Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2009

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

The list was promoted by Juliancolton 04:35, 29 November 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i think that it can be an FL. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, just real quick:

• WP:AVOID using "However". If not, you shouldn't use it to start a sentence.

• done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this list is complete. Mila Kunis was nominated for an award for her work in this show

• Do not now, will find out--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kunis was nominated for an Annie Award for her voice work on the episode "Barely Legal". Gage (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• done

• And that's the only one I know of. Obviously the subject hasn't been researched well enough because the nominator himself admitted he did not know. I am very reticent to support something that may not be complete, but we can't be sure because nobody knows. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked for the info of thease artical and i think it is very much done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • After reviewing the article, I added one more award to the section, and was not able to find any others to add to the list. It should be complete now. Gage (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What does the grey boxes mean? It needs to comply with WP:COLOR, and at the moment I don't think it does.

• the grey boxes sepertate the voice characters.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• done

Cheers, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment

• Your edit links are bunched up. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for that.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, but they're still WP:BUNCHed. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it better now.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - After a thorough copyedit by User:Scapler, article seems to meet the FL criteria. Gage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll support, but for the long-term benefit of the list, it would probably be good to fill out the character list so every character has an entry, and may be linked to. Geraldk (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll put it in the todo list and on the WP:FG things you can do, thanks for the review.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • A few sourcing issues:
    • Several unsourced statements in the "Casting changes" section. For example: "It is mentioned in the DVD commentary track that Alazraqui was reluctant to leave the Family Guy series", which commentary?
    • done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations seem to be rather random. In some cases they are after the actor, in others after the characters ir statements. Other rows do not have any citations.
  • In the row for Butch Hartman, why not give a few examples of characters he has voiced. Also, I'm assuming the first word in "Started in many episodes as various characters" is a typo.
    • Done and no there are no examples--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regular Cast": "Family Guy has five main cast members, most of whom play several roles on the show." That is a little confusing, because six people are listed below. Why not change it to "At any point in its history, Family Guy has had five main cast members ... "
    • done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is with the italicized names in the tables?
    • Those are names that do not have links in the character list(it is quite a mess), discused with previous editor.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should add a note that explains it then.
      • A note?, how?--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed to many trobule.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not change the first section to "current cast", and remove everything about Lacey Chabert to the casting changes section?
    • Done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, perhaps the voice credits for the main cast should be listed to regular characters, and exclude one-timers and impressions.
    • • can you be a bit spesific, and there are no onetimers in the list made sure of that.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about Mickey McFinnigan or OBrian? It might also be best to exclude characters from other sources (ie. the Kool Aid Man) or impressions (ie. Dick Cheney) and keep it to Family Guy characters.
        • Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Casting changes", if Norm MacDonald voiced Death in one episode, wouldn't that make him a guest star rather than a cast member?
    • no he was going to continue but could not the one who plays death now is a recurring cast member.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Recurring cast", isn't it confusing to mention names in prose that are in other sections.
    • Can you explain?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that section, people like Lori Alan are mentioned in the prose, but not in the table. At first, I was confused as to why they were not mentioned, then I saw they were in the next section. It might be best to only mention people in their relevant section.
      • Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If memory serves (and I might be completely wrong), but doesn't Family Guy not make any distinction between regular and guest cast in the credits? If so, how did you decide who goes where.
    • I did that in the way that the recurring is the one who apperes but not so offten, the guest is the one who apperes many times but in diffrent episodes of seasons, did you you understand or iam i confusing you?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it makes sense. Perhaps you should add a note in the article?
      • Done note in posicion.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the list needs a much better definition of what qualifies someone as a "recurring guest star". For example, Drew Barrymore guest starred in a number of episodes but is not listed.
    • Done and will expand.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "recurring voices", a lot of notes could use copyediting, ie. "Guest starred in some episodes from 2001 to 2008" seems rather (for lack of a better term) lazy. Also in that section, some notes have periods while others do not.
• It's a pretty good start, but I think the list still has a ways to go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and looks like you do now a bit FG.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did like the show until the post-cancellation seasons started, now I could care less about it. I still catch the occasional new episode. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: My issues have been taken care of and I believe this passes FL criteria. The Flash ^{talk} 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I won't oppose, the work done has been excellent so far, but I'm finding it difficult to agree this is our "finest work". Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• TRM makeing the artical better is the important thing, hit me with some improveing comments.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [2].

