Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:41, 29 June 2008 [1].

A complete discography for the alternative rock band that hit it big in 2005. Let me know what you guys think. Self-nomination. Teemu08 (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This looks pretty good. Gary King (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments-this looks good, however, it does not contain references to reliable sources, such as the release dates of albums, the comments in the "Virtual albums" and "Demos" columns, as well as the other appearances section.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual release dates need referencing? Why? indopug (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add references to the comments in those two sections when I find a minute. However, I'm not going to add references to the dates, since they're indisputable (and that goes for all featured content, not just lists). Teemu08 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very solid work. And while I've still got the chance, a few responses to (now hidden) responses: the small font thing was just a suggestion. I like it since it seperates it cleanly from the label name and because it's not really all that important, but that's just me. As for the forcing the bolded title thing, please see this archived discussion. It's still not a set-in-stone rule, but I believe there's an increasing consensus 'round these parts to not force the straight repetition in the lead. So I still recommend changing it, but that's not enough to keep me from supporting an excellent list. Drewcifer (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Opening sentence of "This is a comprehensive discography of Death Cab for Cutie," is yuck. Comprehensive is implied because it's featured (or could become featured). Also it's a straight repetition of the article title. Something more engaging needs to be written, such as "The discography of Death Cab for Cutie consists of six studio albums, four extended plays (EPs), a demo tape, a digital album, fourteen singles, eight music videos, and two DVDs. Death Cab for Cutie are an American indie pop group from Bellingham, Washington and was formed in 1997 by Ben Gibbar..."
• Studio albums should be studio albums. In other words, [[studio album]]s not [[studio albums]]
• Have you got catalog numbers for the last 2 albums?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Studio albums" fixed and prose livened up. As for the catelog numbers, I haven't been able to find any online. Ofsten, major labels forgo using catalog numbers, instead just filing them under their serial number. If I ever do find catalog numbers, I will add them. Teemu08 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I added my suggestion for the introduction, as there was nothing which said how many albums/singles etc were released. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:10, 29 June 2008 [2].

This is a list that I started work on a few months ago, then completely forgot about. It is the merged (and improved) result of three former FLs. All concerns are welcome and will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "left in 1987; rejoined in 1997; suspended in 2000; readmitted in 2001; resuspended in 2006.[18]" – Use a capital "L" for "Left" since the other Notes begin with capital letters; same with "suspended in 2002; left in 2003.[7][20]". These are sentence fragments, so perhaps even remove the periods altogether from all of the Notes. Gary King (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please tell us how old the population figures are. Baldrick90 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Sorry to say but boring intro line, a verbatim copy of the list title. Can you be more imaginative?
  • Nope, I'm a boring person, so I removed the line.
• No need for two maps in my opinion. And the second is lacking a key so I can't tell what colours mean what joining date...
  • Done.
• British English would seem most appropriate for this so "organization" ought to be organisation.
  • Done.
• "independance " should be "independence".
  • Done.
• "the modern commonwealth " for consistency, ought not Commonwealth be capitalised here?
  • Done.
• "...which comprise of over 1.9 billion people..." hmm, lots of debate over the validity of "comprise of" - check out the internet here and here - a reword would avoid any potential conflict.
  • Done.
• The lead describes "Oceania" and "Australasia" as separate entities but then the table uses Oceania (and I've seen the comments above about a generic title) - this is still uncomfortable for me.
  • Fixed.
• Maybe worth discussing why Fiji is suspended.
  • Done.
• Don't use the in-line link "Nations Secretariat members list" - just create another reference.
  • Done.
• "didn't " - naughty, avoid contractions.
  • Done.
• " most population figures are based on 2007" which ones aren't and what are they based on?
  • I have added notes for the three nations that were not based on 2007 figures.
• Can you explain the significance of "Special Member"?
  • Yes, and done.
• Can you force the col widths of the first two tables to be the same?
  • I've tried but had no luck. The column widths are both exactly alike, but for some reason the country column of the second table is off. I've tried many different things but have had no success.
• "Merged " vs "suspended" - consistent note capitalisation required.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we delete that lead sentence? Its completely redundant to the title of the article. (There was that discussion initiated by Tony1 a while back) Looks good otherwise indopug (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This list looks ok, but please link Commonwealth Secretary-General at the end of lead paragraph 1.--Dem393 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support But I like pictures, so I'd like to see one of the Queen or Kamalesh Sharma, the current Commonwealth Sec-Gen. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you fix the sort order for population? Colin°^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I can. I'll do that right now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:05, 29 June 2008 [3].

