Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2006

Useful list, carefully annotated with lots of references. I'll leave it to the subject area experts to comment on how comprehensive it is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm the author so I'll refrain from voting. I did ask WP:CLINMED to check it for accuracy and a few people said it looked good. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What a list! :) Anyway maybe more external links, images? NCurse _work 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some images, although I'm agnostic about whether they improve the timeline or not. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - thanks for the work. NCurse _work 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Interesting topic, well referenced. Timelines can be a featured list: see Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites and Timeline of Apple Macintosh models but I don't think this one fulfils the criteria. 1a ask for "bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic" which this doesn't do as neither the researchers nor their discoveries are notable enough to have their own articles (apart from the obvious few exceptions). I don't know how we can tell it is comprehensive (1b) – what are the criteria for including an event? I'm sure there's lots of research that could be mentioned, so the choice might be editorial rather than objective. Are some of the (especially old) references actually references that the editor has consulted (to at least abstract level) or are they just the paper that was published that recorded the "event" being mentioned. If the latter, then they don't really belong in the references section (the actual paper/book where those references were lifted from should be cited instead). There is some missing information that is covered by the Helicobacter pylori article: the triple (and quadruple) treatments and also the sequencing of some strains of the bacterium. Some of the prose could be better, e.g. "Meets criticism, which was, at least in part, well-founded." and could benefit from perhaps a little expansion for the uninitiated. Is Bismuth (the element) what is being referred to, or only certain bismuth compounds? It might be interesting, in the timeline, to note changes in both the diminishing use of anti acid treatments and the increasing cure (or reducing prevalence) of peptic ulcers. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the article. I have some concerns over your objections.

Re:1a I would like to point out that if this article doesn't meet the list criteria under 1a, you are eliminating it from being featured in anyway. Personally, if the featured list criteria excludes articles of this type, I think, so much the worse for the featured list criteria.

Re:1b Inclusion is, of course, somewhat subjective, but not my editorial choice. I have read most of the prominent histories of H. pylori and PUD and included everything in any of those. So, inclusion/exclusion has been decided by prominent researchers, who's decisions I trust.

Re:References I have not consulted all of the referenced, but have read reports or summaries of them. I thought including them would be helpful for those researching the area. In general, I'm not sure its required that I have read every reference, but rather the references are provided so that the accuracy of the wikipedia article may be checked by an interested reader. As such, they serve this purpose.

Re:Inclusion My intention for the article was to follow the discovery that H. pylori and PUD were related, once that was widely accepted, finding adequate treatment options, etc, was beyond its scope. Given the length of the timeline, I'm inclined not to widen the scope. If others think it appropriate however, I will do so. (p.s. I changed the description of the list to be more clear about its scope. It now reads, "Here is a timeline of the events relating to the discovery that PUD is caused by H. pylori.")

Re:Prose I will attempt to improve the two items you point out. Are there others you would like me to fix? Thanks again for your time. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1a, it has been agreed before that linking to other articles may not be absolutely necessary if the list is informative enough. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Lists_that_don.27t_have_links. List of Mega Man weapons was an example of that (though the article was deleted recently!) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if my interpretation of the criteria is wrong, please do correct me. However, perhaps the criteria should be updated, if we wish to make it more inclusive. Ultimately, there will still be good content on Wikipedia that doesn't fit the Featured List or Featured Article criteria. Featured Timelines? I'd also like an academic to confirm my comments on the references. My concerns are that without reading at least the abstract, then you have nothing much to go on other than the comment/context in the book or paper that the editor read. As such, it is that source that should be cited - however there is no reason why the footnote can't say "Smith (2003), p3 citing Blogs et al (1946) "Helicoblacter..."." Re: scope. As long as the scope is well defined, then those missing entries are explained. However, I think that after reading through the timeline, you could reward the reader with some of the outcomes of the discovery. Colin°^Talk 08:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a published graduate student in philosophy. Depending on what you mean by academic, I might qualify :) I agree that perhaps including some later developments would be nice. Let me think about which ones fit the scope. