Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2010

I really can't express how much I hate these maps as lede images. I don't like maps as the lede in any article, but this one is really boring and useless. If you want something in the MOS, conveying information by colour alone is in contravention of WP:ACCESS.

The article is called "medal table" and refers to countries in the medal table. What representation of countries that depicts the medal table do you want? I have no idea why does wikipedia have to be so politically correct as to end up handicapping articles by not allowing such maps because 10% of the people can't get them. The point of wp:Access should be to help those 10% without diminishing the value of the article. What is next? Don't allow FX's when a reading of the article is not available because x5 of the people can't read? Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having the map does diminish the article, that's the point. I can't tell the silver nations from the nations that didn't participate, and I'm not even colourblind. You seem to be the advocate for these maps, so tell me this. How does this article improve by showing people where Switzerland is? Besides that, the map is unlabeled! If you don't already know where the various countries are, it is just a blob of colour. Courcelles 23:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give you that knowledge of the world map is kind of necessary to appreciate the use, but the solution would be then to put a legend with the ISO code of the countries in question. On the other hand, having an infobox image of a medal given to the Olympics, other than being nice, does not improve the quality of the article; it does not aid in anything. I still think having a map for people with general geography background (essentiall everybody with some college degree) to "read" is more useful than having a random medal picture. Nergaal (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean I have to remove all maps and wait for Nergaal to come and tell me to put them back? We never quite reached an agreement on this. I actually let the medal images stay, but what about other Games fow which we don't have medal images? No lede image? Really, help me on this.

Then we adapt. There's always something we can use for images, without resorting to a map (that actually doesn't look like anything at this scale). Courcelles 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then make the image 2x. Nergaal (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is something that this image does that helps the article regardless weather you like maps or not: it shows what nations participated but did not get anything Putting countries like Iceland or China that did not win a medals in a text form would be incredibly boring; the image fixes that. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that information is in 1984 Winter Olympics, though unsourced. And, no the image doesn't do anything of the sort- the map is not labeled! Courcelles 00:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Courcelles been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For the first time, since its debut at the 1972 Winter Olympics, East Germany " Huh? The GDR competed in 1968 Grenoble separately from the FRG. (Though they did compete in Cortina, Squaw Valley, and Innsbruck together.)

Doh, you're right. I mislooked that. This was written way before the 1968 list where I actually state that. Corrected now. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Austrian athletes failed to secure more than one bronze medal," "Austrian athletes secured only a single medal; bronze in the Men's downhill alpine skiing event," as the current wording does not actually mean the bronze was their only medal, rather that they only had one bronze medal, saying nothing about their silver or gold totals.

Well noticed. Fixed that. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the "compromise". It is a really neat idea. It might be better to unhide the map and move it after the table (before the see also section). Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, use www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1984/or1984w.pdf (pages 89-90) to reference NOCs. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o. How about now? I had to reduce the size of the photos so that they wouldn't mess up the map. Even so, I had to add a break before the map section. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! If you can, you might want to increase the size of the yellow and red circles, but otherwise it looks good. Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " A new event was contested: the women's 20 km in cross-country skiing" reads a little isolated. Perhaps it's just me but I fancy putting that into context, maybe just saying that new events are periodically added, and maybe how, and maybe say when the last time one was added before this? Just for non-experts...
  • I think that should be something that would go well in higher level articles (Cross-country skiing at the Winter Olympics; or 1984 Winter Olympics). Even so, I added that "Compared with the previous Winter Games, a new event was included in the program...", which may not change much but it stresses the info. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason why alpine skier isn't appropriately linked?
  • Linked. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "On the opposite end," - I'd prefer "In contrast".
  • Replaced. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "were a historical best" well, presumably they were respective historical bests, not singular, but if you insist on singular, then it should be "an historical best".
  • Pluralized. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Jane Torvill -> Jayne Torvill.
  • Doh! Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure See also for "Torvill and Dean" is needed. Can you provide a decent (maybe piped) link for it in the last para of the lead?
  • Nah, removed... Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not keen at all on leading 0's in reference date days, e.g. "09 October 2010".
  • Wow, didn't even notice those. Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Hope it satisfies you. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Award recipients often include the producers, engineers... " vs "to recording artists for..." vs the notes. It's not clear to me which of these were presented to the artist and the engineer, for instance?

Hmm. I am confused about what you mean here. With all of these Grammy lists, I am only displaying the artists that perform the works since that is what most people are interested in. There are exceptions, though, such as if award is related to people other than the performing artists (Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video, for example). For many award categories, producers and engineers are also given a Grammy. I do not include these names, unless it is for a compilation album and only the producer was awarded. This is the case for Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album, which is consistent with the other Grammy Award-related lists I have worked on. Please let me know if this does not make sense or if this does not address your concern. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only non-artist mentioned is a producer, no sign of engineers etc...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. Actually, it appears most of the entries for Best Pop Instrumental Album include engineers as award recipients. However, names of award-winning engineers and mixers are not included in these Grammy lists. In this instance (47th ceremony), James R. Jensen was the only award recipient as the producer of the compilation album. If other people had been awarded, they would have been listed as well. Does that make sense? --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I'm being uber-picky but these guys aren't cited (or noted) anywhere. Official recipients I guess are listed here, and I guess there's a sub-note missing which might say "all the great engineers etc who worked on these great works got credit, but not citation from the Grammys"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The General source is always listed. If instructions are followed, users can view every award recipient for each year. This is consistent with all of the Grammy Awards lists. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't it make sense for Grammy Award winning albums to have articles? I.e., red link those which don't have articles?

Done. And FYI, I am starting stubs for many of the albums listed on these Grammy lists that I am working on. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You got the wrong N.E.W.S. I think.