I feel this list establishes and meets the FL criteria, though, concerns shall be addressed. This list, lists every video game titles released in the WWE SmackDown (video game series).--SRX^--LatinoHeat 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the bold from the linked text. I find the placeability of the references for the consoles and release dates hard to place in that table, because there are going to be different rows, and each game has different release dates around the world. Which is why that types of table is used by WP:VG, like the FL List of Harvest Moon titles.SRX^--LatinoHeat 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I have never seen that formatting before. Gary King (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I, until I saw that FL, which is why I used it for this list ;)SRX^--LatinoHeat 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no need to link idle years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS. Gary King (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done--SRX^--LatinoHeat 02:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One last thing: I'd be inclined to <!-- hide --> the 2009 game, as it hasn't been released yet. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw in other FL's they have the unreleased games with just the future game tag, which I just added, as some info about the unreleased game is in the lead. Is that still ok?SRX^--LatinoHeat 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't like the tag! It's up to you, leave the tag in, or leave it as it was. :) Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a bolded word in the lead.
  • Per WP:LEAD, it doesn't need a bold word, if there is no common one, and I used List of Harvest Moon titles (an FL) as a model, which also does not bold a word.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm surprised WWE SmackDown (video game series) doesn't link to it (or at least, I couldn't find a prominent link) - why not?
  • It does link to it, it has a {{main article}} link towards this list.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with {{WWE video games}}
    • Ok, I added a related articles section to the template, so it is in the template now.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please leave me a talk page note to take another look - everything else seems good. —Giggy 03:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: This list has really shaped up nicely. A few minor things that I noticed though that I think should be addressed.
  • In the lead, the sentence about the original and present series seems weird with the years in parenthesis. Could they be integrated into the text so they have a better context?
    • I integrated them into the context.SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the lead seems a bit off to me. Maybe start with "THQ and YUKE's Future Media Creators consider one reason the series has..."
    • 'Fixed'''SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the notes for WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006, I would trim it a bit:
    "Was the first video game into the series that begun usinginclude a year in its title.
    • 'Fixed'''SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the notes for WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007, I would tweak the sentence some to flow better and be more concise. Try this:
    "Was originally going to be released also on theA PlayStation 3 version was also planned, but was canceled mid-way into production."
    • Fixed
  • Ref 5 and 6 are missing their authors.
    • I added themSRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authors for ref 21, 27, and 30 can be wikilinked: Jeremy Dunham and Matt Casamassina.

I'll check back in later after these are addressed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• • • I wikilinkied them.SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: My concerns have been addressed. The list looks good: the lead is engaging, the list is comprehensive and well-structured. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:55, 29 June 2008 [4].

This is a comprehensive list of all current primary, intermediate and secondary schools recognised by the New Zealand Ministry of Education in the Marlborough Region of New Zealand. The list follows the same layout and standards as List of schools in Northland, New Zealand, which was recently promoted to featured list. One difference between that list and this one is that Northland is divided into three districts, but Marlborough is a unitary authority, both a region and a district, and so there is only a single table in this list.

Very few of the schools on the list have their own article; the links are redirects to the local town, suburb or community, which includes a paragraph on the school.-gadfium 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-gadfium 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Five paras a little long for lead - see WP:LEAD - probably three max for an article of this length.
• What's "an area school"?
• "...first year of formal education. Students enter the formal education system..." 2 x formal education in quick succession - merge these sentences and drop one o them.
• "...on the Ministry of Education Te Kete Ipurangi profile ..." - don't really understand - is Te Kete Ipurangi the Maori for MOE?
• "... commonly requested for school activities." - such as? Give some examples.
• "A private school charges fees to its students, but there are no private schools in the Marlborough Region." - so why mention it at all?
• Link Decile.
• Years doesn't sort correctly - 1&ndash15 appears before 1–6.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is as long as it is because I think it should be similar to the lead for similar featured lists, in this case List of schools in Northland, New Zealand. Reviewers for that article wanted explanations of the table, but didn't want them as footnotes. There are fewer schools in Marlborough than in Northland, and fewer types of schools, so I have been able to leave out a little bit of the explanation, but it would be difficult to remove much more. I have removed the explanation of private schools as unnecessary, and I have combined two paragraphs, leaving only four paragraphs. On my screen, the lead now is only slightly longer than is required to cover the map.

I have replaced "area school" with an explanation, adjusted the "formal education" bit by merging the sentences, and linked "decile". I've fixed the years sorting by the perhaps rather crude method of adding {{sort|1–F|1–15}} templates to two entries. If there's a more elegant method of doing this, please let me know.

I believe Te Kete Ipurangi translates as "Online learning centre" or literally as "the basket of internet", but my intention was simply to name the website which serves as a reference for most of the material in the table, not to explain the structure of the Ministry of Education's websites, so I have simplified that clause to just "...on the Ministry of Education profile...", and the name of the website is given elsewhere in the lead where I think it's clearer.

I think explaining "school activities" is outside of the scope of this list, although I do link to School Fees in New Zealand which contains much more detail on the subject. I could drop "for school activities" if you think that would be an improvement.

Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bebestbe (talk · contribs)

List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand seem to have two topics running, "Schools in Marlborough, New Zealand" and "List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand." They are not the same topic. To help focus the article on List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand, I added the lead sentence: List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand is a compilation of primary, intermediate and secondary education institutions in the Marlborough region of South Island that are recognised by the Ministry of Education (MOE). The list has eight columns: (1) Name, (2) Years, (3) Area, (4) Authority, (5) Decile, (6) Roll, (7) Website, (8) MOE. The written portion of the article should discuss these. The written portion of the article should not disucss things that are secondary to the list. As for discussing the eight columns: Is there any notable significance to how the school names are selected? What do the different Years range mean? Why do some Areas have more schools than others? What do the different Authorities mean? Comment The list is limited to MOE recognized schools yet the name of the list is "List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand." A school is a school in Marlborough even if it is not recognized by [[Ministry of Education (New Zealand)|MOE]. You either need to change the name of the article or add another table that includes primary, intermediate, and secondary education institutions in Marlborough not recognized by MOE. Hope this helps focus the article. Bebestbe (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were trying to get away from every list starting with "title is a list of ...". Every list should have a lead section, for a list of schools, mentioning the types of schools in the area would appear to be appropriate rather than being a distraction from the list itself.

I'm not sure of the value of explaining that the region is a unitary authority. The only relevance is that unlike in most other regions of the country, there are not several districts to divide schools into. I explained this above for the benefit of reviewers who might be comparing this list to the Northland one, but how is this relevant to the list itself? It might be worth explaining at List of schools in New Zealand.

The lead does explain most of the terms in the table; if you find other terms used are not self-explanatory, please point them out.

