Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2009

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [1].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, another cricket list off the factory line, but hopefully worthy of inclusion here. I think I've checked all dablinks, all external links, alt text, MOS, etc, etc. I'd love for some of cricketing reviewers to get dirty with the detail, and for some of our non-cricketing reviewers to say "what the heck does that mean?" if necessary. All the best, and, as ever, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — "The following Test, in a player-of-the-match performance, he took ten wickets in the match ..." Match is repetitive; could tweak perhaps. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reworded, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Another cricket list good to go! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - we're taking over, but looks good to me! Harrias (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, definitely. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Why is his first name repeated throughout the lead? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Traditionally, (and unless corrected otherwise by more knowledgeable cricketing types), Pakistani names are given in full. Hence the repeat. Surname/first names aren't treated the same as a "western" player. If there's a consensus otherwise then I'd happily remove Wasim, but (as a westerner) I'm not sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Have modified. Is that better? I checked a few RS's and it seems interchangeable in the way it works. So, I'm happy enough to go without the repeated first name. Does it suit? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the title be "list of five-wicket hauls in international cricket by Wasim Akram"? It just seems to flow better. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could well be. We've got a couple of recently-promoted FLs with similarly names to this. If there's a consensus to change the title of the list then fine and then we'll just change the others. Otherwise it seems to be simply a matter of taste. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who first wrote a five wicket haul article, and I based the name on a number of "List of international cricket centuries by..." articles to keep the naming consistent. But if you guys think it would be better this way, I don't really see a problem with that. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment leaning towards Support

• Curiously, the article doesn't mention that Akram was a fast bowler. This should perhaps be added before the BBC's descriptionof him. Something like, "A fast bowler who represented his country between 1984 to 2003, the BBC described Akram as "[o]ne of the greatest left-arm bowlers in the history of world cricket"
• The only mention of Akram as captain is in the image caption. From his average, the extra responsibility in Tests didn't seem to affect him, but he did take only 3 five-fers as captain, compared to 22 when not captain [2]. It might be a tidbit worth including, although perhaps just as a statement of fact if no other sources mention it might be synthesis. As ODI captain the rate of five-fers seems about equal when captain as when he wasn't [3].
• If the captaincy's impact on his bowling is worth mentioning, how about overseas vs home performances?
• How does Akram rank in World Cup five-fers?

Just a few of comments, but the first is easily sorted and the second might not even be worth mentioning. Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your interest and comments. Sorted the first one, i like the stats about cap vs non-cap but as you pointed out, i do wonder how much this could be construed as my own (or your...) OR. I could state it as a fact I suppose, but I'm not sure. As for WC five-fers, back in the day when Wasim played and the whole tournament was done in a couple of dozen matches doesn't really compare fairly with modern day WC cricket where we have about 30 qualifying matches before the Super Six (or Eight or Ten.... whichever it'll be this/next time) so I'm not convinced a comparison is valid there either. I could buy into a couple of extra lines about historically significant bowling appearances, but there's always (in my mind) a problem with comparing apples with pears in these cricketing lists. Just my opinion, mind you! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's fair enough, I suppose there's not much can be done given the change in WC format and the problem with possible synth. I've switched to support. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [4].

---

List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This sub-list of Victoria Cross recipients has gone through a recent peer review, which has hopefully readied it for FL candidature. User:AustralianRupert did much of the work on this article, including the difficult referencing and table work, and much of my contributions have been in the way of tweaking, slight expansions and alt text. AustralianRupert is on board with this nomination, per his statement at the peer review. I believe that this article meets the featured list criteria and look forward to everyone's comments. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just quickly passing through: Check the "disambig links" in the toolbox Done. Did you consider having the "place of action" column sort in such a way that you end up having places in one country together. You might want to use hidden keys to achieve this. At the moment the column sorts strictly by alphabet, so "Ningthoukhong, Burma" is disconnected from "Pin Hmi Road Bridge, Burma". Also you should remove the full stops in that column. Hidden keys added, full stops removed. What does "Indian Armoured Corps attached 6th Gurkha Rifles" etc mean? Who was attached to whom? Should all have been "attached to"; corrected. I hope this makes it more clear. Not sure I understand since I am not familiar with military topics. Could you explain it shortly? I am a bit confused by the "Bengal Staff Corps" which is attached to both, the 1st and the 2nd King George V's Own Gurkha Rifles. If it makes sense you also might want to add sort keys to the "unit" column such that all "Gurkha Rifles", etc. are together when sorting. Basically, in the beginning of the Gurkha divisions, native divisions weren't considered able to provide their own officers, and so special corps were created to provide British officers for native divisions, and these special corps were "attached to" the native divisions. One special corps could provide offciers for several native ones? Does this explain it better? I have added sort keys to the unit columns so that all of the 1st Gurkhas display together, all of the 2nd, etc. Is this what you wanted? Thanks for the explanation. If it is not obvious, maybe you could add something like it to the lead section. I'd suggest not to add sortkeys "01", "02",... but "Royal Gurkha Rifles", "Gurkha Rifles",... or possibly with a suffix: "Royal Gurkha Rifles 05", "Gurkha Rifles 05", "Gurkha Rifles 06",... But you can probably decide better what the most natural sorting would be.bamse (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I'll see what I can find to add to the lead section on this. And now I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're looking for with the sort key. How about this...why don't you give me a general example of what you want the table to look like after sorting, so I know the wished-for end result, and then I'll see what I can do to get it to look that way? :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I suggest to have after sorting: a block of "Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is sorted by number, 1st, 2nd,...), then a block of "... Own Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is ordered by the name of the king/prince queen), followed by a block of "Royal Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is sorted like the Gurkha Rifles block above by nmuber). If it was a sport event, your sorting looks like: "1st (=gold) jumping, 1st running, 1st swimming,...,2nd (=silver) jumping, 2nd running, 2nd swimming, ... , 3rd (=bronze) jumping, 3rd running, 3rd swimming,..." My suggestion is to sort like: 1st jumping, 2nd jumping, 3rd jumping,..., 1st running, 2nd running, 3rd running,..., 1st swimming, 2nd swimming, 3rd swimming,...". As I wrote above, I am not sure which of the two ways of sorting is more natural, so I leave it up to you to decide. bamse (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The problem with this is that what is between the number (i.e. 1st) and the "Gurkha rifles" is basically incidental, as is the name of the staff corps being attached to it. These are just names picked up from royal sponsors at various points. So, I believe the current sorting structure is the most natural, as it lists all of the 1st Gurkha rifles together, all of the 2nd, etc. Hope this makes sense. I've added a note explaining (I hope) the staff corps thing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Makes sense. Responses interspersed above; thank you for your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the quick reply. bamse (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Apologies for taking a bit longer to reply this time. I hope I have provided a satisfactory answer to your question above... Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Almost, replied with two suggestions which you may or may not implement. bamse (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Avoid bold links (you have Victoria Cross bold and linked). Just unbold it here. Done. "first award came in" - first award was made in...? Done. Don't overlink British Army. Removed one extra link, please let me know if there are others that I didn't find. Perhaps a note needed to help reader understand how you're ordering unit (by Gurkha unit I presume, so not obviously numerically or alphabetically..) Added a note. Please let me know if it needs more information. Indo-Malay "Confrontation" or "confrontation" - be consistent. Done. "confrontation". I like the place of action sorting. Very good idea considering the red links as well. Don't mix accessdate/publish date formats in the references. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Replies interspersed above - thanks for the comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I'm sorry not to have posted these observations during the peer review, but I think it's only where I've not looked at the article in a while that has allowed me to spot these things! Anyway, here goes:

• It might be a browser thing, but the name column seems to be pretty narrow in the main list (about the same width as the year column). Is there any way the name of the recipient (which I would consider to be the most important facet) can be a little more prominent?

• The table is an automated table, and so the widths are created automatically. However, I'm not that knowledgable about tables, and so there may be some way to change the width settings that I don't know about. If there is, I would be happy to make the names section wider. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the main prose, it occurs to me that all the info is there, but re-reading it I wonder about the order some of it is displayed in. For instance, the first para talks about the VC, then jumps into the subject of the Gurkha regiment by indicating the number of times they have recieved it. As I read it I thought to myself it might read better if it first said how many times the VC has been awarded, before tackling the Gurkha regiment in the following para. Likewise, the first para menntions the first awards to British officers and then native Gurkhas, but then in the 3rd para the major reason for the difference in awards chronology is mentioned. There's nothing especially wrong with it, it's just a bit dislocated. It's kind of tricky to explain it, and it's actually quicker for me to just demo what I'm thinking of, so I've done it below. This is just a rough idea of what I'm thinking - I'm not attempting to rewrite anything Dana boomer or Australian Rupert have done, just re-order it slightly. I have changed a few tenses and sentence structures to make it all fit, and inevitably some refs may be in the wrong place! Anyway:

The Victoria Cross (VC) is a military decoration that may be bestowed upon members of the British or Commonwealth armed forces for acts of valour or gallantry performed in the face of the enemy. Within the British honours system and those of many Commonwealth nations it is considered to be the highest award a soldier can receive for actions in combat. It was established in 1856 and since then has been awarded xxxx times.

The British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers, has been a part of the Army since 1815. When raised it originally focused on conflicts in the Far East, but the transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese hands necessitated that the brigade move its base to the UK. A battalion is still maintained in Brunei and as of 2009, units serve in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans.

Since the VC was introduced it has been awarded to Gurkhas or British officers serving with Gurkha regiments 26 times. The first award was made in 1858 to a British officer of the Gurkhas during the campaigns that followed the Indian Rebellion of 1857, while the first award to a native Gurkha was in 1915 during the First World War. When the Victoria Cross was initially established, Gurkhas, along with all other native troops of the British East India Company Army or the British Indian Army, were not eligible for it and as such up until 1911 all of the Gurkha recipients of the award were British officers who were attached to Gurkha regiments. Until that time the highest award that Gurkhas were eligible for was the Indian Order of Merit. Since 1911 however, of the 16 VCs awarded to men serving with Gurkha regiments, 13 have been bestowed upon native Gurkhas. The most recent award was made in 1965, during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.

In 1950, when India became a republic, Gurkhas serving in the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army lost their eligibility for the Victoria Cross and they are now covered under the separate Indian honours system. Under this system the Param Vir Chakra (PVC), which is India's highest military decoration for valour, is considered to be equivalent to the Victoria Cross. As such only those serving in the Gurkha units of the British Army remain eligible for the Victoria Cross.

