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 The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn. Scorpion042217:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am self-nominating this article because I think it is exhaustive, good-looking, well-referenced, and contains informative explanatory paragraphs. The previous version of the article contained a list that was clustered and completely unreadable. I had been working on a completely new version of the article on my sandbox for quite a while, and copied my work onto the original article yesterday. I really checked everything, from the countries' flags to the spelling of the films' original titles. I also wrote paragraphs about the rules governing the award and the eligibility of foreign language films in other categories, since several people had inquired about this subject on the article's talk page. I tried to be as exhaustive as possible and provided the article with appropriate references and citations so that people who read it can find in it almost everything that really needs to be known about this award. BomBom12:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Scorpion0422
Oppose I'm not going to lie, I REALLY don't like the way those tables are formatted, but my biggest problems are:
The colour for the winners Y
All of the titles are in bold font, so it makes it hard for colour blind folks to distinguish the winners from the non-winners Y
Is including the IMDB links really necessary? N
The text before the charts needs a LOT of work. N
There are too many brackets Y
It's hard to understand in some places (In order to qualify for the Foreign Language Film Academy Award, a film need not have been released in the United States.) N
"Oscar®" <- That's unnecessary. Y
Some stuff needs citations and clarification: "Foreign Film Oscar" - who refers to it as that? Is there a citation? Y
The prose is written quite informally in some places. N
In the "Awards in Other Categories for Foreign Language Films" section, the award categories do not need to be written in all capitals. Y -- Scorpion042217:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By reading you, one gets the impression that this article is terrible when in fact it is not. Of course, criticisms and objections are always welcome, but you could have at least mentioned the huge efforts that were made in improving the article's quality. Anyway, I have addressed all of your objections :
The colour for the winnersY I agree that the previous gold background was visually agressive. I replaced it with a buff one. If you are still not satisfied with the present background, then please choose a precise colour here so that I can use it in the tables.
All of the titles are in bold font, so it makes it hard for colour blind folks to distinguish the winners from the non-winnersY I kept only the winning films in bold.
Is including the IMDB links really necessary?N YES, it is. Having IMDb links in the Academy Award for Best Picture list, for instance, would be useless since the overwhelming majority of the films listed there have their own Wikipedia entries. However, most of the films listed here are little-known foreign films that do not have Wikipedia articles of their own, so including the IMDb links is necessary. Of course, if someone volunteered to create IMDb-linked stubs for all those foreign language films, then the IMDb column could be removed as it would be purposeless (if I have enough time, I will try to create all those stubs). I did remove the IMDb links from the "Awards in Other Categories for Foreign Language Films" list, since all of the films listed there have their own Wikipedia entries.
The text before the charts needs a LOT of work.N The text needed small rearrangements, not a "LOT of work". Cop 663 divided the text into 4 subsections. It is now better-looking and much more coherent. Moreover, I would like to point your attention to the fact that some of Wikipedia's current featured lists such as the one about the Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture do not contain any explanatory section whatsoever and are even incomplete when it comes to nominations. Therefore, the fact that the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film article is exhaustive and contains well-referenced explanatory paragraphs is already a very good thing that you could have mentioned.
Just because other similar lists don't have as much text, it does not mean that an article with lots of text is an automatic pass. It's better than it was before, but it still could use a copyedit. -- Scorpion042220:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many bracketsY I removed most of the content that was written between brackets and reinserted it in the form of regular sentences.
It's hard to understand in some places (In order to qualify for the Foreign Language Film Academy Award, a film need not have been released in the United States.)N This sentence is not only grammatically correct and perfectly intelligible, but it is also written using the exact formulation employed by the Academy itself in its official rules.[1]
"Oscar®" <- That's unnecessary.Y Removed it. Honestly, that was a really minuscule detail. The sentence in which this registered sign figured is directly quoted from the Official Academy Awards Rules, which do include the registered sign next to the word "Oscar".
Some stuff needs citations and clarification: "Foreign Film Oscar" - who refers to it as that? Is there a citation?Y I included citations for that particular statement ; I hadn't done it previously since it seemed obvious to me that people commonly refer to the award as the "Foreign Film Oscar". However, the rest of the article is perfectly clear to me and fully referenced, so unless you explicitly say which "stuff needs citations and clarification", I will have to ignore your objection.
The prose is written quite informally in some places.N I tried to rephrase some sentences to address your objection. However, I find most of the text to be well written, so unless you give concrete examples of the "informality" of the prose, I cannot help but leave the article as it is currently.
I don't need to provide every single example, but one is the use of the word "Interestingly", which makes it seem more like an essay than a work in an encyclopedia. -- Scorpion042220:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Awards in Other Categories for Foreign Language Films" section, the award categories do not need to be written in all capitals.Y I agree. I rewrote the names of the categories using lowercase letters. BomBom (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of your objections, including the most recent ones, have now been addressed :
Is including the IMDB links really necessary? [...] They should be properly formatted references then.Y Having more than 250 IMDb links in the "References" section would have been truly terrible. I therefore removed all the IMDb links after having created stubs for all the films that did not already have a separate Wikipedia article. All the films listed here now have their own entry.
The text before the charts needs a LOT of work. [...] Just because other similar lists don't have as much text, it does not mean that an article with lots of text is an automatic pass. It's better than it was before, but it still could use a copyedit.Y Everything has been checked and adjusted : the punctuation, the grammar, the spelling, the references, the register... Therefore, unless you point to a specific flaw and clearly explain what needs to be improved, I will consider your objection to be baseless.
It's hard to understand in some places (In order to qualify for the Foreign Language Film Academy Award, a film need not have been released in the United States.) [...] Well, it's a copyvio then, unless you add quotations and a citation.Y I have reworded this sentence : Unlike other Academy Awards, the Foreign Language Film Award does not require films to be released in the United States in order to be eligible for competition. I have also rephrased a couple of other sentences. I honestly believe that the article is now perfectly intelligible.
The prose is written quite informally in some places. [...] I don't need to provide every single example, but one is the use of the word "Interestingly", which makes it seem more like an essay than a work in an encyclopedia.Y I have rephrased all the sentences that started with words like "interestingly" or "it is interesting to note that". I have also removed statements such as "this resulted in the emergence of somewhat odd situations". I have read the text several times now, and I really find it well-written. If you do not share the same opinion, then please rewrite the sections you dislike or give concrete examples of what you consider to be informal prose so that I can improve the writing style of the article.
Proposal to split the article :N I disagree, for the following reasons. Firstly, the previous version of the article did not include any kind of explanatory paragraph whatsoever. Before self-nominating the article for Featured List status, I spent a lot of time writing the Rules section in order to conform the article to the Featured list criteria, which stipulate that a list must be comprehensive and not omit any major component of the subject. Therefore, I find it really ironic that a section that was initially written with the intention of reinforcing the article's FL candidacy is now being used as an argument to oppose this candidacy. Secondly, all the other film awards articles in Wikipedia include both the description of the award and the list of winners/nominees in the same page. Therefore, I do not see why the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film should be an exception. Having separate articles for the description of the post of President of the United States and for the List of Presidents of the United States is totally justified since there are a LOT of things to say about the post itself, and a LOT of things to include in the list. However, in the case of the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award, is it really worth it to have a separate article just to describe the rules governing the Award ? The Rules section is really not excessively long and takes just 6 minutes to be read. Thirdly, some of the current featured lists on Wikipedia such as the List of Portuguese monarchs contain a similar amount of text. The only difference is that the textual material there is not written as a single block but is scattered throughout the article, so people just have the impression that it is less overwhelming. Nevertheless, despite my opposition to your proposal, I am ready to split the article if it is the only way to make you and Circeus withdraw your objection to the article's FL candidacy (yes, I am just trying to get people withdraw their objection, I've lost all hope that someone might actually support this article's candidacy one day).
Proposal to split the Awards in other categories for foreign language films section:Y I had initially created this section because several people had asked on the article's discussion page whether foreign language films were eligible for other Academy Awards. However, I agree with you that it does not deal directly with the subject of the article, and that including it gives the impression that the article "is trying to be too many things at once". Therefore, I have removed this section entirely and reinserted it in a newly created article entitled List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films.
Proposal to make the list sortable: I think that's a good idea. However, turning such complex tables into a single sortable one is a delicate process that might take some time. I am currently working on such a table on my sandbox, and will hopefully insert it in the article once it is finished. BomBom (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: To the break out suggestion and your replies:
First, let me say that the sheer amount of work you've put into this list is staggering. I applaud your efforts wholeheartedly and think you've done a wonderful job.
