Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2007

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 10 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the usual. A really useful peer review has provided me with the confidence to bring this article to the scrutiny of the community. Based on any featured list of football club players you care to choose. Thanks for your time and energy. The Rambling Man 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a few comments.

• A few names need correcting to include accents and the whole foreign symbols, e.g. Pablo Counago, Amir Karic.

  Hopefully fixed. Although having said that, fixing redirects isn't required. But no problem, makes the page more accurate, thanks. The Rambling Man 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pablo Counago and Tommy Miller have had more than one spell at the club.

  Indeed, and their time is now fixed. The Rambling Man 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Forward" links link to "Striker (football)", which leads to "Striker". Should probably be fixed to "Striker". Not that it really matters, just seems like a FL should have that done..

  Dab solved The Rambling Man 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far. Mattythewhite 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments Matty. The Rambling Man 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Changes made. Good work. Mattythewhite 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and Alan Lee's link needs changing. Mattythewhite 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for fixing it Matty...The Rambling Man 07:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another great Ipswich article, following a great template ;) Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the peer review is not yet archived, and I would like to see all points there addressed first. – Ilse@ 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The peer review is still not archieved!

  Archived. The Rambling Man 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally the list provides a lot of information and I think the list has a good chance to become a featured list. I still have some suggestions before I'll to vote for or against this candidacy. I think the sentence "Finally, all players inducted into the Ipswich Town Hall of Fame, whose inaugural members were selected in 2007 by a ballot of former Ipswich players, are included." should be removed entirely, because these four players are already included by the 100 matches rule. I think the picture of one single player should be removed because this list isn't about him alone.

  This caters for future entrants to the Hall of Fame that don't meet the 100 game criterion. It's no big deal. The Rambling Man 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, in keeping with all other similar FL's it's fine to include images of those people are most significant. Otherwise all FL's will be image-less and that seems a little pointless. The Rambling Man 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, the data in the list should be verified, because there were made some mistakes (as discovered during the peer review).

  Checking nearly complete. The Rambling Man 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, I found an independent resource, the A-Z, which now reflects the statistics. The Rambling Man 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The list should also be checked for completeness.

  By whom? The Rambling Man 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Finally, the list introduction still needs copyediting. – Ilse@ 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No-one else seems to have raised any issues with the introduction so I don't really see a problem. The Rambling Man 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An excellent list. Probably the most comprehensive football player list I've seen. Dave101→talk  10:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Placeholder comment pending resolution of some comments left at article talk page. Sorry I missed the PR. --Dweller 11:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my concerns addressed. Congrats. --Dweller 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (assuming you have now rechecked the appearance figures and are spending every spare moment looking for the 1946 captain, that is ;-)) Well done. Struway2 | Talk 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent work. Surprised to see that John Wark appears to have transformed into Ming the Merciless in recent years, though.... ;-) ChrisTheDude 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoa, he's a hero. He may now resemble Ming, but his eyebrows aren't quite there yet... The Rambling Man 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support: Since "Name" is a sortable column, could the names all be in the format "[[Schmoe, Joe|Joe Schmoe]]"? That would make sorting the column more user-friendly. Otherwise list looks great! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I get that... Joe Schmoe's article is at Joe Schmoe, not Schmoe, Joe.... am I missing the point? The Rambling Man 13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus, the names do sort by surname, if that's what you're after...? The Rambling Man 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry - I think I made that code wrong. The point is to be able to sort by last name, which is usually what people are after. So the correct code would be "[[Joe Schmoe|Schmoe, Joe]]". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It does sort by surname, that is what the {{sortname}} template does. Woodym555 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec) Yeah, I was about to say that. Plus none of the other WP:FOOTBALL featured lists use the "surname, first name" approach, and I was aiming for a consistent approach there. Is that reasonable? The Rambling Man 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Doh. Never mind. Support :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was one of the peer reviewers and it has been improved even since that comprehensive review. It follows the precedent of other player lists. Meets all the criteria. Well done. (i prefer the category hatnote but thats me.) Woodym555 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't some sort of elad image be added? Circeus 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what an "elad image" is but I've added a picture of John Wark that a Flickr editor generously provided. The Rambling Man 08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for my typo. I meant "lead", obviously :p Circeus 21:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. Either way, there's an image there now so is that all of your concerns addressed? The Rambling Man 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the format of List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, which recently became a featured list. I believe this article meets the featured list criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks very good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good indeed. Just make sure all the note calls are center: they stop being so at 1995. Circeus 02:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well well-sourced, visually appealing, meets requirements. Dabomb87 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be, barring delistings, the last trophy FLC in featured topic drive. Rejoice reviewers! Onto a more serious note, page is fully referenced and all concern will be addressed. As a note to the wondering, this list was actually written in parts by three different users (see history), unlike most trophy FLs which were rewritten more or less by a single user. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • The seasons should be in 19xx-xx format.  Done
  • The years where there are tied winners should be modeled after Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy.  Done
  • The History of Names section should be merged into the history section and prosified, and it needs citations.  Done
  • The lead could use another sentence or two.  Done
  • As there have been a large number of forwards and defence players that have won the award, perhaps a Position column could be added to the table?  Done
• That's all I can think of for now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did everything specified. Anything more? :D Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, I am satisfied. Support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Shouldn't the list go from earliest to latest like Hart Memorial Trophy, and most of the other NHL awards? Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I missed that in my review... D'oh! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Sorry for the delay... :( Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 15:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Looks good to me, I'm satisfied. Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Another great list. Just a few concerns:
  • Overlinking in image captions
  • Prose in lead - the last sentence: Thomas Vanek of the Buffalo Sabres is the most recent winner, he finished the 2006-07 season with a +47. should be reworded, as it is incomplete. Also, "plus/minus statistics" should be wikilinked.
  • Quote without a citation - The first sentence of the lead uses a direct quote, and thus should be cited.
  • Prose in the History section - 3rd paragraph is only one sentence, it would probably be best if combined with the 2nd paragraph.
  • Why are active players not highlighted blue, to be consistent with other hockey award lists?
  • I think the second statistics list should have a brief heading, reiterating that the award was not established until 1983.
  • Captions in statistics section - I may just be reading this incorrectly, but why are the images in the statistical leaders section labeled as "winners", when the award was not yet established? Perhaps "leader", and then winner? I also don't think that Joe Sakic's image should be in this section, as he never was a ststistical leader before the award was created.
  • Official name - What is the award's official name? NHL Plus-Minus Award is used in the lead and the title, while NHL Plus/Minus Award is used in the infobox. I would think that these should be consistent.
• Anyway, I'll support as soon as these comments are addressed or explained. Great job! Rai-me 00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been kinda offline for the last few days, sorry for not getting back quicker. I've fixed everything except the active players (on my to-do list, it's not such a "quick-fix",I kinda don't see the point in adding a note to the 1967-82 section, it's assumed that the reader had read about the history. And about the sakic image, I don't think it's a big deal, as the images are arranged in one column. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Reading a one sentence statement about the statistic being established is not enough to introduce an entire section and warrant the absence of a heading. The list, per the title and the lead, is specifically about the award, not the award and the statistic. So, while the award section is effectively introduced by the lead, the statistics section is not, at least IMO. Adding a short heading for the section, even if only one or two sentences long, will help clarify any confusion for readers. And I also disagree about the images; yes, they are in one caloumn, but they are subdivided into two sections - winners and statistics leaders. Images of winners are more appropriately placed in the list pertaining to winners. Are there no other images of statistical leaders that can be used, to go along with the Gretzky and in place of the Sakic? Cheers, Rai-me 21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the note, and got rid of Sakic. As I say below, I can't find anything decent to use. Otherwise, I still need to add active players, and otherwise, I think I've addressed all your concerns. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks for adding the note and removing the image. As I stated above, this is a great list! Cheers, Rai-me 12:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a hockey trophy, correct? Why does this article not say that? Pagrashtak 18:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second word in the article is NHL (and it is mentioned in the title) so I think it was assumed that most people could make the connection. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, NHL was used only in the award name, which cast some doubt on the assumption. The new wording is much clearer. Pagrashtak 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:
  • I realize that no appropriate images of Gretzky or Pronger are available here or on Commons (I checked), but if they do become available the images should be replaced to show them with the teams they won the award with: Gretzky with the Oilers and Pronger with the Blues.
  • I will echo Pagrashtak's question: is this a trophy? As in, is there hardware given to the recipient or is it a certificate, a cash prize, a box of Alka-Seltzer/Beer/whatever-Emory-Edge-is? --maclean 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any better pictures, unfortunately, and I've looked around the 'net for something free, to no avail. I've added to the lead that's it's a trophy, so I hope that should clarify things. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is comprehensive and stable since the title has been retired. It follows the format of all the other wrestling champion FLs (List of WWE Champions, List of WWE Intercontinental Champions...). Every title change is sourced. I don't see any issues with it not matching the criteria. It doesn't have a picture but I don't believe that's 100% necessary for FL. If you think anything needs to be changed, mention it here and I'll do my best to fix it. DrWarpMind 14:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nom. Davnel03 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - On the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria page, it states the article does in fact need an image. PS. The Mideon finding the European Championship statement is not sourced. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mideon is sourced. I'm not sure how to fix the picture issue since the belt has not been used in several years and free pictures will be hard to find. I'm no expert on the picture policies here but would it be acceptable to use one from WWE.com if no free one could be found? If so, this had the best view of the belt. DrWarpMind 00:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Mideon sentence in the lead section. And there must be some European Championship related pictures taken by a fan. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake on the Mideon thing. It's fixed now. I don't know how we're going to get a fan picture. It seems like most of them are from the past 2 years or so. DrWarpMind 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small comment, usually a list doesn't fail over an issue like a lack of an image, although one would be nice. Perhaps if it comes down to it, you could just use an image of a wrestler who held it for a long time or someone whose reign had some significance, ie. RVD, who was the last champion? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Just move "see also" before "references" and you're all set. Maybe drop the special color for the header too?. Circeus 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both things you mentioned go against the way that all the existing FL wrestling champion lists are set up so I'm not sure if I should do them. - DrWarpMind 10:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then all those are in violation of the Guide to layout. "See also" is considered part of the main article text, and is always supposed to go before the references. Circeus 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a brief look through the "Guide to layout" and it looks like "See also" can be put in either spot: It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "See also" above "Further reading" or "Notes and references" above "See also". Am I reading this right? Also, I removed the header colors. - DrWarpMind 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is definitely new (there's been some heavy editing of this guideline in the last 2 weeks, for some reason). The point was that people are quite unlikely to check the "see also" when it's burried after a full screen (or several ones) of references *shrugs*but then I guess it's your project's problem to decide whether that is a good thing or not. Circeus 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the See Also should be moved up in all the articles. It isn't a big deal and better fits the layout guideline. Nikki311 02:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it up. I didn't really care too much whether is was above or below references, I was just trying to be consistent with the other lists. - DrWarpMind 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this list is exactly like all the other wrestling featured lists. Nikki311 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I also Support. Every title change is sourced, there is a good image, and the list is extremely organized. [User:Lex94|Lex⁹⁴]] ^{Talk Contributions Signatures} 10:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing work on this article over the last week or so, which has mostly included appearances from all competitions to league, as I do not have access to complete records and doubt they can be found easily. However, I feel it meets the criteria for FL status nonetheless. Thanks. Mattythewhite 16:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think it's silly to list players who made a loan deal permanent (such as Barry Jones) as having two spells at the club. I can sort of see the point on the player's infobox (although I disagree), but here it's just misleading. ArtVandelay13 16:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've changed his spell to one. I think he's the only one who has had a loan spell which has subsequently been made permament. Mattythewhite 16:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, I can't see any reason not to Support. ArtVandelay13 20:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great work (despite the flagrant plagiarism of the international appearances thing!). Well done. The Rambling Man 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - although i do think a Captains column would be a good addition. To Rambling Man, Pot, kettle, black ;) Talk of plagiarism, pfff. :) Seriously, well done and great effort on the list. Follows the football featured list format. Woodym555 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start this off by saying Not every award won by The Simpsons is included here, and this is also noted in the lead. My criteria for including an award was whether or not it was notable enough for its own page. A list of the awards that aren't mentioned can be found here. There are some with their own page that aren't included, and in these cases it's because it's a combination of the fact that the series was only nominated for that award, and that I couldn't find a reliable source.