Just an idea. Merry Christmas, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added your proposed rewording to the lead, as I agree that the structure is more readable. Thanks for the help! I filled in the number of times it had been reworded and referenced that, as well as making a slight addition of the information that the Gurkha regiments are some of the most heavily decorated - a little fact that I found while digging for a medal total reference. Please let me know if you have any more comments - thanks for your review! Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting fact - definitely worthy of inclusion. Hope you don't mind my quick c/e - I think the Navy and Air Force may take issue with Historynet's use of the term 'soldier'! Obviously I think the page could still be improved with a wider space for the recipients names, but I for one can't even begin to see how you would do it. Still, in the hope it happens I'm more than happy to lend my Support. Nice work by you and AustralianRupert. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Reference 6 has a different style of date formatting than the others. This should be made consistent throughout; changing that one reference is the easiest way to do it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry for the oversight on my part; I thought I had checked all the dates. Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support It follows the normal formula, even builds on it in some places. I have forced the column width for the name to try and make it look a bit better. I have also moved the image up to avoid the whitespace issue though the contents box looks out of place now. Perhaps hide it? Either way, it it meets the FL criteria in my opinion. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and the formatting tweaks. Much appreciated! Do you mean hide the image or hide the TOC? Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I meant hide the TOC, or you could remove the gurkha image, or remove the VC image, move things around, but as it stands there isn't enough writing to fit all 3 things in comfortably, at least on my screen. Woody (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've hidden the TOC, which has reduced the white space considerably. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Looks much better without the table, which only really listed the refs and such anyway! I've narrowed the space between the text and the next title though, it looked a bit wide on my computer, but if it needs undoing I don't mind. Nice job on the column widths Woody! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments – nice list, well cited and illustrated, but a few things before I can support:

• "many Commonwealth nations it is considered to be the highest award" - the use of "considered" bugs me, as the award is the highest decoration for valour in these nations, and is not just viewed as such for any random reason.
• The cite of For Valour: Britain's Victoria Cross Winners [5] is out dated and incorrect. The cited figure states 1,351 VCs have been awarded, when 1,353 is the current correct figure. The article was made in 1999, and two VCs have been awarded since then (Johnson Beharry [2004] and Bryan Budd [2006]). I have several books on the VC, but they are either Australian-centric or slightly outdated and do not include Budd, so I don't think I can help you in a book cite, but there should be several reliable sources on the internet that have the correct figure.
• "British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers" - the phrase "composed of Nepalese soldiers" implies that the unit(s) were completely make up of Nepalese soldiers, but weren't the brigade's officers predominantly British soldiers?
• In the section where it is discussing the first and last awards of the VC to members of the brigade, I think it would be best if the actual person was mentioned as just the basic discription leaves it a little vague and one then has to look through the table in an attempt to spot the person.
• The final sentence in the lead is uncited.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I believe I have corrected all of the above. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed to support. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [6].

---

List of Aurealis Award winners and nominees for best fantasy novel

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Very loosely based on two other featured lists about books (List of Lambda Literary Awards winners and nominees for science fiction, fantasy and horror, List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best novel) and using the style as seen on BAFTA Award for Best Film, i believe this list covers the subject to the full. I opted for the BAFTA style list because i feel it identifies the seperate years more clearly, however i am open to changing the format to the Gaylactic and Lambda styles if table sorting is an issue. Salavat (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Citations should be behind punctuations Fixed this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Color need to be accompanied with symbol; see recently promoted featured lists for example —Chris!c/t 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Salavat (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Might be a good idea to add Template:Infobox Award—Chris!c/t 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Salavat (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 06:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments I know we allow a number of red links, and I'm not suggesting you fix them all, but I would at the very least prefer not to see two red links in the opening sentence of featured content. I delinked the two companies. Would it be appropriate to link them in the infobox instead or should it be left delinked altogether? Salavat (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) My top preference would be for you to generate a couple of nice, referenced stubs for these organisations! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Ill look into making stubs for them, my main concern would be notability especially for Fantastic Queensland. Salavat (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Cool. Put it this way - if you think they're notable enough to link, then create stubs. If you don't think they'll pass the test, don't link them at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC) What is "speculative fiction"? I linked it in the lead. Is that sufficient? Salavat (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "celebrate excellence in speculative fiction" sounds a bit like a quote, is it? Its not a quote. It was developed from the about us page. I could change it to "excellence in science fiction, fantasy and horror" if thats preferable. Salavat (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Typically I have a problem with these kind of "mission statement"-style award descriptions, so I'm just looking for it to not say "celebrate excellence", rather it could say something that either is a quote, or something less weasaly. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I changed to a quote from the "about us" page. is that better? Salavat (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, much better, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Is there any way of putting this award into context? Is it prestigious? Any controversy? Ive added a couple of sentences to the top of the last paragraph citing a couple of sources. Salavat (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Any opinions on the new sentences, i would like to make sure they read right to someone other then me? Salavat (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Hmm, certainly helped my understanding of the significance of the award. Can I assume that these three sentences are all referenced adequately with the mp3 ref? (I can't play it where I am)... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Well the first sentence actually uses a seperate reference to a news article. the last two sentences use the the mp3. I believe i have used the correct reference template for the radio broadcast. the material is is taken from the presenter herself and editor/author who was in the interview. I didnt list him due to the broadcast on the page only mentioned the lady but i can add his name to the reference if its needed. Salavat (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Since you have blue and asterisk, I would suggest bold is over the top - you don't need three ways of indicating the winner. Removed the bolding. Salavat (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "are always help " I guess that's a "held". Fixed (damn typos). Salavat (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• In reference 3, The Courier-Mail should be presented in italics. The work parameter of the cite templates is the easiest way to accomplish this.

Ok i changed the publisher parameter to work. Would i need to list News.com.au as the publisher or is it good as it is? Salavat (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice before that the link came from that site. Yes, it should be mentioned in the citation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Salavat (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 4 is to an mp3 of a radio show. To maximize ease of fact-checking, would it be possible to note the time at which the cited part is said during the show? This is a common arrangement for when videos/TV shows are cited. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Salavat (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs) Lead No full stop needed for the infobox caption Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Unfortunate repetition of "award" in the first four words. How does presented sound? Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Missing an "and" in the quote listing the genres Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) "must have been written by an Australian author between" does the source clarify "written"? Published? Manuscript finished? Changed to published. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) "ceremony is held in the following" you can remove the redundant "in" Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Link speculative fiction? Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Why aren't the categories added in 2008 included in the sentence beginning "Categories currently include"? Changed. I think i comma'd it out right. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Is there any information on who the judges are; how are they picked, by whom, etc.? There is information on the Locus site on who they are, however that stops in 2003 and doesnt seem to be listed anywhere else. Added a sentence on the judges, tell me if theres anything need fixing on it "lists all the award nominees and winners" should clarify short-list nominees, not all those submitted Changed. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Remove "over the years"; redundant and not encyclopedic Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) The comma before "to a two-day event" shouldn't be there. Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) "helped attract the attention" what does "helped" mean? I suggest "attracted the attention" Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Sara Douglass should have only a last name in the last sentence Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) How many nominations has Douglas received? 11. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Table "the relevant award" how can the award be irrelevant? Removed "relevant". Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) In the publishers column, I would add a footnote at the top to clarify what parenthesis mean. Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I won't oppose for it, but if you get a chance, you might want to make articles for the redlinks. All the books would be notable by criterion 1 on the top of WP:NB, and I'm sure many of the authors are worthy. I might make some if I'm bored. Im on it. Salavat (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC) See also I don't think the link to Portal:Novels is needed; most FA-class novel articles don't have one, and this isn't about a novel. Removed. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) References References 1 and 2 should have endashes (–) instead of hyphens Done (i think) Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) The publisher for reference 3 should be Queensland Newspapers because it's just an on-line reprint of something that originally appeared in the paper. Done. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Reference 4 should have the last name first. Also, remove the location and make the publisher ABC Radio and Regional Content and make the hyphen an unspaced endash (–). Don't worry, I'm a pedant ;) Done Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Other Rationale is fine for the one image. the ALT text, however, needs attention. You shouldn't say "The logo design" because someone may not know this from just looking at it. Also, most readers won't know what "the Aurealis Award logo" looks like, so you should describe it. Changed to what i think is better. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think Category:Fantasy awards should be there. For one, this isn't about a fantasy award, it's about the winners, so Category:Lists of speculative fiction-related award winners and nominees is better. Removed. Salavat (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) After these issues are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Would "creation" be more widely understood by readers than "inception"? Just a thought, I wouldn't object if "inception" was kept.

Changed. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Categories currently include science fiction, fantasy, horror, young-adult fiction, children's literature, with separate awards for novels and short fiction, collections and anthologies, and illustrative works or graphic novels": do separate awards for novels, short fiction, etc apply to every category?

No not for collections and anthologies, and illustrative works or graphic novels. It reads right for me but if im missing a comma to make it more clear please tell. Ive also added some more information, does it read alright? Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Multi-time winners of the award include Sara Douglass (three wins), Juliet Marillier (three wins), Garth Nix (two wins), Jane Routley (two wins), and Sean Williams (two wins)": there's a bit of repetition there, how about something like "Of the [x number of winners], two people have won the award three time – Sara Douglass and Juliet Marillier – and three have won it twice – Garth Nix, Jane Routley, and Sean Williams."

Done. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead should mention that it's possible for more than one winner per year.

I added a sentence in the second paragraph, not sure of the positioning and if it disrupts anything else though.

• For the 1998 row, should Jane Routley have an asterisk next to her name as she won?

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Honourable mention and highly commended novels" needs some explanation. When was it introduced and (if possible) why?

well i found a document stating that they can be awarded in "no award" and "Unable to Reach Agreement" situations however they dont state why they are listed in addition to years which have winners, instead just saying that they are submitted by the judges, so i opted to leave it out because those options arent relavent for these awards, but can be added if needed. Sentences have been added to the bottom of the second paragraph. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm fine with leaving it as it is rather than confusing the situation.

I like the lead, it reads well and the sources are appropriate (ie: the awards website for the technicalities, outside sources for praise). The tables are straightforward and user friendly. Once these issues are addressed, I'll be happy to support. Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:40, 26 December 2009 [7].

