Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2009

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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): ISD (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list covers every single episode of QI, including who was on each episode, who won each episode, names and dates. The introduction to the episode is comprehensive and there are no problems with the image as far fair-use rationale are concerned. If promoted, then this will be the first FL to cover a quiz show/panel game. ISD (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a list of episodes of QI" Featured lists don't start like this, see List of 24 episodes for a good example of an opening sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments: I've changed the opening sentence. ISD (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• 23 December 2003 -- don't partially link dates in this way, or use easter eggs. You could say in the lead, that "QI premiered in 2003" or something, not perfect, but better
• Has Series G been made yet? If so "N/A" is incorrect in the producer column. Someone produced it, you just don't know who. Because it hasn't actually aired on TV yet, I would remove that row.
• The "for example" you give about a chameleon; it's unclear whether you're saying that statement is accepted as true but is false, or if it is wrong and pathetically obvious. The colon should be a semicolon, too. Really, from "Conversely" onwards, the paragraph needs rewriting.
• "following the success of a non-broadcast pilot." in what way was it successful?
• "For example, the first series covered" this shouldn't start a sentence. The previous sentence should "end" with a semicolon, and this sentence should run on from that one
• "The first series was first broadcast on September 11, 2003 on BBC Two" ref please
• "From the second series, BBC Four broadcast the following episode immediately, with the episode being broadcast on BBC Two the following week in its usual slot." This doesn't make sense straight away. What does "immediately" mean? As soon as it was filmed? Something like:From season two onwards, the first episode premiered on BBC Two; the following episode was broadcast immediately after on BBC Four, which then re-aired the following week on BBC Two. Each subsequent episode premiered on BBC Four immediately after the BBC Two rebroadcast of the previous week's episode.
• "broadcast the following day on BBC Two, replacing the early broadcasts." What early broadcasts? These are previously undiscussed.
• "extended repeat called QI XL" -- "titled"
• Again, what does "Early broadcast or extended repeat" mean in the main series table?
• I wouldn't put the "home channel" column, because you've already said that the majority of episodes premiered on BBC 4, and it's just too much info to stick in a single column
• Why not name the producer in the prose, and get rid of that column too?
• Make sure the guests first and last names don't get put on separate lines
• Being picky, but does "Clip show featuring deleted and extended scenes from Series E." belong in the "guests" column?
• "The broadcast of this episode was delayed because it ran simultaneously with the Comic Relief telethon." the original scheduled airdate did? Or the actual airdate?
• Can you confirm that the Original airdates are for BBC 4 where applicable, and not the airdates for the BBC2 airing?
• What makes http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/ a WP:RS? I've tried to use it before and was told it isn't
• date formats in references should be in dd mmmm yyyy, the same as in the body of the article, and not ISO format
• Same link in EL and references