I am not aware of any schools not recognised by the Ministry of Education in the Marlborough Region. Such schools would not be permitted to provide general education in New Zealand eg they might be bible schools, but they would not be primary schools. The difference between state and private schools was explained originally, but I removed the explanation relating to private schools on request here because there are none in Marlborough. I believe the current list title is an adequate reflection of the contents of the list.

I am not aware of any significance to how school names are selected. Most are based on the name of the locality. In List of schools in Northland, New Zealand I have provided translations from Maori where necessary. There are no schools with Maori names in Marlborough. Any explanation about school names should properly be in the article on the school or the locality.-gadfium 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium, forgive me if you are aware of the ongoing discussion generated by Bebestbe but here's a link to familiarise yourself with the community consensus thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that after I had replied here. Thanks for pointing it out, though.-gadfium 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bebestbe's edits appear not to be in accord with majority opinion, and in my opinion are detrimental to the list, I have restored the previous version.-gadfium 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps begin the article with "There are ## schools in Marlborough, New Zealand". It's keep the bold-text intro people happy, and those who hate to see "This is a list of..."

Done. Seems like a good compromise.-gadfium 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice list! Please explain "dedicated intermediate school" in the lead.--Dem393 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "dedicated" is confusing, so I've removed it. "Intermediate school" is linked to an explanation; it's the same thing as a "middle school" but that term is pretty much unknown in New Zealand. Such schools only occur in New Zealand in cities; elsewhere primary schools or high schools include the year 7 and 8 students which intermediate schools cover.-gadfium 06:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Support--Dem393 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:49, 29 June 2008 [5].

• Previous FLC

The previous FLC was withdrawn because of an editwar on the article; it was fully-protected a bit later, so it then utterly failed criterion 7. I've submitted once again for consideration. Maxim_(talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nom I'd also like to add for all reviewers that the edit war that led to the protection of the article appears to be over. The article has been stable for several weeks now and passes criterion 7. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• No need to capitalise "Gold Medal" in the caption, and no need for a period as it appears to be a sentence fragment, and I suspect en route to be two words.
  • Done.
• "The Ice Hockey World Championships is..." followed by "They were preceded ..." inconsistent.
  • Done.
• "1976 world championships" shouldn't the WC be capitalised? There seems to be more than one of these - I'd be looking to be consistent.
  • Done.
• " nor during the Olympic years 1980, 1984 and 1988." why not?
  • This was brought up during the previous FLC, and my answer is the same, I'm not sure why. I've looked through several sources trying to find an answer, but with no luck. It was probably for the same reason why many other sport world championships don't hold events during Olympic years - they consider the Olympics an unofficial extension.
• Sorting by Gold gives me Canada (1), Canada (10), Canada (11)... Canada (19), Canada (2), Canada (20)... I suggest this should be 1, 2, 3 etc. You may need to force the sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change simply because most other sport-related lists do it in this way. Besides that, I Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like the title shouldn't use an abbreviation. If I'm not mistaken, most sports articles use the full-name of the sports league it applies to. Ie National Basketball Association rather than NBA. I believe the same applies here for International Ice Hockey Federation, so List of International Ice Hockey Federation World Championship medalists. Or for a smaller option, perhaps List of Ice Hockey World Championship medalists, which goes off the title of the event rather than the league. I'm just wary of using an abbreviation of the title. Drewcifer (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:42, 29 June 2008 [6].

I have recently wrote and published this list and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Years in "Term" column don't need to be linked, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
• Year ranges should have unspaced en dashes per WP:DASH

Gary King (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hello32020 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Explain who/what the Warriors are in the lead.
• "... which has been of ..." is an odd way of saying where the franchise has been based.
• "...began with joining ..." is another strange way of saying how the franchise started.
• Place BAA in parentheses after using the expanded version.
• Same with NBA.
• 1962-63 should use an en-dash.
• Same for 1971-72.
• "and latest title " most recent title would be better.
• "the only one to do so while being with the team for his entire career" reads strangely to me. He got inducted at a single point in time, he did, however, spend his entire career at the franchise. Suggest a reword.
• Last three or four sentences of lead are choppy - copyedit to improve flow.
• Shouldn't "Loses" be "Losses"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed your concerns. Hello32020 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lead section is good, all these head coach lists should aim for something similar to this in both size and content. Shame there's no more pictures though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:00, 26 June 2008 [7].

This list is based on the Vanier Cup article. The list includes both champions and playoff MVPs because I felt both were were lacking as seperate articles, but combined they are more useful. I could also add a column for coaches of the winning team if anyone thinks it would help. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cool, man. Drewcifer (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

• "This is a List of Calder Cup champions..." - "Repeats the article title (and the "L" in "List" shouldn't be capitalized)

• I removed the capital, otherwise for the repetition, the usual convention on Wikipedia is to put the name of article in bold in the first sentence. Maxim_(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not one reference to cover the table? Do something like List of NBA champions or Boston Red Sox seasons (or just add a general reference at the bottom of the table with "colspan") « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's in general references. Adding a reference for every year is unnecessary clutter. There are reliable references for those fact in the general refs section. Maxim_(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wasn't Jack A. Butterfield Trophy awarded until 1983-84? Add a reference and/or citation.