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have based this list on the current FLs: List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons, List of Maryland Terrapins football seasons, List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons and List of Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons. I feel it now meets the featured list criteria after a peer review help to clean up several minor problems and I am now nominating the list for FL. NThomas (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "This is a list of..." - featured lists no longer start in this manner. See recently promoted lists for suggestions. The Sooners, Crimson Tide and Terrapins season lists that the nominator mentions above are probably the best examples to use. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC) What applying the same setup that List of Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons has? "This is a list of seasons completed by the Virginia Tech Hokies football team of the..." NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) See WP:WAX. Also, that list was promoted 18 months ago, during which time the criteria have changed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I didn't know about WAX. Thanks for pointing it out. Here's the revision history of that part of the corrected lead. "The list documents season-by-season records, and conference records from 1932–1956 and 1960–present." - when the first sentence is changed, this one should change also. It's very dry. Also, don't use dashes in prose; when you say "from", it needs to be matched with "to", rather than replacing "to" with a dash. Corrected. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) "Football Bowl Subdivision" should be linked here. Why? The sentence is talking about the FBS Subdivision not the not the subdivision championship. The link you suggested is about the championship not the subdivision. I did change it though to link to Division I#Football Bowl Subdivision, the only place on Wikipedia that specifically talks about the subdivision. The same thing is done on the FL: Virgina Tech list. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) "wife of the first football coach" - "Easter egg" links like this are discouraged; see WP:EGG. Suggest wife of E. Y. Freeland, the first football coach, Corrected. Thanks for the example too. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) "19th most of any university" - anywhere this can be linked to? Not that I could find. If a list were to be made, that text would be the best place to link to it though in this list. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) What about NCAA football bowl records? Also, "19th most" should be 19th-most Thank you! That article works perfectly. Also, I added the hyphen for -most. NThomas (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) According to that article, Texas Tech is tied with Miami (FL) and Ole Miss at 17th, not 19th. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for finding that mistake. NThomas (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) In the key and in the table, each color needs to be accompanied by a symbol, per WP:ACCESS. Done NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) In the table headers, there's no reason to have the references on a different line than what they are referencing, and there should not be spaces between references. I fixed the spaces but, the overwhelming majority of the college football season FLs that have multiple references do the same thing. Why is this one different? NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) The others are wrong and should be fixed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. It's fixed. NThomas (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) In the table, per WP:LINK, each row should be able to stand on its own. Table rows are a listed exception to WP:OVERLINK. Each time you have a conference name, it should be linked. Every college football season FL doesn't link to the conference every year. Why would this list be any different? NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Because the MOS says so. It's not as big of an issue here, since this table is not sortable, but why make a reader scroll all the way back up to click a link if they are down near the bottom of the list? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Reference 6 is actually a footnote. Organized it. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Since I've never seen them before, I have to ask: What makes NationalChamps.net and College Football Data Warehouse reliable sources? Regarding College Football Data Warehouse, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I replaced the NationalChamps.net reference with an identical reliable source from College Football Data Warehouse. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Navbox should contain a link to this article. It doesn't right now, at least not that I can see. I changed the font in the navbox to make the link visable. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Remove bold as an indicator from the table per MOS:BOLD. Done. There should be no space between a table entry and its indicator (e.g., a year and its dagger). I suggest superscripting indicators that are at cap height (like daggers) after the spaces are removed to avoid visual crowding. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I don't know what superscripting indicators are. Mind sharing a link? NThomas (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think we have one. All I mean is using the superscript code tags (<sup> and </sup>) around the daggers and other indicators that are cap height. Superscripting is in the toolbox at the top of the "edit" section as well (the first button containing x2. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) I understand what you're saying now. It does look a lot better with superscript. NThomas (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils); Great work. 12:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced, archived, and corrected links. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Voltin

• I think the lead picture could be changed out with one that features action or a team and is a little bit more relevant to the actual teams. I think we can still leave the picture of The Jones as a secondary photo, but I think an action/team shot should be included. There are several very nice photos in the Texas Tech page of the Wiki Commons.
  • Added an action shot from Wiki Commons. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• The "Texas Tech Matadors" title in the table is little hard to read with red text on a black background. While I can appreciate including the school colors in the list, I think white text on a black background would be more readable.

• You're killing me on that one. That's probably my favorite part of this list... but I agree. Replaced the red text with white. NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall I think is a very well put together list. --Voltin (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks NThomas (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Support from Voltin (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC). While I am not a contributor to the article, it should be noted that I am a member of WikiProject Texas Tech University and WikiProject Big 12 Conference. Both Wikiprojects' scope include this article.

Support with the same caveats listed by Voltin. I have not contributed to the article but am a member of the two related WikiProjects. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments charter member in the south division of the Big 12 Conference You have South Division capitalized in the first paragraph, but not the third. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) The Red Raiders, coached by Mike Leach since 2000, earned 56 wins from the 2000 through the 2006 season. Seems like a very selective time period. Why was it limited from 2000-2006? That was what the reference had listed. It was Mike Leach's tenure when the reference was written. At the end of the 2009 season, I'll replace it with a similar sentence with updated numbers via a footnote. NThomas (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Refs 15, 24 & 25 need access dates. 15 already did have an access date. 24 and 25 now do. NThomas (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 15 did not have an access date, but it looks like you changed out that ref completely. Looks good now.—NMajdan•talk The template at the bottom does not contain a link to this article. It does. When viewing the template on a different page, the "Teams" link becomes visible. NThomas (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —NMajdan•talk 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "Texas Tech has played their home...." - isn't that a mix of singular and plural? Either "have played their" or "has played its"?

• I went with singular as Texas Tech is one school. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• No need to capitalize "Wide" in the image caption.

• Done NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• No need to link individual years like 1937. I'm sure global events of that year are more significant than the name change from Matadors to Red Raiders...!

• What about linking to 1937 college football season instead? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would be a lot better. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. NThomas (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• "before getting their first" - just don't like "get" maybe achieving? securing? something less clumsy...

• I just removed getting all together. I think it flows much better now. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• "before getting their first postseason win in the 1952 Sun Bowl.[2] Before withdrawing..." - before x 2 - reads repetitively.

• Right now after removing the "a total of" from below, it reads: Texas Tech suffered four more bowl losses before their first postseason win in the 1952 Sun Bowl. Before withdrawing from the Border Conference in 1956, the Red Raiders won eight conference championships and one co-championship, the most held by a Border Conference member. what about this instead: ''Texas Tech suffered four more bowl losses before their first postseason win in the 1952 Sun Bowl. The Red Raiders won eight conference championships and one co-championship, the most held by a Border Conference member, before withdrawing from the conference in 1956. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• "won a total of eight" - any reason for "a total of"?

• Nope. Same thing with "getting" before. Removed it. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Being a European, I have no idea what a "co-championship" is - could you add a footnote to indicate what this means?

• Co- is a prefix that means shared. So it is a shared championship. Does that really need a footnote? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand what "co" means, but absolutely not one single sport I follow ever "shares" a championship. Ever. So it's odd to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• The second image overlaps the top-right of the table (I'm using Safari) so the column headings aren't visible.

• What do you suggest to fix it? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know but it does need to be fixed. You need a wiki markup wizard to help... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where would I look to find the right wiki markup wizard? NThomas (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any reason why "Champions" and "Co-Champions" are capitalized in your key?

• I followed the other FL's keys that I based this list on. The capital letters are fixed now. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for appearing dense, but what does T-1st mean? is that 1st=? Tied for first place? It's an notation I've never seen before...

• I don't mean to WP:WAX here, but three other FLs similar to this one have T– as their notation for a tie in standings. It may be uncommon but not unheard of. The lists for college football rankings do something similar, (see 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings as an example) they uses "т" beside the teams that share the same standing. If I added a "T–" section to the legend, would that work? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's not that I think it's inappropriate, it's just that I don't know what it means. So yes, adding it to the key would be useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. NThomas (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Watch out for those hyphens which slip in from about 1976 onwards in your T-x notation.

• Replaced them all. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't mix date formats in the references - your ref 21 has a human-readable date - perhaps just convert that to ISO (per ref 15) and I think all will be well.

• So just change the "(August 25, 2006)" to "(2006-9-25)"?

• Sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done. NThomas (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Images need alt text. Done. NThomas (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) "The Red Raiders have made a record 32 bowl game appearances". Which record is this referring to? It's not a national or even conference record, as the lead already says. Corrected. It now reads: "The Red Raiders have made 32 bowl game appearances..." NThomas (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) In the Division and Ties columns, consider using dashes for the blank cells. I only used blank cells where the information is not applicable. Dashes are in cells where information is possible but not accumulated. NThomas (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Note 2 could use a cite. Done. Added Michigan's record from 2008. NThomas (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Note 5: "released on November 30 the of that year" Excess word snuck in there. Also, a comma should probably be placed directly after this. Commas could also come after "which are the major components of the BCS formula" and "Texas defeated an unranked Texas A&M team". Good finds! Thanks. NThomas (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Minor point, but the publishers for references 19 and 22 should be made consistent since they both come from the same website. I wouldn't consider it a minor point. Another good find. Thanks for all your critiques. NThomas (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:40, 26 December 2009 [8].

---

List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it is a companion to the featured lists List of new churches by John Douglas and List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas. Its lead is similar to the other lists, suitably modified for this list of houses. The table is similar apart from one major change: as the proportion of images is less than the other lists, they have been included in a separate strip, rather than integrated as a column within the list, in order to avoid too much white space. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Check "disambig links" in the toolbox. bamse (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed those! Done Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "his output" - rather clinical for me. Perhaps something like architectural contributions? "output" changed to "designs" - "architect" appears in the previous sentence - and why use longer words? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) "John Douglas was born " any real need to repeat full name? No. Fixed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Since a sub is required for ref 1, perhaps you could be kind enough to explain why there's such a large variation in when he established his office. No one knows. I've added a ref from his biographer (the standard work on Douglas) which includes a footnote quoting it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) None of third para referenced. Is it using the one at the end of para 4? No harm in reusing it so we don't have an entirely unref'ed para. Sorry, this must have been accidentally deleted. Restored. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) "embrace a spectrum of grandeur" - says who? This is very POV. Not really. Spectrum = range; grandeur = size+. So amended it to a rather "boring" (?safe) version! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Funny, I thought as I was complaining about it that in its literal sense it was probably okay, but it just read like a fan's review.. safe may be boring but also unequivocally neutral! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC) "to cottages, such as the pair of cottages known" - repetition of cottage too soon. Fixed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) "those excluded include are small houses, cottages and outbuildings" - may I ask why? We've seen some cottages are included so I'm not sure what criteria you've applied when it comes to excluding certain other buildings. Para reworded; I hope this makes it clearer. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Or are all those you've excluded as a result of it being "not been possible to identify the structure or its location" or have you excluded more on other grounds? I hope my amendment makes this clear. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Bronwylfa - an unlinked work for an unlinked person which isn't listed and most of which isn't original. How does this make the cut? Similar for Home Place. I originally thought that Bronwylfa was (before the fire) a notable building, but cannot find sources to adequately confirm this. So I've deleted it completely. As for Home Place, it's included because it is a house in an area "at a distance away from his office in Chester" (para 4). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) "This was a house which has been attributed to Douglas." does this (and similar comments) imply that there's no substantive/definitive evidence it was by Douglas? I tried to explain in para 4 that it was considered by Hubbard that it, and others, were by Douglas "on stylistic grounds together with evidence of a local association". Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Refs 129 to 142 shouldn't have spaces between any of them. Fixed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Going back to "House" - "unusual example of Douglas' work" why is it unusual? Notes reworded. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 1 appears to have a nasty [1] in-line link in it. Not a "nasty" link, but one which could be helpful. If you use it, you are taken to the home page of the ODNB; so if you are a subscriber (in the UK, all you need is a public library card) you can then access the ref. And, even better, if you are already logged on to the ODNB website via another tab, you are taken straight to the John Douglas page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) No denying the link's utility, simply its format - bare links and all that, not really what we want to see in featured content. Proper cite templates ought to be used. I know this is a ref within a ref (and I can't deny that I'm hopeless with them) but there are ways to include refs properly rather than the [1] + arrow linking. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, hadn't thought of that. Amended and it seems to work OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 82 is missing a space in the accessdate Fixed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the helpful and detailed review. I have tried to answer all the points raised. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) No problem. I responded to a couple of your answers in-line. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Amended the ref. Is it all OK now? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