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments: I have carried out all the changes you asked for. Concerning the use of the BCG as a reliable source, I should first point out that I have used it in other featured lists (see List of Peep Show episodes) and they were accepted. Before an article is created for the site, it must first go through an editor who will check everything is OK. ISD (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know you've already discussed it on the talk page, but I don't think you should list the pilot with Series A; for one thing, it messes up the numbering (Ep 1, Series A is listed as overall ep 2, when it is actually ep 1), and for another the pilot isn't a part of Series A, it was just released on the DVD. They really ought to be separated (or have the pilot removed from the table altogether and just mention it in the lead). Bradley0110 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment: I personally believe that the pilot should be included with the first series. For starters, I've seen other episode lists which have put the pilot along with the first series/season, such as the List of Seinfeld episodes. Also, I believe that the pilot does count as ep 1, as it was the first episode made - it just wasn't the first one broadcast. ISD (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're just using that as one example, but Seinfeld's pilot was retroactively renumbered S1E1.Bradley0110 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I know, there are no other examples of an FL which includes a non-broadcast pilot. Therefore there is nothing to really compare it with. I still think I am right, but no doubt you will differ. Maybe it is best to mention this on the WP:FLC talk page. ISD (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you, as the primary editor, believe that that is the best format to use, then OK. As for "no doubt you will differ", don't worry, I'm not out to 'get you'! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to offend. I've started a converstion about this on the WP:FLC talk page if you want to go into it further. ISD (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• Is the unaired pilot episode a part of the official first series? If so, I think it would be fine to keep it where it is, otherwise it should be listed separately. Also, was it included on the DVD? If not, the first table should be edited
• "The broadcast of this episode was delayed because it ran simultaneously with the Comic Relief telethon." This is confusing. Does "was delayed" mean the originally scheduled airdate was changed and it aired at a later week, or that it aired in a later timeslot? Does "ran simultaneously" mean it actually aired at the same time as Comic Relief? If so, how is that possible? Only one programme can air on a channel at a time, unless they do some split-screen dual broadcasting weirdness
• "This episode was a clip show contained deleted and extended scenes from other episodes in Series E." should probably be an "and" after "clip show"
• "the first series was first broadcast on September 11, 2003 on BBC Two." This sounds like the entire first series aired on the same day
• "As a result, the broadcasting of episodes immediately afterwards on BBC Four was replaced. Instead, an extended repeated titled QI XL was broadcast on BBC Two and was shownthe day after the episode was originally shown on BBC One." --> "As a result, the scheduling of episodes on BBC Four was dropped in favour of an extended repeat broadcast on BBC Two the following day titled QI XL"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments: I've carried out your comments. The pilot was released as an extra on the Series A DVD and therefore I believe it to be officially part of the series. ISD (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "which are believe to be obvious" - believed
• "A non-broadcast pilot was first made and well received..." - what is the meaning of "first made" it doesn't really work, maybe you are trying to say that the show was picked up after the BBC responded well to a pilot or something like that.
• "As a result, the broadcasting of episodes immediately afterwards on BBC Four was replaced. As a result, the scheduling" - repetitive "as a result", in fact the first sentence could probably be scrapped.
• Because you have a section for it, I would possibly add another row to the Series box, which says Series G; 16; TBA; N/A
• "This episode was an clip show contained deleted and extended scenes from other episodes in Series E." - an clip show? also missing word between "show contained"
• "replaced in the television schedules" - isn't is just one schedule

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments: I've carried out most of the changes you asked for. The only one I did not to was add another row for Series G. There was a row, but another user, who is also one of the FL directors, told me to remove the row. ISD (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm haven't supported this yet because the prose still needs some work to meet criteria 1 – "professional standards of writing"

• "Between the second and fifth series, the first episode premiered on BBC Two" - so is that just S3 & S4??
• "the following episode was broadcast immediately afterward on BBC Four" - afterwards is BrEng
• Repetition of "immediately afterward on BBC Four" in two sentences that are very close to each other
• "the first episode premiered on BBC Two; the following episode was broadcast immediately afterward on BBC Four, which then re-aired " feels clunky and only strictly mentions the second episode. I'm not a prose expert but something like the episodes were aired each week on BBC Two; the second and subsequent episodes were first shown on BBC Four in time-slot immediately following the previous episodes BBC Two broadcast would probably be better.

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments: I've carried out the improvements you asked for. ISD (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although I'd still rather see the pilot separated from Series A, if not from the table (which, I concede, would add an unnecessary extra line to the TOC) then at least from the numbering system. Regarding the image problems, I get the impression that you, ISD, have attended some recordings of QI. If you attend any this year, then I'm sure you could arrange to take a photo of at least the empty studio! Bradley0110 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to support: Thanks for supporting. If you want to talk about the tables, there is a thread about it on WT:FLC. As regards to getting a photo of the studio, it would be difficult because the studio prohibits photos taken inside. ISD (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky cameraphone pic? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a cameraphone. ISD (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the article criteria. This is article 2 toward a featured topic; for more details on the FT, see my sandbox and scroll to the bottom. I will certainly address any and all concerns. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Chris! _ct 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Scorp has convinced me that the subject is viable, and the list meets all FL standards as I see them. Looks good to go, at least from my vantage point. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice list. Dincher (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [3].

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹

I came across this article in a very simple form and thought it had potential for featured status. I organized the list, wrote the prose and gathered references and now feel it meets the FL criteria. Grsz¹¹ 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Chris! _ct 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I would still like this stub to be created before promotion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The symbols should be in the same cells as their corresponding color. Also, can you center the em dashes? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have my comments (the ones right above this comment) been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. Grsz¹¹ 22:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Only a couple nit-picks, and I look forward to supporting soon.

