Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2006

In my opinion, this meets the 4 criteria for Featured Lists. Disclaimer: I have worked on this article.

• useful: Contains links to an article for every site in the system (there are very few red links).
• comprehensive: This is the complete list of all the sites administered by the National Park Service.
• factually accurate: All of the parks are represented. Sourced from NPS.gov and other sites.
• stable: The list only changes when Congress or the President declare or remove parks from the system.
• well-organised: By type of park (monument, historic site, etc.)

Therefore, I nominate and support. Nationalparks 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: This listing is very extensive and useful However, some sections have entries in tabular format while other have entries in bulleted lists. A better way would be to pick one format and stick with it throughout this list. It would also be good, wherever appropriate, to have date of establishment, area, etc for each entry rather than in just some. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is now completely tablized. I appreciate the constructive criticism. Nationalparks 20:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there a reason why only "National Parks" have their areas stated (which should also be provided in hectares, by the way)? Also, it would be nice if all tables had the same width. The reference needs proper formatting: author(s), year and place of publication, etc. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we should have dates of establishment for all parks, not just the National Parks and Monuments. A decision would need to be made regarding weather to put the first date of establishment or rather the year that the park was transferred to the NPS, right now there are some of each. Do we really need area figures for all units though? For many parks this information is in the main article so I don't know if that is really necessary for the list, so many of the historic sites and memorials are very small in size. I'm glad the locations were switched to states, this eliminates the confusion regarding a nearest city. --Nebular110 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Good point regarding the dates. Great work! --Nebular110 15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The tables are now all the same size. I think I have made it completely consistent. At some point, dates could be added to each park. It would be tedious to do this now, because not all of the park articles themselves have dates yet. The way I see it, this list has links to all the articles, so if you are interested in one park in particular, you'll probably want to know more than just the date established, so you'll click the link and get the full article for the park.Nationalparks 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Is there a better picture than Image:AT blaze.JPG for List of areas in the National Park System of the United States#National Historic and Scenic Trails. A blurry tree trunk adds little to the list. Also, I think the locator map should be in a different place, preferably in a frame (although if this is impossible, never mind). It just looks rather tacked on. Other than that, it seems well referenced, even these refs aren't inline, and will support if these issues are addressed. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have switched the trail blaze pic with a view from the top of Mount Greylock along the trail. I also put the locator in a frame and moved it to the top of the section. Thanks for your advice. Nationalparks 14:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per my above comments. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Would somebody be so kind to check the copyright status of the images? I haven't had time to do it myself Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: All of the images on the page, with the exception of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, are free images taken by Wikipedians with appropriate licenses. The Hatteras image is PD, as a work of the US Air Force. Nationalparks 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why were full dates removed from disbanded national parks but not from other disbanded units? I would prefer to have more information in the list - dates and areas, especially. Rmhermen 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I put the dates in for the disbanded NP's (looking back at the history, I'm not sure they were ever there). I can't find the date in 1895 Mackinac was disbanded anywhere. Nationalparks 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The locator map overlaps with the table in the National Parks section. Also, I'd prefer if wiki sintax was used for the table containing the image. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have put the locator map in wiki syntax, but I'm afraid that it is even further towards the left. Any suggestions? I could remove the locator from this list, since it is already on the lists you get to when you click List of United States national parks by state or List of United States national parks by date established. Nationalparks 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You could try placing it in the lead, below the NPS logo, since you have more space over there. Overlapping is not good, so if you can't accomodate the map elsewhre you may want to remove it altogether. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Good idea, and done. Nationalparks 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very informative list. Joe I 12:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is very new, but it has complete referencing. All the information is organised logically in a table. All images are captioned with an appropriate caption and have correct licensing information. It also has an appropriate lead and generally fulfills all the List Criteria. Self-nom smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Spain recently decommisioned one nuclear plant, why is it considered stable? Apart from that, the list seems good, but I'll take a better look. Afonso Silva 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spain is considered stable because it plans to upgrade its other reactors to compensate. I'll make a note on the page. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments

• The list fails to mention how they are listed by. (It appears to be in order by number of reactors first and name second, but this needs to be stated.)
• Since the list is by nuclear power shouldn't it be listed by the energy generated? A country that uses its plants more seems more "nuclear powerful" to me than a country that has more plants but doesn't use.
• In either case, the secondary form of listing should not be by the countries' name. It should be by the number of reactors (if you decide to change like I suggested) or by the energy produced (if you keep the first form of listing as it is).
• The countries with 0 should be ranked according to how far along they are in the process and by how much they plan to build. (e.g. planning 2 reactors should be above planning 1 reactor; construcing reactors should be above proposing reactors)
• Is the energy produced a complete total? Or is it by year?

SeizureDog 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy production is measured in watts, which is per second. I've rearranged the list by reactors, then by advancement of expansion programs, and then by peak power output, as peak power output is more variable than the number of reactors present. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more intuitive if the list was arranged by number of reactors first (as it is right now) and then by peak power output. Sorting criteria have to be mentioned before the table anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more logical; I'll change it to that. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as I said on the talk page. Renata 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think that this is a particularly stable list. It would be changing pretty constantly, as those countries which don't have any nuclear power plants slip in and out of debate all the time (Australia is currently in debate, which started a couple weeks ago). I don't think it would be kept terribly up to date. Also, what constitutes "Considering new plants"? --liquidGhoul 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries are only listed if they have actually sent proposals/plans to the IAEA. As the UK hasn't actually sent any plans yet, I've changed the status to stable. As Australia hasn't sent any proposals to the IAEA, they are still listed as reactorless. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stability criterium refers mostly to content disputes (e.g. whether person X belongs to nationality Y, etc.) not to content that has to be updated. Not updating a list that requires so, however, is grounds for defeaturing over at Featured list removal candidates. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IAEA updates are once a year, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nice, very useful. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know much about this subject, but like List of countries with nuclear weapons, I prefer we have detailed paragraphs about each country. Anyway, could you add flags next to each country? CG 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have articles about nuclear power in most big countries (the notable exceptions being S. Korea and China (and Ukraine and Germany)), so I've linked to them, and all countries are flagged. In a lot of countries though, the history of nuclear is pretty uneventful; there's not much that could be written about nuclear power in Mexico or nuclear power in Slovenia, for example. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support though a few points: on my monitor (which may have colour problems) the caption gives wrong colours for building and considering new reactors, and the building new and decomishioned all appear the same. Like I said could just be my monitor though. Also I could the map be changed to show which countries have reactors currently and which don't. Not neccessary, but I see minor difficulties having Iran and the US he same colour and think a difference would help the list. Perhaps light and dark colours or something. say1988 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a monitor issue to me; building is green while decommissioned is red. I made the colour change you suggested. Thanks! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think the columns that indicate the number of reactors and the power output should be reduced. That would look better and would also avoid double lining when the last column has a longer text. I'd also like to see the World Nuclear Association link becoming blue. Apart from that the article is good and I'l glady support it if my proposals are met or discussed. Afonso Silva 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your points. I couldn't find a lot of information about the World Nuclear Association, as the "about us" section on their website is mostly one big ad for them, but they now have a reasonable stub. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Now it looks really good. It meets the criteria. Nice work! Afonso Silva 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Does this list follow naming conventions? I would have guessed that it should have been called List of nuclear power by country.