*Comment: I would like to see a key added for the article, to distinguish between I and II, as well as the three colors. It's mentioned in one of the paragraphs, but that can be turned into the key, as at 5 paragraphs the lead is quite lengthy (the two final ones could be combined afterwards. Wizardman 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC) I've added a key, reduced the text and combined the last two paras. I've not designed a key before; it this how it should be? If not please feel free to advise/amend/improve. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Key looks good. Support don't see further issues. Wizardman 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks Another high-quality John Douglas list. I like the listed buildings key: a very elegant solution (much more so than the waffly prose I have used in my listed buildings articles!). I have a few observations and queries: The key was not my idea; Wizardman must take the credit for that. Lead Douglas' new houses embrace a range of sizes, from substantial country houses, such as Oakmere Hall and Abbeystead House, to cottages, such as the pair known as Tai Cochin, workers' houses, such as those in Port Sunlight, and the block of flats known as Parker's Buildings in Chester. Lots of commas make this sentence difficult to parse. I've played around with it, inserting different combinations of dashes, semicolons, brackets and so on; not sure what the best solution is at the moment. I'll continue to think about it. I've substituted some semicolons and changed the end of the sentence. Does this work? Table Sorting: in the "Name" column, should 6–11 Grosvenor Park Road sort before 31 and 33 Dee Banks? Likewise with 115 Foregate Street, Chester and 26 Southbank, Great Budworth in the "Location" column. (I'm not sure about this myself.) I've sorted the numerical addresses. but I think where a house has a name, it should sort with the other names. In the entry for Saighton Grange, the year (1894–86) seems to have a typo. Fixed The sorting for entries containing the year 1881 may need tweaking. When you sort that column, the order is like this: 1881 1. 1881–82; 2. 1892–94 c. 1881 1881–82 ...whereas the default unsorted order is: 1881 1881–82 1. 1881–82; 2. 1892–94 c. 1881 ...which looks correct. Tweaking the hidden sort keys should fix this. Fixed. Grosvenor Park Lodge's Grade II sorting isn't working. Fixed. Several locations lack coordinates. Is this intentional, or have you not found them? I wondered if lack of coordinates = demolished buildings, but that doesn't seem to be the case. In some cases, I find it difficult to determine which of the buildings in the list have been demolished, just using the details presented in the text. For example, Googling suggests that Home Place in Oxted is no longer standing, and the entry in the list sort of implies it (no accompanying article, no English Heritage listing), but does not state it explicitly. Perhaps you could introduce a colour code (with accessibility key such as *) to show demolished buildings? I've added the coords for Cilcain Hall (thought I had done that earlier). The other absentees are when I cannot accurately find the building. I hope all the others are OK; sometimes, especially with farmhouses, it is difficult to be absolutely sure. I have positive evidence of only one complete demolition - Barrowmore Hall; so if it doesn't say it's demolished, it either isn't, or I cannot be sure. In the blurb for Grosvenor Park Lodge, try his first known use to avoid repetition of Douglas'. Done. In Shotwick House: In 1907 it was enlarged and rebuilt after a fire for Thorneycroft Vernon reads slightly better as After a fire in 1907 it was enlarged and rebuilt for Thorneycroft Vernon (assuming the fire was in 1907!), although on reflection the difference is small. Done. In Hill Bark Farmhouse, try with the upper storey half-timbered → with a half-timbered upper storey. Done. In Eaton Boat, try they were built in stone → they were built in stone. Sorry, I can't spot the difference. In Whitegate Vicarage, partly-jettied should be partly jettied or part-jettied. Done. In Dedwyddfa, This house has been attributed to Douglas. would be snappier. Done. Refs Refs [7] and [9] refer to the same page range, and can therefore be combined. Done. Same for refs [84] and [85]. Ref [85] was an error which I have corrected. Refs [11] and [28] need pp.. Ref [102] seems to have a typo. Both fixed. Alt text Perfect apart from one spelling error: stories → storeys in Bath Street, Chester. Done. I have placed this FLC on my watch list. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the trouble you've taken over this review - most helpful. I hope I have corrected and/or answered the points made. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support and follow-up Thanks for making these changes, and for your other clarifications. I have made two edits: one on Eaton Boat, where my original comment had a typo which rendered it meaningless (sorry!)—I have changed "they" to "these"; and one addition of coordinates. My technique for finding coordinates, in the absence of accurate grid references or other data to base these on, is a bit time-consuming but usually works in the end: using the Images of England photo and address description (or any other available address info), I search on Google Maps satellite view for the building. I did this for Abbotsford and found it on a small lane off Warrington Road. Obviously it helps if the building has a distinctive roofline, and it can get frustrating! You can then confirm the coordinates by converting them back into a grid reference and comparing them with a map or with the basic coordinates given on the IoE listing. (For IoE listings where the full grid reference is quoted, which is usually the case in Sussex, I convert that into coordinates using www.nearby.org.uk) This might help with West Lodge and Green Farmhouse. I accept your rationale for demolished buildings and the lack of definitive evidence. The rewritten sentence in the lead looks much clearer; everything else is fine as well. Hope you can find the other two coordinates I referred to, but it's not a problem if you can't. Support accordingly – Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [9].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Sanath Jayasuriya

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Another centuries list, and the first Sri Lankan one. This is based on the already existing ones of Ponting, Sehwag etc. My first list of this type, so your comments and suggestions would be most welcome. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "batting style introduced a new batting strategy" batting x 2 is a little repetitive. Done Removed second one. fielding restrictions may be difficult for a non-expert to understand - consider a note. Done Note added. Glen -> Glenn. Done (damn :P) "prompting a change in the award's selection policy" what change? Done Clarified and note added. It would be nice to link out, somehow, to List of Test cricket triple centuries for his 340.. Done Link added. You could also link to List of One Day International cricket records for the team record. Done Link added. Link to test records also added. Test score col doesn't sort for me. Works for me... I've added {{nts}}. Does that fix it? Nor does ODI one. Same as above. Could be worth picking out his second ODI ton with a strike rate of over 2 runs per ball...? It is mentioned. I have added the strike rate as well now. accessdates - lose the leading zeroes on 05 December for instance. Done Removed. Refs 53 and 54 seem to have an extra ]. Done Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Everything is done I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments In the ODI column, the not outs are treated as lower than the outs at the same score. e.g. 102* sorts lower than 102, 107* sorts lower than 107 and so on. Done Added . I'm surprised that other centuries lists don't seem to have a method to sort this, though. I still have the same problem, if I sort ascending on score I get 102* first, then 102, then 103. I don't know about the older FLs, but I've been checking for this on the newer ones :) Isn't that how it should be? The not outs come first and the outs will come later when you are sorting in ascending order. Vice versa in descending order. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC) 102* should be better than 102, but lower than 103. This descending order list from Cricinfo might be helpful (see the 144* & 144s, 126*, 121*). cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Done Thanks for your help :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Maybe reorder "In Test cricket...West Indies.[11]" and "He made his Test debut ...the Sri Lankan side.[12]" for flow? Done Changed. Is Tendulkar needed in the last sentence? As he's mentioned once already, I'd hate to see him getting the final word on Sanath's list! Heheh... the player ahead is usually mentioned, no? Changed to a note. I'd just as well prefer that SRT stays in his space! I think the note looks better. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, and I hope the changes are satisfactory. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments addressed, don't see any other issues. -SpacemanSpiff 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Yep - about time for another Aussie however. What about the Waugh twins, Border or even Bradman? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Seems mostly solid. Just found a couple of little nit-picks:

• Remove the space after a dash in the last sentence of the lead.

• Done

• The Test table has an H/A column, while the ODI table has H/A/N. Why are they different?

• That's because none of the tests were played at neutral venues, so only "home" and "away" are there. Test series are usually played between two countries, so the venue is either at their own country or the other's. However, in ODI's there are triangular series etc (and tournaments like the world cup, ICC champions) which bring together more than one team. So the venues may be neutral for a side in such a case. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, just to add a bit of backing, Test cricket matches are always played "home" or "away" while one day matches, such as those in the Cricket World Cup (in a different country every four years or so) could be played in neutral venues, hence the difference... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just to be a pest: What about Australia playing three Tests against Pakistan in England :) Aaroncrick (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me. Harrias (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [10].