• "Connecticut and Georgetown have had most winners". Add "the".
• "30 different players from ten schools have received the award". Consider changing ten to 10. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dabomb. Grsz¹¹ 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, I've reverted the year to the original format. I think the changed style needlessly clutter the table, and didn't eliminate any notes as was your initial suggestion. Grsz¹¹ 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - good list... some things...
  • I know we probably don't have a MOS statement or anything but I much prefer to see citations in numerical order, so would prefer [3][12] over [12][3]...
  • "....first given following the conference's first..." repetition of first, can we reword it to be more engaging?
  • "Three players have also been awarded a major national Player of the Year award." do you mean three winners of this particular award have also won a national award?
  • "...1979 charter member..." unclear exactly what this means to a non-Big East Conf reader.
  • "In total, the award has been given 36 times in 30 seasons. As of 2009, 30 different players from 10 schools have received the award, including sixteen seniors, twelve juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshmen." - the "In total" is also "As of 2009" so rework these two sentences so they're both related to the current year.
  • "...including sixteen seniors, twelve juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshmen...." - "including.. no freshmen" reads a little odd to me. I'd just say "made up of sixteen seniors, twelve juniors and eight sophomores."
• Otherwise, it's there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I have made these fixes. Grsz¹¹ 17:37, 30 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): Cannibaloki

I am nominating this for featured list because... my concerns with the text (regarding the grammar) were corrected at the peer review. Then, I feel that this discography is more prepared to receive your comments. Thanks in advance. Cannibaloki 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything looks good, my only concern is the last sentence. Is it really needed to mention other bands who have reached #1 three times or more? If so, then what about Beatles, MJ, Led Zeppelin, etc. That's unnecessary (genre doesn't count here).  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I can only use what is written in the text of the news in which we are using as reference. Hmm? Cannibaloki 04:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very nice work. One minor concern, does MTV and MTV Networks really need to be linked a dozen times in the references section? You should link it the first time, then not again. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Done. Cannibaloki 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "The band has released three consecutive number-one albums that have charted on the Billboard 200, a feat that also has been accomplished by Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and System of a Down."—I don't understand this sentence, haven't artist such as The Beatles, Madonna and Michael Jackson (among any number of very popular artistes) done the same? Why have only these specific bands mentioned in the article? indopug (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not create unpublished syntheses of sourced material, right?
• In the lead #1 should be "number one" and #21 should be "number 21". Per WP:MOSNUM "in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words".
  • Interesting... Done.
• "which also featured the bands Taproot, Chevelle, and Ünloco" how is this relevant to a discography?
  • Disturbed not recorded this live album alone.
• I think you can remove all the refs for the chart positions and certifications from the lead, since everything is there in the tables.
  • Better not.
• Why are Allmusic, iTunes Store and MTV italicised in the references? Websites and TV channels aren't supposed to be.
  • {{Cite web}}
    • Because the "publisher" parameters are used for the publication companies (e.g. Macrovision for Allmusic), the "work" parameter has to be used for these websites and TV channels. Hence, the italics. Having said that, I don't think "MTV Networks" is necessary in the MTV references. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes zobbel.de a reliable source? indopug (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography of Chartography Cannibaloki 18:08, 29 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [5].

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured list because... I would like to take the topic to Featured Topic, and I feel this list is as well researched as possible given the obscurity of the time period. All comments welcomed! But I'm not a big "list coder" so if you want me to do something fancy with the code of the list, be prepared to help me through it. I'm much more comfortable with FAC and prose and sources than I am with wikimarkup for tables...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Interesting list btw ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it really necessary to have a separate List of members of the Gregorian mission? Why not just include the table in the main article when it is such a short one? --Skizzik ^talk 10:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm trying for a nice featured topic and it's suggested that there be a list article. Also, I find it helpful to have all the information in one spot, as well as the fact that the main article is reasonably lenghty (well into the "split if needed" length). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, where do you got that suggestion from? I think the topic would be a nice one even without the list as a separate article. Including it in the main article seems to be the case in many featured topics when the list is not to long (see for example [6], [7], [8], [9]). Splitting it just to include it in a topic looks a little strange to me, and I don't think the main article is too big. But I guess this is a personal view so do what you think is the best, good job so far anyway! --Skizzik ^talk 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep it separate, as I think it clutters the main article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I look forward to see it on WP:FTC. --Skizzik ^talk 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Minor things, really, because I looked at the article beforehand. It's good stuff, and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm Catholic!

