Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2005

A complete list of everyone who's captained Sri Lanka at official international level, SmokeDog [17:53, 19 Jun 2005]

• Support - Ian ≡ talk 04:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but it could do with some images. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, good list. Phoenix2 18:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Questions - I have two, and I think this goes for all of the cricket captains lists. First, could the columns be lined up? Second, and maybe there's an obvious reason why no one has raised this, why aren't these at "list of X," as in list of Sri Lankan national cricket captains? It would seem that Sri Lankan national cricket captains should be just about the position, whereas the "list of X" one is the list (eg: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom vs. List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom). Content-wise I'm willing to support all of them, though I'd also like to see images. --Dmcdevit 07:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I and others asked the same question on the discussion of Australian national cricket captains without reply. These articles are more lists of office holders than about the office. Perhaps someone will move them later ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean after they've been promoted! What would happen if I did it now... --Dmcdevit 18:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I could not possibly comment ;) But in answer to your question, we would just need some redirects. Honestly, you have my support. I'm not sure if anyone is actually against the idea. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Is there a rule that every list starts with "List of..."? It seems rather clumsy when the title is long, and I think a name like "Sri Lankan national cricket captains" is quite obviously going to include a list of Sri Lankan national cricket captains anyway, SmokeDog 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • There is a practical reason. I refer you to my previous example. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is about the position itself, and so, contrary to your thinking, does not just list the officeholders. List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, however, does just that. Sure it's long, but "list of national cricket captains of Sri Lanka" doesn't seem any more clumsy to me. It's more clear, in fact. Make sense? --Dmcdevit 21:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I would, however, expect "Prime ministers of the United Kingdom" to have a list of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. I think using the plural makes it clear. It also helps when looking at categories not to have "list of" in front of everything, SmokeDog 22:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals): "Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)." Besides, what you're suggesting could be applied to every list there is. A simple plural is much less distinct than a "list of" in front. --Dmcdevit 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a complete list of everyone who's captained Bangladesh at official international level, SmokeDog 20:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Good to see the bar is being raised all the time - Ian ≡ talk 04:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but it could do with some images. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great list. Phoenix2 18:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

A complete list of everyone who has captained India in an official international match, SmokeDog [17:53, 18 Jun 2005]

• Oppose: More of a list than anything. Craigy (talk) 17:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse that, I didn't realise I was on the Featured list page - I am rather tired (once again, my apologies) Craigy (talk) 17:18, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support – a great list, though I would prefer all links be blue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - same comment per Bangladeshi list - Ian ≡ talk 04:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but it could do with some images. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Stable for the next 18 months, barring retirement and/or scandal. Brought up to date by me, today. Well-referenced and comprehensive. Featured list? Meelar (talk) 00:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but we should create some articles for those last few committees ASAP. NoSeptember 01:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I am inclined to support, but I would like to see some clarification, on the Chair and ranking minority members of the joint commitees. Specifically, I would like the list to make explicit when one of these people is a Senator, rather than a member of the House. Also it would be nice, but not crucial, to see a comment on how it is determined whether a member of the House or the Senate will be chair of a joint commitee. Dsmdgold 03:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Both concerns are addressed. Better? Meelar (talk) 04:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Better Support Dsmdgold 01:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like a much longer lead, and to see if some images could be scrounged up (can't think of any at the moment). --Dmcdevit 05:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And could the columns be lined up? --Dmcdevit 07:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Image found and columns lined. What more should go in the lead? Meelar (talk) 19:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• [Not voting yet]: the lead needs to be expanded and an image would be nice. More crucially, can we put in place an updating plan as the personal names change in future? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The best I can do is promise to keep it current as long as I'm around. Meelar (talk) 14:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I have added {{prettytable}} and given each table the same column widths (50%, 25%, 25%). Ideas for further improvement: some colours would be welcome (e.g. Republicans and Democrats in red and blue?), and links to the parties and states would also be a good idea - like this: R-VA (some readers will not know what R-VA means). Some images (a committee chamber?) would also be good. I agree that the lead could be longer, but it is adequate for me already. I expect Wikipedians will keep the names up to date in the usual way. If they don't, we can start WP:FLRC. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think colors for parties would be a good idea--since each chairman is republican and each ranking member democrat, it would be pretty redundant (i.e. one column would be all red, one all blue). I will link the party and state abbreviations as you suggest, and I'll scrounge for an image. Meelar (talk) 12:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • We should update the List of U.S. Senate committees article to be consistent with the House committee article even if it isn't planned as a featured list. NoSeptember 14:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Senate list updated. Thanks for the image, incidentally. Meelar (talk) 19:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Presuambly you will be nominating that next? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I had hoped to, but I'm unfortunately going to have spotty computer access for a week or so. I'll nominate it when I get back. Meelar (talk) 23:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