---

Madonna singles discography

Nominator(s): --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a wonderful list which features the singles and the song released by a veteran artist, whose catalogue is really huge and is one of the greatest artists of all time. I believe this discography deserves featured list as it is the most complete discography you can find. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions: "In early 1980s, Madonna signed a singles deal with Sire Records" Should be "In the early 1980s ..." but I think it would be better as "In 1982 ..." (or 1981 or 1983 or whatever year it was that she signed the contract). Corrected. "However, the single was failed to enter Billboard Hot 100." Change this to "However, the single failed to enter Billboard's Hot 100 chart" or "However, the single failed to enter the Billboard Hot 100 chart". You might also consider changing "failed to" to "did not". "Her first entry on the chart ..." Consider: "Her first entry in the Hot 100 ..." "The following year, Madonna released "Like a Virgin", which reached number one in a number of countries." Dump "a number of countries" and actually name which counties the song became number one in. "The single became Madonna's first number-one on the Hot 100 and spent six weeks atop the chart" Consider: "at the top of the chart" rather than "atop". "In 1985, she released her second US number-one single "Crazy for You" and her first UK number-one single "Into the Groove", both being motion picture soundtracks " Change to: "In 1985, she released her second US number-one single, "Crazy for You", and and her first UK number-one single, "Into the Groove", both being motion picture soundtracks" (i.e add commas). Also consider: "both being from motion picture soundtracks." "Madonna's third album, True Blue, gave her three number one singles in 1986; "Live to Tell", "Papa Don't Preach" and "Open Your Heart"." Change the semi-colon (;) to a colon(:). Also I would suggest: "In 1986 Madonna's third album, True Blue, gave her three number one singles" "Other singles from the album, namely "True Blue" and "La Isla Bonita" were top-five hits.[7] Are "True Blue" and "La Isla Bonita" the only other top-five hits from the album? If there are more list them as well. It was followed by another number-one single "Who's That Girl" in 1987." What does "it" refer to? You have an album and several singles listed before "it". If you mean the album, True Blue, change it to that but don't hyperlink it this time. "Madonna's fourth studio album Like a Prayer released in 1989 gave her another number-one single with the title track, which was the subject of strong reaction from religious groups and media, going to the top of the charts ..." Place a comma before and after Like a Prayer Consider replacing "released in 1989" to just "(1989)". If you're stating that the title song went to number one then "going to the top of the charts" seems redundent. I don't think the blurb about the religious groups and media is needed as it's material that is (or should be) discussed in the main bio of Madonna. "This made her the first artist to accumulate seven number-one singles in the 1980s, and the first female performer to get that many number-ones as a solo act" Consider: "This made her the first artist to accumulate seven number-one singles in the 1980s, and also the first female performer to receive seven number-one singles as a solo act" "Madonna became the female artist with the most number ones of 1980s and the second artist overall behind Michael Jackson." Consider: "By the end of the 1980s Madonna was second only to Michael Jackson as the artist with the most number one songs." I think most people should be able to figure out that Madonna is the female with the most number one songs if the only person that surpassed her was a man. "Beginning the 1990s, Madonna released "Vogue" from I'm Breathless. Change to: "In 1990 Madonna released "Vogue" from the album I'm Breathless. "It topped charts in over thirty countries worldwide, including the Billboard Hot 100." Only 10 charts are shown in the list, with only half showing it in the number one position. Change the wording to state this or expand the chart to show all 30 countries and their charts. Corrected. However, maximum allowable lilmit as per MOS:DISCOG is 10, hence 10 countries are shown. And that too only nine major music markets + the artist's home country market. "The same year, she released "Justify My Love", her ninth number-one single." You can leave this as it is as long as you state the exact year in a previous sentence (as suggested two comments above). "Her fifth studio album Erotica was released that same year but failed to generate any chart topping single. Only the title track and "Deeper and Deeper" reached the top ten." Commas before and after Erotica. Change "single" to "singles". "In 1995 Madonna released "Take a Bow" from her sixth studio album Bedtime Stories." Consider: "In 1995 Madonna released "Take a Bow" from Bedtime Stories, her sixth studio album." "The song became her biggest hit on the Hot 100 and stayed for seven weeks at the top; her longest run at the top position on the chart." Consider: "The song became her biggest hit on the Hot 100 and stayed at the top for seven weeks, making it her longest run at number one." "Other top-ten singles released during this period included "Secret" (1994), "You'll See" (1995) and "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" (1996), the later reaching the top of the charts in countries worldwide." The second part probably should start a new sentence. "The Latter" (not "the later") probably should be changed to "The last of these singles ..." Once again: Which countries and why aren't they listed in the chart? ""Frozen", from the 1998 album Ray of Light, became her first ever single to debut at number-one in the United Kingdom. It was her first chart topper there since 1990 and marked as her big comeback." Consider adding "also" before "her first chart topper." "Madonna entered the 2000s with her twelfth US number-one single, "Music". It made her one of the two female artist with number-ones in three different decades." Consider: "In 2000 Madonna scored her twelfth U.S. number one single with "Music"." Also, 2000 is the final year of the last decade of the 20th Century and not the first year of the first decade of the 21st Century. If Madonna began her recording career in 1982 then "Music" falls in the final year of her second decade, so the second sentence presented here is untrue. (Even if it was true, who is the other artist?) " ... whose music video was banned for being too violent" Perhaps again something that isn't needed here but is better suited to the main bio or the Madonna videography. "The single peaked at number one in more than forty-five countries and earning a 2007 place in the Guiness Book of World Records as the song topping the charts in most countries." Which countries and why aren't they in the charts? See above. "Madonna is ranked as the most successful solo artist on "Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists".[30] Consider adding "currently" before "ranked" and "the" before "Billboard". "She is the most successful female artist in the United Kingdom with most number-one singles than any other female artist.[31] Change "most" to "more". Hope these suggestions help. Jimknut (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Woww. good many thanks Jimknut! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, made the changes. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support — The information seems complete and the sources look good. Jimknut (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments "signed a singles deal " isn't there a better way of putting this? done. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Instead of linking "her debut album" in Easter egg style, why not call it her "eponymous debut album" and link eponymous to Madonna (album)? done --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "countries like the United States, Australia and Canada" countries like? you mean countries "including"? changed. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "Like a Virgin the album..." wrong way round. corrected --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "both being from motion" no need for "being". corrected. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "number one single" vs "her first number-one" - hyphen or not? hyphened. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "gave her another number-one " in consecutive sentences. repetitive. removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "in countries like Australia, Canada and" see above. "she released "Justify My Love", her ninth US number-one single.[13] Madonna released" - released x 2 - repetitive. rephrased. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps you could identify some of the soundtracks she kept releasing singles from? already present in the tables, I believe no need to add them again in lead.--Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "chart topping singles" - hyphenate chart-topping. corrected. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France etc." etc? etc? Not good. "n the year 2000" the year is redundant, I think we can safely assume that "in 2000" means in the year 2000. corrected. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "platinum" link to record certification. linked to RIAA certifications. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) "most successful" three sentences running is a little repetitive too. rephrased. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Remove space between text and notes, e.g. "Everybody" [A] done. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Why bullet point single notes? that's how i have seen it being done across all articles. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Make the cols the same width from section to section. En dash for page ranges in references. See ref 42 as well, year ranges need en dash too. Done. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Addressed concerns, please take a look. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Avoid single-sentence paragraphs (e.g. the opening one). I believe this is as par with other disco FLCs.--Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Agree with Rambles. Expand/merge or what have you. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Merged it. :) --Legolas (talk2me) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - Looks great anyhow, Haven't gone through sources however. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Wasn't she also credited on "Sidewalk Talk" as backing vocalist? It should be in other appearances. Allmusic provides a complete list of credits to Madonna. Also, why are "Me Against the Music" and "Hey You" listed twice? I can understand the former, but why would her song ("Hey You") be in Other appearances? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point. Will take a looky. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright I corrected the section, by adding "Sidewalk Talk" and removing "Hey You". --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Support. Looks good, nice job! --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• "Other singles released from the album included 'Borderline' and 'Lucky Star',of which...". Space needed after the comma.
• Minor point, but I would consider moving the link for her debut album in the lead to where it actually says debut album. It's a little confusing to me just having the link piped at eponymous. When I first saw it, I wondered to myself where the album link was before figuring it out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  Corrected. Thanks Giants2008. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [11].

---

List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers

Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. This list is more similar to List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers than the other Opening Day starting pitcher FLs because, like the Phillies list, this list goes back to the 19th century, and less information is available for the 19th century and early 20th century (and the sources do not summarize the data as usefully) than more recent data. Rlendog (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 You don't use the MLB abbreviation, so remove it from the lead. "Opening Day" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. In remaining consistent with the title, capitalize all. "record of six wins, one loss and on tie" - one tie. Also, I don't know if these would be considered "comparable" per MOS:NUM with the rest of the records. I will allow other reviewers to comment on this. "Five of the Cubs Opening Day" - Cubs', and remove "of the", it's unnecessary and becomes wordy I would re-order the names of the HoFers to have the unlinked names first, since they have already been introduced. "In addition," - I like Additionally better here, but that may just be personal preference "300 game winner" - 300-game I don't really think that it's necessary to mention Mordecai Brown at all; as he never made an Opening Day start, he's unrelated to the topic. If the Phillies keep going for the next several years and Cole Hamels never makes an Opening Day start for them (he never has, and probably won't next year), he wouldn't be mentioned in that article. "and the Cubs won both those Opening Day games" - both of those In the Key, table headers should be bold: Bold "Season" Bold "Location" Bold "Final Score" Superscript daggers in the table to reduce visual crowding. Toolbox: Links work, no dabs, alt text exists. I won't comment on its quality, only its existence. I know that someone who can't see the pictures likely doesn't know what a Cubs uniform looks like, though. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think they were very helpful. I addressed all but the following: I fixed the typo in "one", but I left the numbers spelled out for now. I am not sure either whether these would be considered "comparable" records, so I left as is for now, and if other reviewers want me to switch to numerals that will be easy enough. I left the "In addition". That sounds more correct to me. I left in the Mordecai Brown comment for now. I am curious to see what other reviewers think. I agree it is not exactly necessary, but when I was creating this list Brown's absence was the item that I found most surprising. I agree that if Cole Hamels never makes an Opening Day start for the Phillies that will not be worth mentioning in the Phillies article, but if he ever makes the Hall of Fame as a Phillie without having made an Opnening Day start, that might become worthy of mention. Rlendog (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Based on your and the other comments, I have removed the Brown reference. Rlendog (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Ref 5 appears to have moved. Can you locate an alternate source, locate the new location for this source, or find an archive of this source? Please explain the reasoning for the inclusion of Mordecai Brown in this article. He was never an Opening Day pitcher, so I don't know why he is mentioned in the lead and why he has an image (removing him would also remove the requirement for the reference in my previous bullet). —NMajdan•talk 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I included Brown because the fact that he was not an Opening Day starting pitcher is quite unusual given that he was a Hall of Fame starting pitcher who spent most of his career with the Cubs and was elected to the HOF as a Cub (the latter is the only piece the Ref 5 is needed to support, although I can probably find an alternate source for Brown's HOF team). Most pitchers in a similar situation have many Opening Day starts - i.e., Jenkins/Cubs, Seaver/Mets, Marichal/Giants, Hubbell/Giants, Mathewson/Giants, Johnson/Senators, etc. Sandy Koufax is one exception but even he had one Opening Day start for the Dodgers. So it seemed noteworthy to mention that Brown never did make an Opening Day start for the Cubs. But now you and KV5 have opposed including this, so if there are more comments like this I will take it out. Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I didn't even read KV's review either. I guess I just don't see the average reader thinking, "Well, where's Mordecai Brown?"—NMajdan•talk 17:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Based on your and the other comments, I have removed the Brown reference. Rlendog (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, pending the resolution of the image issue mentioned by Giants2008.—NMajdan•talk 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Agree with the other reviewers on Three Finger Brown. At the very least, there's no reason for a picture of him, considering we have free photos of pitchers who did make Opening Day starts. "They have also had an Opening Day record of six wins, one loss and one tie at their other home ball parks". Remove "also", as it really doesn't work that well with the preceding sentence. Are non-sports fans going to understand what an away game is? That might require some further explanation (is there an appropriate wikilink?). Road (sports). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC) "In addition, 300-game winner Greg Maddux was the Cubs Opening Day starting pitcher in 1992." Apostrophe at end of Cubs. Same goes for "Overall was the Cubs Opening Day starting pitcher both seasons". Decapitalize second word of Final Score header. For the Clark Griffith and Al Spaulding photos, there is no proof that they were published before 1923, the standard required by their given PD templates. They were created before then, but that doesn't mean they were published. Without proof that they were, I recommend removing them. The John Clarkson photo links to a home page for Chicago Daily News pictures on the Library of Congress website. A search leads to this photo, but the current link is inconvienient for those who want to verify the PD status. Is a direct link to the photo page possible? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I addressed the prose comments, including removing the Mordecai Brown item, that all the reviewers seem to think is unnecessary. I removed the problematic photos, although hopefully when the HOF site is back up there will be proof that the Spalding image is ok. I also added an image of Fred Goldsmith to replace the removed images, and I added a link to the Clarkson image that I hope addresses your concerns. Rlendog (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC) To add one note on the new Fred Goldsmith photo, the licensing is incorrect. The uploader couldn't have placed this into the public domain, unless she was around in the late 1880s and took the photo (unlikely). This image was published before 1923, so it should have that template instead, and the source should mention the newspaper. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure how this works. The licensing information on Commons states "F. E. Goldsmith is Frederick Elroy Goldsmith. This is a scan of this paper pubishing own by Fred's Great Great Granddaughter : Susan L. [Gold]Smith." And apparently Susan Smith, who claims to own the publishing rights, was the uploader. In the U.S. it is obviously out of copyright, but in other jurisdictions (which may be relevant on Commons) that may not be the case. So if this is still a problem I am not sure how to best resolve it. The easy way would be to remove the picture from the article, which is fine since it is not essential. Another way would be to upload the picture from Commons to Wikipedia under a different licensing template, but I am not sure how to do that and I am not sure if we are supposed to copy media that is already on Commons onto Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Not sure about this, but I think the U.S. status is the most relevant on Commons for a photo from the U.S. Wasn't aware that the uploader was apparently related to Goldsmith, and as I said above, the picture was clearly published before 1923 (common standard for PD in U.S.) anyway. With that in mind, I see no need to remove the image, and I'm pretty sure we shouldn't have the same image on Wikipedia and Commons (again not 100% sure). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, though with areservation on the image. I'd at least like to know where the image really was from (clearly from a newspaper; I think it's from The Sporting News but that's not verifiable unless someone has archive access). Wizardman 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The Commons link states the sketch is from "The Official Baseball Record". As per my reply to Giants2008, I don't have a problem removing the image if it is problematic, but I don't think it is and it is always nice to see what some of these old-time, mostly forgotten players looked like. Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    • My suggestion would be to add the publication name and date (visible in the photo) to the image description on Commons. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [12].

