Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2006

Update 13 Nov 2006

• DESA icon: We worked this and went with this: --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Images: CFJ3.jpg should be OK- please take a look at the notes under the copyright tag.
• Cites: These are now complete.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nearly there.

• You need cites for all the incorrect names too. If you can't find some right now, move those to the talk page.
• Your Troop & Pack 179 ref is repeated several times. Is it too long that it breaks wiki or do you just think it looks nicer in chunks? Some may think it devious to hide how often this ref is relied on ;-).
• The statistics in the lead need citations.
• The last sentence in the lead needs backing up with a good source - otherwise it just looks like your opinion.
• It is a pretty long list, which makes it less interesting to browse IMO. I wonder if you would consider chopping it into chunks based on profession. E.g. Sports, Politics, Arts, Military, Astronauts, ... Then folk can get a feel for where these scouts ended up. Does anyone else think that's a good idea? It would be a bit of effort, but I think it might be worth it.

If you fix the citations, you've got my support (the grouping isn't a dealbreaker). Colin°^Talk 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the are so many using the T179 ref that it breaks wiki, so we had to break it up. I built that page from a official hard copy from BSA. I think it's better in alpha order, otherwise, you'd have to look at each topic to find someone whom you weren't familiar with.Rlevse 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the reference section in this older version, you will see that cite.php kinda blows up after the bz tag. Breaking it up was the only way I could figure to fix it- I welcome any other way to do this. The T179 reference is a known good cite, based on a compilation of BSA information. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead cites are complete.

I removed the last sentence as an unsourced opinion.

Splitting by profession... is Bill Bradley more famous as a basketball player or a politician? Most astronauts were/are military, many politicians were military. Many of the folks had multiple careers. I welcome any thoughts on this, but the only way I can see this is to split it into separate articles with a lot of overlap.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way would make it worse, just leave it as is, straight alphabetical. Rlevse 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think my serious objections have been addressed. Grouping has been done successfully on other people lists. I wouldn't get too worried if there is overlap. Just pick what you think it the natural group for what they were most notable for. Wrt finding someone you weren't familiar with: 1) If you don't know them well enough to know why they were famous, then why on earth would you be interested in whether they were an Eagle Scout and 2) All browsers have a Find feature. Colin°^Talk 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping- can you give me an example? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly object to grouping. Alphabetical makes far more sense to me. Colin's item one only makes sense for an educated adult--what about a young Scout just learning of his famous predecessors and goes on wiki to find out and for item two, we shouldn't have to find what group they were put in, just go to their name.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 November 2006.

Examples are List of people with epilepsy, List of HIV-positive people, List of notable brain tumor patients, and List of Oregon State University people (not yet featured and being extensively reworked on User:VegaDark's sandbox). I really don't buy the young Scout story. Nobody finds the telephone book fascinating, but it has a purpose if you already know the name and don't have a Find button. Why would this scout remember someone's name without being told why they are famous. Surely it would be more interesting for young/old to see how many astronauts, sports stars or politicans were once Eagle Scouts. This info is burried in a monolithic list. Grouping encourages research and learning since they will find other names who are famous for similar reasons, click on those links, etc, etc. Colin°^Talk 22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really don't buy your side either, so I guess we'll just have to disagree-;). See ya around wiki. Rlevse 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The format (alpha or by group) is really like rearranging deck chairs. I think it looks fine as it is. --evrik ^(talk) 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support pending these three notes being addressed. (1) Make it clearer on the talk page guidelines that an eagle scout notable enough for a Wikipedia article must be included in the list (assuming the fact that they are an Eagle can be sourced). (2) Consider converting it to a table format with name, birth-death dates, profession, date of Eagle award, etc. although this wouldn't jive well with the current picture scheme (this is just a suggestion). (3) Fix the title. Eagle Scout is a disambiguation page between several awards. Does this list include all Eagle Scouts or (I suspect) only BSA Eagle Scouts? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1- Changed may to should.

2- We had long discussions about going to a table format and the consensus was against.

3- Will think on this. Given the project standard, I reckon it should be List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

I put a move tag on the talk page for discussion. If there is no opposition, I will speedy this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider the first two concerns addressed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update 16 Nov 2006

The incorrect Eagles have now been cited. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support excellent, well-documented list. Very informative. I vote for keeping it alphabetical and for adding (Boy Scouts of America) to the title. Sumoeagle179 02:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update 17 Nov 2006