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list, describing the medalists in equestrian sports at the Olympics, is my first FLC and really the first list I've worked on seriously. It has recently undergone a peer review, which garnered comments from one other editor. I believe this article meets all of the criteria for a featured list, but, since this is my first nomination, I may have missed something completely! Thanks in advance for you time and opinions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all my issues have been addressed promptly and thoroughly. Geraldk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is an error - 2008 Hong Kong should say 2008 Beijing - even though the event was held in Hong Kong, it is still considered as part of the Beijing Olympics. As far as I know, this is different from the 1956 Summer Olympics situation.—Chris!_c/t 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Chris!_c/t 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like the fact that the names of the horses were included here, similar to the official IOC website medallists database (and unlike in other wikipedia articles about the Olympic sport, like List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners). There is this entry for the 1980 winner though, where the Italian gold medal winner has the flag of the IOC affixed to the name instead of the Italian flag. I know that some countries then decided to carry the IOC flag instead of their national flags during the opening ceremony as a form of protest. But I'm not sure if the usage of IOC flag has been carried over to the medalist/s' affiliation or the official medal tally. Also, is there a way to make the column width uniform or at least visually "smooth" throughout the article? I am specifically referring to the discontinued events, wherein due to the pictures, the width of the tables are zigzagging throughout the section. Joey80 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is a standard format but looking at the other featured list related to Olympic medallists, like List of Olympic medalists in table tennis, there is a link underneath every Olympic edition, labeled as details. Maybe this can also be included here. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a requirement and a priority but a matter of personal taste, but the table of content can also be tweaked a bit to have a look of brevity and compactness. Again, please refer to the TOC of List of Olympic medalists in table tennis. I think this will be applicable to the events currently included in the Olympic program, but the discontinued events will likely have a similar format in the table of content. Joey80 (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flags of the Italian team have been brought up recently at the Olympics wikiproject. Across wikipedia articles, athletes are listed with the flags they marched under in the opening ceremony. The consensus on that has not changed, though if you wish to participate in the discussion about it, the link is here. The only way to make the table widths uniform is to eliminate pictures, to string a long row of picture such that no section is without them, or to set a standard width for columns. The former is obviously not a good idea and the latter messes up the page when viewed by some browsers. And the middle option requires more pictures than are usually available on any one topic. So, as annoying as it is, until someone finds a solution, the zigzagging is pretty common with featured lists. Geraldk (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. For the widths of the table, apparently, the Long Jump event is the one that has a different width when compared to other discontinued events, so a pic can be added or a longer pic can be found to replace the pic above it. Joey80 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the rules/scoring systems for Equestrian. But will it be possible to include a note on why there was this edition in which the gold medal was won by two competitors (e.g. in other sports like gymnastics and athletics track events, an asterisk/cross is placed beside the names of competitors to indicate that their time/scores are the same), and why there was an edition in which there was no bronze medal winner? Joey80 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Joey80, thank you for your comments. I have included notes that explained the two differences in medaling. The details links have been added (Gerald also asked for them above!). The IOC flag thing has hopefully been explained above (thankfully, because I wasn't really sure what the answer was!). The main reason that the tables zig-zag in the discontinued events section is that some competitors' names are longer than others, and the short tables make this more obvious. I hope these explanations help, and if you have more questions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All of my comments have been resolved too. Joey80 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All of my previous comments have been addressed, but on a final run-through, I have two more:
  1. All images need proper alt text per WP:ALT.
  2. The team events need valign=top in the table cell formatting to align the flags. That is the common style on all other list articles in this series.