Either way, the awards that ARE included are fully sourced. Any concerns will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this well-sourced article. Should "Awards" be lowercased in "Other Awards" and "'Choice' Awards?" I am sketchy about the second paragraph in the lead. I would rather see the second paragraph removed with a link to IMDb in the external links. It says "notable" awards in the first sentence, which I think is enough. It would be weird to say "There are no images of the main character Homer on this page because he is copyrighted, and it is believed that the use of fair use images should be limited on Wikipedia." –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will change the two headers to lower case. As for the second paragraph of the lead, I was unsure about that when I added it, because I thought it should be mentioned that not every award was included, but I will remove it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, maybe you should wait for some other Wikipedians' opinions before removing it. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I looked through it, everything looks nice. Nice table, well sourced, everything is good. Good luck! Xihix 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Some comments/questions

• Why do we say that some of the EMA nominations may be missing? Is it a problem with sourcing? A featured list should present itself as authoritative, so if we think there may be missing information, someone should track it down. (If you tell me what the specific problem is, I'll see if I can help.)
  • Because I could only find sources for the winners prior to 2002, so that means that some nominees could be missing. The other option would be to remove the nominees from the table.
• Are the "Choice" awards actually related to each other in something other than name? (IE, are they produced/organized by the same people?)
  • Nope.
• Are prose paragraphs really the best way to present the info in "Other awards"? That section is a chore to read, because of its length and repetitive sentence structures. At least some of that information (like the stuff about the British Comedy Awards) could be shown in regular list format. Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more of a case of being able to find enough sources so that there could be a list. The Simpsons only won a couple of most of the awards in the other awards section, although I guess some like the British Comedy Awards could be included as a table or something. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the whole layout is presentable and the article is fully accurate. Great work Scorpion. ~ Sebi 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Links in headers. A classic no-no if there is one  Done
  • Odd capitalization in places (e.g. under "Environmental Media Awards")  Done
  • If an individual ceremony article exist, the "year" column should link to it. Done
    • I have added links to every year page that exists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing "unknowns" is a patent admission of non-comprehensiveness (unless it can be confirmed that no specific episode was actually awarded etc.)  Done (All mentions of "unknown" have beenremoved"
  • Too many duplicated wikilinks in references, not to mention too many that are already linked in the article to begin with.  Done> As an extra comment, the "publisher" is quite clearly the Humane Society of the United States, not "hsus.org" (almost all those links have the same problem).
    • Most links that have been left are still quite redundant.
      • I think I've gotten them all. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kudos for using {{TOClimit}}, though. Brilliant idea.
• Circeus 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've addressed all of your concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Circeus 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modelled after featured first and third season pages. If this is promoted, all of the Lost WikiProject lists will be featured. Here is how the page looked before I decided upgrade its quality. Self-nominate –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, and an added bonus, if anyone didn't know, the top row of the episodes (title, episode number, etc) are transcluded to List of Lost episodes, helping to reduce redundant edits. -- Ned Scott 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination and promotion of Seasons 1 and 3. Well-written, fully referenced, comprehensive, nice short plot summaries, all other unmentioned FL criteria. Just about the only thing I have to bring up is the statement in the lead "The season takes place from November 4 to 27, 2004." Since dates are automatically re-formatted (is that right?) to date-month, wouldn't it make more sense to have something like "... 4 to 27 November, 2004"? •97198 talk 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — TV show coverage at its best. A fine example of the standard most such articles fail to met. --Jack Merridew 14:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Meets the FL requirements. -- Wikipedical 16:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well-done, as fine as Seasons 1 and 3. I could mention there's one more list to go, but nevermind. igordebraga ≠ 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FLC