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bismuth = salicylate bismuth salts, commonly marketed as Pepto-Bismol -- Samir धर्म 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research on citing your sources. If (as you admit) you are relying on secondary sources (books, review articles) for the information, then you must use that source in your references. Where the secondary source is citing a primary source (the original paper) and you have not read that source (even at abstract level) then you must not claim it as a reference but may list it in your Footnotes and say "as cited in", then giving the reference you used. You can't expect a reader to be any more able/willing to dig out the primary source than you are to verify your statements. You may want to consider renaming your "References" section as "Footnotes" and moving some of the general/frequently-used references to a bullet-point "References" section. The "Helicobacter Pioneers" book and "A century of Helicobacter pylori" review are perhaps candidates for this move. Since you are using those references to dictate which discoveries/papers are significant, then they are more than just specific sources – they have a general-reference purpose. Also, such a move will allow you to say "as cited in Marshall (2002)", where the reader can find the full citation for "Marshall (2002)" in the References. You can abbreviate the citations for chapters in this book in the same way. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns over maintaining appropriate citations. But, can you point me to this policy? I think it ought to be changed. In particular, I don't understand what the concern is. I am reading reputable sources summarizing the work of others. Several of these summaries are the very same authors summarizing their earlier work. For instance, Freedberg (1940) was summarized by Freedberg (2002). I think its fair to assume he got himself right. Furthermore, I'm afraid it will be almost impossible for me to do what you now request, as I don't remember where I got each citation from (I have read substantially more than the Marshall edited volume). Because this is in consort with my dissertation project, I am working my way through the citations we use know. I promise that if I find any which are incorrect in the article I will change them. Is this sufficient to alleviate your concerns? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the policy isn't Wikipedia's to change. It is just basic academic integrity/honesty – you don't claim references you didn't actually refer to. It has been a while since my uni tutor explained it to me so I'm a bit rusty. Web sites where the policy is explained (wrt to certain referencing styles) include Managing References FAQ, AMA Quick Ref(PDF), and AQA-style FAQ. In terms of fixing this article, it is less important where you originally got it from, as long as you can find just one of your references to back it up. Colin°^Talk 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that continuing this argument is merely academic at this point. I do not have the time to go through each citation and figure out which article it came from in the next few days. I feel like the objection has largely been blown out of proportion in this case, but you are indeed entitled to your opinion. If this is a sufficient objection to kill the FL nomination, then so be it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be an impediment: I've read all of the latter primary sources in question (24-26 and 28-), and will run through the list tonight. -- Samir धर्म 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Samir! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked around and one person has suggested that my issue with the references, although appropriate for a peer-reviewed journal, is not required for Wikipedia. So, whilst I think the timeline would be improved if those rules were followed, I'll drop my opposition. If other folk support this list, I won't let those issues get in the way. Colin°^Talk 08:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - good stuff. The only reason I am not jumping to support is a bit short lead. So if you could just expand a bit... Renata 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking at it. I have expanded the intro. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good enough. Renata 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ulcer picture! Take your pic at Category:Endoscopic images -- Samir धर्म 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the top one from Gastric ulcer. How's it look? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great! We should add info on MALT lymphomas. As an aside, as the academic gastroenterologist here, I should probably edit the article as opposed to leaving comments. -- Samir धर्म 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the discovery of non-pylori Helicobacter species (heilmanni, kanadeii, etc.) should probably be mentioned also. I need to chase refs -- Samir धर्म 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good, although note the discussion about the article's scope above. (I'm not committed to the article having that limited scope, so if you want to expand it feel free.) Thanks for helping out. I'm stretched pretty thin and my current knowledge of the topic has been exhausted. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Reviewed and tweaked the lead. A couple of omissions need to be added: (1) the chronic active gastritis -> ulcer -> carcinoma spectrum that has been elucidated since 1994 has revolutionized the way we treat H pylori. I need to dig up the refs and (2) treatment of Helicobacter and Helicobacter resistance (which is shaping practice in the 21st century). I added the Borody ref as first use of triple therapy, but I need some time to pull out the big therapy refs. -- Samir धर्म 04:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Colin makes some very valid points on what should and what should not be included. I would probably include sequencing as well, although I'm not that familiar with the molecular literature -- Samir धर्म 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I'm a bit lost now and I'd like either Samir or Kzollman to help me out. Have all significant omissions been added? Is the scope of the list already estable? I'd promote the list as it is, but I'm not quite comfortable with the idea of major changes after promotion, so I'd like to make sure the list is not promoted before its time. Thanks -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all major additions have been added, although there may be still a few entries to come. Personally, I think all critical bases in the scope are covered, although there may be a few tangentially related events that will be added (primarily by Samir). I don't think anyone intends to change the scope of the list. I should probably let Samir answer, though, since he knows better what he thinks need to be added :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added molecular biology, resistance, virulence factors, info on bleeding and the Maastrich consensus. It looks complete to me now. Great list, I'll be using it to teach my residents -- Samir धर्म 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. I hope this could become the third, I think, featured people list on wikipedia. A peer review can be found here where I think all the comments were addressed. There are 271 persons in this list, all with a reliable reference. I think it meets all the criteria. One of the reasons I worked on this list, is that I encountered it (in a bad old version) all over the net. Sometimes even used as a source. So I wanted to improve and complete that version. Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support... erg, I think you broke the number of references record ;) Renata 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support As creator of List of notable brain tumor patients, I'm giving this my wholehearted endorsement. Garion96 modeled this work after that page and List of people with epilepsy (both featured lists) and sought extensive feedback for this detailed and impressively referenced list. I think this page has become one of the best lists at Wikipedia, and on an important topic. Durova 01:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support As someone who has helped a bit with editing this list, I've been highly impressed by the thoroughness that Garion96 has applied to it. I think the list has become a very useful, reliable educational resource. Trezatium 08:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fabulous work referencing all that. One comment - I realise you've put the sections alphabetically, but I'd probably be tempted to put "Miscellaneous" at the end, as it includes anyone who doesn't fit the other sections. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved it to the end. Garion96 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was initially a bit worried about this list, on grounds of privacy and potential for unsubstantied claims, but the list really is very good. However, the selection criteria seem a little vague to me. I mean, there are thousands of people who could appear in this list, so this list is only a subset of the people who could potentially be listed (for example, does everyone in Category:HIV-positive people and Category:AIDS-related deaths appear?). I guess the list is limited to people who (a) are confirmed confirmed by a reliable source to have been infected with HIV (which will remove some candidates), and (b) who "have either made notable contributions to their chosen fields or are significant in the history of AIDS". My query is really how we verify the second criterion. Is it sufficient that they already have a Wikipedia article? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone included in those two categories also appears in the list, unless no reliable reference has been found. As you suggested, the criteria are that the person has a Wikipedia article plus a reliable reference. Garion96 has compiled a list of people with articles suggesting HIV infection, but for whom a reliable reference has not yet been found. Trezatium 10:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the intro to simplify the criteria for inclusion. Do you think this is an improvement? Trezatium 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. You mustn't self-ref wikipedia, especially the Wikipedia namespace. I'm not sure you need to mention notability at all since it is a basic rule on Wikipedia that lists of people cannot include non-notable people, and a simple definition of notability would be the ability to support a Wikipedia article. It would be acceptable to list people without articles, if one could reasonably be expected to be written. Also, many lists don't include the list title in bold since it often makes the English clumsy – what makes a consise title doesn't necessarily make good prose. So you could just say "This is a categorised, alphabetical list of people who are HIV-positive". Colin°^Talk 08:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Trezatium 08:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone has any suggestions for highly notable individuals not featured in the list because they don't have articles in Wikipedia then I might have a go at creating the necessary articles. Trezatium 11:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a great list, though there are two observations I'd like to make. First is my regular pet peeve regarding the absence of a section dedicated to scientists. Second, the heavy representation of Americans in this list (likely due to the nature and provenance of the sources) may warrant an explanation somewhere on the lead. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a Science section but it was deemed to be too small, and was merged with Miscellaneous. Trezatium 11:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Just checking. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. Concerning your second observation, isn't the {{Dynamic list}} tag sufficient for that? If more articles are created (and sources are found) eventually the list will be less American centric. Garion96 (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that template does the trick. Didn't think of that. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've already made some comments during peer review. The references are very good. I agree with the suggestion of moving the Misc to the end. Wrt scientists – there was only one so I suggested the section be dropped or expanded. There isn't such a section in the epilepsy list for the same reason. The brain tumor list now has 9 scientists and is comparable in size (236 names vs 274). I guess the brain tumor list can serve as a reference-point if we think it affects anyone at random - so you are left with certain occupations being more notable than others. The demographics of HIV may (in some way) account for the lack of scientists - the Sports section is also under-represented. I'm not sure the over-representation of Americans warrants explanation in the lead. I imagine there is a similar bias in terms of en-Wikipedia articles. Certainly more research of e.g. UK newspapers could help balance things. I hope the guys keep working on it as I'm sure it could expand further. But its big/comprehensive enough to be featured now. Colin°^Talk 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only suggestion I'd like to reiterate from the peer review is the possiblity of including HIV/AIDS releated info in the Comments field. Both the brain tumor, epilepsy and hepatitis C lists include this extra detail, where available. I think it enhances the encyclopedic value of the list and gives examples to some of the statistics that are mentioned either in the lead or in the disease-article itself. I'd apprecitate if other reviewers could say if they agree with this suggestion or like it just as it is. Colin°^Talk 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. Yes, I also would like more input on that. The reason it wasn't added was that for so few people there was information on that. Right now it's only mentioned on entries which are 'significant in the history of AIDS'. Garion96 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it as it is. If as Garion says there's only a few people with that extra info then I don't see much of a point in adding it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Very useful list of the notable Swedish national team players, including all with above 50 caps and another three that has scored more than 25 goals for the national team, it includes the most important players of the national team through the years. Well sourced, uncontroversial, stable and well-constructed, I think this list fullfills all requirements. A few images of the players would be nice, but free alternatives are hard to find. – Elisson • T • C • 20:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Filling out the few red links would benefit the article. Punkmorten 10:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now reduced the red links to five of 44 in total, I think 39 blue links out of 44 is "a large majority". :) – Elisson • T • C • 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comprehensive and referenced. The redlinks are few in number. Oldelpaso 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it does not look good. Short lead, thin table, and bunch of footnotes, and that's it. The lead should be expanded. Table should spell out things like "position" or "appearance" or "goal keeper." It could also include club/country information. Some free pictures woud be really neat. Renata 03:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria says "a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list". This lead does summarize the scope of the list, there is no need to add anything more. But please, tell me what would you would like to have included in the lead and we can discuss it. I can't see how "thin table" would merit an oppose, but I've spelled out "position" and "appearances" just to widen the table without adding anything, except making it, IMHO, look even uglier (a wider column with no more information in it). Using abbreviations for the positions are standard for this kind of list, see the other featured or near featured football lists. Include country information? Please, this is a list of players of the Sweden national team, you want me to add a Swedish flag and the text "Sweden" on every single player? The clubs of the player does also not add to the list (it has nothing to do with national team appearances), if wanted, the info can be found at the player's article, and it would also make the list uglier as several players have played for four clubs or more, making the list too wide or too long. – Elisson • T • C • 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, misunderstood one thing. But then question - why is there "international" in the title? Renata 23:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Foo international footballer" is a term used in football and other sports to describe a player that has played for the national team of Foo. Quoting our article international: "In team sports, 'International' commonly refers either to a match between two national teams, or to a player capped by his national team." – Elisson • T • C • 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, ok, sorry for that one. I did not do enough justice to investigate what's going on. The only two things that remain not addressed are short lead and thin table. Lead can be quite easily expanded talking a bit more about the national team (2-3 sentences of background info), any special points on the list (i.e. records?), how players are selected for the team and such stuff. And I still believe the table needs to be wider because there is a huge ugly white gap between table and pictures. Spelling out GK would be one of the ways to expand it. Renata 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but I do not see the point of adding irrelevant information to the intro just for the sake of making it longer. Background info on the national team can be found in the linked article, the list itself contains the record (most played matches), and how the players are selected for the team is just as with every other national team in the world, done by the manager. Either way, neither "long intro", nor "wide table" are attributes required for a FL. And, for someone with a screen resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768, the space between the table and pictures is not that wide. I understand if you do not want to support this nomination, but they are not good enough reasons for an oppose, IMHO. – Elisson • T • C • 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - I'm sure the information is fine, there are references, etc, but, um, this is rather ugly (sorry). Would it be possible to add some visual interest - colour? bolding current players? an image? And would it not be possble to link the abbreviated positions, rather than adding a key? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I know it is "ugly" compared to many other featured lists, so no problem. Regarding pictures, have added three I found when searching through all names on the list. Regarding bolding of current players or linking the positions, I've only followed the standards that "we" (the members of the Football WikiProject) use for most lists, see for example the featured List of Arsenal F.C. players. – Elisson • T • C • 14:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images are great - thanks. I appreciate that the WikiProject has agreed standards - WikiProject Cricket tries to standardise its articles too - but the abbreviation does not help readers. I think the positions really ought to be spelled out - is there really a reason to write "GK", "DF", "MF" and FW" rather than "Goalkeeper", "Defender", "Midfielder", and "Forward"? The abbreviation saves at most 8 letter, and pixels are not that scarce in this list. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The List of Arsenal F.C. players went to featured status with the abbreviations, and linking every single position cell seems overkill, better to have one key at the bottom with links. Either way, players who have played regularly on several of the positions, for example Tomas Brolin (MF/FW) or Bo Larsson (DF/MF/FW), would create a very wide and column if spelling out the abbreviations. – Elisson • T • C • 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about turning the abbreviations into piped links? For instance DF. Punkmorten 09:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very well put together, good clarity and precicsion, and sme great images too. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article satisfies all the featured list requirements. It is factually-accurate, well-referenced, includes appropriate pictures etc., relatively-stable (will only be updated once or twice every four years), and is interesting. It follows the same kind of design as Test cricket hat-tricks, One-day International cricket hat-tricks and List of Test cricket triple centuries (all three are FL). The naming is the only thing that could be considered "contraversial" - I chose Football (soccer) because that is the MOS-name for the main Wikipedia article. FIFA instead of football (soccer) per concensus. Otherwise, I think it is complete and compelling enough to satisfy all the FL criteria. Daniel.Bryant 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be called FIFA World Cup hat-tricks if you ask me. Punkmorten 05:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, with titles, you put in what most people would say. I would call it either Football World Cup hat-tricks or Soccer World Cup hat-tricks, hence the current title. However, you make a valid point, and I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks. Daniel.Bryant 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should definitely be FIFA World Cup hat-tricks, so as to be consistent with FIFA World Cup. As it stands, object - not just for the name, but the article needs to be categorised and the references section ought to use {{cite web}}. Also, it is not clear what the bar for inclusion is (presumably it is official recognition by FIFA). I would suggest having a separate section of disputed hat-tricks underneath the main list, where Patenaude's claim and mistakes in the record can be discussed, rather than relegating them to the References section, and I would suggest editing the 6th column in the table and removing the repetition of the words "FIFA World Cup", which clutter the layout. Qwghlm 07:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Name changed.
      • Column 6 changed.
      • Cite web has been used, however I have left some of the additional info for transparency. There is no need to outline that the sources had typos etc. in the main body of the article. However, it is now much more concise.
      • Categories have been added. I personally think three is appropriate, but if you feel that it needs more (note that most FL have 2-3), I'll add them.
      • Patenaude's claim is discussed in-depth in the "Notable World Cup hat-tricks" section, and as there is only the one real dispute, so no separate section is required for this.
      • The "bar for inclusion" is defined in the first sentence - "the occasions when a footballer has scored three goals in a single football (soccer) World Cup Finals match (not including FIFA World Cup qualification matches)". By definition, as FIFA is the ultimate authority on any decision (who scored which goals etc.), therefore it is FIFA's recognised hat-tricks. I've added the specification of FIFA recognition anyways, just to clear it up. Daniel.Bryant 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good stuff - all my objections have been resolved, changing vote to Support. Qwghlm 10:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the suggestions! Daniel.Bryant 10:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Qwghlm, the formatting and table are all very well done. (I like the flags as well — next to the country names :D) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Some suggestions: Consider left-justifying some/many of the columns rather than centred. That way, the flags, years, etc will line up vertically and may look neater. I wonder if the notable section might read better if you put move your bold "notable fact" text as the leading text of each bullet (slightly rephrased as necessary). Follow this with a dash and then the details. I'm not requesting this change – just try it and see if you like it. Finally, the text of the first paragraph in the notable section is uncomfortably similar to the reference. Re-check all your prose text for originality. Colin°^Talk 12:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input and suggestions. I fixed the first note, to redirect readers to the main body of text. With the left-align etc., I tried this, and it looked really weird, because of the centre-vertical align. I'd be interested to see what other users think of this, as I'd be more-than-happy to change it if everyone else wants it. With the bolding, I felt that the page is "listy" enough without introducing some more semi-headings etc., however again if other people think it should be as you detailed, I'd be happy to change it. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although I do not really care, I would prefer a version like this instead of the 100% wide, centered, and "airy" earlier version. Don't know about you other guys though. – Elisson • T • C • 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that version is nicer. Colin°^Talk 16:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as well. I much prefer that one. Daniel.Bryant 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, just please remove the bolding from "Notable World Cup hat-tricks" section. Renata 01:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The neatness! Kingfisherswift 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Great work with this list. CG 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone! Daniel.Bryant 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a self-nom, but this is a stable, accurate, thorough, tidy, well-defined and verifiable list with no redlinks. It is similar to the List of Arsenal F.C. players which is featured. ArtVandelay13 17:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rationales for the inclusion of those with less than 100 appearances would be useful. The early players are understandable since less matches were played then, and Gary McAllister was captain when the team won a cup treble, but I only know these things because I am an avid follower of English football. Even after reading their articles, it is unclear why say, Paul Ince or Ernie Blenkinsop are included; neither won any honours with the club. Oldelpaso 19:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I included all club captains (of which these were two); this is now explained in the article. ArtVandelay13 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly relevant to the debate at hand, but Gary McAllister wasn't captain. KeithD 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clear, concise, useful. Enough said. Kingfisherswift 11:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if there is a citable list of captains then it might be worth splitting off to a separate List of Liverpool F.C. captains. Also I do not see how Djibril Cisse, Luis Garcia or Xabi Alonso fit either the "100+ appearances" or the "club captain" criteria. Qwghlm 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 'members of the current squad that are close to the total' to explain their inclusion. ArtVandelay13 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I will Object - adding a third, poorly defined (how close is "close"?) reason for inclusion is a fudge. I don't see any reason why current squad members should get special treatment, and in any case any reader looking for the current squad members is going to look at Liverpool_F.C.#Current_squad instead. Also, for players under 100 appearances but who were club captain, some sort of notation (bold, asterisk, I don't mind) should be made so it is clear to the reader why they have been included. Qwghlm 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've addressed these issues and removed a few players (Xabi Alonso, Djibril Cisse, Glen Hysén, Ernie Blenkinsop, Paul Ince and Stan Collymore). There may be a separate list of captains at a later date. ArtVandelay13 12:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, change to Support. Incidentally, I am not against including captains with less than 100 appearances, I just think all moved above the list, and a header added just above where the table is (titled "List of players" etc.). Otherwise, very nice! Daniel.Bryant 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Criteria for inclusion is now clearer. Are there any free use pictures available for anyone in the list? Oldelpaso 10:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I was about to promote this, when I noticed the unusual use of {{Football player list end}}, {{Football player list player}} and {{{{Football player list start}}. As far as I can see, they are only used in this list. Why are they necessary? Can't they just be "subst"ed? The first column is specified as 20em, which seems far too wide - most of the box is empty anyway, and it pushes the dates onto separate lines on my screen, for example. Secondly, might it not be a good idea to link the positions, rather than having the links in a separate key? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've narrowed the column to 15 - there's still padding, but I think it's important in making the player names stand out more. It's difficult to link individual positions because not all have their own article and if, say, "IF" (Inside Forward) linked to Forward, it wouldn't clarify what IF stands for. I've linked the column header down to the key. ArtVandelay13 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch. Superfluous use of templates should be discouraged. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I have stripped out these templates. ArtVandelay13 14:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination

I nominated this a few months ago, but didn't get any response after a few days and thus pulled the nomination to reconsider and see if anything could be added. Since then, a few fixes have been made, but I can't think of anything else that would be worth including. Feel free to suggest something though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Nice. Perhaps a footnote of two, to tie the information to the references? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't have them in there because each reference was associated with a specific organization (IDSF, USABDA, WD&DSC), but more clarity can't hurt. I'm not exactly sure how to best implement this—the way I have it now is that the first time each organization is mentioned in the table there's a footnote. It wouldn't be hard to put repeat footnotes in every column to make it especially explicit, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry - bit late now, but I meant to come back to 'support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well done, but at 13 links it is a little short. I guess that's not something you can fix. The number ranges should use an ndash. The introductory sentence is too long. Start with a simple sentence on what this is a list of. Then go on to introduce readers to what DanceSport is (brief summary) and give a sentence for each governing body. I'd don't think the change you made that changed the global references into specific references is a good one. Those refs cover more than just the tempo. I think the three refs should go back to being bullet-point global references. If you/ALoan feel the need to specify where each column's info comes from, then you should use footnotes in addition. Those notes would say something like "IDSF Competition Rules 2005 – page 13" or "WD&DSC Competition Rules. Section B", etc. Colin°^Talk 12:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the references—I'll take care of that shortly. I've fixed the ndash thing as well. Regarding the lead, however, are you suggesting an opening sentence in the form "This is a list of DanceSport dances"? That, in my opinion, is perfectly obvious from the title, and I hate redundancy. Also, is it necessary to define dancesport since its article is prominently linked? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt lead sentence: something inbetween the two. The current sentence spans 4 lines on my monitor and therefore doesn't inspire the reader to persevere. I think the article should be mostly self-contained in that the reader doesn't have to follow the links to understand it. I'm afraid I'd never heard of DanceSport and initially thought there was a typo (no space). Following the links should only be necessary if I want to learn more.Colin°^Talk 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the lead; does it include enough definition? Are there any other issues you can see? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – If there was a Wikipedia:Good lists category, similar to Wikipedia:Good articles, then I'd put it there due to short length. There isn't, and I can't find anything to fault this list. I've made a few edits. I think the external links aren't relevant to this list but should be included on the relevant articles. I suggest you create one for your red-link, even if it is a stub. Colin°^Talk 09:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree with Colin's feelings. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose primarily because there is no prose in either "International style" or "America style." Some prose (i.e. what's the difference between "Smooth" and "Rythm") could fix the problems with the short list. Also, I believe, Notes and references should be merged into one section. Renata 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say "click on the link to ballroom dance", but Wikipedia's coverage of ballroom dancing is rather pathetic, so I'll do some research and add some more info here. I don't have any good references at the moment that I can use, but I'll try to find something. As for the presentation of notes and references, there seems to be a fair amount of disagreement over this; I'm willing to do whatever. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think now? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good enough. Renata 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might seem like an inappropriate list for several obvious reasons. But give it a chance. It doesn't mean "list of any genre that is similar to calypso music in some way". It's specifically referring to a number of genres that stem from the same root and share numerous characteristics with each other, in varying degrees. In virtually any source that describes these musics, they are introduced as a "calypso cousin", "an Xish form of calypso", etc. Occasionally, they are compared to mento as well, but not usually. I'm certain this is the most complete such source on the 'net, and I haven't found anything comparable in a print source either - not because there's any original research, but because each source only compares one or two genres to calypso, not all of them.

I don't entirely like the title, but I haven't come up with anything better. I thought about doing something using the term "calypso song complex", except that I haven't seen the word "complex" used here and I thought that might imply a more known historical relationship than there actually is. All of these genres can be traced back to a similar mixture of peoples in a single region at about the same time. Whether or not they derive from calypso, calypso derives from them, they all derive from a common ancestor in the Caribbean, or they each independently evolved from common ancestors outside of the Caribbean - it's probably just not possible to know which of these things is more true, due to a lack of historical records, and they're all almost certainly true to one degree or another. In any case, such a discussion is probably not needed here (some would want it at calypso music, but that's just because it's so famous; Caribbean music would probably be better).

Thanks, Tuf-Kat 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Unconventional, but I like it. One question though—is there a rhyme or reason to whether or not each particular instance of the word "calypso" is italicized? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I've just made it more consistent, but "calypso" is italicized when it's used as a word. (e.g. "Cariso may be the root of the word calypso" versus "I hate calypso but I love cariso")) This is the use-mention distinction. Tuf-Kat 21:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Neat stuff. May suggest "List of genres related to calypso" as an alternative name? I have to confess that "calypso-like" is probably not the best-sounding title I've come across here... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered variants like that, but "related to calypso" implies more than is maybe warranted. Given a lack of historical data, the best that can be said is that they come from the same peoples in the same area in the same timeframe. Plus, I don't want to imply any more than necessary that calypso is somehow more important than the others - it's just as likely that mento came first and is the root of the rest (and just as unprovable, AFAIK). Calypso's just more famous than the rest by far. Plus lots of genres are "related to calypso", whereas "calypso-like" implies a certain level of superficial resemblance that would make soca music not apply. (and I don't want a long list of everything from soca to calypso jazz) I guess the normal solution when no good title is apparent is to go with something simple, unambiguous and descriptive - list of genres that were developed in similar conditions and have evolved along analogous paths to calypso... which actually doesn't seem as absurd as it did in my mind. Tuf-Kat 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support I like it, but...