            • Since neither article is that long, maybe we should merge them into List of U.S. Congress committees. What do you think? NoSeptember 23:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't think that would be a good idea; they are largely separate entities, apart from the joint committees. Meelar (talk) 18:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Back to the left margin - given that there are joint committees, that may be a good idea, but someone with a better feel for the US political and legislative process would know better. From a UK context, I would rather see List of Committees of the House of Commons dealt with separately from List of Committees of the House of Lords. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - appears comprehensive and instructive--Sophitus 15:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good list of the definations of cricket-related terms. Its stable, informative and neat. I hope this qualifies as a FL as it is not listed in the orthodox bulleted style.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Dictionary defintions aren't even encyclopedic, how is this different? Also, "cricket terminology" seems like it should be about terminology, whereas, say, "list of Cricket terms" would be this list. --Dmcdevit 07:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So should this be moved to list of Cricket terms?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The first point is more important. But if this list is generally deemed encyclopedic, I think it should be moved. However, I would point out again that this is a list of definitions, and there are in fact categories on Wiktionary designed for just that. --Dmcdevit 09:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this list is encyclopedic. It is a list, so it qualifies for nomination. (FLC is something new, and I'm not aware of the fine points what constitutes to being a "true" list). I've moved the article, I hope this is better.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. Wikipedia is neither a usage guide nor an idiom guide. This list definitely represents good work, but there's nothing wrong with saying it is better at Wiktionary, as it's a list of dictionary definitions. --Dmcdevit 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You won't find most of these terms explained in any standard dictionary. --Ngb 09:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You won't find most of our encyclopedia entries in the standard encyclopedia. And by the way, Wiktionary is about as standard a dictionary as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if you can imagine it. --Dmcdevit 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point is that I disagree with your categorisation of the terminology list as 'dictionary definitons', as I suspect you're fully well aware. --Ngb 22:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I mean to say is just because they are idiomatic, or jargon, or unique to this project, does not make them encyclopedic. They are still clearly words followed by definitions of those words. --Dmcdevit 22:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:What is a featured list? does not mention the criteria for what lists can be featured.  =Nichalp (Talk)=

I guess I wasn't talking about featured content, but What Wikipedia is Not. In any case, this discussion seems ill-suited for here, and I think it's a useful tool nonetheless, so I'm undecided and will not vote. --Dmcdevit 07:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be List of cricket terms (i.e. cricket not capitalised)? Yes, this is a collection of dictionary definitions. Many of which are essential to understand the other articles on cricket; rther than cluttering up the other articles with defined terms, they were all moved here. Hopefully they are all on Wiktionary too, but the important factor here is that they are all collected in one place, so it is easy to how they fit all together. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling. See: List of cricket terms  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - a useful and well laid out list. I've not seen such a comprehensive list of cricket terms anywhere else. - Ian ^talk 09:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Changing to Support after reflecting on points made here. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)Oppose, much as I like this and despite the fact that it strikes me as being absolutely accurate (yes, an Irish cricket fan!), it strikes me that if it were formatted as a standard list, most of the links would be red. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support (disclaimer: I have written part of, and maintained it, in the past, and will do a copyedit when time allows). As the article list says, cricket has a rich and often confusing terminology. Many of the more important terms have their own articles, or parts of an article (see Fielding (cricket)) and, like the List of cultural references in The Cantos and List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy, this is a useful companion to the main cricket articles. The debate below is whether people in the list of succession should not be linked, to avoid redlinks - it seems a trifle contradictory to oppose this list because there would be more redlinks if more terms were linked... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think this really counts as a set of dic-defs. These are idiomatic expressions with a cultural background. Looks beautiful. —thames 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support (obviously!). --Ngb 15:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, here, the blue links that exist are just nice to have; the real value of this list is its text. So the "would be red links" part doesn't matter to me that much. --Spangineer (háblame) 10:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