• I made minor prose tweaks rather than comment here, I hope you don't mind.

Heck, no. My prose needs all the help it can get. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "circa" (c) is a Latin abbreviation, so per MOS:ABBR, it and its abbreviated form should be in italics.

fixed.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Canonized?" I don't think the question mark is necessary.

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Of the non-archbishops, three were regarded as saints: Peter, James the Deacon, and Paulinus." Correct me if I'm wrong, but one becomes a saint if they are canonized, yes? You say "regarded", which puts doubt into the reader's mind of whether they were actually 100% real deal saints or not. Is there no definite answer? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to about 1050 or so, there was no formal process for canonization. Saints prior to that were just sorta "acclaimed". If enough folks claimed you were a saint, you were a saint. Since all of these guys died before then, most of their "sainthoods" don't have formal processes. The only one that's gone through paperwork is Peter of Canterbury, who went through a process in 1915 that "confirmed" he was a saint. I can throw in a wikilink to the relevant part of canonization that's linked to "regarded". I also changed the verb tense, as they still are regarded as saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. The link and verb tense change are good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good (not that I expected them to be any other way). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You might want to fix the odd sorting on some of those columns - Date of arrival in England and Death date specifically. You can use text with a display:none style to achieve that. — neuro^(talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HOw do you mean odd sorting? We're dealing with approximate dates here for some of them, someone kindly went through and put in some code that makes them sort close to the approximate date. They now sort the columns correctly according to the dates to my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, sorry, mindgoof. For some reason I didn't realise that they had been made to sort independently of what was visible, which was what I was asking for. Ignore me ;) — neuro^(talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO worries. I was just afraid there was something I wasn't seeing that was horribly wrong... it wouldn't be the first time I was oblivious. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I wonder whether the use of "we" and "us" in the second para of the lead is appropriate, but the alternative may be the passive voice (gasp!) which also has its critics. Anyway, if you can think of another way of phrasing it, please do, but I'm happy to support. (I like the picture you found in particular). Bencherlite^Talk 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it. Using personal prounouns is an MOS breach, and more generally, is unencyclopedic. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [10].

Nominator(s): Noble Story (talk • contributions)

As a push to get Houston Rockets to be a WP:FT, I am nominating this for FL. I have worked on it to meet, to the best of my knowledge, all criteria of WP:WIAFL.

Also, please note that this article is the first of its kind for the NBA, so I had nothing to base it on, and had to think of everything as I went along. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Chris! _ct 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KV5

• I would really like to see some more expansion in the lead. I know it's baseball, not basketball, but you might get some ideas from List of Philadelphia Phillies team records and List of Nashville Sounds team records. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried to add as much as I think is relevant. I've also finished adding the NBA records section. Hope it satisfies. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Above is completed. Additional comments:

• En-dash in "Best undefeated start (15–0)
• In the key, pipelink overtime (sports) like this: Overtime
• Lowest FG% - 23 out of 78 is a lower percentage than 26 out of 88. Also, it's unclear what (23–78) means. I thought that it meant 23 baskets and 78 misses, which is how I originally tried to do the math. Clarify.

Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to calculate field goal percentage is actually explained in Note A. But I've added an extra note to give an exaomple. And also fixed the other issues. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Make that lead image bigger, up to 300px is cool (I think) by the MOS.
• You don't mention franchise until the start of para 2 of the lead. For non-US readers this concept is a little unclear so perhaps mention it earlier (like when they moved cities perhaps?) and link suitably?
• Pehaps I've forgotten but typically numbers like 3200 are written with a comma separating the thousands, 3,200 say. Your numbers don't do this.
• Apostrophe question - lead has "Of the Rockets' current players...", Yao Ming's caption has "Yao Ming holds Rockets records..." aren't Rockets being used in the same way here? My grammar isn't top notch so perhaps that's nonsense.
  • Looks right to me, in the first instance "Rockets" is being used as a possessive and in the second as an adjective. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Tracy McGrady made 6 of the ..." six?
  • Per MOS:NUM, comparative quantities (6 out of 19 seasons) should be spelled the same. It's something that I've cracked down on ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Rockets only scored 66..."... scored only, not only scored...
• Not sure why the list is categorised under "National Basketball Association templates"... possibly need a noinclude in the template? Not sure...