Ah. Done. (One additional period more than required.) Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. the administration at the judeţ level being reintroduced until after the war I do not understand what it means. Does it mean that judet was reintroduced before the end of WWII or after?

     switched to "and the administration at the judeţ level was reintroduced after the war" (it was poor prephrasing of previously-longer sentences Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Due to Bucharest's significantly larger population and size I do not think the size of Bucharest is so large.

     rm "and size"; should I keep "and its size" instead? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     I think I'd remove "size" altogether. The point Ruslik is trying to make is that physically, it's not a large geographic area– the reason why its separate is its concentrated population. No need to repeat that point. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Ok, there is no mention of size currently. Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, no dabs. according to Dablinks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Music video table should be converted to the new format per WP:Wikitable. Look at Kelly Rowland discography#Music videos for an example of how it should done. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Only one link should provided for certs column. List of music recording sales certifications should be piped to Certifications. e.g.([[List of music recording sales certifications|Certifications]]) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My own recent nomination for Kelly Rowland discography established that their is no need for style=font-size:smaller; formatting. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the certs thing makes since, but are the other changes required as per new wiki rules? I see they were not recommended to be implemented for current nominations Lady Gaga discography, Kesha discography. Candyo32 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they were required when i did Rowland's fear not. If they are not done now they will have to be done later when WP:DISCOGSTYLE is updated. =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

side issue... if you look at Basic Instinct (album) there is now a detailed release history (from reliable sources) so the album's table here needs updating. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made per Basic Instinct article. Candyo32 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I know it seems optimistic (highly) but several music stores are listing a US release for October 5 (including sony music) which supports the international music stores reporting the earlier dates as this is often the case. The situation will need to be monitored to see if the date stands or not. I will look at the rest of the discog for you. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:Lil-unique1, there is not yet consensus to implement the new table formats in the WP:DISCOG lists, therefore the current format used here is fine. –Chase (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware... but some of the changes like removing small formating can be done as it is being encouraged accross wikipedia. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Something that just struck me, you have sales and certifications the wrong way round in the Studio albums section.
• Compilation and Extended play tables - would be good to see the columns the same width from table to table.

done

• • Done by me. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• EP is not referenced (the release date of the compilation album appears to be)
  • added -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes don't consistently have full stops.

Done

• Single Gimmie Dat appears not to have charted anywhere, where is its existence referenced?

Done

• As featured artist table - check the spaces after the colons are consistent with the rest of the list.

Done

• "(and Deluxe and Japanese editions)" what does that mean?

Some songs that charted were only from the Deluxe and Japanese edition of Fantasy Ride.

• Ref 46, no-no to ALL CAPITALS (per MOS).

Done

• Same for ref 61.

done

• Ref 61 has a spare ].

Done.

• Refs 62 and 63 are incomplete.

Done.

• Ref 11 (as a sample) has a publication date (2009-04-30) missing. Suggest you check all other references to stop reviewers from having to do same.

Done. Candyo32 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The album's fourth single, "And I" achieved little chart success in the United States." 27th rank is "little" success? This is too POV-ish for my taste. Later on, something that never got over 30 is a "moderate success"

I assume your not familiar with the music industry. 96th on the Hot 100 its not successful. The 27 was on a COMPONENT CHART. I never had any complaints like this in the first review, so I believe you may be going a little overboard with the POV.

Read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYN. Is there a source saying this is little success, or are you saying it? If you can source it, fine. If you can't, it's two of those three.

This is crazy. I need a source to say a song received little chart success when it was 96 on the Hot 100?

Yes, you do. Being one of the 100 most popular songs sounds successful, you are saying it is not. So is it sourceable, or is it original research? Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been reworded. Can you please revisit this, Courcelles? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""—" denotes a title that did not chart, or was not released in that territory." I'll pass along the information that New Zealand has been demoted to a "territory".

Well it used in Kesha discography, Lady Gaga discography, Rihanna discography, and every other FA discography on Wikipedia, so pass that information along too.

Gah. A bad phrasing doesn't become good phrasing just because it is multiplied by four. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since FL's are "believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia," its not changing. Seems like if it were a big problem, someone would have been let know in every single other FL candidacy that uses the same phrase.

Nominator is uncooperative. Stare decisis doesn't govern Wikipedia. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Courcelles here. Why not simply use: '"—" denotes albums/singles which did not chart in that country.' (or something similar? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However it spawned the highly successful worldwide top ten hit," Again with POV problems

How is it POV, again? I'll remove highly, but it was successful and worldwide, indicates it had worldwide success rather than US only or international.

Okay, POV might have been the wrong thing... actually, no, it is right, but WP:PEACOCK is more directly related. You seem to be making lots of analysis of the numbers without using sources to back up your analysis. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are sourced in the charts below. Per WP:LEAD citations should not appear again. Candyo32 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When info is likely to be challenged, you absolutely do repeat citations. I'm challenging this as POV. Courcelles 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "However it spawned the international top ten single,"? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed also. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""Work" had moderate success in few international markets." What does it take to not sound promotional? Charted in four countries, none over #30? Source for the "moderate success"

Again, how POV? Wasn't a big chart topper, therefore "moderate."

You're providing analysis. That is not allowed. This article is written almost entirely non-neutrally and promotionally.

Something like ""Work" appeared on a few international charts."? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been changed, considering your suggestion, appearing on a few international charts means the song could have topped the chart, or appeared at so and so position, while moderately denotes it charted moderately. Candyo32 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved the sourcing discussion up into the cap, but I still see fairly major NPOV/OR problems with the prose. Courcelles 04:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lil-unique's comments below mine, I still think that the POV is fine and OR is not in action. I have made some corrections but per other FLs, terms such as "moderate" and indicated highly successful and less than successful singles and or albums is acceptable. Candyo32 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Debuting in 2004, with her album, Goodies, the singer was hailed with the honorific title, "The Princess or First Lady of Crunk&B," the comma after 2004 is not needed, neither is the one after album.

Done.

• • If you're going to mention that "1, 2 Step" was with Missy Elliott and "Oh" was with Ludacris, why not mention that "Goodies" was with Petey Pablo?

Done. Can't believe I hadn't noticed that

• • "Lose Control", with Missy Elliot drop the comma.

Done.

• • Ciara: The Evolution should be referred to as her second effort, not her sophomore - the term sophomore for albums is not widely recognized outside of the US.

Done.

• • debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, and charting in the top thirty charting → charted

Done.