• I think that'd be obvious, no? It wasn't created yet... Maxim_(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I found the intro a little confusing as it's unclear what relationship the JAB trophy has with the Calder Cup. I'd stick with just the Calder Cup and state later on that "The list also describes the winner of the JAB trophy...etc" with an explanation there as to its significance.
  • Fixed.
• Remove the period in the caption.
  • Done.
• Drop in an (AHL) after the first use so abbreviation use is clear.
  • Done.
• Is there a citation available for the purpose of the Memorial Trophy?
  • Yes, added.
• "has also won nine." I'd make it "has also won nine titles."
  • Fixed
• 94/95 had multiple winners for the JAB trophy. This needs explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if there is an explanation. Both are goalies, so I'd assume that they both won the trophy because they both shared the time in goal equally. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good image to illustrate the list; it is comprehensive and fulfills the criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—I did some work on it previously, but for some reason never offered my formal support. Maxim_(talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Find a more artistic way to introduce the article, rather than "This is a list of Calder Cup champions and finalists." We know this from the article's title
• Wikilink American Hockey League in the references
• Can you do sorting on the Winning and Losing team columns? Otherwise you should only wikilink the first time a team is mentioned.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome. One final thing from me; "First awarded in 1937–38" sounds odd. Would you be happy to use "First awarded in the 1937–38 AHL season"? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It says in the "1937–38 season". Adding AHL creates a redundancy. What other season can it be? ;-) Maxim_(talk) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It didn't when I reviewed this morning: [8]. Read it without the wikilink: "First awarded in 1937–38". One would think it was awarded in one of the years, not a span, so I preferred to see the word "season" to clarify. Anyway, it's done now Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:54, 26 June 2008 [9].

This is another medal count, modeled after the recently promoted 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. It is fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Non-breaking spaces, ahem.
• Should be a commma before current refs 3 and 4 in the sentence.
• "most medalled athletes" Is "medalled" an adjective? Maybe it would be better to use another construction.
• the same "global ranking per country" is there, as with every other medal count list, and as with all the rest, I have no idea what it means. Who in the world put that sentence everywhere? Anyway, should be removed or clarified.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "BBC Spport (April 30, 2002)" — BBC Sport
• "the 10 Km race" — "10 km race"? I'm not too sure if this is a proper name or something so that's why it's capitalized?

Gary King (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent list! I enjoyed reading it. =) --Dem393 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Don't force the bolded title. It reads awkwardly, so I'd recommend taking out the bold and just starting it with a sentence that makes since and isn't redundant. For accessibility reasons, you shouldn't indicate anything just by color. So the host country thing should be labeled someway else (maybe you could italicize the US's name?). Looks good other than that. Drewcifer (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Two bad links, checked using this.
  • Both have been fixed.
• "second consecutive Winter Games" needs a citation, perhaps borrowed from the 1998 article?
  • Done.
• "Norway was awarded two extra gold medals" - this really needs expanding upon, especially as it's confusing with the intro to the next section.
  • This is expanded upon in one of the below sections
• Image caption is a fragment so needs the have the full stop removed.
  • Done.
• Any chance of a link for darbepoetin?
  • It was already linked at least once in the article, but since I have added more links/
• "won two more medals, but was allowed to keep them until 2003" - I think it'd be better to say "...and was allowed to keep them until...".
  • Fixed.
• You've got BBC Sport, Fox News etc linked in the citations, but not ESPN, International Olympic Committee etc. Be consistent with the linking.
  • Done.
• Are five external links necessary here? Do they add anything the existing citations don't already provide?

That's my lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I felt they were because the five links give more history on the individual medalists and allow users to get more information. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're very welcome. Now go get some support! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • The following two sentences should be rewritten, IMO. It doesn't flow very well. Immediately following the Games, Germany was also the gold medal leader with twelve. Two years later, in February 2004, Norway was awarded two extra gold medals, (see below) raising their total to thirteen and giving them the lead.
  • The controversy about the French judge was a big deal, so it should be mentioned in the lead. It can be added to the last one-sentence paragraph.

--Crzycheetah 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the sentences as you suggested, but I'm not sure if the French judge controversy should be mentioned in the lead, since this is an article about the full medal tally, not individual medalists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still merge those two sentences using the "however" connector. As for the French judge, she affected the medal tally in some way, didn't she?--Crzycheetah 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She did, which is why she is mentioned later in the article, but I'm still not sure if it's lead worthy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but:
• Country linking in the main text: hardly necessary for anglophone and well-known countries; inconsistent anyway (Norway is linked on second appearance, not first, and Germany and many others not at all. I'd be inclined to link either no countries or only less well-known ones to English-speaking readers—Croatia and Estonia, say—if you can cope, and definitely not to link Australia, the US or China. The opening is very blue and messy.
• Trivials: en dashes, not > in the British external piped link. And MOS says en dashes as separators must be spaced if there's one or more spaces in the linked items. TONY (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remove some links, but just a small thing to note: most of the country links actually go to the [insert country] at the 2002 Winter Olympics page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [10].