Self-nomination. I have addressed all previous concerns. This list uses templates, is comprehensive, accurate and stable. Most lists of television episodes do not include images and neither does this one. Circeus kindly checked if writers and directors could be linked to their own articles, but most of them aren't notable enough for that and are not linked so as to avoid this list becoming a redlink repository. I think the previous nomination failed because I wasn't around to address concerns after the deadline fell, so I'll make sure I'll be there this time. Rosenknospe 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as I was doing in the last nomination. Circeus 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Remember to put references after punctuation and a reference for the final sentence in the lead: "The last episode… ended on an unresolved cliffhanger due to the cancellation of the series" would be appreciated. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation : Sorry, I didn't notice it; I don't usually do that, must be exam nerves ;D Thanks for fixing it. Rosenknospe 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference : I'm searching for it. Rosenknospe 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) OK, I can find sources that the series has been canceled, but not that the cliffhanger is left unresolved because of this. I'llhave to check the DVDs this evening and fix it tomorrow (I'm in the CET time zone). Rosenknospe 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, after checking the episode, I must blushingly report that there is no cliffhanger at the end. No wonder there is no reference. Curse me and my flawed memories :D I have edited out that bit, so I guess your concern is addressed. Thank you for pointing this out to me and taking time to review this article. Rosenknospe 07:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but with a "but" - I've been seeing this as a new trend, and I thought I'd bring it up. In the references there is a "general" reference section and a "notes" subsection. It would probably be in the lists best interest--and really all those other FLs and potential FL's that utilize this style--to source the information in the article, instead of having an external links section masquerading as a reference section. I had to go through each of those sources just to figure out which one actually provided the airdates and production-codes that were not sourced in the lists. Those are two things that are better sourced at the beginning, then making people jump through hoops to sift through each of the sources listed at the bottom to figure out which gives what information. In-text citations are better for verification of sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have referenced the column headers; is it better that way ? I can also reference all the original airdates, production codes, etc, but I figured it was no use as they are all on the same page in the reference. The productions codes are from the actual episodes; they use a 981XX-2XX pattern, while other sources use a 981XX pattern, so I went for the actual ones instead. I also have referenced the titles but on second thought, maybe it's a bit of overkill ? Rosenknospe 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't overkill. Source #3 will need to go in the lead as well, at the end of the sentence where you say date the series ran from. Upong re-reading, I'd put "The series set in Toronto, Canada and in Paris, France" --this with the next paragraph, the one talking about what happens in the show, and begin the broken sentence with "The series features flashback...". I'm wondering if maybe you need a source when you say "typical" or "common among the franchise". If no one's ever seen the movies, they wouldn't know it was common. What do you mean by "production codes from the actual episodes"? Where were they listed with the actual episodes? 11:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)
      • Source #3:  Done
      • Sentences:  Done I have kept the past tense for consistency.
      • Sourcing typical:  Done
      • Production codes from the actual episodes: Sorry, I should have better explained. I meant, when you watch the episodes, the production codes in the closing credits are patterned 981XX-2XX, whereas in the sources they are patterned 981XX. Now I'm unsure which one I have to keep. Anything else ? Rosenknospe 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. Use the episode's code. As for past tense, all fiction articles should be written in present tense, unless the series was completely destroyed. It looks like the rest looks good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding comment was added at 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everything  Done. Thank you for taking the time. Rosenknospe 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of chapters of the first part of the Naruto manga, covering the first 244 chapters. This article was created from List of Naruto chapters due to size and readability concerns. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, and covers all relevant aspects of the topic at hand. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I can support this. Unlike, say, a list of episodes, this doesn't really have any real content other than a list of chapter titles. I could see supporting a list of volumes, with summaries for each volume, which these lists could easily be converted into. At the same time, I'm not really sure how I feel, and I'm willing to hear what other people think before I oppose or support. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The volumes are included alongside the chapters, and are how the chapters are organized in the list. Perhaps if summaries were added to the volumes you would support, as it would be closer to the list of episodes format? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undent
• I'm willing to compromise on the date thing, but I'd like to hear your opinion regarding the color thing (i.e. I think it's more pertinent to have colors consistent within a series than to separate episodes and chapters via color, since chapters use a significantly different layout). Also, I think having links under "cover characters" is now mostly redundant given that they are almost all linked more prominently in the volume summary (only one or two are exceptions). Circeus 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I didn't come back to you with the Claymore list earlier... I'll support this list now. Circeus 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I've asked the closing user about his closing rationale, which stated that it "wasn't heading towards consensus," even though you had agreed to compromise on the date issue, and I had addressed the issues that you had brought up. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think we're into an area that we haven't given much attention before, and is pretty new to the FLC process. The format is similar, but different from a list of episodes, and might have some other considerations as well. A little bit of format tweaking and I think we'll have something that not only looks really nice, but will become a great foundation for all of the other manga lists. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what we thought we had with the discographies... Circeus 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What's the purpose of the American airdates? As far as I can tell the show is Japanese. Matthew 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a show, it's a comic. The US release dates are likely the first English language release dates, which is pretty normal for us to include on anime or manga articles. -- Ned Scott 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not "airdates" and they would be perfectly appropriate even if this was an actual show. Circeus 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though this is different from a list of episodes, it's not that far off. What needs to be there is there, and with chapters you have considerably less side information (no songs, intros, etc) so you're bound to be isolated to a relatively specific set. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As on the "A", "T-V", and "W-Z" sections of this list (see the FLC discussions that passed: A, T-V, W-Z), I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "Si-Sz". There should not be any LGBT person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with Si-Sz that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'm starting to have second thoughts about the fact these lists seem to prominently showcast our systemic bias. Look at it: there are exactly 6 non-english-speaking people on this 70-so people segment! I'm having serious doubt as to the representativity of the list when you look at the alternative language lists (though admittedly it might have more to do with the absence of these articles on en:). One extra candidate might be Suzy Solidor. Circeus 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, Circeus - I've added Solidor (and added a bit to her article). I'm not sure what to do with the US-centric issue, though. This section isn't very representative of world-wide culture, but I'm almost ready to nominate Sa-Sh, where there are something like 25-30 non-English speaking people listed out of ~100. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a quick look at the nl: list, which has 10+ people in that span (though as I mentioned one of them do have en: articles, although some from Sa-Sh do). Circeus 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Lucius Cornelius Sulla to the list. Socrates is another possibility, but his article (on en) has been stripped of any mention of his sexuality. The other two possibilities in this alphabet range (Patti Smith and Barbara Stanwyck) are rumors at best. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, subject to one required confirmation. It's great that this list, unlike some of the earlier ones, has a wide range of sources (the As seemed to rely much too heavily on glbtq.com). But have all of the sources actually been checked? For example, where the main source is only available offline (e.g. Edith Simcox), has someone actually got hold of a copy of the book and confirmed that it does make the required claims? Or is there any danger that, for example, a website (which may not qualify as a Reliable Source in its own right) references a book and that book has then been treated here as the source, rather than the website? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I can't guarantee all of the entries, but I'm reasonably certain all of them are verified. I do know that the entries I added have been checked. Google Books is my friend :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that's good enough for me. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. LuciferMorgan 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the format of List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, which recently became a featured list. I believe this article meets the featured list criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support: Please add a link to Marcedes Lewis' position . Circeus 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Nishkid64 (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, don't see any problems. Wizardman 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is modeled after the other team first-round draft picks featured lists. I think it meets the featured list criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support Seems mostly okay, except for the fact many links for the position abbreviations are to disambiguation pages. Also, all abbreviations should be linked the first time they appear (even if the full name is linked above, because the abbreviation are not transparent). Circeus 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the links to avoid the disambiguation page. Could you elaborate on your second point? I don't follow. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to have fixed it atthe same time, so it's all good. Circeus 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fourth and fifth paragraphs could use citations, because it doesn't look like that stuff is mentioned in the rest of the article. Also, there's a lot of white space on the right side of the table, is there any reason why you couldn't put a few images there? Otherwise, the page looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fifth paragraph is mostly interpreting the list of draft picks, as shown on NFL.com. I just list the colleges and the times when the Jets have selected first in the draft. I will look into adding another reference link that can cover the fourth paragraph (some of it is already covered from the first link). Nishkid64 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support don't see any glaring errors. Wizardman 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd still like to see some pictures added though. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 8 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this list. It's been through Peer Review, which stimulated some useful feedback. I'd welcome comment and constructive criticism. --Dweller 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's accurate, it's informative, it's sourced, it's useful, it complies with the MOS — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the minor disclosure that I have made a few edits to the article (19), but nowhere near the main contributor. Complies with WP:WIAFL so no objections following the peer review. The Rambling Man 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any more? --Dweller 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The reference following "the 1972 winner, although Joe Royle went on to manage arch-rivals Ipswich Town." gives the soccerbase page for Dave Stringer. Needs changing to Joe Royle. Mattythewhite 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, you're right, I blew it. It's fixed now I hope. (1) Good citation research. (2) Hope it's okay now. The Rambling Man 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your speed there. Another minor thing; I think the flags in the "Nationality" column should be changed to give the name of the nation alongside the flag. This will help with the sortability and for user's who don't know what the nation is. Also, the players on the list need the sortname template so thay can be sorted by surname. Mattythewhite 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really the place to discuss it, but I think that would make the list very messy - especially since all but one are England, Scotland or Wales. Maybe a key at the bottom? Realistically, anyone using this list is likely to know already, anyway — iridescent 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not particularly a need for that list to be sortbale then, doesn't really serve any puropse in that function. Mattythewhite 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments (and your fix, TRM). I thought about the sortability issue - it does no harm to leave it and I figured someone may be interested in grouping the nationalities. The country names is another issue I considered... I left it because the name shows up when you hover the cursor over the flag, and besides, they're all "home countries" to-date, anyway. --Dweller 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with the sort name stuff if required... The Rambling Man 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments dealt with. Good work. Mattythewhite 14:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - fulfils criteria. Just had a go at tweaking the prose a bit better but I note this isn't a criterion as such. Nevermind. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. --Dweller 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sorting needs sorting. The {{sortname}} template should be used. The flagicons should use {{ENG}}, {{SCO}} etc instead of the current images. Not only does this show the name, it should sort properly as well! Woodym555 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. I'll fix it when I can. --Dweller 11:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too late... The Rambling Man 12:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, thanks man. --Dweller 12:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a problem dude. The Rambling Man 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think that having one paragraph sections is uneccessary but i don't see a way around it, so i can't oppose because of that! The "Summary" tables could be merged using colspan but that is optional. Otherwise, it is a good list that meets all the criteria. Woodym555 17:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. --Dweller 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any more? --Dweller 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article meets the criteria so I'll support. However, I think you should link each playing position in the list once or link all positions. Dave101→talk  09:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, with the sortable table, all need to be linked since you can't rely on the first instance... Oh, and some of the ref's need full stops...!! The Rambling Man 10:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Done All wikilinked. And all full stops included now, with exception of one where it didn't seem right. --Dweller 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support looks okay as far as I can tell, just a few things could be fixed:
  • I think the "significance" section should be merged into the lead text. It sounds like unnecessary touting as a section.
    • Not sure what it's touting, but it sounds a sensible idea to merge it. --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant that the section sounded to me as if written to justify the list when separated like that, and that was uncalled for and annoying.
  • No need whatsoever to italicize the notes (forgot to remove it when I did some adjustments to the table).
    • Fair enough. I'll deal with this. --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add double brackets so the ISO format publishing dates display properly.
    • Not sure what this means, but I'm happy to comply and will look into it. If someone sees this and fixes it for while I'm working it out, that'd be great, as I'll see the diff and know what to do in future. --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having reviewed the list and also Template:Cite_web, it seems that the access dates are correctly wikilinked and the publication dates need not be wikilinked. --Dweller 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside (not necessary to implement, just an idea. The "second award" bit could be transferred from the notes to a symbol after the player's name (since we can't use a color; that's what is used in the hockey awards list, and I think it's a nifty idea).
    • As there space for a notes column, stating something longhand is going to make the list more user-friendly than adding another legend element. I'll decline on this... (and note that you weren't pushing hard for it anyway) --Dweller 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Circeus 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Thanks for the feedback... and the support. --Dweller 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • re: cite template/ ISO dates, I meant that leaving the publication (not the consultation dates, which must be in that format) date as e.g. 2006-12-06 instead of [[2006-12-06]] (which gives 2006-12-06) was less than ideal. Full conversion was not really necessary (though it doesn't make much of a difference).
    • re: second award, I think that the notes are not very prominent, whereas that particular bit of information is much more relevant, hence my suggestion to make it more visible (removes the need to have notes in two formats and makes it clearer there are double awardees—though they could also be mentioned in the prose). Circeus 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another list of Florida hurricanes article. This was split off of the List of Florida hurricanes article, and seeing as it was formatted the same as the rest, I believe it's ready for FLC. As with the others, I'll be happy to address any comments. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on par with other FA's/FAC's in series. --PresN 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I can't see anything wrong with the article, if anything I like the idea of a seperate 2000-present article. Its on the same level as the other 4, so I'll support it.Mitch32^contribs 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a very good article and consistent with the quality of the other Lists so it gets my vote Seddon69 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment section 'Monthly statistics' does not state the time period to which the stats apply. Needed for clarity, no guessing by reader. Also are there citations? 'Deadly storms' sections has no citations. Hmains 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Monthly statistics is a listing of how many storms affected the state in each month, which I think is fairly obvious. No citations are needed, as it summarizes the data earlier listed earlier in the article. The same applies to deadly storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, certainly as good as the other hurricane lists. Rai-me 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 7 support, 2 oppose. Circeus's opposition seems to be based on the fact that it is (or was) completely different than other FLs. However, this page is well formated, and "Must be similar to other previously promoted FLs" is not among the FL criterion. There does seem to be active discussion, but it seems to be more suited for the talk page rather than here. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating Powderfinger discography for featured list status because I believe it meets all of the featured list criteria sufficiently. I discovered this article in a "not-so-good" shape, and decided to improve it, alongside Lincalinca and Dihydrogen Monoxide. Any suggestions for the article, criticism or errors that need fixing, feel free to point them out. ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as nominator. ~ Sebi _[talk] 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as contributor. --linca^linca 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as contributor. Slabba 05:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus through numbers XD (contributor)  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice. Lara❤Love 03:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This is so well done it blows my mind. Bravo! --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much coloring, so much that it's really confusing. In the infobox, the color key states that blue color represents both studio albums and video releases. In the list itself, every other cell is blue. Does that mean that every other album is "studio album" or "video release" or both? Then what are the rest of them, the grey ones, supposed to be? It is very confusing.--Crzycheetah 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's two different shades of blue for studio albums and music videos. A darker blue and brighter blue, respectively. As for the alternating blue and grey in the list, that's just for alternating between rows. The colors relating to the key are vertical lines on the left of each table. Grey represents soundtracks, television and film, however it is not used in this discography. Hope that helps. Lara❤Love 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Crzycheetah, I've darkened the colour of the Studio albums, and I hope that the readers can more easily distinguish between Studio albums, Video releases, and the alternating colour of the rows. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Spebi, I am afraid it's still very hard to distinguish among Studio albums, Video releases, and the alternating colour of the rows because there are five(!) different versions of blue used in this list right now.--Crzycheetah 08:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you see this revision with the colours darkened, or this revision with the original colours? Just making sure. ~ Sebi _[talk] 09:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I only see 2 different versions of blue. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, Cheetah, as Lara❤luv stated, they're the standard colours used by WP:ALBUMS. Though the colours may have some similarities, they are based on existing criteria set out by the wikiproject. If you believe the colours are indistinguishable (or simply, not easily distinguishable) you should take up the matter there, but there's over 10,000 articles that are separated by this same colour use. I actually reverted Spebi's change because it's unnecessary, unless the project changes the colourset (which I don't think they will, but there's not harm in trying; bring it up at WT:ALBUM). --lincalinca 10:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The five shades of blue used in this list are: #96B0D3, #BECEE4, 99CCFF, #BBEEFF, and #F0F8FF. I found at WP:ALBUMS, provided by Lincalinca, the color for "Studio albums" is #B0C4DE while this list uses two different shades for "Studio albums", #96B0D3 and #BECEE4. I couldn't find what the color for video releases should be per WP:ALBUM, would you please tell me what the exact code(e.g.#0000FF) for "video releases" is per WP:ALBUMS? I highly doubt that it's blue, but I'd like to make sure. Oh, and I'd like to see a link where it says that you need to alternate colors of the rows with blue and grey. If there were two shades of blue, dark blue and light blue, I probably wouldn't have any problems, but the fact is there are FIVE "blues" used in this list. --Crzycheetah 18:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count 4 uses of blue in this article. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this little table of colors. I removed the 5th shade, #BECEE4, of blue, so, yes, there are now 4 "blues". Now, #BBEEFF(the color that is next to "video releases") and #F0F8FF(the alternating blue color) look very similar and one or the other need to be changed. I would recommend to get rid of 99CCFF and #BBEEFF blue colors, then to use #F0F8FF for video releases since it's a lighter blue than "studio album"'s. As for the alternating blue, it should be changed to something not blueish.
P.S. I am so focused on this blue stuff that I am forgetting to state my other concern about the Other appearances section: Why is the table not formatted as other tables in this lsit? Why is there dark grey color alternating with blue while light grey is used in other tables? Why the refs column not placed last in the table? Why are the years linked?--Crzycheetah 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about misleading you with the WP:ALBUMS having the light blue for DVDs and videos. The Template {{Infobox Music DVD}} has just been delegated as falling under the heading of WP:ALBUMS, so it's not listed there yet, but it's in progress (you'll note that I'm an active participant in its inclusion). The infobox itself, however, already does utilise this colour, leading towards why I used it in this one.