Fixed last point—Chris! _ct 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed them all, I think. I just piped franchise to professional sports organization in the first sentence, so hopefully that will cover that issue. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:38, 27 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [11].

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk)

I nominate this list for Featured List status as I believe it fullfills all the FL requirements. Several problems have been addressed after review from several helpful Wikipedians MPJ-DK (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment

• Fix the dabs (using the first tool in the toolbox at the right)

• FixedMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The Mexican National Heavyweight Championship (called the Campeonato Nacional Completo in Spanish) is a Mexican Mexican professional wrestling championship created and sanctioned by Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission). -- (1)The English name of the title should not be in italics (2)Do not link anything in the name (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission) its WP:OVERLINK and does not redirect to any relevant articles (3)Remove the second Mexican

• 1) done, 2) Removed the wrestling link - but a definition of what "Mexico City", "Boxing" and a what a sports related "Commission" is isn't relevant? 3) doneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No because its overlinking of common terms that a reader should be aware of already. The only link relevant would be an actual link to the commission itself--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll remove "Mexico City" & Boxing links. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• From 1933 until the mid-1990s, Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) had control of the championship; however, the Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA) has controlled the championship since 1996, after the commission granted them the right. -- (1)In what ways does CMLL have control over that title? (2)..granted them the right to...?

• 1) as stated the Commission endorses it, they say "yes this is a national mexican title" and they approve champions. Everything else CMLL (and later AAA) had control over - so they have control of who wins, who challenges, which storylines it's used it, how it's promoted (in a PR sense) and everything else. They do everything but the two aspects that are explained that the COmmission did. 2) the right to control the title.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (1)Since its unknown really what the control the promotion has since the control is controversial, I would add that as a footnote.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Controversial? I'll add a footnote. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively but instead by the decision of the bookers of a wrestling promotion. -- Comma before but

• Apparently not after all.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The title is awarded after the chosen champion "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport. -- (1)I would pipelink sports entertainment to "illusion"

• DoneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Being created in 1926 means that the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world. -- Well you don't know that it is created in 1926, just its documented use, so it should be restated as such.

• Well considering you yourself objected to a phrase indicating that it may be older than from 1926 on the grounds that it was Original Research I am a bit surprised at this comment. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't need accusations sir. I'm stating that that in the previous sentence you say the first documented use was in 1926 (with the possibility of being older) and in this sentence you state that it was created in 1926, which contradicts the previous sentence that states its first documented use.

• Accusations? what the? WP:AGF and all, changed to "being created no later than". MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL, later renamed CMLL) was founded in 1933, it was given the promotional control of the title, with the Commission only being asked to approve the champions. -- Does the Mexican commission have an acronym? If it does, the Commission should be replaced with that

• It does not have an acronym as far as I've been able to find out.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"The current Champion, Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status, and as a result, the longest documented reign belongs to El Médico Asesino, who held the title for 2074 days. -- Remove the quotation mark in the beginning

• DoneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Águila holds the distinction of being the champion for the shortest amount of time with 42 days. -- Comma before with

• doneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title history

• I would make sure that the days held is correct.

• Do you just want me to confirm I checked or do you see a problem? I didn't once calculate any days, I used the "time in days" template do it with start & end dates where I've reviewed it a few times to ensure I put the correct start & end dates. As far as I can see this is fine.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, because sometimes reigns that last one day or vacated reigns are not counted properly sometimes with the template.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacant titles don't have legth and the shortest reign is 42 days, I think I'm on the safe side here. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Championship reigns by combined length

• The key should not have the Name in italics because that's not how it appears in the table itself