  Getting very close!! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What images can you see that need alt text? As far as I can tell, they all do already. I think I've added the valign tags correctly, although I'm not that familiar with table formatting, so I may have done it wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about the alt text; my browser setting had changed.. As for the valign you need it for each table cell. For example, change every instance of |{{flagIOCteam|... to |valign=top|{{flagIOCteam|.... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dana, I can do that automatically for you if you don't know how. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you could do that automatically it would be awesome! I don't know how to set up a script to do it... Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The script has now been run and the valigns correctly added (thank you Reywas!). Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Back when I was working on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing, it originally had a "medals by nation" table similar to the one here. However, I was told to move it back to the main article because they are sibling articles and it's more appropriate at the main one. I think that should be done here too for consistancy, because most of the medalists lists I've seen (although admittedly I haven't checked all of them) lack the table. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see what some of the other reviewers have to say about this. Some of the other Olympic lists have no by-country information, while many have country medals per year tables. There doesn't seem to be any guideline calling for the table to exist or not exist (unless I've missed one). I'm willing to change the table, either by moving it back to the main article or changing it to a medals per year table. However, this list already has two supports with the current table in place, and so I don't want to seriously change a main table in the article without at least giving the other reviewers the chance to chime in. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see consistency across all these articles, so if that means keeping the medal table only in the main article, then it should be removed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am substituting the current medals by country table with a medals by country by year template, to keep it consistent with most other FLs of this type. Please see the discussion with Reywas below for further details. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – With my comments taken care of earlier, I was waiting on the resolution of the other comments, particularly those of TRM. Now that that's done, I'm happy to back this list, Great first effort! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92^Talk *What is the total number of medals awarded?

• • Added.
• What is the total number of people who have won at least one medal?
  • I haven't been able to find this information in my sources. Do you know of anyplace that gives this information?
    • Counting them with AWB, there are 564 medal winners.
• Do you mind making a custom TOC like in other Medalist FLs?
  • I played around with doing this (in response to a comment above), but couldn't find a shortened table format that I was happy with. The fact that there are so many different events makes the custom TOC not much shorter or nicer than the current one, and something to do with the different lengths of the events' names make some of the other events and sub-sections off-set weirdly, looking very unprofessional. If you can come up with a custom TOC that looks good, I would have no problem with it in the article, but with my (admittedly limited) formatting skills, I haven't been able to.
    • That's fine, it's not required.
• I would prefer the Medals by country table be replaced by Medals per year. It is redundant to Equestrian at the Summer Olympics#Medal table and should be consistent with other Medalist lists.
  • I am working on this replacement table in a sandbox, but gathering and entering the information into the table is taking me some time. I hope to spend some time working on this tonight and maybe even finish it. I will let you know when the new table has been imported into the list.

Everything else looks fantastic and I love how you included the horses' names. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas, thank you for your comments. I apologize for being slow to answer them - real life has been busy for the past two days and I haven't had much online time. I've interspersed my replies so far above, and will continue to work on the issues as time permits. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine. One more thing is to check multiple spellings. In many cases where the athlete has foreign symbols in his/her name, it is spelled with them in one place and without in another. At least one redlink is actually a bluelink but has the wrong spelling: Pierre Durand Jr. should link to Pierre Durand, Jr.. Michel Robert should be corrected to Michel Robert (equestrian). Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table has now been finished and substituted, please take a look and see what you think. I've fixed the above two examples of links, plus another one that I found. Please let me know if you see any others - I've combed through and don't see any more, but it may just be because I've looked at it too often. I'm not completely sure I trust the AWB count - for example, does it count a person more than once if their name is spelled more than one way? Also, this information does doesn't seem to be necessary to include in Olympic lists, I've looked through other FLs of this sort, and it's included in some, but not in several others. Thanks for your thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does count both links, but there weren't very many and I'm sure I got them all unless the name was completely different. The medals per year table looks great, but please add dark backgrounds to years when a country didn't exist, like in List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing#Medals per year. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark backgrounds have been added to years where the NOC didn't exist/didn't compete. Also, I made a mistake in my statement above which changed the meaning, please review the struck and rewritten word and let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table is fantastic! I think it is necessary and should be added to the rest of the lists as well. If I'm looking at a list of people who won medals, I want to know how many there are. I went through it again and I'm sure there are 564 people with an equestrian medal. Reywas92^Talk 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the information then. However, just one more question before I do - does your count include the competitors in the last two "unofficial" events? It should not, because these are not considered official events, and are not included in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support then; all issues resolved. Nope, I removed them. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [4].