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles and List of tallest buildings in Boston. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I believe that it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Gary King (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - another great collaboration. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments- why do some of the ranking numbers look like this "3="? Also the year in the column, is that the year the building was built or the year it was the tallest building in New York City?--SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The "#=" designates equal rank and height between buildings. So, for example, the Chrysler Building and the New York Times Building are labeled as "3=" because each has a height of 1,046 ft / 319 m. And the year column designates the year the building was built; the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section is the one that covers when and which buildings were the tallest in the city. Cheers, Rai•me 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Support-Ok, I see now, great list, and well put together list.SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a very thorough list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This list is comprehensive and highly detailed. Hello32020 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is clearly another excellent list of tallest buildings from...Raime??? (heh...I'm not surprised that it's you!) :-p So this is me being a perfectionist again:
  • "It also stands as the second-tallest building in the United States and the tenth-tallest building in the world, and also stood as the tallest building in the world from its completion until 1972." This sentence should only have one "also."
  • "...this complex also includes the proposed 1,339-foot (408 m) 200 Greenwich Street,...743-foot (226 m) 130 Liberty Street and the completed 741-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center." This needs a comma before "and the completed 741-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center."
  • In the "Under construction" section, what standards did you use to place Silver Towers 1 & 2 on the list? The same question could be asked for the "Proposed" section.
  • Also in the "Under construction" section, "Table entries without text indicate that information regarding one or more of building heights, floor counts, and dates of completion has not yet been released," doesn't need "floor counts" since you provided all of them.
  • In the "Approved" section, you don't need "building heights, floor counts" in the last sentence because you provided them in both rows.--Dem393 (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you again for the very detailed review! :-) I addressed all of your concerns: I removed the second instance of "also" from the lead, added a comma in the appropriate place, added the now standard "A floor count of x stories is used as the cutoff in place of a height of y feet (z m) for buildings whose heights have not yet been released by their developers" in the "Under construction" and "Proposed" sections, and shortened the two notes appropriately. Again, thank you for being so nit-picky, as that is what allows this list to become "Wikipedia's best work" in the end ;-) Cheers, Rai•me 13:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed your notes a little bit, since I probably didn't make myself clear above. Good job on the other revisions, though!--Dem393 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it possible to add a tallest building by Borough (New York City)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - good idea. Do you think the new section's placement is appropriate (see List of tallest buildings in New York City#Tallest building by borough)? I put it after the pinnacle height section and before "Tallest under construction, approved or proposed", but I question whether it would better before or after the "Timeline of tallest buildings". Cheers, Rai•me 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it might actually be more important than the pinnacle height list. Do you think a bunch of redirects should be created for Tallest building in Brooklyn, Tallest buildings in Brooklyn, Tallest building in Manhattan, Tallest buildings in Manhattan, etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the new section should at least remain after the pinnacle section, as the listing by pinnacle height is essentially another way of listing the buildings and can be seen as an "extension" of the main tallest buildings list. I created redirects for the Manhattan entries and the singular tallest building in (Borough) entries, but I think creating redirects for the tallest buildings of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island would be somewhat misleading because the list only includes one building from each borough. Cheers, Rai•me 23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great Article, nice pictures, lots of references. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a small white space below the tallest buildings table due to the side images. It is not as large as the other lists, but I thought I should notify you about it also. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one image. Does that remove the small white space, or at least reduce it substantially? Cheers, Rai•me 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is now gone. Well, it was not even that bad in the first place if you were to compare it to the Atlanta and Chicago lists prior to their remedies. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another great list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [11].

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Houston and List of tallest buildings in Miami. I have been working with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and TonyTheTiger to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 03:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support-I find no flaws in the article, meets the FL Criteria to the fullest and is well organized and the prose quality is good. The tables are also sortable and easy to comprehend and are used where needed. Good job!--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Gary King (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it's a great list. It might be an idea though to add <br clear="all"> to the see also section, because the commons link overlaps the notes section. Baldrick90 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It certainly meets the standards of all other tallest building lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This list is certainly one of the best lists that I have reviewed so far. I do have 2 comments, however, unlike the others. Yes, I realize that you haven't received many suggestions over here, but this won't take too long. ;) I hope you're not mad at me. :)
  • With respect to the Spire, you stated that it will "stand as the tallest all-residential building in the world." With respect to the Trump Tower, you stated that "it will break the record for the world's highest residence that is currently held by the John Hancock Center." The Spire is taller than Trump Tower, so wouldn't the Spire break the record for world's highest residence as well? Could you please clarify this confusion?
  • In the lead, "The tallest building in Chicago is the 108-story Sears Tower..." appears to use a hyphen in "108-story." Good! In the third paragraph of the lead, "The 150–story Chicago Spire..." appears to use an en dash in "150–story." Are my eyes deceiving me? If not, then this violates WP:MOS.