I'm not sure; I don't think there's any convention that states that all lists must start with "List of"...; Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, United Nations member states and Flag flying days in Mexico were all featured with names similar to this one. If I'm wrong however, I think the title should be along the lines of List of countries by nuclear power, which seems more cumbersome. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no naming conventions whatsoever apart from the fact that the title must reflect the content of the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who has read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lists. --Maitch 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to see the percent of national power from nuclear added. It is available in the first reference. Rmhermen 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to have it, but since I can't find any stats for total electricity production of the European Union, in order to add this statistic, I'd have to remove the EU from the list entirely. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The list looks very well done, and I can't really find a reason to object to it. --Wizardman 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great work. —Nightstallion (?) 12:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On hold: Until this revert war can be resolved. Go ahead and vote to pass or fail for either version while you're waiting though. That way we can have a decision already made as soon as the debate ends. picturey or pictureless.--SeizureDog 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sef-nom: Whew -_- Been working hard to try to create articles for all of the games on this list and I finally got the red link count down low enough for submission. I plan on creating stubs for the remaining few unreleased games and expanding some of the game articles. The list is complete, stable, and accurate. Which is rare for a game list. Cancelled games are not in table form as they are not as important and many boxes would have to be left blank from lack of information.--SeizureDog 07:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is too much red. I think changing the title bar would be good, but I don't know what that will do to the look of the rest of the table. --liquidGhoul 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The red layout is not something I'll easily want to change. The system is known for its monochrome redness after all. It's kinda the theme, any other colors will feel...off.--SeizureDog 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The shades of red aren't bad, the title bar is just too bright. It looks horrible. --liquidGhoul 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I tried making the color as soft as possible without without turning it pink. It's a tough process. I understand true red makes for a horrid background but I still want it to look red, and not pink or orange. I'm open to hexadecimal suggestions though.--SeizureDog 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ff7878 ? --liquidGhoul 11:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had it as that, but thought it looked a bit too much like apricot. I'll change it for now though. --SeizureDog 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The lead is too short. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I want to be sure to avoid redundancy, what else do you feel the lead needs to mention?--SeizureDog 17:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead has been expanded. If it's still too short I'm going to need suggestions as I don't know what else to add.--SeizureDog 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since the article is not directly about the games in question, you have to provide fair use rationales for all the screenshots. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Um. I already did :| It's under the Licensing tag. Ex: Image:VBVirtualBoyWarioLandTitle.png--SeizureDog 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, sorry, must have missed that. Please disregard my comment. Great list, by the way, I just can't get myself to support outright at the moment since the lead is indeed too short. Maybe some bare facts about the Virtual Boy (introduction and discontinuation date, and the 3D aspect) could be added? Were the game title screens pictured in 2D or 3D? Also, why do the titles that were not released in the U.S. even have English titles to sort them by , i.e. are these translations somehow official? -- grm_wnr Esc 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, I'm not sure how to answer as to if it's in 2D or 3D. They're images of how the game looks when played. The true images would be staggered (see Image:Mario's Tennis screenshot.png). As for the cancelled titles, the English titles are either what the Japanese used (they love using English for titles) or a romaji translation. The only exception I see is Strange Animal School. It might have been an offical translation in preperation for US sales or it might just be what it's best known as for English speakers, I'm not sure.--SeizureDog 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's okay, I was only throwing out ideas about content you could put in the lead. As it is now, I would say the lead is of sufficient length, so that problem has been taken care of. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As an add-on to this, is there a specific reason that so many games were cancelled, and I think the reason for so little number of games would be useful too (even if there is a little repetition. --liquidGhoul 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason added. Additional info as to why it failed can be found at Virtual Boy --SeizureDog 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And as an add-on to that, I think that the unreleased games do not, in fact, all need their own articles. Why don't you merge all the info from those articles into the unreleased games section of this list? It would give that section a bit more meat, and would take care of all these very very short articles which are in essence permanent stubs. I spot-checked some of them and there seems to be little info besides the infobox. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making a page for cancelled games, but it ended up being a big mess. And personally, I hate it when games get merged into a single article. Plus, the games that I have left to create articles for are games that actually do have quite a bit of information on them (as much as a released game) so some of those articles aren't doomed to perma-stub status. I wanted to make stubs for everything before I started expanding though.--SeizureDog 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay, as you are an editor who has put some thought into this I am inclined to accept that. Just don't be surprised when these short articles show up on AfD sometimes (not a threat, mind you, since I don't care much, but it happens). Anyway, weak support from me now because the main (lead) problem has been takien care of, but I'm not wild about the long bare list of cancelled games, although I see your point. Still, you might at least consider making several columns of it, it's nearly a screen long. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on making them into columns, done. --SeizureDog 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that actually helped more than I expected, looks much better now. A final note, what do you think of adding the developer/publisher of the cancelled game into parentheses after the title? I.e. "Signal Tatto (unknown)" / "Virtual Dodgeball (Hect)" / "GoldenEye 007 (Rare/Nintendo)"? -- grm_wnr Esc 08:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it.

• 1) It would start to look like clutter
• 2) The "Unknown"s would tacky
• 3) By being right after the title, they would be very staggered and not line up all pretty-like
• 4) The focus should be on the released games. I want to give the cancelled games as little attention as possible --SeizureDog 09:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(breaking indent) Good reasoning, that's okay then. Switching to full support. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Supprt I don't think there is anything else wrong with it. The columns for unreleased games makes it look infinitely better. The intro still looks short, but I cannot think of any more info that is needed. --liquidGhoul 14:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great work! —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice work -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's no critical commentary for the logos and they could possibly be removed as a consequence. See WP:FUC for criteria required. Additionally, sources need to be specified in the summary of the images. Vic Vipr ^T_C 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 3 4 images did not have the source. And if by critical commentary you mean the fair use rational (as I've stated before) it's been there since the beginning. Scroll down. --SeizureDog 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale is not critical commentary. Images need to illustrate or identify relevant points within the text (Example) and not serve a purely decorative purpose. Vic Vipr ^T_C 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible example you just showed me. Not only do none of those images have any fair use rationales but that is an article, not a list. A list hardly has the time to bring up "relevant points" within its text. Tt's there to give you extremely basic information and help you choose where to move on to. And what a game looks like is extremely basic information that needs to be known. The pictures serve to help identify the games much in the same manner that List of South Park episodes uses its pictures to help with identification of its episodes. Title screens serve the best purpose for this identification because they should be one of the most recognizable images from the game (even if you've only played a game once, you still probably saw the title screen) and they work better within the table format than boxes would. --SeizureDog 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wouldn't be better if the list was sorted by release date rather than alphabetically? CG 12:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How would that possibly be more useful? When people are looking for a video game they are going to be looking by name, not date. --SeizureDog 13:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have reverted this removal of images and template change. The issue has not been thoroughly discussed. I gave clear reasoning for my use of images and there was no rebuttal. No action should be made to change the list unless there is a clear consensus. Four people have stated their support for the nominated version implying that the majority are fine with its use. If this is not the case, it must be openly stated.--SeizureDog 10:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's wikipedia policy, the article currently violates chapter #8 of WP:FUC and citing other lists as justification for adding images isn't an argument. Vic Vipr ^T_C 11:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