• I put that so the cell wouldn't be just narrow, but I changed it.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Wrestling-titles.com is not a reliable source--₮RUCӨ 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right it's not deemed a reliable source according to WP:RS, which is why I've restricted it to one simple thing - the minimum weightlimit for the term "Heavyweight" in regards to Mexican weightdivisions, not really controversial or problematic, it's certainly been used for less sources than a lot of existing FLs on wrestling. I guess I could look for another source for this detail.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to stop comparing to old FLs, they were passed when the sourcing and FL criteria was not as strict as it is today. Wrestling-Titles.com is not reliable for weight divisions either because that information is controversial since weight divisions are scarce in pro wrestling today, and that is not verified by other reliable sources (unless you can find one). --₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Failing to see the "controversy", but I'll remove the citation until I can find a reliable one. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the general ref or an official page from the promotions can verify that the title is for those weighting at least the certain weight limit can challenge for it, then that can be used instead of finding a source for the weight divisions in pro-wrestling.--₮RUCӨ 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a very good point, I've not read the preface sections of the book in a real long time, maybe it has a comment in there - thank you for that idea. 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• So was this done?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked but didn't find it specified in the book, I haven't found any weightlimit mentioned on Heavyweight titles in wrestling as they're generally "no weight restrictions" unlike the lower weight divisions that are only open for a narrow weight range. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So how did you come up with the weight limit listed in the article?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You know perfectly well how but the source was deemed "unreliable" even for something as uncontroversial that the Heavyweight division theoretically has a lower limit.MPJ-DK (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Break) Problem solved, the statement isn't there any more. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But wait, if there is a limit, then thats substantial to the article. Is there a Spanish ref that states this?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "But wait"?? That's no more "substantial" to this article than any other list of heavyweight wrestling titles on Wikipedia

For point number 3, a comma isn't needed before but because the subject of the sentence does not change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, its either or, I've seen variations of this in other FLC's that are in Brit English.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status" - this is not elaborated on anywhere in the article. What is the nature of this "uncertainty"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• D'oh - it was in the article before I split it, it's explained at Mexican National Heavyweight Championship but of course it should be menetioned here in some way. I'll figure out a good way to work that into it.
• I think I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I've addressed all the problems. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a different way to do notes so that it's clear what is a footnote and what is a reference, I think it works out better.MPJ-DK (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• "The Championship is currently vacant, possibly inactive as it has been vacant since September 13, 2006" - so is it inactive, vacant, both or neither? This sentence is extremely confusing. Also, shouldn't a line indicating its current status be added to the bottom of the list? Currently if a reader skips or skim-reads the lead and jumps straight to the list, they will think the last guy on the list is the reigning champ.

• Well all we knew for sure when I wrote that was that it was vacant but there has been no clear cut announcement that it was inactive. I now have a source that says "it's inactive" and I changed the wording and everything to reflect this fact. Should be more clear now. And looking at it I had the source all along but forgot to fix the text! MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't view reference no 1 at work, as my firewall doesn't like it, but our own article on the AAA World Heavyweight title specifically states that Manson's National title was not on the line when he lost to Mesias in the semi-final of the tournament to crown the first AAA champion,w hich would suggest that he left the tourney with it intact. Can you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I can clarify, the other article is technically wrong. He didn't officially lose it to his opponent but it was unified in the tournament and thus inactive from the second Manson got knocked out of the tournament. the AAA Title replaced this title (and 3 others). When I get time I need to actually update the other article. The AAA source talks about the AAA HEavyweight title stating the titles it replaced. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Numbered refs against the last champion on the list are the wrong way round, should come in numerical order

• You're right, I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now that my points have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Sorry if I repeat anyhing that's been discussed already, if I do, feel free to slap me down. Anyhoo...

• The title is ambiguous. When I loaded the list up I expected to see a boxing list. I got a wrestling list. Because of this I would consider renaming it to include wrestling somewhere.

• The thing is, that's the name of the championship - nowhere in the title is the word "wrestling" mentioned so it can't really be included in the name. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not keen on the fact that Mexican links to Lucha Libra in the lead. This isn't terribly clear as I would expect it to have linked to Mexico instead...
• "...Title was in 1926. Because it was created no later than 1926,..." not keen again, a little repetitive, perhaps "in 1926 and as such is the oldest.."?
• "... the promotional full control of the title,.." reads odd to me, would "...the full promotional control..." be better perhaps?
• You have "the commission" and "the Commission" in the lead. Be consistent.
• If the championship is now inactive, ought the lead to say "was a ... championship" rather than "is a... championship"?
• 2074->2,074. Check the Days held column for more of this...

