Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2007

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed, well sourced, and accurate. --MarcK 21:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - mirrors WWE title lists, which are all FAL's. Davnel03 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but maybe make the "vacated" entries more visible with bold or italics? Circeus 02:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well sourced, looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:03, 30 September 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. Great work, Serte. Absolutely no concerns raised. Promote. Maxim (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is modeled after the recently promoted Hart Memorial Trophy and is fully sourced. I think these meets the criteria, but any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. --Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyedited and seems okay to me. Support Circeus 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find any problems. I'm sorry not give you a headache. So I'll Support. Maxim_(talk) 12:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(laughs) Thanks :P --Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced, looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self nomination. A completely comprehensive list of his solo material and recordings with the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I drew inspiration from various current Featured lists. NSR77 ^T_C 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I fixed all the issues I could, but a few still remain;
• The items in the "EP" section need release dates. Done
• Is the fact that "All albums released in 2004 include Klinghoffer" best stated on the Shadows Collide With People notes box

Probably not. Maybe it could be mentioned in the lead or something? Done

• Could the sales figures of the solo albums that influenced the charts be stated?
• Do his solo music videos need to be mentioned in the "DVDs and videos" section? Done

Nice work thus far. Grim-Gym 05:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything on his solo albums' sales; none of them have been certified Gold by the RIAA, either to at least give us an indication. Otherwise, I believe everything else has been addressed. NSR77 ^T_C 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As a contributor to the article. Grim-Gym 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just to make sure, are there any stray tracks that were issued on compilations? Also, I'm not sure how other band member discographies handle the issue, but is it necessary to include his work as part of the Red hot Chili Peppers? WesleyDodds 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is more comprehensive to present the material Frusciante contributed with the Red Hot Chili Peppers (a considerable amount). I don't believe there are any current Featured Lists of a certain branching band members' discography, so I assume we'll just present anew. Thanks for the great feedback. NSR77 ^T_C 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gwen Stefani has one, but seeing as how she appeared on all of No Doubt's albums and already has a shitload of highly successful solo projects, it would be grossly unnecessary to include her work with No Doubt on the solo list. I don't think this is the case with Frusciante. The Chili Peppers released more albums without Frusciante than with him, because of this listing his work with the Peppers doesn't in any way, make the main Chili Peppers discography seem redundant. It also serves to validate the "With Ataxia" section. If you aren't going to list his work with the Peppers, then how can you list his work with Ataxia? I personally think it's informative to see which Chili Peppers albums he contributed and how much of an impact he had. I think the article would have a noticeable void if the Chili Peppers info wasn't listed. Grim-Gym 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks good, but there may be a few issues:

• It may be important to note in the lead that 'Stadium Arcadium is a double album. Done
• "Peaked at #191 on the Billboard Top 200.[1]" should just be in a charts column. It seems he also charted on a few other American charts ([1]). Done
• You may want to add a formats column to the Frusciante albums section, or at least a bullet giving formats for consistency with the RHCP section. Done
• Split the "EPs and miscellany" section into separate "EPs" and "Miscellany" sections. Done
• Each of the 5 songs contributed to The Brown Bunny soundtrack should be listed. Done
• Use <ref name=""> to cite each example of an RIAA certification. Done
• A quick search shows that RHCP also have a few British album sales certifications (see [2]; there's a good example of how to cite each certification at Goldfrapp discography). Done
• Put "Formats:" in the RHCP subsection of the "DVDs and videos" section. Done
• I don't see why RHCP music videos with Frusciante aren't listed (I'm not a huge fan of the band, but I know for sure he appears in at least one or two). Done

• If these are resolved I'll support this list's featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review. NSR77 ^T_C 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the RHCP stuff should not be listed here. They have their own article for that. A discography should only indicate works released by the artist or at worst, with a co-branding of the artist (for instance, were he to release a duet with, um... Tom Jones under the title Tom Jones and John Frusciante, then that could be listed here). If this can be removed, then I'll reassess the article to see whether or not it should be listed, but right now, no way. --linca^linca 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But what's your take on the Ataxia works? That has no supplementary article in which it could be listed and is basically in the same boat as the RHCP works. If the RHCP info is removed, then shall the Ataxia info be removed as well? I personally feel that it shows the impact that Frusciante had on his band and is noteworthy in that regard. Further clarification from you, and perhaps a second or third opinion, are necessary to alleviate this point. Thanks. Grim 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ataxia works should be listed on the Ataxia article if the volume is not sizable enough to warrant its own discography article, but should also not be listed here. As I said, I only briefly skimmed the article, so I didn't realise that that was there either. This article should only indicate John's own work and maybe as a footnote of sorts, could indicate a listing of his contributions to RHCP and ataxia, indicating that each has its own main article listings. --linca^linca 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this statement. First, John's is a guitarist of the RHCP first and a solo artist second. Furthermore, there are no set guidelines that warrant any reason not to include his works with the Chili Peppers. Lastly, if you feel this strongly then I'd prefer to keep the information in and not have it featured than what you suggest. NSR77 ^T_C 10:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you disagree with the statement, but that doesn't change the operation of the guidelines in practice. See WP:ALBUM#Discography for a start, but most importantly, have a look at any other article of the kind. It would be a differet kettle of fish if we were talking about an artist who wasn't a solo artist at all (someone like Terry Bozzio for instance), but the fact is, JF's got a solo career and it's not indicative of his solo career to parade his collaborative efforts under the RHCP or Ataxia banners as his own efforts. This is misleading to the article reader. As I said, it would be appropriate to list his efforts with these groups as a collaborator, but to list the certifications, chart positions and such is attributing too much credit to him (and I believe he would even confirm this were you to ask him). Secondly, it's superfluous as this information is invariably listed on the RHCP discog, as I mentioned before. There's a certain amount of information that may be duplicated from one list to another for specific purposes, but this doesn't really qualify for that. --linca^linca 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing, though he may be more known for his work with RHCP, he's produced a great deal more work as a solo artist than anything else, so voluminously, he's more of a solo artist anyway. --linca^linca 11:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there really is no precedent, I think we should wait for a few more opinions on this and take it from there. Grim 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has stated on several occasions that his commitment is more towards the Chili Peppers, and may only focus on solo material after his obligations with the group are complete (i.e, after touring, in between albums, etc.). NSR77 ^T_C 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be relevant to this argument. Let's wait for a few more opinions to come in. Grim 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as a member of WikiProject Alternative music). However, there's a few issues remaining:

• Are all the albums in the "Solo albums" studio albums? If so, it might be worth noting just to be specific.
• In the Red Hot Chili Peppers section, the "debut", "second", "third" etc. is already implied; however, the "left" and "returned" notes should remain.
• I don't think sales data (or formats) would be appropriate in the Chilis section (although I don't feel too strongly about this; it's more of a personal preference). (I'd treat as if Frusciante were a band appearing on a compilation). Perhaps sort as:

Year	Album	Comments

Otherwise, it's well done. CloudNine 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted everything concerning the Chili Peppers' table over to a more appropriate table which provides no information not pertaining to Frusciante. NSR77 ^T_C 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant oppose
  • You are citing a "Kiedis 2004" work, but missing the general citation Done
  • It might look silly, but I do think a few general links (e.g. {{Allmusicguide}} or {{discogs}}) could be added. If there's a general discography on his website, that would bemost appropriate too. Done
  • While it looks like he didn't shart enough on his own for a charting table to be appropriate, one should be present for the RHCP material.
  • The second note of "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" is at best confusing. Done
• Circeus 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. We just removed all the RHCP chart info because a previous reviewer opposed it. Hopefully a consensus can be established at some point. All the other points were very helpful and have been addressed. Grim 01:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first took the rather lengthy time to find all of the chart, sales and certificate information; then it appeared the article was misleading, etc., therefore I reformatted it. Now I have no idea what to do, as it appears no one can agree on the arrangement. NSR77 ^T_C 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with no charts if the consensus seems to be against it. I added a "See also" for the full RCHP discography. As for the notes, It's not its presence that bothered me, but the lack of context. I'll support now (even if the note isn't added back). Circeus 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it accordingly; feel free to fix it if you still notice any flaws. NSR77 ^T_C 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm impressed with the edits to tone down the RHCP and Ataxia info. The references need to be tidied up to be consistent and legible, especially the ones referring to Scar Tissue, since most of them don't indicate that that's whet they refer to, but simply state the authors, year and page number, the book name and ISBN should be listed with every reference. Don't expect reads to connect the dots. Once that's done, you'll have my support. --linca^linca 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recanting that point. The current reference format was directly modeled after John Frusciante (a featured article), is consistent with Neutral Milk Hotel discography (a featured list), and complies with the second point stated in WP:Footnotes (Style recommendations). Based on these facts, there is no reason to alter the current format. Grim 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recanting the point because it bears revisiting. I wouldn't consider the references to be consistent like this and with inconsistent references, the article doesn't deserve (yet) to be a featured list. Though another featured article works in this style doesn't mean that it's considered optimal. It could well be a detail that's slipped between the cracks. I'd encourage promoting improving an article as much as possible rather than accepting a "that'll do" attitude, because to me, that's unaccpetable. I remain opposed to promotion unless this is done. --linca^linca 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's academic convention to use abbreviated citation information in multiple references from the same source, and as Grim-Gym pointed out, it's a Wiki guideline. Personally when citing a book I like to list the full information with the first citation and then used a summarized form for future references from the same book. Some editors I know simply use an abbreviated form throughout since the full citation information is already provided in a references section. Regardless full citation information is not required for every single footnote in an article if that information is already propeerly conveyed elsewhere in the article. In the specific case of Scar Tissue, further information is not necessary in the footnoes for reader accessibility unless another book by the same authors is cited. WesleyDodds 09:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about users not being able to "connect the dots", but that underestimates the intelligence of the user. The references section provides all of the necessary information for a person to connote the meaning with ease. Assuming that it makes blatant sense to you or I but not to the average reader not only underestimates their intelligence, and is not even really a plausible issue. If a person is unable to draw the conclusion that "Kiedis, Sloman, 2004. p. 284" is referencing the item above that was written by Kiedis and Sloman in 2004, then such a person is probably not going to be concerned with the intricacies of references formats to begin with. If a person has that difficulty, they will find it throughout Wikipedia and not just on this article. If such a thing confuses them, then they will seek out the reason for it being that way and come to understand it. If you feel the need to continue to oppose the article, then kindly cite Wikipedia policy that supports your opposition. Grim 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel LinkaLinka has absolutely no merit to still oppose this List, considering he is directly contradicting a Wikipedia guideline (the style, in fact, is typically called the Harvard Method, or something along those lines). Unless you can detect a discernable, reasonable and legitimate reason to oppose the list, do not pull things from the air. NSR77 ^T_C 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but let's remain civil here. We should at least try to empathize with his point of view and explain why we find it invalid. Grim 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Harvard referencing; it's one of three citation formats recommended by the community. CloudNine 21:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm being particular about this, but this isn't conforming to the standard use of Harvard Referencing. Harvard referencing still requires the use of the title in each reference. I know The authors didn't write another book together that year, but you have to consider that's not always the case. Especially where it's a single author, they may release several books or written articles (or otherwise and sundries) each year, removing the adequacy of said references. All I'm asking for is the book name and (if applicable, and I know it isn't here, but for future reference) the volume number. If you simply add "Scar Tissue" to each of these references (you don't need to link or use the ISBN because those are alread included prior to these inclusions) then I'd be happy with it. I'm well aware of the acceptance of the referencing type, but the use here is simply non-compliant with the format. --linca^linca 07:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. (Smith 2005, p. 1) is an an example straight from the Harvard referencing article (plus I've seen such a style in several papers). Where have you seen the requirement for this? CloudNine 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're omitting reading the very part of the article that indicates where it says that. --linca^linca 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sums it up "Under Harvard referencing, a brief citation to a source is given in parentheses (footnotes in our case) within the text of an article, and full citations are collected in alphabetical order under a "References" or "Works Cited" heading at the end". Then it says a brief citation looks like this: (Smith 2005, p. 1). That's what's happening at the moment. CloudNine 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that we all understand your point. There may or may not be some validity there, but four people in this thread have understood and disagreed with your argument. You have to understand that the reason for this isn't that we're trying to beat you down, or show you how wrong you are. We are merely following academic convention and Wikipedia guidelines that have already been questioned and proven effective. We have cited several examples of Wiki policy and guidelines that support the current format, failing that, there probably isn't anything we can do to persuade you. I implore you not to dig your heels in and harden your stance for pride's sake. This is Wikipedia—if we don't check pride at the door, all our projects will suffer. Grim 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A really nice equivalence concept there, Grim. What Linca asks is not a difficult task to execute. However the incorrectness of such warrants enough not to make such an edit. Furthermore, I ask Linca to find proof before he comments again, confirming his comments hold any water; please scour the text relentlessly and directly quote them as CloudNine has. Also take into consideration that a fellow user reconsidered a rather large element to his outline (Circeus) after looking at the facts. His argument was far more relevant, and yours is less so. Four users (including myself) have already contradicted you with Wikipedia guideline. That in its own right instantly disproves any argument on your part. I am simply perplexed at your interpretation, to tell you the truth. I have never seen an editor so gruelingly persistent and unyielding that they went this far as to contradict a guideline and Harvard referencing method. NSR77 ^T_C 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a completely personal POV, I have a degree in English and during my time in university the citation method we've all described is how I had to cite my papers. Full citations for every footnote are unnecessary, and you only need to add more information if multiple works by the same author or under the same title and so forth are listed. WesleyDodds 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was said, (a) it's not hard and (b) it says it on the Harvard referencing page; all references should indicate the work they're citing (simply the name). It's all I ask. Come on. --linca^linca 06:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of us are sure of what you want, so please provide a specific example (that's found within a Wiki policy) of exactly what you want changed. Also, please provide a rationale (in the form of a citation of Wiki policy) as to exactly why the current version is unacceptable. Simply do these two things and the references will be changed to meet your standards. If you issue a statement that doesn't address these two points, I will assume you are still working on it and won't respond. Grim 06:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full_citations (in WP:CITE#HOW). This indicates that when referring to an item (and it doesn't distinguish whether the reference is used once or mulple times), a full citation is used. The guidelines as set out in Wikipedia:Harvard referencing (WP:HARV) are equally ambiguous in indicating whether or not the book should be mentioned every time, however it doesn't implicitly exclude it. The casual viewer (you can quote me on this) will generally not be able to figure out what the reference is stating, however, when the book title is not mentioned every time and, as I mentioned before, the author(s) of the book may have written other works in the same year. It's simply a matter of common sense to provide this little, albeit trivial, very crutial piece of information on each case of reference given. I don't really see why I'm getting so much resistance on this matter. It's both simple to implement and more logical and descriptive than the lack of its inclusion. --linca^linca 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They won't have generally. You're getting so much resistance because it contradicts the guidelines in question, plus past experience from a number of editors. See "Full citations": "In the Harvard and embedded links citation systems, full citations appear at the end of the article in a section labeled "References." In the footnotes system, full citations may appear in a "References" section or may appear directly in the footnotes." (we choose the former!). In WP:WIAFA, it states the format w're currently using! It's more complicated; it hides the crucial information, the page number, in a load of repetitive text. The format we're currently using is okay. (This is the style guideline in question) CloudNine 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this particular list, only one book by the same authors is being cited. And the full bibliographical information is provided in the References section. The footnotes section is also not that large, so anyone viewing the Notes section would not only see the first Scar Tissue footnote at a glance, but would also see the full citation of the book in the Notes section. WesleyDodds 08:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* This is disappointing, considering having done a heavy amount of editing, submitted several university reports and theses, I've only ever seen it used the way I'm explaining here, but I'm going to have to concede that the concensus here appears to be to the contrary, despite logic not given the chance to prevail. Unfortunately, it seems logic isn't the preference here. You have my weak support, in light of the insistance to keep it against the actual use of harvard (I don't care what you say, you're not in line with the guideline set out in WP:HARV, but I have to concede that you're all being arrogant, and that's a shame). --linca^linca 08:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again this is nothing personal against you, and once again we are citing guidelines and experience. Honestly there's published books and papers that reference this way. WesleyDodds 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you linca, and thanks to everyone else (Wesley, Grim, and CloudNine) for their support in this as well. NSR77 ^T_C 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's close the book on this issue. It has been thoroughly exhausted. Let the record show that Lincalinca has recanted his opposition despite not having physically stricken his initial use of the word "Oppose". Grim 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Sephiroth BCR 09:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've basically used the model of two other featured lists (List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks and List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks) to design this list. In case people don't think the article is that long, I'll add notes, as done in List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was going to suggest having the Browns pick prior to 96 but if the Browns first-round picks is already a FL it seems a bit piontless. Buc 08:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and technically they are two different franchises. Modell relocated the team to Baltimore, but he kept the original Browns as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Personally I think it should be the other way round since the Raven are really the Brown with a diffrent name. Buc 17:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's too short to have its own article. The reason this type of lists are created is that the table gets too big to stay in the team's page. I believe that this table is short enough to stay here. There's no need to add notes. I'd even suggest to make the notes at the Carolina list footnotes with references just like in the 2007 NFL Draft article. And getting ahead, I'll answer: Yes, I would oppose the Carolina's list for the same reason if I were around at that time. In case my opinion gets disregarded again, I made some minor edits that I felt were needed. --Crzycheetah 08:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes are necessary for draft articles. They clarify the circumstances of a particular team's selection in some year. Also, the list will undoubtedly grow in the future, so I don't see the harm of creating a new article just for the first-round draft picks. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't mean that they're not necessary. I meant that they're not going to affect the length of this article. By the way, since you are saying that they're necessary, why aren't you adding them?--Crzycheetah 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yes, I would oppose the Carolina's list for the same reason if I were around at that time." You know you can nominate FL for removal. Buc 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I am not opposing strong enough to nominate it for removal. Second, my experience here tells me that I am going to have to wait a month or so to get results at FL removals.--Crzycheetah 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fulfils criteria for promotion. Pulls together info from the body of the main article with the table into a coherent, focused article. Mallanox 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fulfills the criteria. Cbrown1023 talk 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As soon as you add the notes and a picture of one of the draftees, I'll reconsider. Also, since this article is going to stay, wouldn't it be better to remove the similar table from Baltimore Ravens and a add a link to this list?--Crzycheetah 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures would greatly distort the table. However, I have added the notes, as promised. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a picture is needed on the right side of the lead. Similar to the Carolina list. I believe a fair-use image would be fine. --Crzycheetah 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can do even better than that. Image:Raypic.jpg a GFDL-licensed image. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, picture added. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support Good job! Now, it fulfills the criteria. This type of lists should have at least ten years of draft picks, so we'll see the Houston Texans's first round picks list in 5 years. :) --Crzycheetah 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Sephiroth BCR 01:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is modeled after the recently promoted Hart Memorial Trophy and is fully sourced. It previously failed because of concerns about the lead and overall length of the page, but I believe I have addressed both concerns. The previous nom was closed (by me) because there were no active discussions. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused by the structure proposed, since the text doesn't draw a good relationship between the Richard Trophy recipients proper and the "winners" before 1999. Also, the images in the "Winners" section area bit many for the length, that causes the edit link for the following section to drop in some browsers (the issue is described at WP:BUNCH). Circeus 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-1999 winners are the goal scoring leaders. The post-1999 ones are the goal scoring leaders who happened to lead during the existance of the trophy. Originally the pre-1999 ones were not included, but I added them in so they would pass the FLC. I could remove them, but then there would be length isuues again.-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add something to the effect that top scorer prior to the creation of a formal title are included in the lead? Circeus 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done... I think. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Made a few edits to the end sections, and now support. Are you planning on a Featured topic? Circeus 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, yes. Maxim_(talk) 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Maxim_(talk) 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's good to go.--Crzycheetah 21:10, 27 September 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 14:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Based on List of Colorado Avalanche players and List of New Jersey Devils players, both of which are FLs. It is factually accurate, uncontroversial, useful, stable, comprehensive, well-constructed and has numerous images. Resolute 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like it and I do not have any objections but I want to point out that the image of Kiprusoff overlaps the table at 1024x768 resolution. --Krm500 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shrunk the image a little. Let me know if this is better. Curse me an my large resolution monitor.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, well I have a 37 inch widescreen monitor but when i use the internet I often resize the window to 1024x768 since most websites are designed for that resolution. --Krm500 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mike Commodore became a cult hero during the 2004 Stanley Cup Playoffs as a result of his unruly red hair and steady defensive play" Without a citation, this is a problem. As citations in captions are weird, try to say something factual that can not be challenged, like he played on the stanley cup winning team, or played x games with the Flames, or something like that.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've changed the wording. Apologies for taking so long to reply. Resolute 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work, same quality as the other two articles. Kaiser matias 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great! Drewcifer 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks okay. Did some extra clearing out. Circeus 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like what Circeus did. I just created three columns in the Key section to get rid of the whitespace.--Crzycheetah 07:17, 27 September 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 14:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list uses a similar format to the Featured List of islands of Scotland, but adds highest point names, smaller islands down to 20 ha and a comprehensive listing of smaller islets and skerries. I believe it meets the criteria and whilst I am not a copyright expert I have checked the availability of the images used. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the uninhabited islands were previously inhabited, any way you could fit in the last known year of habitation? Kappa 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible for those which were inhabited in relatively recent times, although for those with neolithic etc. remains it would be speculative. I'll look at the data and see what can be done. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been attempted. I will look for some more information, but the smaller the island the harder it is likely to be. Given my current information all that could be done would be to add 'Neolithic or later', 'Norse or later' etc. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I like this list much more now. Kappa 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And given that the sorting problem appears to have been fixed I will support the nomination. Kappa 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the asterisks in the "area" column causes it to sort improperly (in reverse order, Glims Holm is placed before Orkney Mainland). Circeus 22:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curses. My browser is still 'non-sorting', which is how I failed to notice. I'll fix this asap. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was working at this end. I changed the asterisk to a footnote, which may help. I notice that the Area column does not always sort properly for some reason (whereas the Population one, which also has footnotes, always does). However, if this happens it seems to fix itself if you sort another field and then go back to Area. I can't see any obvious reason for this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. --Golbez 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - notions of habitation are variable. Some are visited seasonally - like Sula Sgeir (not one of the Orkneys!) and lived on, by shepherds, fowlers or rich people! --MacRusgail 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have added - "For uninhabited islands indicates the last known date of permanent, year round settlement." to the relevant footnote. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I appreciate this is a nitpick, but some of the uninhabited islands still retain inhabitable houses, which are lived in from time to time. I'll take a further look at the article. A lot to digest here. --MacRusgail 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. I think the Shetland list should be redesigned more on this model.[reply]

