Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2007

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several other lists of similar quality, such as List of birds of Cuba, among others, are featured, and I feel that this list meets the criteria too. Yomangani used a script in late June, if I remember correctly, to formulate a large number of bird lists, but I have touched this one up, added more references, added images, and expanded the lead to get it up to scratch. Thanks for your comments. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards support: The list looks fine. Still, one of my concerns is that it does not mention anything about the endemic species of birds, which it should. The other thing is that I am not too comfortable with the size and positioning of images as it is in the current FLC, List of birds of Thailand. The images are (very) ununiform in size and they collide with the section separator lines in alomst entire list, creating large gaps between the section heading and start of the text under the heading, and making it look less beautiful as it could have been otherwise. Though this is not as much a worry, yet any effort in this direction will be appreciated. I will support it once my concerns are addressed. DSachan (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the images: I have tidied some especially bad cases, but I think that it is not such a bad thing. I have tried to make it interesting in structure, so that there is usually at least one image to look at on the sidelines while looking at the list. I'll see what others say. And about marking endemic species: there are no birds endemic to Egypt. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice list. But I have a suggestion. As I checked other FLs I noticed that most of them had as a lead image a significant bird instead of a map. I propose to add an image of a Sacred Ibis stating in the caption that it was venered in Ancient Egypt or something like that. CG (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I am aware that the other FLs use a bird, and I would have done the same, but you'll notice that its not just a random bird in those FLs - its the coutnry in question's national bird. Egypt does not have a national bird, and the sacred ibis was just one bird, let alone animal, worshiped in ancient Egypt, and is not any kind of official representation of Egyptian birdlife in any way. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not have to be an "official" bird, just a significant bird in the Egyptian history or culture. CG (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed as requested. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. Just want to add a comment about how the images look a bit akward due do different sizes and shapes. CG (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a well done list Hmains (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks pretty well done. Circeus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "Sa-Sc" in the list of LGB people. There should not be any LGB person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with Sa-Sc that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. This nomination follows on the heels of the successful nominations of A, Sd-Si, Sj-Sz, T-V, and W-Z. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination and subsequent promotion of other List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people subpages. Comprehensive, well-formatted, fully referenced (and therefore uncontroversial) and has images to illustrate the people in question. Meets all criteria. •97198 talk 07:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks great, but I have an issue with the profession column. A few examples: Is Jorge Saavedra's profession an AIDS activist? That's not what his article says. Is Michael Sandy's profession murder victim? I sure hope not. Same with Allen R. Schindler, Jr. and Felice Schragenheim. Also, Randolph Scott was only rumored to be gay, no? I'm not sure if that makes him worthy of inclusion - in fact, it could be considered libel (slander?), though I'm probably exaggerating a bit. Drewcifer 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a couple other comments on the "Profession" column, too, so I understand what you're saying. I guess maybe "Notability" would be a better heading?

Scott is a tough one. A paragraph that was deleted from the article (see [1]) has three different second-hand sources. To my knowledge, Scott never said he was gay, so all we have to go on are other people's reports. And as long as those are properly referenced, they can be included. I'll examine that article a little more fully and see what I can see. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Profession column is fine, I just don't think things like AIDS activist and Murder victim apply to that column. They seem more applicable to the Notes section, although it seems you've set a precedence in previous lists to reserve that for noting someone's bisexuality. Whatever you think is best.

As for the Randloph Scott thing, it is a particularly hairy thing. It leads me to a larger question: what is the criteria for entry into the list? If it is that someone has rumored someone else to be gay/lesbian/bisexual then there is a serious problem (with this list and the previous ones as well). If the criteria is that they have announced/admitted/made no secret of it, then that puts the lists on much more secure footing, but means that Scott shouldn't be included. Let's face it, people who aren't gay usually don't want to be called gay, so we should only do so very carefully. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, there's sort of a precedence. Saavedra's info is correct, though. He founded the first Ambulatory Care AIDS Clinic in Mexico City, among other activities, so I think that's about right. I've changed Sandy's to be "designer", as in his article.

To the larger question, anyone on the list(s) has a reliably sourced reference of either them saying they are LGB or a biography (or other source) that says they are LGB.

WRT Scott, people don't say they're LGB for a variety of reasons. During Scott's life, coming out would have been the death of his career. And yet he (and others) were known to have had LGB relationships. The question is the reliability of the documents regarding their relationships. I honestly don't know in Scott's case, so I'm removing him, but for all my additions, I don't put them on the list (or even in LGBT categories) unless I have reliable sources. And the LGBT project is following the same guidelines - we're working off of this list, in case you're interested. And we do tread that fine line between honesty (if they're gay, they're gay), verifiability, and BLP. Take a look at Little Richard some time for the balancing act that has to be followed :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of bringing up further issues beyond the scope of this single FLC: the formatting of the table(s) is wierd. There's still the issue of the Murder victim as a profession, but also some of the lists have periods after the profession, this one doesn't. The precedence in previous FL lists of this type is to have the period, but I don't think that's correct. Granted, this may be a criticism of the other lists rather than this one. And in most lists with a reference/citation column, the citation is usually centered in the cell. Also, after a bit of digging through the citations, I'm still not confident on what the criteria for inclusion is. For instance the citation for Sappho only says "lesbian interest". Savannah's page says she dated Pauly Shore and apparently made porn films with male performers. I dunno, but the digger I deep the more uncomfortable I'm getting with the completeness/accuracy of the list, and therefore with the other lists in the series. Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point:

• "the formatting of the table(s) is wierd"
  Could you clarify?
• "There's still the issue of the Murder victim as a profession"
  I've removed the other murder victim as well as a holocaust victim and a person persecuted under anti-homosexuality laws, replacing where possible with actual professions.
• "some of the lists have periods after the profession, this one doesn't"
  Featured lists Sd-Si, Sj-Sz, T-V, and W-Z do not have periods after profession. Featured list A does.
• "most lists with a reference/citation column, the citation is usually centered in the cell"
  I haven't reviewed all lists, but the first three that I found with a reference column: List of notable brain tumor patients, List of Athabasca University people, and List of HIV-positive people they are not centered.
• "I'm still not confident on what the criteria for inclusion is"
  As stated in the intro, this is a list of famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. I will review each entry to make sure the reference cited confirms that fact.
• "the citation for Sappho only says "lesbian interest"."
  I'm sorry - are you question whether Sappho was a lesbian? Perhaps that isn't the best reference for her - I will check that.
• "Savannah's page says she dated Pauly Shore and apparently made porn films with male performers."
  Thank you - I've added "bisexual" to Savannah's entry on the list. Her article also goes in to the lesbian relationship she had with fellow porn actress Jeanna Fine.