• I actually don't control that, there is a template that calculates the number of days and gives the number, not sure if I can get that format to come out using that template or not but I'll have a look. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mr. Águila has been champion for the shortest amount of time.." - "amount of" is redundant, and again, ought this be "Mr Aguila was champion for the shortest time,..."?
• Full stops or no full stops in the table. Be consistent either way.
• I would include a statement about the deactivation and vacation of the title in the lead as a final word.
• "Title vacated when Dantés retires" written in present tense seems a little odd - perhaps "retired" is better. Same for "dies...".
• For Firpo Segura, you have a note as to who he defeated. Surely this information is available for a number of the more recent titles?

• It's only mentioned when the person defeated for the title wasn't the previous champion, no note = beat the previous guy on the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is fine until you reorder the list....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is true, but no other championship title list includes this and would be redundant in the format 99% of the readers se it - sorting is for when you want to look at different aspects like length or place or so on, not general comprehension. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Championship vacated for unknown reasons" don't you mean "Title vacated..."?

• The term is used interchangeably "Title" or "Championship" isn't any difference. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised that so few of the more notable wrestlers have no articles. Just a comment really.

• it really is a shame, Lucha Libre is not a great focus area on the English wiki pages, hopefully I'll get to make a lot of the articles in the future. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, apologies for any repeats and more so for being late to the review. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've answered the question that are quickly answered, I'll go through your notes and fix anything I haven't commented on yet.

Okay I've done the edits, I think it turned out well. I even removed the only unsourced statement on the page. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [12].

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk

After getting a peer review to address some of the proofreading concerns brought up before, I think this list is ready for FL. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Doncram About the counting of national monuments, I began to question about this in the last peer review, but i didn't get back to it promptly, sorry for not doing so, hence need to continue here. I see an issue in the fact that the article asserts that there are 100 National Monuments, but that is neither sourced nor made self-evident in the article. It is unclear, I think, whether 100 is a rounded off number, an approximate number, or what. It would be a feasible and good accomplishment of the wikipedia list-article to establish how many national monuments currently exist (and/or how many previously existed). The table looks fine at first glance, and it is explained. But there are problems (this discussion was garbled by later edits, i think). doncram (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a numbers column to the table, since it helps editing specific rows in the table. dm (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see. I would prefer the numbers were small (like 78 rather than 78), so that it would be more clear they are not official numbers. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering was in, but now is gone, so my preference about number size is moot. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this is the only way to document the 100 number, but in state lists of National Historic Landmarks and many other NRHP lists, the use of a numbering column makes it self-evidently observable in the list-article how many items are in the list. (Of these only List of NHLs in AL is a featured article.) I believe that small-sized row numbers can be used in this way like the numbering that appears for row numbers in Excel, without causing undue confusion that the numbers are official numbers or have any other meaning.

Honestly, I really don't like those numbers. They mean absolutely nothing. It does no good to arbitrarily number the monuments because they're alphabetical. And when a new monument is created we'll just have to redo the whole thing. The NPS site numbers them, but that's by date created and includes past NMs. In my opinion we don't have to prove to the reader that there are 100 by counting them one by one. It's not rounded, there just happens to be exactly 100, and I don't think numbering each one alphabetically is the best way to prove that. This article does not need to conform to the NHL lists, a completely separate topic, and I disagree with their use there.

I think that your stated concern about maintenance issues is completely bogusoid; wp:NRHP is not very much taxed with renumbering list-tables spanning about 50,000 U.S. NRHP sites that get about 25 updates every week. It is Friday night now, the update came out a few hours ago, all the NRHP lists have been updated already. There are new National Monuments every few years. You could deal with that. But, I can accept nonetheless you don't like the numbering; i think it is a matter of personal taste. For the NRHP list-articles, it is more important that every one of them make a self-evident total, so that nation-wide we can contribute a nation-wide total. In this article, the first table also provides an opportunity to support the exactness of the 100 total. So, okay by me. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, the leading table "Breakdown by federal agency and department" provides another opportunity to establish the 100 it is not a standard type of table (I know of no examples like this, although if there are in some other FL articles i might not like those either). It includes triple entries of some of the national monuments. The table is actually confusing as to how many national monuments there are. The table's diagonal entries total to 105, if you add them up yourself. The total of all entries in the table is 115. There is no column or row of totals involving each agency and overall. I think a revised table is needed, which would provide in a row or in a column the total number of national monuments associated with each agency, and a deduction for duplications, and an overall total of 100.

