular vote is repeated three times (in the lead, and two times in the first section). Can you reduce repetition? Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Representative Leatherwood Died while in office Why is 'Died' capitalized here? It looks like part of the name. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both quibbles are fixed Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do not see any serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Just had my minor tidbit that was cleared up, thanks. Everything looks good. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image appears to contravene WP:ACCESS as unless you can tell the difference between red and blue, you can't work out which portion of Utah is which. And the caption needs some work, because it isn't an image of the delegation, it's a map split into three...
  • Updated the caption. Not sure what to do about the colors. I could remove red and blue and just leave the outline with the numbers???? Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still fails ACCESS because you're using just colour to differentiate between Democrat and Republican. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found a better image that doesn't use colours. Bgwhite (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after nearly 3 years, I believe this list is back up to standards. There is an archived peer review here for reference. Any comments and criticism are welcome. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's no dabs in the article but has two dead links. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed one dead link and the other seems to be a temporary thing where the site in question has problems accessing news articles. We'll see if it persists. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I'm going to go ahead and add my support now. Nice work on addressing my concerns, and I'm confident that you'll be able to address Jonathan's as well. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I'm now supporting the nomination. Nice work! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot, to both of you for your helpful comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

• "Its first game premiered in Japan in 1987, and Final Fantasy games have subsequently been localized for markets in North America, Europe and Australia, on nearly every video game console since the Nintendo Entertainment System, including MSX2, Super Nintendo, PlayStation, WonderSwan (Color), PlayStation 2, IBM PC, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo GameCube, Nintendo DS, Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, and PlayStation 3 game systems, as well as several models of mobile phones." -- 1) No need to link the continents 2)I feel that you should probably cut this list down by saying something along the lines of "since the NES, including other first, second, third, and fourth generation consoles"
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref #112, is a dead link.
  • Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "...and games for mobile phones." - you already stated that earlier
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I know the series is basically about video games but this is a list of the entire media, why focus solely the lead on the games? I feel you should expand upon the other media instead of just giving them one sentence in the lead. That is not summarizing.
  • I rewrote the lead to address this. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the games list, what verifies some of the console releases? I see some that say "released on Playstation" with no references.
  • Those are the original console releases. I figured they would be implicit because for most video game articles I see, you don't need a ref for the original console. I can add one if you insist. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just listing the film/television doesn't tell the reader much, their should be some introduction to that table. As well as to the radio drama and novels. Simply because they dont have main articles doesn't mean they can't have some sort of introduction.
  • I added short introductory paragraphs. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• References

• What makes RPGamer, RPGFan, TV.com, MusicBrainz, Fleuve Noir, and finalfantasy-xiii.net. all reliable sources of information?
  • RPGamer is reliable per WP:VG/S, RPGFan is reliable per comments in here, as discussed in resolved comments from Nomader above. TV.com is part of CNET, a reliable publisher. MusicBrainz is a semi-open wiki style database, but all changes are subject to strict editorial review. Fleuve Noir link was dead, replaced with Amazon. As discussed above in Nomader's resolved comments, ff-xiii.net is not necessarily reliable per se, but the news articles cite primary sources (in Japanese) and they were the only place I could find that covered the info I needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is inconsistency with linking publishers, either link all the publishers that have links, or don't link them at all. Prime example would be the inconsistency with "GameSpot"
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Publishers need to be the same throughout, Amazon is the publisher, not Amazon.co.uk (thats just the location difference, but Amazon is still the publisher). Square Enix is the publisher throughout, the location again is not important. If you must state it, place it as "Square Enix (Japan)"
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some refs don't have the language template, such as the Yahoo! Japan reference. (Btw, Yahoo is the publisher not Yahoo Japan)
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In a lot of the references, the formatting is a problem because you use brackets in the titles, when instead you should use parenthesis, prime examples are refs#112 and 69 (although there are a lot more)
  • Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall a good list, but some issues are there. For now I must Oppose until these are fixed.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just checking, do you have a support or oppose opinion now that your comments have been resolved? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as a director I rarely support lists in which I have no real knowledge (as I may need to close them), so I simply review them for basic flaws. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, well then, thanks for your helpful comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I've been watching this as you built it up before/during this FLC, and I'm really impressed with how it's shaped up. --PresN 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (Note- I wrote/FL'd the video games sublist)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [9].