Thanks for these - I'll be back once I've re-checked the references. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better and better! To clear up some confusion: the formatting was wierd because of the period and the centering of citations. The period thing is minor, but as a meta-issue beyond this one list, all the lists in the LGBT series should match each other, right? I was mistaken with the centering thing, I guess that's just my preference. As for my concern with the criteria for inclusion, I was mainly just repeating my concerns with the references and what they really say and whether they actually say the person was gay or not. What I was saying about Sappho was that the source doesn't verify that she was a lesbian - it almost says it, but not quite. I'm not doubting that she was, it just isn't backed up by the source provided. And that's exactly what I was inferring with the Savannah thing, that it seems she is bisexual. A "lesbian relationship" doesn't preclude the possibility of a heterosexual relationship, just that she had a relationship with another woman. In fact, (this is gonna seem picky, so apologies ahead of time), shouldn't sources also be provided for a person's heterosexuality/bisexuality? That is to say, if someone is bisexual, but the source provided only mentions a gay/lesbian relationship, then that's not giving equal weight to the persona's bisexuality. I don't know if that made sense. To put it another way: for any bisexual entries, the source provided should either explicitly say they are bisexual, or a source should be provided for both heterosexuality and homosexuality. Hopefully that makes some sense. Drewcifer (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Regarding criteria as a whole - thanks for making me do that :) I had skipped several entries that were there when I started editing the list, thinking they must be okay, so I've now tweaked several of those - removed a bisexual, added a bisexual, and changed two references that better state the person's sexuality. Regarding Sappho, specifically, this is rather silly. I mean, it's Sappho! To your point, though, the reference states that the author Margaret Williamson is frank in noting Sappho's lesbian interest. Is her "lesbian interest" the same as "she's a lesbian"? Modern academics say yes, since being a lesbian is about who you're attracted to, not who you have sex with. And to your other point, I did make sure the bisexuals' references all say that they're bisexual, not just that they'd had homosexual relationships. Thanks again, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ok, enough with my complaining! Good work, and thanks for taking into consideration all my picky comments. Drewcifer (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support
  • A few redlinks to get rid of in the references.
    • There are only three, and all three are ones I feel confident will eventually have articles.
  • The Sa-Sc header should be level 2, not three (this applies to all the sublists).
    • Fixed.
  • A "forced" ToC above Sa-Sc is needed. Alternatively, splitting that between Sa and Sc might be an idea to try (4 headers is the default minimum for making the ToC appear).
    • Fixed.
• Circeus (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 21 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination. I think it meets the featured list criteria and it is just as good as anu other featured list, and there is no reason why it shouldn't.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — looks similar to List of U2 awards, on which this article was obviously based. It is verifiable, comprehensive, and looks pretty :-) --Agüeybaná 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Agüeybaná. It is comprehensive, accurate, uncontroversial, and stable. If there are any issues, it can probably be addressed quickly. Spellcast 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks pretty good, except for the lead, which seems overall very incomplete. First, I would recommend expanding the biographical info just a little bit (which should be a simple matter of copy+pasting stuff from other articles). It also doesn't really summarize the article. The last sentence of the lead (X awards, Y nominations) kind of does that, but is worded so that it is inevitably incomplete. I'm sure there's some awards that he's received/been nominated for that aren't included in this list. You can solve these problems by simply mentioning some of his more prestigious awards (maybe the ones he's won, or the more notable ones), and putting any sum totals into better context. If you can take care of the above issues, I'd be happy to lend my support. Drewcifer 08:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I have some of my own, though. Firstly, I don't really get the point of adding biographical information in an article that's talking about his awards. Secondly, the only really notable award is the Grammy, and he hasn't even won one, he's just been nominated 11 times :-) Could you maybe be bold and fix the problems yourself, 'cause I don't really fully understand the suggestions. --Agüeybaná 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok the lead-in should just summarise the article. So I've summed up some of the awards for each of his three albums. It's hard to include every award in the intro, so I just put in the more prominent ones. If you still think the intro needs tweaking, feel free to say so. Spellcast (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could you link individual ceremonies in the "Year" column for the MTV, Grammy and American Music Awards? Otherwise the list looks okay on most accounts. Circeus (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Spellcast (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good.I just added the missing "on"s for consistency. --Crzycheetah 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes of the fourth season of the YuYu Hakusho anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Kashimashi episodes, List of Planetes episodes, and List of Fate/stay night episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are only 4 sagas, why can't the four of them simply be merged into one master list? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a master list at List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. It's just that with the summaries for 112 episodes as well as the inclusion of other relevant information, the article becomes a tad bit too long, bringing up readability and size concerns. In any case, the article nicely splits along official sagas. It's no different from the splitting off of seasons or story arcs at different episode lists such as List of Naruto episodes, List of Bleach episodes, and List of Lost episodes. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough I suppose. In the future though, would you mind staggering your noms a tad? It's kind of hard on the reviewers when there are 3 or 4 lists about the same series here at the same time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. It's just that these four saga lists, along with the main list at List of YuYu Hakusho episodes, would make a fine featured topic. Temptation calls. =) I'll let these four run their course before nominating the main one though, as I need to do a little fiddling into how I want it to be styled. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Same as the three others. Also, I now notice these four articles all fail to mention that each of these "story arc" is also an airing season... Circeus (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Circeus (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes of the third season of the YuYu Hakusho anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Fate/stay night episodes, List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes, and List of Planetes episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks good, but couldn't the plot summaries be a tad longer? It's not that big of a list and none of the episodes have their own pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Same comments as for the two other sagas, but otherwise perfectly featurable to me. Circeus (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Circeus (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 21 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes of the second season of the YuYu Hakusho anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Claymore episodes, List of Planetes episodes, and List of Bleach Soul Society: The Sneak Entry arc episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not that big of a list, perhaps the plot summaries could be lengthened a little? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral List looks okay, but I'm rather iffy with the name (cf. the Spirit Detective nom.). I also reiterate my suggestion for a paragraph describing the overall plot. Circeus (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Circeus (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 22 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes of the first season of the YuYu Hakusho anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Planetes episodes, and List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't find anything to oppose on, it looks good. Although perhaps the summaries could be lengthened a little since none of the episodes have their own pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've expanded them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Could you considered using (season X) as the disambiguation marker? It's really the expected one, and "saga" is too similar to the "story arc" used by the Bleach lists. Maybe add a paragraph summarizing the plot in the lead? I'm more iffy on the naming issue (hence the "neutral"), especially given there aren't even redirects... Circeus (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the sagas rather than the regular season list naming style since the arcs were officially named and defined by FUNimation here. I was originally going to follow the naming style of the Bleach lists, but List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (Spirit Detective Saga) sounded better than List of YuYu Hakusho Spirit Detective Saga episodes. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the name is official doesn't mean it's not confusing to outsiders: even the master List of YuYu Hakusho episodes use "season" before "saga". And they are still seasons, so at least redirects would be a good idea. Circeus (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So do you want me to make the relevant redirects or rename the lists? Either is fine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind. Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sorry I didn't et around to it sooner. Circeus (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should this page not be moved to List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1) like many other season lists and articles, such as The Simpsons (season 8)? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I always thought it was capitalized, per lists such as List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2) and List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 3-4). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list of seasons played by Bradford City A.F.C. along the lines of previous lists of other football clubs. I believe it meets the same standards as previous football lists and meets the FLC criteria. Peanut4 10:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, for now. A lot of the seasons do not have any references to corroborate the statistics in the article. For every season, the league positions and FA Cup results should have a source to back them up. Once you provide these sources, I'll gladly support. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 13:57
  • The final league positions and cup records are fully referenced in the sources at the bottom - particularly Football Club History Databse. Peanut4 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, looking over the refs again I now fully support the promotion. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-17 23:47

• Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, once the matters mentioned below are addressed This list follows the pattern of previous football seasons FLs, with one (to my mind) improvement, namely the extra column for Other competition round reached. Colouring this column gold or silver when appropriate, rather than the whole, quite wide, competition column looks much cleaner and is easier to read. Well done, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. If you're going to use emdashes to separate, then take out the spaces round them, otherwise use spaced endashes (per WP:DASH). Not sure the bit about bolded scorers should be there, it already appears in the Key section where it would seem to belong.
    •  Done Changed the bolded scorers to detail the progress of club's top goalscoring record. Peanut4 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations. Where news sources are cited the publication date should be included.
    •  Done Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• now full support, Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes of the Kaze no Stigma anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes, and List of Planetes episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Everyting seems to be in order.--SeizureDog 07:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: looks complete and nicely done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is the capitalisation of "blast of wind" as original? Circeus (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it is. Here if you're curious. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem,just wanted to make sure. Support. Circeus (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support Meets all criteria, although some of the episode prose is a little weird - probably needs some fixing up here or there. •97198 talk 09:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, another one of my Victoria Cross related topics. This list is in the mould of List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients which is a very recently promoted FL. I think this list meets the criteria and displays all you would want to know about the recipients. As always any suggestions/improvements would be appreciated if you feel them neccessary. Thanks. Woodym555 23:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support: Shouldn't all those places be wikilinked? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, i don't think so and here is my reasoning. Wikilinks are used when theyt add something to the article. I don't think linking to a stub about a forest in France will add anything to this list. This is strengthened by the fact thjat most villages have changed immeasurably since WWI, WWII. What has an article on modern day Crimea got to do with a war fought 150 years ago. I think linking to battles where available would be preferable. Saying that though, several VCs were won for several actions over several days. I will try and add battle links, but would that be better in a separate column? Woodym555 14:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends. My objection was the list of places, with no way to find out anything about them or why a person won a medal there - the places were basically useless information. If the *battle* was the reason the person won the award, I think that should be there and linked. If not, perhaps the place could be linked to a nearby city/town/village? I dunno - but just having the place, with no link, doesn't seem right. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why doesn't it seem right? I think it is useful to know where it took place. Why do you need a link if it isn't adding anything to the list? Usually there is a battle or campaign for which they were awarded, though in the case of Johnson Beharry, a recent recipient, there isn't a battle. His award was for several actions in different places. More opinions on this would be welcome... :) Woodym555 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was started wading though it, using extra links to battles to substitute, but most of these places are actually small villages instead of the actual division they are in, when the name aren,t incorrect or impossible to determine for lack of infomation on Wikipedia as to which of the dozens of villages with that name is concerned. It is a much more complicated quagmire than it looks. this version is done up to Edmund De Wind. Circeus (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - I feel that the main text needs inline citations. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, don't know why i missed that. I have added them in now. Woodym555 14:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm self-nominating this because it appears comparable with the previously featured List of North American birds and List of birds of Nicaragua. it has no redlinks, I've lower-cased headings as per MoS (did the featured NAm list at the same time), added more commentary, added status for migratory, rare and endangered species. Jimfbleak 07:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - tweaked some grammar but no concerns otherwise. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Part of me wants sections like "Eagles, kites and allies" to either be broken up or to be placed in two columns, but since the long sections like that are few and far between (and since dealing with the pictures would be problematic), leave 'em as is :) Looks very good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent list! One small issue: "which occur in Thailand" seems like an odd word choice. Wouldn't "native to Thailand" work much better? -- Drewcifer (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Country lists always include all the wild birds recorded in the country, including passage migrants and accidental vagrants, so "native" is misleading - but "recorded" would be clearer, so I'll change it.Jimfbleak (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Obviously a lot of hard work has gone into the list by Jimfbleak after Yomangani created the list. I could find no issue. I support the nomination wholeheartedly. DSachan (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is a translation of the corresponding German-language featured list, and I believe it meets WP:WIAFL as well. It's based on official data, comprehensive in the sense that it covers the entirety of its subject matter, relatively stable (though of course subject to population fluctuations and changes in the law), useful in the sense that it gives readers a good sense of where Finland-Swedes live and how many there are, and not especially controversial. The lead is helpful in explaining the law and the general scope of the phenomenon described, and the image (from Commons) helps to further orient the reader. Self-nom by Biruitorul 22:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Absolutely. I especially like the clickable symbols that rearrange the search terms. Dahn 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pretty much a totally new topic. Extra points for a good list. The "blue wall" in the province/region columns annoys me a bit, but I've been proven unwinnable time and time again on that point. Circeus 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite neutral on the solid list of links, and you have my full blessing to remove any links you see as excessive. Biruitorul 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Though I'd have to agree with Circeus on the blue wall. Doesn't MOS:Overlinking apply? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great work. —Nightstallion 22:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FLC

After considerable edits to the discography, I am resubmitting it for FL status. The previous FLC failed mainly due to my lack of free time to address the issues raised, but I have since been able to address many if not all of the issues that were brought up. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated and welcome. Drewcifer 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very nice work between nominations. The last thing I would reccommend would be formatting more like Nirvana discography with the year column furthest right and the release date, label, and formats below the title. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good call. Drewcifer 09:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly FL quality, good work. --Brandt Luke Zorn 09:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if only all the discographies were like this Jimfbleak 07:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Support I like what is there in the list, but one very essential thing is missing i.e Unreleased songs. I seriously suggest the inclusion of the section like Gwen Stefani discography does. Indianescence 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a requirement of discography pages now? Not only have I never heard of any notable unreleased material, and not only does a search give no results ([2]), but I fail to see how unreleased tracks factor into an artist's discography ("Complete collection of the releases of a musical act."). Drewcifer 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Drewcifer. I don't think that Trent actually has any unreleased songs that are known of by name. A quick Google search shows nothing from any reliable sources, and just looking through the band's history—severe writer's block, double album—it's unlikely that there's anything left unreleased. And even when Trent does release previously unreleased tracks (as in the deluxe edition of The Downward Spiral) they tend to be demos and remixes of released songs. The rest of his unreleased material probably consists of more remixes and demos, which don't count for inclusion in "Unreleased songs" sections. --Brandt Luke Zorn 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case, then i support. But telling that they DON'T have any Unreleased songs would not be correct. We must say we are not able to find them. But it is the definition of "Discography" that makes me support. Indianescence 06:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Just like last time, thanks for the note. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Though two things bug me...
  • The TOC is duplicated, once under the picture, then again as a standard TOC. I don't have much experience with discography lists, so that may be standard, I don't know.
  • Could the "Halo numbers" section be split into two columns? The white-space is annoying.
• Neither of those is enough for me to oppose, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the comments! The double TOC is common in discographies. I agree, it does come across a bit redundant, but I like how it has the sum totals, and it also helps unify all the discogs a bit. As for the Halos section, I split it up into two columns and it definitely looks better. Thanks again! Drewcifer 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why has no mention been made of the use of "Just Like You Imagined" in the 300 trailer? Also the article uses both Nine Inch Nails and NIN - firstly, no mention has been made that the band can be abbreviated to NIN, secondly, I think the article should stick to using only one of the two. The second problem is found in the Nine Inch Nails article too. Tommy Stardust 07:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails songs have been used in probably hundreds of films, tv episodes, trailers, etc, etc. To name them all would be impossible and not all that helpful, especially in a discography. Instead, the article only mentions original songs made for such things (like Perfect Drug, Deep, etc). As for the NIN thing, I took out all the abbreviations - I think it's ok in the Nine Inch Nails article, but isn't necessary for the discog page. Thanks for the comments. Drewcifer 08:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 more thing; isn't Bowie's "I'm Afraid of Americans" from Earthling? But anyway, I support. Excellent work indeed :) Tommy Stardust 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! And yes, I'm Afraid of American's is from Earthling, but the NIN remixes only appear on the single. Like the other entries in the table, the album column gives the release that includes the remix, not the release from which the song originated. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the album column should have either Single or "I'm Afraid of Americans" (single).... I'm Afraid of Americans gives the wrong impression that there's also an album/EP of the same name. Tommy Stardust (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I fixed it. Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a one month absence from nominating FLCs, I'm back with another one (Yay!) This time it's a list of Treehouse of Horror episodes made by The Simpsons. I think it fulfills all of the FL criteria and as always, any concerns will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a suggestion, do you think it would be possible to remove the citation in the Episode column and put it in another column (e.g. "Ref" or "Reference")? It looks rather squished in there and is a bit confusing when used right next to the episode number. The table looks like it doesn't have enough room for another column, so if this can't be done I won't hold it against you. All the sources, lead, image licensing and everything else (perhaps a transclusion of {{The Simpsons}}?) look fine. Support. Great work :) Spebi 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and done. I added the Simpsons template and moved the references for the individual episodes down to the bottom because I couldn't find any arrangement for the refs in the table that looked good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The duplicate wikilinks in the writers and directors columns bug me, but the list looks complete and is referenced. Nicely done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent list. Two small issues: 1) shouldn't Treehouse of Horror be italicized in the first sentence? 2) The prose in the lead is pretty awkward, and doesn't flow very well at all. Every sentence starts with "There" or "The", and so it reads very mechanically. I would suggest making things flow a little bit better. Otherwise great job! Drewcifer 09:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list has recently been overhauled, with a basic cleanup as well as better structuring. If approved, this list will form the blueprint as I overhaul the rest of the lists in the category.