Also about the leading table, the order of agencies within the table shows no obvious order. It is neither in alphabetical order nor in order of frequency. doncram (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to this national monuments list, I think it would add to the article to identify how many of the monuments are historic sites listed on the NRHP. Which ones those are might best be listed in a footnote. Some national monuments, such as the African Burial Ground one in NYC, are historic sites primarily, actually listed on the NRHP and possibly also further designated as NHLs before being further designated as National Monuments. Other national monuments are primarily natural areas. One source for this is the official PDF list of National Historic Landmarks (available here), which includes at the end mention of all the national monuments which are NRHP-listed. I could help with this, don't think including this or not should change the FL decision here. Overall, I do support this list-article for FL. doncram (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am happy with you denoting NRHPs/NHLs in this list, but I'm not as interested in them as much as you. Again, that is a separate system of recognition for places that is not directly relevant to NMs so I don't think it is urgently needed, but you are welcome to note it.

It's worth noting in the description, there are only a few of them. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i am not sure how many there are or not. The analysis started at a subpage of the article Talk page may lead to a sentence being added to the article "___ of the 100 sites are listed on the NRHP, and ___ are further designated NHLs." This would be somewhat helpful to characterize how many National Monuments are declared by presidents for their historical importance, relative to the already stated number of ones listed for their environmental importance (alone or in addition to historic importance). This is taking some time to develop, is not a high priority. I support FL status for this list without that addition. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the African Burial Ground one, the description needs some rewording. It links to the National Historic Landmark program, which is probably good and appropriate, but it suggests that that the place is "now landmarked" as if the NHL designation came recently, after NM designation. In fact it was an NHL first. Perhaps the link to the National Historic Landmark program should come in, also, in some intro paragraph text about how many of these are NHLs. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, though I'm not what what is the best way to rewrite it. Thanks for all of your comments! Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another crack at it. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the agency table to version 3C. Thanks for helping with that! Reywas92^Talk 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, i thinks it be better. As I said elsewhere I do recognize it not being easy to create clear tables like this, hence my taking on the task of trying to develop alternatives, rather than simply criticizing yours. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support for FL listing now, all my concerns addressed. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to bring this up, but it's not clear to me that Fort Moultrie is a national monument of its own. It appears to be part of Fort Sumter. ^[1] dm (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact details, but they are both National Monuments. Moultrie is considered a unit of Sumter because they are nearby and administered together, but they count as two. [13][14] Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what those webpages are, or how official they are. I figured, cut to the chase and called the number on the official web page. She very patiently explained that Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter and Charleston harbor are three separate locations, all considered part of Fort Sumter National Monument. The NPS never does us any favors not having one official list like with the NHLs, with the different names and categories, etc. It's possible they were separate at one point and are not any longer. We'll probably have to dig up the declarations, but until we do, I dont believe I've seen a reliable source saying that Moultrie is a separate National Monument? dm (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I probably should have caught this back in September when I turned the list into the table. There were other entries which needed to be removed at the time. dm (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big thing to do by actually calling them - Thanks! So shall I go ahead and remove it and note it in the Sumter description? I'll have to update all the numbers at the top, too, then. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give it a day for other comments to show up, but yes, I believe we should remove its row and mention it in the Fort Sumter line. The articles should be modified to state this as well. dm (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Moultrie is removed and the numbers are updated. Reywas92^Talk 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Newberry is a National Volcanic Monument. Is that the same thing as a National Monument? dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing, just a more specific name. Mount St. Helens is also a National Volcanic Monument, and a few are Marine National Monuments. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a possibility we'll be able to add a photo of Hohokam Pima, dealing with license issues right now. dm (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And its added, BruceandLetty really came through. dm (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Sand Dunes National Park was a National Monument according to its page, but is not on the link we offer in the intro which if I understand correctly are only the NPS ones which are no longer National Monuments. dm (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]