As I said before, excellent list! I'm sorry if I sounded too picky, but I was really just trying to find something wrong with your list! :D Good luck!--Dem393 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I fixed both of your concerns, and don't worry, there are no "hard feelings" here ;-) For Trump Tower, you are correct; the Trump Tower will break the record for the highest residence upon its completion in 2009, but the Chicago Spire will then break it in turn in 2011. So, I changed the Trump entry to: "Upon completion, it will break the record for the world's highest residence that is currently held by the John Hancock Center, but will likely lose the title to the Chicago Spire in 2011". And I changed the en-dash in 150–story to a hyphen. I am glad you were picky, as any issues that exist should be fixed, no matter how small they may be :-) Thanks again and cheers, Rai•me 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!--Dem393 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great list, no concerns to address. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why doesn't Chicago have a high-rise count like New York?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the list does state that "there are 1,074 completed high-rises in the city". Most lists don't have the high-rise count comparisons like the New York list has with Hong Kong; such comparisons are only included if a city is in the top 5 in the world for high-rise count. You can see according to Emporis' calculations, (ignoring the "Points" column and therefore the order of the cities, and looking only at "Buildings") that in terms of a high-rise count comparison to other cities, Chicago would be 18th in the world and 3rd in North America. This information could be added, but I don't think that it is necessary. Cheers, Rai•me 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed it in the text. I thought I had scanned for "high-rise," but I must have typed something wrong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What do you think about adding Image:Chicago Downtown Aerial View.jpg? Ordinarily, I would just add such a picture, but since we are in the advanced stage of a FLC nom, I am asking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I disagree, because that picture doesn't show much of the Chicago skyline.--Dem393 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list probably shows 95% of the buildings on the list and maybe 100% of those in existence at the time of the picture. Aside from One Museum Park and One Museum Park West I don't know of a building not in the picture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Dem393 was referring to how the buildings are not easily identifiable in the image, especially considering that the image would have to be so small to be included in the list. Overall, I don't think it would really add to the list, as at such a small thumbnail size the photo would look more like a street grid than a skyline shot. Cheers, Rai•me 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry that I wasn't clear on my comment, but Raime is right. The picture doesn't add to the article because it doesn't even focus on the Chicago skyline. You can't compare the building heights very well. For this kind of list, I pretty much expect the pictures that I would find in the postcards as I pass through all of the gift shops in the city. I doubt that this picture would be on a postcard!!! :-) I feel that, as a Chicagoan, this list already accurately describes the skyline very well.--Dem393 (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess, I like the photo more than most because I know the city. I am guessing neither of you is a Chicagoan by your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well I guess you're more of a Chicagoan then me, but I live close enough to the city that I can pass by every few weeks. ;-) Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Raime, Why are you assuming it would have to be at a thumbnail size. Is there something that would prohibit you from adding it at 250 or 300px?
                • Well, perhaps not thumbnail size. But the only way it could be 250px or 350px would be if it were placed in the lead (the images next to the tables are smaller than that), and I think the current image represents the skyline and individual buildings in a much better manner. Overall, even at its full view at its image page, the aerial photo doesn't compare buildings well (as Dem393 stated above), so at any smaller size it would be even less "useful" for the purposes of this page. Yes, it shows all of the city's skyline, and is a great image, but it just doesn't distinguish between individual buildings. Cheers, Rai•me 21:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You may want to add a comment to Heller International Building as the tallest building in Chicago that is not either in the Chicago Loop or Near North Side until One Museum Park is completed and have similar comment for One Museum Park in its notes section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I phrased the notes as "tallest building west of the Chicago River", as that is what Emporis states. Cheers, Rai•me 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to our talk page x-postings One Museum Park is now a completed building (I think it is topped out). I am just not sure what topped out means. The top is on it, but I think a few windows still need to be added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please check edits to the under construction table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you are watching. Note my newest change in the notes. Also, you will want to move the One Museum Park image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You will also have to change the notes on 340 on the Park since One Museum Park is taller. What happened to the notes I had added about tallest all residential and tallest on South Side (Chicago), which are cited at the skyscraper page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) Okay, it should all be done now. Basically, when a building is topped out but still under construction, it is listed in both the "Tallest buildings" and "Tallest under construction" lists, with an asterisked note in the completed section. I moved your cited information from the U/C section to the building's entry in the main list, but it is still there. I think the image is fine where it is, as no more images can be added to the main list (see Leitmanp's comment below), and technically the building is still under construction so it is appropriate. I updated the information for 340 on the Park. Cheers, Rai•me 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Based solely on my observations from driving by or walking by all the 2008 buildings under construction are topped out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Done - I added 600 Lake Shore Drive, South Tower to the main list, because Emporis lists it as topped out. However, The Clare at Water Tower is not yet listed as topped out according to Emporis. Emporis regularly updates that information, so I don't think The Clare should be added to the main tallest building list until it is clearly labeled as "topped out". Cheers, Rai•me 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The same thing that happened with the side images in the Atlanta list has occurred on this list. Half of the Chicago Temple Building and the Carbide & Carbon Building images are hanging over, leaving a large empty white space below the table. Also, the last image in the Under construction section looks as if it is an approved building. And, the two images in the timeline section are pushing the two See also links and the Commons box down (resulting in an empty white space between the See also header and the section's content). Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one image. Does that remove the small white space, or at least reduce it substantially? Cheers, Rai•me 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not think that I explained it very well. I did not mean to say that one image in the the tallest buildings section caused all three problems; they were all different problems (I hope that makes sense). But, as you can see the Chicago Temple Building image is very long. It is still causing a large gap (but much smaller than before), so maybe removing the Chicago Temple Building image would have been the better option. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your explanation was very clear; I accidentally looked at your comments at the New York list's FLC twice, and was under the incorrect impression that one of those times I was looking at this list's FLC :-) I re-added the Carbide & Carbon Building image and removed the Chicago Temple Building one. I don't think the overlapping of the images in the under construction/approved sections is a problem; it is perhaps even the desired result, as there are no other images to use in the approved and proposed sections. In addition, there is really no chance for confusing an under construction building with an approved one, as long as the image is clear. I added {{clear}} to the end of the timeline; I don't think it really matters if there is a white space between the end of the timeline and the "See also" heading (the space is present with my screen resolution as well), as the article content is essentially "over" at that point. Cheers, Rai•me 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everything is fine now. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should have noticed this a long time ago, but Aqua, Chicago needs a lot of info in its notes section. It is the tallest building ever designed by a female (owned or lead I'm not sure) architecture firm. It is also the first to combine hotel, rental, condo, and retail (and possibly parking). I think you can find it in its press releases on the web.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I added a reference to this article from the Chicago Tribune that describes the building as "much hyped as one of the world’s tallest skyscrapers designed by a female-headed firm...", but not the absolute tallest female-designed building. So that is what I wrote in the notes section: "Upon completion, will stand as one of tallest buildings in the world designed by a female-lead architectural firm". As for the first skyscraper in the world to contain condo, retail, apartment, and hotel space, I could only find this article from Magellan Development that describes it as the first such building in Chicago, though not the world. Thus, "Will be the first skyscraper in Chicago to contain a hotel, condominiums, apartments and retail space." Cheers, Rai•me 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely do not like one of. If it is the tallest, 2nd tallest, 3rd tallest, that is great. If we don't know how high it ranks, just exclude it. I thought I had read in some press releases it was believed to be the tallest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it really necessary to exclude it? In my opinion, it still a note very relevant to the building's height. Note that The Clare at Water Tower has a note stating "Will stand as one of the tallest senior living centers in the world upon completion". In some cases, a definite ranking isn't available, but I don't see why that should warrant the note's total exclusion. Although, it is not that big of an issue, and I will remove both notes if you feel it necessary. Cheers, Rai•me 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess leave them both and if we can find further detail, we can add it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [12].