• It is both identifying the subject of the article (virtual boy games) and specifically illustrating each section (game) of the article with a relevant image. The images are informative and not pure decoration. --SeizureDog 12:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I believe the use of opening screens serves to identify the games (as much as a photograph of the covers would, but we are not discussing that). I'd have objected to a random screenshot from the game in action, though. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For fair use to apply, the text needs be discussing the images themselves, hence the edits made by Ed_g2s. This is just a list, not commentary on the games. Vic Vipr ^T_C 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; well referenced and image use seems in accordance with Wikipedia policy (each image serves to illustrate the game in question and also in some cases, to illustrate the name in Japanese for those without native Japanese browser support). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Read the points in WP:FUC and also on the screenshot template "...for identification and critical commentary on...". The contents of the screenshots are not being discussed. Wikipedia policy tries to keep unfree images to an absolute minimum, which is why we only claim fair use when the images are absolutely necessary to illustrate a specific point in the text. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Gah, it's being used for indentification. None of the other lists for fiction (such as List of Oz books or any of the TV episode lists) actually comment what's IN the picture, they are using it to say "hey guys, this is what the book/animation/DVD case to this story looks like". What exactly would you want me to waste time "critically commenting" on? "This is a lovely title screen to Virtual Boy Wario Land. As you can see from Wario being in the picture, he's also going to be in the game. This game stars him you see." I'm losing my civility but this is becoming highly asinine. --SeizureDog 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Citing other articles in which our policy is being abused is not a justification. The fact that there is nothing to say about the picture should tell you that it should not be used. ed g2s • talk 02:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

Is it me or do I see an "OR" in that sentence?The pictures DO indentify the subjects.So I don't see what's wrong with them.I recognised one of the games by it's picture and not the name,so clearly they seem to have their purpose..-technosphere

This is my point as well, but Vic and ed g2s seem to be ignoring that point alltogether. Below is taken from Vic's userpage.

Citing the screenshot tag applied by yourself on the images in question; "for identification and critical commentary on...". Have you been able to satisfy the second criteria in that paragraph? Thought not. Vic Vipr ^T_C 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an OR in the offical rules though.

The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

You're reading the tag entirely incorrectly. The use of the "and" in the tag states that screenshots (as in plural; screenshots in general) are used for both purposes. It does not state that "this" screenshot does both. --SeizureDog 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are in the minority (4:2) and because I have offered a very logical justification of the images being present, I am going to revert their change once again. If they revert again without: a)additional support on their stance; or b) citation of rules that clearly state my use of images is illegal; I will take the steps in reporting them and having the dispute settled. --SeizureDog 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a democracy, so the minority is irrelevant. The use of the images is not necessarily illegal, but is a violation of our unfree image policy - which requires that they only be used to support critical commentary so as to keep them to a minimum. ed g2s • talk 11:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:FUC #8 the images contribute significantly to the article in that they clearly identify each of the games in question. The only mention of keeping "unfree images to a minimum" occurs in point 9, where it states that such images must only be used on the article namespace (as opposed to user pages), a criteria which this article meets. The argument for removing the images seems to be that "they look pretty" which, while true, belies their purpose at allowing the reader to quickly and easily identify the game in question, so as to then follow the link for more information about that game. In my opinion, the question should be "Do they help to identify the object in question?" and if the answer is yes, the images should be allowed to stay as per "must not serve a purely decorative purpose". They're not simply there to make the list look pretty. The term "critical commentary" also doesn't appear in any of the points of WP:FUC at all and is only mentioned in the text at the top as part of the introduction. Yay unto the Chicken 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The images can and should stay to help identify the games in question. —Nightstallion (?) 08:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised, uncontroversial, complies with WP:MOS, and has a image in the public domain. See also: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of members of the ASEAN/archive1. --Howard the Duck | talk, 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any good reason for this to be separate from Association of Southeast Asian Nations?? The article is certainly not so long that this couldn't be entirely included as prose... Besides, it certainly doesn't follow WP:SUMMARY to be that section's "Main Article" (although that admittedly have to specifically with Association of Southeast Asian Nations, not this list) Circeus 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this should be merged here? --Howard the Duck 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too short, not interesting enough. —Nightstallion (?) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is because there are only ten countries? The ASEAN is like the Commonwealth of Nations. If the ASEAN is not interesting, then so is the Commonwealth. IMHO, this is as important as any of the list found at the list of countries at WP:FL. --Howard the Duck 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't agree with the little importance argument, but I think that given the small size of the list, more info could be included, like population, area, things like that, just the countries and the joining date is not the best Wikipedia can have, or is it? Cheers! Afonso Silva 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I'll support if you cite the references according to the policies, check List of municipalities of Portugal for an example and also if you develop the lead a little more. Apart from that, the list is complete and looks good. Afonso Silva 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a great idea! I'd be incorporating those within the following days. --Howard the Duck 06:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did already for the member nations, I retained the format for other countries. --Howard the Duck 05:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm against this. The list is fine as it is. We don't need to add unrelevant stuff just to fill up the page. CG 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is that kind of info unrelevant? ASEAN is a political organization, having this kind of information is relevant. This way we can make comparisons and evaluate the relative power of its members. Afonso Silva 08:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Population does not equal power. I liked the previous list format. Rmhermen 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, everybody knows, for example, that Germany has the same power as Malta inside the EU. Come on, bigger countries have much more influence, in every organization. I don't understand why population and are are so unrelevant. Countries are geographic regions, where a number of people live. Afonso Silva 11:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Take a look at these FLs List of countries, United Nations member states, List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined, and List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name. All these lists contains the informations stated in the title, with no unrelevant information and tables. A list about ASEAN countries should list the information related to this organisation which is membership date and status in the organisation, plus a map would help. CG 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • A list with population and area would be relevant in small lists such as to show more information about the subject. Also, many people may not know what the ASEAN is (as evidenced by the comments at the top), so additional info will help. Also, I've added a map. --Howard the Duck 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm thinking that if the list is too short, why don't we incorporate it in the main ASEAN article, and delete this list? Plus I prefer if the map focuses only on the southeast Asia area and shows only members and observers states. CG 08:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think it is immaterial if the list is too short. It doesn't matter if an organization has has few or money members. For comparison, this list has 13 members, while the ASEAN list has 10. Not much of a difference if you ask me. Also, I'd be changing the map to one that you suggested. --Howard the Duck 08:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, but isn't it silly not to put this small list in the main article which would be the first thing a reader wants to know. And if the list of countries are all in the ASEAN page, why do we need a separate list? As for the map, you misunderstood me, It should only feature the southeast asia area, and not the whole world. CG 16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If yet to see an FL at the main page. And the Australia article lists the states and territories, which is then repeated at the States and territories of Australia. The map looks better for it shows where in the world the ASEAN is. Again, few people know where/what the ASEAN is. And the first they'll look for is a list of countries. --Howard the Duck 01:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • First, what I meant about the main page is the main article ASEAN. About the Australia example, the difference with this nomination is that the States and territories of Australia offers a lot more information (background, governors, parliaments...) and thus it's useful. While the nominated list is very small and could be easily inserted into the ASEAN article. CG 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But additional info has been added already, those which are essential. --Howard the Duck 13:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Like I said before, the information added is not useful and not specific or relevant to the context or the subject of the list (except the date and status), and should be removed from the list. CG 14:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So finding out the capital, which country has the largest population and the heads of state are not useful when you're talking about international organizations such as this? If so, what should we replace it with? --Howard the Duck 14:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We don't have to add information just to fill the page, the ones I've mentioned are sufficient for this list. Anyway, this discussion needs a third opinion. CG 15:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the lead and added references. Hope those who oppose may take a peek and see if its good enough already. --Howard the Duck 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It meets the criteria. We have smaller FL (e.g. List of Canadian provinces and territories by population). I don't see any reason for not supporting a complete, well referenced list. Afonso Silva 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It looks great. 23prootie 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I still suppport it but could you put a color-coded Southeast Asia map which shows colors that correspond to the date a member joined. 23prootie 07:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)23prootie[reply]
  • I'l request it again. The map is all grey space, could we zoom and show only the southeast asian region? CG 09:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'll work it on the weekend. Thanks for all of your suggestions. --Howard the Duck 03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of Chief Ministers of the state of Tamil Nadu in India since 1920. It contains in-line references and footnotes. Graphical timelines show a better view of the tenure. I think it satisfies all the criteria to be a featured list. As for the one citation needed tag, please check this where I am waiting for consensus for removing it. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In firefox 800*600 resolution, the 2 Madras Presidency images are intruding into the list. Untill you have that needed inline citation, the list does not totally fulfil the criteria no.2 (Accurate).--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I added clr tags to keep the images from overlapping into the lists. Could you please check again? - Ganeshk (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried this. If this is not fine, feel free to revert. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still that citation needed tag is nagging. Moreover main reference link is not working. (Government of Tamil Nadu — Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu since 1920).--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried the link and it is working. Could you please check now? - Ganeshk (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's peculiar. The link is still not working. In fact tn gov site is not working. I tried from Tamil Nadu, there also it's not working! I tried both I.E. and firefox.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really unusual. The link works fine for me. Please investigate at your end. It's likely not a problem with the site. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the link is fine now. Must have been some problem from my side!--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this edit solves the citation problem. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Of course!--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Best resource available on the Internet on this subject. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although the average editor will have to go through six pages before he gets what he/she was looking for (i.e. List of Chief Ministers of the state of Tamil Nadu), I feel that the list satisfies all the FL Criteria and can be featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but if we split them into multiple lists, they may be too small and some users would require the context before going to the actual list. Do you suggest a reverse chronological ordering otherwise? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the current scheme. If I had, I would have opposed the list. I just made an observation that this list is more extensive than most readers would expect and hence they will have to scroll down more in order to look for what they were looking for. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, great work! —Nightstallion (?) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. The list is cumbersome with extraneous detail. No distinction is made between the 1919, 1935 and 1950 Constitutions and their dramatic effects on electorates and public offices. For instance, in 1919 the electorate was limited to top 5m but in 1950 it was expanded to over 220m (by the daring Ambedkar). Also, unlike the 1950 Constitution, its predecessors were not parliamentary but federal. So the Chief Commissioners and Governors of all provinces reported to the Governor-General (who replaced the Viceroy and thus reported to the Prime Minister of UK who reported to George V). Also, there is an unexplained gap during 1939-46. This Sixties' image along with other more recent pics seems to violate copyrights. Amateur work. Anwar 09:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Featured lists have to be comprehensive, hence your allegation is unfounded. Again, the list is not meant to discuss constitution as it is about Chief Ministers. Although the image is copyrighted, it is used under Fair use. So please read it before objecting. The work is quite professional so that that allegation is also unfounded. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Ambuj has noted above, the list is about CMs and is not meant to be a political history. If you have any information, feel free to create an article on the political history of Tamil Nadu. Having said that, the article does note changes relevant to CMs with references. See the following examples.