• • reaching Platinum status in the US,[6] and selling drop the comma, again.

Done

• • a US top twenty a US top twenty hit?

Done

• • Whilst is primarily used in British English and not widely recognized in American English. Since this is about the discography of an American singer, I'd change it to while.

Done

• • Having "to be released" covering all of the peak chart position columns implies that the album will chart in those territories when released (WP:CRYSTAL). Just put a "—" in all of the columns - the note at the bottom of the table even says that that represents albums that were not released.

But wouldn't "-" give the impression that the album was released and had not charted yet as it indicates "not release" instead of "pending release." ?

• • Per WP:MOS: "if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout". U.S., U.S. R&B, and U.S. Dance in the singles table should be US, US R&B, and US Dance.

Done

• • Guest/soundtrack appearances should be removed - discography covers releases, not non-single songs.
    • Same goes for other charted songs. –Chase (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is WP:OTHERSTUFF but since FL's are recognized as the best by the Wikipedia community, FL's Taylor Swift discography, Kelly Rowland discography, Sugababes discography, M.I.A. discography, Rihanna discography, Tokio Hotel discography, Maroon 5 discography, etc. all include them.

I still think that songs that weren't released serve no purpose in a discography and I stand by that point. The only reason I could see for including them is to flatter an artist by highlighting their "popularity".

–Chase (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why emphasis is put only single releases, when Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a discography as "a descriptive list of recordings by category, composer, performer, or date of release" and "the history of recorded music." More importantly, the majority of users have voiced their opinon to keep them in discographies. Candyo32 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On wiki, our focus on discographies is releases. Which is why whole track listings are not included, as they are not relevant. Honestly, I see no valid points in the discussion you are pointing me to. All I see are inclusionist essays that have no real reason as to why "other charted songs" are relevant in discography articles and comments that including such a section "shows an artists popularity". Thus I have begun a new discussion regarding the matter. I firmly maintain my point.

–Chase (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused of you bringing it up again considering the overwhelming voice of support for keeping them the first time. Candyo32 01:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the music videos section, for videos where Ciara is the lead artist, drop Ciara from Ciara featuring... it is implied that she is the main artist unless stated otherwise.

Done

• • Refs: Pitchfork Media, MTV News, BPI, CRIA, Static Multimedia (I think, anyway), Allmusic, German Albums Chart, Oricon, iTunes, German Singles Chart, RIAA, CDUniverse (I think), CMT, and AfterEllen (this actually brings me to my next point...) are not print works and thus should not be italicized.

Done, besides Oricon, which is print.

• • What makes AfterEllen a reliable source? In fact, this article looks to be user-submitted, a big no-no as a WP:RS.

Replaced with better source. Candyo32 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix these issues and I'll support. –Chase (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "...and the second single, "Promise" was a US R&B chart topper." - maybe a comma after the title?
• Second sentence in fourth paragraph: "It album is preceded by..." - 'It' → 'The' (or something) Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Fixes were made accordingly. Candyo32 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments. I have just noticed that one album and two singles have appeared on the Australian charts over #50, which are not sourced by Hung Medien. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with Adabow's assistance. Candyo32 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The classic example is the Battle of the Falkland Islands ..." this is the "classic example" according to whom?
  • Sturm, I'm guessing "According to historian X, the classic example ..." or "In the Battle of ..." would work for the Rambling Man, and I think he's right ... opinions should be attributed. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Lemme see if I can find an attribution.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed it to best rather than classic. The existing cite suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Best according to "Robert Gardiner"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who is insufficiently notable to not even have an article? Forgive my ignorance, but you're saying that one guy (who is "non-notable" per Wikipedia) is the sole source for the "best" example here. Just seems a little incongruous to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sturm, many Wikipedians think a statement like this represents an opinion that needs to be attributed in the text, and some want the attribution to an expert, at least at the FAC or FLC level. Rambling Man, I haven't read a tenth the books that Sturm has, but even from my reading, I know that he's representing this accurately; everyone who writes on the subject thinks of this battle as paradigmatic. It wouldn't be going too far to say it's common knowledge among naval historians. What's the best way to represent this in the text without going into a winding digression along the lines of, "X [list of credentials] calls it this, Y [list of credentials] calls it this", etc.? - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most people quoted in Wikipedia lack an article. Has nothing to do with notability per se. He's a published author, nothing incongruous about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you're saying that "in one man's opinion" this is the "best" example. What makes his opinion so important? Are there any other sources which back up the "best example" claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Puzzled>A consensus is not needed and never has been on Wiki. Don't need anybody else's opinion; one man's published opinion suffices since it conforms to WP:V and WP:RS.

Just curious how one man's opinion (a man who isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article) counts as absolute. I'm only asking if anyone else in the world shares his opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dank already explained the consensus position above. Although, again, such consensus wouldn't be needed to justify any superlative. Only takes one author's opinion to support provided it meets V and RS.