I believe it easily passes criteria 1a, b, c, d and e. In addition it, having been made sortable today, passes 1f - the candidates can be grouped by party or electoral district. As for criteria 2, the lead section could perhaps be longer, but it does summarize the table and give some details. Finally, an image has been added. Punkmorten 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'sort' of the 'comments' column may not be needed; in any case, it does not work. It just throws the reader to the top of the article. Hmains 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that too. How does one remove it for one specific column? Punkmorten 09:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you cannot, but maybe the behavior of the comments column is a bug in WP that might be fixable by WP techies. The place to report this appears to be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) Hmains 23:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have made the comments column unsortable for you. Woodym555 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, good. Hmains 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it necessary for the entries in the Party column to linked at all when the parties are listed in a heading paragraph and linked there? Is there a usual way of handling this? Hmains 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the linking could be removed, yes. Punkmorten 08:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. The links were superfluous. Punkmorten (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Though - shouldn't the name column sort by last name? Otherwise it looks good and is sourced. Nicely done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sorts by last name now. Punkmorten (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (leaning oppose until issues addressed). The name column needs sorting. You need to add the {{sortname}} template so it supports by surname. Everything else looks good to me. Also it needs a bigger lead really. Per WP:LEAD and the FL criteria, it needs a lead that prepares the reader for the main list. I think it needs some more explanation of the Parliamentary system perhaps. A slight bit of history? A couple of sentences is not really enough in my view. Woodym555 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sortname added. That was boring :) Will expand lead section. Punkmorten (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote something about the voting system, so that a US or UK (or other) reader can understand why there are several members from one constituency, and readers from a non-democratic country can understand how the system works. Sufficient, or did you have something else in mind? Punkmorten (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • yes, I know how boring that can get, I have done it often enough!! ;) That Lead is what I was thinking, could we have some citations for that new prose though. Then I should be able to support. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a book reference, hope it is sufficient. Punkmorten (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support now. All my problems have been fixed. Well done. Woodym555 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on The Corrs' discography from their debut album up until now. I feel that this article has satisfied the criteria for a featured list. σмgнgσмg 07:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - excellent layout and very well referenced chart positions. RaNdOm26 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - many thanks to Underneath-it-All for the layout and the main sources. σмgнgσмg 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All in all this is a superior list and I will support it as soon as three minor issues are resolved. All of the dashes denoting that an album did not chart in a particular country should be em dashes (—) and not en dashes; some of the list seems to follow this formatting but the "Albums" section doesn't. Also, "—" denotes singles/albums that were released but..." should be placed underneath every table with chart positions. Lastly, the "Video" section should be formatted as it is in Gwen Stefani discography, with directors and other information. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Addressed all of your concerns. Added directors with sources to their videography as well as changing the "n-dashes" to "m-dashes". σмgнgσмg 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking more in the vein of this for the Videos table. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the "Studio albums" subsection still needs a "—" denotes singles that were..." note. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Addressed them now. All done. =) Thanks for the advice. σмgнgσмg 04:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An excellent discography, although the references to Amazon and IMDb are unnecessary. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support - Close to a support here, but "that spanned for over 1000 years" is hopelessly vague, and to be honest I don't see that level of dept in the band. Who from the eleventh century were they influenced by. Ceoil 08:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That was an accident made by me which I didn't carefully check. It was meant to say that Home was a tribute to their late mother and to commemorate their 15-year career. The 1000 year part is elaborated in their main article. Sorry about the confusion there. σмgнgσмg 08:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and great work; happy to support. Ceoil 17:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixes needed. There are a few issues with the list:

• "They have currently released" will date. The standard "As of 2007", or "As of November 2007" is more correct.
• There are a number of run-on sentences in the lead. Example: "Formed in 1990, the band gained international attention with their performance at the 1996 Summer Olympics which was followed by their debut album Forgiven Not Forgotten that was produced by David Foster". I recommend rephrasing like so: ".. at the 1996 Summer Olympics. This was followed.. ". Does the producer need to be mentioned in the lead? Discographies should only really tackle sales and releases.
• "their debut album .. Foster. Their debut album is a little repetitive.
• "whilst". "while" should suffice.
• "The following year, the Corrs released Home which featured traditional Irish music taken from their late mother's songbook[4] as a tribute to their deceased mother[5] and their 15 year career." reads awkwardly. Was the album a tribute to their 15 year career? A well-placed comma or two should disambiguate.
• "As of 2006"; was this a statement written in 2006, or did they go on hiatus in 2006?
• I'm not sure the Amazon.com links are appropriate. There must be some other sources you can reference.

Otherwise, it's a good list. Let me know when you feel these issues have been addressed. CloudNine 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All addressed, thanks for the constructive criticisms. By the way, the sources that I had provided for their videography was just an indication that the information is verifiable. If it is necessary, then I'll add it back in, otherwise, this should be fine. =) σмgнgσмg 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent disography. A few small issues I noticed: the United States is typically abbreivated (in previous discogs) as "US" not "U.S." Also the first citation needs to be formatted. Lastly, is linking discography in the first sentence really necessary? Other than those minor issues, great work! Drewcifer 08:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All addressed. The link to 'discography' in the lead is just a link to discography in general. σмgнgσмg 09:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Use of dashes need to be fixed: there should not be a dash if the album was not released in the country to begin with. Circeus 18:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't understand what you mean. The dashes in the tables used are indicating the reader that that particular single/album was released in that country but did not chart. σмgнgσмg 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found out what you meant. Addressed it. Sorry about that. σмgнgσмg 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: the remixes they didn't do themselves ought to be listed separately if at all. They are not Corrs release as such. Circeus 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in a sense, the Corrs collaborated with them to provide the remix, also, the remix was released under their name not the remixers. σмgнgσмg 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing that. Circeus 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support I'm generally weary of discogaphies now. Circeus 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a thorough research to find all the awards won by the band, and am confident that I've found all of them. I believe the list now follows the Featured List criteria. RaNdOm26 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Quite a nice list. I've made a few minor edits too it, and I agree it meets criteria. Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very balanced list, well presented. I've also added to it a bit, but the list stands very well and is an accurate resource. --lincalinca 12:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overall an excellent list. One small issue: the citations are way overlinked. Mainly in the many wikilinks for Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Australasian Performing Right Association. Only the first instances of those need to be wikilinked. Otherwise great work! Drewcifer 11:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied - Okay, I removed the excessive wikilinks, so that they only appear once in the reference list. Thank you for your comment. RaNdOm26 11:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list offers readers a chronological overview of the films that received the Golden Film. The awards and dates are all sourced and the list is up to date. – Ilse@ 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The mix of Dutch language and English translations of titles seems random. Perhaps it should have both for every film (except where unnecessary: Simon, Floris, etc.) Rmhermen 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The film titles used are the titles of the articles. Only for films with an alternative English title the English title is used, the other films have the original Dutch title. I believe the articles are named according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films. – Ilse@ 10:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are no sources in the lead. As there is no text later in the article, it might not hurt to throw at least one citation in there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I added two sources for the facts in the introduction. – Ilse@ 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good list, well presented. It meets all the criteria, looks good and works well. Well done. Woodym555 (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice work on the article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. 1 Neutral. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania is a complete list of all current 52 municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, and has two shorter lists of all known former townships, and of all other counties formed from or containing susbtantial territory from the county. It has had a peer review, which is here, that found no major problems. The suggestions for improvement have all been addressed and we believe the list meets the requirements for featured list candidates. This article, including the large clickable map, follows the model of List of Kentucky counties, which is a featured list. The picture galleries follow the model of List of Pennsylvania state parks, which is also a Featured list. This is a self-nomination in that we are the editors who have worked the most on this list and the municipality articles themselves. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher and Ruhrfisch 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -- Incredibly comprehensive list for its topic, and well sourced with WP:CIT. Great job! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Support: It's incredibly long, but very well written. A couple areas you might revisit:

• • The "remarks" in the "Municipalities" list are basically trivia wrt the list. That information belongs on the specific municipality page, but may not belong here.
  • Likewise the "FIPS" and "Etymology" columns from the "Pennsylvania counties formed from Lycoming" section.
  • Since the only "formed from" information in the "former townships" section is for Wayne Township, perhaps that could be a footnote? That would eliminate one column from that section, tightening it up.