---

Skunk Anansie discography

Nominator(s): Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after the last nomination I feel I have made the page a vast improvement since then.Marcus Bowen (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Support and I've replied to a few comments. Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) No dabs and external links are all working, good. The one image needs ALT text, basically describing the image to someone over the phone. Never heard of this, how would I go about it please? :), what mark-up text will I need? I'll add it this time, but take a look at it, that way you can do it yourself next time. Mm40 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Paragraphs 2–4 all start with "In (year)". Vary it up a bit Done Link Paranoid and Sunburnt. Done Per MOS:HASH, replace a number signs (#) with "No." or "number". Done "in that same year" can be reworded "the same year" Done Link Weak, Charity, in the second paragraph. Done Link Stoosh, Hedonism (Just Because You Feel Good), "Brazen (Weep)" and Post Orgasmic Chill in the third paragraph. Done "the band reformed", you should change "reformed" to another word, as reformed means changed, not formed again (might be British vs. American English) Done The last paragraph needs a reference because none is given in the tables (you should repeat the ref in both the lead and album table). Done The first section should be titles "Studio albums" to match with colored template in the lead. Done Nirvana discography has box sets and compilations listed with the studio albums, so I done a similar thing here. The first sentence and template says 3 studio albums but the table and rest of lead has four. Done see above All empty cells in the "Albums" table need emdashes (—); some have them and some don't. Done Why is POR (for peak chart positions in the albums' table) linked only to Portugal? Done There is no article on the Portuguese charts, so going by wiki guidelines, linked this to the article on the country itself. The format for Smashes and Trashes should have a comma, not a period Done I guess One Little Indian didn't give Smashes and Trashes a number? Done Just copied it off my CD box set. The first certification box has countries linked but the others don't; make this consistent Done Only Portugal does not have an article on its domestic sales award body, so linked this to the countries article. IFPI awards domestic gold and platinum discs to a few countries as well as Europe as a continent. "Little Baby Swastikkka" needs a reference for its release because it didn't chart. Done Why is AUT and SWE (for peak chart positions in the singles' table) linked only to Austria and Sweeden? Done Link "Charity" Done Some references have retrieval dates written out while others have YYYY-MM-DD Done Reference 2 should include the publisher (Cidermill Books) and the date of publication (2004). Done Reference 28 is malformed Done For refs 36–39, the publisher is Amazon, not amazon.com Done The first two categories should have "|*" afterward so the article shows up first. Please may you explain this to me further? Again, I'll do it here. Because this article isn't technically part of the category (it's a list of songs and albums, not a song or album itself) we make it show up first. Mm40 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Pretty good overall, after these are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Below the Singles table, what does "|*" mean? Done
• "2x" Use the character "×" instead of the letter. Done
• Delink Italy in the lead; see WP:OVERLINK on linking commonly known geographical terms. Done
• "2009 saw the band return" Not sure what this means. Done Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref 1, the publisher link redirects to Sun. Done
• What makes http://www.skinmusic.net/content/bio/skunk.html a reliable source? Done removed for the time being, but is an official source Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't know it was an official source. Feel free to reinstate it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments/Support from Dt128 (talk · contribs) Hi!

Resolved comments from Dt128

Why have you used the Hung Medien search pages rather than the discography pages? Done You should use {{cite album-notes}} for ref #41. Done Dt128 let's talk 12:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC) In the certifications column, why are the names of the countries spelled out in full, rather than abbreviated? Done Why are the certifications in a smaller font? Done Dt128 let's talk 12:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Allmusic is published by Macrovision. Done What I meant was the publisher should be listed as "Allmusic. Macrovision" Done The publishers of the Hung Medien sites are usually referred to by the website name followed by "Hung Medien", rather than "Finnish Charts Portal" for example. Done What I meant here was, for example "Finnish-Charts.com. Hung Medien" done Amazon is usually not considered a reliable source - why not try to look for an alternative source at Allmusic? Done Dt128 let's talk 12:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Great, but now I would suggest formatting the Allmusic ref titles as "Skunk Anansie > Songs > All Songs" Done Dt128 let's talk 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC) What makes Hit Parade Italia reliable? I used to follow the European charts on MTV text, I remembered the singles and albums charting at those positions on the charts in Italy and this website agrees with what I seen at the time. I agree, but what actually makes it a reliable source? Done, removed source and chart positions mentioned in the source until I can find a reliable source. The only source of Italian chart archives deemeed reliable is Hung Medien, but the info only goes up to a certain time after the albums and singles were released so don't show on the Hung Medien site. Maybe you should remove the Italian chart positions all together, to avoid confusion, but it's up to you ;) Dt128 let's talk 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, the Dutch-Charts.nl site shows the chart positions for the Dutch Single Top 100, rather than the Dutch Top 40. Maybe you could change the column header to something like "NLD 100" to avoid confusion?

• Comment Have Dt's concerns been addressed? If so, has he been asked to revisit this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Supported Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Infobox counts and lead don't match up. Done Our Anansi article doesn't have an e. Which article is this?, the band name is spelt with an E He's referring to Anansi -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Done Thanks for that :). probably worth expanding "Spider-man" just a bit in case people think you're referring to Spiderman... Already done by another user Is gold/platinum capitalised in certification context or not? Seems not in the prose but is in the table... any reason why? Done I think "totalled" is BritEng and should be used in this article. Done Not keen on the single-sentence final paragraph, nothing more you could say about that reunion and subsequent releases? Done "Italian singles chart position taken from www.hitaparadeitalia.it" not sure why this is mentioned. If you consider it unreliable then I would remove the Italian stats altogether. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks solid to me. Only one complaint: some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography. Drewcifer (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [13].