    ... the governance structure also evolved from a modest secretariat with a single secretary for the Public Department in 1670 to six departments overseen by a Chief Secretary by 1920. With the enactment of Government of India Act of 1919, the first legislature was formed in 1920 after general elections.<ref name="tnhist">[http://www.tn.gov.in/misc/histn.htm Government of Tamil Nadu — Tamil Nadu Secretariat — Brief History]</ref>

    The first legislature of the Madras State to be elected on the basis of universal suffrage was constituted on March 1, 1952, after the general elections held in January 1952.<ref>[http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/history/history.htm Government of Tamil Nadu — The State Legislature — Origin and Evolution]</ref>

  • Feel free to improve the article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Anwar: I have updated the article per your comments. Please check these edits. I have added the events surrounding the 1920, 1935 legislatures. Also added the reason why there was a gap in the legislature between 1939 and 1946. The images are clearly marked fair use with rationale. Please check and advise. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks great to me. —Khoikhoi 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Image:M karunanidhi 20060526.jpg and Image:Mgr4R.jpg need fair use rationales because they are being used in more than one article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rune.welsh: I have added Fairusein tags to both images and also added rationale. Please check and let me know if that will suffice. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that's not quite what I was expecting. See Image:Simpsons_s6.png for an example. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I updated the rationale again. Please give it a check. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is good stuff. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when FU issues/objections sorted out — otherwise count this as a "neutral" vote. Nice work now that FU tags are in place. Weak object ([1]; didn't have time to follow article, so self-reverted first vote) Saravask 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – the timelines are a novel addition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The list is great but it is crowded. Could you remove the two Madras Presidency maps since they are very intrusive and could be easily found in Madras Presidency? And while the horizontal templates are very useful, the vertical one is rebundant and very big, and should be removed. Otherwise you have my support. CG 13:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to CG:
• I removed one of maps and moved it to the right. Let me know if its okay.
• I removed the vertical timeline and moved it to a sub-page. The vertical timeline adds additional information such as important events during the tenures.