Those are just suggestions, though - I support the list as is :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Thanks for your support. The "Remarks" section does note the villages (which are unincorporated not incorporated separately from townships) and so provides more information on inhabited places within the (incorporated) townships. The Pennsylvania counties table uses the standard "List of X counties" format (where X is the state, see List of Kentucky counties, for example). This is actually a template for each row, which is why the FIPS and etymology information is included. Since it seems to be standardized and you do not require its removal, I will leave it in pending further comment (this is also why we included etymologies - the counties lists have them and there is no(t yet a) FL on municipalities within a county). I will take the "formed from" information out of the last table and add a note, thanks for the suggestions and support! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for the inclusion of villages, all of your suggested changes have now been made, thanks again Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the support! Dincher 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I have wrestled with what, if anything, to reply here. First, I want to thank Circeus for his helpful comments. Second, we believe that it is useful to have the same basic information for all the counties and townships in the article, including their current area and population. Originally the columns (info) were identical for both the current and former townships lists, but we removed "formed from" from former townships at the suggestion of a reviewer here (see above). We feel that area and population are useful for comparisons, and give an idea of what the past (former territory) has become. While Circeus believes this is "pointless data", we feel it is better to include it and let readers choose to ignore it, than not include it and wish we had. Third, there is now a List of villages in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania article, which might remove one of Circeus' objections. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, seems to be confused as to its scope: the "counties formed from Lycoming" does not remotely belong in this article, it belongs at best in the Lycoming County article, since that table has nothing to do with municipalities. Remove that, and I switch to strong support, as the article is otherwise well-focused, has good information, and I love the maps; keep it, and I'm forced to oppose. (as creator of the 'territorial evolution' articles, though, that chart and any others like it would be a great help in making a 'territorial evolution of Pennsylvania' article.) --Golbez 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you. The counties list is out now. Our rationale for its inclusion was that half the counties are not represented in the former townships table (finding this information is fairly difficult). We continue to search for more information and I added Jefferson County's Pine Creek Township (a new find) and Union County's Gregg Township (forgot to include it before - sorry). I still need to make the locator maps for these (should be done within a day). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand; perhaps a short list of "Counties formerly in Lycoming in which no municipalities were formed" might apply, in the header of the section of former townships. Or does the "all land in PA is incorporated" extend all that way back, and therefore all the land was incorporated? Either way, the large table was way out of place, and just duplicated the table from the counties of PA article. Switching to support, thanks for the good work. --Golbez 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the support and for recognizing all the hard work that has been put into this list. Dincher 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks too - as far as I know all territory under Pennsylvania's jurisdiction has been always been incorporated: i.e., when Northumberland (Lycoming's parent) and Lycoming Counties were organized, both had townships from day one, and all their territory was in those townships. Land purchased from Natives later was quickly organized into townships. Unfortunately the sources are often maddeningly vague - Meginness (1892) reports in some detail on Centre County (the first taken from Lycoming), but says nothing on the others taken that same year. Godcharles (1933) reports in some detail on each then current township, but says next to nothing on previous or defunct townships (just oblique references in a few places that may or may not add up). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am submitting this list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. The list is useful to someone interested in the either palms or Caribbean biogeography. The list is comprehensive. While the list focuses on the insular Caribbean, mention is made of species that are present in the wider Caribbean phytogeographic region, but are not actually reported for the islands. Content is supported by references - where taxonomic differences exist between authorities, they are mentioned. The article is uncontroversial, stable, and I believe it to be well-constructed and easy to navigate. There is a concise and informative lead. There are several images, all of which appear to have appropriate "free" license. Self nom. Guettarda 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support List is useful, clearly written, complete and stable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Extremely comprehensive! Nicely done! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is impressive.--Filll 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The lead and introductory paragraphs are informative in themselves, an impressive list, well illustrated. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed, accurate and fully referenced. I removed the table of contents because I think it makes the article look better, but if anyone disagrees I'll put it back. --MarcK 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it looked better with the table of contents than it does with the blank space, and it's my understanding that there should be a table of contents for any article with four sections. GaryColemanFan 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Readded. --MarcK 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article meets all of the criteria for Featured Lists, and it is identical to many other championship lists that have been promoted. It is thorough and well-sourced, and it is nicely illustrated by an appropriate Free Use picture. GaryColemanFan 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it possible to get a source for Though the IGF recognizes the belt as the IWGP Third Belt Championship, New Japan does not sanction or recognize it it would be helpful. Otherwise, great list! --Naha|^(talk) 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --MarcK 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Fully support this now as it meets all FL requirements and my one concern has been addressed. --Naha|^(talk) 02:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Davnel03 07:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - LAX 10:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support it's looking good to me, definitely a Featured List. MPJ-DK 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good to me, too....fully sourced. Nikki311 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discography of the American punk rock band Minutemen. A fairly prolific band (especially when it came to contributing to compilations), but I reckon I've covered every release Minutemen songs appear on. CloudNine 13:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very comprehensive. Although I'm not sure why the ninth footnote is necessary, seeing as the formatting information isn't cited for any other entry. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed the footnote in question. CloudNine 08:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Decent discography all around, but there's a few major issues I've noticed:
  • The main problem, as I see it, is a lack of in-line citations. Alot of the content should be cited. For example, anytime the entry points out that a song is a cover, I would expect a citation for it. Also any mentions of appearances on compilations/releases without it's own article (such as all the skate video soundtracks).
  • I think many of the two-column tables (Albums, Extended plays, Compilations, and Promotional releases) would benefit from a third "Comments" column. The first bullet points of many of the entries in these sections would be much better presented in another column. For example, "Features seven songs meant for a non-SST album, a number of live tracks, and a Reactionaries song." or "Live EP of a concert in March 1980 with Frank Tonche as drummer."
    • I've partly addressed this. Do you think the "Comments" section of the compilation appearances should be split into two?
      • Looks good to me. Drewcifer 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Drewcifer 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In compilation Appearances, should the first row of the Comments column go across two rows?
    • Yes. Added plural to clarify this.
  • The way the Video and soundtrack appearances section is formatted kind of bothers me. Mainly, the Song column seems only to give a complete tracklisting of the video, one cell at a time. I don't think that a discography is the proper place for a track listing.
    • This one still seems unresolved. The major issue with the Compilation appearances and Soundtrack appearances sections is that each song is given it's own row/cell. It would be better formatted so that each compilation is given a single row, and all the songs the Minutemen contributed were listed in a single cell within that row. Doing this slightly skews the emphasis of the tables from the songs to the compilations, but that seems to follow other featured discogs with similar sections. Along the same lines, I'd recommend switching the two columns so that compilation appears first, then Song(s). Take a look at The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography for examples of what I mean. Drewcifer 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. I've addressed this now.
  • Speaking of which, stop me if I'm wrong, it seems like a lot of the videos from that section are just videotapes of their performances. Are these even worth including?