• Support Meets all the Featured List criteria. Lurker (said · done) 10:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with copyedit and two caveats:
  • • Thank-you for your support. References copyedited (again).
  • It looks silly having the n/a for "last inhabited" of currently populated islands.
    • Replaced n/a with blank and inserted 'unknown' where applicable.
  • "skerries which are only exposed at lower stages of the tide." is ambiguous tome, possibly because I'm not British and an ASL speaker. It could mean either that these islands are connected to mainland at lower tide, or disappear completely at high tide.
    • I fear it was my ambiguity. It is both/and, and the wording has been amended accordingly. My understanding is that a 'reef' is a rock which may be a navigation hazard, but which is not normally exposed, whereas a 'skerry' is a small island that is usually or regularly exposed. Some skerries in Orkney may be both tidal islets and skerries in that they will become separated only at mid-tide but vanish during high tides. Hopefully it is clearer now. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Circeus 01:30, 27 September 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, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another discography from Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. I've spent the last few days working on this, and I reckon it meets the featured list criteria. Note that information concerning The Breeders' first two music videos is unavailable, and the source for UK singles that placed below 40 on the charts is now unavailable. (There's a new site being built at uk-charts.com, and UK positions will be added ASAP). Support. CloudNine 11:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The US chart placings for the single seem be referring to the Modern Rock Tracks charts. Make this clearer. Also, include all American chart placings ("Cannonball" made it onto the Top 50 of the singles charts, for one) WesleyDodds 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed your comments. CloudNine 09:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got some of the numbers mixed up (according to Billboard "Cannonball" peaked at number 44, not number 8). I would fix it, but dealing with chart scripts scares me. WesleyDodds 10:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Turns out I entered the chart positions in the wrong place in the table. CloudNine 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The opening sentence seems self referencing. Other than that, its a good write. Ceoil 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All featured discographies (and most featured lists) have a few self-references. I rewrote the first sentence to exclude the self-ref, and it actually reads better. CloudNine 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ceoil 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment no rationale for fair use image. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Thanks for pointing that out! CloudNine 09:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Especially seeing as my one point was rendered irrelevant below anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speaking of the image, I think it's generally a no-no to have fair-use images in discographies. I know it's a fine line between using a fair-use image in the article introduction vs in the list of albums/releases and what not, but I don't think it's allowed. I brought this exact quesion up at WP:FUC and got this response. Drewcifer 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it for now. However, there's nothing on Flickr that illustrates the band sufficiently, so I guess there's no image for now. CloudNine 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. Only (minor) issue is the first External link is strangely named. Is that their official site? What the hell is 4AD? Just say official site or something. Drewcifer 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4AD is their record label. WesleyDodds 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've made various edits to make it closer to our existing lists and I think it lives up to the standard. Do we have any image for the lead? (apparently now, damn. An image of the collected discography, i.e. on a shelf, would be cool, though.) Circeus 01:10, 27 September 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. All concerns have been addressed. Promote. Sephiroth BCR 01:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As on the "A" and "W-Z" sections of this list (see the FLC discussions that passed: A, W-Z), I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "T-V". There should not be any LGBT person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with T-V that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if they are men or women, unless they have a western name. In this case gender is relevant IMO. Maybe they could be color-coded? Kappa 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color coding by itself is a bad way to represent information, due to accessibility concerns. --Golbez 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well currently the gender is inaccessible to everyone. Kappa 12:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that the issue of gender is important to some people and the info might be welcome, but I should point out that the issue of gender with respect to the LGBT community is somewhat .. touchy. Specifically, categorizing people on the list in a binary (male/female) way would be problematic at best for some of the entries. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only two things that bother me are 1) that there's so many red-links in the references (I know it's ok to have some, but in the in-line citations?) and 2) the caption for Alan Turing is a little POV, and he's known for a million other things besides the German enigma, so you might not want to mention anything at all, or at least mention something with it's own article (such as Turing test). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewcifer3000 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Good points. I didn't even look at the captions :) I've un-POV'd Turing and removed about half the red wikilinks in the refs - either spelling errors or websites that are unlikely to get their own articles. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The few issues I had have been addressed. Well done! Drewcifer 11:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good. --Golbez 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Support There are two versions of citing access dates; one version has "(retrieved on 2007-mm-dd)"while the other has "Retrieved on 2007-mm-dd". That's inconsistent and unprofessional. Just pick one version, although I'd recommend the second one since it's more common here. --Crzycheetah 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's more the problem of the citation templates than it is the list. All references on the page use the templates, but some use {{cite web}}, some {{cite book}}, some {{citation}}. The last one is the one with "(retrieved on 2007-mm-dd)" IIRC. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you convert all {{citation}} templates to {{cite web}} since it just cites webpages only?--Crzycheetah 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{Citation}} is used for web sites, book, news articles, etc. Cleaning that up would be a relatively time-consuming job. I have, however, left a request on the {{citation}} template to standardize the "retrieved on" format. I've also cleaned up some of the 2007-mm-dd dates per the above comment so that they'll at least display per the user's date preferences. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • {{citation}}'s format is changed. I give my full support now. --Crzycheetah 03:33, 26 September 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: x days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni (a featured list; its nomination is here) was becoming unmaintainably long, so I decided to split off the very comprehensive Athletics section into its own list. Note that since the alumni list's nomination, numerous redlinked articles have been written, and several other articles (esp. College Football Hall of Famers) have been added. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I'm concerned about linking. For example, there's no links to any of the things mentioned in the headers - no links to the Olympics, and the NFL and MLB are only linked in the tables, and there's no links to American Football. Conversely, the baseball table is inconsistently linked, with random "Major League Baseball" links but mostly "MLB player", without any context what MLB means. These sections, I believe, need much more prose than they have now between the section header and the table; that's where you could hide the links. On a similar note, "MLB Player" or "NFL Player", the P should not be capitalized. So, long story short: I think you need prose for each section. --Golbez 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFL, MLB, and NBA have now been written out, "Player" has been changed to "player," and the list's lead has been improved. Links to NFL/MLB/NBA have been removed from list entries. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the delay, I forgot I'd commented on this one. Need to watchlist these things... Re-evaluating, it looks better, but a new question pops up. Many people are listed in the "Tech Hall of Fame"; is this a hall of fame for only athletes, and if so, shouldn't that have its own table here with a mention why they're in? --Golbez 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the "Georgia Tech Hall of Fame," which is only for athletes. Many notable athletes from Georgia Tech get inducted into it within 20 years; however, not all inductees are notable. The source I have is on the Athletic Association website and lists the athletes in it, but it only gives their names, their class year, and the year they were inducted, but not any reason why. So, I feel that I should mention that they were inducted, but beyond that I don't really have any information. Does that help you? Perhaps "Tech Hall of Fame" should be renamed to "Georgia Tech Hall of Fame"? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a small mention of it in the lede might be useful. Changing to support. --Golbez 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How's this? :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I went ahead and fixed the really picky concerns of the above user, but this list is a direct port from an already featured list in order to make both more manageable. I support this decision as it makes both lists more readable and more maintainable and was an overall good move. This list is incredibly well-sourced and amazingly comprehensive. The topic sortable list format makes it really easy to find and/or analyze the information presented and is a neat touch. Personally, I find some of the information presented in the lede superfluous as this is a list and as such is meant to present information with minimal explanatory prose (which I think this list does rather well), but that is more of a stylistic/editor preference than something that I view as a shortcoming. LaMenta3 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{Disclosure: I am a member of WikiProject Georgia Tech and made some minor stylistic edits to this list as per another reviewers suggestions, but aside from that I have not had any involvement in the development of this list, and I have made only minor contributions to unrelated sections of its parent list.}