A complete list of every captain of the Australian cricket team, jguk 21:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes, this is a great list. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 10:46, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - a lot of work's gone into this and it's a fine example of a FL. - Ian 13:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support I so want to support, but, using the classic skin, the images in the first section stack sideways and flop over the top of the table. Also query whether it should be List of Australian national cricket captains. (And please can English national cricket captains be of the same standard!) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Responding in order: I don't know how to fix the pages - if a willing volunteer could help it would be appreciated. I don't think every "List" has to begin with the words of "List of", so I'm not inclined to lengthen the name in this case. I chose to improve this list to FL standard first as Ian's work on it made it less work to do so - once this one passes, I'll be looking at the other Test nations, starting with England, jguk 17:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pics now displaying properly in classic skin - I put them into a borderless table - Ian 12:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks; supporting now, but it is still more of a list of the captains rather than a full article on the captains (a proper article on Australian national cricket captains could be a featured article; this is just a list). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, good list with pictures and an adequate lead. Phoenix2 17:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly object. Displays horribly at 800x600 - there's no way the pictures of Benaud and Waugh could possibly fit except at a higher resolution. We shouldn't have articles - much less featured ones - that make us look incompetent in terms of web design by having four pictures in a line that just will not fit on many settings, when the pictures could be placed somewhere else on the page. In addition, the title is misleading. It isn't an article about Australian test captains over the years - it's a list of them, and should be labelled accordingly. Ambi 03:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• How is it horrible? Don't the images just push up against the table and the table condenses? That's what happens when I shrink my browser, anyway. To where do you suggest that the pictures be moved? Or do you think that those images should perhaps not be in the list? Also, I tend to agree with you on the name change. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Pics reduced slightly to cater for 800x600 resolution in deference to Ambi's comment. Looks better now. - Ian 12:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks muchly. Now support, although I still prefer the name change. Ambi 00:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support - and ALoan there is no way "English national cricket captains" can "be of the same standard" :-) Albatross2147 08:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support: wonderful, and I can live with the name. Good move to start with the Aussies! Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• support: looks great, though I would also prefer a name change. Tuf-Kat 18:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support: I was considering objecting on the basis that it didn't include the captains of the women's team(s), but given that I can only find two paragraphs on women's cricket in the whole of Wikipedia, that would seem a little petty. OpenToppedBus - Talk 15:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - good list  =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - in terms of format, I prefer the lists for Bangladesh (which I tinkered with last week) and India and Sri Lanka (which seem to use the same style) - the markup in the Australian table uses a single row of cells for each capitain, with lots of <br>, whereas the other ones make use of "rowspan"/"colspan" to line things up properly. A side benefit is that the line numbers and captain's names are properly centred. This would not be too difficult, but a little time-consuming and fiddly, to fix. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree - the Asian ones also show who each series was played against which I always felt was lacking in the Australian list. They are definitely the way forward. - Ian ≡ talk 00:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(was Timeline of natural satellites)

Well-researched and referenced, with blue links for every satellite, including those discovered just in May. Quite an impressive array, with good historical context.--Pharos 02:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - rather impressive, particularly the copious references, but "Timeline of natural satellites" is a bit cryptic - should it be named "Timeline of discovery of natural satellites in the Solar System" or similar? The lists are also rather inconsistently presented - can you get the column widths the same (e.g. using percentages) for each table. Some images would also be good - this is astronomy, after all! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support - well done in fixing the objections, and I paricularly like the colour-coding for each planet. It is now a model featured list, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this is a good list on an interesting topic, but it could use some pictures of the most important discoveries. Phoenix2 19:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well done. Phoenix2 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I object too for the reasons ALoan mentioned, plus the fact that often it's not clear which satellite goes with which planet, for some of them. Adding a column that specifies would help. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:24, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe my ignorance is showing, but why are the planets "prehistoric"? Surely it was only recently (relatively) they were distinguished from stars, as in during Copernicus' time? By my line of reasoning, only the Earth and moon are likely to have been prehistoric. Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 21:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the seven classical planets ("wanderers") of ancient times were the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, distinguished from the stars by their motion relative to the celestial sphere. After Copernicus, with the discovery of their different motion the Sun and the Moon departed the company of the planets, and the Earth entered the ranks for the first time. The current understanding of a planet as a "world" like the Earth rather than a type of light or perfect featureless sphere in the sky is mostly a modern concept, starting from Galileo seeing mountains chains on the Moon through his telescope.