    • Removed the performance appearances. (I guess that addresses the above issue as well?) CloudNine 15:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a requirement (more of a suggestion), but could you provide some External links? Drewcifer 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All in progress. Thanks for the detailed review. CloudNine 11:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (crossed out my above oppose vote). Great work! Definitely FL quality. Drewcifer 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Corrected any minor mistakes i found, but on the whole, good work Tommy Stardust 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just as a change from my usual football related articles i have updated this list as part of my workthrough of all Victoria Cross related topics on Wikipedia. I think this list meets the criteria and displays all you would want to know about the recipients. Any suggestions/improvements would be appreciated. Thanks. Woodym555 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Everything is correct and in order. The one thing I will criticize is the introduction section which gives much more weight detailing the award rather than connecting it to the recipients. Also, what is the pattern of wikilinking in the "Conflict" column? --maclean 07:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I will have a go at cleaning up the Lead, i see you point completely. With regards to the conflict column, i wikilinked all campaigns on all instances because of the sorting. I made an exception for WWI and WWII because i didn't think we needed 60 wikilinks of WWII. I am open to changing it though. Woodym555 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added some more information to the Lead and i have removed some. Is this what you were thinking? Woodym555 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. That is what I was thinking. --maclean 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very nicely put together list. I do have one thought, though wouldn't withhold my support based on it, and it's the linkages. You link to every person connected with the second boer war, yet only occasionally with WWI and WWII etc. I would suggest linking to none of these and discussing in the section's lead what each conflict that has yeilded people winning the awards (perhaps a current count for each conflict?) and link there, leaving plain non-linked text for the table/list? Without this, you have my support, but this is just a little thing I think would tidy up this tiny gripe I have. --lincalinca 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is always a trade-off with sortable lists. The first instance will not always be the same. My thinking was that people could easily find a WW1 and WW2 link but not Boer War or Civil war links. I have amended the lead to reflect your concerns and i have removed the wikilinks. Even when i added them i thought it strange. I did want to wikilink the actual battles in the place column, but for many they were for multiple actions over a series of days, so it would be inaccurate. I hope this assuages your concerns. Woodym555 12:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The conflict column 'sort' does not sort correctly. Try to sort so the highest alphabet characters appear first. I get Russian, then Second, only then Vietnam! Hmains 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, it sorts alphabetically for me. q,r,s,t,u,v,w, i.e.Russian, second Boer, Vietnam, World War One, World War Two. Am i missing something? Woodym555 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct. It is working correctly. Hmains 23:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any other problems with it? Thanks. Woodym555 15:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can support this, it looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the NWA World Women's Championship list meets all of the Featured List criteria, and it is written in the same manner as the other wrestling-related Featured Lists. Nikki311 18:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This list contains all known information about the belt. It fulfills all of the Featured List criteria and is very similar to all other professional wrestling lists that have reached Featured List status. GaryColemanFan 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very fine list that appears to meet all the FL criteria. --Naha|^(talk) 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd prefer to have a location listed for Moolah's 2nd reign but apparently that is exceptionally difficult to find. Regardless, it's the same great quality as all the others. - DrWarpMind —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well sourced, easy to read. Bmg916^Speak 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 1 oppose. I'm still not sure about the significance of the topic, but I'm clearly in the minority. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am cleaning up Barry Bonds in hopes of nominating it for WP:GAC this offseason. I have removed three large lists from the page. I have encouraged User:Maple Leaf to look at WP:WIAFL and clean up List of Barry Bonds 73 Home Runs, a chart he had added to Barry Bonds. He is making progress. I had asked User:FPAtl‎ to do the same with this list and a list of Ballparks Bonds has homered in. He declined the invitation. I have removed the latter list as inaccurate and have been cleaning up this list myself. I hope it is interesting enough to get support. I am willing to address all changes. I was considering adding citations for each statement in the notes column, but was unsure whether this would be overciting since all of them are one click away from the link in the home run count column beginning with #600.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is an awfully small lead. As well, I have concerns about criterion 1a3, which basically says that any lists where the listed things have no articles are excuseable if it covers a Topic of Significant study and this seems rather trivial to me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I beefed up the lead a bit. Is that sufficient? The existence of the following articles should get us past 1a3: Home run, Barry Bonds, 300-300 club, 500 home run club, 600 home run club, 700 home run club, List of Major League Baseball home run champions, List of Major League Baseball Home Run Records, List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters and Major League Baseball home run milestones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? None of them are FLs, and none of them are lists of a select few home runs hit by one man. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The guideline you refer to says "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". It is quite natural to consider the milestone home runs (round hundreds and major career total records) as a group. Baseball historians and wikipedians consider such accomplishments notable as evidenced by articles. WP:FL takes discographies of individual singers as a serious subject. Thus, lists of accomplishments by one person are quite commonly considered here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but discographies all pass 1a3 because all of the albums have their own page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 1a3. These other WP lists you mention don't help me think this is a "a significant topic of study". Instead, it confirms that there is no end to the baseball trivia on WP. The important and encyclopaedic point is that he is a record breaker, and the few significant dates where records were broken are worth mentioning, in prose, in the article. The so-called milestones are merely inventions of baseball nerds (or whatever the term is) and the precise details of each one belongs on sporting fan sites rather than in an general encyclopaedia IMO. BTW: the discographies should have links to each album or single article. Colin°^Talk 19:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks for taking the time to look at the list. I have added a paragraph with citations so that you may better understand the importance of this list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of what you've added appears to only apply to the 3rd/2nd/1st place thresholds rather than the x00 "milestones". Also the sentence "In fact, players are even sensitive to the way in which their paraphernalia is displayed." is, rather, specific to Bonds and the controversy (which deserves brief mention). You should wikilink the date field in the refs. I'm sure the recent events got significant media coverage but did the pre-660 thresholds appear outside of detailed sports pages? Does anyone need to know who was pitching, where and his exact age for all these events? Oh, I probably don't want to know the answer to that one—it'll just depress me :-) Colin°^Talk 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was extensive coverage of both his 300th and 400th home runs because they made him a member of the 300-300 club and 400-400 club. All players take time to assemble a set of spikes and bats to be displayed in the hall. I will see what other links I can come up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ok, you've convinced me. Could you fix the couple of issues I raised above, fix the redlink and the spelling and generally polish the lead text a bit. Colin°^Talk 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. I have linked the dates, fixed the redlink that was due to a typo and found two spelling mistakes. I have another redlink that should have an article though now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I could use additional feedback on additional issues: Should I have the section Career home run leaders or just the link to the main article in a see also section? What is the proper title for this page? Should I add home runs from the 2001 season such as 60, 61, 62, 70, 71 and 73 and possibly 50, 53, 66, & 67 (see Barry Bonds' Incredible Season)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support After reviewing the criteria, this is worthy of being a Featured List. The title is sufficient but it may be worthwhile to add some of the home runs from the 2001 season. I would add 60 (to acknowledge that he was only the 5th to reach that figure), 70, 71 (the record breaker) and 73 (the last of that season). Maple Leaf 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks for the advice. I think that is a good set of milestones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The list fulfills all the criteria. Good job. Chris! _ct 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm glad to see something that I made get recognized as good finally. -- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 19:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Comment This liststill seems to be pretty ill-defined as to what a milestone is, because wouldn't all of his record breaking home runs be milestones? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Which other milestone home runs do you think were breaking news. I am considering adding #114, which made him the 12th member of the 30-30 club. I am also considering #332, which gave him 40 although he only had 31 of his 40 stolen bases at that point in the season. Aside from that, I am not sure what other significant records are omitted. The only other one I think merits serious consideration is #222, which was the culmination of his first home run championship.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like OR and POV to me, because it is all based on what a few users think counts as a milestone. Now, if TSN and Sports Illustrated had their own lists that you based this off of, that would be one thing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it need be OR if TTT can define a "milestone" as e.g., "a home run that moved the player into a new well-known category of achievement, or otherwise received extraordinary news coverage". The former is an objective threshold and the latter can be justified from sources. If TTT or Maple leaf were inventing their own thresholds, then that would be OR. Colin°^Talk 21:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object An article about Barry Bonds that goes on and on about his 'greatness' but manages to avoid even a single mention of the alleged drug abuse that has dogged him for the last three years? It is unstintingly positive in its tone about Bonds, but where's any notion of the asterisk, the controversy? This appears to be incomplete and biased, to say the least. ---Peripatetic 10:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply This is not an article about his greatness. This is about his milestone homeruns and why they are notable. His greatness makes them notable, not his controversies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it could be mentioned in the lead that he is a controversial figure due to claims of steroid use, but I don't think any kind of extended mention or devotion to the topic is needed in the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that this list should be in the Featured Lists group of articles, because it is totally neutral, all claims are verifiable and have been citated accurately.