Please check and comment. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your response. As for the maps it's better now. As for the vertical timeline, I would vote for its deletion, but if you think it offers a lot more information I won't mind if we keep it on a separate page. CG 05:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My objections have been solved. I'll change my vote to Support. CG 07:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd-party nomination: This is an excellent list that I don't see why hasn't been made into a featured list already. The only thing that is perhaps truly lacking is references, but I believe that the external links section covers anything that would need to be referenced.--SeizureDog 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I like the formatting. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Several tables that should have similar formatting do not. table 9-16 are different from 17-18. Article should also user proper footnotes instead of asterisks. Circeus 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the asterisks to footnotes, but I'm not seeing what you're talking about. The format all looks the same to me. Elaberate?--SeizureDog 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table 1 through 8 have special background colors due to the DVDs, I understand that. However, the header cells of the tables for seasons 9 through 16 have no background color, whereas season 17 and 18 do. All these tables should have the same, choose oneor the other (I'd go with colored cells myself.) Circeus 13:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have fixed the background colour issue. The colour I have used is unlikely to be used as a DVD colour since it is the colour of their skin. When a new season DVD is released we can change the colour. I've also added fair use rationale to an image and moved two links up to a references section. I believe that the list now complies with the list of criteria. --Maitch 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice choice. Will support now. I'm still a bit iffy about the pseudo-TOC, though. Circeus 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Great work, support. —Nightstallion (?) 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I assume it wasn't already featured because it used to be loaded with episode screenshots that made it take forever to load even on a fast connection, and there was a dispute over splitting it off into sub-articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The screenshot style lists are still there, they've just moved into lists for their respective seasons.--SeizureDog 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. DVD covers are not low resolution. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice catch. All of the images were 200 dpi. I have now resized them to 100 dpi and reuploaded them. --Maitch 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the original images I uploaded were ~125dpi. If you want them to be 100dpi, they should all be about 550x700, as the original DVD covers measure 5.5" x 7". Ideally, they should be uploaded as 120dpi images for people with larger displays (and thus higher resolution desktop settings), but 100dpi should still be fine for the majority of users. --Kaizersoze 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My software said the originals were 200 dpi and then I resized them to 100 dpi in that software. There's no page that need them larger than the current version anyway. --Maitch 06:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm talking about the original images that I got from Fox Home Entertainment's media website. They're print-resolution JPEG's saved with DPI information that tells image editing software that they should be printed at 5.5" x 7" (which is the actual size of the box covers). When I take those and resize them to 100dpi, they become 550x700 images (makes sense; 1 inch = 100 pixels at 100dpi). What your software was telling you isn't correct, because the PNGs I saved don't have any encoded DPI information, so image software (if it's working properly) will tell you they're whatever DPI resolution your desktop is currently set to - most Windows desktops are set to 96dpi, so that's what it should be telling you these images are, regardless of what size they are in relation to the original image (in this case, the original image as it would appear printed on the physical DVD box). And the reason why they should be larger than what's used in these articles is so that people viewing the article can comfortably see them in a larger size if they choose to do so (in fact, the resized versions you uploaded - which turn out to be 63dpi in relation to the original images - looked incredibly tiny on my other monitor). --Kaizersoze 08:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then upload some new versions with sizes in between our two versions. --Maitch 09:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did already - images that are 550px wide, as opposed to 700px before. --Kaizersoze 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, does this fix your objection Rune Welsh? --Maitch 09:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be happier with the largest size being only 500px, but I guess this will do for the moment. Also, could you please format the references as in List_of_South_Park_episodes (for instance). Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well constructed. --Chris 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be nice if the lead could be expanded, as in FLs List of South Park episodes and List of Oh My Goddess episodes. CheekyMonkey 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the lead in the style of List of South Park episodes. --Maitch 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are no references for the estimates for DVD release dates. At the moment, it looks like it is breaking WP:NOR. --liquidGhoul 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kaizersoze has added a reference for the estimates. --Maitch 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good stuff, Support. --liquidGhoul 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to List of Oh My Goddess episodes, I feel the article now qualifies to be a featured list.

Issues in the old nom /archive1 have been adressed.

--Cat out 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? I don't think either of mine have, titles still have issues (at a glance, 前編 transcribed as 'zenhen', furigana not handled consistantly and so on). No Japanese reference is given either, like say, this (which has the added bonus of listing the key staff for each ep). Oh, and notice that gives ep 51 as the rather spoily ミュンヘン1921, rather than being titleless as the note claims. --zippedmartin 23:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Addressed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Anime News Network had the japanese referances. 日本穣 added a second one practicaly verifying it. Episode 51 did not have a title when it first aired. Pointing problems is nice, but you can also correct them. ;) --Cat out 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to bother fixing things if Mistamagic keeps reverting my fixes. Episode 51 has an English title as well as a Japanese title. Any explanation about when those titles were received can be left to the page on the episode. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I am inclined to agree. Its trivia and episode 51 aired quite some time ago... 1yr 34wks 5days 10hrs 1min 10secs to be exact as of this click. --Cat out 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Pretty much looks exactly like OMG's, don't see why it shouldn't be a FL.--SeizureDog 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- decorated with unfree images. Jkelly 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not a featured list criteria. --Cat out 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:FLC numbers 1 and 5. It's not Wikipedia's best work if it is not maximally free and reusable, and the images have an inappropriate copyright status because they fail WP:FUC. Jkelly 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.

• Unfree images are not outlawed. On occasions unfree alternative is not avalible. That is why fair use exist. Very best work can include fair use.

2. The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements.

• Material covered is certainly encyclopedic. I do not see what the problem is. It is sourced, its acurate. Episodes did first air on those dates and the titles were as described.

Copyright status of images are fair use as they are dvd covers. Releasing them with any other license would be a violation of copyrights.

Frankly I do not see the point of your objection. --Cat out 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that image license is an utterly spurrious opposition reason, as there is no free image whatsoever that could be used to illustrate this. These DVD covers are pertinent (unless you believe the ones in the above List of The Simpsons episodes are also inappropriate?), although I'd favor screenshots myself. Circeus 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eposide screenshots had been ruled (on Oh My Goddess! nom) to be an abuse of fair use... --Cat out 15:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. According to that discussion the option was given, but Cool Cat did not want to edit the image description pages to include fair use arguments. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of South Park episodes both use a large amount of screenshots...--SeizureDog 05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya... I just feel it is more informative this way. And we are using fewer fair-use images. So I guess thats a double kill. I really have no reason to insist either way. --Cat out 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All four featured episode lists have DVD covers somewhere in them. It's fair use. What's the debate here?--SeizureDog 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Ugly table: it should at least collapse borders, but I'd frankly recommend outright using the class="wikitable" code.
  • Intro is weak
  • Episode summaries should be written in a proper tone, not as hooks (ep. 51's summary is utterly inappropriate for encyclopedic content.)
  • The second header is inappropriate: the article is not and should not be a "summary of the series". Circeus 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also consider removing the first header: that section should be merged with the into.