--Pharos 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So you're saying in prehistory, they were know to be satellites, but of Earth, and not the sun? Then I think that should be noted, as well as when their true nature was discovered. You know, this sounds like we're talkning more about ancient history than prehistory, often confused. Also, Earth should be on the list, right? --Dmcdevit 22:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I've given the thing a major facelift and reorganization, even renamed it. What do you think now?--Pharos 07:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very well done. I have one minor quibble. Perhaps the list should start Earth, Sun, Moon (that is move the Sun to second on the list). I am sure that humanity noticed the Sun before they noticed the other "wanderers". Dsmdgold 15:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support this beauty. --Dmcdevit 06:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self nom. Comprehensive list of information on Ohio county namesakes. The initial page has some summary information and the actual etymologies are on two separate pages so neither is excessively long. Everything is sourced and I even created stubs on the namesake people who didn't already have articles. PedanticallySpeaking 18:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - sorry, I think this list should contain the information on List of Ohio county name etymologies, A-K and List of Ohio county name etymologies, L-Z (as a whole, the three lists are excellent, by the way - I just think we need a single article, not three separate articles). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I separated the material because in the past with other articles, I've gotten complaints because articles were too long. So I can't win either way. PedanticallySpeaking 18:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, first, I don't think the articles are that long (how many kb, combined?); second, the article size limits are less imporatnt that they used to be; and last I don't think the limits were applied to lists anyway. But no, noone ever wins :) -- ALoan (Talk) 23:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support though the "Sources" sections should be renamed references and moved to the bottom of the pages. Also, the "Seems wrong" under "Adams County" should be removed if it is editorial judgement, or it should be cited. I tend to think the articles should be merged as well, but it's not a big deal. Size limits used to be much more strictly adhered to -- nowadays, size doesn't matter too much, I think, especially for lists. Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a thorough list, the only of the few I checked of Category:U.S. county name etymologies that referenced various etymologies. Personally I wouldn't mind having it on one page as well, but I'm sure if you merge them, people will come along telling you to split it ;-). Also, I might have placed the summary/"Analysis" in a table. -- User:Docu
• Support, although I would prefer to see the three articles combined. The main article is 5.3 KB, while A-K and L-Z are both 11.5 KB, for a total of 28.3 KB which is well below the old 32K limit. Dsmdgold 21:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Object, A-K and L-Z need to be included in this list. Even if it were over 32K, for lists, it's not a big deal. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Will support the version on one page by Docu, though a more standard method of inline citations would be preferable, as would the removal of the "seems wrong" after John Quincy Adams. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, here's a version on one page to compare: Talk:List of Ohio county name etymologies/Test. -- User:Docu
  • Yes yes yes! Much better!! Enthusiastically support!!! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I, too, prefer the combined version. --Theo (Talk) 20:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) I'd support this if the references section were moved to the bottom of the page. Many users will not want to read the refs, they'll want the meat. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you move this to the live version so I can promote it! Apart from Fil's reference comment, the only objections as for the A-K and L-Z lists to be combined. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hopefully I did that right; I copied and pasted, removed the Ohio template, moved the references to the bottom of the page, added an explanatory note, and I removed the "seems wrong" comment. The lead's short, but I think this is ready for FL status. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. Excellent - nearly there! The "Analysis of Names" table seemed to be broken - I have fixed it on the assumption that the second column under "counties" should have been headed "plus" and added in some &nbsp; to fill in empty cells so the lines show properly. I've also moved images to stop the two top images colliding, added alphabetic headings, and a compactTOC. And a modified lead section. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Given my recent involvement, I'd be grateful if someone else would take a look and promote this if they think my recent changes are ok. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Fulfills all the requirements, I believe, and it's only a day old, too. --Dmcdevit 14:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A lovely, useful list. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks good to me. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold 01:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support for content, but please consider using a less saturated and lighter color for the background of the table cells (the headers are fine). My eyes hurt! I previewed it with #F4F9FF and that looks much better to me. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons, first being the painful blue color. Also, it looks odd there not being anything in the "conflict" box for Burundi. I understand that whatever's going on there may not have an article or common name, but it must be possible to put something there, maybe with a link to the appropriate part of History of Burundi? Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

  Oh, wow. Actually there is an article for the Burundi Civil War, that just totally slipped my mind, so good catch. Now, about the color, it was just copied from another table I saw. I'm no good with this html color stuff, so I changed it using grm_wnr's suggestion. However, now I think it needs a bit darker color so Cyprus' white flag doesn't get lost. Any suggestions. (Change it yourself if you like) --Dmcdevit 08:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Change to support. I don't mind losing Cyprus' flag too much -- if anyone really cares, they'll click on it, but if someone wants to make the color darker, that'd be alright. Tuf-Kat 16:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though I don't like the coloring either. -- User:Docu