Rules section - I agree that, in the interest of comprehensiveness, a rules section is useful and perhaps necessary. However, in a quick look at the other movie FLs, if a rules section is included, it's usually a couple sentences. Now, this one is a bit different because the Foreign Language Film is different from most of the other Oscars, but I still think 13 paragraphs in four different sections, a total of ~11.5 kBytes is either a) overkill or b) deserving of its own article - and one that will probably be of at least "B" quality without much effort at all.
I didn't !vote for List of Portuguese monarchs, but the amount of text is just overwhelming - sorry. That's my biggest beef with it. Again, though, the text is great - I just don't think it belongs in the list, but could be a proper article on its own.
Oppose I have to agree with SatyrN that the "List of winners and nominees" (and possibly a copy of the tallies) would be better split as a separate, full blown list given the heer amount of non-list material. Otherwise the article is really good, although there are some sections with extra whitespace at the end, links in the headers that should be removed, and the lead could be significantly lengthened. Possibly "Title Under Which Film Was Nominated" could be shortened to something like "Nominated as"? Circeus (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd like to really thank you for being the first user to have taken the time to write something positive about the article. Other users simply throw objections without even having the courtesy to insert the slightest positive comment (this is really important, especially when one has spent several weeks trying to improve an article). Anyway, as far as your objections are concerned, I believe that they have all been addressed :
Proposal to split the article :N Please see my reply to SatyrTN.
The extra whitespace at the end:Y All the extra whitespace in the article has been removed
The links in the headers:Y All the links in the headers have been removed.
Comment I was thinking about inserting a world map that shows countries that have been nominated for and/or won the Award. However, I'd like to think what other users think of this proposal before creating such a map, because I really don't want to spend my time working on something that people will eventually dislike, or even use as an argument to oppose the article's FL candidacy (just like what happened with the Rules section). BomBom (talk) 20:08, 29 November 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, 2 support, 2 oppose. No consensus to promote, no active discussion. Fail. Scorpion042201:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose: I'm confused about the dates. The right-hand column doesn't have a title, but one supposes it's the "Original air date" referred to in the other column heading. And then each episode title has a date next to it, with no explanation of what those are. Plus, the wikilinks (autoformatting) around the second dates I mentioned are unnecessary, since they aren't full dates and don't "deepen readers' understanding of a topic". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right hand column is airdates, note the /. This is the same format used by FL List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes. The titles and airdates header are not seperated into seperate columns as that would cause an additional, redundant sortlist (at least this is my guess to the logic). Each episode has a date next to it as they are actual parts of the titles. It represents the in-universe time that the episode takes place.--SeizureDog04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. So I see the point of the two dates - thanks for the explanation. I'm sure that's spelled out in the article about the series, but perhaps the lede could be more explicit? Also, since wikilinks are "used when they add something to the article", wikilinking the date in the title doesn't make much sense. Nor any wikilinking of part of a title (as in "Indian" in the episode named "June 17: Another Indian"). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The special lack any sort of plot summary and looks like a botched merge. Something about how it integrate in the series chronology would be a good idea.
class="unsortable" should be applied were relevant.
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, 3 support, 3 oppose. No conensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion042217:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating after it was closed today with no unaddressed comments. Last time I checked, we're supposed to have some sort of consensus before failing an article. Let's try this again.
Comment I am not sure the original six should have a selective list and the other franchises should have All-time rosters. Let's open discussion on the matter. I understand your point in the prior FLC. Let's get some more opinions. You may want to solicit opinions from all the people who have commented on all the Hockey awards that have been nominated in the last 10 weeks that are now WP:FLs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my arguement that listing only notable players is an acceptable option here. While its true that no other ice hockey player list has a cut-off for games played, all of the current featured lists come from teams that were relocated relatively recently. Including only notable players is consistent with many of the football-related featured lists (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). Because the blackhaws have maintained rosters since the 1920s, I see this as the most valid option. Teemu0814:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed someone got rid of all the jersey numbers and the pictures posted tend to be non-Blackhawk uniform pictures. Maybe a column can be added to put the player's jersey number back on the list and get a few more Blackhawk photos. I'm sure there's got to be a few more that can be used on the page instead of using a Detroit photo of Hasek and a Nashville photo of Sullivan, or even a Calgary photograph of Amonte.--Ered706:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so they strongly promote using free images of people when available. Unfortunately (and to my surprise), to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any freely available pictures of Blackhawk players available on the internet (if you have some, please upload them :) ). I got rid of the jersey numbers because the page needed a complete overhaul when I began working on it. Its an interesting proposition, because I've never seen a featured list that includes jersey numbers, but it would be a nice addition. Is there an official site that lists all of the jersey numbers? Teemu08 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general we don't usually put jersey numbers in articles because except for a few exceptions they change a fair bit so it becomes a bit of a mess to try and be acurate with jersey numbers. --Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jersey numbers are readily available in team media guides usually (e.g. the Hawk guide published annually has them included for every player that has ever worn a Hawk uniform). I know there are also books that have catalogues of old player uniform numbers (some of the 75th anniversary books that came out for the original six teams have this information). Media guides are probably the best resource since they are updated each season. As for accuracy, I think the table format the page has now is more useful for listing the numbers. In regards to the photographs, unfortunately, that seems to be a big limitation with a lot of the hockey player pages lacking at least 1 photograph.--Ered7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all teams however, are that acurate with past numbers. And I would wager a bet one game players aren't listed in that Hawks list. I am a big fan on these types of lists to have them the same across all teams. So I don't like having those sorts of things on one team and not on others. --Djsasso (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to the list, the team hasn't had a goalie since 2003 and didn't have any between 1946 and 1953. That's a pretty big gap. I know there is a limit of 150 games, but why can't you at least include the current lineup? And why are Hasek and Kane there? Hasek only played 25 games with them and Kane hasn't even made it through an entire season. The list should have a set criteria and there should be no exemptions, not even for superstars. -- Scorpion042223:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article reads: "This is a list of notable ice hockey players who have played for the Chicago Blackhawks", not "This is a list of Chicago Blackhawks who have played at least 150 games". Hasek is generally considered one of the best three hockey goaltenders of all-time. Even though he only played a handful of games for the Hawks, he is a pretty notable figure in their history. Kane is the only #1 draft pick overall in Blackhawks history and is expected to win the Calder Trophy (rookie of the year). Current lineups are not included in lists like these because they are volitle—who's to say that a given player will be notable? Teemu08 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Toews was added today by Ered7 when he put in the jersey numbers. I've removed it (at least for the time being) because there isn't anything unusually notable about him except that he's really, really good. Teemu08 (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Weak Support while I would prefer including all Blackhawks players, seeing as the article is called "List of Blackhawks", not "List of Notable Blackhawks", I understand your reasoning to keep it as is and respect that. However, I would think that the nationality chart should be given a look over. Going through it, I noticed two examples that could be contested: Charlie Gardiner is listed as Scottish in this list, but his page states he moved to Winnipeg at age 7 and was raised in Canada. Another is Ivan Boldirev, who was born in the former Yugoslavia, but grew up in Canada, and I seem to remember him being referred to as Czech. So my suggestion to fix that column to either state country of birth, or find evidence proving that the nationality of every player is as stated, which can be difficult, especially with older players, and I'll give it full support. Good article none the less. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a person who spends most of his life in a given country should be of that nationality, but it can be kind of a gray area (i.e. at what point has a person spent enough time in a country so that it's his nationality). The only consistent way to go about this is just to put the country where they were born—all of the given nationalities are consistent with the Chicago Blackhawks website. I'll fix up the key a little to make it seem a little more apparent that "Nationality" is where the person was born. Teemu08 (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Didn't notice till now that players had been cut off this list or I would have put them back in a long time ago. Definately 100% do not agree with cutting out any players from the list. As anyone who has played for an NHL team is definately notable and should be included. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no good reason to leave them off. --Djsasso (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the above conversation and don't agree with your point of view at all. This is the National Hockey League and getting the rosters isn't hard. Heck I believe every player who ever played for the Blackhawks was already on the page before you removed them. Length of the page is not really a big deal either. If the page were to become too long you simply split it into a couple pages such as List of Chicago Blackhawks forwards or something like that. But to remove players from the list based on a arbitrary number of games is extremely POV and completely against what Wikipedia is about. Oh and one other thing you might want to be aware of is you don't need concensus to fail an article, you need concensus to pass an article. --Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response OK, let's say this. What if this page remained the same, but new subpages were made for comprehensive lists of goalies, forwards, and denfesemen? Would you support it then (if it was proposed at a later date)? Teemu08 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this during the previous FL candidacy, since Original 6 teams have many more players in their history then Avs and Devils. If it's necessary to divide them, sure, but I don't see any reason to why all couldn't fit in one list. My oppose is because if the list isn't complete it's nor encyclopedic. --Krm500 (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the same way. If it absolutely has to be split then fine, but I see no reason why it can't still be one list And like Krm without it being complete I don't find it encyclopedic. --Djsasso (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I preferred the bigger more comprehensive list as well, but I see the benefits of formtting lists like this better than the old format without the tables. If some kind of consensus could be reached I'd be willing to help make the page more complete (should everyone agree to including the players that have been removed). Teemu08, I think it's arguable that Kane will win the Calder at this point in the season, but I accept including him since he's played in an NHL game in a Hawk uniform and that's consistent with the topic. I think the current roster should be added in bold type, and I think at some point adding all the players to make the list comprehensive again would be useful.--Ered7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I definately like the table and the look better that is not in question, but as long as the list remains incomplete it is definately not a Feature Quality list at all. --Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think keys should be put before the table. I've used tables in the past to condense them. Also, you have a serious image overlap problem at 1024x800 on Firefox (see screenshot). What is your resolution? usually the only solution to that is to keep only one image in the lead (which isn't a bad thing, almost all "first-round drafts" lists have only one image). Circeus (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the images except for one in the lead (I'm using Firefox at 1280x1024). I also moved the key to the top with a little help from the Flames player list. Teemu08 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion042203:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for closing it when it was so close, but an editor clearly had issues with the page and it had been there 23 days with few comments, so I figured a new nom would bring fresh comments. -- Scorpion042219:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Support: At the moment, I see a couple things that would greatly enhance the list:
The white-space to the right of the list is just too big. Can pictures of the stadium, players, the team's logo, something be put in that space? Or the table be widened to 100%? I know the other FLs you mentioned above have the same problem, but IMO there shouldn't be that much space.