The tables have also followed other lists like these that have been featured, with the same styles throughout.Marcus Bowen 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All in all very good. There are a few issues to be resolved before this is featured, however:

• The "Certified Sales" column should be removed as it is, because actual sales is different from certifications, which are copies shipped rather than copies sold.
• "—"s should only be used in chart positions columns. All other entries for unrelated columns with no applicable information should simply be empty.
• The external links in the "Japanese import exclusives" should be removed or made into references.
• The "N/A"s in the "EPs" section should be replaced with "—"s. Also, the standard ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or..." note should be put below the table.
• The roman numeral notes in the "Singles" section should be numbered as a continuation of previous notes, meaning that this note should be "III" instead of "I" and so on.

In general these are very minor, and I don't think that many of these will take too long to fix. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent, Support. --Brandt Luke Zorn 16:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Prose needs plenty of fixing throughout - the word "band's" was written as "bands" throughout the article before I fixed it. The "comments" section under each table should be reviewed- in many places albums are in quotations. Also, "mini-album" and "mini album" are both found, pick one. Why are the Japanese imports in ".."'s rather than italics? In the lead, instead of saying "in the year 2004, they released...", (2004) could be placed after the album name. The third paragraph of the lead is very poorly written - "before releasing their singles compilation in 2006." should be in a different sentence. The intro line should probably be "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Feeder, a London-based alternative rock group formed in Newport, South Wales by song-writer Grant Nicholas (vocals, guitar) and Jon Lee (drums), being joined by Taka Hirose (bass guitar)." Tommy Stardust 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments - I suggest you remove the wiki-links from the individual years in the lead and elsewhere (like in the comments); it detracts from other high-importance links. Also fix the prose in the EPs section; "first ever shows" seems oddly incorrect, and the comment for the Swim needs a complete rewrite. The note "IIII ^ Although a full band recording unlike the version that appears on Polythene, it is regarded as a single from the album by the band's official website." also needs fixing; also isn't roman 4 written as IV? What exactly is "Mainland Europe"? Tommy Stardust 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Excellent work! Minor details: The first EP was released in 1995 (not 2005) and I think "committed suicide" is better than "took hin life" - especially in an encyclopedia article. Tommy Stardust 09:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixes needed It may be worth separating Studio albums and compilations here; they're different things. (The 'EPs' section could be written as 'Extended plays' for clarity). Some years are linked to their articles, but others are not; this needs to be consistent. "It does not also include material recorded under a pre-Feeder alias, before they signed a recording contract, such as "Real", "Reel" or "Hum"." is unclear without further reading; was the material called "Real", "Reel" etc. or the alias? CloudNine 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A good write. (Sorry for the delay in updating my vote!) CloudNine 16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent discography article. Support. Spebi 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Overall a good discography, but a few issues remain:

• • United Kingdom is abbreviated as "U.K." and as "UK" seemingly at random. The article should be consistent with itself, as well as with other discogs (I believe every other discog abbreviates it as "UK").
  • The Japanese import compilations section seems odd. Why doesn't each entry have some information in it like every other table/section? All it says is the year and the title.
  • The Miscellaneous section also seems odd. The single table doesn't really work for me, since presumably the entires are of varying natures (songs on compilations, downloads, etc). The unfortunate side effects of putting everything into a single table is that it is confusing, and that some columns don't apply to all the entries. I would recommend splitting it up into subsections based on the type.
  • And, I hate to do this, but one of your main sources is Feeder Anorak fansite. Key word "fansite." Fansites aren't generally considered a reliable source. Drewcifer 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointers covered and article ammended accordingly, see users talk page for further information.Marcus Bowen 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent work! I scoured the list a second time, but couldn't find anything else to complain about. Definitely worthy of being featured. Drewcifer 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another list based on the ever-popular football club seasons format - please let me know if anything needs amending or correcting.

Cheers!!!

ChrisTheDude 10:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I think additional research should be done for the top scorers from Gillingham's seasons outside the Football League.

 Not done - as set out below, no source for this information exists

• Maybe the empty fields in 'League Cup' and 'Other competitions' can be coloured or maybe the cells can be removed?

 Not done - I feel this would make the table look worse rather than better, I would prefer not to do it

• I think the divisions in the table should be wikilinked. –

 Done - I have linked the first instance of every new division, I don't feel it is necessary to link on every single line

Ilse@ 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Support Good work. Per above it'd be a good idea to wikilink the first instance of each new league but I understand how difficult it can be to find early days and non-league scorers so not expecting much there. Also don't feel there's a need to change the format of the table. The Rambling Man 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, I have every book published to date on the Gills' history and none list the top scorers from those seasons, nor do soccerbase or allfootballers.com, beyond that I don't know what additional research could be done....... ChrisTheDude 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Supportcool--Mini@ 08:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few minor comments.

• For seasons, I'd write "in the xxxx-xx season" instead of just "in xxxx-xx".

 Done

• Full stops needed for the sentences starting "No competitive football...".

 Done

Not much, as you can see. Mattythewhite 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work. Mattythewhite 11:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I participated at peer review; the editor dealt with issues raised promptly, either by making changes requested or by explaining why changes would/could not be made. Only thing I've spotted since, the note in the 1921 position column about no relegation should go against 1929 as well. Well done. Struway2 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reference to 1929 as pointed out ChrisTheDude 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have given the Lead a very small copyedit. Other than that, like the other reviewers, I can't find any flaws with this list. It follows the Footy format, seems comprehensive and accurate. Meets all the criteria. Well done. Woodym555 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't find any faults. Great work. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 18:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. This episode list may look a little WP:PLOTTY, but it is not (much). I had planned sections for Critical reception, Cast and production info like many other episode/season lists have, but I found that this kind of information is (already) better served in Carnivàle, Mythology of Carnivàle and Characters of Carnivàle, and to link there when appropriate. I have also merged episode ratings and episode-specific awards into the list so that they no longer appear as separate sections. So what this list is now is an episode list (obviously), a DVD section (common practise), and a merged list of locations (I found the ep list to be the best place for this in-universe info). Everything is IMO sufficiently sourced, especially location notes. If you spot something that can be further improved, just shoot. By the way, some episode summaries are just so short because nothing of importance happens in the episode. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've worked a little on copy editing and sourcing the article but sgeureka is responsible for the majority of the content. I think its a well constructed episode list and a valuable resource. Its in keeping with other featured episode lists like List of The Sopranos episodes.--Opark 77 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm in the same boat as Opark, having made a few modifications. I don't see how this page could be significantly improved. Mdiamante 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. It looks great to me. Silver Sonic Shadow 04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of volumes of the Naruto manga. List of Naruto chapters (Part I) and List of Naruto chapters (Part II) were created from this list due to size and readability concerns, with a truncated table remaining on this page. I feel that this article qualifies under the featured list criteria, and covers all relevant aspects of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There might be an issue with the fact this does not actually list individual chapters (if you except the movie part)... It might be better to move this to List of Naruto manga volumes (?) and make List of Naruto chapters a disambiguation page, sort of like the current List of Digimon episodes. Just an idea. Circeus 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I was wondering about this for a while, as there were really no chapters listed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I had not intended to give this a a good look, but I did, and I really like it, especially the way the "general" section aligns with the "detailed" one. I'm used to the different format of the Episode lists, and I find this really clever. Circeus 04:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me, especially with the new name. Silver Sonic Shadow 04:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on improving this list to featured status, and believe it is now ready to be listed here. It follows the same format of other football manager lists that have been promoted to featured status, and was peer reviewed here. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some comments.

• "The" in "The Football League" needs to be in lower case.

Done — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seasons need to be split using an endash.

Done — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One left in reference 2. Mattythewhite 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed that one. Now fixed. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the sentence "In all the club has had 29..." use something like "full-time managers" instead of just "managers", to help clarify from the caretakers.

Done — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are months available for the managers' reign?

Done — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reflist should be used for the references.

Done — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Good work. Mattythewhite 07:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work. Mattythewhite 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could we not have a separate notes column and then add the soccerbase links into that. I understand that you don't have them for the earlier managers, but i think they should be in the table and linked to the respective managers. Woodym555 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a notes column, but have deliberately kept Soccerbase links to a minimum, using it for only the most recent managers, because of the innacuracies in older manager stats. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Yep, that fixed my problem with it. I completely understand about the inaccuracies with early manager links, thats why i didn't ask for more. Good work, meets all criteria. Woodym555 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, all my concerns addressed at PR. Good work. The Rambling Man 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, until the dates sort properly. which they now do.