• Comment - I know that external links normally go at the end, but in this instance the links to the UN operations' websites would be much more useful if they were included in the table. Otherwise you have to refer back in order to work out which acronym relates to which operation. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Update: This is now a stand-alone article. Please disregard the introductory comments of the original nomination, which follows below. --MarkSweep 06:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an embedded list within the President_of_the_United_States aricle, and, as I had said on the criteria talk page, embedded lists, IMHO, just like other lists, play an important role and should be eligible (there is no specification as of yet, but I think there is general agreement on this matter). In any case, a well-laid out and easy-to-read list (with colors for parties), with references, a good lead section (which is an article in itself), all blue links, and pictures within the article itself. Quite a deserving list. --Dmcdevit 06:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

• Support This is a finite list for which information is readily available and which is both encyclopedic and presents a flavor of the treatment of a very common list for comparison across reference resources. Courtland 04:41, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Object - sorry (oh dear - three objectts :( ) - As I said on the talk page, I don't think we can feature lists unless they are free-standing articles, not embedded in other articles. We would not have a section as a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how I missed your comment :), I guess I just looked to the bottom. Well I would support a move of the list, per your suggestion, to its own article anyway, as the article is quite long. I'm hesitant to do it myself, because it means we're going to have to make a lead section and references and pictures, etc., also, and this is not my area of expetise. Anyone else want to give it a start? --Dmcdevit 17:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: It's now a stand-alone list with pictures. --MarkSweep 01:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support now it is a separate article. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as stand alone list. Dsmdgold 01:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: the new list needs references and a (better) lead. --Dmcdevit 06:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added references from the POTUS article. --MarkSweep 06:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: will support if lead is expanded. Support now. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:29, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expaned the lead paragraphs with what I believe is relevant background information for this list. --MarkSweep 00:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - fantastic list, well done--Sophitus 01:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Just to be clear I've stricken my nomination for the old list and am placing my support for the new one here. --Dmcdevit 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support (see above for reasons)Superm401 | Talk 02:44, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This meets all the criteria and looks outstanding. --Theo (Talk) 09:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. — Paul August ☎ 03:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Spangineer (háblame) 15:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive list with enough facts. Phoenix2 15:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I had wondered whether there was a need for a key to the colours used, but I think it's self-evident. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The list duplicates the embedded one on President_of_the_United_States#Office-holders. -- User:Docu
  • Does President of the United States need its own list? Can't it cross-refer to this list instead? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I had originally created Template:Presidents of the United States to better coordinate between President of the United States and this list (which was split off during the early phases of this nomination; see comments above). Later I removed the list from President of the United States, but after discussion on its talk page, someone added a slightly different version (without pictures or footnotes, and using a different CSS style) back into the already rather long POTUS article. If you think the duplication is unnecessary, please join the discussion on the POTUS talk page. --MarkSweep 13:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object I am not a US citzen, I have no idea what the colour coding means. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think the average US citizen would know what the colors mean, since many of the 19th century parties no longer exist and there are no standard conventions one can follow. Rather, it is assumed that people will look at the listed party affiliations and notice that they correspond to certain colors. It's not the case that there is a deeper meaning behind the color scheme that would only be intelligible to US citizens. I was about to say that the colors are self-explanatory in the context of the list, but clearly that's not the case. --MarkSweep 13:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Is this an unactionable objection, try as I might, I can think of no way that the nominator can turn TBSDY into an American citizen. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hint - there is a corelation between the colour and a president's political party (which is already expressly noted). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support I like it, although I agree with Ta bu shi da yu that it would be useful to have some brief comments about what the parties mean, jguk 13:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An offshoot of my work on The Cantos, this is the reference work I wish I'd had 35 years ago. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Wow. Is it comprehensive? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may add a few minor things over the weeks and months ahead, but it's enough for the average reader. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll take your word for it. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Likewise wow. Dsmdgold 17:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support anyway, but I just wanted to bring up another policy question. I know over at FAC, a 50kb article (which this is) would have a hard time getting passed just because of its size. What do we think? --Dmcdevit 18:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to remember that lists were an exception from the 32k rule when it used to be applied more strictly, but I can't see it now at Wikipedia:Article size. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd think they should be, because there's no way to reduce the size of something that's juat a list without compromising comprehensiveness (unless excess images can be removed). So since comprehensiveness should always trump length, it's no problem. Should this go in Wikipedia:What is a featured list? --Dmcdevit 19:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just on a point of interest, the Cantos article, which is an FA, is 82k. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, now that I have taken out the self-reference in the first sentence. OpenToppedBus 10:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, superb. — mark ✎ 14:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but why are some references noted like "Canto ###: context" and others like "Context - Canto ###"? --Spangineer ∞ 14:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I've clarified my consistency concerns on the article's talk page. --Spangineer ∞ 16:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Because some of the items in the list are referenced in different cantos for different reasons. Generally, Context - Canto### is a general context followed by cantos in which the person/place/thing is named. Canto ###:COntext is used for a specific quotation from or aspect of the person/place/thing is cited in the canto or cantos indicated. The Cantos is a complex work and the list somewhat reflects this reality, I'm afraid. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I realize that it's complex, but I'm not convinced that it's impossible to create a mostly consistent format. Perhaps there will need to be an exception here and there, but right now I feel like the list is in disarray with respect to formatting. I suggested one possibility on the talk page; what do you think about it? --Spangineer ∞ 10:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think it contains some misunderstanding of what the list is doing, though I could easily be wrong. The quotes are not "famous quotes"; they are quotes that occur in specific cantos (the poem is partly collage). Many of them appear in a number of cantos, forming a kind of leitmotiv, frequently echoing other phrases used or created by Pound (see, for example, all the references to the philosophy of light) (the collage is equally fugal). What you see as disarray, I view as a means of reflecting how a reader would need to access the information while reading the poem, offering paths through the key strands in the fugue. At the same time, it provides context for many of the figures, especially the less well-known ones and/or the ones we have no articles for. If you (and others) really feel there is an unsurmountable problem, I'll withdraw the nomination for a rethink. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I understood that the quotes come from the cantos themselves, so that's why I thought it would make sense to first reference all of the Cantos that the character appears in, and then more specifically, if there's anything important at all (quote, topic, whatever) that needs a reference to a specific canto, mention it and put the canto in parenthesis after it. Also, just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that any actual content be added or removed, I just want to move around what is already there. If one character has less information, that's fine, just put it in where it should go according to the standard and leave it. Additionally, while I do see this as a problem that should be addressed, and I admit that I still do not understand why it cannot easily be done (perhaps because I have never read The Cantos), I continue supporting the nomination because of the quality of its content. I continue to hope however that this can be worked out in the future, perhaps after this attains featured status. --Spangineer ∞ 17:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, when I say "character" I mean character/place/philosophy/whatever is being alphabetized on the list. Also, I don't mean to limit any specific topic/quote to a "specific canto" if it is mentioned in more than one; just reference all of them. --Spangineer ∞ 18:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if there is an issue with this for more people and if this nomination should be withdrawn. Most of the discussion is on Talk:List of cultural references in The Cantos. I can't see what the problem is, but then I wouldn't, would I? More input would be good. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, great list! Someone should create a similar list for Dante's The Divine Comedy. Paul August ☎ 11:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's a terrific idea, and I may well start on it soon. I have the old Temple Classics bilingual edition at home, which would be a pretty good reference to start with. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:45, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My gut feeling is that this list (or anything like it for this work) is unique to Wikipedia, which is a definite plus as far as I'm concerned. Courtland 01:56, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  • You know, I hadn't really thought of it that way, but I think you may be right. There are a few really good reference books, but almost nothing comprehensive online. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't think this featured list thing was worth much till I looked at this list. This is truly impressive, and a great compliment and even enhancement to The Cantos. - Taxman ^Talk