• Sorting by reference is kinda weird. Please double-check that the links go to the right page, I had to fix Horace Allen. I'd like to see a column for "position" for team athletes, e.g point guard, would this be possible? Kappa 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • The "position" column sounds possible. Perhaps an optional column in {{AlumniStart}} and {{Alum}} would do the trick. As far as sorting goes, I don't know how to disable it for a specific column. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorting by reference could have its uses. For example, doing so would group together all of the individuals who are in the GT Hall of Fame. It also allows for someone who cares about such things to easily see all of the people mentioned in a single source. Leaving the sort option for that column doesn't pose a real problem with regards to the readability of the list nor is it detrimental to the content. LaMenta3 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I figured out how to add an optional column by doing a bit of template hacking in a user sandbox. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the "Position" column to the "American football" section, and added the position of all of the players listed. Man, that's exhausting. Which other sports do you think? I'm thinking baseball and basketball... just... not tonight. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the position column to the "Baseball" section. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the position column to the "Basketball" section, and disabled sorting by reference. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have two concerns: What is the rationale for including current players? I don't necessarily see how they are notable. Why are there some red links in the list? If they are notable, shouldn't they have articles of their own? ludahai 魯大海 11:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{Disclosure: I am a University of Georgia alum, but I will endeavor to maintain objectivity on this list discussion.}

• Most of the athletes were added per recommendations as to completeness in the previous list's FLC. I'm fairly certain that all of the redlinked individuals have played professionally, and (therefore) are notable enough for an article. I've made several of those articles, but there are certainly many redlinks remaining. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also to that point, current players are considered notable under WP:BIO: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." It is mostly agreed upon that playing at the college level (particularly NCAA-1A) is considered the highest level in amateur sports in the U.S. Combine this with Georgia Tech's definition of alumni as being anyone who has completed a semester in good standing at the school, any current athlete who is at least a second semester Freshman (academically, not "redshirt") is considered alumni provided s/he completed that semester in good standing. As to the redlinks, many of those are players who played professionally a long time ago, making reliable sources that provide more detail than they played professionally in X sport somewhat hard to find. The lack of coverage about these individuals on Wikipedia is more a result of a systemic bias than because they are not notable. Sure, we could make a whole lot of stubs, but it seems to me that we (WikiProject:Georgia Tech) rather wait until we have enough sourced information to create at least a start-class article than have to wrangle (and most likely defend pending the discovery of more sources) a large number of stubs, which diverts resources from the expansion of articles which are more easily sourced. I hope this satisfactorily addresses your concerns. LaMenta3 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A few things I noticed (mostly in the intro):

• "contributions within athletics," howabout achievements? Is being in Hallf of Fame of X really a contribution?  Done
• "Other alumni are found ... staff are found" Odd tense. Howabout "can be found"?  Done
• "are called by the common name" awkwardly worded.  Done
• "the program's long history" whose to say it's a "long" history? I'd take out the long.  Done
• '"highly technical backgrounds and rigorous courses" whose to say the "highly" technical or "rigorous"? I'd take out both words.  Done
• I'm not sure about the last paragraph of the intro. Whose to say they're well-known, much less more worthy of special mention? If I were you, I'd let the list speak for itself. But, I could go either way on this one.
• Also, the image captions shouldn't specify the author, and definitely shouldn't have an external link in them. That information has nothing to do with the article itself, and should be saved for the image's description page. (Edit: Check that. I just noticed on the image pages it says that due to the particular CC liscense, captions should give attribution like that. Is this a stipulation of the license or the author? Drewcifer 23:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• I'd also recommend adding an external links section of some sort. Judging by the copious references, you probably have alot of options.  Done
• Lastly, does the references columns in each table need one of those sort buttons? Is anyone going to want to sort the list by citation number?  Done

Hope all of that seems doable. If these issues can be addressed, I'd be happy to support the article's nomination. Drewcifer 23:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at your suggestions for the lead. Most of it was written in one or two sittings, so it could probably use a bit of copyediting. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image attribution thing is a stipulation of the author AFAIK, although if it's really against policy, I doubt they'd mind either way. I'm just happy to have free images to use on the page... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While an external link or two sounds doable (perhaps the main GT athletics website would be best) I don't think it's really necessary. There's not a list of GT alumni this comprehensive anywhere else on the internet, and I feel that the thoroughness of the references eliminates any need for further links. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sorting references goes, I don't know a way to turn it off. AFAIK, either sorting is "on" or it's "off." The relevant underlying code is in {{AlumniStart}}. Even if I could disable it, I'm not sure I'd want to; it gives a nice graphical uniformity to the top bar. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figured out a way to disable sorting by reference; it has been disabled. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of copyediting the lead per some of the suggestions above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether the program has a long history- most of the sports programs started relatively soon after the school opened in the very late 1800s. For example, the first football game was in 1893, and the first basketball game was in 1906. I'd consider "long" a defensible word choice there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you've made so far look good. But there still are a few above that haven't been take care of, namely "long history," "highly technical and rigorous courses," the last paragraph of the intro, the image captions, and the External links. To address your individual concerns: it really doesn't matter how long ago the first games were, it's that describing it as long is POV. Granted, I would agree that that's a pretty damn long time, but there is no objective truth in describing it as such. As for the image captions, could you contact that original uploader? Surely the uploader did that for a reason, so he/she would be the best person to ask about the attribution thing. And the External links are more of a courtesy than anything else. If the article's about a college's athletic program, provide a link to program's homepage (or something like that). It doesn't have to be a source of information from the page, just a place to get more information on the topic.Drewcifer 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "long," "highly," and "rigorous," added an external link (the official athletics website). I'm the uploader of those images, but not the photographer- I know the photographer personally, and he requested attribution. He creates amazing images, and I feel a small link in the caption is a fair trade for being able to use them on WP. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page for more on the attribution thing. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks great! I've stricken my Oppose comment above, since all of my concerns with the article have been addressed. There's still the minor issue of the last paragraph (see my comments above), but I could go either way on that one. I'll leave it up to you, but I will say this: let the list speak of itself. Anyways, great work, and a great list! Drewcifer 02:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Weak support Too many red links. If they were 5-10, I might have let it slip, but there are over fifty red links in this list right now. The people are notable enough to have articles, so why don't they? It's a really good list, but fails the featured list criteria. WP:WIAFL states a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. So, I repeat, there are fifty non-existing articles here; therefore, it's too earlyto feature such list.--Crzycheetah 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the sentence you quote is an example of "useful", criterion a, rather than an actual part of the guideline. While having articles written for each list entry is useful, I feel it is less important than criterion c, "completeness". Additionally, I believe this list to be "useful" regardless that some of the athletes don't have articles yet, as the list gives the athlete's graduating year, position, source of notability, and at least one reference where additional information may be found. The criteria for entry are very stable (notable athletes from Georgia Tech, particularly those that reach the professional level) and articles for each will be written in due time. Since you !voted, though, I have written 11 stubs for redlinked entries. I would continue writing them until the list met with your approval, but I have two tests this week to study for (including one tomorrow afternoon), and I would likely be the only editor participating on that particular project (which, I estimate, will take one to two weeks with one to two determined editors participating). Whether or not the list is promoted, I will doubtless come back and fill in the redlinks in my own time. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Useful" criterion is an actual part of the guideline. I am going to trust you on getting rid of the red links over a two-three week period and strike out my oppose. I made this decision since this is a really good list and this nomination has been here longer than expected.--Crzycheetah 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am self-nominating this article for its comprehensiveness and adherence to discography style. It is mostly based on the style of The Make-Up discography, a recently promoted Featured list I also worked on. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer 06:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive comment - Unlike the many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since Lightning Bolt are by and large an independent band that has never come close to any album/singles charts. Thanks! Drewcifer 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose for now. I just can't figure out why there are Frenzy subsection, Radio and Covers sections in the discography article. Please explain why this info should be here.--Crzycheetah 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Frenzy album is kind a point of quite alot of rumors and confusion in the Lightning Bolt community. Every other forum person seems to have the definitive answer about it, so I thought it was extremely relevant to include some factual information to dispell the rumors, set things straight, and just to be as informative as possible. The Radio and covers thing I'm kind of iffy about. The Muse thing was kind of a big deal in the LB community, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's relevant to a discography. And the radio thing seems marginally important since those were broadcast/recorded performances (mainly the Robert Peel thing). But I could go either way on both of those sections. But, I included them in the first place in hopes of being a comprehensive as possible. But I would definitely say the Frenzy thing is important. There's no reason that a list can't have some text where relevant. Drewcifer 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem I see. Radio and Covers sections are irrelevant to the discography. And The Frenzy album looks more like in violation of WP:CRYSTAL because no one knows for sure whether this album will be released. It's even possible that this album will never be released. I am not sure about it, though.--Crzycheetah 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I could go either way on the Radio/Covers thing. So if you think I should take them out I'd be happy to. As for the WP:CRYSTAL thing, the subsection's entire purpose isn't to predict the album's eventual release (a crystal ball), but to document it as a weird Lightning-Bolt related phenomenon. A weird Lightning Bolt discography related phenomenon to be specific. The section is well-sourced, including original source material as well as reputable 3rd party sources, so it's not like I'm making this stuff up, nor am I actually predicting anything, you know? Drewcifer 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Radio and Covers sections are irrelevant and must go. The Frenzy subsection can stay. As I said, I wasn't sure about WP:CRYSTAL, it was just my initial thought when I saw the subsection.--Crzycheetah 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done If there's anything else let me know. Drewcifer 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Crzycheetah 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drewcifer 20:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. However, a few WP:MOSNUM fixes are needed: for example, 4 and 7 should be four and seven. CloudNine 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following on the theme of copying everything from Aston Villa F.C.'s overall structure, I humbly submit to the community my contender for featured list in the shape of this, the list of Ipswich Town F.C. seasons. Based on the existing AVFC FL, I'd love to hear comments, support or otherwise. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As with the Villa one you can see lots of hard work has gone into this list and i think it looks brilliant great work Rambling Man.Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few comments.
  • Should a more specific reference be used, rather than the homepage of the website?
    • I didn't think so, I could add a reference for every season but thought that would become a hugely unwieldy list of around 140 references which only differ in year numbers... The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the missing top scorers be filled in?
    • If the top scorers are missing it's because it is unknown who they were - the amateur era seemed very hit and miss with records. However, it's fair to point it out so I'll add a note to the table to clarify this. The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are the "three players" who were top scorers in 1901–02?
    • Well, that "three players" occurs in a few places and I didn't really want to expand it out, I suppose I could add a reference though. Yes, I'll do that. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, its jolly good. Mattythewhite 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fair enough. Pretty much dealt with, so changed to support! Mattythewhite 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The list looks in great shape and meets all the criteria. One change I would suggest is to include links to the Football League season articles for the club's recent Championship seasons, e.g. The Football League 2006-07. Dave101→talk  19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, I didn't realise those articles even existed. I'll link them as soon as possible. Cheers! The Rambling Man 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked to those seasons which have articles, thanks. The Rambling Man 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Placeholder comment pending copyedit and debate(s) at article talk page. --Dweller 11:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support All issues now either dealt with or relatively insignificant. --Dweller 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list is obviously well researched, looks good and is undoubtedly useful as a stats-based history of the club. I'd like to see the red links eliminated, but as far as I can tell they don't stop the article reaching featured status. I do have one significant concern, which I am open to persuasion on: This is a list article - a list of Ipswich Town seasons, but it does not link to any of Ipswich Town's seasons, it links to English football seasons in general. This seems to go against the spirit of what a featured list is - at least in how I've interpreted point 1a) of the featured list criteria. I'm just pointing out the anomaly here - I'm not suggesting that a load of club season articles be created (personally I dislike them anyway but that's a whole other topic). I'm sure this point has been raised before for a similar "seasons" list, but I can't remember which one or what the outcome was. Can someone jog my memory and/or let me know if I'm being over-critical? Thanks. --Jameboy 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting comment. Under 1a are three examples:

  brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;

  is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and

  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

  While the point you raise falls foul of 1, the list certainly fulfils 2 and 3. I think it's OK on that score. And re redlinks, you're right, that doesn't stop Featured status (they're an encouragement to our Rambling friend and other Wikipedian binmen to create some new articles) --Dweller 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support OK, I've found what I was looking for. It was Manchester United F.C. seasons, and despite the argument about lack of club season articles (although in Man Utd's case, there are a few, with English season articles used where there aren't), it reached Featured List. Having weighed everything up I am happy to go with precendent. The alternative is to have a zillion redlinks to club season articles which may never be written, which would look ridiculous. --Jameboy 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I will be removing the red links - the articles are ready to go, but as an anon at the moment I can't create them. They'll be sorted by Thursday evening. Cheers! 193.82.16.50 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (easyRambler)[reply]

  Red links gone... Hope that makes you more confident that support was the right answer! The Rambling Man on tour 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues seem addressed. Any more? --Dweller 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe it must remain here for ten days before it can be promoted or otherwise... The Rambling Man on tour 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with qualification about Lead. Looks good, all the little details have been ironed out in the main list. Good work! Meets all the criteria as far as i can see. I must add that it is slightly less colourful than Villa's, i wonder why? ;) Woodym555 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although i think that the lead is just about adequate, could you not expand it? I really do think it needs expanding. Where do the numbers come from pre-Football League? What Leagues did they play in? Explain about the amateur era and then moving into the professional arena. The Lead should introduce the topic and prepare the reader for the higher amount of detail in the main list. (FLCriteria 2(a)) Currently, anyone not interested in football would have a hard time understanding the list, especially when comparing it to Villas or Man Uniteds. The more and more i look at it i am not liking the length of the lead. Woodym555 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll have a look at expanding it as soon as I can... thanks for your advice. The Rambling Man 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've expanded it a bit, describing the amateur era a bit more before leading into the entry into professionalism. Hope it works better for you. The Rambling Man 10:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yep, that has assuaged my concerns and i have changed it to unqualifying support. Meets all the criteria as far as i can see. Well done. Woodym555 11:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks Woody. The Rambling Man 11:03, 22 September 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 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this list and feel it meets the FL criteria. I have based the list off List of Aston Villa F.C. managers and List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers, one of which is a FL and the other is a FLC, which is in a good state. Thanks, Mattythewhite 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support what a great template you used i must say ;) Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good work. The Rambling Man 10:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose for now. The Lead needs a bit of work.

• First off, it needs checked for spelling errors. "appoitned" sticks out at me.

 Done Checked through for errors. Mattythewhite 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs some context in places. Relapse of what? What semi-final?: "their semi-final appearance the following season". Does this refer to the playoffs? If so, that sentence needs rewording slightly.

 Done Can't find the information for what the relaspe was of, so I've removed it. I've explained what the semi-final appearance was for. Mattythewhite 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The last sentence is awfully clunky. Could it not be rewritten to something like this: The 2004–05 season was York's first in the Conference National and they had three different managers during the season. The third manager, Billy McEwan is the current incumbent.

 Done Rewritten. Mattythewhite 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More optional. In Honours, could you not list those managers who were promoted, be that through playoffs or league runners up. I understand this could get messy though if one manager were to "see-saw" a bit, promoted, relegated, promoted etc which is why it is entirely optional. Woodym555 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to only include honours which were won, to keep consistency with List of Aston Villa F.C. managers and List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers, which are featured lists. Mattythewhite 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always said it was optional, so no biggy. Just trying to populate that rather bare cloumn you got there. By the way it does not have to precisely mimic the Villa one. (I know it was featured because i jointly nommed it.) There was a suggestion at the time about putting in relegated as well. I have to say i am currently ambivalent about it though. It would be good from a neutral point of view, on the other hand it would clog up the table if you had to list every promotion. For Villa it would be easy - they have only been relegated 5 times.(and then the manager got sacked and the next one got them promoted). For lower League clubs i accept that it could get messy. Good work overall though. Woodym555 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good - only comment is I would have a wikilink back to the main York City article in the lead rather than leave it to the navbox at the end of the list. Keith D 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a wikilink in the first paragraph. Mattythewhite 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Is the Honours column with just one entry really necessary, though? It can be footnoted.--Crzycheetah 04:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but I'd like to keep consistency with the other FL's. Because, if this becomes footnoted, then what is the limit? Another list may have three, but there might be a big despute as to whether that should be in the honours list or footnoted, so I feel they may as well all be in the same place.. Mattythewhite 10:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC

Self nomination This is a renomination, with the previous nomination taking place in August. It has been ranked A-class by the Alternative music Wikiproject. This list has undergone many changes since its last nomination and I now believe that it conforms to all of the featured list criteria. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a member of WikiProject Alternative music. I supported the article during its last nomination after we sorted out a few issues in the FLC. I'm confident that this list is exceptionally referenced and comprehensive. WesleyDodds 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks great to me. Only two small issues. First, the weird footnote format. "IIIIII" for example. Why not just use abcde...? Second, and I'm not entirely sure if this is even fixable, but the first table is really wide. So wide in fact that I need to scroll over to see any of the last column. Ideally it should fit in most monitors, especially a 1024x768 monitor such as mine. Any ideas on that? Drewcifer 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a precedent for naming {{ref}} tags in the style that I used from other featured discographies (see Hilary Duff discography and Goldfrapp discography). As for the width complaint, I adjusted the longest album title so that it wouldn't make the "Album" column as wide. Beyond that I don't think that anything short of removing information or chart positions can be done. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The width thing is a little better. It still runs over, but that's about as good as it's gonna get. And I understand the whole precedence thing. But why? (At this point I'm just curious, not holding it against the Nirvana discog.) Also, I noticed a few minor things with the intro paragraph: I'd delink posthumous, since it just goes to a disambig page. "apparent suicide"? Isn't there just one crazy dude who thinks it wasn't a suicide? Either way, is that really necessary here? Also I don't think it's necessary to wikilink widow or suicide. Drewcifer 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure why the footnotes are formatted this way, but I don't want to have a format inconsistent with other discography pages. I removed the links you mentioned; as for "apparent suicide", I think that there is enough controversy surrounding his death that putting "suicide" might be read as POV. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm satisfied with the changes made above. Another excellent discography! Drewcifer 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support great job, covers all with many references (the only one without notes is the Music Videos, but it's too short to complain). igordebraga ≠ 01:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing really to reference. Even with the directors credits are traditionally displayed during the beginning and end of a video when it's shown on TV. WesleyDodds 08:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 5 support, 1 oppose. Opposition appears to have been addressed. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. Comprehensive, stable, and uncontroversial in my opinion. All concerns will be addressed.  east.718 at 12:06, September 9, 2007 

• Comment, a one sentence lead is unacceptable. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done  east.718 at 01:48, September 10, 2007 
    • Support, thanks. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It wouldn't hurt to have the UFC website listed as a seperate ref at the bottom (like Hart Memorial Trophy, which has the individual citations and general refs). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done  east.718 at 07:02, September 14, 2007 