The header column "National Football League, Early Era (1936–1969)" adds nothing. There's no corresponding "Modern Era (1970-Present)", there's no indication of why that is important.
If the Redskins started in '32 and since there's no "List of Boston Redskins first-round draft picks", could the table be extended back to '32? I'm assuming you included '36 because that took place for the '37 season?
Year, Player, Position, and College could all be sortable.
Ernie Davis' note needs to be clarified as to why it's on this list. Searching for his name showed me he was a Redskin player, but that should be explicit. Additionally, the third "Notable First" strikes me as trivial, bordering on OR.
1.Not done Okay, I will work on it. Done Added picture of Darrell Green.
Yeh, that's a picture, though I was thinking more along the lines of how this list does it :)
I would do that, but frankly there arent enough usable pictures of people that are on this list.
Yeh, that's what I thought was the case. Not a show-stopper, in my opinion, just a nice-to-have.
2. Done added Modern Era Header, its important to the history because it was 1970 was the first draft after the merger.
3. Done I have it starting in 1936 because thats when the first draft took place.
4.Not done I dont know how to do this, so if there is an agreement on this, can someone tell me how? thanks.
I'm not sure it's worth it, but (IMO) it would make the table better. First, the "Modern Era" and "Early Era" cells spanning the whole table messes up the sorting, as does the very first cell (which is redundant anyway). The "No Draft Picks" also messes it up. So I've put together a start at Wikipedia:Sandbox/sb2 to take a look at. Your call if you want to put that much effort into it - and what do others think?
I personally dont really like it, but if there are others that do and think that it will improve the article, then I am on board.
I guess this is probably a "nice-to-have" as well. Unless others chime in that sortable is better, I won't press it :)
5. Done Clarified that Ernie Davis was a Redskins pick and lost the third notable fact.
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: 23 days, 3 support, 0 oppose. No consensus to promote Fail. Scorpion042217:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Support the WP:CAPTIONS are boring and redundant. They should vary. E.G. "The Fisher Building (Detroit's 13th tallest) was named a National Historic Landmark in 1989." Give us some tidbit with each caption to point out a few interesting buildings to look at more closely.
Not done - That information would have nothing to do with the content of the list. The list is about building height, not about buildings which are National Historical Landmarks or other interesting tidbits. WP:CAPTION states that captions must be "relevant to the article", and all that is relevant here is height. Cheers, Rai-me01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't, at least not on this page. In the past, I would have agreed with you. You can check the List of tallest buildings in Providence FLC to see why the tidbits (which I had originally added myself) were removed. Interesting facts belong on building articles, but are not relevant to list that pertains to building height. Rai-me21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly like to revive consideration of exemplary captions (captions that show examples of notable buildings describing their notability). I think you may have chosen a bad caption with the TV show example and thus been encouraged to scrap using such captions. In general, I think they are desirable and would like to entertain debate on the issue. It looks like User:Circeus may have been against the captions chosen. It is not clear that nothing but the rank is relevant to the article, IMO. CALLING CIRCEUS TO THE DISCUSSION HEREWITH. I believe it was he who helped me make List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry interesting with captioned pictures on the side. I then used a similar technique at List of Chicago Landmarks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree that those notes (they actually were not captions) were and still are irrelevant. It think it is pretty clear that nothing but the rank is relevant to the article, as it is a list of tallest buildings, which is organized by height, and not simply a list of buildings, where inclusion is based on notability. However, I agree that re-opening discussion would be a good idea. See also the discussion found at the List of tallest buildings in Boston FLC, which also originally had many informative tidbits. Rai-me21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the comments here relate to two rather different elements from each oters and the current case (in the Providence FLC, I commented on irrelevant, material in the "notes" column of the table, while in Dallas, I complained that it was too ambiguous for the unacquainted reader to tell, in the lead image, whichbuildings were being named), I will stay neutral here, although I can see where the "drabness" comes from, the captions as is seem fine to me. Circeus01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anything discussed here relates to the lead image. It only pertains to the addition of non-height related information to individual building image captions. But yes, the issues in the Providence and Boston lists were related to the Notes column, not captions; sorry if I did make that clear. But, if a "tidbit" is not relevant in the Notes column, IMO it probably is not relevant as a caption either. Rai-me04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that it is the city of Detroit, not all of Michigan, per the title of the list and the lead. The same goes for the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section. The only places that count tallest buildings in Michigan are very clearly stated: "tallest in the city and the state since 1977..." Specifically what part did you find confusing? Thank you for your review, Rai-me01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that "Tallest building" should say "Tallest Detroit building" in each decade reference. It would be cleaner. Suppose you did this for a city with monstrous buildings like NY or Chicago where it might be the tallest for a decade in the country it would be an important distinction. It would just be cleaner if you made this slight change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this would extremely redundant. The list clearly pertains to Detroit buildings, with no clarification needed, per the name of the list. Changing it would be very repetitive and inconsistent with other lists. If a building was the tallest in the country, then it would be clearly stated. Rai-me21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP articles should always be written from the viewpoint of the international reader. The point is that a list like this is particularly interesting to people from cities with tall buildings. I have lived in Chicago since September 2000 and lived in New York City for 5 years. When I read the statements, I was confused because a similar article for either of the cities from which I draw my perspective could have buildings that say Tallest building of YYYYs decade meaning for the United States or the world. Many people who will find this list interesting will be from similar cities. The statement as written is incorrect. At the very least the first use of the phrase should say "Tallest Detroit building". It would be preferable if they all did, but at the very least the first use of the phrase should be corrected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have added clarification for every entry. While I still disgree, and feel that it is unnecessary, I can see your point and can also see where some readers could get confused. Thanks, Rai-me20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Raime, I'm usually the first to complain when such material is present (although at least it's not in headers here.). Circeus01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment why does the Rank column not sort correctly? Also, Rank 3 building appears to have the feet/meters numbers reversed, resulting in incorrect sorting Hmains06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ranking seems to work fine to me. What is incorrectly sorting on yours? Keep in mind that there are several tied buildings with equal ranks. And Done, I have fixed the height of the Penobscot Building. Thank you for your review, Rai-me11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I just sort on rank (up/down), all is fine. If I sort on the height column and get lowest height first, all is fine, but if I immediately follow that sort by a new sort on the rank column, then all is not fine. This height column sorting seems to be the only column that interacts with the rank column sorting in this way. Hmains01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: Maybe give the standard ranking under the "tallest by spire" listing? That way the differences are easier to spot. Circeus01:24, 11 November 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: Withdrawn. Scorpion042202:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It feels very redundant to have images in the table, and ten other images next to it of the same people, and downright silly to have a "no free image" icon for Harris, and next to it, and image with her...Circeus (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The list is undeniably attractive and comprehensive in its scope, but I have concerns about the article content:
Like Circeus, I think it's odd to have images in the table and also have images of the same people next to the table. Keep the images in the table, but lose the others. That black-and-white photo of Harris could go in the article about her. In the table, you probably could use the postage stamp image of Patricia Roberts Harris (on this USPS web page); the webpage says "The stamp art features a photograph of Harris, taken in the late 1970s by a staff photographer for the Department of Housing and Urban Development," indicating to me that it's a work of the US government.
