Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2010

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:35, 25 May 2010 [1].

---

List of awards and nominations received by T.I.

Nominator(s): WikiGuy86 (talk) & Georgia Peachez (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Georgia Peachez has put a lot of work into the article which seems to now be up to FL standards as it closely resembles other lists of its kind which are currently considered FL class. All feedback is appreciated. WikiGuy86 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - on the first two or three paragraphs. Hopefully you'll make sure that Georgia Bird is added as a co-nom since he's made such a contribution to the list? Did you link T.I. at any point in the opening sentence or two? Caption in the infobox needs no period. I'd link Grammy Award. " He was discovered and signed when he was a teenager by record executive..." nope. He wasn't "discovered ... when he was a teenager", at least not in a encyclopedia. Please check the manual of style for use of apostrophes etc for 'songs' etc. "In 2003, he won his first award for 'Best Collaboration' for "Never Scared" at the Source Awards, in 2004, he has received 2 wins out of a total of 6 nominations, including 'Best Street Anthem' for "Rubberband Man" at the Vibe Awards, and in 2005, he received a total of 1 win of 13 nominations, including 'Best Street Anthem' for "U Don't Know Me" for the second year in a row at the Vibe awards." is one sentence and is grammatically out of sorts. It also needs to consider the MOS with "2 wins .."->"two wins ..." Make sure you follow WP:MOSNUM so that most of your instances of numbers below 10 should be written in text. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the input. I tried to follow your guidelines to fix some of the problems with the lead section, although I personally think it might run a little long myself. Hope this works better. WikiGuy86 (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Merge that opening one-liner into the main lead. Surely he won a collaboration award "with" not "for"? "..T.I.'s first award." perhaps start the sentence with "He won his first award..." "two wins out of six nominations" two wins from six noms "one win out of 13 total nominations" -> one award from 13 nominations. Don't like the repetition of the opening sentence for each para "In 200x, T.I. won..." No need for phrases like "a total of" "T.I. has won 2 awards" -> two awards. Check other numbers below 10. Say what BET is before just using the abbreviation. Tables should be in chronological order. That's enough to be going on with. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed all noted problems. Hopefully lead section is less repetitive and more fluid now. WikiGuy86 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Go back and check "2 awards->two awards" throughout. Check WP:MOSNUM for further details. And check "wins out of x noms" vs "wins from x noms" throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) Done. WikiGuy86 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose. References are not formated properly. Each reference should have title, author, publisher and date of publication and other fields if appropriate. Currently many of them are just bare web links. Ruslik_Zero 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know why I hadn't done that already. I noticed they weren't all done but thought I could get away with it. LOL, so much for that. Fixed. WikiGuy86 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Can you also change all spaced hyphens to spaced endashes (or unspaced mdashes if you prefer) in the reflist? Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, come on, that's too much! Just kidding. Done. WikiGuy86 (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

1. He won his first two Grammys at the 49th Annual Grammy Awards The year should be specified here.
2. In 2008, T.I. received 11 nominations and in 2009 he received 11 wins from 31 nominations How many wins did he received in 2008?

Ruslik_Zero 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. WikiGuy86 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't see the necessity to link artist in 'hip hop artist' in the first sentence, or is their a reason?
• "his second win in a row " --> "his second consecutive win"
• "In 2005, he received one award from 13 nominations, his second win in a row for Best Street Anthem, this time for the song "U Don't Know Me" at the Vibe Awards." -> "In 2005, he received one award from 13 nominations, that being his second consecutive Best Street Anthem award, this time for the song "U Don't Know Me"."
• "T.I. earned his first Grammy nomination for Best Rap Solo Performance for "U Don't Know Me" at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards. He received 15 wins from 37 nominations in 2006," - the latter sentence should be first, since it explains his overall nominations for the year in which the 48th Grammy's took place.
• The lead seems really biased towards the Grammys: yes they are one of the supreme awarding bodies, but they shouldn't be treated as if they outline his career. Ie. stating them first before the other ones.
• "second year straight" - needs rewording.
• "Currently" --> "Overall"
• Is there a way to collapse the infobox, mainly the awards?
• "T.I. has won two awards from his eight nominations." -- no need for "his" [for all others as well]
• Is there a way to state "T.I." as "self"? or something related? In addition, no need to link his name when this article is about him.
• "The Billboard Music Awards are sponsored by Billboard magazine and is held annually in December." link to the magazine
• "He won every rap award possible at the 2006 Billboard awards" (reword that sentence to <-- that)
• Link to About.com and MTV in the publishers.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – Several sections of awards and nominations lack references (MTV Japan, Spike Guys' Choice Awards, and the last two). Also, what makes the following reliable sources?

• About.com (many references). It is seldom considered a reliable source for anything. I see these are all related to awards. Why not cite the awards' websites directly, instead of using a third-party website of uncertain reliability?
• http://www.huliq.com/ (ref 4)
• http://www.blacktalentnews.com/ (ref 5)
• http://www.accessallareas.net.au/ (ref 24)
• http://hotmusicbeat.com/ (ref 26)
• http://www.tjsdjs.com/ (ref 27)
• http://backseatcuddler.com/ (ref 32)
• http://www.tvsquad.com/ (ref 33)

One things most of these have in common is that they are being used to cite awards and nominations. Again, why are official award websites not being used for these? If they don't have information on past awards, why not try to find the information on sites of better reliability? Sorry, but I don't believe this will be ready for FL until these sourcing issues are addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:35, 25 May 2010 [2].