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tigers list nom is effectively done (5 supports, concerns are all dealt with promptly) and 3,000 hits is rolling along nicely so figured I'd write this baby up finally. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—a dab link to Texas Rangers; no dead external links. Ucucha 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. That damn dab will be the death of me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the fix. Ucucha 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks good to me, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: It's hard to pass up a list that contains some of my favorite former players (Murray, Thomas, and Griffey Jr.). As long as everything else checks out, the article looks and reads well. My only concern is the "Closest active players" section, as well as any other active players on the list. Is this being updated daily? Or are they being updated only at the end of the season? It might be important to note this somewhere on the page. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's noted under the key, "Statistics as of July 22, 2010". Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... completely missed it. But there is one other thing I noticed. The "See also" section links to 2 other lists that are currently up for deletion and so far looked doomed to go. In fact, the lists don't contain anything new compared to this one. Given the template {{Baseball records}} at the bottom, I'm not sure if the section is needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for saying that, I'll delete them now. Another user added them upon creating those two lists, but I didn't want to delete without someone mentioning since I had voted at the AFD. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Comments: Overall quite good, but:[reply]

• In the lead, you mention twice that the 500 home run club is becoming less important; that should ideally be condensed to one mention.

• I disagree. First it's a general statement about the Hall of Fame which merely mentions in passing. Then it discusses Hall of Fame stuff. Then goes into detail on the weakening of the club. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I agree; you still have almost the same phrase twice in near proximity. But I suppose it's a matter of preferences, so I'm moving to support. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If Sheffield's 500th home run was his first at the New York Mets, where did he get the others? If at another team, why isn't that team mentioned in the list?

• Because, as the key says, the Team column is only for "The batter's team for his 500th home run". Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, I should read more closely. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I copy-edited the lead, and spot-checks of the statistics against the sources revealed no discrepancies. The list meets the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Great list! I am not a baseball fan by any means, but I found this list interesting, informative, and well-written. Well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "Gary Sheffield is the most recent to hit 500 home runs, having done so on April 17, 2009." Well, he didn't hit them all on that day. Maybe "to hit his 500th home run" would work better?
• In the table, the team name link for Mel Ott doesn't go to an article about the New York Giants. Instead, it goes to a page on some football team. Who would be interested in that? :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (I used "reach 500 home runs"). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I changed Ref to Ref(s) because some had multiple entries)

• Not at all keen on the Closest active players section. Makes the list inherently unstable, and, after all, these guys aren't members of the club yet. Plus "within 100" seems a little arbitrary to me.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That was the addition of another editor. I removed it originally, but he noted that List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples is featured with such a section, so I didn't want to edit war over that. I'd say that section doesn't leave it any more unstable than the active players in the list, or any list with active players (like my .400 OBPer list, eg). As for the 100, it is somewhat arbitrary, but it serves the purpose of being both a nice round number and giving you a limited group of players. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, understood. Not keen still, not objecting, but don't think it fits in. Plenty of FLs with similarly stated inclusion criteria don't have a "bubbling under" section. Odd to see one here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• More than happy to remove (or you can yourself). I have no strong connection to it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the chapels and other places of worship currently preserved by the Historic Chapels Trust. The text has been copyedited and the format is identical to that of other FLs, for example List of new churches by John Douglas. Every chapel in the list has an associated article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments / queries from me before I support (as I'm bound to do, given the excellence of this list)

• No dab links, but Historic Chapels Trust is a circular redirect to this page - delink it, perhaps, or (better yet) why not move this list back to that name? Realistically there's nothing more to be said about the Trust than you already have done in the lead.

• In my previous nominations for FL, it has been insisted that the title should be "List of ...". After a long discussion it was agreed that lists starting "List of listed buildings in ..." was a nonsense, and it was decided that these lists (only) should be an exception. Hence this title, which I have decided to keep. I have deleted all the circular redirects, and left "Historic Chapels Trust" as a redirect to this page. This means that people searching for "Historic Chapels Trust" will be sent directly to this list.

• ELs all fine
• You use British Listed Buildings as a reference on a few occasions; can you use the English Heritage pages (which are the source of the BLB site) instead for those? E.g. this for the Westgate Primitive Methodists. It seems a shame to use a site with advertising copying from the official site's records.

• I've been used to working with Images of England. The trouble is that this site is now out of date and is not being updated. EH now have a link to Listed Buildings Online, which should be up to date, but I have found very difficult to search and negotiate. So I tried British Listed Buildings which I found to be more friendly, and gave more information, including GRs and coordinates. There were two instances in this list where I had used BLB; both gave more detail than IoE and in each case the building had been upgraded from II to II*. Anyway I've now found them on LBO and changed the references to these. Must practice more with LBO!