What's the fundamental point that you're trying to make here? I'm perfectly willing to add an additional cite duplicating the existing one at the end of the paragraph to further clarify that this is Gardiner's position, though that seems an unnecessary duplication to me, but what are you looking for? You seem to care quite a bit that nobody's written an article on Gardiner, although that has absolutely no bearing on any notability he may have, and that some sort of consensus is needed to justify the superlative of best, when, in fact, nothing like that is necessary, nor has it ever been. You've made a number of other worthwhile comments that have improved the article, but I'm wondering what the issue here is since we seem to be talking past each other?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point, I guess, is that you're saying definitively that the "best example" of something is based on one guy's opinion. That's all. It may be me but when I make such claims, I tend to use at least two, preferably more sources to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary by Wiki standards, but fair enough. I only add multiple cites when I have two or more sources that disagree; an explanatory note is advisable, rather than just picking one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm, different Wikipedians have different standards on this. Whether and how WP:PEACOCK applies depends on whether the statement feels like "This is the greatest!", and that's going to vary depending on the reader and the material. WP:PEACOCK is just a short section in WP:WORDS now; well worth re-reading. Bottom line: when you can find a snappy way to do it, "show, don't tell" (and then if the reader draws the conclusion themselves that it's the paradigmatic battle, that's fine). Sometimes you really want to get across that something was the "best" of something, but it's complicated and there isn't a reasonably quick way to lay out the facts so that the reader can put that together for themselves, and in those cases, quote marks and attribution to someone or something the reader can recognize may be appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What's "flash protection"?
  • Going from memory, the issue was protection of the ammunition magazines, but Sturm is the expert here. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Explained, how does it read?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "a speed of 25 knots" do you mean a "top speed"?
  • I don't remember having seen this point in style guides but I'll keep an eye out for it. In a list of cars, if someone writes that a car has a certain turning radius, would you object that it should be "maximum "minimum turning radius"? Consider another sentence from this article: "... sacrificed armour protection and one gun turret from the main battery for a 4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) speed advantage." Just a personal preference, but "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage" seems too involved, and rewording seems too verbose. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what I mean to say is that the cruisers did not always travel at 25 knots, their top speed, however, was 25 knows. And perhaps instead of "advantage" it should be "increase in top speed". And I'm not surprised it's not in style guides. It is, after all, just a point of description, not a rule of grammar. And in car lists, I'd find a list of maximum turning radii to be a very odd thing to list. Perhaps minimum...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, struck "maximum". My point is, do you like "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage", and if not, where do we draw the line on omitting "top"? Btw while I've got you ... great copyediting instincts, please weigh in on our articles any time! - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I like the alternative I suggested (i.e. "increase in top speed"), but it's difficult to draw a line in something so qualititative... (as for copyediting, just ask!). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done, and I will. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've reverted to the original phrase as I think it is perfectly clear that top speed is being judged. Who wouldn't understand that if my car has speed advantage over somebody else's it refers to maximum speed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It wasn't just the "advantage", it was all mentions of speed which actually should be top speeds. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The key specifies top speeds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The prose before the lead doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I didn't mind Rambling Man's request for more exact phrasing in a couple of places, it does no harm and maybe it's a little clearer. This current edition of Chicago is great and it wouldn't surprise me if I stumble across this issue in the next month. But I never see the extra words Rambling Man is asking for in a long list of technical specifications. I have a Nissan Altima with a 150-horsepower engine and a 12-volt battery that deliver an acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 10 seconds. I've never seen anyone describe that as a maximum of 150 horsepower or 12 volts or a maximum acceleration; that goes without saying. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I bet somewhere you have a mention of the "top speed" of the vehicle though. I'm not asking for maximum or top horsepower, but you must concede that cars have "top speeds" in specifications, not just "speed". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The top speed is mentioned in the key, with all the other stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The prose before the key doesn't (i.e. my original point). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't feel that it needs to be explicated; it's not hard to understand what is meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • So adding the word "top" in the prose before the key is not possible? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are possible, but I don't see a need and it detracts from the prose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how making things clearer and more accessible to non-experts and less ambiguous can be a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just a style thing because I don't see it as ambiguous at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style? But you have top speed in the tables.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it doesn't mess with the flow of the text in that position.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by now it's clear that you're not going to budge, which is a shame. Good work besides. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "again appointed" you didn't mention he had been appointed to this position beforehand.
  • Changed to "for the second time". - Dank (push to talk)
• Worth explaining what a "magazine" is in the context of a "magazine explosion".
  • Linked, and changed to "artillery magazine". - Dank (push to talk)
• "They spent most of the war" previous sentence ends by talking about just one ship, so this is mildly confusing.
  • Nice catch ... but I think the thing that makes it mildly confusing is that the wrong sentence is first in the paragraph, and I fixed that. - Dank (push to talk)
• Is it World War I or First World War? I'd prefer the latter, but whichever, be consistent.
  • We lean towards "First World War" in BritEng articles, and there was only one "World War I", so that was the one I changed. I recently found out that WP:AWB automatically checked for duplicate links, and I'm trying to find someone to use it on our FAC and FLC articles, it would have caught this ... anyone? - Dank (push to talk)
• Sometimes you hyphenate e.g. Lion-class battlecruisers, sometimes you don't, e.g. Admiral class battlecruisers. Is there a reason?
  • Caught the two we missed. There's a recent policy change in WP:TITLE, "Use italics when italics would be used in running text", and I'm wondering if, by analogy, we also want to use hyphens in titles when they'd be used in running text ... I think the mistakes here came from copying the article title. - Dank (push to talk)
• "sinking her within five minutes of opening fire" of who opening fire?
  • Reworded. - Dank (push to talk)
• Ref 39, for consistency should be 172–73.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from my concern at a number of apparent "drive-by supporters" I have some concern with the table coding.