---

List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, it recently went through PR and all refs are in order. I have another list nominated, but it seems all objections have been met as of now. Sandman888 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral per TRM's concerns. — KV5 • Talk • 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose from KV5 "The club has played in the Primera División of Spanish league since its start in 1928, winning La Liga on eight occasions" Why is "Primera Division" italicized? La Liga does not need to be linked twice that close together (I would remove the first link per WP:EGG). There's also a wording problem here, as something is missing in "the Primera División of Spanish league". Perhaps "the Spanish league" or "the Spanish football league"? Adressed above "In the history of La Liga," - extraneous, remove Rmved "one of only three clubs" stricken "The club is known for its youth policy of only bringing players of Basque origin through the academy, as well as only recruiting Basque players from other clubs." - the reference doesn't say that they are "known" for this policy, just that said policy exists. added ref "somewhat relaxed" - WP:AWW, unless this is a direct quote from somewhere more flexible "and players... have played" - surely this could be worded better? men have ... played "San Mamés stadium" - no link? wl "August 21 1913" - comma after "21 all dates in dd mm yyyy "Since 1958" - comma after Done La Liga linked again? Remove Done "On September 29 1940" - comma after "29" and "1940" You've mixed US and UK date format along with British spelling here (particularly "honour"). Should be consistent one or the other. "During his stay at Athletic" - comma after Done Copa Del Rey linked again, remove Done I think Copa del Rey is singular; is there a plural form, since this mentions that he won five? "Etxeberria agreed a deal" - agreed to Done You don't use the term "cap" in this article (at all) until it suddenly appears in a caption, so it definitely has to be linked, and should probably be explained somewhere. cap -> app All year ranges in the table (complete and incomplete) need en-dashes, not hyphens. theres a script somewhere Using bold as the sole indicator of a record is a violation of MOS:BOLD. it's not. Playername is marked. Footnote: "most appearances in la liga" - capitalize La Liga Done Footnote: "most goals in La Liga (256) of all La Liga players" - this redundancy is redundant. "Also has the record for most goals scored in all competitions (333) for Athletic" - is not a complete sentence. Reword. Reweord "Iribar is the Athletic player with most appearances." - clarify, should be with the most career appearances". Done "Joseba Etxeberria is the current Athletic player with most caps and goals." - suggest Joseba Etxeberria has the most career appearances and goals among active Athletic players". Used "Francisco Yeste playing for Athletic." - is not a complete sentence, remove period/full stop. Dobne This list relies heavily on official team sources, where a secondary source would be preferred. Is no other source available for the information in this list? No. This was also the case of the newly kept FL List of Manchester United players What makes "200 appearances" a non-arbitrary criterion for inclusion in this list? Just the fact that 200 is a round number is likely not enough. What makes any arbitrary number non-arbitrary? Some use 50 or 100. This uses 200. OK, then what makes 200 apppearances notable? My point is that, since the list is entitled "List of Athletic Bilbao players", then it should include them. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I may interject. Our own criteria ask for "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." So as long as the lead incorporates the inclusion criteria then I guess our criteria are met. Otherwise, we're back to the drawing board where Europeans say "our teams have thousands of players" and Americans say "tough, it says 'list of players' so it should be complete". We had a minor ding-dong about this a while ago... and I guess that's where the "inclusion criteria" came from. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) But still, what makes the criterion itself appropriate? Why not 100 appearances, why not those players who have scored a goal, why not 600 appearances? An argument could be made for any of those (though the last would be admittedly pointless). Our players lists have thousands of players too, so that's why I'm asking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I guess (and this is no doubt a cop-out) that consensus determines whether the criterion is appropriate. Typically for football (soccer) teams, 100 appearances, club record holders, internationals (who played for their country while at the club), a combination of these (as long as clearly stated) has generally had sufficient consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC) What I'm primarily considering here is WP:LSC, which states, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." I don't know if 200 appearances is considered objective or subjective in this case; it's a bright-line rule, but it's also arbitrary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. What I can say is that the BBC this season seemed pretty obsessed with 100, but that's just one source. Would you be looking for some independent sources which also use 100/200/whatever, as their cut-off point? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Captions: That would be a great thing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I've dug around a bit, it seems like there's little or no consensus across the clubs I've looked at online. Many will just list the top ten appearance makers, many club official websites don't list them at all, I have a couple of books which list every single player... as such I'm not sure we'll get far with this. I'll keep looking though... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Outdented) Here's a long discussion which ended in some sort of consensus that arbitrary cut-offs are okay; Sandman888 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_Arsenal_F.C._players/archive1 That list was closed as "no consensus", which means that's not true. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I've listed your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football (bottom), since it affects all football FL. I suggest we move the arbitrary discussion there. Sandman888 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I looked at the discussion; there have been few comments, and WP:LENGTH is not a reason to create an arbitrary cutoff for this list. However, as a WP:SPLIT, it does support renaming this article, and then creating a second list for players with less than 200 appearances. As for this FLC, if that discussion is going to continue, then this nomination should be placed on hold pending its outcome. If not, then this list should be renamed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC) So if I renamed to List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 caps that would be okay with you? Also, should all the other "List of X players" be taken to FLRC to comply with this? Sandman888 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I would prefer "appearances" to caps, but yes, that would satisfy me. I wouldn't make the change to any other lists yet or go to FLRC. The best course of action is to make the move here, see if this FLC passes, and then start a separate discussion at WT:FOOTY saying that consensus has determined that the inclusion criteria should be clear in the title. Then the project can go about moving the lists on its own timetable instead of flooding FLRC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I strongly disagree. I feel the FLC process would then hijack a discussion which essentially belongs in the wp:footy project. I've c&p comments from here to there, and I suggest we continue over there. Sandman888 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC) You can strongly disagree if you like, but the fact remains that if the discussion is going to continue, this nomination can't pass until it's complete one way or the other. So it would go on hold. If it's not going to continue, then the list needs to be renamed and it's business as usual. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I beg to differ. The current modus operandi is to allow for lists to be called "List of X players" with an arbitrary cap. I would thereby take it that any deviation from business-as-usual should be bear the burden of consensus, not the other way around. Meaning the nomination continues until consensus has settled on something that undermines the current precedent.Sandman888 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) "Iribar is the Athletic player with most appearances." - clarify, should be with the most career appearances". Done Still not corrected. Needs to be the most career appearances. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Normally I would just leave comments here, but due to the arbitrary nature of the cutoff of inclusion and the heavy reliance on primary sources, I am opposing this list for now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Does your concern still stand? Sandman888 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I have capped resolved comments, with the unresolved others still outlined above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Additional comment: "Also has the record for most goals scored in all competitions (333) for Athletic" in the footnotes is not a complete sentence. Add He to the beginning and remove "also" as it's unnecessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Done.