• Support - The list is complete and well referenced, I'm surprised to find that Sean Sherk wasn't striped of his championship following that steroid suspension. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm satisfied now, I'll Support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose; the cities should be linked the first time they appear in each table (The Japanese cities are unlinked) and you should not use abbreviations for the states. Also, it would probably help to put ", USA" after the American cities. --Golbez 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Doing...... but I disagree with the necessity of "USA"... people can just click on a wikilink for the city or the event to find specific details... plus, it's not like "Las Vegas, Nevada" or "Atlantic City, New Jersey" needs to be disambiguated or clarified. east.718 at 20:14, September 23, 2007
• Oppose Statements need inline citations. I added {{cn}} next to them, but you undid that.--Crzycheetah 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair he did provide an explanation for undoing your edit [3]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I just couldn't continue that conversation in that particular way, so I answered to his/her question here.--Crzycheetah 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done east.718 at 20:14, September 23, 2007

Thanks, I support now.--Crzycheetah 00:45, 24 September 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, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Bencherlite^Talk 09:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of episodes for the first two seasons of the Naruto anime. Due to size constraints, this article was created apart from List of Naruto episodes, along with three other episode lists. 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) 04:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It definitely fits the standards. Aside from the minor "change this word or sentence to this" stuff, it's at its peak. I say yes. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why are the seasons combined this way? It would seem to work better, I'd think, for each season to have its own article. --Golbez 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Consensus was in favor of separating the original list at List of Naruto episodes in this fashion at the time. It perhaps would be better to have them in individual seasons, but the issue at the time was splitting the parent article, and four articles were easier to manage than nine. These episode lists were largely left to sit since then until I decided to clean this one up for a run at FL status. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since it meets all FL criteria and complies with WP:EPISODE on keeping things like FL lists of episodes. Excellent. Cliff smith 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few things jump out at me right away. First, the lead seems a little long. Specifically, why the paragraph about theme songs? That certainly has something to do with the series, but the episodes? I'd recommend taking that whole paragraph out. Second, I think the lead could do with a few more citations, namely for the release/broadcast dates. If these issues can be taken care of I'd be happy to support the article's nomination. Drewcifer 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The theme songs are relevant since they are only found in certain blocks of episodes. It's more informative to mention them here than simply listing them at List of Naruto media. In addition, other anime episode featured lists such as List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes have a similar setup. In any case, I've added references to the broadcast dates and other items. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: Support. Excellent work! Also, shouldn't the titles of the theme songs be in quotation marks? Drewcifer 06:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Although it could do with a little more external referencing (any really notable episodes?), it's still excellent. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the episodes are really notable - they would have articles of their own otherwise. The big problem is the language barrier, as these episodes were originally made in Japan; ergo, much of the development and reception information is in Japanese-only media. They were merged quite a while ago over this issue, which ultimately resulted in the splitting of the central episode list, as illustrated above. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like all of the other NHL trophy FLCs, this page is modeled after the Hart Memorial Trophy. Any concerns brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Note 1" in the footnotes appears not to go anywhere. I don't know if it's needed, either. --Golbez 21:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Some comments by Maxim_(talk)
  • You should have references that point to the Stanley Cup winners and losers, as well as each team's playoff result, points totals, as well as the team they lost to, if they lost in the playoffs. It's uncited at its current stage, and I believe it requires some references; another FLC, Jack Adams Award, has references that point to team's results.  Done
  • Would there be another way to display the note in the "Notes" section. I hate being so nitpicky, but it's ugly.  Done
  • I'd be interested in seeing refs for this fact in the history section:Prior to 1986, the best team in the league during the regular season was allowed to hang a banner stating "NHL League Champions  Done
  • I think it would be useful to provide a reference for the teams that amassed the most points during the season, as it's stated that Montreal has won 21 times (before the awarding of the trophy), but there's no ref.  Done
• I will reassess the article after these suggested changes are done, or when you want me to review it. Yours truly, Maxim_(talk) 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and done. Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great work, Scorpion. :D Maxim_(talk) 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well done. --Golbez 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - superb work. Deserving of FL status. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support thumbs up.--Crzycheetah 19:18, 21 September 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: Promoted Crzycheetah's concerns are irrelevant to the list itself: such an issues belongs on Articles for Deletion, not Featured Lists Candidates. Circeus 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fully sourced and is modeled after The Simpsons (season 1), which is an FL. One small issue I will address, there are no individual citations for the episodes. This is because the official Lost website which has all of the synopsises does not allow you to link to individual pages. Anyway, any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Meets all FL criteria: it primarily is "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed", and also complies with WP:MOS and WP:LOST, although I do believe the episode summaries could be a little more "prosey". Apart from that, there are only a few tiny little things that might need fixing/tweaking:
  • Which numbers should be written in numerical form, and which spelled out? In the lead, there are "24" episodes, while in the Reception section there were "twelve" Emmy nominations, but "14" cast members in the Cast section. Per Manual of Style: "the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)."  Done
  • The links to character pages within the episode summaries seem a little... random. Some characters are linked twice, some not at all, and some supporting characters (even Edward Mars) who don't even have their own page. Some are linked on their second mention, not their first, and I find it a little odd to see DriveSHAFT linked to its subsection on Charlie's page.  Done
  • Not sure about this one, but it just reads a little strangely - in the Reception section, it "was nominated for..." but "would win..." If both (the nominations and awards) have happened, shouldn't they both be written in the same standard past tense - i.e. "it was nominated for..." and "it won..."? Hope all that helps.  Done •97198 talk 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, I have tried my best to fix everything you have pointed out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, a {{done}} tag placed on the first point, but no change - don't worry, it's done now :) ; some links removed per the second point - I got rid of the rest; and per the third point I fixed an extra "would be nominated" statement. I still do think the episode summaries could be smartened up a bit - I might take a bash at that if (a) I can find the time and (b) no one else beats me to it! •97198 talk 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Informative, thorough, and meets FL criteria. -- Wikipedical 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose This list fails WP:EPISODES. All episodes except pilot are not notable enough to have their own article. This is where 1a3 criterion of WP:WIAFL comes in. They basically contain plot and trivia, so they should be redirected to this page. I learned all this stuff from here. You may find more explanation from there--Crzycheetah 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but the individual episode articles have nothing to do with the quality of this list. -- Wikipedical 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list offers links to non-notable articles thus, reducing its quality. They should be delinked.--Crzycheetah 04:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So please clarify, what fails WP:EPISODES- the list or the episodes. We are talking about whether this list meets FL criteria. Is it not useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed? I would urge you to reconsider your reason for opposing the list based on these criteria. -- Wikipedical 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what about List of Lost episodes? It passed an FLC less than 2 months ago - after the more stringent WP:FICT concerns were defined. As well, the majority of the pages for The Simpsons (season 2) are in no better shape, but you supported its promotion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This list contains links to non-notable articles; therefore, it fails #2 of WP:WIAFL by not complying with the standards set out in the relevant WikiProjects, in this case WP:EPISODES. The episodes should be redirected to this list AND the links to episodes in this list should be removed. In other words, in order for this list to be featured it needs to get rid of all those links to the non-notable episode articles.
  Scorpion0422, I explained the situation of the List of Lost episodes in your talk page yesterday. The Lost episodes contain plot only while the Simpsons episodes are far more developed.--Crzycheetah 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lost episodes list was promoted 2 months ago, after the WP:FICT guidelines were redefined. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I do think this list is good, I would like to see it perfect before I support. I will work on it some more. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All right, I cut it down by 6000 kilobytes. As for the episodes failing guidelines, we are getting there – to improving them. We already have one FA and another with out-of-universe information. I think that it is a good idea to cover the season pages first, as more people will be seeing them. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 06:00, 18 September 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 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the existing featured list List of Aston Villa F.C. managers, this is simply as it's called, a list of Ipswich Town managers. I'd very much appreciate thoughts or opinions on how I can get the article to featured status. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my comments have been dealt with. Good work. I hope the list gets much longer over the next few years. --Dweller 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd say it easily meets the criteria. Excellent, considering what little time it took to make! But, just a couple of things to bring up. I think the "present" for Jim Magilton needs to be capitalised and the references which use the "Pride of Anglia" websites titles need the "managerial stats" removing. Cheers, Mattythewhite 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Matty, both suggestions implemented... The Rambling Man 17:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and the reference entitled "Ipswich's managerless record" should be renamed "None".. Mattythewhite 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, alright then! The Rambling Man 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, meets all the criteria as far as i can see. I would suggest that you wikilink the dates in the honours to the xxxx-xx in English football articles. Whilst you are at it you could fix the pipes to avoid redirects. Football League Division One is at Football League First Division. Great work. Woodym555 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorted Woody, thanks for the pointers and the support... The Rambling Man 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All seems well with the list itself. While I dislike win% figures, regarding them as a misleading indicator of performance, I realise this is ultimately a matter of personal preference. I think the lead could be improved though.
  • Sheepshanks has been at Ipswich for years, so presumably he has appointed several managers. Mentioning him at the end gives the impression that Magilton is the only manager he selected.
  • The long sentence introducing Ramsey could do with splitting in two. I'd also remove the "further" - Ramsay's achievements were firsts for the club.
  • eight appointments in 46 years... ...the club employed its next eight managers in roughly half as long. The footnote is a bit of a cop-out. I don't think any punchiness would be lost by giving a fuller explanation in the text. Oldelpaso 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good and fair comments. I'll get onto it when I wake up..! Thanks for your time.. The Rambling Man 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      I think I've addressed them all now, a bit of expansion on Sheepshank's era, split the sentence and removed the footnote...The Rambling Man 07:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the standard is fine. You should now add a link to it from the Managers section of Ipswich Town F.C. (either a main article: or for more details... template I guess). The only minor problem I have with it is that Ipswich haven't really had that many managers, so it doesn't seem to add that much information to what is already covered in the Managers section in the ITFC article. Still useful though. --Jameboy 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jameboy. What made the Villa managers list so long was the unenviable talent of Doug Ellis to hire and fire managers. Perhaps you could have a notable managers section in the main Ipswich article. (That is what we did at Aston Villa F.C.. For us, it was a much shorter list!! Woodym555 22:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, what I've done is to remove anyone with less than 50 matches under their belt - could have been "selected managers" but that's subjective, and added a {{main}} template from the article to the list. Hopefully that kind of satisfies these issues... Cheers for your time and comments. The Rambling Man 07:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - excellent work, as one has come to expect from The Rambling Man. One slight query - presumably someone must have at the very least picked the team for the 11 matches in 1937, is there any source to say who this might have been.....? ChrisTheDude 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I wonder... it's difficult enough though getting accurate stats from back then, let alone more info. I'll look into it. Thanks for the comment and support. The Rambling Man 09:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An excellent list which meets all the criteria. One minor issue in the lead: "the club employed its next eight managers in the next 25 years." I'm not too keen on repeating "next", perhaps it would read better as "in the following 25 years"? Dave101→talk  16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool, made a minor reword to alleviate the repetition of next as advised, thanks... The Rambling Man 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Only thing is maybe a ref for the no-one on the link it says Mick O'Brien's suprise departure just before the start of the 1937/38 season left Town managerless for just over three months. maybe something like that? Anyway good list and has my support Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 17:27, 14 September 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, 7 support, 1 oppose. Circeus's concerns seem to be more over the notability of the page, rather than how it measures up against FL criteria. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a article authored by Tony the Marine, there were talks in the last few days over wich course to follow with it, taking it to GAC was an option but since 2/3 of the article are a list of casualities the decision was to nominate it here and bring it before the community's consideration. As with the Featured Article Candidates I have participed in the past I can guarantee that either me or any other member of WikiProject Puerto Rico will gladly attend the sugestions presented here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I would actually be nominating this for deletion, but I'll at least leave this nomination runs its course Wikipedia is not a memorial. Why would Puerto Rican missing in action be so important that they warrant a list and no other groups of American soldier? Sorry, but I just don't see a way this works within Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Circeus 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puerto Ricans are a diferent nationality than Americans, while they have American citizenship granted at birth, the Puerto Rican citizenship is individually recognized. I fail to see why this would be a memorial, it just list the fallen and the honors received in said war.- Caribbean~H.Q. 06:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still fail to see how we can justify any such "missing in action" list. I had noticed the particular Hispanic-american war stuff, but this is simply preposterous. Circeus 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because its informative, it discusses historic events in a N:POV manner and because its a complete list, regardless of that this follows the presedent set by United States casualties of war. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, As an article it is very informative. As a list, I see no such "memorial" since the "list" is not honoring those that are missing. Antonio Martin 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - I disagree that this is a memorial, but there are problems.