Nope; stamps are copyrighted by the USPS: "All U.S. postage stamps and other postage items that were released before 1978 are in the public domain. The postal service holds copyright to such materials released after 1978 under Title 17 of the United States Code. Written permission is required for use of copyrighted postage stamp images." from USPS. I'm sorry, but I have to delete the image and remove it from the article, as I don't see this falling under fair use. --Golbez (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign button of Schweiker is a creative element, but I am offended by the caption that says "the first male Secretary of Health and Human Services". He was only the second person in the position, for crying out loud; there is no valid point in saying he was the first male.
Additionally, the lead section does not fulfill its purpose of "summarizing the scope of the list". The first sentence in the lead section says the DHHS is "concerned with health matters," which is an incomplete description of the scope of this department. The statement in United States Department of Health and Human Services is more comprehensive. Also, I cannot see how the last 4 sentences (beginning with "After the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks...") help to introduce or explain the list; those sentences are totally gratuitous. DHHS is a large department with a diverse range of roles; I think it should be possible to say something more meaningful about its history and the history of its leadership.
Thank you for showing me the link to that image, I uploaded it. Also the images on the right are there both for aestetic purposes, and for going deeper in depth about significant "firsts" for the Secretaries. They are all different images than the ones in the list. I explained thoroughly in depth about the importance of the position since the initiation of the war on terrorism in order to show the amount of responsibility that was been placed on the position.--STX04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the position of Secretary of DHHS was plenty important before 2001. This is an historical list of everyone who ever held the position over 28 years. The introduction should not place heavy emphasis on one topic that has received attention in the last six years. As for the captions about "firsts," it seems excessive to highlight "firsts" within a list that includes only eight people. --Orlady (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to delete the image and remove it from the article, as I don't see this falling under fair use; the stamp is from 1999 and copyrighted. --Golbez (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I have to agree with the above that having two columns of photos is distracting. Second, "first male" is downright silly. Second (a), "male" is wikilinked, but "woman" is not ?? Third, WP:UNDUE regarding the war on terror - this list has very little to do with the war on terror. Fourth, could the columns be sortable? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination, apparantly editors don't see the importance of the War on Terrorism on this cabinet position nor did they see Secretary of Energy. I'd rather it stay in this state than be featured since this state is much much better than what the opposes want this list to be.--STX02:02, 28 November 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, 1 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Scorpion042201:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been created as part of an experiment. I am interested in the perception of pop culture lists against a broader field of lists as it pertains to a WP:LOTD effort that will begin this week. This list is about as pop culture intensive as it gets. I am aware that due to difficulties in establishing the notability of earlier models the list has a few redlinks since their articles have not been created. Furthermore, certain nationalities seem to be difficult to obtain. However, the list is accurate and complete for the first two columns. I would be willing to revise it to a reverse chronological order, which might make the early information sparsity less troublesome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
What is the point of that second paragraph? It's like you accidentally posted it into the article from an essay justifying lists of cover people.
Some may not see the point of having a separate list from Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. It is important to say that being on the cover of Sports illustrated is important and in general it is noteworthy to keep account of magazine cover appearances. I would like to find such a list for one or two top fashion magazines, but did not find such a list on a cursory web scan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been anyone connecting the SI Jinx to the Swimsuit Issue? If not, no need to really mention it, except maybe to say they haven't. Y In the absence of evidence of immediate loss of beauty, excessive bad hair days and inability to smile, I have added a sentence saying no association seems to exist with the swimsuit issue. However, this may have trouble passing for WP:AWW. Any thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with you, but a weird quirk I'd like to see if others have: When I click a reference at the bottom, ref 61 disappears or moves to the other column. It's weird. --Golbez23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-evaluating: The justification paragraph still needs to go, and as long as nationality information is lacking for some models, I don't think the list is complete enough to be featured. --Golbez18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definately a good start, and definately a cool idea for a list, but it just doesn't seem complete. The writing in the introduction is generally pretty questionable and unecyclopedic, the nationality column is incomplete, and some of the notes in the Notes section seem unrelated. What does an article being the 40th anniversary have to do with who was on the cover? Also, I would highly recommend making the first two columns sortable. Drewcifer09:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The list of cover models is complete. Due to the non-notability of some early models, when the girl next door was chosen instead of the supermodel, the birthplaces/citizenships are not readily available. The question is whether this is part of the list or not. Could the list be submitted without this column? Yes Would it be a better list if it was? no. The notes are quite related to the cover. Special anniversary cover models are special. The 25th is probably more important in some ways to the 40th. However, both are notable. This is not the anniversary of the magazine, but the swimsuit edition that is being noted. I had hoped Sports Illustrated would respond to their online query tool that they say they resond to within 2 days, but I have received no response. I think the introduction is O.K., but would accept more directed feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Reply I have added sorability, but don't know how to do it for specific columns. I also had to change the date format to a less pretty format to make it sortable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:32, 20 November 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, 1 support, 5 oppose. Fail. Scorpion042203:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed and verified information about the population of percentage of major religions in over 200 countries or territories (maybe about recognized 99% of total countries or territories in the World) has been gathered in several tables which describes the issue perfectly. I think this article meets WP:WIAFL.Angelo De La Paz00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - numerous problems need to be solved.
Use of external links instead of inline citations is unacceptable. See WP:CITE.
The multiple colors in the table look frankly atrocious. Standardize the colors. Grey is preferable.
Adding "etc..." anywhere is not acceptable. List all of relevant items or none.
What is the purpose of the Notes section? It's confusing how it fits into the rest of the article.
The lead needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone and have in-line citations added. Also for the lead:
You don't need to state the list of articles that this article is the parent of, that is for the "Lists by country" section at the bottom, which should be retitled "See also".
There is excessive amounts of bold text. Only the main subject of the article should be in bold per Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title.
The asides in the lead about these religions are not from a neutral point of view. The lead should summarize what the article is talking about, not your personal views on these issues.
There's a ton of spelling errors. Copy it into a text editor or some other method.
The lead should make note of which religions are the most prevalent, which would explain your choices in the table.
Closely read WP:LEAD. Frankly, I think the entire lead needs to be rewritten.
Your "Sources" section should link to those sites instead of listing them as external links. If any of them are not sources, then they should be under an "External links" section per WP:EL.
Many of the percentages in the table are not listed or have a "n/a" placed there. Either place something or add a citation explaining why the "n/a" is there.
The sorting function of the table appears to be broken. When I tried to sort the leftmost column, I got the Cocos Islands as the top option.
The "Notes" part of the table needs serious copy-editing. Remove all the asterisks, and you can't use "&" instead of "and". Featured material is supposed to be immaculate in terms of grammar. I'd request the services of someone at WP:LOCE to look over this article.
To be honest, this article needs a lot of work before reaching FL status. I'd highly recommend asking another set of eyes to look at the article to fix the above problems, as the article has to be completely revamped in order for this nomination to pass. Best of luck though. Regards, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - The key introduction is atrocious, and discourages one from reading further in what is potentially an interesting list. Otherwise I'd agree that all the problems listed above need to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Please see WP:LEAD. The lead is written horribly with punctuation errors everywhere. I didn't see further down in the list. This was big enough reason for my strong oppose. DSachan18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Featured lists are not peer reviews, simply asking another editor to take a look over this would have highlighted some of the plethora of problems that plague this list. I think the colours are, frankly, atrocious. They certainly don't meet the guidelines of Accessibility. All of the problems highlighted by Sephiroth need to be worked on first before it can even be considered for WP:FL. Sorry for being so blunt, but this article needs some work. Woodym55521:47, 14 November 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, 1 support, 4 oppose. Fail. Scorpion042216:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed and verified information about the population of Muslims has been gathered in several tables which describes the issue perfectly. I think this article meets WP:WIAFL.--Seyyed(t-c)13:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Lead is poorly worded and formatted, and could probably more prose. "Note" is an inappropriate warning to put. Islam is not even linked!
Incomplete: Missing all countries in Micronesia and most in Polynesia
External links as reference in the body of the article are unacceptable.
Why not just link directly to "islam in"?
There should really be something about the state religion status of Islam in many countries.
Lead is too short and does not meet WP:LEAD standards. "Listing of Muslims by country" is not a complete sentence. "Important note" should be removed. There should also be general information about Islam, not just statements about how measuring can be biased. This kind of information would be more appropriate in section headings, not in the lead.
All external jumps in the tables need to be removed. These should be converted into references/notes.
Why is region listed before country? The list measures by country, not by region. There is also overlinking in the region column, each region need only be wikilinked once.
Per Circeus, rather than linking individual country statistics in "(details)", it might be more appropriate to directly link each country name.