    Ugly table? Thats a criteria? class="wikitable" is ugly. Slightly thicker lines make the table easier to follow. wikitable lines don't stand out well on firefox browser for instance. --Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That the article be minimally leasing aesthetically appears to be a pretty basic criterion, if it is supposed to exemplify your "best work", I'd think. And the default table border are terribly ugly, especially when we do have a standardized table styling, which looked just fine in my opinion. I tried a normal "border-collapse", but for some reason, I never managed to get it right (I think it has to do with how complex the table is). I will continue opposing as long as thes ebig borders are there. The style certainly doesn't need to be class="wikitable", but it should address this border issue in some way. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your taste is not a Featured List criteria. Best Work as in does it work on many (preferably all) browsers and is it easy to follow (aka no neon yellow on white). There is nothing basic about "wikitable" the current format is the wikitable only slightly altered (so we have slightly thicker borders that actualy appear on firefox. I do not see the border issue... --Cat out 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What kind of intro are you looking for. I based the format to an existing featured list. I cannot improve it unless you are spesific.--Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I adjusted that myself by reinserting the "history" section into it. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That changes exactly what? it is the same amount of text... --Cat out 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See these diffs to understand: 20:05, June 2(User:Nihonjoe removes the "summary section entirely") → 08:51, June 3: I reinserted the deleted section, but within the lead. The global amount of teaxt hasn't changed, just the number of sections ("History" and "Series summary" headers disappeared in the process.) Circeus 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah I see. so why havent you said so. You said the lead was short, you might have said something like "how about merging history section and lead". --Cat out 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote "I'd also consider removing the first header: that section should be merged with the into." ;-) It just happened so that I saw Nihonjoe's edits when I moved in to remove the links the headers, and took the opportunity to adjust that myself, and didn't see any reason to come back over it. Circeus 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh I see... nm then :) --Cat out 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Episode summaries are in a proper tone, This article ment to be a summary of the serries on an episode per episode basis. What else is it supposed to be? --Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Episode 51 is the climax of the series. I do not want to spoil a second of it... I dono... --Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "I do not want to spoil a second of it" This is an encyclopedia, we are not out to protect people from spoilers beyond the use of {{spoiler}}. Beside, the entire article is one big spoiler, and is already enclosed in spoiler tags, making these reticences completely spurrious. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has a section explaining that "efforts have been made to minimise spoilage". The serries should be watchable after reviewing the list, the point of the list is listing episodes, not ruining the show... In any case by clicking the link the reader gets the info he/she/it seeks. --Cat out 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Any additional info wanted can be found at the episode's respective article. There's no reason to spoil anything in the short couple of lines of the super summary.--SeizureDog 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running Firefox and I think the wikitable looks good. Phoenix2 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably because I "reverted" it back. --Cat out 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is what it looked like when Cool cat reverted. Getting all the borders to show up in complex tables can be tricky, right now, they only appear after after episode 48 for me. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be useful, splitting the table somewhere in the middle guarantees that all borders show properly. I don't think it's possible to remove all space between two tables on top of each otehrs, though. Circeus 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me as is. I do not understand the problem. 'My' version works fine on firefox and IE. --Cat out 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These borders are ugly. Is it so ahrd to understand? Circeus 00:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine... Since they don't break browsers, I do not see a problem. You are just being picky. Two lists have passed into the featured realm with that identical syntax. --Cat out 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have no problem with the borders at all. What's so ugly about them? Color? Spacing? I don't see anything wrong in either of the links or the screencap.--SeizureDog 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, lots of episode summaries written like advertising copy for a DVD sleeve:
  • "But can they uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town?"
  • "But something is amiss at the Tucker estate..."
  • "Also, why have so many officers from Central suddenly shown up at East Headquarters?"
  • "But how can they possibly win when they are each facing a ruthless murderer in the form of an empty suit of armor, just like Al?"
  • "Who, or what, is this mysterious boy?"
  • "Can Izumi and Ed rescue him from such a powerful homunculus as Greed?"
  • "Scar is in Lior and is dragging a large stone behind him, gouging the earth - but for what purpose?"
  • "With Ed helping the Liorites escape, Scar is the only one that can save Al now - but can he do anything to help?"
  • "Lyra and Rosé descend a secret staircase in an old church, and what (and who) is at the bottom comes as a shock"
  • "But is Ed prepared for what is on the other side of the Gate?"
  • And the most useless summary of all: "All hope is lost... or is it?"

This is an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be presenting as much information as we can, not purposely withholding it—particularly not in such an unpleasantly coy manner.

Also, we have plenty of articles on the people and places mentioned; massive wikification is in order here. Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is an encyclopedia and we aren't holding any info. All info is avalible a click away (on pages for individual episodes). If you like you can inprove the sentences and massive wikify, I certainly don't mind that. The summaries have been rewriten about three times now (and as far as I care they are perfect)...

I'll give one explanation on why we are "holding back" info (we really aren't).

• "Who, or what, is this mysterious boy?" refers to Wrath who seemingly appeared from nowhere. The entier episode (and the main plot of the series) are a set of events determining the boys identity, nature, and actions. I don't want to spoil episodes in 2 lines.
• "All hope is lost... or is it?" refers to how episode 51 appears to the viewer. Throughout the episode things appear grim (and there is random conversation here and there).
• The point of the list is to be informative of the series (which has quite a thick and twisted plot) not spoil it in 50 lines.

--Cat out 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with you there. The entire article is already in spoiler tags, so I see no real need to avoid revealing plot. In many cases, the information you've omitted is patently obvious from the summary of the next few episodes; leaving it off from the place where it's actually revealed does nothing but aggravate the reader.

In any case, regardless of the extent to which we want to include spoilers, using rhetorical questions in the summaries is a question of inappropriate tone, not inappropriate content. Kirill Lokshin 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how to fix it? --Cat out 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all the rhetorical questions? Alternately, just go ahead and recast them as statements (e.g. "But can they uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town?" → "They then uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town."). Kirill Lokshin 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They do that at the end of the episode... Hmm... They may 'encounter' them --Cat out 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better? --Cat out 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're this worried about spoilers then maybe it would be a good idea to make a non-spoiler version, like in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. I think such an idea is great and will probably use it myself in the future. -- Ned Scott 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I gotta agree with Circeus's comments, that table is... ugly. And to add something myself: If you're not going to bother with individual images then you probably shouldn't squeeze the DVD images beside the list. It's not the best way to present the information. (horizontal screen space real-estate, etc). Also, although not a requirement and not apart of my reason to oppose, I am also of the opinion that individual episode screenshots would look better on this list. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Since wikipedia does not charge per square meter of its horizontal space, I fail to see the problem...

  Article is practicaly identical to the two existing featured lists, one that became a featured list weeks ago. I do not understand the point of this constant bashing about how the table looks etc...

  Individual images had been declared an abuse of fair use, there is concensus on this which prompted the dvd cover usage. Lets not redebate.

  --Cat out 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You want to make best use of the screen space you have and not waste space.
• "Individual images had been declared an abuse of fair use" this is completely not true. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2005#List of Oh My Goddess episodes.
• Wikipedia is always evolving, including our level of standards. Just because some lists used to be considered featured doesn't mean that same format will always be seen in that light.

-- Ned Scott 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a waste of space, dvd covers are aligned with the episodes they are from...

Very well, then let me put it this way. Individual screen shots are very useless as it is very hard to tell whats on them most of the time.

Evolution doesn't happen in a week. List of Planetes episodes became a featured list very very recently. It is good practice to use recent featured lists as an example. And I'd hope wikipedia evolves into the "free" direction. (I actualy dislike using fair use images as they are not free, damn copyrights...)