• While not a requirement, alt text would be appreciated.

• Since there was no input from the footy project or the stand-alone list talk-page on this point I've now moved the page to "List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances". I reckon it should be "List of Athletic Bilbao first-team players with at least 200 appearances in all official and regional competitions", but that is a bit long. So I reckon the remaining player-lists should be taken to FLRC after this. Sandman888 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it is necessary to nominate every such Featured List for de-listing (which is what FLRC is) just because you think the title needs changing. A move request for each one would be more than sufficient IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If you want something done on a project basis then you need a consensus to do so, listing a dozen or so FLs seems like a pointed way of trying to achieve some dialogue and some consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm mentioning it because that was the way done on the previous discussion of this, see List of Arsenal players, FLRC from 2008. There also have been some instances were all FL's suffering from the same flaw was taken to FLRC, though connected, to correct the flaw. Sandman888 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record: on Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. players consensus (finally) established that a qualification in title was unnecessary, so will move article back after FLC. Sandman888 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that discussion did not establish that qualification is unneeded on all lists; it established that it's not needed for the Arsenal list. A wider discussion needs to occur. This list should not be moved (especially not right after an FLC) until a wider discussion happens. — KV5 • Talk • 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

yes it did. The discussion was general and not limited to the Arsenal list. Any contributor to the discussion will tell you that. Sandman888 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't. That discussion ended with "no consensus" to delist the Arsenal list. At no point did it result in a consensus for anything else. Anyone who has read that FLRC will tell you that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about the page move, not the FLRC. Obviously. Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm unsure as to why you've pointedly moved a page just to get it through FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your continued accusations of wp:point is becoming tiresome. I'm politely asking you to stop accusing another editor of such behaviour and yell point when you are out of words. Sandman888 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's uncalled for. I'll ask you to retract your uncivil comment, please. As for the consensus (if there is one), it doesn't apply to all lists if the discussion was only about the Arsenal list, which the discussion on that article's talk page was. It does not apply generally across all lists. — KV5 • Talk • 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate on where and how I was being uncivil. Sandman888 (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment above, in which you imply that TRM, a director and respected editor, is "[yelling] point when you are out of words". Additionally, your comment below, where you dismiss his opposition as "rubbish". It's impolite and uncalled for. — KV5 • Talk • 11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are friends and protect each other, but it must surely give pause to some reflection that both of you, and only you two, seem to clash with another editor, in this very moment, on the same project page. Perhaps you have yourself not handled the situation the best way possible? Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you assume that we are "friends"? I respect the work of The Rambling Man; he's a valuable contributor to this project and does great work both as a content contributor and one of the FLC directors. That said, I've never met him, and I don't know him as a person, and I still consider your comments to be uncivil and ask again that you retract them. — KV5 • Talk • 12:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record: 1) I have been extremely patient in trying to establish some consensus in a wider community, both at WP:FOOTY and at WP:stand-alone lists. There was little if any replies on both sites. 2) I then proceeded to move the page because the discussions where completely dead (one of them became archived, the other dormant at best), and I don't care which solution/consensus is made as long as its consistent. 3) ChrisTheDude noted the possibility of a request-move which can be done for all lists simultaneously. I made such a request. TRM then joins the move request discussion and accuses me of wanting to delist all the articles just for fun. 4) The move request concludes with a consensus that lists should not have a qualifier. 5) I now see there is consensus and move request this article back. 6) TRM then says I'm gaming the system. That doesn't make any sense at all and seems to be a idontlikeyougoaway oppose. To KV5 and TRM: Feel free to report me to RfC if you do believe that you are right in this. I would like an outside view on this. Sandman888 (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, you yourself have admitted you've changed the name to assuage concerns of other editors over the inclusion criteria, and that you yourself will be moving the article back as soon as it passes FLC. That's why I'm in opposition to promoting this list. Whether I like you or not is irrelevant. I don't want the FLC process to be gamed. Of course, Dabomb is entirely entitled to ignore my oppose. I will no longer be participating in this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No that's not the case at all. I move it because there is no consensus. Consensus then arrives, and implies that the move was wrong. I then say it should be moved back. If I wanted to game I wouldn't state my intent of moving it back. Sandman888 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose needs another peer review. Bad grammar in the lead. POV writing, e.g. "The highlight of Athletic..." and "The star of that team was Pichichi..." Rmved References, some are dated in the 70s etc, why? There's no evidence that the info published on the official website was published then. I think you're mixing up dates of birth of players with publication dates. Rmved. Why would "Currently playing for Athletic" link to Athletic Bilbao? Place of current player rooster. En-dashes, not hyphens for year ranges. There's a script somewhere. "playing for a third division club is not considered against the one-man club" nope. Poor and arbitrary and personal decision on the definition. and clarified. Notes should be consistently formatted. Is ref 87 Spanish? If so, say so. Said Ref 93 needs an en-dash. dashed "All playerdata " not English, please rewrite. Re-written. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC) " and has currently (as of 2010)" don't have both. Done the team.[3][2] - correct order please. Done "and men with direct Basque ancestry or with no Basque ancestry but formed in Basque clubs" you've already said main with direct basque ancestry could play for the team. There's a difference between being born there and having Basque ancestry. " prolific goalscorer, Pichichi, who scored the first goal in the San Mamés Stadium on 21 August 1913, and a hat-trick in the 1915 final." sounds weak to me. He's introduced as a prolific goalscorer but yet you only tell me that he scored four goals in 3 years. added goalscoring stats. "During his stay at Athletic" - perhaps "time at Athletic"? time it is " matches played " maybe just "appearances for the club"? done "Table is initially sorted after appearances and include all Athletic players who have made 200 appearances or more." -> "Table is initially sorted in descending order of appearances and includes all Athletic players who have made 200 appearances or more." done "complete and up-to-date " what's the difference? template. Complete - exhaustive. Up-to-date - when it was last updated. The upright images should be the same width. done En-dashes for the career ranges. I ran the script. For your benefit, check out User:GregU/dashes.js. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC) thank you. Script noted.Sandman888 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Ref 6 appears to have an auto-generated title. Done Ref 7 has a publication date so should be included here. And an author... Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) "club from Bilbao" perhaps "based in Bilbao" would be more appropriate. Done "Primera División" is this an official league title? If not, why not just "top tier" or "highest division"? it's Spanish for first division, but commonly used in English press, e.g. by the beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/1873340.stm "and has as of 2010 played for 82 years" "and, as of 2010, has played..." Thanks! Why link Spanish top-tier and not Primera Division? KV5 suggested it would be less surprising. Biscay is overlinked. Rmved link I think perhaps you should use Pichichi's name that we use here on Wikipedia before you use his nickname. - Rafael "Pichichi" Moreno it is Stats could use an update since they're now six weeks out of date, assuming there are current players whose stats are on this page. E.g. Yeste seems to be on 352 games now. will update on May 16 (end of season) Do you mean Europa League as opposed to Europe League? Europa it is Why aren't the players without articles red-linked? Surely they meet WP:ATHLETE? red-link it is. What does "currently playing for Athletic" really mean? You have Iraola, Orbaiz, Ripodas showing no end date to their career at the club but yet they're not in italics. Mistake. But Ripodas' career ended in 2008 Notes should be individually indicated, i.e. don't have three N.B.'s NB1 , etc ok? "in La Liga (256) of all La Liga players" no need to repeat La Liga. I want to make sure the reader understand that it's not just among Athletic players. Why not add the {{Athletic Bilbao}} template here? Added The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) One club man means just that, one man club. Playing in the second or third division for other clubs means these players are not one club men. List of one-club men says "a football player who has played his entire professional career with only one club" - can you show me that all of the players you've said are one-club-men did not play, at any point, for another cub in their professional career? e.g. Orbaiz, were CA Osasuna really non-professional in the 1999-2000 season? Not sure. Per the footy project, it was an amateur league, but it's a bit vague definition they are using. I'm not very keen on keeping the indication, was just to point out the long service / loyalty of Athletic players. Can you show me where WP:FOOTBALL said that Osasuna were non-professional in the 99/00 season? it says that the league was not professional. Which included Osasuna. I can remove players who played in 2nd division clubs, from set of one club men, if its a problem. Sandman888 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry but the "league" could be not professional, but clubs within it could be. Please prove that Osasuna (and really, that's just one example) was an unprofessional club. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Removed.Sandman888 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Iribar image has incorrect information on it regarding sourcing. You removed a deletion template twice. I suggest you fix this. Done. " Statistics for current players are updated continuously throughout the year" this isn't true, you said you'd be updating the stats at the end of the season. And it conflicts with "This list is complete and up-to-date as of 15 March 2010." Sent. removed. updated. Sandman888 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) "Players are listed according to the date of their first-team debut for the club" not true. I'd say they're initially listed in descending appearance order. When sorting by goals, those on equal goals should have the player that played in fewer games sort higher - it's more significant if a player scores 21 goals in 217 games than if they score 21 in 356 games. Some cricket featured lists may help you with this. I don't agree. That wd imply he is somehow better, but a list shouldn't make such subjective judgments. Not at all subjective. When goals are equal, goals per game is important. It really isn't that difficult to fix this using the {{SortKey}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC) How about those with 0 goals? It seems odd that a goalkeeper shd rank higher than another because he has played fewer games. Sandman888 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Getting closer though, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Using {{SortKey}}, you can sort them any way you like if you particularly dislike my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC) All sorted that way except those with 0 goals, as they have the same goals per game ratio. Sandman888 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you! Sandman888 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose nominator appears to be gaming the system, renaming a page specifically to get it through FLC before stating he will move it after promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. That is utterly ridiculous. NB: " If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. " Sandman888 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid your statement is indisputable. You've changed the title to get this to pass FLC. And then you'll change it back when it's promoted. That's gaming. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments sorry, should have come back sooner, few more bits just passing... You're missing Uriarte Lezama's spelt wrong cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Embarrassing. Uriarte included, and Lezama now spelt with an a.Sandman888 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC) In the lead, I'm not sure where in the sources it says specifically they can sign players of Basque ancestry, as opposed to birth or formation. I've rewritten that part. Are Zarra's 6 Pichichi trophies a club record, in which case perhaps word it as "club record six" for clarity, or the overall La Liga record, in which case it needs a source? would it be clearer if it read "most in La Liga, of all La Liga players" ? Source added. tweaked wording myself, hope it's OK Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC) If I click on note NB2, it takes me to note NB3 in the Notes section sorry, NB2 shd have been deleted. solved. In lead and key, the as-of date is 15 March, but the table says 17 May. removed as of in key, and updated the stats in lead. The current players have been updated to 17 May, but they haven't been moved to their proper places in the table. For instance, Francisco Yeste now has 353 apps but is still between Urquiaga with 345 and Luis Etxeberria with 341 Missed him, moved now. Not just Yeste Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC) oops. all names in italics cleared. Sorry, I can't work out what note NB2 means clarified. Again, I may be being stupid, but I can't see where on the Marca Pichichi y Zamora page it gives any history, all I can see is this year's winners sorry, changed with RSSSF ref. Need to sort out the backlinks for the Pichichi/Zamora notes what do you mean? If I click on the Zamora note at Raimundo Lezama's row, I get to Note Zamora. If I click on the little up-arrow to get back, it takes me to Iribar's row. Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know how to solve such things. Can't you use multiple references to the same note? fixed Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Ref currently #93, which you've titled "Official Site: Zarra" actually goes to a club history page changed the title. Ref #96 titled "Official Site: Blasco" likewise goes to the first page of the club section on the club site. As far as I can tell, neither ref for Note Zamora verifies Blasco conceding 20 goals from 15 games I can't remember where I got that from, so removed goals conceded. Ref titles changed. All comments resolved. Will cap once nominator has had a chance to see replies. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC) thanks. cap away at will. Sandman888 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Support In my opinion, this list now satisfies the criteria. The nominator has actually done a lot of good work to progress the list to featured quality. A minor thing, but I was impressed by his updating the retrieval date in the references for those players whose stats were updated at the end of the season; many editors wouldn't have bothered. For what it's worth, I think it should stay at the name it was moved to, reflecting its scope, pending a wider discussion of naming issues relating to both complete and incomplete lists of this type. Though in the absence of any recent and explicit consensus to the contrary, I also think either name satisfies naming conventions. It's a pity the unpleasantness got out of hand. Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Link Real Madrid and Barcelona in the first paragraph.
• "netting a total 78 goals in 89 games." Either add "of" after "total", or remove "a total" as redundant language.
• "The current player with most appearances for the club...". Missing "the" after "with". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • all done Sandman888 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• • This is one of the hardest FLCs to judge that I've ever encountered. On the one hand, my comments have been addressed, and I have no more (if I did, I would have put them up already). However, I've become quite concerned about everything that has taken place above. There is a stability criterion in the FL criteria, and the name of a page would be covered if it is changed again and again. Let's just call my position a strong neutral. For the record, I would be more inclined to support if the nominator indicates that they won't move the list right after the FLC. With the earlier comments, it would be easy for an outsider to infer that the original move was done for the sake of this FLC, even if that wasn't the intent behind the move. Perhaps an RfC on titles of soccer player lists is the ultimate solution to this issue, even though that's beyond the scope of this FLC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall then start an RfC if that is the correct venue to achieve consensus. Which page should the RfC then be at? I will start a move req. if the RfC ends in a consensus on status quo. Sandman888 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Closing director's note There was a lot of uncertainty over the list's name. As an uninvolved editor I suggest that this issue be resolved once and for all in a centralized discussion; I think future FLCs for this list as well as other association football player lists would run more smoothly if football editors can agree on a permanent solution beforehand. In addition, I noticed there was a lot of extracurricular comments from a few editors; just a reminder that FLC is a content review process and any behavior-related disputes should be resolved on user talk pages and through the usual dispute resolution process. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:42, 19 May 2010 [3].