Now, as to your other concerns, I'll address them now. Part of the reason the OA (as I'll call it) table is differently formatted is that it requires a different format, The inclusions listed are not descript because they're studio albums, singles or whatnot; they're simply notable songs and singles contributed to various works and performances by the group. The formatting could well be more similarly designed to the rest. I'll see what I can do to align its design. The design is just that; its colours don't actually bear any relevance to the rest of the page, so I understand that the colouring mechanism ued in the rest of the page can be sullied by this inclusion. As to the references, that's my bad; I guess I was just being lazy or something and instead of placing them at the end, I placed them pretty much in the middle. I'll fix that. As to linking the years, various guidelines indicate the years shouldn't link to "years in music" however, in order to build the web, the necessary years have been linked, though only once (and it's not exactly an example of Allwiki). Was there anything else you asked that I missed? --lincalinca 00:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I removed all non-essential colours from the page, such as alternating blues used. I've simply replaced them with shades of grey and have massively adjusted the colours (as well as flushing out unnecessary formatting code/consolidating it). I've also moved the refs in the "other appearances" table to the end as suggested/requested. I have left the years linked in the table, though, now that I think about it, the years aren't linked in any other tables. I'll ponder which way to go, but either way, I'll try to keep it consistent within the page itself. --lincalinca 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your changes. You basically eliminated the confusion concerning the blue color. As for the linking years, I think only the first instance in the list should be linked. Oh, and the "year" columns in Singles and OA(as you call it) sections look different, this should be fixed.--Crzycheetah 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As to the years, that's a legacy matter. I originally brought the table in as a sortable table, but the consensus was to remove the sortability, meaning we now can span rows, whereas in a sortable table, spanned rows seriously foul things up. I'll get to that now. --lincalinca 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done that stuff. I also spanned the rows and formatted the years in the same way as the singles table to keep the two consistent. Plus, I've linked to the first time of the years being shown in the list, so that it's not overlinking but it is building the web. Are we getting closer to your support Cheetah? --lincalinca 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support You already got my support. Though, I'd rename Release history section to just History since that section just describes how this discography is growing. Overall, this is a great list.
  Since you are very active in these discography pages, could you and your fellow WP:ALBUM members start working on "Discography guidelines"? Many discographies have been created lately and contributors are nominating many of them for a featured status. I believe it's time to create a Wikipedia guideline on discography to keep overall structure similar. The reason I am asking this is that this discography is creating a precedent of colored tables. Currently, none of the featured discographies use color, so it would be better to decide whether dicographies have to be colored or not.--Crzycheetah 04:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can certainly bring up the idea. I think it's definitely something that needs some degree of mediation, but whenever you get too specific in WT:ALBUM, you end up having someone shoot you down, invariably, stating that it's instruction creep. Personally, I think it's crap, but that's just me. Give clear guidelines for all areas and mistakes are seldom encountered and when they are encountered, they're easily amended and consensus is easier to achieve or maintain. But that's just me complaining. I'll bring it up over there, though. Thanks for your support here! --lincalinca 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Nice, but something is just not right. As it has been established that non-free "fair use" images are not acceptable in a discography, neither are the "fair use" audio samples. They are not free samples, and therefore must be removed from the list. NSR77 ^T_C 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not correct. Non-free images are not able to be used in lists, however because these sound samples are simply being linked to and not being made ready for listening on this page, they are within fair use. If we were using them as audio samples to be played on the page itself (using {{audio}} or something of the like) then yes, I'd say to remove them, but these don't play on the page. --lincalinca 01:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. NSR77 ^T_C 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. lincalinca 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, it's like linking to an image description page, which is OK. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said... or at least, it's what I meant. =p --lincalinca 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolute oppose
  • Tacky, pointless coloring
    • Your argument of the colouring being tacky is obsolete as it's a subjective opinion. The point of it being pointless is also adressed above where the colour selections were appointed based on the colours used by WP:ALBUMS, which discographies are looselycovered by (nearest would be WP:MUSTARD or WP:SONGS, both of which advocate the same colouring use, rendering this comment moot. I mean no disrespect here, but your argument is null here. If you disagree with the colours used, you need to adress it at those other wikiprojects, though I strongly believe you'll receive much resistance to any changes of the colours used. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointless links to year articles (those, as well as equivalent "year in music" links were removed from the very start of the FLC process)
    • As addressed above, links to years in lists are appropriate as long as only linked once. Read WP:BTW for more info on why this is important. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those extracts are in blatant violation of the Fair Use Policy
    • Also addressed above, as the files are linked and not used in the page. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the album -> singles structure is the reverse of the standard structure of all other discographies.
    • Howso? Albums go before Singles and they ascend, which is how they're supposed to go. The incorrect use (which is common) is to descend, though examples (mentioned in a later response by Spebi) all use the same (or at least similar) sectioning and they all ascend chronologically from the top of the list being the oldest release to the newest release at the bottom of the list. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• All in all, this is simply too alien to the current format of any and all other discography articles. If articles are about the same things, their structure should at least be similar. This list throws a basic usability principle out the window, and I sure will not stand for this (unless, of course, the wikiproject albums decide this should actually be the standard model; until then, our existing FL should be considered one). Circeus 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You won't stand for it? So you're the Raul of Featured Lists? Lara❤Love 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. This process is intended to promote our best work. I have every right to oppose something I feel is in stark opposition to what we have previously deemed our "vest work". Circeus 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay so, what do you suggest we do to the article to gain your support? I think the fair use issue has been resolved above, the article is only linking to them, not making them playable within the article itself; and if the issue of orphaned fair use samples arises, they are being used in the articles about the singles themselves. As for the reverse structure, we chose to place Albums first over Singles, and naturally, Other albums fell under Albums. I suppose we could merge Other albums and Other appearances into one section, titled "Other material", or something like that... ~ Sebi _[talk] 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Could we see one of these "standard model"s? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've split the "Other albums" section, Studio albums, EPs and "Live recordings and compilation releases" now have their own sections, and I have removed the links to years. As for the reverse structure of the discography: James Blunt discography, FL as of yesterday; Albums -> EPs -> Singles. Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, current FLC that's going really well, Albums -> Singles. Hilary Duff discography (for crying out loud), FL since August, Albums -> Other albums -> Singles. ~ Sebi _[talk] 06:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments above addressing each individual point. As I articulated in my first response, I don't mean any disrespect and your contributions in the past have been constructive, but you're indicating what you believe is wrong in many of these instances, though many of these matters have either been:

    • • Previously addressed throughout this discussion page
      • Not supported by another list or article (at least that we can find) that is a featured list or
      • Purely a matter of your own opinion, to which you're entitled.

    Though the matter of consensus must take precedence over one person saying they don't like the look of it. Were ten people to decide on the design of anything, you'll always have at least one who's dissatisfied with the consensus of the other nine. If it were five to five, I'd understand, but it's not half and half. If there are more who share your opinion, then fair eough, but so far you're only the second to have opposed the use of colour, out of nine contributants to this page, while the other opposition to the colouring was more dissatisfied with an earlier version where there was more colour throughout the album and single tables, which has been removed in favour of a simpler, alternating list. I hope you can explain where you believe the article needs improving more definitely and we'll be able to address or discuss the matters more productively. --lincalinca 12:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I quite like this format. Dare I say it's even beautiful? I really don't think there needs to be any mandatory layout for discographies, either. When I write an album article, (I've gotten three Featured, with another on the way) they are written in a different layout than when one of my peers CloudNine writes one. This layout is impeccable for use in those "middle" bands (who are not international sensations but still retain a good amount of record sales), like Powderfinger. Then there's the discography layout for minor/indie artists like John Frusciante and The Make-Up. Major worldwide bands like Nirvana and Red Hot Chili Peppers need a radically different format for their discographies as they have sold upwards of 50 million albums in their career and often times have many singles (the Chili Peppers with almost fifty). NSR77 ^T_C 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points in support of our list. Thanks NSR. --lincalinca 15:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dare I say it's even beautiful?" - I think it is :P Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay NSR! :) It's certainly come along way since it was first started; this version, containing those fair use violating images (kudos to Linca for starting it, btw ;)) and this is the version of the article today (the version at the time of writing thise message). ~ Sebi _[talk] 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see Wikipedia:Accessibility. Too much information transmitted via colour rather than text. KM 212.219.57.58 10:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below. These colors pass all tests for every type of colorblindness. Lara❤Love 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - The color-coating system is, on the surface, a clever and seemingly brilliant idea. However, upon examination, it's completely unacceptable. First of all, there's the accessibility issue—and I'll specify the policy concerned in the above mentioned link: Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color. That issue alone is enough to nullify this FLC, and I would stop there, but the format that has been created in this discography has spawned other FLCs with the same format (See Fall Out Boy discography), and a precedent against this format needs to be set. Second problem with the color-coated system: It's confusing. The reader will either have to memorize which colors mean what before reading the article (which only an autistic savant could accomplish), or constantly scroll up and down to refresh memory of what the colors signify. As of right now, there are 15 featured discographies on Wikipedia. They all more or less use the same tried and true format. That format is clear, direct and succinct. The same cannot be said about this format. Furthermore, the sound clips must be removed. Linking to a copyrighted sound file is still an infringement of copyright. Saying that "linking" to a copyrighted sound file doesn't infringe on copyright but making it playable on the webpage does, is not only implausible, but also quite weaselly. Let's be direct here. Discographies don't need sound clips. Discographies don't need fancy colors. The current format serves to convolute information that should be delivered directly. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to deliver information clearly and directly. This discography fails to do that. My suggestion is that you borrow the format from any one of the featured lists verbatim—Nirvana discography is a good place to start. Best of luck. Grim 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plese note that the colour coding here is used according to WikiProject sanctioned colours. I would suggest reading through the rest of this candidacy and WP:ALBUMS before commenting again. The colouring is designed to be a guide, and nothing more. It's not required for one to map through. We're not replacing the text with colours, we're supplementing them, which appears to be something you're mistaking. Colour substitution is definitely something I would oppose, but in no way is that what's happening here. Supplementing with colours is an additional guide that allows an additional guide to what a release is (every instance of mixed tables of compilations displays the colour as well as the words of what the release is, such as "Compilation album"). As to "tried and tested", I know where you're coming from, but the purpose of FLC is to continually improve Wikipedia, not to just say "near enough is good enough". I believe using the colouring system enhances the value of the list and in no way does it detract from the information here, which is equal to any of the existing 15 discographies. With relation to the sound file linking, where is it indicated in any way that this is a breach of copyright? I'm not disputing this, as you're now the second person to bring it up, but I'm rather familiar with copyright and have never heard that linking to a sample to be a breach of copyright. It's a grey area in fair use, but even if we were to include the sound samples, fair use could easily be established (though it's unnecessary to establish fair use when providing a link). Again, to reiterate, there is no accessibility issue here at all, as it's not used to replace text based information, but to support it. I understand you may believe it does, but no information is omitted to take the page of the text (which is actually what WP:WAI is all about)--lincalinca 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't see where I'm coming from. See, there are only two options here. Either the colors serve an absolute purpose in the article—in which case it would be an accessibility issue; or they basically do nothing more than serve as a "dress-up"—in which case it'd be the visual equivalent to a "peacock term". You have to realize that the average reader comes to this page for information on Powderfinger's discography, not to marvel in the magnificence of the arrangement. As a result, the current format is terribly distracting to the information being conveyed. Another issue is that the page script is so convoluted that nobody but an expert programmer will be able to edit the page without exposing the script. That's a potentially serious issue as well. Like I said, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to convey information clearly and as succinctly as possible. The confusing and unnecessary color-coating format disguises information and defeats the purpose of the article. I can't find the portion of WP:Albums you were referring to (you linked to the main page), but I'm fairly certain that whatever color-coating system they may have built was not intended for the purpose of which it is being used in this article. I agree that it's harmful to use a "that'll do" attitude when conveying information clearly; but when it comes to dressing up an article purely for the sake of aesthetics, a "that'll do" attitude is critical to adopt. There are countless things that can be done to increase aesthetic appeal. However, what one finds aesthetically appealing another might find obtuse or confusing. As a result, idiosyncratic formating such as the one employed here, is potentially damaging to the very nature of Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with NSR77's opinion that "This layout is impeccable for use in those "middle" bands (who are not international sensations but still retain a good amount of record sales)". The Breeders discography, Goldfrapp discography and Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography can all be used as a guide to creating a table for Powderfinger. As for the the soundclips, they're totally unnecessary, and don't contribute to the understanding of the article at all. Are they there so the reader can listen and try to decide if their chart positions are justified?—bah. Inclusion of copyrighted sound clips fails criterion 8 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria outright. Perhaps there is a gray area there, but that being the case, it's our duty to err on the side of caution and not risk infringement upon any copyright. That notion is consistent with the nature of Wikipedia, and thus eliminates the gray area. Grim 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have a particular position on the appropriateness of including the sound files. I wouldn't mind if they were taken out from a necessity point of view, however, as I pointed out, there's no way they fair fair use. But as the matter has been brought up a number of times now, I'm beginning to feel it might just be the best thing to do to give an inch.