• I've removed a second {{reflist}} from the article, which I assume had crept in by accident...

• Thanks, it was as you say an error.

• On my display (IE8), some of the photos (St George's German Lutheran Church, Todmorden Unitarian Church, Umberslade Baptist Church) have an extra line alongside them. I can't see anything in the code that's causing this, but it seems to be the upright ones at 70px

• I think this is a browser problem; similar things have happened with the formatting of other lists. I use Firefox and there is no problem.

• Is "The Buildings of England: Lancashire: Liverpool and the South-West" (2006) still attributed to Pevsner even though he died in 1983? Or should there be a prior year/edition indicated, as with the other Pevsners?

• The current version gives credit to both authors (Pollard and Pevsner). It seems that all the Buildings of England series are being updated and expanded; this volume is one that has been updated. It is a big expansion, still containing some Pevsner text, but more is now Pollard. Cheshire has not been updated yet. So IMO it is appropriate to include the "origyear" field in the Cheshire ref, but not in the Liverpool+ one. (And I think the previous South Lancashire book has been split into Liverpool+ and Manchester+, so there's really no continuity.)

• Your Parliamentary ref (ref 2) says "(published 2006)" whereas your other refs just say "(2006)". I assume this is a product of {{citation}} but don't know which parameter should be tweaked to avoid the inconsistency.

• Fixed.

That's all I can think of for now; well done. Bencherlite^Talk 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt and helpful comments. I've replied to all that need a reply. Are you happy with this?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support yes I am. I knew that Images of England was an archived project, but hadn't had to look for a modern replacement (I'm sticking to Welsh churches at the moment!) so I'll remember the LBO if I need it. Once again, a fantastic piece of work by one of Wikipedia's most dedicated creators of high-quality articles and lists on English architecture. Bencherlite^Talk 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to go "the whole hog" and have changed all the refs from Images of England to Listed Buildings Online; there is a greater chance that this will be kept up to date in the future.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the list name, I agree that it's a little bit odd. I think the rule of thumb is that if the list is effectively a split from a parent article, then it starts "List of...", but if it effectively doubles as parent article and list, then it doesn't. So (e.g.) List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford is a split from Jesus College, Oxford, List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas is a split from John Douglas and List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque is a split from Albuquerque, but Bodley's Librarian, BBC Young Musician of the Year and Master of the Rolls aren't splits from anything. Lists of listed buildings don't start with "list of..." to avoid the repetition, which is a clear sub-rule of whatever the main rule is, but anomalous. Discographies and filmographies are splits from a main article about the artist/group, but use a posh word instead of "list of ..."(!) Looking at the wikitext of WP:FL (to see which ones are called "list of", hidden in the main display), I see a few oddities and I won't try and pretend I understand the convention for TV episodes or series, but that's how I look at it. So, I do think that this should be moved back to Heritage Chapels Trust (I fail) Historic Chapels Trust, as it's not a split from a main article since there's nothing more to say about the HCT than you have already. However, I'm not going to oppose on that basis. Bencherlite^Talk 20:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's say... Governor of Alabama. The corresponding list article would have two options: "Governors of Alabama", or "List of Governors of Alabama". The former is too similar to the main article and so should be discarded. The latter works, but as you said, we probably should only use that format when there is actually a parent article. Unless there is enough information on the trust itself to outgrow the list (or rather, until such time as the list outgrows information on the trust), the article should probably be at Historic Chapels Trust. That said, either way, "Historic Chapels Trust" needs to be bolded in the article lede. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is typical for lists to start with "list of..."; I remember a while ago Dabomb went around a lot of list articles moving them to "list of etc" (a couple of examples [11] [12]) as it's the established convention. I'm not especially fussed one way or the other. Having "list of" at the start makes it explicit, but in the examples I've given the original title would have worked just as well in my opinion as the lead provides a summary of the topic. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing: When there's no 'parent article', do you need to be explicit? Why does it matter if it's a list or not? There's only one area on Wikipedia where such a distinction is made, and it's the featured content process. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the name goes, I agree that Historic Chapels Trust is the correct title for this list, as this is the main article regarding the Trust and not a spin-off article about a specific aspect of the trust. More generally, there are some cases where the "List of" could be considered unnecessary or even clunky (as with the aforementioned Listed buildings series of lists). However, I have seen several instances where it does matter. One example comes to me at the moment: compare Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (an FA) to List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings (an FL). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it's not unheard of for lists to be promoted, even nowadays, and subsequently be uncontroversially but significantly renamed (for instance List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season → Watford F.C. Player of the Season). Although I feel that the short name would be a big improvement, and that at the very least it should be created as a redirect, I don't believe that the matter should have a bearing on the final FLC decision.