My entry for the FLC contest. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You shouldn't rely on colour coding alone for something as important as whether the film was nominated or not. Perhaps you could add an extra column:

That way, you would be able to sort for which films received a nomination.

And which reference covers the table? I tried to find one, but the only general ref just mentions which films were nominated for the award. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed accordingly. As for the table reference, the person I got the information from actually emailed the Academy Library for the relevant lists, and I don't think there's a single source that lists all of them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to have some kind of reference for the table, otherwise the most crucuial part of the article would be unsourced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Got one. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Remove links from bold text or remove the bold text per WP:LEAD. Gary King (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • Sorting. Right now it sorts by first name. It should sort by last name. This is complicated by the fact that these are Japanese names, but they seem to be presented in western order. But the order does need to be double-checked and fixed.
  • Why are some redlinked, and some blacklinked? Redlink them all, I think. --Golbez (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's supposed to be in western order per WP:MOS-JP, but I changed it so the sorting would work via last name, and I redlinked the remainder of the films. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing it by "family, given" isn't good. There are ways to sort a table and still keep the display as "given family". I think the template you're looking for is {{sortname}}. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One example, there may be others, but "Harp of Burma" is a redirect to "The Burmese Harp", which appears to be the official English title. Can you go through and make sure you're using the proper translations or official names, and avoid redirects in the list? --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the redirects, and yeah, Harp of Burma is the title used in the nomination, although the article is named The Burmese Harp. I've also used {{sortname}} for the director names. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now, do I get really nitpicky and point out that "Ōshima" should probably sort somewhere around the Os rather than the Zs? ... yes. :P If that's possible. In transliteration, all Ōshima means is it would be "Ooshima" or "Oushima" otherwise. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Interesting list! Here's a few suggestions:
• "Japan ranks fifth in terms of total nominees, behind Sweden (fourteen nominees)...." Who else is ahead of Japan?
• "Below is a list of the films that have been submitted by Japan...." How did Japan select its films? Was there a committee, or did certain people vote on their selections?
• If these films were notable enough to be nominated by Japan to the Academy Awards, then why are some of the links red? Shouldn't those movies link to articles, too?--Dem393 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is in the reference, and I don't think listing the remaining three countries is necessary. As for the redlinks, there aren't articles for them. Yes, they're probably notable but no one has gotten around to making them yet. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's fine. Support--Dem393 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "The first user to get their list promoted will be declared the winner. Users are not allowed to submit an FLC before [date to be determined]." A bit early eh? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the contest started Sunday morning.--Dem393 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original starting date, but it was later removed by Scorpion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I went by this message. I wasn't aware of a change in the rules. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, that is the date I sent everyone (but I didn't expect anyone to be ready by then). You can still battle for second (or third) place, or you could force a tie if you nominate a list within th next seven hours (or even tomorrow) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I better get working on my list then. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't understand Japanese in any form), but from what I can tell, the cited chart does not include directors. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't. I probably can't get a general reference for that, so do you want individual refs down the table for that column? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignore that, it does. I was probably sleepy or something :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment - why are rejected films color coded for green, while noms are red? I would think that the rejected ones should be red. Otherwise, well done, though! I would say that the directors don't necessarily need referencing, since they generally aren't considered controversial or otherwise POV pieces of information. (That being said, having refs isn't bad either.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Swapped the colors, and directors are part of the general reference, so it isn't a big deal, although I do agree that it's probably not necessary to source them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support I am not comfortable with the first sentence that basically copies the title of the page, other than that, this is a great list.--Crzycheetah 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I agree with Crzy, it's not exactly an engaging opening.
• "Japan ranks fifth in terms of total nominees, behind Sweden (fourteen nominees) and ahead of the former Soviet Union (nine nominees)." Is "nominees" correct, or should it be "nominations"?

That's all I have, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the opening sentence (there doesn't have to be bold per WP:BOLDTITLE, right?). And "nominees" is correct (and is the term generally used by AMPAS). "Nominations" is also misleading when we're using "submissions" in the article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. I was just curious. And yeah, bolding isn't needed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article doesn't mention the big controversy surrounding the non-submission of Akira Kurosawa's Ran in 1985. This is a non-negligible omission. You can find additional information about this controversy here. Otherwise, congratulations for the efforts you made to help improve the article. BomBom (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added in. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [13].

Has had a PR and I've got feedback from a few users. Think I've done enough. Buc (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks pretty good to me. Sorry for the late response, I have been on vacation for a while. Good work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "..., who had moved to the NFL. They joined the NFL after the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. They moved to Los Angeles in 1982, and returned to Oakland in 1995..." - reads clunkily and could do with a brief copyedit to improve flow.
  • Any sugestions?
    • Suggest WP:LOCE for copyeditors. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tried to fix it.
• Move ref [2] to the after the full stop at the end of the sentence as recommended by WP:CITE.
  • It is
    • No it isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "respectively.[2]"
        • " total of 48 seasons[2] in the AFL and NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't follow, there is no full spot in that quote. Buc (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you kidding me? "... NFL." Move [2] to after "...NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um no I'm not? Not quite sure what you mean but I think I've fixed it now. Buc (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't "Loses" be "Losses"?
• Colour choice for "whole career" is virtually impossible for me to see on my laptop. Why not choose something like pastel pink?
  • What's the code for that?
• As footnotes on the whole appear to be sentence fragments then they don't take full stops.
  • If you say so.
• Any reason why present is in italics other than personal preference?
  • Shows it's Ongoing. Buc (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what present means, but why is it necessary to put it in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, shows it's Ongoing. Buc (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What property of italic text indicates "ongoing"? Does the MOS back this up? Get rid of the italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think NFL head coach lists have a MOS. Not yet anyway. Buc (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, so in the meantime get rid of italics, they add nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough to start with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Ok I think that's everything. Buc (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "Games Coached" -> "Games coached".
• "pro-football-reference.com" or "Pro Football Reference"?
• Sometimes you appear to use the work field in the {{cite web}} template (e.g. for ref [4]) and sometimes the publisher field (e.g. ref [5]). In each case though, you appear to be linking a website - so use one or the other but not both for the same thing.
• Does footnote [a] have a reference?
• Don't have blank cells - either put a footnote/ref in, or add an en-dash and put something suitable in the key explaining it.
  • What should I put in the "Awards" cells? Buc (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing. No awards is self-explanatory - no number in the # cell etc needs explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to relink Flores - it's not a different section, just a different era. You don't relink Shell.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've done everything. Buc (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This has been through the wringer enough, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - one more thing - if you could make the GC, W, L, T, W–L% etc cols the same width it would make the table much more pleasing on the eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it's a good idea -- W–L% is naturally longer because it has extra characters. There'd just be extra white space in the other columns. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [14].