Why do some countries have three links external links, while others have none? These percentages fall under the "statistics" category, which should be cited per WP:WHEN.
The titles "Islam by Country" and "Top 60", found directly above the tables, are redundant. The sections are already titled, the tables do not need to have separate titles as well.
The heading of the "Top 60" is poorly worded and confusing. In addition, "Top 60" is a pretty poor title choice, at least IMO.
Rather than stating "Note:", consider using asterisked notes or references.
Formatting of the four notes is inconsistent (Note 3 does not even have any text), and formatting in the references section needs to improve. Rai-me01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sort on "% Muslim" and "Muslim total" columns do not always work when used repeatedly to obtain ascending and descending order. Hmains20:08, 12 November 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: Withdrawn by nominator and support from article creator also withdrawn. No real support, agreement is this isn't ready. Per request. Daniel09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could have pictures: The lead could have this awesome pic, there are also free images of the current members individually (go to their respective articles) and even for some former ones like Navarro etc... These individual pics could be placed next to the time period where they first joined the RHCP. Isn't Discogs a user-added website; hence unreliable? Tommy Stardust (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uneasy Comment It seems pretty much as complete as an article such as this could be, I suppose, but I'm weary to support since it's so basic. I know that's not much of a criticism, but bear with me here. I think what would help this article immensly is some sort of graph outlining the members. Mainly since some members have been in the band throughout, though Frusciante has come and gone. Unfortunately, for the life of me I can't fine a good example of one of these graphs. I know there's some out there on wikipedia somewhere, but I just can't find any good examples yet. The only one I can find is at Oasis (band), but it looks terrible: like the artist just discovered Correl Paint or something. If the article is so finely tuned to be as to-the-point as it is, I would expect multiple ways of expressing the same very limited data set. I'm not being very articulate, but hopefully you can understand my point. Drewcifer (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find the lead irrelevant to the list. the current one would best suit Red Hot Chili Peppers discography. Instead what would be relevant is information about why some members leaft or returned, which one stayed the longer, which one had the most impact... In addition, I don't see a need to parantesise the years, they are on a column of there own. CG (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Being a significant contributor to everything Red Hot Chili Peppers, I really question the substantiality of this list. Not many people would look to this for scholarly view; much of the information here does not even need a source. It is common knowledge that Frusciante re-joined in 1998 and that Navarro let in 97. Furthermore, the only reason this list exists is because there's simply not enough room at the Chili Peppers article, otherwise all this information would be there. A small enough graph could, ideally, be put on the band's main article perfectly but the existing table is not appropriate and far too big. NSR77TC01:33, 19 November 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, 2 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote, no active discussion and no attempts to address active opposition. Fail. Scorpion042223:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My main concern about this is the stability. The record sales for his current album is being changed from week to week, so it might not meet WP:WIAFL #1e. Spellcast13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it deserves to be featured as a discography hardly has anything expect for what it has to be added. The only thing's music videos section, it is incomplete as every song of Massacre had a video. However I see there's no info about directors and shit on the web but it could still be included. It has even got the intro very big and it's even bigger than some "whole articles" e.g. the stubs! So I support the nomination.--Woop-WoopThat's the sound of da Police20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Currently, there are small errors which need to be addressed:
The dashes within the tables should be "em-dashes" instead of an "en-dash".
In the lead, you did not mention anything about the album that he is going to release, but it appears in the studio album table. Mention something like, "In 2008, he will release his forth album, Before I Self Destruct" or something like that.
Also, the footnotes: "An en dash (–) indicates that the album did not chart." and "An asterisk (*) indicates that the album is active on the charts." should be placed underneath every table with chart positions
Information on 50 Cent's videos should be in a table format like this.
Does games count as discography? Technically discographies refer to the list of recordings made by the artist, not games which might feature their voices, or in this case, a game which focuses on your artist.
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, 5 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion042223:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nom. Renominating the list because it appeared to have consensus in its previous FLC discussion, but was mysteriously closed as failed by one of the only two objectors (versus 5 supporters), even though a request was posted for it to be closed by someone other than a participant in the discussion (I refrained from closing it myself due to conflict of interest, but if that is not an issue here as it is at XfD, then I'll be glad to close this discussion). The points at issue, which were the basis of the objections were:
whether or not lists like this should be included in FLC or another department created for them called "Featured Navigation"
whether or not sources are needed and what exactly needs to be sourced
whether or not geography features should be included on the list, with the alternative to including them being the providing of links to comprehensive lists instead.
whether or not geographers should be included on the list, or just have a link leading to a comprehensive list of geographers instead
whether or not the article should include a see also section
whether or not there should be an external links section
If there is no opposition, then self-closures is not an issue. However, in cases where there is opposition, you should not. I am going to refrain from voting, but I still dislike the lack of sourcing. Without sources, it means that the topic may never be complete, I have been able to pick out several things that were missing, as well as some things that need sources. Featured lists should be as complete as possible, and with such a loose and expansive definition as "basic topics", this list never will be complete. As well the nations that are on one continent but are considered part of another need sources. -- Scorpion042223:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't "votes" exactly, but opinions. And you've just expressed one. Thank you for your participation. ;-) These are discussions, and therefore somewhat informal. The Transhumanist23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are admitting that the list is incomplete and could easily have more added doesn't sit well with me. Featured lists are supposed to be as complete as possible, and if an IP could come along and easily add a dozen important things to the page, it's not very complete, is it? The way I see it is that this list is basically a category, that isn't (and likely never will be) complete, and has no sources whatsoever. I can easily pick out several things that need sourcing: the "Branches of geography" section, what the definition of a "basic topic" is, why are countries that are clearly in Asia listed as a part of Europe?, why are awards part of list of Geography topcs?, what makes a person a "Influential geographers"? -- Scorpion042223:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of missing items. Which is why I requested that you point them out. Your objections concerning sources are noted, and I'll do my best to track down sources for each of those, when I have the time. I agree that inclusion criteria for "basic" need to be specified. Any ideas? And lists and categories overlap in subject matter almost entirely; the purpose of lists is to present information in ways that can't be done on categories, such as with structure, etc. The Transhumanist23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missing items can be uncovered by spending a few minutes with the categories and searches. You shouldn't expect FL reviewers to do the work for you. As Scorpion says, if, by the time you come to FLC, it is still easy to find missing entries, then that is a big clue that the list isn't ready. Colin°Talk18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to have a discussion about whether or not this type of list should be an FL, you've picked the wrong place. Perhaps you should finish this discussion at a more appropriate place, THEN renominate it. -- Scorpion042223:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the list doesn't belong here, then this is precisely the place to determine that, but it wasn't my objection. It would be unfair of me to repost this FLC without covering each of the objections from the previous discussion. I nominated the list for featured list status, and this is where lists are covered, so here it is. :-) The Transhumanist23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are sources needed and if so, what needs to be sourced
Possibly if one wishes to use a source in order to better define the scope. Without it, the list is open to the charge that the selection is a personal choice and WP:OR. Colin°Talk18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should the lists of geography features be replaced by links to comprehensive lists instead?
Possibly If this is meant to be a list of all "basic" geography features, then it should be comprehensive wrt its scope. It may be that a comprehensive list of such fine detail would unbalance this list and be better off elsewhere. Colin°Talk18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should geographers be replaced by a link to a comprehensive list of geographers?
What would be your distinction between a geographer that appears on a basic list and one that appears on a full list? FWIW, we didn't discuss any geographers in my school geography course. Colin°Talk18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The purpose of the "See also" section is to note some wikilinks that couldn't be incorporated into the body text. This list has no body text and it has multiple tables/lists where related topics could be mentioned. So the list is really one big, organised, see-also section.
Yes It is not a standard article feature in the sense that one is mandatory. See WP:EL. The external links, if at all appropriate, belong on the article pages. The only sort of external link I would consider appropriate here would be one that details/discusses a "List of basic geography topics" (which is distinct from the topics themselves). Colin°Talk18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is an acceptable definition for the term "basic geography"?