---

List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain

Nominator(s): ResMar 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, here it is, with Awk's blesssing none less (god knows how hard that is to get...), the second reitteration of this FLC. Be back in a few to check on the comments. ResMar 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "My blessing" comes because I largely rewrote it, resourced it, and fixed/clarified multiple issues with the dates. I support the factual accuracy of the content. Awickert (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  (And as an aside, I don't think that my "blessing" is that hard to get in general) Awickert (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It is indeed hard to get :) ResMar 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments. The article provides a lot of information but suffers from a few problems.

1. it first becomes an atoll and then an atoll island According to the linked article it first becomes an atoll island then (after possible rejuvenation) an atoll.

   Fixed. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2. The lead mentions that the chain is divided into three sub-chains. Please, provide approximate ages for each sub-chain and specify geological periods when they formed.
3. To which state do Northwestern Hawaiian Islands belong? Hawaii? The article should mention this.

   They're all US terrories of different sorts I believe, not belonging to the state. It's mentioned that it's a continuous protected area, I've added territory to the line on the protected area, or do you want a seperate line/source? ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   Northwestern_Hawaiian_Islands article says that they are administrated by the State of Hawaii. Ruslik_Zero 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   You could have said that earlier :) ResMar 23:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

4. Emperor Seamounts links to a different section of the same article. I think it should link to Hawaiian_–_Emperor_seamount_chain.

   Changed the link. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

5. The lead mentions 2003 research that the bent was formed when the hotspot stopped moving in the Paleogene. I think a better review of literature is needed here as there are other papers that claim otherwise. (See, for instance, ref 6 in Hawaiian_–_Emperor_seamount_chain.) As currently written the article creates an impression that the issue was settled after 2003.

   I don't quite see what you mean. The bend is not mentioned until the last paragraph, where it states scientists originally thought a but a study suggested b. The source doesn't say that the hotspot stopped moving but that it changed direction...uh can you point me to some of this newer "research"? Or should I add that the issue is still open to argument...? ResMar 02:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   This is 2009 work and it describes the theoretical mechanic by which the hotspot moves. ResMar 02:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   The source from 2003 says the hotspot was moving from 81 to 47 million years ago, then suddenly stopped moving at 47 million years. This source says that the hotspot did not move but the Pacific Plate changed direction of its motion. This issue is not settled. Ruslik_Zero 10:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

6. I am interested why the seamounts are named after Japanese Emperors? Is it possible to provide a brief explanation?

   A gap in the information most certainly. Nothing said in the sources, but I get a good feeling that it's an ad hoc decision. You got a bunch of seamounts near Japan - why not name them after Japanese Emperors? Also if you edit the article you'll notice I've left a hidden note after it - "hence the name Emperor seamounts." As such adding this to the sentance would change it from an observation to a statement, requiring refs I don't have. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think that notes should be separated from references. So, the article should have separates Notes and References sections. Ruslik_Zero 15:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sandman888 (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I sincerely dislike the layout of the age column. I'd prefer a table key + symbols for the different type of date estimations, leaving only an age and range ("59.6±0.6 ") in the column, plus a symbol indicating which estimation method is used.