The article has been moved to List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After weeks of review and improvement, I think that this list is worthy of featured status. In accordance with the criteria, it is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. Self-nom by Cliff smith 19:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I believe it meets the criteria and is very neat and informative. I have also contributed to the article in the past. Sfufan2005 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe the article meets the FL criteria and has steadily improved over the last month. Please note that I have contributed to this article.--Opark 77 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Also a contributor. Qjuad 22:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support Some suggestion for improvement:
  • A different references format for the episode list source, see List of Stargate SG-1 episodes.
  • Section introductions or graphs.
  • Maybe a spoiler-free version of the list. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A spoiler-free version of the list can be created in the near future. That sounds like a good idea. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree, the references/notes/external links aren't right. Put the full citation from your "references" into the linked "notes". Then move the "external links" you actually used as general references into the "references" section. Then ditch the external links. Colin°^Talk 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object I'm going to have to make my normal "one sentence paragraphs" objection. I still feel that episode summaries should be a full paragraph. Jay32183 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Conditional Support Based on the good faith effort I've seen in improving the episodes and noting that it is almost complete, I support if the remaining episodes are brought up to the standard as those that have been updated. Unaired episodes can remain in the state they are in, until a reasonable amount of time after the initial broadcast. Jay32183 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. However, two other featured episode lists--South Park and Stargate SG-1--only have one/two-sentence episode summaries. There is no guideline on the length of an episode summary in a list, however one paragraph is a little excessive since each episode has its own article. —Cliff smith 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually feel both of those lists are insufficient and that a single paragraph is not too much as an individual episode article should have at least three paragraphs of synopsis, rather than one of summary. It doesn't matter how well formatted the list is if it's text is poorly written. Jay32183 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any evidence of the list being poorly written. The synopsis are concise and to the point. Qjuad 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single sentence paragraphs don't represent the best work of Wikipedia. I will continue to object until this is fixed. Jay32183 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, Jay--I understand your opinion, but your objection is rather inactionable because 1) There is no guideline on the length of an episode summary in a list (as previously stated); and 2) Your objection doesn't pertain to any specific aspect of WP:WIAFL, which is what is truly important here.

—Cliff smith 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem. The definition of Featured List includes the phrase "represents Wikipedia's best work". This list does not, and there are two actions you could take to satisfy my object, therefore making it actionable. Expand the summaries to full paragraphs or remove the summaries completely. Neither of these actions are unreasonable as neither requires and overabundance of work or resources and both improve the overall quality of the project. If you do not take either of these actions my objection will not be dropped. I have not presented a request that is unreasonable, so my objection probably won't be ignored either. Jay32183 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is for deciding whether this list meats the critera as laid out in the WP:WIAFL and as such "represents Wikipedia's best work" in its capacity as a list. As Cliff Smith stated, no where in those guide lines does it state a rule on the length of an episode summary. Your objection appears to be based more on personal preference than the guidelines. Qjuad 03:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. I have presented an actionable case as to why this does not represent Wikipedia's best work. Any prose that is included must be up to the standards of prose for the encyclopedia. It's not a simple checklist, those are the general guidelines. Arguing with me will not change anything. Either follow one of the two actions I suggested or my objection will never be retracted. I've participated in enough FAR's and FARC's to know that arguing against a concern with a recommened, reasonable action never generates featured status. By the way, I'm not actually talking about the length of the summary but the quality of the writing. One sentence paragraphs are not good writing, they may not be bad, but any writing included needs to be the best. Jay32183 04:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea for compromise. It is this--

• The making of a spoiler-free LOE for The Sopranos; and
• Expanding the episode summaries on this list.

Jay, your assistance would be very appreciated in the undertaking of the latter, since I think you know a great deal about matters of this nature. Also, as with the LOEs for Stargate SG-1, the spoiler-free version would be the exact same thing, minus episode summaries. Should this current FLC nomination fail, the new list could be nominated; and hopefully this one will reach the same status after its proposed expansion. What do you think? —Cliff smith 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind that. I'll try to help anyway I can, but should inform you I haven't watched "The Sopranos" so I can copy edit, but I won't be able to comfortably write any new material for you. If you don't want any plot in the spoiler-free version that shouldn't be a difficult task, and I'll definitely help there if you like. Jay32183 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Your help is valuable. Also, I made the spoiler-free LOE. —Cliff smith 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I've gone ahead and wikilinked all the dates on the main page, I just noticed they weren't. Can't forget to respect users' date preferences. Jay32183 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season one looks good, keep at it and you'll have my support. Jay32183 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indents. Jay, I actually went through and removed all the date links as part of the peer review. This was a suggestion of the automated peer review and I actioned it as I felt they add little context to the article. I don't quite follow you when you say "Can't forget to respect users' date preferences." Could you explain this a bit more?--Opark 77 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The automated peer review isn't worded clearly to reflect the policy. Whenever you have a complete date as in Month Day, Year or just Month Day, you are supposed to link it because of users date preferences. For instance, my birthdate can be March 21 1983 or 21 March 1983 or 1983-03-21. If you set your date preferences you saw all three of those as the same. When you have Month Year or just Month or just Year, you don't link unless it provides context. If Spring 2007 had been linked that would have triggered the automated peer review as it should not be linked. Jay32183 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jay that clarifies it. Good work on the spoiler free article guys, that looks great for something that has come up so fast.--Opark 77 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per use of fair use images on lists. Renata 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair Use - Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. —Cliff smith 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a touchy issue right now. Some people complain that too many images are being used. Others complain that the contribution isn't significant enough. Some see no problem at all. It seems to be a discussion that won't resolve anytime soon. I can't predict how Renata's objection will be handled if it is the only objection left when this closes. I can say that images are optional, so it's really up to how willing you are to argue. I won't object to either an images list or a no images list, but that may just be me. Jay32183 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To Renata's positon) Here's the thing about LOEs: They can either have images or not have images. Whether or not images are a part of the list doesn't really affect the quality of the list. However, images that are subject appropriate are part of the criteria for a featured list. Then again, the image of the title screen and the images of the DVD art would satisfy the criteria. So at this point, I am indifferent as to whether or not there are screenshot images on this LOE. If it is of greater than little importance, the future of the screenshots can be voted upon at the talk page for this list.
But note that if they end up being taken down, this opposition should be retracted (I only say this because I've seen instances when something is changed that would make a position inactionable, but the position wasn't retracted). —Cliff smith 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - Good quality/informative list. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list has underwent a peer review, albeit with no constructive response.