As to your assertion that colouring is polaric: all or nothing, either completely giving information or purely aesthetic, having studied graphic design and pursued further study in work and in my own time following college, I can say from a professional standpoint that you are incorrect. Colour is used exclusively in this article in the middle ground. It is decorative with a purpose. You can't get past that when it comes to colours. I'm going to get pseudo-religious (which Spebi's going to hate) but God made us all in different colours, flowers of almost every hue and I believe there's nothing that can be done without some sort of flavour, decoration and colour, and in that context, it may as well achieve something at the same time as being provided for appeal. Another thing to note, from a professional standpoint, is that printed out, the colours in this page achieve less than 3% distribution. What that means, in layman's terms, is that it's little more than trimming. The majority of Wikipedia articles print at about 2.5% dist, meaning this article's just above the average. The majority of other uses I refer to are often in far more solid blocks than this, especially in images and saturated tables.

Lastly, the section in WP:ALBUMS I refer to is the infobox. More specific info can be found here. --lincalinca 06:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you're a professional or learned graphic designer. That's great. I agree that the page is technically magnificent—and the graphic designer's skills are in stark display. You have skill as a graphic designer, and you'll probably go far as one. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to showcase your ability. As I said many times before, the Purpose of an encyclopedia—and the purpose of Wikpedia—is to convey information as clearly and succinctly as possible. The visual pomp and circumstance that this article features inhibits that purpose. Readers of this article don't care about the page layout. The purpose of this article is to convey information about Powderfinger's discography. This article is much more concerned with dazzling the reader with aesthetics and ultimately fails its purpose. You need to check your religious bias at the door. You need to check your bias towards a certain kind of aesthetic layout at the door. What one might find aesthetically pleasing, another might find terribly distracting. There are many ways to convey discographical information clearly, succinctly, and without distraction to the reader. Look at any featured discography for a guide on how to do that. As for the WP:Albums color-coating system. It was not intended to serve the purpose of which you are using it for. It was intended for the infobox of album pages. I realize that you've all put a ton of work into this, and if this weren't Wikipedia, I'd say you've done an amazing job. Unfortunately, this layout is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I almost wish this weren't the case, but it is. Grim 13:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've got me in a compromising mood, but I've decided to try and meet you in the middle. The sound files are gone and the colours in the tables themselves are gone (even the alternating colours) but I've left the infobox as-is, though using an external template resource so as to (a) allow it to be replicated, if we're to go ahead with this template and (b) reduce how esoteric editing will be (since that seems to be a major complaint you have, and I plainly have no argument that it's ridiculously overly complex).

Now, as to me implementing these changes, I'm setting up a proposal page at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Powderfinger discography/Test. As I type this, that page is not ready, so when it's blue, check it out. If the page in that state (or something akin it) would garner your support, please let me know. (If you check this too soon, I'm sorry, you'll just have to be patient until I'm done). --lincalinca 01:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great change. Implement it and I'll recant my opposition against the colors. In fact, this infobox, complete with template, is a great idea. I have unearthed one more issue with the article though. The history section shouldn't be there. It should be merged with the lead section and their history, sales figures, popularity and any other notable info should be displayed there. As it is now, the lead section is pretty sparse and the history section would beef it up pretty well. One final thing. You may want to remove the "music video" column from the "singles" section and create a separate "Music videos" section. Complete with directorial information if possible. Oh, and the "Throughout this article, an em dash ("—") in the Chart column indicates that the selected release did not chart. All release dates indicated are the initial release, which is the date of release in Australia." is unnecessary and should be removed. It's not saying anything that isn't already being said elsewhere. That's about all I have left. Best of luck. Grim 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as the colors go, they add to the article, readers need not memorize the color key or scroll back to it continuously considering each section is labeled. The colors just add to it, in my opinion, breaking the blandness that is too common of discographies. These colors also pass the colorblind filter tests, for all types of colorblindness. I tested each one myself. The coding being advanced is not against policy or any of the criteria. Additionally, while the coding itself is complex, updating the numbers is not difficult to figure out. For example, in the compromise test page above, what's the difference in the content of the list itself, not considering the removal of colors? Lara❤Love 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've converted the infobox into its own template for future replication anyway (I've got a few discogs in mind to put it onto as it is, and this makes it easier for them). As to the colour, I would really be for keeping it used in the article, and Lara seems to be agreeing with me and thankfully providing the useful information of the colorblindness, which is one of the greatest concerns of WP:ACCESS. I have implemented the infobox template, but haven't removed the strips/side colour bars and will just await Grim's response to Lara's post. I'm thinking I may remove the alternating colours anyway, as it does make things a little easier on the eye (in the literal sense, rather than the aesthetic sense). --lincalinca 06:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just thoroughly read through both WP:ACCESS#Color and WP:COLOUR and it actually doesn't cite anything about avoiding colour usage in this context. It says to avoid using coloured text (which I agree with) though mentioned nothing about moving away from using it in tables. It does mention "recommended" colours for use, according to the main page, while it also does so for the Commons page. It focuses on consistency, rather than prohibition of colours. Based on this, (and I'm sorry if this seems rude or fickle, I really don't mean for it to) I don't believe there's grounds for us to remove the colour trimming on the tables, in conjunction with the already established explanations that the colours in question are colour-blind friendly (as tested by Lara). I have, however, removed the alternating rows as I do understand how this can be distracting to the eye. Another point I'll mention is that when someone sees that we have the colour on the side (for those who notice) they'll likely click on the articles in question (some, though not all) and will see that the infobox bears the same colour. This actually perpetuates the Manual of Style rather than opposing it. Due to these reasons, unless another compelling reason to do so, I will not remove the colours from the tables.  Not done --lincalinca 12:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, removing the colors will make this discography more consistent with every other featured discography. I believe that's why Circeus is opposing this article, and it's part of why I'm opposing it. I stand by everything I said—that the colors on the side are distracting and confusing, among many other things. Bottom line: It's still unacceptable. You have my strong opposition until the the colors are removed from the boxes. Grim 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT: You can't demand changes be made because you don't like the way it looks, because it goes against your personal preferences. It's not a valid reason to oppose a nomination. State which criteria it fails to meet, or what policy it violates. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly approves of differences in similar articles. So your oppose goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Lara❤Love 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of personal preference. There is no policy for or against this format because this is the first of its kind. Please read my previous comments and please check your feelings about another FLC I commented on at the door. Grim 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please list one example of what having colors within the tables accomplishes. You might want to stop yourself before you say something like "it makes them prettier". Grim 21:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Grim here. Lara, what you are saying doesn't make any sense; you need to calm down because there is a pissy tone tangible within your words. Truthfully, I can't find any real reason for the colors to stay. On the other hand, I can't see any reason not to include them. I'll remain neutral on this issue, for fear of it breaking out into a full on argument. The discography certainly isn't a paragon, but, likewise, isn't an abhorrent piece of garbage either. NSR77 ^T_C 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Guys, we need to have some chilltime, I think. Condescending comments ("You might want to stop yourself") and referring to people as having a "pissy" tone is rather uncivil. Lara's comments are valim, Grim: precedence doesn't mandate perfection, nor does it give licence for one to copy unnecessarily (those are my words, but the spirit in the same). Having confirmed that your primary policy based objection (WP:WIA) was somewhat inaccurate, and having confirmed that colours are encouraged, not discouraged on a further check (WP:COLOUR), I'm still uncertain as to the basis of your opposition. I'm asking this because you've asked for one thing the colours accomplish. What do they achieve? Consistency between this article and its album articles of which this article is, arguably, a "site map", so to speak, that connects all of the group's works into one place. By using a consistency of colours, it strengthens not only this article, but also that of the album/single/EP/live/compilation (etc) articles it connects to. Colour coding, as I said earlier, doesn't substitute the text, but bolsters its point.