• Since you added the months to the managerial reigns, that column doesn't sort in date order. (There may be better ways to do it, but if you want to keep your current non-wikilinked format, one way would be to add a non-displaying sort key before the date, e.g. <span style="display:none">yyyymm</span>, where yyyy is the year of appointment, and mm the month. For your first row, there would be no need to supply a month number, and for the ones in April 2002, you could put a key of 20020401 for Bater and ...02 for Graydon. This should sort as a string rather than as a number.)

Done

I'm surprised no-one noticed the problem before, though. Also, I like your choice of sort key format better than mine. Struway2 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have thought Broadhurst/Osman, as joint caretakers, should be listed as a pair rather than separately. It's misleading that their 6 wins etc appear twice in the list.

Now merged into a single row.

• Do you really need need the Honours and Notes columns to be sortable?

These columns are no longer sortable.

• WP:LEAD#Bold title says links should be avoided in the bold title in the lead section (you can link Bristol Rovers F.C. at its next occurrence).

Fixed.

• HTML is the default format for web citations, so there's no need to include mention of it in your references.

format=HTML has now been removed.

• You might want to add a note saying something like All figures come from *book* except where stated. (I know it's implied, but it doesn't hurt to say it explicitly.)

Note added at top of table. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struway2 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support. Sorting problem and all other comments dealt with very promptly, well done. Struway2 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 27 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Raime 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discography for British singer/actress Billie Piper. I am nominating because I feel that it is complete and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose At first sight it looks (and for the most part is) quite good, but scratcjing reveals all sorts of problems
  • The fact some of her albums where originally released under the Artist name "Billie" should be mentioned.
  • Apparently most of her albums and single were more specifically released with Innocent Records
  • According to Walk of Life, that album was also released on cassette
  • What is a "budget album"?
  • I think the 2007 recharting of "Honey to the B" is best treated as a content note, unless that applies to a specific re-release, in which case a note should still be added to explain that.
  • I think the collaborative single "Thank ABBA for the Music" is best treated alongside its album form under "miscellaneous" (but maybe that's just me.)
  • We usually list material not officially released, so you might want to add "Bill to the I", which is mentioned in Honey to the B
  • According to Allmusicguide, Honey to the B charted in the U.S. (on the Top Heatseekers), and "Because She Wants To" charted in Canada.
  • I suspect Billie Story ought to be included somewhere.
• Circeus 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added your suggestions into the article. Thanks. -- Underneath-it-All 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support. My recent experiences are casting doubts on the comprehensiveness of our discographies. Circeus 19:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppport Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great list, and extremely well-referenced. Rai-me 01:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15/16 days, 8 support, an oppose, and an abstain. Promote. Spebi 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selfnom. I believe this list meets all the criteria for a featured list. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support: There needs to be some indication in the "Use" column of what those little symbols mean. After some searching, I found the FIAV symbol, but it shouldn't need to be searched for :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it better now? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: looks good - well constructed and informative Goldfinger820 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Well written, well laid out and comprehensive. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Well referenced, organized and looks comprehensive. -- Underneath-it-All 03:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: очень интересно --Mini@ 08:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild oppose
  1. Can the lead be enhanced some? It's definitely a bit short for such a wide-reaching topic.
  2. The "official flag" section should probably mention that in actual use, the two flags are used rather exchangeably  Done
  3. Historical flags, if any, are usually listed, but it's hard to tell, given the organization of related articles, whether any relevant ones existed.
  4. As an unrelated aside, I'm intrigued by the weirdly long name for the naval auxiliary ensign... Y answered
  5. I'm wondering if there's a way to organise the table so that the "names" columns is not so compressed, and possibly give "proportion" a column of its own... There's probably none that would do a good job, but it'd be nice if one could be devised. Not really doable, just wanted to point it out.
  6. The list should specify whenever flags can/are be run concurrently with others. I'm pretty sure the Rank and Commissioning pennants, as well as the Rank flags are flown with the Navy flags, but I'd rather the list tell me.  Not done
  7. That gallery section is entirely unnecessary.

Circeus 05:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you please specify what kind of information you'd like to see in the lead?

   How about the legislation covering the use of the flag/flags in general in Poland? Mentioning the fact most of them are based on one of the versions of the country's flag? What, if anything, makes flags special in Poland? Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I expanded the lead with some historical information trying not to reduplicate too much of what is already said at Flag of Poland. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Done.
3. What would be the criteria for including a historical design in the list? Listing every single modification of each flag plus many obsolete flags of little significance would make the list not only insanely long, but also illegible. I think some of the more interesting flags might have their own articles and this would be a good place to discuss former versions (Flag of Poland and Jack of the President of the Republic of Poland already have their own articles with History sections; I think I might also add an article about the Polish naval jack and maybe the Polish war ensign).

   I don't know if any informal or official flags have existed to countries preceding the republic of Poland, which is why I'm not making it a full argument for inclusion, just asking. Did Communist Poland have a different design? Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope the new lead explains it now. Please let me know, if something needs to be clarified. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Sometimes English is more concise than Polish. A very literal translation of bandera pomocniczych jednostek pływających Marynarki Wojennej would be "ensign of auxiliary floating units of the War Marine". Bandera p.j.p. is used in everyday language.

   Thanks!Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. I made the Name column a little wider; please see, if you like it better now. Remember that how crammed the columns are depends on the resolution of your screen. I think creating a separate column for the proportion would make the table even more compressed. Besides, the longest text in such a column would be in the header.

   As I said, I doubt it can really be helped, but thanks for trying. Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. That's a good point. I'll see, if I can add more info about that.

   That's not as easy as I thought. The best source would be the Naval Service Regulations (Regulamin Służby Okrętowej), an internal document of the Navy. Unfortunately it is not available on the web. Looking at an old discussion in Polish Wiki I saw that someone has already asked the Navy to provide them the document and they didn't receive it. I will still try to find the information in other sources, but it may take some time. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. I believe it's good to have a few sample photographs of the flags actually flying in their natural environment, so to speak. I know galleries in articles are generally shunned upon, but in this case, there's no way to integrate the images into the text, because it's mostly tables. And on the other hand, creating a separate page on Commons for only three images would be an overkill, wouldn't it?

   How about moving one as the second lead imag, filling the space right of the Table of Conten, and another as a lead image under "Military flags"? That way, you don't necessarily need a gallery. Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope it's better now. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Kpalion^(talk) 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well written. - Darwinek 18:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. Great, but I wonder if it is comprehensive - would like to see a section on historical flags, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response (point 3) to Circeus above. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no easy solution; hence I am not objecting. But at least several major flags from Polish history should be included, even if only with directions to more detailed articles on those subjects.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific flags in mind? If so, please put your suggestions on the article's talk page. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Image:Choragiew Krakowska.png, Image:Kongresówka.JPG, Image:Flag of Krakow.svg or Image:Flaga PPP.svg? Sure, they are not comprehensive, but they should be somehow mentioned/linked in the article. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very well-sourced and well written list. --Carioca 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As on the "A", "T-V", "Sj-Sz", and "W-Z" sections of this list (see the FLC discussions that passed: A, T-V, W-Z, Sj-Sz), I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "Sd-Si". You may note that the Si-Sz got too long, so the Si section has been moved to this list. There should not be any LGBT person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with Sd-Si that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• There is a photo of Randolph Scott next to the table, but he is not included in this list so it should be removed.

Hunh? I think that photo is on the Sa-Sc list, not this one.

I promise it was there when I wrote that! :-) Someone else has obviously removed it in the meantime.

• Included in the profession column are "Holocaust survivor", "Hate crime victim" and "partner of Graham Chapman". I don't think these can really be called professions, so I think they should be removed or the column renamed.

Very good point. I've updated those entries.