I'm still on a reviewing holiday for the next few weeks. But while I'm here, I will say that those are some lovely images. Nice work! WFC (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thanks folks for your comments. I am entirely happy for the title to be Historic Chapels Trust (it's now emboldened in the lead); I was just trying to follow what I thought was the normal guidance. But I am unsure of the process of moving the title. We already have Historic Chapels Trust as a redirect to the List. Do we just move the content of the article to Historic Chapels Trust; but this leaves List of ... empty. Would this then be a case for AfD of the List? I don't see any point of making List of ... a redirect to Historic Chapels Trust — who would type in the former when looking for the latter? And the title of this page will have to be changed too. Can someone with the necessary skill/experience do this without causing the complications that would arise were I to try to do it? Thanks in advance.

Re the images; I take no credit for them. The credit must go to the photographers who have "given" their work to Geograph (not all images from that source are good; I've been lucky with some in this article).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page and this discussion, fixing the links. The "list of..." title is now a redirect to HCT, and is harmless; in fact, it has various inbound links so ought not to be deleted unless those are fixed. Bencherlite^Talk 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that; I most grateful.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments an excellent list with a clear lead and enough information about each of the entries. The only minor nitpicks I can find are:

• In the table headers "date" presumably relates to date of construction - should this be made explicit?
  • I've done this as a footnote so that the size of the columns is not distorted by the heading.
• In the references "Listed buildings online" is used as part of the title (followed by the chapel name) in several of the titles (eg 6, 9, 11, 13) personally I would used "work=Listed buildings online" and move it out of the title.
  • Agree. Done.
• In a few refs (eg 19, 25, 41) RC is used in the title - should this abbreviation be written in full?
  • I've copied the titles precisely as given by the source. It this not correct?

• Not a major issue

Otherwise I feel it meets all the requirements for FL.— Rod ^talk 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod for the comments. A reply to each point is above.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks I feel the list meets FL requirements.— Rod ^talk 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem. Having changed all the English Heritage refs to Listed Buildings Online, there is now a warning from the Toolbox that registration is required for them. In fact a couple of clicks on the opening two pages of the website takes you in and keeps you in for that session. But is there any way of getting more direct access: or do I have to add a warning similar to "subscription required"?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I avoid using LBO for refs & stick to IoE.— Rod ^talk 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is IoE is out of date — it's stuck in a time warp and is not updated. Two of the chapels on the list have since been upgraded from II to II*. I think I might have to use British Listed Buildings after all despite its advertising material; it contains precisely the same info as LBO and gives open access. What do others think?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note on Peter's talk page about this. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Hassocks, the problem is solved; all the refs have been changed to Heritage Gateway; and the Toolbox seems to be happy now.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) High-quality work, as always.

• "As of summer 2010" Any way of rephrasing this? It's winter in half the world.

• Whoops! Summer changed to July.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When I sort by street (Firefox), "Alie Street, London" comes between "Hockley Heath, West Midlands" and "Kensal Green Cemetery, London". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I arranged the Location sort by town/city; so London comes between Hockley Heath and Netherton. I think that's logical, and cannot think of a better way of dealing with the two (potentially aberrant) London addresses.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why a number of the titles of the references are in italics?