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that there is a lack of featured content covering the Minnesota Vikings and I have worked fairly hard to get this list to a standard comparable to that of List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks. All of the content of the list and the prose extracted thereof is suitably references, and I believe that the lead section introduces the content of the list effectively. Since the list is based on the list of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks, there should be no issue with the style or structure, and there are also images showing both a former starting QB and the current one. Information does not change from day to day, except to update the number of games started by the team's current starting QB, which only happens once a week during the football season. – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: main reference missing publisher info & access date—Chris!_c/t 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) – contingent on the resolution of the sorting issue below.

Comment from KV5 (yes, again)

• Now that there is a statistical table, I think there should be some discussion of those statistics in the lead, and/or in the section containing that table, because the lead should be a summary of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of paragraphs of discussion to the statistics table. Let me know if what I've added isn't what you were looking for. – PeeJay 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great work. You make me proud to be a Vikings fan. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aw, thanks man :) Not bad for a Brit, eh? Now I just need someone to teach me the tune to Skol, Vikings! – PeeJay 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 1) In the lead, it says "The club was founded by Minneapolis businessmen Bill Boyer, H. P. Skoglund and Max Winter in 1959..." - Only one of these is linked, yet I would assume that co-founding a pro football team is probably notable enough to have their own article. These two should probably be wikilinked. 2) "Starting" could be ambiguous to someone not familiar with football. There's no real explanation of what a "starting" quarterback is. Those of us familiar with the game know it means starting a game, but others may think it means starting a season, starting a half/quarter, or something else. A brief explanation might be nice. 3) I don't like how the list is set up. I scrolled down expecting to see a list of 28 players in chronological order of first appearance (with a section explaining exact seasons played, etc.) and instead there's a list of seasons with the QBs that played next to it. As is, I wouldn't call this article "List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks" so much as I would call it "List of Minnesota Vikings seasons by starting quarterback". I took a look through the other "starting quarterbacks" pages and see they all follow this format (including at least one FL), and I have to say I strongly disagree with the format that these pages are in. I think my solution rather than changing the whole thing around would be to keep that section, but before it add a list of each of the 28 quarterbacks by order of first appearance, along with appropriate notes. My philosophy is that you shouldn't have to work to figure out the actual 28 different QBs, they should just be right there in a chronological list rather than having to sift through every season and determine which ones are duplicates, etc. VegaDark (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
    1. I don't see how this has anything to do with the quality of the list. I could link those names, but they would just be redlinks, and I don't know enough about those individuals to create decent articles about them at this time.
    2. I've added a note and moved all three notes in the article to a single section between "See also" and "References".
    3. I would rather not act on this until more people have commented. I have added a statistics section to the article, which lists every starting quarterback in his own row. It is currently in alphabetical order, but I could re-order it chronologically. The only problem with this would be that the players who had two spells with the franchise would only be listed at the point of their first spell. I'm also not too happy about the amount of statistical data in the table, but I added the stats that seemed most pertinent to a quarterback. Comments on this new table would be appreciated.