Now, having said this, I'll return to my question: what is it that colour detracts from the article? Does it reduce the article's factual accuracy? I don't see in any way that it could. Does it disguise the information being given? Again, I don't believe it does in any way. Do the colours meet colourblind conformation? Yes, as checked by Lara (I've also done the honours myself, not in doubt of Lara, but in order to be able to confirm that I also have seen it first hand).

So, where is it that the article appears to fail on the matter? --lincalinca 00:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura and I are currently struggling to remain civil over at the Fallout Boy discography FLC and on our respective talk pages. I'm going to stop talking to or about her here because she's not involved and is aggravating me.

Now. Let's get down to it. First off, I think the infobox is brilliant. I'd award you a barnstar for it but we're locked in an argument. Standalone, it's brilliant, that is. When you add colors to the rest of the article, it confuses the reader into thinking it's a legend that they need to pay close attention to. This infobox is so good that I'd like to see it on every discography in Wikipedia. I hope WP:Albums adopts it and mandates its application. However, all it's value is destroyed when the colors are implied to mean more than they do. That is how such a small thing can mean the difference between "strong oppose" and "strong support". Grim 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be this time of day, because it was this time yesterday I compromised and again I'll do it today (you buttered me up with words like "barnstar" and "brilliant" and "mandated on discographies" though). Though I believe there's a definite place for the trimbars (and they're actually not all too different from the trims on the recently adopted mainspace noticeboxes), it seems there is no consensus with the matter, and no consensus on this means no sonsensus on article promotion, so I have to let my pride go in favour of allowing the article to be promoted. I'll change it now. Sigh. --lincalinca 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could've persuaded you to see my point of view, but it wasn't to be. The lead section needs a copyedit (it goes in to too much detail on a few things), but that shouldn't be too big a deal. Grim 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new "Music videos" section, but you don't need the "Production company" column. It's not really noteworthy. Grim 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that because with about half of them, it's only the production company who's shown, while others only show the director. Maybe I should merge the two columns? Maybe just "Production" and have either the director or the company, whichever is applicable. But the trouble is, what then would we do when it's got both (i.e. "On My Mind" and "Lost and Running" both have the companies and directors listed). --lincalinca 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you find out who directed all their videos? Here's a good source for a few of them [1]. Grim 03:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't access that from work. Stupid work filters. I'll see if I can bypass it using google cache. --lincalinca 03:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that worked.  Done I've added the ones from that page and have re-formatted the table as requested. As to the prose in the lead, I'll tap Spebi's shoulder for that (it's not my area of expertise to try and work that section). --lincalinca 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still say to list only the directors. I guess if you really can't locate that info then leave it blank. There must be a way of finding out though. Grim 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the frequency that they've resorted to using the same production companies (particularly 50/50) I would consider it to be appropriate, as there is such continuity with a few companies, such as Head, 5050 and they had others they often would have make their videos in the earlier days. --lincalinca 05:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, if you feel it's completely relevant then I won't press it. The categories should probably be split back to director and production company though. Grim 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've restored the column and found some more directors and sources too. How're we looking now? --lincalinca 00:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we could get directorial info for every box. Is that possible? If that happens then the production box could be removed...Oh, and I realized that you need to list the years of the videos in the far left of the template. Other than that, it's looking good. Grim 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the years and added more production companies too. Finding directors is harder than finding production companies. I need to get the DVD from Dream Days. That should have some credentials added. --lincalinca 05:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good—if you could get a hold of the DVD and list the rest of the directors. You really need to have both columns filled out if this is going to be featured. I was going to ask you to reformat the tables because they were inconsistent, but it looks like that's been done.

• I don't know what to make of this statement: "Powderfinger's singles and tracks have made appearances on film soundtracks, and on many compilation albums.". It appears that there's no information to back this up at all. Either the soundtracks need to be listed or this statement needs to be removed.
• I copyedited the lead but there's a sentence that's so problematic that I had no idea what to do: "September 2000 saw the release of Powderfinger's fourth album, Odyssey Number Five, which sold over 350,000 copies,[5] and saw several singles released, as well as contributing the songs "These Days"[6] and "My Kinda Scene"[7] to the soundtracks for major motion pictures." The multiple use of the word "saw" probably isn't ideal, and you don't say which motion pictures they are featured in. And "Major" is a peacock term.

That's just about all I have left. Grim 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Other appearances" section would look better without that opening statement. I'll remove it.
•  Done. ~ Sebi 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great.

• I want you guys to get together and see if you can fill in the blank columns of the music videos section.
• Ref #21 needs to be fixed. The url isn't being displayed right (it's not clickable).

Those are the last things that needs to be done. Grim 04:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Well, I'll get to working on directors. There's still some I can't find. I also suspect that for the video for "These Days" there isn't a director, since it was just someone holding a handicam while bernie played the keys and sang (arguably, the cam-holder would be the director, but I can't find anything on who it was). I'll do my best to look into it. Plus, I'll fix ref 21. --lincalinca 04:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked #21 and don't know why it's not working for you. Do you have Adobe Reader installed? It's a PDF, so it won't open in your window unless you've got an Adobe viewer plugin installed. I just checked with FF2, Opera and IE7. No problems with any. I can check on IE 6 and 5 when I go to work on Tuesday, if you'd like, but I really don't think there's a problem with it. --lincalinca 04:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Grim meant the code between <ref> and </ref>, and the formatting of the {{cite web}} template. I've fixed it now, though. ~ Sebi 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it Spebi. It's displaying correctly now. I've never heard of any piece of video (well, movies, tv, music videos etc.) not having a director. There's always somebody deciding what to shoot, and telling people what to do. Look into it a bit more. Grim 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that with most videos but, well, have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lZDod4DdOY . This doesn't appear to be like most. There's no editing or anything: it's simply been recorded and videoed and the two have been stitched together. I could be wrong, but none of the sources I have access to seem to confirm otherwise. Anyway, I'm working through the others to see what I can find. Giggy has the DVD, I'm sure, so I'll have to get on his case about the directors. --lincalinca 06:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check up on the DVD now, although I skimmed a look earlier and don't recall seeing anything... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any directors specifically listed - it just said DVD tracks 1-10 == "Mushroom Music Ltd.", tracks 11, 12 == "BMG Group" (or something like that) - I doubt that's what we're looking for, although I haven't been fully following this discussion... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That video definitely has a director. It could be one of the bandmembers though. I'm a film student so I know a bit about things like that. Keep looking into it if you can. Grim 17:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes, OR! :P Seriously though, I can't find anything, but I'll keep looking... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Closer's Question: A lot of this debate seems to be about potential improvements, rather than if it still meets the FL criteria. Does anyone still have active objections to this page becoming an FL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the "music videos" section is incomplete isn't really a reason to retain my objection. Although it seriously needs to be done, I know it will be done in the near future. That is my last remaining problem with the article, and it will be fixed. As a result, this article has my full endorsement. The two remaining opposes stand in relation to problems that were resolved as a result of my objection. I can't speak for them, but let that be known. Grim 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous FLC