Thank you for prompting thought on this. How about "topics appearing in introductory-level textbooks on Geography. Topics covered through primary school to 100-level 'Introduction to Geography' courses in college." How's that? The Transhumanist23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Scorpio0433 Scorpio0422, A basic topic is a major branch of a subject. All the core topics (Mathematics, Science, History, Geography, Philosophy, Arts, Technology and Society) have both a list of basic topics (Major branches, science would have chemistry, biology, physics etc. and their subranches) and a list of topics (A list of all parts of that field). See List of basic history topics and List of history topics for an example. You also had concerns that this list was incomplete. By their nature, lists of topics are dynamic lists, meaning that they may never be able to fulfill certain standards for completeness. I support this becoming a featured list--Phoenix-wiki (talk·contribs) 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix-wiki's history examples don't help since the non-basic list is far less comprehensive than the basic one. Really, I'm struggling to see how an encyclopaedia for the "general reader" could possibly contain "advanced geography" topic articles (as distinct from advanced sections within an article). No, these lists are not dynamic (except perhaps for the people list bits). Geography isn't developing new topics at a rate that would be considered rapid for an internet encyclopaedia. The only reason that new topics might keep appearing on this list is because either they were overlooked to begin with or someone has written a new article (probably by spawning off text from an existing article). Colin°Talk18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"fundamental concepts and key subtopics of a subject" would not include a list of every minor land/sea/urban formation. I see the need for a hierarchy of lists, not one trying to achieve everything a beginner might want to lookup. If external sources are not used to craft such a list, then its formation is Original Research. As part of the "table of contents subsystem" (per your definition), I'm not uneasy about that since such pages are Wikipedia-specific and are of course going to be the product of Wikipedia editors making the best presentation of Wikipedia content. That doesn't make it Featured List-material any more than this nicely presented list. Colin°Talk21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not comprehensive and does not have a well-defined scope. The detail-level varies from the sub-fields at the top to all the little geographical features at the bottom. There is no attempt to refer to an independent source for either a definition of "basic geographical topics" or to use such a source to validate each entry. It therefore appears to be a subjective and incomplete list. [Note: such a list might still be useful and worthwhile, it just isn't Feature quality] Colin°Talk18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detail level? What do you mean by that? The branches section is complete, and thus fully detailed, as far as I can tell. How do the other sections differ in this regard, in the context of the list's title? The number of members in each section differs -- that appears to be an inescapable feature of the subject itself. How can it be the basis for an objection? The Transhumanist21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Within one list, I'd expect the brush strokes to be either broad or fine. This is a collection of lists, all at different levels of detail. That might serve the "cheat sheet" purpose but doesn't make for a tidy article. We have a hyperlinked encyclopedia, with a summary-style guideline, and so we should have a hierarchy of articles/lists where each level is at a similar level of detail. Colin°Talk22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails 1a because it does not bring together a group of existing articles that are related by a well defined entry criteria. Also fails 1c as there are too many red links and no well defined criteria of entry, it is too basic (no pun intended). References are required for a list to be featured or it is not factually accurate.
fails 2a because the lead does not summarise the scope of the list and doesn’t prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the article…because there isn’t any.
Oppose - By not citing sources or exactly defining criteria for inclusion, the list basically fails WP:NPOV. If there were some sort of source which also listed basic geography topics, and that source were cited, that would help immeasurably. John Carter21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with the greatest of respect to TT and with kudos for a humungous amount of work put in so far, I have left detailed comments at his talk page. The essence of the problem is, as Warlordjohncarter says, that this list is currently inherently POV. Crack that and all the other problems will fall into line. --Dweller10:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think they assert that choosing a list of topics without having a source for which ones to include is inherently POV. (I don't share that view.) —Nightstallion13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for clarity, since people seem puzzled by my objection and I think the talk page I referred to has been archived, my concern is "who says so" over various aspects of this list. Who says that these are the basic topics? Who says others, unlisted, aren't basic topics. Who says that some listed should be listed? With the geographers particularly easy to see this. Who says those geographers should be listed and others excluded? Thus, the list must fail NPOV and, arguably, the comprehensiveness criteria. The fact that the comprehensiveness criterion is arguable is because we can argue depending on our own POV. This for me is fundamentally cause for objection as it undermines everything Featured status is about. Sorry. :-( --Dweller14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This isn't a simple list. It is a compound list with multiple sections. There's nothing in the FLC instructions that states that a structured list can't have a section that presents examples. Examples abound on Wikipedia, and even featured articles have them. If featured articles can, why can't featured lists have them? See the list of examples of notable temples in Hoysala architecture. The Transhumanist14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please explain how the selection of images as illustrative examples, as used in many featured lists (and a great many featured articles), is not POV. In this list, for example, nobody complained about the selection of an image of China's divisions. Why shouldn't that be an image of Great Britain, or the United States, or some other country? How was it selected and not one of the others? The inclusion of such pics fits your definition of "inherently POV". But it is common practice on Wikipedia to use images as examples, including on featured lists, and the same thing should apply to links when those links are provided as examples. It is common practice to do so in articles, and I pointed out a feature article above that does so. How can FLC set a double standard on Wikipedia? For an example of images presented as examples, see List of Florida birds. I look forward to your response. The Transhumanist
If this were a list of images, then the selection of examples of images might be a problem. But it isn't, so it isn't. This is a list of "basic topics". Who says these are the basic topics, or the examples chosen are the "basic" examples? I could Google geography topics not included here and you could only defend their absence by them not being "basic" according to your POV. Or, you could add them. In which case, there's a problem with the list not being comprehensive now. And there's still the problem of who says that the ones that you have got already are "basic". And sorry, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never the best argument. I know we disagree and I wasn't posting here a second time to try to convince you... only because it seems others misunderstood my objection. --Dweller15:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did disagree. But in view of apparent inconsistencies, I simply didn't understand your position, which is why I kept asking questions. Thank you for the explanations, you have been a great help. The Transhumanist20:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons presented by Dweller. The list clearly needs reliable sources to justify its inclusion, some which I question. In the "Geography awards" section is the Geography Cup and the National Geographic World Championship really basic and reference competitions in geography? they seems to be some local recent competition in the US solely. And second, I might be wrong, but doesn't the list emphasises too much on Physical geography and not enough on Human geography? Thank you -- CG (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this list still fails to clearly define its topical scope, thus it cannot meet the comprehensiveness requirement. It must cover all aspects of the topic it defines its scope as. However, with no reliable sources being placed to define what precisely those topics are, this list is fundamentally incomplete, and thus subject to the author's opinion concerning what constitutes a "basic topic." Until source(s) can be provided to show the topical scope, then it is ultimately subject to the author's point of view, failing WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Not to disparage the author, who indeed has put forth herculean efforts in making the list, but a clear defining of the topical scope using such sources would settle these issues. Is there perhaps major geography organizations that publish such a scope? Regards, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)05:50, 18 November 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, 1 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote Fail. Scorpion042218:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put up "Name" headers and moved the blue background notice to the key section. The positions are all wikilinked in the key—I haven't seen any other sports lists that link in the chart itself. As for the sortable chart, "no" is probably an appropriate answer. The reason why is that: 1. I would need to re-do pretty much the entire chart, 2. Nationalities wouldn't sort anyway, and 3. I would like the appearance to be somewhat consistent with the other ice hockey player FLs. Thanks for the comments, however. Teemu0823:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn. Scorpion042204:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's Daughter is missing charting information, release dates, sales and other information. Why is "Mono" bolded and "Hold On To Me" is not? "Hold On To Me" has date formatting inconsistencies as well. Some of the columns could do with widening, as well. ~ Sebi08:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's Daughter is an upcoming release and only its title has been announced. I bolded the single title you mentioned and fixed its date formatting. I notice that you widened the column for the Hole videos table yourself; are there any others columns specifically that you think should be widened? --Brandt Luke Zorn15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, none in particular. After looking at the columns again when I'm not just about to fall asleep, none of them require widening. As for the unreleased album, perhaps a note along the lines of "To be released", or something, but perhaps not the acronym, or that attracts users from Amazon.com to add supposed release dates that Amazon.com claim are correct ;) ~ Sebi20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing more, looks better now. Good job on this one, you seem to always do a fairly good job on the discographies you work on :) Support. ~ Sebi04:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened some of the chart names. I removed the section on Hole's singles, but I felt uncomfortable removing all mention of Hole so I simplified the "Albums and EPs" section. --Brandt Luke Zorn20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Gwen Stefani discography, it explicitly excludes material she made with No Doubt. Unless she was associated (as opposed as being a full member) with Hole, that material has no matter there as anything but note that she was a member of that band before carrying a solo carreer. While I understand the issues have more to do with how removing that material makes the list very much on the edge of "too short", it is my definite feeling that the scope issue should trump the goal of pushing this to FL status. Circeus20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a catch-22 as a not very ideal choice fro a FL for the time being (that is, until she release some more material), I'm afraid. I'm actually of the same opinion as Scorpion (that it is at best a dubious length). Circeus23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well-formatted list, it just needs a little more length. One more album and a few singles ought to do that. Are you sure you want to withdraw it? -- Scorpion042202:17, 12 November 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: 19 days, 3 support, 2 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Raime02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this list because it is informative, neat, and important. Few people know about vice-presidents and if they look at this list not only will they learn all the vice-presidents but they will have a pictoral representation of that individual in their brain.--SouthernTexas21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose Support: I'm not sure about the break-out by century. For one thing, the breaks add very little to the list. For another, I'd like to see the list as sortable, which it can't be when broken up. Anyone else feel that way? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 7 somehow needs more explanation. I understand they could have been President for just a few hours--many readers might not know this. Maybe separate footnotes for each VP are needed, providing the dates/times they were President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs)
You could just create a "References" section at the bottom and add a link that contains a complete list of vice presidents, and includes their dates in office, etc. Also I agree with Hmains. The footnotes need to be explained/clarified. Nishkid64 (talk)06:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One section for Notes, one section for References. See List of New York Jets first-round draft picks for example. Also, it would be best to explain the circumstances of the 25th amendment. Lists should be comprehensive, so I think it would be appropriate to explain the situation in detail (a few lines will suffice). Nishkid64 (talk)21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting breaks in several instances: try sorting by "took office", all the vacancies are bunching, and ordering is wrong; or by Home state, some vacancies are after "Maine" other near "California".