This list is useful (vast majority of blue links), comprehensive (more so than the Norwegian version it was based upon), factually accurate (good references), stable and uncontroversial. I also reckon it is well-constructed, I hope the table is fully understandable. The lead section provides a good background and overview, hopefully not too long. Self-nom by Punkmorten 14:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think it meets fl criteria. - Tutmosis 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think we've had a featured list of things that don't exist. Rather than one big table, could you group them into counties (as with Municipalities of Norway), or have the county boundaries changed too? I think that would make a big improvement to navigability. If this isn't possible, could you add the county as a column? Currently, there are two each of Borge, Borgund, Eid, Mo, and three of Nes. Rename the "Other" section to "Notes". It might be nice to include a translation of your reference's titles? I guess we'll just have to take your word for it on the references. Colin°^Talk 16:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translation put on talk page. Renaming to "notes" done. I will look into the county issue on Wednesday. Punkmorten 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now listed the entities by county. Better? I would rather see the same width for all the tables though... Punkmorten 11:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I can't help thinking that one or more maps would help. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither can I, but alas free map images are hard to come by, especially for entities that exist no more. I might find some in the future though... Punkmorten 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an image in the lead should be added though. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough to be featured, but, agreed, an image should be in the lead. Hello32020 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with placing an image in the lead. Qjuad 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list has come a long way from the almost random "fanlist" of guitarists it was before several dedicated editors began working on it. It is now a well-defined, stable, useful list of guitarists who have made notable use of the Fender Telecaster and related models. There are solid criteria for list inclusion, and every entry is properly sourced. Since the list is sourced from actual books about notable Telecaster players, it can be considered comprehensive and useful to someone researching the history of this instrument. Join me in recognizing this excellent list with FL status. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An excellent reference list for a historical musical instrument. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very impresive resource. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is a good list and I can tell that establishing a restrictive entry criteria has been hard. The result is that the lead spends most of its time explaining the rationale rather than just getting on with the facts. Words like "because" and "consequently" are give-aways. Just tell us how popular the guitar is, that thousands of musicians have picked one up and that this list only includes xxxx (your criteria). The first paragraph currently mentions the "lots of" fact and the criteria twice. The second paragraph is similarly pleading. If the two guitars are considered variants of the same model, then just say so (not "can be", just "are"). You could add a citation for this claim (one of your books, or Fender's web site perhaps). A few of your links are dead (fender.demonweb). I see you've got one from the Archive. Is there not a new web site with the info? If not, use the Archive for the others. Try to ensure all your web citations have author (if you can find it), date written (if given) and access date. The date ranges will look better with an ndash. You must provide a fair-use rationale for this list for the Fender, Steve Cropper, and Waylon Jennings photos. Colin°^Talk 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback! Will get to work on these items right away. I think the somewhat verbose lead section is a result of the almost-daily attempts at "drive-by" additions of various guitarists. Will work on pruning it, and the rest of your items. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. The lead section has been pruned to use more imperative language, and a citation added for the Esquire statement. I have changed the hyphens in lifespans to endashes. I removed all fair use images and all images in the article are from the commons. I fixed all the web citations to proper format using {{cite web}} and provided date and author where available. I found updated citations for the broken ones, or used the internet archive. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great work! Glad you found some free images. Colin°^Talk 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I checked this list out and was immediately impressed. Incredibly well-referenced; the alphabetization makes people easy to find. Great job. —Cliff smith 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important topic, very well constructed list, clear and concise with a good use of colours, images and pictures. I think it definitely good enough for an FL.