---

List of Oslo Metro lines

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a new flavor of list that shows the ten lines of the Oslo Metro in chronological order. It includes the service numbers and lengths and opening dates of all expansions. I believe it meets the FL criteria, and hope the vultures agree. I am more than happy to improve the article further if need be, and will respond to any feedback. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What is the difference between the lines and the service numbers? Are the service number lines, too? I am sure that there is a difference, but at the moment I am a little confused about this.—Chris!_c/t 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Of historic reasons, there are ten lines, that are the physical infrastructure, and six services, that are the operating numbers. The latter has changed several times in the course of history, while the former has been constant. A (physical) line may have one or more service numbers, while each service operates two lines, plus the Common Tunnel. I have made a slight rewording in the first paragraph that might make this clearer, but perhaps more is needed. Perhaps a new map (as I discuss below) could make it clearer. Although the system is logical as such, it breaches with the way metros are normally lined (with the service and physical infrastructure bearing the same name), so the Oslo-method seems to be confusing to people. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the service and the physical lines are separated. This is a bit odd, but ok I understand now.—Chris!_c/t 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Looks good, but some questions: Support, all questions have been addressed. bamse (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to History of Oslo Metro lines? There is the article History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro that has much more detailed information about the history (which is better described in text, and also covers other areas, such as operation, rolling stock, politics etc). This list is an attempt to make a easy overview of the numerical values of each line, which is not discussed at any length (and at least not systematically) in the history article. It just donned on me as I am writing this that I could have added the number of stations to each line, at the time of each expansion. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) OK. I guess my initial confusion resulted from mixing "lines" with "service".bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Could you still add the number of stations to each line at the time of each expansion? bamse (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Added. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks.bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Is the Common Tunnel a "line"? If yes, the sentence: "They are chronologically sorted by the date of the first section of line to open.", appears to be not true. The Common Tunnel is both a line and a tunnel. I cannot see how the statement is untrue, since the first part of the Common Tunnel opened in 1928, after the Kolsås Line (1924) and before the Sognsvann Line (1934). Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) OK. Don't know what I was looking at then, but it appeared not to be ordered by date. Must have been late... bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The following sentence might be confusing: "If only one or two stations on the line are served by an additional service, it is omitted." I can see the reason for omission, but maybe there is a better way to phrase it, or add a footnote for explanation. Changed to "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I was thinking of adding a reason for the omittance. If it is not confusing to anybody else it is fine with me though. bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Also in the "List" section, you probably mean "column" instead of "row" and "last" -> "4th". Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks.bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Why do you use stars and blue background to mark light rail services? Is the whole network already officially called Metro even though some of the lines still are light rails? It is common to mark such things with both on lists (or so it is on other FLs). The blue is used to color-code to make it easy to see, and the astrix is to help monochrome browsers or colorblind readers to also understand the information, or so I presuem I see. OK. bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Light rail vs. metro is a matter of discussion in sources. Prior to 1993, the metro and the light rail were independent systems, and prior to 1987 there was not even a transfer station. After 1995, all the trains serving the light rail operate through the Common Tunnel and onwards to places on the metro system. All the light rail lines have been closed for upgrade, and when they are reopened, will have metro standard. This mixing of metro and light rail is therefore now an issue of the past. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) If I understand the lead section correctly, it will be an issue of the past in 2014, when the last light-rail has been converted. It seems to be a matter of definition, so it is fine with me. bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The Kolsås and Holmenkoll Lines will be upgraded to metro standard (just like four other lines previously), so this will not be an issue. I think is says so fairly clearly in the lead, but perhaps I am wrong. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Alright. bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I cannot find the Common Tunnel in the map. Is it the dotted line close to Carl Berners plass? Since it seems important, could it be labeled in the map. It would also be good to have the various lines in different colors in the map. That would require me to make a new map from scratch in .svg, which might take some time. Let me look into the issue. The map in question is the best on the Commons right now, is geographically accurate, has the name of all the branches (but as you comment, not the Common Tunnel), and includes both mainline railway and the tramway. Unfortunately, it is in .jpg, so it is virtually impossible to edit, and is from 2005, while the Ring Line had yet to be completed (the dotted line). Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Do you have the original (background) map without the lines? I guess simple edits like completing the ring line and marking the tunnel can be done even on jpg. Also service "6" is missing and "4" runs on a different route if this map is correct. The present map should be marked as "historic" in the article and the image description. bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I don't have anything except the map you see on this article, plus a future map and this. There is also this, but it lacks line names. Let me fiddle in Inkscape and see what I can produce. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Since the list contains the extension of the lines, maybe you could even have several maps: the present map (marked as "2005 map" in the caption) and the new map which shows the present status.bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I have added another map, that is up to day what concerns service numbers and lines, is geographically accurate and in vector format. It includes important stations and line names, but lacks the mainline train and tram lines, plus water/settlement information. To show how the metro lays in the cityscape, I have kept the old map, and made a not that it is pre-2006. Arsenikk (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. If this map is correct, service "5" ends in Storo and services "4" and "6" circle around the ring line before returning to Bergkrystallen and Kolsaas respectively. In your map it seems as if "4,5,6" all end in Nydalen. Which is correct? Maybe it is worthwhile (not essential) to indicate somwhow in the map that all lines use the common line. Also you could mark the tunnel as dotted line or something. bamse (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) To start with the last remark, the way the map is constructed I would have to start from scratch to give the tunnels a dotted line. I have simply converted a bitmap of the line i found on the Commons to an object, which does not allow me to manipulate the lines as I wish. I am trying to figure out how to extract the paths from OpenStreetMap so I can edit it properly, and can produce a much more sophisticated map, but I am only a novice at vector graphics, so it may be beyond the time frame of this FLC to produce such a map. As for the 4/5/6-issue, I see your point, and can move the numbers to below where it says "Ring Line". Hopefully that will be a little more accurate, and I can add a comment in the caption. Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) "4" and "6" under the ring line are better, but "5" ends in Storo (does not circle the ring line) as far as I understand from the map I linked to above. I was under the impression that you had lines in the svg. If they are non-line objects, I agree that it is not easy to make the line dotted. Actually it would have been sufficient to make a schematic map (with straight lines) for 2009, as you already have the 2006 map showing the lines in their environment. If you feel energetic, you could make such a schematic map, or ask at the graphic lab for help. If not, I'd be happy with the present map after the "5" has been fixed. bamse (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The numbers are located about where Storo is, and line 5 terminates there, while services 4 and 6 change their destinations signs between Storo and Nydalen. I don't quite know what to do to clarify it further, although I can, as you say, get it more accurate when I start again with a schematic or map. and include all stations. Arsenikk (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC) It is ok. bamse (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Just out of curiosity, it is still not possible to have tables with "rowspan" sortable on wikipedia, is it? Yes and no. You can disable sorting in certain rows entirely, but it would disrupt the ordering of other rows. So, if not necessary, rowspan should be avoided.—Chris!c/t 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) bamse (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback. I have followed your advice or made a comment about each item. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I replied above. One strange thing surprised me. Was service number 6 really started after 3 (and before 4, 5)? bamse (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The current service numbers date from 2003, when the Ring Line opened. Prior to that, they were mixed with the street tram system, and were inconsistently numbered from 1 to 16. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I see, quite confusing the Oslo metro. BTW, if possible, can you specify the starting point ("from") of the metro conversion of the Kolsås Line in the table entry: "Metro standard to Åsjordet"? Also if the metro standard for the Røa Line is from Lijordet to Østerås it should say so: "Metro standard Lijordet – Østerås". When do you put the words "Metro standard" in the section column? It seems a bit arbitrary to me. bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for pointing that out; I've specified all the metro standard sections. I've also added half a sentence to the key section to try to clarify that all white fields involve metro standard. To answer your last question: the list contains the time of the conversion to metro standard, so lines that have never been converted to metro don't have such a listing (either because they haven't opened yet or because they were built as such). Arsenikk (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I think I got it now. "Metro Standard" spelled out in the table means that the whole line was converted. Correct? bamse (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good list which I have given a very light copy edit to tidy some of the (very few) language oddities. There are a few further things which I wasn't quite sure about.

• The caption to the network map talks about the T-bane but you haven't mentioned anywhere else that this is the local name of the metro.
• "The Østensjø and Lambertseter Lines were converted with the opening in 1966." Not sure what opening this is referring to.
• I think that Bamse has already touched upon this but I think that the merged cells to the right of some of the 'Metro Standard' cells are not what is intended.

Boissière (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit and feedback. I've fixed up the text per point one and two. Regarding the last, I cannot see anything wrong with the numbers, since no metro standard upgrade has changed the length of any line, although they sometimes have reduced the number of stations. I can of course merge the cells to the right, but in my opinion this visualizes that the length, and if applicable, the number of stations, has not changed. But I do see that this style "breaks" the blue rows, so perhaps what you suggest is not so bad. The numerical values are all correct. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

On closer inspection I think that there are two discrepencies. For the Common Tunnel it shows the length of the Stortinget-Nationaltheatret section and the metro conversion of the whole Stortinget-Majorstuen section to both be 4.8km. That can't be correct. In fact in comparing the lengths in the table with the diagram in the Common Tunnel article it looks as though the table has the length of this section incorrectly stated as 2.1km. The article has it as 0.5km. The Songsvann line also shows two different sections to have the same length of 6.0km. The two other parts where you use a merged distance cell are fine as the left hand cells are for the same sections of line. Boissière (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the distance column shows the total length of the line with the upgrade. For instance, for each new section, the length value increases. Regarding the calculation of the common tunnel, this may be so complicated it need a footnote or a remark in the key or something. What has happened, is that the tunnel has been built from both ends. The station distances are (in km) Majorstuen–Nationaltheatret: 2.0, Nationaltheatret–Stortinget: 0.7 km, Stortinget–Jernbanetorget: 0.5, and Jernbanetorget–Tøyen: 1.6. That sums up to 4.8. For the three first entries, the two then-separate tunnels have km-counter independently. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had totally missed the statement that said that the lengths were the total lengths after the opening of each section though I put it to you that this is an unusual way of presenting information about sections of line. I am not totally against things being presented this way but I wonder if other people may also be confused. Boissière (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This idea not struck me as an issue when I though out the article. Perhaps two columns would be suitable, one for the extension length and one for the total length? Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The list now has an additional column with the length of each extension. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

Original lists. That's what I like to see. Apologies for my lack of understanding of rail systems in general, but hopefully these will be of some use.

• The lead states that there are 90 stations. In the list, I added up the number of stations on each line as of the most recent upgrade. So I added the 20 for Holmenkoll, the 10 for Røa, and so on for all ten lines, reaching a total of 92. Does this mean that only two stations are on more than one line? Or have I done something silly? If there indeed are only two stations served by multiple lines, maybe it would be worth naming them?
• On a related note, am I right in believing that the bottom column of each line is the one that gives the information about the current situation of the line?
• Ref 8 should be marked as (in Norwegian).
• References 9 and 27 are exactly the same.
• Inline citation needed for "highest ridership" claim in the last paragraph of the lead.
• "The last two lines are in the process of upgrade, with the Holmenkoll and Kolsås Lines planned to open in 2011 and 2014, respectively." Are the lines closed until 2011 and 2014 respectively, or are they open but using light rail?
• "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." This is a strange question to ask, but am I right to take this sentence literally (i.e. that any service that serves three or more stations is included?). If so that's fine and no amendment is needed, I just want to be sure that the statement is accurate.