That seems exceedingly complex... ResMar 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Northwestern Hawaiian islands" age doesn't sort properly.

Dammit didn't I spend forever grappling with that ><. ResMar 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Emperor seamounts" age doesn't sort properly.
• "Hawaiian archipelago" I don't really understand most of the notation used in the age column. What does "18th Century–approx. 2 million years ago" mean?
• ref 43 has a dot too many..

Highly observative of you :D ResMar 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• ref 3 doesnt have a reference.
• ref 46 & 47 shd have a accessdate for future use with waybackmachine if necessary.

Ay, I totally forgot about this o.O'. Right I'll get to it today. Had a rough testing week this week... ResMar 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:23, 11 May 2010 [4].

---

1973 NBA Draft

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC), User:Martin tamb

We are nominating this for featured list because it's up to FL standard.—Chris!_c/t 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment To begin with I would both make it clear that the underclassmen are rare (lead the sentence in a way like "While most of those drafted were upperclassmen...", and a footnote (or another sentence) explaining the "hardship" rule. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've rephrased and added more information on the eligibility for the draft. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "The Philadelphia 76ers were awarded an extra first-round draft pick as a compensation when the Seattle SuperSonics signed John Brisker." I think "a" should be removed from here. Tense conflict here: "A player who had played college basketball for four years were eligible for selection." "which earned them the rights to start earning their living by starting their professional career earlier." Should "rights" be singular instead? And should "career" be plural? Took a second look at this and it still bothers me. I think that's because it has repetition of "earned" and "earning". Try changing one of them and the whole sentence will look better. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I changed the first "earned" into "granted". — Martin tamb (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "22nd pick George McGinnis...". "Brewer, Washington and E. C. Coleman are also the only players who have been selected to the All-Defensive Team." Remove "also"; it's usually an unneeded word, and in Coleman's case it has no relevance at all. More later. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC) All fixed by User:Martin tamb—Chris!c/t 02:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Took a look at the rest and found some serious prose issues in the one paragraph that was left. I'm concerned, to say the least. "McGinnis have already played in the American Basketball Association prior to the draft." "have" → "has". "He had one ABA Most Valuable Players Award". "Players" should be singular. "He spent three seasons in the NBA before finally joined the NBA...". "joined" → "joining". "He have been selected...". Another sentence starting with a numeral: "76th pick M. L. Carr...". "before he became the Celtics' head coach for two seasons in the 1990s. and Carr who coached the Celtics for two seasons." Serious copy-editing needed here. Commas needed after the three coaches in the last sentence. In addition, the "coached X teams, most recently with Y" structures could use some work. I eliminated the problem by simplifying.—Chris!c/t 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Also from that sentence: "Four other players drafted also went on to have a coaching career". So why are only three listed?

• What makes http://www.thedraftreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=854&Itemid=103 a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be removed. There are enough refs to support the list.—Chris!_c/t 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that it is not considered a reliable source, but every time I expanded the older draft articles, I always used this website together with NBA.com, APBR and basketball-reference. This website has some information that are not found in the other three main references, but I always support their info with another external references (see ref #7 and #17 which support the info from thedraftreview about 22nd and 31st pick). I know it shouldn't be listed as a reference but I just want to give the website credits for their information. However, if it should be removed, then I wouldn't oppose the removal. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed it. So, hopefully everyone is satisfied.—Chris!_c/t 01:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: First thing I noticed was that there is nothing about the draft's legacy. Was it considered a good or a bad one? (Doesn't look like it was good from what I could see but maybe there's something written) Doesn't have to be much but I'm sure there's a couple sentences written somewhere. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything can be added. This year seems to be an average draft.—Chris!_c/t 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. What I would like to see added though is a note of the NBA Draft's delay to the 24th as a result of the John Brisker conflict.[5] Looks like it happened more than once that year so perhaps only the delay itself needs a mention rather than each time it happened. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added a footnote.—Chris!_c/t 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. I found no serious problems with this list. Ruslik_Zero 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:23, 11 May 2010 [6].