• Support к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 10:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - List references? Michaelas10 (T|C) 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatted; support then. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please expand the lead as to explain what the HDI is and what it measures. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Done, copied section from Human Development Index. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I've made some edits (noted on the talk page) that I think were required for FL status. It will need updating in 2006-11-09, when the 2006 report is out. Colin°^Talk 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that right? Maybe the list shouldn't be promoted until the rankings are updated... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wondered about that. I think the 2006 report will show 2004's data, but someone more familiar with these stats might correct me. Clearly the ranking and all the individual values will change. There will probably be changes to the entries in the Unavailable section and the estimates for Taiwan will either be irrelevant or need rediscovered. This will all be true again in a year's time – would we suspend its FL status then until it was revised for 2007? No. That wouldn't be practical. The timing of this FLC is unfortunate, but I think we have to judge this article as it stands, based on 2005's report. If it doesn't get revised in a timely manner, or the revision is poor in some way, then its FL status could be reviewed. Colin°^Talk 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Yes, the 2006 report will show 2004 data. I also think the timing is irrelevant, since the updating usually doesn't significantly "disturb" the accessibility of the article (usually, it's done in one go). Ronline ✉ 09:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial self-nom. I just made some final touch-ups on this list which looked good even before that. Well defined, useful and comprehensive list of the top football clubs of South America's confederation. The style and layout is based on the featured list List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries. – Elisson • T • C • 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Based on another FL, so this should be one too. The only thing I would do is add the club crest next to their name, but brilliant list nonetheless. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 10:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's impossible because crests are fair use images. Conscious 11:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with request - it should be easy to make a map of CONMEBOL countries for lead. Also I would try to go through club articles - there should be some free images. There is a lot of space between the table and right side. Renata 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map of CONMEBOL countries added. – Elisson • T • C • 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —Nightstallion (?) 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I am not that keen on {{TOCright}} but otherwise this is very nice. Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a companion list of List of Presidents of the Philippines, which is now featured. --Howard the Duck 07:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - short & choppy lead, image copyrights are not sorted out, references are not formated properly. Renata 14:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll work on the lead. I've sorted out the image of Trias; and there's really one reference so how can I format that? --Howard the Duck 14:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean all images have problems. The whole {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} is shady. As of right now all images tagged with this template need to be used under fair use which means that you have to provide specific source, copyright holder, fair use rationales, make sure no free alternatives are available, and they are really low resolution copies. And then there is this whole thing if fair use images can be used on lists... As for references, it's simple, {{cite web}}. Renata 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added access dates already for the references. About {{PhilippinesGov}}, it was originally a public domain tag, but it got all confusing (see Template talk:PhilippinesGov, several featured items maybe in danger because of this, FYI.) --Howard the Duck 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the tag. But I think the list has really got chance at being featured even without the images. It won't that pretty, but it is still very useful. I edited the lead a bit and got confused with this piece of info: "Note that the Presidents under the Commonwealth of the Philippines were under American administration, and that there was no vice president during the Second Republic, considered to be a puppet government of the Imperial Japan during the World War II." - could you explain it a bit more? Also, {{cite web}} has a lot more parameters than just access date. Renata 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this will pass with no pics? I've edited the lead already. And I'm really confused with how cite web works, the dates of access for me are good enough. What other field is needed? --Howard the Duck 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC) I removed the pics. --Howard the Duck 13:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very useful list. Lead expanded, I did cite wen myself, and FU pics removed. Renata 13:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Could we get the color key closer to the list? I didn't notice it at first. Rmhermen 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. --Howard the Duck 14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support upon merging the "statistics" section with the lead. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that they're already mentioned, beside the color legend (Well, except longest and shorting serving vice presidents.). --Howard the Duck 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: inaccurate and false. --Noypi380 14:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone can add a citation that is more credible than the Office of the Vice President website, be my guest. --Howard the Duck 15:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose. There is contention with Trias from 1897. From Verifiability, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. There is no third party soure at all for the list of VPs of the Philippines. This wikipedia list is the first of its kind. If there is a credible third party source that is similar to the Philippine government source, conditional support. --Noypi380 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The contention is clearly stated on the article, on the third sentence, no less:
        • The inclusion of Mariano Trias in the list is disputed, for Trias was chosen as Vice President at the Tejeros Convention, and again as Vice-President for the short-lived Biak na Bato Republic, which was dissolved after the signing of the Pact of Biak na Bato and Aguinaldo's exile.
      • This will alert the reader on to judge for one's self whether to include Trias on the list or not. --Howard the Duck 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Support --Noypi380 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]