• • The title is quite horrible. Are there other articles named in this fashion? Changed
  • "One the recipients was Ramon Nuñez-Juarez[8], the other was PFC. Ramon Nuñez-Juarez who was listed as MIA and was posthumously awarded the medal." Both are linked to the same article, so this sentence definitely needs work. You are right, Fixed
  • Along those lines, why is there a substantial portion of the article devoted to Ramon Nuñez-Juarez? He has an article, doesn't he? Portion greatly reduced
  • And why is Ramon listed in this article as KIA, when the article is about MIAs? He was listed as MIA and after the required period of time re-listed as KIA Sorry it was my mistake to place "KIA", PFC Ramón Nuñez-Juarez's remains have never been recovered and he is listed as an MIA.
  • Why is the list formatted the way it is? Explain why they are considered "died while missing". Also, no need to have "ARMY" in every single row, and it appears they are all in Army; you can move that out of the list. You are right once again, corrections made
  • The citation given for the list is a dead link. Fixed
  • Reference format for the links. Done
  • No bold title in the lead paragraph, yet the caption of the picture is bold. No bold there please. Fixed
  • Once these most glaring of issues are fixed, I may have more comments to make. But these are really blinding me to the rest of the article. I'm completely shocked that AntonioMartin supported such a deficient list (the lack of proper referencing alone is worth of an oppose) and I suggest the closing admin consider such support votes appropriately. --Golbez 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The title is, indeed, quite horrible; it should at least be changed to Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War. Puerto Ricans Missing in Action since the Korean War reads even better, even if it is unrealistically optimistic. Kirill 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
• Oppose(commented further down) - Along the same lines as Golbez. I have no problem with the basic content of the actual list. It fulfils criteria 1(a): 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; Yet i do think it needs a lot of work to meet the other criteria and the WP:MOS:
  • The title should be changed, Kirill's suggestions are good. Done
  • Although not compulsory, i think this article would be improved through the use of WP:Citation templates. The references need accessdates at the very least. Done
    • Is this the last day that you accessed them? That should be the retrieved date. That is the suggestion of Wikipedia:Citing sources. Woodym555 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Ramón Núñez-Juarez article copied almost verbatim in this article? That is what we have wikilinks for. You are right, it has been reduced
  • Explanation needed for the Died while missing. This should go in the lead, or directly above the table. Done, plus deleted from table
  • Why is the table formatted in all caps? Is this not shouting? Fixed
  • The dates should be formatted correctly and wikilinked as per WP:MOSNUM#Dates and WP:MOSNUM#Autoformatting and linking.Done
• That's me for now. Woodym555 13:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Some more.
  • It needs another check though. Some dates have been missed, spelled incorrectly or are in the wrong column.
  • Should Pvt not have a period after it : Pvt.
  • The dates should be wikilinked as 1 January 1952 according to the links above. It is for user preferences to work correctly. Could we not have the full dates such as September 1? Is there a specific reason for them like they are? The two go together. I think it would look better.
  • Suggestion: Could you not expand the rank acronyms (and wiklink some of them). I think it would improve the list.
  • Suggestion: Could you not left align the names? It would look better to the eye and easier to scan down the list.
  • You could have it as a sortable table. Done
• Some of these are only sugestions and personal preference. I think some of them would be good for the article though. You have no need to apologise, some people don't respond for days!! Woodym555 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thank you all for your suggestions you are all right, the list was a mess. I have taken action and made the changes requested. I would like to apologize to all of you because I had various doctor appointments and I couldn't make the fixes earlier. The featured list is a new concept to me, I have been so involved with witting articles that I was totally unaware of its existence until this nomination. I think it is a great idea and now I have an idea of requirements of an FL. Tony the Marine 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking a lot better, here's a new list of comments:
  • The title is better, "List of" may be useful but I won't push the issue, that's for others to do. ;)
  • It still says "date of death"; please explain this in the article. Was this the day they were noticed MIA? Was this a certain time after they were noticed MIA? It seems odd to have a solid date of death for MIAs, so this needs explaining.
  • The table should have full-linked dates, rather than contracted month names. All dates linked and all months have their full name
  • Normally I would say "put the names in first-name-first, last-name-second, and make the list sortable" but since only one of these (so far as I know) actually has an article, that may not be necessary. But we can deal with that later. The table is now sortable
  • Also, in the table, don't abbreviate the rank, write it out and link it at least once. Don't assume readers know what a "Cpl." is. Full names added and links provided at the first mention of each rank
  • Why is Cartagena Colon's date blank, and why is Perez Villegas' rank blank? Cartagena's date wasn't available but Perez Villegas's rank was a format error that has been fixed
  • Consistency with accents: In the prose, the marine's name is given as "Ramon Nuñez-Juarez". With an eñe. In the list, it's given as "Nunez-Juarez, Ramon". No eñe. And his article is titled "Ramón Núñez-Juarez", with an eñe, o-acute, and u-acute. I'd like this to be resolved; don't be shy with including all sorts of acutes and accents in the list --Golbez 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Fixed all mentions of Ramon to read "Ramón Núñez-Juarez" as it is the way the title of his article is spelled, not sure about the other names since accents aren't really my forte.[reply]