  • You may also notice that User:Gilliganfanatic has added a table with a season-by-season account of the Vikings' postseason starting quarterbacks. I'm not sure how this could be integrated with the other table(s), but I am certainly of the opinion that it should be. Again, more comments would be welcomed. – PeeJay 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) While it may not affect the quality of the list portion itself, it does effect the quality of the page as a whole, which we are to consider in FLC nominations. I would rather have them redlinks than unlinked. 2) Looks good 3) I would welcome more comments on this as well, although the new "statistics" table looks like it could satisfy this by simply adding a sortable column with 1-28 next to each QB in order of first appearance. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) OK, I've linked them. 2) Thanks. 3) I think that adding a column with 1-28 in it would be a bit confusing as readers might think that the numbers refer to the players' jersey numbers. I would much rather default sort the table by the date of the player's first appearance and then let readers sort by any other column should they so wish. – PeeJay 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That works for me. Like Killervogel5, I like to wait a while for more comments before supporting (or opposing, for that matter). VegaDark (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick comments' - I didn't go through the article in depth, but the statistics table doesn't seem to have a key. Also the "Record" column of that table doesn't seem to sort correctly. I am also curious about why the list should be limited to just starting quarterbacks. The statistics table shows the record of each quarterback including games started and not started, so just a little piece of the team's QB story seems to be missing with the quarterbacks who played but never started a game. An alternate approach, but maybe over complicated, would be to show the stats for each (starting) quarterback in for each season, and the current statistics table would serve as the totals. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statistics table uses tooltips (see Template:tooltip) as a key. If you hover your cursor over the column header, an explanation of the abbreviation will appear.
  • I'm not sure how to fix the sorting of the "Record" column. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
    • It looks like the record column has been removed, which is fine, but to sort you could use the [[{{{1}}}]] template, and sort based on a 4 digit number with one or more leading zeros and the number of wins. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the sort template really necessary now? The content of the "W", "L" and "T" columns is now purely numerical with no positive or negative symbols, so the sorting should work perfectly without the need for an extra template. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could be wrong here, but in my experience, teams rarely substitute their quarterback during a game. It does happen, hence why we need to refer to "the starting quarterback" and not just "the quarterback", but changes would only occur if the player is injured or the team is so far ahead that they can afford to bring on their second-string QB. Either way, it is only really the starting QB who matters, which is why only the stats for the starting QBs have been included (although those stats include times when the player was brought on during the game).
    • The starting QB usually finishes the game, but not always. For example, the backup will enter the game in case of injury or a blowout. So Fran Tarkenton played 177 games but only started 170. Or Brooks Bollinger played 7 games but only started 1. But if he didn't start that one game, he would have played 6 but started none, and wouldn't have made the list. So I am suggesting that the QBs who only came in as substitutes should be included, at least in the master list. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. If the article was "List of Minnesota Vikings quarterbacks", then perhaps including all of the players who played at QB for the team would be appropriate, but this list and all others like it focus only on starting quarterbacks. The fact that the statistics cover all appearances is a bit of a peeve, but it's not worth breaking the custom over. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just one more small point: how would you define a QB? If we're talking about anyone on this list, then that seems to include anyone who has ever made a pass for the Vikings whether they are a recognised QB or not. How would you suggest we filter the QBs from the FSs? – PeeJay 18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is a good point. I am not sure whether or not there is a reliable source for who actually played QB. I thought pro-football-reference would have that, but they only list who was a QB on the roster and who threw passes. I still think the chart seems incomplete without including the players who played QB but didn't start. And I realize the the list is titled "Starting QBs" and not just "QBs", which is the basic issue - why have a list that limits to just a subset of the Vikings' QB, rather than have a list that includes everyone. But the answer may be that there are no RSes for everyone who played QB, just those that started there. So I can support. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the approach you suggest would be too complicated, but please feel free to create an example list in your userspace so that we can see what your suggestion would look like. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are probably right. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The hyphen work-around for the sorting is not ideal, but it is the best solution possible given the situation. Everything else looks fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