• In G3 Battlecruiser I get text wrapping in some odd places (indicated by [br]: "53,909 long tons (54,774[br]t)" and "4 screws, steam turbines, 31 kn (57 [br] km/h; 36 mph)". Some consideration of &nbsp and forced breaks is probably needed. I realise alot of these come from convert templates which should have it hardoded in so...
• Your width forcing is causing problems. Seem to be random collection of 98% and 100%. Isn't the point of percentages that they add up to 100? In some places it is causing (well I'm pretty sure it's that) some randomness.
  • I've deleted all forced widths, I think that the tables will display a little better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In "Indefatigable class" I think rowspans might be causing the absence of a bottom border
  • They're definitely not the cause, although I haven't been able to figure out the problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turns out you were half right. The rowspans were set to three when they should have been two. All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean me? If so, see WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy and the edit history. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I was think more of some of the other people who haven't edited the page or participated in that Assessment. But I do admit I was at fault for glossing over "MilHist ACR" in the nominators rationale because I didn't understand what it meant. In future, some reviewers (well I can only speak for one, me) may find it useful to have a link to any peer or WikProject A-class reviews in the rationale. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to revisit this but I'm still concerned about visual appeal of the tables with unwanted wrapping (screenshot of what I mean to the right). I think this it quite ungainly. Can't find anything in the Convert template stuff that might cause this, or how I can fix it. Could |disp=table be utilised, seehere. I'm interested what other people think as it just frustrates me when things don't display right. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a function of screen width. They display properly if I change my window size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuanately it is not just "a function of screen width". I mocked up some tables on the talk page, see here for what I mean. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spending time on this. My understanding is that we're required to follow the manual of style here. WP:MOSNUM (at WP:MOSCONVERSIONS) recommends the {{convert}} template, and WP:TABLE doesn't make an exception for tables. I have to admit that I have no idea what's customary at FLC, but I'm leery of having an unwritten set of style guidelines that differs from custom at FAC and from the Manual of Style. Would you like to argue your case at WP:TABLE or WP:MOSNUM? - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the MOS doesn't recommend {{Convert}}, it says "Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units". However, let's not get into arguing semantics. I recognise Convert is a highly used template, but it is obviously not functioning optimally. My examples are just copying the text from Convert and putting in a few nbsp's (a simple fix if it wasn't for all the coding). Now I think Convert puts in nbsp's, however if it puts them in everywhere it has the same effect as having none at all. I realise this is unlikely to make or break the candidacy but it is clearly an issue (one which I think you have now seen for yourself) and should be addressed – moreover, it likely affects hundreds of articles. My problem there is that the Convert templates have coding that is incredibly hard to follow for us meer mortals. Any idea who would be the code person to go to with this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant thread has just been opened at Template_talk:Convert#.26_nbsp.3B. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say that I'm not very inclined to hand-code a table; too much work for too little return. I may go in and delete all the subsequent conversions as they're not needed and see how how that displays, but that's about the limit I'm willing to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems there is an easy fix (according to thread linked above) which is using abbr=mos instead of abbr=on for the short units. While you are there can you also check the vertical alignment of text in all the tables. There is a random mixture of top and centre present. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half there. I hope you agree that this does make a difference. There are some tables that jump out at me as still needed. Queen Mary, Courageous (displacement) and G3 {the earlier columns). Perhaps there are a couple more. Also

Sorry, they look fine at my screen width.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is what I required. Feel free to revert if you think it is wrong, but I see no problems with it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seperate concern: "8 × 13.5 inches" (Lion) is fine but "8 × 13.5-inch" (QM) is not in my opinion. You'd have a thirteen-inch but not a thirteen-point-five-inch which is how it reads. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All guns are now x-inches with a manual conversion. Turns out that the abbr=mos is incompatible with the adjectival form.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit more consistency please. I assume you are not converting on second/third appearance etc. Personally I would, but regardless of that it needs to be consistent. Currently 6" converts in Renown even though it has been converted in Invincible class. Double check this hasn't happened elsewhere too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I need someone clever to help me with that, so it'll be on-going until then...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I see. bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I looked at the page in Firefox, IE and Chrome and don't see any problem.—Chris!_c/t 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it also depends on the screen resolution. In my case, I am watching it on a small laptop screen at 1024 x 768. It is the same problem for IE, firefox and opera. However, don't waste your time searching for a fix. At some extreme screen sizes such problems always happen. bamse (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 1931 is missing from the list, why? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, the official website says the event was not held that year. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The row "Event not held from 1940 to 1982" jumps around when sorting. AFAIK, this cannot be helped with present wikipedia table technology. Did you consider getting rid of it completely? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could do that. I was asked to put it in, actually, by another editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks better now to me. bamse (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Should there be a row like "Event not held from 1940 to 1982" for the time from 1914 to 1919 (supposedly because of WWI)? bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if you want me to remove the other row, then I guess this is a moot point! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was meant as another option: either have both intervals marked by a row like that or none. bamse (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every "missing" year is now noted in a referenced note. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The intro could have some more information on who the organizers are (Did Gordon Bennett only sponsor the first race or also subsequent races?) and why the race was not held for a long time after WWII (Who revived it in 1983?). bamse (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do, but the official website is not particularly useful with respect to your questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Did some digging, discovered that an American revived it in 1979 but no results (or evidence of subsequent races until 1983) seem to be considered official by the organisation. Still, it comes from a RS and I've added it in there with a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, even better, some official minutes from the various balloon organisation meetings with a quote stating 1983 was the first official running of the trophy since 1938. Added new reference, with quote. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much better now, but the following phrase confuses me: "appropriate international sanctions, and permission from the Poles". What sanctions? And why did he need permission from the Poles? bamse (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Revised a bit, the Poles were the incumbent holders of the trophy... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your comments Bamse! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • • Could he have organized the cup in Poland without permission? Or am I missing something. bamse (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • He was organising the cup in a country which wasn't the holder, that's why he needed permission from Poland to host it. I guess if he'd done it in Poland, that would have been fine. But he didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Incredibly fascinating subject, much different than the usual stuff that comes through FLC. Nice choice.
  • Agreed, a very interesting topic! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the race still on-going? If it is, it should say "the race has been marred" instead of "was marred" in the third paragraph of the lead, as it's still current.
  • Yes, it's still on-going until the discover the fate USA2. Obviously the list will be updated at the conclusion of all this, but I've made your change regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the rules section, what is "FAI"? It should be defined first before being used as an abbreviation.
  • My mistake, it was, however, a direct quotation from the rules. Now expanded and linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The second paragraph of the rules section is a bit confusing. Does the NAC host the next tournament, or does the country that the NAC is from host the next tournament? Might be best to clarify that.
  • The winning team represents a NAC. That NAC then hosts the competition two years later... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Any NAC winning the cup in three consecutive races will be the final holder of the cup..." Does this mean that if one NAC wins three times in a row, the tournament as a whole ends? Or do they get to keep the trophy and offer a new one in its place?
  • It means as it says, the trophy can be kept and the NAC is invited to host a new tournament. It doesn't appear to have happened though! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The sortability of the list checks out, as do most of the references– I don't have Excel or Open Office right now though, so I couldn't check the main source of the list. Otherwise though it appears to be well written and well put together, well done. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many were previously addressed here.