  • The intro gives too much weight to DeLeon's hypothesis about the French origin of kaiso. Most of what I've read suggests that he entirely overplayed that angle (e.g., Hollis Liverpool)
  • Presumably you left out things like soca and rapso as direct derivatives of kaiso, but what about chutney music and possibly reggaeton? Guettarda 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding French origins: your probably right, though it was only a couple words. I removed it completely as not really relevant here, and almost certainly very untrue... Maybe original researchy of me, but it seems a bit absurd, but then I haven't read the book, so maybe he doesn't state his case quite so strongly. In any case, this list isn't a good place to discuss calypso's origins, so I removed that rather controversial claim. Tuf-Kat
    • Correct about soca and rapso. Chutney I thought about including because I can see some parallels, but I didn't for two reasons: 1) these other genres share an important characteristic in their Afro-Caribbean origins, while chutney had another major influence (Indo-Caribbean) - to be sure, there's enough of a muddle that no doubt a case could be made for chutney being strongly influenced by calypso, but that's different than stemming from the same origins; 2) I didn't find any sources that actually compare chutney to calypso in this way (I guess that's kind of the kicker). If you know of one that does, let me know exactly what it says and I'll add it (or add it yourself). BTW, I hadn't realized what terrible shape chutney music was in... Tuf-Kat
    • On reggaeton, again, there's a definite influence, but reggaeton can't be considered in any sense parallel to calypso or mento or any of the others. I've also seen hip hop compared to calypso - never by a reputable source, but there are similarities. Still, both these are separated by a very long period of time from calypso et al, and are a clearly different category from the others on the list. Note that again, I don't have a source comparing reggaeton to calypso (admittedly, I haven't looked besides some casual googling just now) either. Tuf-Kat 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A couple of nitpicks on otherwise neat list: 1) The first sentence does not follow Wikipedia guidelines and does not tell what this article/list is about. 2) The definition of calypso is missing. 3) The definition of calypso-like is missing. 4) Lead could use more citations. 5) The last ' after genre name is bolded while the first one is not. 6) Say, the definition of "Careso" is not complete and not specific enough. Intereting list otherwise. Renata 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked the lead in line with your suggestions. I don't want to give a definition of "calypso-like" because there really isn't one, AFAIK, but I think the first sentence now makes it pretty clear what this list is listing. Defining calypso is definitely inappropriate here (defining any music genre is essentially impossible without a whole lot of verbiage, and that would be better covered at calypso music).
  • I'm not sure I understand point 5, but I don't like the way it's currently formatted. I removed the ' entirely, and moved some of the words back to italicized - foreign words are italicized, which is somewhat nebulous here because there are Creoles (including English) and whatnot to consider, but I think this is reasonable. I would italicize them all but it would be weird to consider calypso foreign enough to be italicized, and inconsistent not to.
  • I'll see if I can find anything else citable in the lead, but I'm not sure what still needs citing. Essentially the entire second paragraph is cited to a source, and the first paragraph doesn't seem like it needs it to me. Those things are well-documented in the sources cited in the list itself, I think.
  • I agree on the careso thing, and have moved both that and caliso out of the list entirely. I've made a paragraph at the end that covers those two and mentions some other genres that are compared to calypso from time to time or share a historical relationship with it, just to make sure readers understand why there weren't included. Caliso and Careso are, I think, more generic words for "topical song" than a distinct calypso-like genre (Virgin Islanders and Lucians correct me if I'm wrong), and are primarily relevant as a linguistic relative of the word calypso. Tuf-Kat 02:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I think I've addressed your objections as best I can. Tuf-Kat 01:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you addressed pretty much everything. But I noticed one more bad thing: when citing websites you omit some crucial parts like authors and dates. For example, this link has both author and date that are missing in reference section here. It's take like 2 mmins to fix and you got my support. Renata 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, fixed. Tuf-Kat 04:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per fixes. Renata 05:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I put a lot of work in it and it seems to me that the list meets all of the criteria. It is comprehensive (all of inhabited islands are there), referenced (most of data is sourced from "Statistical yearbook for 2006 of Central bureau of statistics of Republic of Croatia" which should be the ultimate source, and what's not sourced from there has other sources), not controversial, has a decent lead, and I find it quite useful. All of the images are from commons and all except the map are own works published under acceptable licence... seems fine to me. --Dijxtra 16:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very nice list, I like the idea. Would like to see more english sources tho, this being en.wiki. Joe I 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support upon formatting the references with {{cite web}}. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. That was painful. But there, done :-) --Dijxtra 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I left a question on the talk page about part of the introduction that I didn't understand. Also why do some of the two word names of the islands have both parts capitalized but others have the second word without capitals? Rmhermen 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answered the question and fixed capitalization problem. --Dijxtra 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; nicely done. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, but why are some details "not available"? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I can't find the information. I'm pretty much sure that nobody even performed measurments on the last two islands since they are a bit obscure almost abandoned islands in the middle of nowhere, but you can never be sure. Either way, no verifiable information is obtainable on those "not available" parameters. --Dijxtra 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rmhermen 17:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]