Formatting is far too fancy, making the vacancies almost invisible
Parties are overlinked (besides, they're linked at the top of the list.)
References need proper formatting. Right now they're just a list of external links.
Strong Oppose The sorting is a mess. Try hitting any sorting button, and then try and get it back to the default positions (1-46). It's impossible. Half the buttons don't even work. Also the lead is far too short (howabout explaining the vacancies, as well as a quick summary of what the VP actually does. Drewcifer23:11, 11 November 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: Withdraw. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just published the article, and I believe it meets the FL criteria. It's useful in listing the most intense tropical cyclones worldwide, the criteria being the strongest cyclones listed by pressure. It is comprehensive, as I listed every tropical cyclone below a certain pressure (920 mbar was used for every basin but one, which used 900 mbar due to how many intense storms it has). It's factually accurate, as it uses data from the official agencies. It also has images, so I think it's ready for an FLC round. One thing I wanted to add was a table on the top of the article to list the most intense storms by basin, but I can't seem to figure it out. I'll be happy to address any comments. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "no best track is available online" is being used as a cop-out for potentially bad sourcing. I know that the statement is true, but more of an effort should be made to obtain it: email to the relevant RSMCs or to the NCDC (who supposedly archive it for the WMO). The online part should be irrelevant: either the source exists and we have it, or there is no such source.
Why central pressure is being used and not windspeed should be explained in some detail in prose, not glibly mentioned in the tables. This is particularly an issue as it is the opposite of how the NHC uses intensity to refer to winds in TCRs and discussions; other organisations use the term similarly.
Furthermore, it would be good to see peak winds listed for comparison.
The dates that the data covers should be made clear in the text, not the source info, as it is important information.
The units used inconsistently. If inHg is important enough to mention in the introduction sections, it should be included. Likewise if hPa is worthy of mentioning in the body of the tables, why not the prose?
Wikilinking the units isn't consistent.
Factual errors: The boundary of the SW Indian is 90 degrees, but the Reunion best track includes data outside that. For example Helinda is listed in the SW Indian list at 915 in 1996. Helinda was Pancho at the time, was in the SE Indian and it was in 1997! I'd suggest thorough cross checking of the southern Hemisphere data.
I'll be addressing that in the coming days (been busy in RL). Thanks for commenting, though I wish you would've commented before I put it for FLC :) --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nilfanion. FLC was very premature for this list since you only just published it; it needs Nilfanion's concerns and more addressed. As for best track data for the South Pacific, try contacting RSMC Nadi. IMD does have best track data available. The list itself needs more lede and more prose in the sections, perhaps addressing why pressure is used and not winds (again per Nilfanion). --Coredesat01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nilfanion, and to add my own concerns:
Almost no prose at all.
For example, almost no planes are flown in to Pacific storms, so pressures tend to be estimated. This needs mentioning.
Put 'mbar (hPa)' in the header, we don't need it repeated 500 times.
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: 21 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote Fail. Scorpion042215:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
self-nomination - I found this article looking like this, with all content removed, and tagged for speedy delete for copyright violations.
I've created tables like those used in FLs List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Smallville episodes. The colours for seasons 1 through 5 match those used in DVD covers, which as I understand is the consensus. Seasons 6 to 11 have not been released on DVD, and those season tables are in a greyish colour, similar to the Simpsons episode list being in yellow for seasons yet to be released on DVD. When the seasons are released, the colours should be changed accordingly. List includes episode titles, writers, directors, original airdates, and episode numbers.
Thanks for supporting, Demonhog. I would agree with you, but the only sites with that information are tv.com and imdb.com. The CW has removed the 7th Heaven minisite and accessing www.thewb.com at the Internet Archive doesn't provide the information either. -- Matthew Edwards|talk|Contribs14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I'm sorry, but for a show with 11 seasons, that lead seems entirely inadequate to me (compare the Degrassi list, though that one also has excellent season intro text too).
Could the text for the headers of season 3-5 be made white? At least season 3, which is practicaly illegible.
Thanks Circeus for again commenting on my nom again.
I appreciate what you say, but if you look at FL List of The Simpsons episodes which has 19 seasons, there is not really much more information in that lead than in this (except commenting on the Tracy Ullman show and the movie). I did add a short series overview - I've done that twice before already but there's one bloody User who likes to revert all my work . I'm expecting it to be removed...
Fixed season three's to white. I did wonder if that would be a problem. I like the season colours to be the same as those used on DVD boxes. As far as I'm aware, that's the in-thing to do! I just couldn't find a lighter colour. I did think about changing the text to white, but I couldn't figure out how to do that! Personally, I think that seasons 4 and 5 are fine as they are, but if more people don't like them, I certainally shall change them.
Oppose - sources for all the airdates? I see one for the premiere and the finale in the lead, but not for the others. What is up with the "season number"? Is that an official number? Is that number coming from something, or is that something editor made? Since this is an episode list, the title of the episode should probably come before most of that other information. Speaking of titles, pilots are generally just "Pilot" and not "Pilot episode"...unless it was officially called "Pilot episode". BIGNOLE (Contact me)04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have sources for all episode dates. The old thewb.com site and the cw.com 7th Heaven sites aren't there any more, and the Internet archive don't show airdates. The only thing to go on is the fact that I watched the show and so I know it!, a fansite, imdb and tv.com, links of which are at the bottom of the page. TV Guide doesn't have them either. Anyway, I appreciate your comments. -- Matthew Edwards|talk|Contribs05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that there aren't sources available, and that the only ones that list that info are the ones that aren't considered reliable.---Goes searching real quick (not being sarcastic, I was in mid type when I decided to try and help)--...wait a minute. TV Guide has dates and titles. See this page. Interestingly enough, it also says "Pilot episode" instead of simply "Pilot". Don't use it for episode counts, as TV Guide will count TV special that may not actually be episodes. They have Smallville at like 144 episodes, when it's only 136--weird. Anyway, their dates and such should be good. But, I see nothing to suggest those season numbers are used, at least not by a reliable source. That the structure of the table can and probably should be adjusted though. BIGNOLE (Contact me)05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the TV Guide link, I don't know how I missed it when I looked. You're right about the "season numbers", I did put those there to identify the episode number in the season, so that 305 would be the fifth of the third season. TV.com's 7th Heaven episode listing do have production numbers. The information is repeated on fansites and such; searching for the episode "Anything You Want" and the production code "01496003" on Yahoo here gives results at fansites.hollywood.com, epguides.com, 360.yahoo.com, episodeworld.com and two 7th Heaven fansites at freewebs.com, but I would think these would be considered as unreliable as tv.com and imdb.com, no? -- Matthew Edwards|talk|Contribs02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. I was going to leave it a few more days, but the nominator asked for a decision to be made. Yes, there is more support than opposition, but there is clearly no conensus to promote the list at this time. Fail. Scorpion042217:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tables of contents aren't sourced. And this is a table of contents on Geography. Therefore an exception should be made on sourcing for this list. Sources shouldn't be required to verify that an article belongs to a core subject, because it's fundamental. Geography is well known. It is common knowledge that continents and other landforms are geography topics. Providing a source for each landform that states it is a geography topic seems ludicrous. The Transhumanist03:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is obvious, it needs some kind of source, otherwise it's OR. For example, wouldn't Pingos count as being a basic geography topic? And yet it's not included here. Done As well, a source is needed to confirm that countries like Armenia are considered part of Europe despite being entirely in Asia. I'm uncomfortable about supporting an FLC with no sources whatsoever. As well, there should be a longer lead. -- Scorpion042202:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The table in external links has alot of white space to its left (under all the links) possibly it needs to be moved up to get rid of all the white space (or atleast some of it). Done
I dont like having the portal tag so far up in the article. Id prefer it to be in external links or atleast futher down the page. This prob isnt nescessary. Done