• Why is the 2009 time missing?
  • Dunno, added now! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 2010 row is currently not cited (it isn't in the Excel spreadsheet)
  • Cited from 2010 website. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The time disagree unless you are drawing on another source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WRT that row you removed because it was jumping around with sorting. Although Bamse said there wasn't a workaround I think this would work if you wished. However, I'll leave this to you and Bamse.
  • I don't feel strongly about these colspan rows. However, the problem here is that there is no meaningful position for these rows when you sort for anything besides "Date". Note that this is different to the examples in the colspan workaround which do have a meaningful position when sorting for either of the two columns. Besides, it would be quite cumbersome to implement something like it here. bamse (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel, like bamse, if the colspans bunch up or jump around when sorted by something other than date, then the notes will suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the italics needed as well. They don't help from an access POV.
  • Italics removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This might mean some work but isn't it logical for location to sort like "United States, Albequerque (sp!)" and "United States, Chicago" so the same host countries sort together. I remember mentioning this at someone elses FLC in the past.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "record time for the event" is ... While possible, this is not necessarily true. It is the longest time in the air of a winner, however times of non-winners are not listed as far as I can see and it is is possible that someones stayed in the air longer but in little/no air current so didn't travel far, didn't win, and isn't recorded. Understand where I'm coming from?
  • Added "... the winner of..." between "for" and "the". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Never know the answer to this in "American teams", is American acceptable for refering to the US (bit like the British, for the UK) thing you asked me in an FLC.
  • I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not American! Unless anyone finds it offensive, I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Any NAC winning the cup in three consecutive races will be the final holder" is this a recent rule or have there been other trophies as there is certainly occassions where this has happened.
  • Well, it does go on to say that they can offer to hold the next race, and that's what's happened as far as I can tell. There's no evidence to suggest that the trophy or the contest has been abandoned after one of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interstingly this claimed Joe Kissinger "retired the trophy with three consecutive victories" although I thought for ages that it didn't quite match up, this shows a win in 1982. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the trophy could have been "retired" but as the rules say, it can be offered up once again by the winning NAC... But with regard to the results, I'm using the official list from the official website, no sign of Ki(tt/ss)inger there...! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise good list. Always nice to see something less mainstream and cookie-cutter. And I definately owed you this review (and a few more!) after all you've done for me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention Anderson and Ida's death. This wasn't in the Gordon Bennet Cup it was in the "Coupe Charles et Robert" (after Jacques Charles and the Robert brothers) – for the 200th two races were held that year.[10] That should probably be mentioned (the other race, that is). And the deaths were apparently why that race was never held again.
  • Man alive, until I started this, I had no idea at all about the sheer number of these wacky races. I've removed the reference to Anderson and Ida (so now the Daily Telegraph better issue an apology for ripping the article off without attribution!!!) and I'm not sure the other race is really directly relevant here. It may start a trend of balloon-based lists though....! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually on further digging the distinction is subtle. 1983 newspapers articles ([11][12]) described it as part of the "Gordon Bennett Internation Balloon Race". Also, out of curiousity which Telegraph article (I like to keep track of these as an error I accedientally put in an article recently got published by "relaible source" The Guardian. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think whatever this race was it was part of the Gordon Bennett event and should be included somehow. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But even the official results don't include Anderson and Ida... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And some sources are published "before" the race was run... But overwhelming evidence seems to support the reinclusion of the crash, in my opinion. So done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read the 1983 story in full it explains that the races took place simultaneously with the same rules. Basically it was a way to get around the rules of only two balloons per nation, giving 7 more racers. Newspapers at the time seemed to report it as an 18 balloon race.[13][14][15] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked at those stories and tried to check that they're reliable (they're certainly floral/tabloidy in language), with no success. They nice and anecdotal. I've reinstated the para I removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry to drag this on. I reckon the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[16] and the The New York Times (which puts it in the title) [17] are pretty reliable. Anyway, I think the accident should be mentioned within a context of the Coupe Charles et Robert which allowed additional competitors to compete and was never held again after the deaths. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WRT 1979 re-incarnation, attributed to Thomas F. Heinsheimer: Winners: Double Eagle III, Ben Abruzzo and Maxie Anderson, 617 miles, Long Beach CA and it was sponsered by a Bennet connection, International Herald Tribune. It seems to take the Bennet name in sources e.g. BritannicaToledo Blade but I've seen it called "the ‘alternative’ Gordon Bennett Balloon Race"[18]
  • I found some official FAI sources describing this which hopefully covers it nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at Google news it occured again with "private sponsor" on April 26, 1980 in LA (from Mile Square Regional Park?) where Ben Abruzzo and Rocky Aoki won with 1347 miles[19]
  • Per above, another unofficial race. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks like the 1981 result, not the 1980 race. I couldn't get much out the first Google link bu the second was the 1982 Toledo Blade link which referred to Abruzzo and Aoki winning "last year"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes my mistake. Don't underestimate the power of Google news on this event. Here you go. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, added, thanks. I'm usually pretty good with Google News, obviously having a bad day of it... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rosie O'Grady piltoed by Joe Kissinger and Charles Knapp won at 884 mi. this
  • Per above, this wasn't official, according to the FAI, good spot though. I'm not sure I should be including unofficial runnings (and their statistics) in the official list of winners. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Controversial winner who altighted from his balloon worth a mention?[20]
  • That's interesting, but on my screen the source is a bit mangled, and I can't quite work out if the balloon carried on with just his co-pilot onboard or not? I may look for another source... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There was also a Gordon Bennett Trophy for an aeroplane race[21] (see also?)
  • I see that. I've added it to the dab and this page, but it's a redlink and I'm not sure if that's a good idea for See also? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is like the semi-professional Anglo-Italian Cup era or actually, even better, the WWII List of French Open men's singles champions. Basically, at the time it was considered to be the GBC and retrospective action was taken. If you don't include the winners in the table (which is okay by me) I'd have a paragraph to cover Heinsheimer, the 79–82 winners, and the battle over rights that ensued. Lack of sources no-longer seems to a problem (you could also mention these are no-longer/not regarded as official results). Good compromise? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a fair compromise. I certainly don't want to include them in the table as they simply aren't official winners, but it seems like a reasonable thing to talk about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The details are mostly there but I think we can include all the locations, distances, times, (dates?), balloon names, (co)pilots etc. for the unofficial ones. Some of it is there but a few aren't and I'm pretty sure I've seen almost all this information somewhere that I've linked. If you struggle let me know and I'll see what I can do. I think that paragraph should end with a piece about the conflict between FAI and Heinsheimer. Also, "With sponsorship from the International Herald Tribune (reviving a connection to Bennett himself)" is uncited. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sponsorship thing, I thought you said that earlier on! I'll remove it. As for the others, I'm not sure it's strictly necessary to get all the detail of everything for every unofficial race, especially as I'm not creating a nasty little table for it. The prose is better suited with a bit of variety. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capped above comments not because everything is resolved but because it almpst is and I'm stuggling to follow it myself and it is easier to restate issues.