• "The Vikings are (plural) a member (singular)" - maybe it's just an ENGVAR issue (I'm in the UK), but this seems completely grammatically nonsensical to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Despite the lingering issues with the sorting of the rushing yards column, I feel this meets the criteria for FL. Let's hope somebody out there knows how to resolve this ongoing sort issue or Favre finishes the season with positive rushing yards.—NMajdan•talk 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've asked Tcncv (talk · contribs) to take a look at the table to see if he can get the negative number to sort properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK; so it seems there is no way to sort correctly with a minus sign. The question is now this: do we want the table to be typographically correct, and allow a slight sorting error; or do we want to the table to sort correctly, disregarding a slight typographical error? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would prefer to have the table sort correctly. Most people wouldn't give two shits whether we use a hyphen or a minus sign (and to be honest, I find WP:DASH to be a bit restrictive anyway), so a hyphen should be fine IMO. – PeeJay 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though I am a WP:DASH fanatic, I agree with that assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am also a stickler for WP:DASH, and I suppose I can live with it for the sake of sorting, and we'll just hope that Favre breaks a 4-yard run sometime later this season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Y'all will be happy to know that I've fixed the sort issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [5].

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After getting List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches promoted to FL, I began tackling this list. I originally had the men's and women's coaches separated into two lists but after reading a discussion on the FLC talk page, I began questioning whether the women's list could stand on its own so I made the decision to combine the two. I believe the list meets all the criteria for FL. —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Too many redlinks for my liking. Also, the "†" and "*" symbols in the women's conference championships column aren't explained in the legend. Do you need both a color change and a "†" symbol to represent a coach in the hall of fame? It would seem one of the two is enough (I'd prefer the color). Finally, I am concerned about combining both the men's and women's teams to one list. There are separate categories and articles for men's and women's teams, I don't see why the head coaching lists should be combined. Would the women's list be able to stand on its own? I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily think the solution is to combine it with the men's list. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to throw my two cents in: I would prefer to have two separate lists for coaches (one mens, one womens), but if others like the combined list better than I am okay with it. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The list is down to a pair of red links, and I have no issue with the mix of men's and women's coaches; I see it as akin to having managers and general managers in a baseball managers list, and the lists would be short on their own. The rest of the various comments have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Should you mention that both teams play in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)?
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk 17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll see if I can help make some of the articles for the red-linked coaches in return for all of the help you have given me. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• One last comment - who is the coach "died before ever coaching a game". Can you add a footnote explaining who this was because it is sort of a mystery with the way the article currently is. Remember (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Remember (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good—Chris!_c/t 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Consider adding Category:Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball head coaches and Category:Oklahoma Sooners women's basketball head coaches to the list (also, make sure that they are fully populated). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk 16:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [6].

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that Charlie Chaplin is a highly important figure in the development of cinema. The list has been peer reviewed and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They look okay to me. Jimknut (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that they shouldn't be there. Delink those links or fix them to go directly to the intended article (why is charity linked, anyway?). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'm at a loss here. I've never messed with that section on any page, so I don't what to do. Can you help? Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed the dabs in this edit. Hopefully you now understand what I meant. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire lead is a mini-biography. Does all this information belong in a filmography? LargoLarry (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Featured lists usually give a brief overview of the subject of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a mini-bio is acceptable in a filmography. Hence the reason I did it. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wildhartlivie

• The image needs to have alt text added.
  • Added.
• I'm not clear about the style used in the reference section. It seems that some of the links really belong under an "External links" subtitle and not the general references since the "Websites" links are not used in referencing. I don't see that the Chaplin autobiography is used in referencing, so that should be listed in a further reading section. I do think the specific references should come before the general ones.
  • The web pages have been moved into section entitled "External links". The order of the specific and general references has been changed and renamed as (respectively) "footnotes" and "bibliography". Chaplin's autobiography was used as the basis for arranging the order of his films, which is clearly stated at the top of the section entitled "Official films". Therefore, I think it does indeed belong in the bibliography section and not a "further reading" section.
• Shouldn't the {{reflist}} have two columns once the number of cites exceeds 12?
  • It should now, as I changed {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}. However, I'm using Internet Explorer so I can't see any change on my computer.
• This is mostly a question. There are quite a few direct cites in the "Notes" columns, but in others, there is a blurb of information without cites. Shouldn't there be cites for that information as well?
  • Stated at the top of the "Official films" section is: "Except where otherwise referenced, the release dates, character names, and annotations presented here are derived from Chaplin's autobiography, Robinson's book, and The Films of Charlie Chaplin (1965) by Gerald D. McDonald, Michael Conway, and Mark Ricci." Is that enough or do you need specific page numbers from these books?
• I'm not clear on the rationale for the color selection in the credits column. Does this color meet the guidelines for WP:ACCESS?
  • The {{Yes}} template automatically puts the word "Yes" into a moss green (#addfad) background. I did not create this template, so I don't know exactly what the green background is supposed to represent, but I think I can safely assume that it's purely a decoration. People that are color blind may not be able to see the green color, but they should able to read the word "Yes" and thus able to decifer what it means. Four of the seven filmographies that have received "Featured list" status use the {{Yes}} template. If it's okay for them then why not here as well? Jimknut (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - I think all of my comments and questions are satisfied, except for the ALT text. Keeping in mind that ALT text may be used by vision impaired people who may not know what Chaplin's "tramp" persona looks like, perhaps a small, more generic description of that would be helpful. (Unless others disagree, that is. My experience with ALT text in GA/FA has been to be more descriptive and explain how something would appear, rather than assume that someone already knows.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I don't think I mentioned before, but I think this is a core filmography, and you've done great work with it. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - excellent work, Jim. Is it at featured standard yet? Lugnuts (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is waiting on more reviewers. Jim, I would suggest you leave a note for DaBomb and Wildhartlivie asking them to weigh in on whether their concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've past the word around asking for reviews.Jimknut (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehrams2020

I haven't reviewed the above comments, so if any of these conflict with issues raised above let me know.