• Support(the list, not the work) Superm401 | Talk 02:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This must be a paragon of literary lists. --Theo (Talk) 09:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Another classic. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A fine example. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very thorough. Dsmdgold 23:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'll support now- This is an exceptional list, but I wonder about its activity. It's still getting something like 20-25 edits a week, even major formatting ones, like the latest edit (as of this writing). We might want to wait for it to calm down a bit, right? --Dmcdevit 05:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that much of the recent activity on this list has something to do with a turn of events in the real world. Only one edit so far this week may indicate that it is settling down. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Exemplary. --Theo (Talk) 13:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Paul August ☎ 12:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Spangineer ∞ 23:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The English is not up to standard, particularly the Notes on numbering section. Mark¹ 07:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. What does "shown in the popes tombs in Vatican" mean? It should clarify that it is not referring to the illustration and should be more specific. --Theo (Talk) 10:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support and object, Theo? :) I'll look at the prose when I have time over the next day or so. Please don't remove as a candidate until I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Can I wriggle away from valid accusations of ineptitude by claiming that I would support if my objection was addressed? I thought not. I would fix the list text myself if I could only work out what was meant. --Theo (Talk) 16:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I fixed up the English in the Notes section, and removed the troublesome sentence about PP. I don't see how it is relevant to anything (the engraving at the top of the page doesn't have PP on it, as far as I can tell), so I just took it out. If someone disagrees with that decision, feel free to put it back in, but explain what it means with a bit more clarity please =). I'm not sure if that edit sufficiently addresses your objections, Theo and Markalexander. --Spangineer ∞ 17:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • I also copyedited and then sorted out the unfortunate edit conflict with Spangineer - I hope our joint version meets the objections. I took the "PP." explanation to Pope where I think it belongs (it already mentioned "PP." but did not explain it). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. No, really! I really mean it this time! --Theo (Talk) 18:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been aware of this list for some time and believe it meets the requirements. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• SupportObject - this is an excellent example of the list genre, but it needs references (presumably the "External links" will suffice, though, although something on paper would be good too). -- ALoan (Talk) 08:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changes External links to References. Although online, these seem very reliable. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Fine - a paper reference or two would also be good, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary contributor to the list, I can verify that these two online lists were my references. Paper editions of both exist, if you really need paper. Support btw. Dsmdgold 13:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, Comment, downgraded to comment, as I don't feel comfortable going all the way to object while we're still discussing this. I realize the following reason isn't from the criteria, but considering it's only a few days old, that should be okay. This isn't really a strong objection, but I don't think any list that's made up of (by my guess) as many as a quarter red links can qualify. After all, the main purposeof a list (since there's not much text) is to point readers to articles, right? Look at the list of popes and list of British monarchs for good axamples of fully blue-linked lists. --Dmcdevit 00:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good question arises. I do not feel that a qualifying list has to have no red links, but what is an acceptable minimum. Let's take this to the talk page. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I am quite impressed how many links in that list are not red - someone has been very busy. As I said on the talk, I think a list (or any article) containing redlinks encourages readers to become editors and add something. All the headings, and the explanatory text, are blue-linked: do we have to object because there is no article on the White-tailed Tropicbird or Le Conte's Thrasher? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think a good list is even more useful in fields where there are lot of articles missing. - User:Docu
    • I agree heartily here, especially if the list is accurate and the elements are properly named. I agree, I am particularly impressed that so many have an article at all. I hope most are more than one sentence. As for a vote, I'll stay neutral, but I think a list that has a bit more information on each element, like the Cultural references list and the list of Pope's is much more something worthy of being featured, than just one split into categories and with scientific names. - Taxman ^Talk 04:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I've got no problem at all with the number of red links. OpenToppedBus 15:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - it would be nice to see some more pictures toward the bottom of the page... they just seem to stop about half way down. Any good warbler pictures out there? The red links to me aren't a problem. But don't shoot too low on list quality - people are going to be skeptical about "featured lists", so the lists that get featured ought to be simply awesome. This one is on its way, but I think more pictures would improve it. --Spangineer ∞ 11:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple more pictures further down the page. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I added a couple yesterday. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC) And a couple more today. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Looks great. Support --Spangineer ∞ 17:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Great list but, (1) both references listed give "file not found" messages, and (2) I think there should be more pictures. Comment: the red links are fine. Paul August ☎ 12:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the links. More photos have been added since yesterday and more will. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the second reference to warn that it was a PDF download. Looking forward to more pictures. Perhaps a couple could be in the toc section as well. Paul August ☎ 13:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have added 13 more images, including one by the toc. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:51, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Ok, I still think the toc could use a couple more images. But great work Filiocht! Paul August ☎ 20:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think redlinks are an issue, but this list doesn't have all that many. If the entire list, or close to it, was redlinks, I'd object. Tuf-Kat 22:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)