• I need help here. I think I am the victim of the Citation template. Usually what is placed in the Title field is italicised. In those cases where it is not, the contents of the Work field are italicised and those of the Title field are not. You will see from the discussion above that I have had difficulty with the citations for listed buildings. The website "usually" referenced is Images of England. But this is now out of date and is not going to be updated. The Listed Buildings Online website is up to date, but (unacceptably) includes advertising material. I have been advised that the site to use is the Heritage Gateway; up to date and no adverts. But how to reference it? I helped out with the referencing for Listed buildings in Rivington in a similar style. Another editor amended it, removing the names of all the publishers. I tried to remedy this by adding a Note at the start of the References section, and made a comment to this effect at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Rivington/archive1. But this has produced a similar problem with italics. It would be helpful to get this sorted out; once done it can be applied to this list, present and future FLCs, and indeed all articles and lists containing English listed buildings.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Rambling Man. Thanks for the comments. Most have been answered but I have raised a query about the last point.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to stick with {{cite web}} which doesn't italicise anything except for the work field. Would that be better? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on previous discussions I have seen at FAC, the italicized titles generated with {{citation}} are an accepted style as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I think the problems in this list are that some titles are italicised, and some are not. So I have italicised all the titles for consistency. Further comment: I may be mistaken, but I thought that we were encouraged to use {{citation}} for everything (as a sort of catch-all). But it then has to produce consistency across the board, rather than cause the sort of trouble we have encountered here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple widely used families of citation templates: {{citation}} (as you said, a catch-all), or the {{cite XXX}} templates (which includes cite web, cite book, cite news etc.). Neither "family" is encouraged or discouraged over the other, but it must be used for all citations in the article for internal consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely my problem in this list. I've used {{citation}} throughout, and it's produced internal INconsistency. Anyway that's sorted now, so far as the review of this list is concerned.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS (as a slight diversion). Why do we have two families? At present there are two bots travelling around, one transferring {{cite XXX}} to {{citation}}, and the other doing the opposite!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, who knows. We've wandered outside the realm of FLC here, thanks for resolving the issue I noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. This is an idea I'm just throwing out there. What do you think of using sortkeys (or a seperate column if you prefer) to sort by county first. This was Todmorden Unitarian Church and Wainsgate Baptist Church would sort next to each other under West Yorkshire using {{sort|West Yorkshire, Hebdon Bridge|[[Hebden Bridge]], [[West Yorkshire]]}} etc. Your thoughts? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At present the Location column sorts by town/city. I'm not convinced that there is anything to gain by changing this to sorting by county.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [13].

Nominator(s): Wizardman 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, like the other draft lists, it's ready. If you guys want to make the review process slightly more fun, you can pick the next one I'll try to get to FL status. I wasn't sure whether to have Ramirez or Sabathia as the lead image, I chose the former since his career's already accepted as great, Sabathia's still in his prime. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - nothing to nitpick. Cheers. My vote for the next one is Washington, since you-know-who is so big and all. — KV5 • Talk • 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already halfway through the Rockies, so I'll nominate when in about three weeks. Don't pick that one. Mm40 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as we're laying claim, lemme stake out the Marlins. Should be interesting to do a properly new expansion franchise. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're doing the expansion teams in one swoop, then I'll probably work on the Rays roster, since the hard part of that list is already done while this is looked at. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yet another great list. PS- I want to write the Cubs one. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wanna do the Cardinals? —fetch·comms 13:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support By the way, easy peezy lemon squeezy. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Make that two reviewers in favor of seeing the Cards here next. Oh, and the list is another great one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [14].

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is among the finest lists on WP and I hope this process will standardize the optimal format for these lists going forward. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Great stuff. My only suggestion is that I think the current structure is a little confusing. In the lead, I would describe what an all-american team is first, then describe the different organizations that grant all-american status, and then describe what a consensus team is. The way the article is currently written makes it seems as if the consensus team is the focus when it seems the focus should be on all of the all-american ratings and the consensus is just an aggregation of that information in an interesting format. Remember (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Much better. Great job. Remember (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is "Men's Basketball" capitalized? I don't think "2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans" is an actual name for the group of players selected to these teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not averse to a page move to lower case. It just needs to be consistent with all the other seasons and properly changed in the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Detailed and a great read, but there is a lot of overlinking. It makes the tables hard to read, particularly the 'By Team' section. I can see having players linked once in each section, but that mass of blue is tough to break down. Other than that, it all looks good. Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I delinked quite a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Everything's been addressed, much more readable. Canada Hky (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Personally, I think the consensus teams are too buried now - this is the piece of info that a) is actually tracked by the NCAA over time and b) gives an idea of who the main All-American players were for a given year then goes to a list of who made the specific teams. To me, showing information from the overview to the specific makes sense as opposed to being confusing. I understand that I may be in the minority so I can defer to the consensus. I do think that 55 references is WAY overboard. Every player doesn't need to have their player page linked from this article and the info from these pages isn't actually used in the article. If readers want to know more about individual players they should go to the individual Wikipedia pages to read it. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with Rikster2 in that the consensus team should be much more visible (in other words, higher up in the article) because those are the players who received the most votes and recognition for being All-Americans. The individualized nominations are of secondary importance. When I go to an All-American page for men's basketball, I want to know the generally agreed upon (consensus) team, not the individuals. Sure, include them, but don't make them the focus – that misses the main point of interest. I would argue the same thing for any other college sport (baseball, football, soccer etc.), so this is not merely a basketball prejudice. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where both of you are coming from and have asked that the person who suggested moving consensus down comment. I will await consensus before making further changes to this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind having the consensus list be the first list, I just thought the lead should start off with the basics and not start of explaining the consensus list first. So maybe just moving the consensus section to be the first section would solve everyone's issues. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense to me. Have the consensus team later in the lead but be the first list to appear seems logical. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok that's better. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I still think there are too many unnecessary refereces. Any other thoughts on this? Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Jrcla2 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should I add a column for consensus AA points in the sortable table?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- All issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [15].