--Cat out 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using past featured lists as examples, that's 50/50 for DVD-based images vs individual episode screen caps. Although, again, this isn't apart of my opposition. (but to comment on their usefulness, I can look at almost every image in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and know what episode it's from without seeing any episode text). I find tables and templates all the time that are very wide and chunky, and I try to format them to use their space better. While on some screens these tables look fine, they don't always look so good in others. And if Wikipedia gets used in a different media, such as a paper version, space can become even more important. It's not always necessary, but it's a good thing to keep in mind to use space the best you can. The only reason people put images beside episode entries was because there was a screen shot there. If there's not going to be a screen shot there then you might as well make the list use the full width. Is this necessary? no. But you're asking for it to become a featured list, the best of the best. You must think very critically of your work, and ask yourself what all can be done to best present the information at hand. -- Ned Scott 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am keeping the dvd images where they are as thats what I see as 'best of the best'. I disagree, I cant tell what is going on on the tiny screenshots, let alone the epısode. Now once you watch the epısode it is possible to tell the entier episode based on one picture... I do not think it is wise to target such a sellective audiance. --Cat out 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I did some rewording in the intro and I believe its just as good as the similar Featured lists. I think it's neat, concise and useful. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 11:45, 09 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an exemplary list. DVD covers have been used in several other features lists, and when coordinated with the included episodes, they show just as much as picking out one random screenshot would. It is well formatted, and has one feature which I feel is the most important of a good list: it is actually a useful article. Most lists I feel are pretty poor, only existing to link to real articles. This list, and the ones like it, are full, fleshed out pages in their own right. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly selected screenshots would be bad in any article. I would hope people would choose eather a screenshot of an important event in the episode or a screenshot that was uniqe to the episode for identification. (I prefer the latter, myself) -- Ned Scott 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To throw out a suggestion, this is what I would consider "less chunky" [2]. Maybe not this exactly, but just to give an idea of what I've been talking about. I feel something like this just looks better, for one. I'm still not a big fan DVD images beside the episode text, but it does have it's good points that I can see. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinner borders are elegant and I would be more than happy to use them if it didnt break the table as a hole. --Cat out 11:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated last week, and didn't get through because of lack of votes. You can see the nomination here. All the problems brought up in the last nomination have been resolved. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This list is very informative.--Tnarg 12345 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree with above. Nice layout too. Sotakeit 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good. G.He 01:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. Froggydarb 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - this is looking very good. Will it be possible to find images of example species for the few unillustrated families? There also seem to be quite a few redlinked species, given that most of them are illustrated... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given time, I am sure we will be able to fill it up (except for the purple frog). The remaining families are either rare, or are in a country which does not have much Wikipedia activity. I have been trying very hard to get photos. --liquidGhoul 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got rid of some red links by changing the example species for some families without photos, and changed one photo to do the same. Thanks --liquidGhoul 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I will definatly support this nomination, it is very east to find a species etc and creative too. Enlil Ninlil 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - would it be possible to include the details of who described each family, and when? TheGrappler 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Great. Query: do these scientists' names work like they do for botanists? "Goin and Goin" seems odd, since I know that for botanists (with IPNI) the author abbreviation is unique. TheGrappler 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pepsidrinka 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support. I really don't like the thought of a featured list missing so many pictures and having so many red links. The red links are the main problem, as it means that it fails the "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." requirement. Create stubs for the red links and perhaps ask around on some other sites if they'll let you use some images. If you can get all of the links to blue status, then I'll change to support.--SeizureDog 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is about the Anuran families, and all the families are blue links. That rule is for the components of the list, and the examples are not part of it. I will try and begin some of those articles, but I cannot do it now as I won't be near a computer for the next couple days. If you would notice, I actually expanded every family in this list so that it was no longer a stub (if it wasn't already large enough). I believe that is more important use of my time than making the list look better by making useless stub length articles about the example species. --liquidGhoul 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that expanding the families is more important, I still feel the use of red links detracts from the article. A simple line or two along with an infobox for the five example species you have left isn't much to ask (I'll ignore the discoverer names as they're small not as noteable).--SeizureDog 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started with them. I think I have done two now, and User:Froggydarb has done one. --liquidGhoul 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just going to go ahead and change to support. I'm sure those red links will be filled soon enough.--SeizureDog 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could we rethink this policy about red-links? I think it should not be strictly enforced. A list can be useful and comprehensive while having red links. Red links say that there is a missing article and that often inspires someone to write the article. A quickly written stub turns the link to blue, but it probably slows down the process of having a real article written. I went through the same concerns when I nominated List of largest suspension bridges, which failed until I created dozens of useless stubs which had no more information than what could be found in the list. Now, anyone who sees the list thinks all the articles have been written. What has been gained? Red links have value. -- Samuel Wantman 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree, that is why I expanded all the family articles, and none of the species articles I have created for this list are stub sized. Stubs are useless, if you create an article, at least put some work into it. Forcing people to create stubs does not make a better encyclopaedia. --liquidGhoul 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If there was such a thing as a "Good List" then I would say the red link policy would be unneeded. However, since it is a Featured List, I think the requirements should be tough. Also, this perticular list is rather short. It's not as if we're asking for hundreds of red links to be filled as in the case of List of North American birds. There's no rush to get the list to Featured status, it should wait until it looks nice. And to me, red links aren't nice. Also, I rather pefer stubs to nothing at all. --SeizureDog 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Imagine List of North American birds with EVERY link in red. It would still be a great list and worthy of featured status. All the information would be exactly the same. I can also imagine a featured article that is brilliantly written, yet every link in red. "Red links aren't nice"? Why? Red links inspire people to write articles. Stubs delude readers into complacency. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that not allowing red links is also a deterent for people wishing to make lists. If I put a lot of work into something, I would like a little appreciation. I was considering writing a List of Australian amphibians (or frogs, same thing) article, but the idea of creating such a large list, putting hours of work into it, and making it comprehensive in the information it provides (as I was planning on doing) would be useless if it is lost in the millions of articles in Wikipedia. It could be an incredibly useful list, but it wouldn't gain featured status because it is impossible to create more than 200 articles when only three people on Wikipedia are dedicated to Australian frogs. Forget that someone spent hours working to help make Wikipedia more useful, they need to spend the next few weeks in front of the computer creating useless stubs. I am sure there are tonnes of subjects out there which would greatly benefit from a list (even if it is full of red links), but people aren't willing to create them because there is no chance of it ever becoming featured. Look at all the biology related featured lists, they are all American bird subjects, because birds are one of the most popular animals, and Americans are the majority of English editors. Wikipedia is not about favouring the majority... --liquidGhoul 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If you get rid of the rule for links to not be red then you make it too easy to become a featured list. I'm sure there's probably somewhere where you can just copy and paste a list of a certain grouping of animals, and because its just names, it would not be a copyright violation. Making lists is easy. Making lists useful is hard. Alos, quite frankly, I would want to expand more on a stub than a red link. A stub shows that is someone other than yourself is at least interested enough on the subject to work on it, and that you're not the only person you're writing information for. And any time I actually make an article for a red link, it's hardly more than a stub. To me, red links just say "no one cares", and its hard to be inspirited to write much of anything on them.