• With regard to the rules thing, I have some issues. There are the current rules but should you note their development. From our previous discussions and that 1983 story report only two teams were eligible per nation then and was when some tracking change came in which led to the necessity to have an English speaker. I also think that the part about winning NAC hosy next two year must be very new (especially when comparing locations and previous winners).
  • Added max teams change, added previous rule on incumbent winners' obligation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "gain the copyright over the name "Gordon Bennett" and run the event" - needs rephrasing as the name Gordon Bennett is also linked to other sport competitions and I don't think Heisenheimer was trying to get rights over those too.
  • Actually, this is causing more grief than it's worth. I added it in on your suggestion, just to have it tagged as {{dubious}} by another editor because most likely it was trademark, not copyright. I'm using the reference as I found it. Perhaps I should remove it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this interests me more. It appears Heisenheimer ran a "Gordon Bennett International Balloon Race" in 1984 in the USA. It was also run by Heisenheimer in 1986, in 1988, in 1989. My guess is the FAI doesn't tell the whole truth. This will explain discrepancies such as Kittinger having four unknown wins in the capped cmts. There seemed to be a Central Europe vs USA divide in the 1980s. I saw a few subscription mentions of an American hosted "Gordon Bennett" in the very early 1990s but it was obviously resolved by 1993 ([22]). Unofficial section needs a bit more I think (I know this is probably frustrating but I don't think this should be ignored). The 1983 FIA source says the law suit was still pending (C6 p6). Are there any that actually state an outcome. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, this is becoming a little frustrating as none of this actually relates to the official running of the Cup. However, I'm in for a penny, as you note. I can't and won't go into assuming the FAI "doesn't tell the whole truth". If that's the case then I guess we should close the FLC down as most of its references are sourced from them. The 1983 FAI source said that FAI was granted copyright over the name. While the Google News searches are good, a number of them seem to indicate a general "ignorance" when it comes to stating what is what. I could add a single sentence suggesting that other (more "other") unofficial (well, "reported") Gordon Bennett Cup races have been held... but beyond that, I'm losing the will. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a further paragraph with your additional references. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good. Also I missed the paragraph on the trademark from the 1983 minutes (I was to into the 1982 minutes in the para above - must be losing the will to review!). I think that addition is good. Just spent some time struggling to search patents/trademarks and it looks like this was the claim rejected in 1983 after being "published for opposition. Not sure if that is any help or helps clarify a current position. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Besides being another source for what's already summarised as a sideline to the main list, I think this wouldn't add a great deal more. In fact, I now get the feeling that the whole "joy" of the race, its simplicity, history etc has been overwhelmed by the modern-day nastiness if anything. Bitter-sweet, and mildly ironic considering what happened this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If I'm being anal about citing then 2010 should probably have that cite in every column and date, starting point, country, balloon name (probably the XLS sheet) on headings. Either that or use a general reference. Actually can I be fairly picky here as it is a fairly easy change. Unless there is a reason to, can you use http://www.coupegordonbennett.org/history/results (current ref 24) to cite headings where possible (as it's plain HTML) and then the spreadsheet for stuff not covered by that. I think that should be okay but you'll know better than me.
  • Done, general ref added. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent with the format field linked or not and ALL CAPS or not - I prefer the former, but only require consistency :)
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Infobox needs updating per 2010
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is too much effort that is fine but for visual appeal I quite like to ofset the spacing of stars and references with sort keys and {{0}}. If you are interested and want code to copy, my current FLC has it ;)
  • I'm not sure what you mean, I'm delighted with the way this list looks (in Safari, of course!). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it now. Seems incredibly complicated markup to just move that * over a bit. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes but it looks better, especially for the references (not so much the *) but in for a penny... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and the Ulrich refs have fore/surnames mixed up I think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No red links in the See also section.

Agreed, gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 6 needs some form of work/publisher

Done, added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 10; "Ulrich, Hohmann Sr." Shouldn't this be "Ulrich Sr., Hohmann"?

Yessum. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12 needs the location, lots of Bulletins, after all.

Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14, same thing.

Ditto ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"interrupted by World War I and in 1931" Try 'interrupted by World War I from 1914–1919, and again in 1931.'

Don't like, as this implies the 1931 break was interrupted as a result of WWI. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question. Should the names of the balloons by italicised as ships are?

Not stupid, no clear precedent, so I'm keeping it as-is right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 30, the USA retrieve crew suggested" Retrieval?

Changed (although that's what the source said) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Austria won six in a row (And France later three), why didn't they keep the trophy?

This has been discussed above - the rules say the "could" keep the trophy but would have to start a new contest up, which must have happened. There's nothing specific about it in any source I can find...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008, shouldn't the country be given as United Kingdom, not Great Britain?

No, GBR is the "country", not UK. UK includes Northern Ireland, (i.e. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - it's a hornet's nest though, I have a "British" passport despite being English and living in the UK. You tell me what I'm supposed to do...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 20:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Courcelles.. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aye, I'm just glad to have an image to use at all though! Made it bigger for you too.

• Perhaps make OBE and ICC clear before you abbreviate them?

• Done.

• Windies is overlinked in the lead.

• Done.

• Consider splitting the key into two columns.

• Done.

• Note 1 could use a reference.

• Done.

• Date ranges in references should still comply with WP:DASH.

• Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! Harrias ^talk 19:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of July 2010..." soon to be October...

• I don't like this phrasing at all, any objection to simply remove the "as of..." completely? As this is a FL, it should be kept up to date anyway, and its not something that's going to get surpassed rapidly and frequently.

• Maybe we need a solution which is list-wide, like the "Statistics correct as of ..." statements we sometimes see. You're right that FLs should be up to date but often, they're not. For the moment I'd say change it to October, add a note to the top of the list that says "Stats correct.." and that should do it. Luckily for Beefy there's no-one too close to his individual records (in this list at least) so it'll be fine, but maybe we need a "universal" solution... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be the purpose of the "Stats correct.." at the top of the list? For the list stats? Because they're not (in this case) going to change, so I don't see the need in that case? Harrias ^talk 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you're right, the stats won't change, but Beefy's position as "England's fourth highest wicket-taker" and "sixth overall in all-time Test five-wicket haul takers" should be timeframed... (in my opinion...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How about removing the "As of.." and placing a note (in the style of "note 1") saying "Statistics correct as of 30 September 2010 (or 2010-09-30)? Harrias ^talk 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bought, sealed, delivered, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, how's that? I put 'records' instead of 'statistics' as it seemed a more accurate reflection.Harrias ^talk 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a Knight Bachelor, right? Link knighted to Knight Bachelor in "and was knighted for his services to cricket and charity work in 2007.", then.

• Done.

"He made his international debut for England in August 1976 in a One Day International (ODI) against the West Indies." This is nitpicky, but since ODI's are on, well, one day, I'd give the exact date here.

• Done.

Here's what's going to be my most contentious comment... explain to the cricket dunce why five wickets is worthy of a list, instead of.. say, four?

• In many ways I suppose it's an arbitrary point at which it is considered the bowler has done well. No different to a century being so for a batsman, after all, what really makes 100 so much better than 99? But, these are the points at which it is considered an achievement (at least in the modern game: in pre-Second World War cricket I've never seen much import placed upon it, with ten wickets in a match being used as an indicator instead). However, with covered pitches and other factors which have swung the game more in favour of the batsmen, 10 wickets is a much more rare occurrence, and five wickets in an innings has taken on much greater importance. This probably doesn't answer the question well enough, and you probably just wanted a small note in the article, but you've got my ramblings instead!

• Yeah, I do think it needs some explanation in the list, kind of like the Opening Day FLC running now had to explain in the list why starting on Opening Day meant anything. Courcelles 07:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if this is based on the Glenn McGrath list, there's a rather neat introduction to why a five-for is notable. A very good job, if I do say so myself...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Stole phrase directly from Glenn McGrath list, thanks! Harrias ^talk 11:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Date – Date the match was held. Starting date of the match for Test matches." But everything listed here is a test match, so this could handle a reword.

• Done.

Courcelles 01:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to comments. Harrias ^talk 06:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you make the numeric columns centre-aligned rather than crammed up against the LH edge of the cell.

• I will do, assuming no other editor has any objection to it.
• Done.Harrias ^talk 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the WI Cricket Board flag isn't used?

• The WI Cricket Board flag is not free use.

Stupid of me, I saw it in List of Test cricket triple centuries, but didn't realise how long ago that list went through FLC

Why does the list include Economy but not Maidens?

• I think economy is a better indicator of the bowling that the number of maidens. Personally.

What doesn't help is that I'd intended to write "but not Maidens or Bowling Average", sorry about that... If we were talking ODIs, I'd agree that economy was more relevant, but we're not. A bowler's analysis is still given as O-M-R-W, and lists of bowlers are still (for Test cricket, anyway) ordered on bowling average. In the 1970s/80s, when Botham was playing, economy wasn't really a concept applied to Test cricket. Wisden didn't record it, and the only mention in the Daily Telegraph's book of the 1981 Ashes series (ISBN 0901684716), which reproduces each day's match report from the newspaper and also Bill Frindall's scorecards, is at the end, in a list of each team's bowlers, which after O-M-R-W-Ave-BB-5w-10w, has two economy-related columns, balls/wicket and runs/100 balls (and the headings are written out in full, not abbreviated like the standard stuff, to be sure the reader understands). I'd suggest that including maidens and calculating the bowling average for each 5-wicket haul might provide a better overall indicator of the bowling, and a less anachronistic one, than runs/over economy alone. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well argued. I agree with your comments, but before making any change, I'd like to invite The Rambling Man, as the primary contributor to the Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath lists to comment. Not so that I can say "well they don't have it, why should I?" But rather because I feel if this change is made in this list, it should also be made in those (and Muralitharan, though the primary contributor from that has retired). Harrias ^talk 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only popping by and won't be back for a few days, but my initial instinct is that we all use Cricinfo for our main stats, and don't synthesise others for the purpose of these best-of lists. I'm tired and probably have missed the point, but I'll get back to you on Monday/Tuesday if that's the case. In general, while stats may have been calculated/published subtly different in the past, I think we probably should go with the current and compare apples with apples. Bare and legitimate economy stats should be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read TRM's comments, and thought about this more myself, I don't really favour the inclusion of maidens or bowling average in the table. Bowling average is not generally a statistic applied to a single match, being used across a number of matches instead. Maidens, while possibly a relevant statistic, don't necessarily tell the whole story. Given that the other FLs of this type don't include it, and that no particular consensus has been reached by the three of us, I'm going to leave it out for the time being. However, I will bring the conversation up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and see what the consensus is there. Harrias ^talk 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, you're right about bowling average. I'd also agree that maidens don't tell the whole story, but neither does economy. Together, they possibly give a broader picture of the bowling performance than does either alone. And as cricinfo still records maidens, even for ODIs, no-one could consider their inclusion as in any way synthetic or not "legitimate", and I vaguely wonder why whoever first wrote one of these lists decided to leave them out. Though I accept entirely that there's no consensus here to put them in, and that this isn't the place to continue the debate :-) Please feel free to strike this thread, or put it under the yellow cap with my other comments, once you've read this. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Harrias ^talk 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]