I have recently wrote and published this list and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Non-breaking spaces, please?
• "They were purchased by Philadelphian Irv Kosloff and Ike Richma, and the NBA approved their franchise shift and name change to the Philadelphia 76ers in the spring of 1963, which returned professional basketball to the city." When were they purchased? Also, try to explain "which returned professional basketball to the city". Was another team there before them?
• ...which went 51-13 in their first NBA season under Al Cervi, and won the Eastern Division crown." Using which here really isn't grammatical.
• Removing the redlink.
• If you wikilink someone's full name once in the lead, you should only need to refer to them by their last name the next time (i.e. for Cervi, Hannum, Cunningham, and so on).

Noble Story (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you would like me to enter non-breaking spaces, other then that I have completed your requests. Hello32020 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• References should go in numerical order, so [3][5], not [5][3]. And [4][5][12][13][14][15], not [4][12][5][13][14][15]
• Use mdashes, not ndashes for "empty" cells

That's all. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hello32020 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• At this point there is no reason to just bold "head coaches" so completely remove bold.
• There isn't a single image of a head coach that you can add?

Gary King (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbolded head coaches. I am trying to get a few people to license their images, but there isn't any free images for use on Wikimedia projects as far as I know. Hello32020 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten a response yet, so I'd assume no images are going to be added. Hello32020 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Explain what the Philadelphia 76ers are (for the non-expert).
• It's confusing that you introduce Syracuse Nationals before P76ers. I'd do it the other way around and say something along the lines of "formerly the Syracuse Nationals..."
• Put (NBA) after first use so subsequent abbreviation use is understood.
• "went 51-13 " - needs an en-dash but also very jargony.
• "...coached with the 76ers total of ..." missing word?
• "...their latest title..." most recent title would sound better.
• "...coach for a few years..." a bit vague, non-encyclopaedic.
• "Number of coaches" in the key is confusing. It's the number of the coach...
• "W – L %" in table needs to lose the spaces so it's the same as the key.
• It's confusing having 3 in the # table - other lists I've seen place an en-dash here.
• Any reason present is in italics?
• Is there a basketball lists category?

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Hello32020 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose But you don't wanna soften that glaring red colour?TONY (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose:
  • "They were formally the Syracuse Nationals, and that team joined the NBA at its foundation in 1949, had a record of 51–13 in their first NBA season under Al Cervi, and won the Eastern Division crown." This chain of and ... and ... and ... is not good. Can you split it into two? Semicolons and periods are useful, and perhaps ", which joined ...".
  • Overuse of "and". "They were purchased by Philadelphian Irv Kosloff and Ike Richma in the spring of 1963, and the NBA approved their franchise shift on May 22 and name change to the Philadelphia 76ers on August 6." Here, try a semicolon: "... 1963; the NBA ...". Judge whether the two ideas are sufficiently close for "and"; if not, use a sharper boundary between them.
  • Is the "also" necessary? Remove if not (I'm unsure since I'm out of the context loop).
  • This is clumsy: "He led the team to their most recent title, as a coach, in 1983." --> "He coached the team to their most recent title in 1983." Surely?
  • "for a few years—this is a no-no. How many?
• Not actionable, but is there not one image you could dredge up?
• One "blank" en dash in the numbers column, versus em dashes in the playoff "blank" squares. Consistency is required; my personal preference is for en dashes.
• If you don't end up inserting an image to the right of the table, perhaps you could widen the "Regular season" and "Playoffs" columns just a little, since there's spare horizontal room and they're just a little compressed at the moment.
• Key: lower-case c in coached and loss. No space before percentage sign.
• Issue of "–present" in terms of out-of-dateness I'm going to raise on the FLC talk page now.
• I need sunglasses to read the neon-red/blue "Syracuse Nationals" in the table. Perhaps choose slightly more pastel colours? Suggest white print against black background for "Philadelphia 76ers", but up to you. TONY (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed your concerns. Hello32020 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and no, I sadly can't find any free images of the coaches. Hello32020 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work, it looks good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All comments seem to be addressed. I made a quick change and put the references into numerical order. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:52, 25 June 2008 [15].

This list has been moulded into the shape of other season lists which have all successfully gone through the WP:FLC process, and I feel it now passes the FL criteria. It also went through a peer review. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've made a couple of minor changes in the lead. But otherwise it's meets all the criteria, and adheres to the already well-founded structure of other such seasons articles. My only suggestion would be to add wikilinks to those top scorers who currently aren't linked and are notable enough for an article to be created in the future. Peanut4 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already done - the wikilinked scorers are the only ones who pass WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A link to Scarborough F.C. in the lead would be useful.
  •  Done Linked added. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The web references in the General section are missing publishers.
  •  Done Publishers added. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]