--SeizureDog 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Shouldn't this page be moved to Anura? Even if it includes a list, the page is actually an article for the order. Lists are generally sub-pages for a main article, but in this case the list is the main article. Therefore I move to rename it to reflect the order. --SeizureDog 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose to renaming The article for the order Anura is frog. This is a sub-article of the frog article, as a much poorer version of this list was once within the article. I really don't see where you got that from. --liquidGhoul 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad, I clicked a link for Anura and it redirected me to List of Anuran families. That's where I got confused. In that case, I move to change the redirect of Anura to Frog.--SeizureDog 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done --liquidGhoul 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. But I will prefer that the example of species should be links to existing articles. As the case here is very much flexible (any example would do), this should be possible. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with this is that existing articles may not have photos therefore there would be no image in the box next to the example species link. Froggydarb 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I a few cases, there are not even any species articles to link to. Circeus 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support Circeus 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are very few red-links now. Rmhermen 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I wrote this one, and feel it is very thorough for such a topic. To my knowledge, no other such list exists. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with the disclaimer that I have done significant edits to this article. It meets the criteria, and is interesting. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, effective lead, extensively referenced, not a red link in site, nice images. Phoenix2 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, way better than the List of New England hurricanes! Only one suggestion, maybe you could put a pic of a storm in the 1950-79 section. Other than that, awesome! Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I uploaded an image of damage for the 1900-1949 section, though for some weird reason, it isn't showing up. Here's the link for the uploaded file on Commons. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reason: known technical difficulities having to do with different database servers for enwiki and commons. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any idea how long the problem will take to fix? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be fixed now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks very nice. Tuf-Kat 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, complete list, comprehensive, well-written. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well done on this list, but I was thinking some maybe commentary at the beginning of each section would increase the usability of the list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I understand that, but do you mean something like, "The 1980s was a relatively active decade, with 8 tropical cyclones affecting the state. The most notable storm of the decade was Hurricane Gloria in 1985, which was originally predicted to strike the state. The hurricane caused minor damage throughout the state. " Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I meant, yes. Sorry for not being more specific. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all of the numbers need conversions and nbsp;s though, I'll work on doing that asap. AndyZ _t 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Done. AndyZ _t 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Usually, consider it as a guidance that a list may not qualify as featured just because no other extensive list exists. Yet, this is a good list. Shows good workmanship. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 05:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it is rather ugly: I think the main reason is that it is rather dense: that is, there is rather a lot of information for a bullet-point list. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we remove bullet point, are you saying? How else can we remove the "ugliness"? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure - some kind of table, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there are tables at the bottom. In addition, here is a previous version which had tables for the storms. I just don't think it worked. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (possibly a mild oppose, if anything...) - the web references are extensive, but I'm not convinced that just including a date of last access turns a web address into an "academic quality" reference. Following {{cite web}} (although it's certain not true that all of those fields are necessary) perhaps a couple more things like the identity of the publisher and the title given to the page by the page itself would make it look more professional. For instance, rather than "^ NHC Floyd report accessed April 3, 2006" why not have "Preliminary Report: Hurricane Floyd". R. J. Pasch, T. B. Kimberlain and S. R. Stewart. National Hurricane Center. 18 November 1999. URL accessed April 3, 2006". I think holding featured content to this standard would make the work look much more professional and academic. TheGrappler 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm working on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, thanks for that. Quick quibble: could the dates be given in the references in full (so "May 27, 2006" not just "May 27")? As time ticks they might be left looking a bit odd otherwise! You were right (and I was wrong) to include full author names (that's according to Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). TheGrappler 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not quite finished with the references, but I'll finish them tonight or tomorrow. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. In the references, every link has April 6, 2006. Lucky me for the author's names :) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be my bad, for some reason the {{Cite web|year= 2006}} year attribute doesn't work, which is why they didn't show up. I have fixed it now (I'll be going through and fixing the references also). AndyZ _t 23:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No biggie. Thanks for your work on the refs. I can't do them now, but I might be able to finish them tomorrow. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely oppose until contradiction straightened out - as I put in a pair of meta:EasyTimelines to cover these storms, I noticed that there was an unpleasant contradiction between the main text and the "deadliest storms" table. Hurricane Doria killed three people in 1967 (this is mentioned in the table) but Tropical Storm Doria apparently also killed three in 1971 - and isn't mentioned in the table. Is this due to a mix-up between names? Was Tropical Storm Doria non-lethal? Or was it simply missed out of the table? If both should be in the table, can they be disambiguated in some way? Hurricane Edouard is missing from the table but is listed as causing two deaths. It ought to be noted (for Isabel and Donna, each having one indirect death) that only directly caused deaths are counted. The 1933 storm is listed as causing "many casualties" so ought to be one of the higher ones in the list (presumably), but the exact number isn't given and it isn't placed in the table. It's clearly not explained by the table excluding deaths offshore, since many of the casualties given for other storms were drownings. This all needs getting sorted out, preferably by someone with access to Buchholz and Savadore. This is probably my last remaining quibble but I can't see that this should be FL'd until it gets sorted... after that this will be an absolutely brilliant list! TheGrappler 03:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed most of that. Thanks! I'm only human, and people can make mistakes. I responded on the NJ talk page. Also, the list does include offshore deaths. Otherwise, it might get confusing. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fixing efforts are appreciated! It will be difficult to fix the page entirely, or to ensure it is 100% complete and consistent with all known records, because it seems to be the first attempt at a comprehensive list. I do not believe this should be penalised on FLC, especially since it shows Wikipedia at its best and most valuable. My solution to the problem of accuracy has been to append a "Recorded storms causing deaths in New Jersey include:" note infront of the table, following on from the note added by Hurricanehink that records the death toll in one of the storms as unknown. This acknowledges that the table is not necessarily 100% comprehensive. There may be a more elegant solution, but I'm not sure what. At any rate, I am satisfied that this list reaches the FL criteria, and change my position to support. The Cyclone Crew have done an outstanding job! TheGrappler 08:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The note you added works well. Thank you for all of your hard work. One thing, the old storms-by-month table is no longer needed, as the new one looks a lot nicer. Should I just remove it? Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I didn't have to do any research, just a little bit of tidying up and redecoration, which is why I am so thankful to the cyclone projecteers! I'd keep both the table and the graph: in general, it's better practice to display a table of data for a chart as simple as a bar chart. Having the two side by side is no big deal. In its current state this has got to be one of the strongest FLC candidates ever: the final thing I would love to see before it's (apparently inevitable) promotion page-by-page citations from the main printed source, which would make fact-checking easier and also get rid of the citation backlinks that currently list all the alphabet from "a" to "o"! TheGrappler 17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Grr... that's going to take a while. School is taking away some of my time, and finding every citation from the 200+ page book is going to take some time. Does anyone even have the book for fact-checking? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • *It's okay, I'm not actually objecting! But that would be the icing on the cake if it happened :)I guess it's what would probably be expected on a featured article, but I can't foresee it not making featured list because of it. TheGrappler 19:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Cool. I guess the cake won't have icing yet, as I have quite a few other projects I would like to do first. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a good article, but it has a lot of tables and charts, which are slow to load on some computers (i.e. mine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WotGoPlunk (talk • contribs)

So should I remove the tablized version of the monthly thing be removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Charts and tables are par for the course for featured lists. Tables and charts complement eachother: the chart makes visual comparison easier but the table makes it easy to read accurate figures. I have always been taught "always include your table of data with a bar chart" so I'd run with that and keep both. TheGrappler 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, just checking. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, lets have a series of "List of State hurricane" articles, all FA's (who said the WikiProject lacked ambition?)...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support assuming its complete. Good work by Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]