That's the standard location for it on basic topic lists. If we change it on this list, then it would need to be changed on the over a hundred other pages in the collection. It was placed at the top since portals are also a type of introduction, and so it is covered in the introductory areas of the basic lists. The Transhumanist08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the references is an issue, as it should be dealt with on all of the sub-pages, so possibly making sure it is dealth with on those pages might be important? (i presume it is). TwentyYears16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that there are hundreds of articles contributing to this subject, sourcing them all is a collosal undertaking, but it is happening in due course (as is the case with all of Wikipedia). In time, most if not all of Wikipedia will be sourced. Keep in mind that this list is primarily a navigation aid. The Transhumanist —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the format and content of the two are so different that their purposes are just as distinct. Portals are glitzy pages modeled after the main page, and like the main page they provide a sampling of material with similar feature names and in a similar format. Lists of basic topics serve as a particular type of reference tool (the table of contents) and they adhere much more closely to the structure of their subjects. Portals can't portray a subject in the same way and with the same utility as a subject outline (list of basic topics) can, but after all, that is not the intent of portals. Portals are samplers, like a small box of chocolates. The Transhumanist02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not portals. But (as you say on the newborn WikiProject Lists of basic topics), "Lists of basic topics … are part of the Wikipedia:Contents navigation system". By their nature, they are largely exempt from WP:V (no refs as no information that might be challenged is presented), WP:NPOV (as they don't offer any opinion, other than a hopefully neutral classification), WP:NOR (as they contain no non-obvious information). The entry criteria are much larger than we expect at FLC. They make heavy use of navigation templates and link to other more detailed lists. Both FL and FA have content that can be judged against WP's content policies and guidelines. The FLs tend to serve a navigational purpose too, but an FL that was merely a raw list of article titles wouldn't pass. Wrt assessment, I don't think the FL criteria are useful here. I suggest you open a debate on whether Featured Lists or Featured Portals are best suited to assessing such "Lists of basic topics". I accept these are not portals, but I think they are closer to portals than articles/lists. Colin°Talk08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with your assessment of the situation. Though I believe that the exceptions can be thought through right here, and a determination made as to whether or not the quality level of the list is worthy of featured list status. Is it easy to understand? Does it represent the topic well? Is there anything missing? Is there anything non-obvious that needs to be referenced (as per Scorpion's observation above)? Is the formatting appealing to the eye? Is the material presented in the best logical order? And so on. That is, How is the topic coverage?!The Transhumanist09:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're topics. They're just not articles yet. They'll turn blue as people create them. We could delink them, turning them black, but they'd just have to relinked again later. 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs)
original discussion by Circeus
Oppose
The lack of a proper target for "Human-environment interaction" severely undermine this list's usefulness as a list of "basic topics"
Actual section text and more illustrations (as in Lists of mathematics topics) would be useful to help clearing up what the header means
Actual section text Done
Illustrations Done
Many links to improper places (I doubt the value of links to disambiguation pages) Done, and Highland has to be a joke (what is it doing in that section anyway? Even the proper target doesn't clarify that!)
Something for "essence of geography" is probably a good idea (and will likely require some sort of sources, give that the five elements are supplanted as a teaching standard). Might as well give something for "history of geography", "earth spheres" (something about the origin of those terms would be nice), "manmade geographical features" (what angle are they studied on? are they more relevant than natural features?) and "geography awards". While o the topic, either use no emphasis ("main article" a pretty good one!) or choose one and stick to it. The italics are disconcerting. Circeus20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another query - There's some whitespace under the chart under "Sub-fields of physical geography". I'd like to place this pic there Pangaea, but can't get it to show up in the right place (I've used various parameters). The Transhumanist03:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was your the cell-padding adding extra whitespace between the bottom of "Fields of human geography" and the bottom of the larger table. I think I dealt with it. Circeus20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've no objection to a meta-list like this being featured, and indeed supported Lists of mathematics topics when it came up, but this is not up to scratch. I agree with Circeus's comments - in particular:
It needs more introductory prose for some of the subjects. Done
Too many links go to the wrong topics or to disambig pages. Done
Wow, Featured Lists got a lot of reviewers in those days! I wish we had that level of participation now. Don't let my "oppose" be a block if consensus goes the other way, but I still think this sort of contents-page isn't what FLs are about. A brief look at that Lists of mathematics topics discussion shows I'm not the only one. I guess we haven't had many such nominations for this issue to have been decided. Colin°Talk15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one was particularly controversial, and also benefited (if you want to call it a benefit) from a message on a number of people's talk pages encouraging them to vote on it. If you have a look at the featured log for October 2005 you'll see that most nominations back then got a similar number of reviewers to now. You're right that it's not an issue that I think has come up much - though I believe, if my memory serves me, that it was the rejection of a portal as a Featured List that led to the Featured Portal process being set up. (In a similar way, Featured Lists only came about after a few lists were rejected as Featured Articles). I doubt we're ready to spin off Featured Navigation as a separate process, but that might be one way round this.--OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this is FL stuff, no doubt. I send Transhumanists a few pointers for references on his talk page. We're not exactly talking about anything overly complicated, mostly some good, generalist works that can be used to check the organization against. Circeus18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are lists, as are lists of lists. Portals are modeled after the main page and have WikiProject elements. We covered this above. The difference between lists and portals is like night and day. To remove lists from the main namespace would be like ripping the table of contents out of a book. To do that makes no sense. The Transhumanist01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All lists, indeed all pages, with links in them are defacto navigation aids. This list doesn't differ much in this regard from other lists. Lists are also topical treatments of a subject, which is why they are in the encyclopedia body. Each can theoretically contain topics that are not linked. The primary criteria for being included in a list is not that an entry is an article, but that it is a member topic. A table of contents is restricted to what is in the work it tables. Topic lists are not. The topics exist in the world, and not necessarily in the encyclopedia. Expansion lists are an exception, of course, since they are simply multipaged lists (and each page needs a title, thus the root list links to other lists rather than the end subjects). So this list is not primarily a table of contents, but a topical breakdown of a subject. As such, it belongs in and is part of the encyclopedia body. The Transhumanist04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've have added pics to the article. If there are any more sections which you feel must have an image, please let me know here, or forever hold your peace! :-) The Transhumanist02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Supportif the "essence of geography" section can be revise completely. By currently giving only topical interest to a now outdated American teaching standard, it displays an obviously improper (what is the "essence" according to actual geographers?) and a national (U.S.) bias.Circeus16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the lead should be a little expanded, instead of a one-sentence intro, you could make a very general overview of the differents topics and divisions of geography. Done And could you replace the animated US state map Done, with a non-animated one just showing the different states, it's not a history-related section but a section about subdivisions, plus it is heavy to load. And finally the list could benefit a lot if images were diversified, that is they represent different part of the world (currently there are 4 Europe-related pictures and 4 US ones), the world is much larger than the Western world :) DoneCG15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been asked to have another look, so I'll leave aside the issues I raised above. This is a huge topic and I don't envy anyone trying to encapsulate it in one list. The main problem I see with this list is that it doesn't define what is "basic" about the topics included. The "Geographical features" section includes lists that are far from comprehensive wrt basic geography. Where are Moorland, Bog, Mudflat, Highland, Lowland, Cirque/Corrie, to list just a few? All were basic subjects where I grew up. The categories do a better job for such raw lists; at least they are fairly comprehensive. For an introduction to geography and WP's geography articles, I'd rather read Geography than this list, I'm afraid. IMO, the list would be improved by cutting back on links to minor articles (the landforms, bodies of water, man-made features, geographers). Find articles and categories that list those well and link to them instead. The "See also" section should be eliminated and I can't see any reason for including an "External links" section in this list. Colin°Talk10:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the missing topics. I've added them in. Done With respect to categories, lists do a better job presenting this type of material because of consolidation, structuring, formatting, image support, scrollability, and ease of maintenance supported by edit-tracking, watchability, and centralization. If a link is removed from a category, it can't be spotted as easily from a category page, because the edit histories of those pages don't include edits to the category itself (which is autogenerated). The basic topic lists are also more useful for Related changes tracking, due to the range of topics covered; to get the same coverage from categories, you would have to execute Related changes from several category pages. The see also section, and external links sections are very useful in an introduction to a subject, especially a reference aid and "cheat sheet" like this one. The Transhumanist04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the list as much as I have time for right now. Somebody not involved with the above discussion please close it out. The supports outweigh the opposes, but I don't know if it is enough to tip the balance to be considered approved. I look forward to your decision. Thank you. The Transhumanist04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Okay, I will work on it.
Done Added picture of Darrell Green.
. I'm expecting it to be removed...