It failed its previous nom due to concerns about criterion 1a3 (contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles), however, I feel that saying that is not a topic of study just because its a television cast list is POV. There were only a few opinions in the last FLC, and it would nice to get some more. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I still think only one link per season is really needed (if only because there are relatively few links, so finding the right one is not too difficult). Circeus 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Because it satisfies all of the FL criteria and needs more votes. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, meets all of the featured list criteria sufficiently. ~ Sebi 07:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 5 support, 1 oppose. Unstruck opposition, but it appears to have been met. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some massive reconstruction of this article, including referencing, cleanup and adding prose. Now this is my first time working directly with a list so maybe something has gone by unnoticed but I will gladly attend any issues presented in this nomination, my presentation here is based on the fact that the list is complete (I checked this issue several times) and up to date, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• unnecessary linking of every standalone year provides nothing but link clutter. Hmains 05:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Standalone dates are de-linked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Could use more images of individual governors
  • No point in having the list stretch over all the width of the page.
  • If you intend to source everything separately, nearly half of 1900-1960is missing sources
  • Mixing colors for visual (which are arguably not necessary anyway) and colors for aprty is a bad, bad idea.
  • Color key for the parties needed (not everyone can be expected to make the association)
  • A lead image would be really nice.
• That's mostly what I can see. I'll go and give the lead a copyedit now. Circeus 23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the alternate jobs of the Spanish governors so that the long table isn't as wide as the page, I can remove the colors of the third and fourth table from those governors that were not part of a political party, but I'm not sure about removing the light yellow color from the large table because considering its size not having color there might make it somewhat hard to read for some people, do you think this should be done? I will work with the images and color key now, thanks for reviewing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have kept the "alternate jobs", just with a width limit (though having images on the right already helps). The color key might not be so necessary on second thought, but then...it did take me some time to realize those where not the republicans and democrats... The "traditional" color key is done with {{legend}} or {{legend2}} (the latter for single-line legends). A last suggestion might be to take references 7, 8 and 9 and make them "general" references. When you get to that much uses of a reference, the links become almost useless anyway. Circeus 02:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, this will be fully attended when college its done tommorow so it can be done correctly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Every American governor gets an article but only three of the Spanish governors get linked? Seems POV. Rmhermen 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the ones that have articles are linked, most of the colonial governors only served for extremely short periods and practically no information of them is found, this oppose doesn't appear to make sense this list is responsible for listing the governors but if no notability is established for one of them and it doesn't have an article that doesn't mean that the name of that person should be excluded of the list. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'm not clear that the early ones were all notable enough to get articles. I googled a few random ones and drew almost nothing, though maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain can help looking into that. Circeus 23:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a color legend to the "Governors under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" section to make identification of the parties easier without the need of having to read the entire section, I was thinking about removing the "References" field of the tables and adding a message at the bottom of each one that says: References for this section are: [1] [2] [3] - how does that sound? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — sourced, color-coded, has images, complete, and contains a lot of non-list-y bagckground information. Well done, CHQ. --Agüeybaná 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Circeus 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine list; easy to use Hmains 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the past week or so I have (with some great formatting help from PEJL) been working to make this discography complete, comprehensive, reliable and completely verified. It was generally modeled after the Featured List Nirvana discography, though several substantial discrepancies exist as Red Hot Chili Peppers have a significantly larger song library. Please feel free to point out any and all inconsistencies, problems or flaws you can find! NSR77 ^T_C 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I don't know if I worked on it enough to say I'm a "significant contributor", but my involvement should be noted. I've already analyzed the list thoroughly and as far as I can tell, it's definitely up to snuff. Grim 20:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I remember looking at the discography two months ago for some information, and wow! It's so amazing now compared to then. It's very well written and formatted, and really nicely sourced. Good job!!! Xihix 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Before I support this, I have to ask if the 15th and 17th references really cite the right pages? My copy of "Scar Tissue", (ISBN 1-4013-0101-0 1st edition) which seems to be the edition that has been cited, does not mention anything about sales on those specific pages. Maybe this is because it's a different edition of the book that has been cited? I will support the list if this is corrected. And btw, great job! Tooga - BØRK! 21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was my mistake. After another long search I've recovered several sources that will allow me to list the worldwide sales information for all nine albums. NSR77 ^T_C 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! There is just one minor thing I noticed, about the "Around the World" b-sides. "Me & My Friends" is the only track that was recorded at Södra Teatern in 1999. Yertle Trilogy was recorded at Spazio Anzologico for MTV Italy. See discogs.com. Tooga - BØRK! 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. I would have missed that one. Thanks! NSR77 ^T_C 23:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I give this list my full endorsement. I've changed the note about "Teatro Jam", if you feel that it's unnessery, then just remove it. Once again, great job! Tooga - BØRK! 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • I'm not sure the certification split in two columns (which takes quite a lot of space) is absolutely necessary.
  • I don,t like the way all dates in the first table end up split on 2 lines
  • the multiplication symbol × should probably be used over the letter x
  • Given there are only 2, I'm not sure we need a "certification" columns for the singles. Pretty much the same as not including a chart no album charted on.
  • I'm more of a fan of the bullet-point style of formatting from our early discographies, but given the staunch opposition it received when I tried to convert other lists (!!), I'll refrain from pushing it more than mentioning that.
• Circeus 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the two columns for the certification, but the way it is here, to me at least, makes everything more organized and less cluttered. And really the table is not very large in comparison to other discographies. Everything else has been adapted from the current FL Nirvana discography including the singles certification; an "x" is used in that list, too. The two blank charts for the UK and US in the "Miscellany" section were added by someone else and I only just noticed that. I don't, however, think it too unnecessary to have them there as it does clarify the fact that said albums did not chart in the US or UK. It may be confusing for someone who is not familiar with Wikipedia and or Wikipedia policies if they were absent. NSR77 ^T_C 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article because I believe that it fulfills the criteria to be promoted to a Featured List. It covers a very important topic in professional wrestling (during WCW's entire existence, this was one of the two most important championships in American professional wrestling). It is very similar to several other championship lists, including List of WWE Champions, which have been promoted to Featured List status. That's a Support from me. GaryColemanFan 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Sid Vicious's 2nd run needs a source
• Hulk Hogan at Bash at the Beach 2000 is kind of a complicated situation. Should he be in the table or just mentioned in the note for Booker T? Jarrett was still recognized as champion so did Hulk ever really win it? I'm not sure of the best approach here.
• Are all those sources reliable? I'm not familiar with some of them outside of WWE.com and am not sure.

-DrWarpMind 14:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sid Vicious' reign is now sourced, and your suggestion about Hulk Hogan's non-reign seems reasonable. I've removed it, as it's all explained in the notes for Booker T's first reign. The sources are commonly used as reliable sources in other professional wrestling articles that have reached Good Article and Featured List status. GaryColemanFan 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'll Support now. - DrWarpMind 02:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't readily find anything wrong with it. Maybe consider using "held up" and "vacated" instead of "vacant"? Circeus 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mirrors other list type articles as GCF stated above. Davnel03 11:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes of the Claymore anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Planetes episodes, and List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Sorry Sephiroth. Not yet. I feel there isn't enough sources to satisfy the FLC criteria. σмgнgσмg 05:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough sources is largely irrelevant so long as the article is comprehensive and covers all aspects of the topic. The general source covers the episode titles. The production, direction, airing time, music, and DVD information are all included. There are not as much sources or information as say List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2) since there simply is less to cover. Also, the Claymore anime has not aired in the United States. When considered as per the other examples placed above, it is just as comprehensive as any of them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose... but somehow, this sort of information can be disputed. I don't know. I just the kind of guy who likes everything verified. I'm going to change my stance to neutral and we'll go from there. σмgнgσмg 05:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The information isn't disputed so long as a source is backing it. There really isn't anything that isn't verified here. Again, anything at FLs such the aforementioned List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2) is here, along with sourcing. The only difference, again, is that there is less information and coverage to consider, seeing as the episodes have not been released in North America, and have generated considerably less attention than the Naruto series. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, okay. Now you clarified it. I took awhile to understand what you just meant. Okay, support it is. Thanks for the clarification. σмgнgσмg 06:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, like many other featured lists, it has the necessary information about the episodes, their music, etc. with proper sources. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support: a mention should be made of which episodes are present on the released compilation. That bit should also be dated ("as of October 2007"). Circeus 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]