My comments will be on bold blue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportComment I think the fixes done so far have improved the article dramatically. I have now fixed the table to sort correctly. The rank column now sorts in order of rank and the date column now sorts in order of date. I have added hidden text as to how to edit it but hopefully people won't need to as it should be comprehensive. My only qualm now is with the referencing dates. The accessdate or retrived date should be the last day that it was retrieved and verified. This helps to stop dead links. Could the links be checked and then the accessdate added. Excellent work on acting so quickly. Thanks. Woodym555 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work with the sortable table, I rarely use that format and certainly needed some help. I checked all of the references, all of the sites are funtioning properly, I also changed the format to use the Template:Cite web and added publisher information. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The text is easy to use once you get the hang of it. It is not always as easy as adding "sortable" at the top!! ;) I sorted the rank by Rank instead of alphabetically because i thought it was more appropriate. After all the changes i think it now fulfils all of the FL criteria. Kudos to both of you for reacting to the comments so prpomptly and reasonably. Good luck with the article. Woodym555 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree the article in its original form was not very good, but the title change and the improvements to the article based on the comments above have made the article great. --Boricuæddie 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I Support the nomination of this list. All of the concerns mentioned above have been taken care of and it no longer looks like a mess. Tony the Marine 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - This article will be a very useful, well-organized, source of information for research on Korea, Puerto Rico, Hispanics in the military, life in the '50's, comparisons with other military conflicts, and so many other subjects. Pr4ever 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I just went over the featured list criteria in some detail, and compared them to this list -- it does have a hint of memorial to it, but is also useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well constructed. Murcielago 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck out my previous votes so I can start from a clean slate. A few comments, but generally, support:
  • You mention how many Puerto Ricans were MIA, and how many casualties there were; I would also like it to mention how many Puerto Ricans total served in the war.Done
  • I have to ask: What is the source of the picture at the top? It has no linked source, it simply says that it's pd-usgov, but no proof of this is given. We kind of need this verified.Done
  • I'd like something under Miguel Cartagena Colon's date, like "unknown".Done
  • Furthermore, my question about how these dates were chosen goes unanswered. Is this the date they were noticed missing? That's what it appears to be (considering so many are from September 1952, which was when the 65th infantry fell) but i'd like it explained.You are right. The date is when they where listed as MIA's
  • All in all, though, it's been vastly improved since I first looked at it, and I think my statements above - while valid - are nitpicks, and I have no doubt they will be swiftly repaired by those working on the article. --Golbez 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I can't anwser the mayority of these questions but I will work with Cartagena's date now, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thank you Marine. All nitpicks dealt with. --Golbez 20:58, 15 September 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 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Nomination. This list is based on List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia, which are both recently listed FLs. It does have two fair use images (Image:One Bayfront Plaza.jpg and Image:Empire World Towers.jpg), but the images are relevant in their respective "Approved" and "Proposed" sections (no free images of any approved or proposed buildings in Miami exist), and both have thorough fair use rationales. I believe the list to be comprehensive, stable, well-organized and well-referenced. Any comments brought up here will be addressed. Raime 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have a problem with the images in the "Tallest buildings" section being in a single column on the right hand side, I see to be scrolling past acres of whitespace. This version [4] looked alright to me. Kappa 13:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about that problem. The section and the images appear fine to me. Does your browser have a similar issue with List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia? The edit you mentioned above looked very strange on my browser, as it left huge amounts of white space on each side, and completely cramped the text. It was also inconsistent with the 4 other "tallest buildings" FLs. Raime 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well OK, no-one else seems to dislike it. Kappa 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll support if you put the "years tallest" column first or second in the timeline. Kappa 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has been a standard to put "Years as tallest" in 5th position on the table, as this is how other tallest building lists have passed previously. If it was moved to before "Height" or "Floors", it would be very inconsistent with all other ranking lists in the article; "Year", or in this case, "Years as tallest", has been consistently placed after the floor count. However, if you really think it is necessary, I will move it. Rai-me 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The other lists in the article are sorted by height, so having height in one of the first columns and year towards the end makes sense for them. Kappa 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Done - You're right. Since the list is measuring by timeline, the years should go first. I've moved the column to 3rd, after the street address. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um well I'd still prefer first or second but you can certainly have my support. Kappa 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you very much for your support. I was thinking about making it 2nd, but opted for 3rd, since the street address is sometimes used as a building's name, and the building's name should probably be listed first above all else. Rai-me 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Why don't the other tables have addresses? Kappa 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Becuase it is not really important, and many new buildings use their addresses for the names anyways. Addresses are usually good additional information for historically significant structures/landmarks such as the Freedom Tower and the Dade County Courthouse, but for newer structures, not necessarily. Addresses for newer, less prominent buildings are sometimes not even directly stated by the developer. Rai-me 13:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comments by Maxim_(talk)' Great job, Raime. I couldn't find anything missing, to tell the truth, until I plugged in some JavaScript. Here is what it's helped me find (I saw the suggestions, and I manually rechecked them, so they're all applicable):
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 122 meters, use 122 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 122&nbsp;meters.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds ->
• That's about all, metric/imperial tweaks of style. Use User:AndyZ/peerreviewer, and it should highlight these minor changes. It's nothing pressing, and it's superficial, to tell the through. I more or less support now, and I just want to see these minor MOSNUM changes. Maxim_(talk) 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Thank you very much for the review. I think I've made all necessary changes;   is now used throughout and I've changed "meters" to "m" and "ft" to "feet" where appropriate. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I was being excruciatingly picky over the MOSNUM fixes, and that's why I didn't oppose. Amazing list. Great work, Raime. Maxim_(talk) 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Rai-me 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Looks great as the other similar FLs. I have two concerns, though. First, I believe the refs(inline citations) should be in numerical order. Second, the external link doesn't show the diagram immediately, I have to refresh my page in order to see it. I don't know whether it's my computer's problem or not, but I'd recommend you to write a note similar to "refreshing the page may be required", anyway. It looked like a dead link before I refreshed the page.--Crzycheetah 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review. I have just added the "(refreshing the page may be required)" note, as my computer had similar issues with the link, so it must be a problem with the entire link. As for putting the refs in order, do you think that is really necessary? All entries are currently laid out using the "Emporis, SkyscraperPage", and, if applicable, "Structurae" ref format, and are all ordered in this way. Putting them in numerical order would mess up this order. However, I will change it if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Rai-me 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure about the order. I just know that most(experienced) of the reviewers at WP:FAC want inline citations to be in numerical order. That's why I just mentioned it.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - Okay, all individual entry references are now in alphabetical order. The FAC argument was a strong one. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just noticed one more thing. The refs #6, 7, and 8 have notes and give "SkyscraperPage.com" as a source to those notes. My concern is that it doesn't give the specific webpage from where that note was taken. I don't want to browse through every page in SkyscraperPage.com to find those numbers.--Crzycheetah 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done. I have removed Source of information: SkyscraperPage.com from the refs. I took the information from the diagrams of the city, but unfortunately there is no way to provide direct links to those specific diagrams. Therefore, no specific page can be given. The information can simply be left as footnotes. Rai-me 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm..I think it's better to have something rather than nothing. Havihng just SkyscraperPage.com as a source is better than leaving all of the statistical data unsourced. Where have you seen those diagrams? They had to be in some page, right? Maybe, you could provide the general diagrams page?--Crzycheetah 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, I've reverted the edit, at least for now. The only way I know how to access the diagrams is to go to this page and specify a search. To find the information referenced, you would have to type in "Miami", change conversion to feet, set a height limit of 500 ft, select "Official height", select "highrise", select "Built" and/or "Construction" and/or "Proposed". Once this is accomplished, the site will bring you to a URL that reads "[5]"; it is not a specific page, and referencing it will only bring a reader back to the original diagram search page. This occurs because SkyscraperPage treats it as a personally selected detailed diagram, not a specific diagram, which would be found here; a diagram that is not complete, as it only depicts buildings that have images, and is therefore inadequate for referencing and fit only for an external link). Rai-me 01:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you search for a diagrarm there, it gives you a link to a specific page, it's called "Diagram URL". It's located below the "Displaying 1 to 25 of xxx structures" statement.--Crzycheetah 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you. I've never noticed that before. I'll add this URL to the references right now. Rai-me 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - All of the city statistic refs now reference their respective specific diagrams. Rai-me 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modelled upon the Hart Memorial Trophy, a relatively recent FL. It is a bit different from the other NHL trophies, as it involves coaches, non-players. All concerns will be addressed. Maxim_(talk) 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any source for the notations for President Trophy, Stanley Cup, etc.? ludahai 魯大海 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouold be, but it's never directly stated, as you need the lists of team winners for each, that the name of the team's coaches... Should I add a general reference which points to the three lists I mentioned before? I think the teams are already there. Maxim_(talk) 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some source should be provided. What do others think? ludahai 魯大海 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do something. I think I'll try to implement my solution above. Maxim_(talk) 11:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Maxim_(talk) 12:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose - I had the following minor concerns:
  • The overlinking in the captions should be removed, as each pictured coach already has an entry on the list.
  • The list in the "History" section would look better if it were merged into prose. I don't think you really need all of the infomation about what team they played on and what year it occurred it in, as is is already clearly presented in the list.
  • The last sentence of the History section is very stubby. It would better if this could be combined with another paragraph. The third paragraph ios also border-line stubby; perhaps it can be merged with one of the first two.
  • The "adjudged to have contributed the most to his team's success" quote in the lead and the infobox needs to have a citation.
  • Perhaps the lead can be expanded with one or two more senetences? It does not seem up to par with the other trophy list leads.
  • Why is National Hockey League Broadcasters Association italicized?
• Overall, I am very confident that these concerns will all be addressed and/or explained, and I'll re-assess my opinion then. Raime 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • All  Done. Anything more? :D Maxim_(talk) 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Due to recent improvements, list certainly meets all criteria. Great job, Maxim :) Rai-me 00:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great looking list, very well-sourced.
• Oppose: I take my support back. The history section needs sourcing. For a cite for the bit about the closest vote, simply search the NHL news archives for last years NHL awards results and I'm sure you'll find one. Google Ruff Laviolette and "Jack Adams" together and you'll probably have no trouble. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the ref, with a bit of trouble, I have to admit. It's the fifth link down, for a search with <- Ruff Laviolette "Jack Adams" "point" -blog -blogspot -> Will you reconsider? :) Maxim_(talk) 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: It wouldn't hurt to have a citation for the other point in the section, but I am satisfied. Good job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Raime and Scorpion. I am not certain it is necessary in a list of coaches, but would it perhaps help to use the highlight on coaches who are still currently active in the NHL, as we do with players on the other awards pages? Resolute 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid highlighting coaches is a POV slimepit, because they maybe active in many different ways, and that's the problem. Now if I define criteria, then it's another slimepit. Players are very well defined, they "officially" announce retirement, that's what I think makes the difference. Maxim_(talk) 01:52, 18 September 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, 6 support, 1 oppose. There is active opposition, but it appears that the concern has been addressed because a user that had a similar concern is now satisfied. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modeled upon the Hart Memorial Trophy, a reasonably recent FL, and Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy, a current FLC due to close soon. It is a bit different, as the trophy is relatively recent, and as such has no defined history section, but a paragraph in the lead. All concerns will be addressed. Maxim_(talk) 22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a list coming of Hockey award lists?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's NHL awards. It's gonna be a featured topic, so I apologize for bringing a tenth such list here. Maxim_(talk) 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't anything be done about the whitespace on the page. ludahai 魯大海 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's the only free image I could find :(. I can't use fair-use. It sucks, I raised a similar comment on a similar FLC myself, but that what it is. Sorry again. Maxim_(talk) 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that image have to do with the whitespace?--Crzycheetah 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whitespace usually has images in it, and that's how the table's structured. I'm not sure how bad it is in monobook, but it's stands in simple. Maxim_(talk) 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whitespace is created by the infobox, I think. You really need the history section, it will make this article more comprehensive and get rid of the whitespace. You need more background info on this trophy than what you have in the lead.--Crzycheetah 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's doesn't have much history to it, as it was established about 20 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Do something about the white space and I will reconsider. ludahai 魯大海 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the history a bit, is it all right now? Maxim_(talk) 12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, but there is still some whitespace between the header and the table. ludahai 魯大海 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific with what you want me to do? Sorry for the delay, I was on WikiBreak. Maxim_(talk) 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]