---

FIP World Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): --WillC 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I worked on it about a year ago. Decided to try and raise it to FL status since it is long enough now. I completely re-did the article and I'm still looking for extra refs to add. I'm apart of the wikicup. Also, if anyone would like a list reviewed, just bring it up here or on my talk page and I'll find time to review it.--WillC 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This was once nominated before, but when it was in list form as List of FIP World Heavyweight Champions. It is long enough now that the problems from it are no longer problems. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIP World Heavyweight Champions/archive1 for more info.--WillC 15:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Should be a hyphen in "ROH promoted", I believe.
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• "A new champion is to be determined on April 17, 2010 at FIP's Southern Stampede event." It's now April 19. Surely an update of some kind is required?
  • Yeah, I just recently updated the article. FIP had yet to update their site and no site has reviewed the event yet since it hasn't been released on DVD at this time. New champion has been added.--WillC 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Footnote 1: Remove apostrophe from second "wrestler's". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Done--WillC 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Emergence: Part Two - worth putting this in quotes I think because the sentence reads a bit strangely. Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "then–champion" hyphen, not en-dash. Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Again Fifth Year Festival: Liverpool could use quotes. Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "It has changed hands..." reiterate "The title has..." because you've talked about something different in the meantime. Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "in the finals of a two-night tournament on September 25, 2004 " two nights but one date? Fixed--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "has the least amount of total days" - "fewest total days" Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) " Masaaki Mochizuki's only reign, Moxley's only reign, and Richards's second reign are tied for the least successful defenses, with zero." not good either. Re-worded slightly.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "Mochizuki and Moxley have the least combined defenses of all reigns, with zero." ditto. Perhaps "Neither Mochizuki nor Moxley have successfully defended their titles" or similar. Re-worded slightly.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "He defeated Roderick Strong .." why suddenly start repeating his first name? To idenify this as the same Strong as eariler.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "Wrestlers" col heading should be just "Wrestler" Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I would expect the vacated row to sort by # in chronological order i.e. between 11 and 12. Ref col should be Ref(s). Done--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "With 26 successful defenses, Strong's first reign had the most during a single reign" not good at all. repeat of reign, and "had the most" what? I'm blank on what to change it too. Reads fine to me as is. Any ideas?--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) How about "Strong made 26 successful defences during his first reign, the most in a single reign"? Still repetitive but clears up my issue with the ambiguity of what "the most" means. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Done--WillC 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) What makes solie.org a WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Gets its information from wrestling corporations and books. Been regraded as reliable in other FLs plus GAs and FAs.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Can you show me where it says this? I'm sure it is used in other FAs, GAs etc, but I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult but I can't easily see how it meets WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Their main page explains people and promotions that it gets its information from plus talks about the wrestling titles book that it also gets its information from.--WillC 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Being a professional wrestling championship, the title is won as a result of a predetermined outcome of a wrestling match. " do you have a ref for this?
  • Pretty much common sense in wrestling, but placed in since it is significant to the title. I could find a ref if needed, but it has never really been a problem before with any other article with explanations of this sort.--WillC 06:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Common sense to you I agree. It's not like any other "professional ... championship" though, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Well it is like all other pro wrestling titles, but sports titles that would be a no. I'll start looking for a reference. Though the majority seem to know pro wrestling is scripted, so I would think it would be obvious.--WillC 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:23, 11 May 2010 [7].

---

List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list so I could use this page as a base for other seasons of the anime. As for the web cite archives, they are currently down since they're changing servers. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Transcluded Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from haha169 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Support Episode lists generally have Production and Reception sections. Check out this list for FL episode/season lists for which to use as templates. I usually find that helpful. Use {{infobox television season}}. There should be a bold phrase somewhere in the lead that reiterates the main point of the list. This isn't a requirement for FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Are you sure? WP:FL?'s #2 links to WP:LEAD, and that guideline has the bold policy. --haha169 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I'm quite sure; check recent FLs. When the the title is descriptive a verbatim, bolded repetition of the title is not necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Okay then. This seems to be a relatively recent development then. Sorry for the confusion. --haha169 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC) This is something that I tend to have problems with, although it hasn't caused some lists to fail the FL process. But I think that some of the episode descriptions may be too descriptive and on the wordy side of things.--haha169 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support --haha169 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment None of those are requirements for an anime episode list as seen here List of Bleach episodes (season 10). DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is curious. I'm not much of an anime fan and haven't looked at those lists. But cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Avatar all have such information on them, as do sitcoms and other television shows. But since it seems that anime shows don't, I'll strike that out. I have also crossed out the infobox note, since it seems that anime lists don't use that either. I would have thought that all episode lists would be uniform. In any case, the rest of the list seems fine so I'm giving my support.--haha169 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Sources, my word, just one or two third-party sources in English out of 50. This is a problem as it's impossible for 99.9% of us to verify the information in this list.

The series is only in Japanese and thus has only Japanese sources which are the most reliable. This has not impacted whether an anime could be featured list or not. Sides, the Japanese sources mostly consists of episode number, kanji titles, and dates. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FL standards change, so no need to refer to other FLs. How do I verify the synopses? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• And I'm uncertain as to how you can use Wikipedia for references 3 to 6 inclusive."

From the anime and manga project group, I learned that the episodes themselves can be used to source the theme music. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can use Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia, regardless of what the project group says. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I could unlink the links to the episodes,. I'm trying to show that the source is first party from the episode themselves. Other Featured anime lists also follow that. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it really. Whether other lists use this approach or not is not particularly relevant here. What's wrong with a wikilink? Why have a reference that I have to scroll down to find which then takes me back up to the list to an episode? And I find it odd that those references have Detective Conan as the work, some directors mentioned, and yet still link to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The cite episode templates have the directors, the reference have Detective Conan as the work since the English adapation, Case Closed, follow a different numbering than its original counterpart, Detective Conan, and I wanted to avoid original research. I could change it to Case Closed if prefered. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Half the lead talks about theme music. I'd rather know about the series, the characters, the stories etc.
• "Notes and References" should be "Notes and references".

Fixed. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I said before as I can verify the content of the list, I don't really think there's much point in me reviewing the episode synopses because they could be inaccurate.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• • This essentially means the large majority of WP:FLs from WP:ANIME should be delisted due to an almost complete lack of of English sources and a general lack of Japanese online sources that come from reliable sources. Disregarding my own personal beliefs in this, am I correct in assuming this? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well that's for the community to decide. If a list has virtually no English sources, I'd like to know how I can verify its contents. A reasonable request, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Get Japanese editors to verify them for you? I realize this is a tad unlikely, but Japanese sources shouldn't outright rejected. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not rejecting anything, outright or not, I'm simply stating that this is English Wikipedia, and to have featured material which is utterly unverifiable to English readers seems a little strange. Also, see WP:RSUE... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Only logical. I'll have to reconsider this myself. Cheers, ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Well the information is unavailable in English. You could go ahead and oppose if you like, I won't be able to fix it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Well please note that I'm not the consensus, just a single person suggesting that a list almost entirely referenced in a foreign language doesn't meet our guidelines. If others are happy and support then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:19, 10 May 2010 [8].