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the description of a featured list. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Reference 17 should include an indication that the page is in PDF format. Other than that I'm not finding anything to complain about. Solid work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Was waiting on the comments below to be resolved before supporting. Now that they have been, I see no reason not to do so. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 23:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:31, 24 July 2010 [16].

Nominator(s): PresN 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having gotten through novels, novellas, and novelettes, here is the shortest and last of the written fiction categories in the Hugo Awards. It should be in form almost identical to those FLs, so have at it. --PresN 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sandman888 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — I think this article is in great shape. I fixed a few minor things myself, but I have no objections. However I do one suggestion. I think it might be helpful to make a new section out of some of the stuff in the introduction. Perhaps there can be a section about the nomination process. Also, for the record, I believe all of Sandman888's concerns have been addressed. As to the concern that some authors are not linked, I believe publication of a short story is not a criterion in itself for notability (and therefor inclusion in Wikipedia) under Wikipedia:AUTHOR. – Zntrip 06:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, and your/Sandman's changes have now been replicated across the other Hugo lists I've written. --PresN 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Only issue I found was that Ian Watson was a disambiguation page; I went and fixed that myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks good to me now, wonderful topic coming along. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [17].

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I came across this list a few months ago, it was to revert vandalism. Since then, I've tinkered with it a little off and on, and after a major push yesterday I think it is ready. Oh, and it's an article about the Lake Placid Games in which the words "ice hockey" and "miracle" do not appear! I look forward to any comments you have. Courcelles (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. This is nearly FL material, there just a few tiny things I'd like to point out:
  • "Athletes from 19 countries won at least one medal, leaving 18 countries without a medal, and 11 countries won at least one gold medal." — Never quite liked this sentence's construction, which is also on the 2010 Winter Olympics medal table featured list. Perhaps... "Among the 19 countries which won at least one medal, 11 secured at least one gold medal."? There's really no need to count those which did not win a medal (the total is given just above... it's easy to do the math):
  • Done.
  • "The Soviet Union, after winning..." — Start the sentence with "After winning..." by moving "The Soviet Union" further down;
    • Done
  • If you follow the suggestion above, then change "After winning her country's..." to "Having won her country's..." to avoid repetition;
    • Done
  • "prior" → before;
    • Done
  • Who is Hanni Wenzel? In which sport did she win gold? Also, you can say that instead of winning the country's first Olympic gold medal (and also second), she won her country's only two Olympic gold medals. — Parutakupiu (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much re-worked the Wenzel sentence entirely, see what you think. Thanks for the review. Courcelles (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support – "Athletes from 19 countries won at least one medal, and 11 secured at least one gold medal." The 11 seems to be referring strictly to countries, which doesn't match precisely with the beginning of the sentence. I know adding "and xxx from 11" would make this wordier, but I think the improvement in meaning would be worth it. That's all I saw. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point. Done, and thanks. Courcelles (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:04, 20 July 2010 [18].

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar list to a previous project of mine, 3,000 strikeout club. Eventually it'd be nice to have all 4 of MLB's big "club" milestones (along with the 300 win club and 500 home run club) featured, but those 2 others are much "bigger" in terms of the attention paid so will be larger projects. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having trouble coming up with problems, but is it worth mentioning somewhere that this only includes regular season hits? Also, in ref 38, there's no need to write " pp. 346." to reference a single page- "p. 346." is better. Courcelles (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the page notation. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And added the regular season note. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm easily pleased, support. (Won't bother capping something this short!) Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would love to see the general reference repeated in an external links section as well, but that's just me!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, of course. — KV5 • Talk • 01:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks like any issues I may have found were already dealt with. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]