• The single sentence at the conclusion of the lead should be merged with one of other paragraphs. It also seems to me that there is a lot of detail in the lead about his background. Perhaps a few sentences could be removed/trimmed (since his main article probably covers the same details).
  • I took the final sentence and placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph. I shorted part of the biographical segment. I think that overall the lead section fits Wikipedia's standards.
• Periods aren't needed for all of the notes in the tables.
  • They've been removed from brief notes such as "two reels" and "Co-writer: Mabel Normand".
    • Looking to other FLs, the other notes don't seem to need periods as well. The majority are not actual sentences, so they shouldn't be included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Any update on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I took out the periods. Jimknut (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The note for Her Friend the Bandit should be formatted the same as Caught in a Cabaret and Dough and Dynamite with "a lost film" mentioned first.
  • Reformated.
• United States doesn't need to be linked in the "British productions" table.
  • Unlinked.
• I would recommend rewording "oeuvre" as readers may not know what this means (or provide a brief explanation).
  • Gee, I always thought that if you don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, thereby increasing your knowledge and vocabulary. Nevertheless I changed "oeuvre" to "body of work".
    • Yeah, but readers can be lazy. If you wish, you can link the word to Wiktionary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove "These are listed below." Also remove "Listed here are three that..."
  • Removed.
• Consider changing "(untitled film)" to "Untitled Charity Film".
  • No, I'm leaving that the way it is. The film never had an official title, so I think "untitled film" should remain in lower case with no italics.
• Capitalization of the external links should be consistent.
  • If you mean the very last section then, yes, it's changed.

The list is very informative and does well covering his films. I've only seen a few of his films, so it looks like I need to add some more of his films to my queue. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you have addressed the above issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend the five films listed in the National Film Registry. See them with friends if you can. Also see Easy Street (1916), in which Chaplin deals with street crime, spouse abuse, poverty, drug addiction, welfare, and religion ... all in two reels!

  When I was working on the National Film Registry list, I added multiple films to my queue so I watched The Great Dictator, City Lights, and Modern Times. Definitely could catch some more of his work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: It seems that a fragment of a hitherto unknown Chaplin film called Zepped has been found. It's now added into the compilation section. See: [7] Jimknut (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe the above issues I have raised have been addressed and don't see any other pressing issues that would prevent passing. Good job on bringing the list up to FL status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work, especially with those tricky tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:57, 23 November 2009 [8].

Nominator(s): Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this complete list of all Czechoslovak Sportsperson of the Year awardees for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks for all comments in advance. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - thanks for your patience, the list looks good. —Chris!_c/t 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments and ideas. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked it and found one dab link, which I have fixed. May I ask, what toolbox you mean? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are still two remaining, which you can see here. The toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, thank you. Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks like a nice list. I can only assume the non-English sources are reliable, since it's hard for us English speakers to check the ones in Czeck or Slovak. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources: The online reference, which is in Czech, is an official web page of the Club of Sports Journalists of the Czech Republic (Klub sportovních novinářů ČR), which is a successor organization of the Club of Czechoslovak Sports Journalists, which awarded the trophy. The Slovak source is SME, one of the most widely read serious newspaper in Slovakia. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment Looks good. Only one issue that I could see—the "team" column in the team doesn't sort properly (you probably should have it sort alphabetically by sort by men, and then by women). When this is resolved I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it. Did you mean it this way? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed you did some copyediting in the text. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and yes, the sorting fix was good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. I didn't evaluate the foreign-lanugage sources for reliability, but I'll assume good faith based on Jan's explanation above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There were some issues with the article lacking non-breaking spaces, but due to the longevity of this FLC, I took the liberty of fixing those myself so I could support.—NMajdan•talk 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:07, 23 November 2009 [9].

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article offline for several days, and I think it meets the criteria now. Any and all comments and suggestions would be much appreciated. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Maybe a good idea to make the key into table format
• Overlinking of Cricinfo
• Don't denote rows with only color per WP:ACCESS

—Chris!_c/t 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I've added the key to a table to make it into two columns, but I'm not sure if that's what you were suggesting. The other two are done. I've removed the colours now that they are redundant. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]