---

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. It has grown greatly since several years ago and I believe that it now matches the WP:FL? criteria for featured list. I have used List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, another FL, as the main template for this list because there is very little precedent for character-related featured lists.

This list is well cited. It has an engaging lead and is written in prose. All images are tagged with rationales. Let's begin the nitpicking. --haha169 (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Some of the sites seem sort of unreliable. The one linking to avatarthelastairbender.org seems quite suspicious to me. Done I have removed that ref. There was another supporting ref for that setence. By the way, I went through the rest of the links and didn't find anything that seemed suspicious to me.--haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Some of the refs might benefit from episode link, such as adding |episodelink=Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)#ep1 to the cite episode template. I was not aware that you could link directly to an object in a list. I thought it was only possible to go to subsections. Could you possible provide an example? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC) List_of_Case_Closed_episodes_(season_14)#ep425, this links to season 14 episode 425. I set up a link to the first episode of Avatar in my example. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Done --haha169 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC) The reference dates of retrieval should be in month, day, year. I will do that so each reference will be uniform. But I was not aware that it had to be m,d,y. Some FAs definitely use y,m,d. --haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Done --haha169 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC) From my experience, characters mentioned in a characters section should be interlinked. Interlinked? How so? --haha169 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I mean section linked like in the Aang section, you can link to Katare by going [[#Katara|Katara]].DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I think I know what you mean. You want me to link the characters. However, I thought it was common practice to not re-link things that have already appeared previously in the article? Also, each character has its own article so section linking isn't necessary. --haha169 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC) All I have for now. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This reviewer doesn't seem to be returning to address my updates and has not responded to my request to reconsider ([9]) within 48 hours as asked on the top of the FLC page even though his contributions show that he is still active elsewhere on Wikipedia. --haha169 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 03:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments 2 Minor things. In the conception section, 85 would look better as eighty-five. Done --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) It would be nice if you can find a more reiable site than Internet Movie Database (reference 20). IMDB is one of the most reliable sites that we use on Wikipedia. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Fixed Sorry; I got this confused with something else. --haha169 (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I think there's too many un-needed quotation marks such as in Katara's section; "Water Whip" and "Blood bend" It would reduce in-universe if the abilities were explained instead of having names attached to them. Done --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Earthbending links back to the Avatar series but that doesn't help. Done; linked all other similar bending terms to Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Elements. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) For Zuko, "anti-hero and tragic hero and", too many ands, replace the midddle one with a comma. Done--haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Azula does not need quotations on friends. Done --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The recurring character sections may have un-needed characters and should be organized by appearance/impact on the plot instead of alphabetized. I personally feel that since most of hte recurring characters have similar impacts on the series, alphabetical order is the best organizational form. I do agree that two of the characters seems unneeded, and have removed them. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Casting controversy should begin by explaining its the cast for the live action film. Cast listed. There really isn't much to "explain" at the moment. --haha169 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I feel that overall it needs a copy-edit to be more stoic, just me though. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I did a major copyedit to the recurring character section, where I thought it was most needed. --haha169 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. :) --haha169 (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Support

Not much left to say, references look good and a few more copy edits to make it more stoic would make me support it strongly. Looking at List of Naruto characters might help you there and may provide more suggestions. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments We don't start lists with "This is a list..." any more. Check out some of the recently promoted lists for examples of what we do do... Done, I checked out the recently promoted Olympics medals list. Am I right to assume that it is similar to how articles begin, a brief summary of the topic?--haha169 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "The series deals with a war that was started by the Fire Nation as an attempt to conquer the world, due to the absence of the Avatar, who alone holds the power to counter Fire Nation aggression and balance it with the other three countries, the Air Nomads, Earth Kingdom, and the Water Tribes, to create peace." this is a single sentence, and whoa, it needs some work. I'd suggest splitting it up a bit. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) If you wish to link antagonist, do it on the first instance. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "included a flying bison. His partner, Michael Dante DiMartino" whose partner? The flying bison? Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "bending" just links to the main Avatar article. Done - the article seems to have been deleted. --haha169 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I think it's worth a brief note to actually say what "bending" is in this context. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Is it "Jing" or "jing"? By itself, it is Jing but if it is mentioned following an adjective (ie. neutral) then it is lower-case. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "portrayed by Noah Ringer in" ref? All the live action portrayals need refs... Done Refs added. --haha169 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "group;[32] " comma, not semi-colon. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "15 year old" hyphenate. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Do we really need to link warrior or leader? Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Also think linking blind is over the top. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "short power " what is this? Done, added a definition in parenthesis. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "direct, brutally frank" aren't these synonymous? Done. Yes, I removed the latter. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "firebenders.. [27] " one too many periods, and there should be no space before the ref. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "is voiced by Mako for two seasons until his death" whose death? it reads unclearly. Done Until Mako's, but I've just removed "until his death" for simplicity's sake. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) The recurring characters have the actors named. Are these the actors in the original series or the live action film or both or what? Done, I made it more clear as to who played in which version of the franchise. --haha169 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "of Ba Sing Se - eventually" should be a comma. or a spaced en-dash. Certainly not a spaced hyphen. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "voices against the casting. When asked about casting a white cast to portray" cast x3 reads repetitively. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "and Shyamalan go out of their way to " suddenly Shyamalan is introduced. What does he have to do with anything? Done His name was added to the lead. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 71 needs en-dashes not spaced hyphens. Check others (e.g. 68) Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 33 has pp. despite only referring to a single page. Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Los Angeles Times has no "The". Done --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) You have a completely empty "External links" section. Removed --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The cite template requires the original dead link when providing an archived link. That particular dead link has an archived equivalent. --haha169 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Syfy seems to be removing its articles lately for some reason, and I confused this with another Syfy article which I had found an archive of. I have removed that cite since there was no archive on Wayback Machine and it wasn't seemingly necessary. --haha169 (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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