Hope those help for now. I have a few other ideas, but I'd rather make sure I understand what I can currently see first. WFCforLife (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I have made some adjustments to the text to adress the language, duplicated ref, inline citation issue (it was cited, but I added another that is probably a lot more accurate). As for your questions, the reason that there are 92 stations is that the Lamberseter Line was incorrectly stated (it said 9 instead of 8); the more problematic station is Majorstuen, that was built as the terminus of the Holmenkoll Line in 1898, and still was that at the last time of the line extension. Since then, the station became the western-most line of the Common Tunnel (and thereby not any more on the Holmenkoll Line). When the table is updated after the upgrades, the station will as such not be listed. Your assumption in the second point (about the bottom line) is correct. However, the Holmenkoll Line and parts of the Kolsås Line exist, but are closed. Regarding your last question, the reason for this is that for instance service six runs from the Common Tunnel, then serves two stations on the Røa Line before running along the Kolsås Line. Similarly, service 4 and 6 serve one station on the Grorud Line before branching off to the Ring Line. This is just an arbitrary choice to avoid giving the impression that services 6 serves the Grorud Line and the Røa Line, etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. WFCforLife (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not coming back to this sooner but I now support this list. Boissière (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Okay, plenty of images, but this is about the lines, so perhaps give prominence to the second image of where the lines geographically run. I think perhaps one or two fewer images from the lead would benefit the structure of the list. Lambetseter Line is overlinked in the lead. "trains could for the first time run" - "trains could, for the first time, run..." "light rail to metro standard" what does this mean to a non-expert? Ah, you explain it three or four sentences later. I'd put it sooner. I would not use white background for "metro standard" (not good for accessibility). I would say, unless specified otherwise, all lines are "metro standard". Shouldn't ref 23 have an en-dash in the title rather than a spaced hyphen? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the feedback. The choice of a hyphen in ref 23 was because the sourced used that, but I've changed it. I removed the one image (that provides the most information, but has a slightly out-of-date numbering). The four remaining images each present a important aspect of the lines: underground, overground, a large station, a small station and a line while it was still a light rail. Arsenikk (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [14].

---

List of Nelson F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): -- BigDom 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it properly covers the topic and meets the featured list criteria. This is my first FL nomination, so I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for your reviews. -- BigDom 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments hey BigDom, welcome to FLC, hope you enjoy your visit and will return with more good lists! Link friendly to Exhibition game. Done You need some WP:ALT text for the image. Added "involoving" typo. Changed to "involving" "re-accepted into" not keen, perhaps "accepted back into"? Done Lead says they didn't play between 1915 and 1918, table says 1915 and 1919... Changed the lead to say they didn't play competitively between 1915 and 1919 (they played friendly matches between 1918–19) "thanks to the abolition " - as a result of the abolition, perhaps? Changed "re-accepted" again, don't like this... Changed again " never managed to progress past" remove managed to and say "never progressed past..." Done "second round proper" and "Second Round" - consistent capitalisation needed. Capitalised throughout Is there any difference between ref 6 and the external link? No, I've taken the reference out - it's all there in the ext link. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the advice, have made all the relevant changes and look forward to any more comments anyone might have. -- BigDom 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Nelson F.C. is an versus Nelson were accepted back. I believe in these situations, it is best to use the singular form as the club is singular. So that latter should be changed to "Nelson was". There are additional uses of "Nelson were" that should be corrected. All changed to "was" The list should be sortable. This has come up a lot recently (including with FLs I have done) and I believe the consensus has been for sorting the lists. I tried this when I was creating the list, but it really doesn't work, because of the rows where there are no league records, e.g. 1936–46 Nelson disbanded. I don't know what you want me to do about that one. I know I've seen other lists do it so I'll search for an example. I did find something which I think would work in this situation: Help:Sorting#Colspan workaround.—NMajdan•talk 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I've read it and I just can't work it out... To be fair, none of the other featured club season lists (Manchester United, Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Margate, Scarborough, and many more) have sortable tables.-- BigDom 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I made the same argument here, and I was told requirements change. May I ask where you tried it? Do you have a sandbox somewhere? I can help out if you duplicate the table somewhere else and will allow me to mess around with it.—NMajdan•talk 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Hi, I just tried it when I was creating the page, but when I could'nt do it I just used a normal table. Anyway, I've copied it into a sandbox here so any halp would be greatly appreciated. -- BigDom 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The table is now fully sortable. -- BigDom 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Per WP:COLORS, you need some other way to indicate "Promoted" and "Relegated". Used † and ‡ and added them to the key. Hope that's ok. I have some confusion regarding the image. It says it is PD because of its age. However, PD is determined based on when the image was first published, not taken. Also, the image would have to have been published before January 1, 1923 and this image is for the 1922-23 season. Granted the description says it is a start of the season photograph, but there is not further information. Where did the photo come from? Added some more info to the image page - it was definitely published in 1922. —NMajdan•talk 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, do you have any ideas about the sorting? -- BigDom 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) As per my understanding of UK copyright, in this country copyright is based on when the picture was taken, irrespective of when it was published. See {{PD-UK}}, which says If author is unknown it falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The author is unknown, so I have changed the licensing to PD-UK accordingly. -- BigDom 09:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife I think this is a subtle reminder that I need to pull my socks up and get involved with my own club's equivalent. For the cup rounds, and in particular the FA Cup, it would make sense that when the rounds are sorted the preliminary rounds come before the qualifying ones. There is a simple way to achieve this (1Q --> Q1), or a more complicated method, as demonstrated by my "cheating" in the apps columns here (I wanted a player who has made 13 starts to sort higher than a player who has made 1 start and 12 sub appearances). If you wanted to use a similar method here, you could use the sort tag in this way: {{sort|Q1|1Q}} Changed to Q1, Q2, etc. so it sorts OK now. I have read the discussion above, but disagree with using "is" instead of "are". In British usage a club would be considered a plural. I thought that to start with, but the way I changed it before I think it reads fine now. This is a heck of a longshot, but are the top scorers lost in the bowels of history? Initially I wouldn't have even bothered asking, but having seen the Margate list I figured there's a small chance that the info is out there. If there's a small chance it's always worth asking, even if the ultimate answer is no. With the low levels that the club has tended to play at, it seems that no-one has documented this information – I was going to include it but I couldn't even find this data for the most recent seasons. Maybe the 1898-99 results should be added? The information is there at the FCHD, and the note below would remain anyway, to help explain it. The 1939–40 season is generally included in Football League club's lists, and my understanding is that those results were also nullified. Added the 1898–99 stats with a footnote. However, as the lead and the table say, Nelson were disbanded between 1936 and 1946, so they didn't have a league record for 1939–40. A † should be added to the 1922–23 season. Done Hope those help, WFCforLife (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot, again much appreciated. -- BigDom 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Re sorting: FL criterion #4: Structure says a list "includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities" (my italics). Personally, I can't think of any reason why it might be helpful to sort a season list, which is basically a timeline, into another order. It does no harm, but it seems pretty pointless. Struway2 (talk)

Made the column unsortable.

Sorry, that's me failing to make myself clear as usual. It was the idea of having this particular type of table sortable at all that I was ranting about. If you and other reviewers think it should be, then obviously you need the season column to be sortable as well, so you can get the thing back to the proper order without having to refresh the page. I've changed it back. Struway2 (talk)

Ah, I get you now. I totally agree with you but, as you can see further up this nomination, after his comment from NMajdan me and him spent quite a while changing the whole format of the table to make it sortable. -- BigDom

Perhaps the sort of lists that NMajdan has been working with are the sort where it is helpful to have them sortable :-) Discographies and filmographies aren't expected to be sortable, presumably by prior consensus, nor are episode lists, which are actually quite similar in structure to a season list. As you pointed out above, prior consensus for season lists is that they aren't sortable, and I don't think requirements have changed in that regard. However, please don't think I'm trying to get you to change it back to unsortable (unless you actually want to... :-) Struway2 (talk)

To be fair, I'd really rather not spend ages changing it all back now... Like you say, there's no harm in having it sortable, so we may as well keep it sortable. -- BigDom

Comment Please sign your comments. I can't make head or tail of what's being said if there is no date or username to associate with the comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was clearer before I capped the other comments: the intervening comments are by the nominator, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Signed mine as well just for clarity. -- BigDom 08:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

* FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". I know some of us go a bit over the top where annotations are concerned, but is there really nothing even remotely interesting, quirky, or needing explanation? Added about 20 footnotes, I think it's a lot better now so do I. I added references to 3 or 4 of the notes, the ones which weren't wholly sourced either to the list itself or to the general reference Thanks a lot * like for instance, why the 2008–09 division isn't bolded despite the different name... Included as one of the 20-ish notes Seasons 1899–1900 and 1999–2000 should be displayed as such, not as 1899–00 (per WP:YEAR) Done Could you put the † and ‡ into the appropriate colour boxes in the key, in with the words they represent. Already in the key, but done anyway I know they were, but as they're the accessible alternative to the coloured boxes, they needed to be together. OK, fair enough. The contents of the table don't seem to be sourced to anything. They used to be sourced to the main external link, until I changed it due to a comment further up this nomination. I can easily put it back if you want... WP:EL#References and citation says that sites used as sources for the article should be cited inline or appear in a references section, not as an external link. What people tend to do is have General and Specific subsections in the References section, as at this or this. Changed the references section to General and Specific The image caption isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop (per MOS:CAPTIONS} Removed full stop. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your time, -- BigDom 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. List now meets criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Founded in 1881, the club played friendly matches for the first eight years". Should second "the" be "its" or "their"? Changed to "its" Doesn't make much sense to link First World War. It's common enough that anyone will understand, and Second World War isn't linked later. I didn't add that link, but I've removed it now "never finishing higher than 15th in the four seasons." Chop "the". Done No need for multiple FA Cup links in the lead. De-linked second one "the side have reached the second round twice; in the 2000–01 and 2005–06 seasons." Minor point, but the semi-colon should be a comma. Changed A bunch of the newly added footnotes need references. Just saw a comment above. If covered in the general reference or the table itself, citations are probably not needed. Will leave this unstruck pending verification that that is the case. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Like it says above, the ones without specific references are all taken from the general ref and/or table. They are now, anyway (that was my fault, mistakenly thought I'd ref'd all the ones that needed it) Struway2 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) The general reference needs a bullet point and some more formatting. It should be formatted like the general references, with author first and date of last access. I've added a bullet point and the access date, but using the {{cite web}} template the author doesn't go first unless the date that the page was created is known, which it isn't. Richard Rundle is publisher, not author, which is why the name comes after the work. Struway2 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Cheers for the comments, all resolved now. -- BigDom 07:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support if the top-scorer details genuinely aren't recorded anywhere. For the record, I also fail to see why a table of this type needs to be sortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [15].

---

Gwen Stefani discography

Nominator(s): EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the only objection from the last FLC has been fixed. The problem was that one of the sites I used went down so reviewers couldn't confirm the data or that the site was a reliable source. I only use alphacharts as a source to show the general performance of a song; raw data is taken from the hung median charts. The list is complete and well-sourced. EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Would the FL director look at the previous FLC, here, when reviewing this nomination because it contains most of the issues resolved. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Don't see any problems. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues. Certainly a huge improvement over the version that was delisted a while back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support from Dt128 (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Dt128

Change the "Albums" section to "Studio albums" Done You may need to adjust the second column widths - they aren't equal on my screen. In what format was Harajuku Lovers Live released in? Done Mariah-Charts is not a reliable source. Done Add "Macrovision" to all Allmusic sources. Done Wikilink "British Phonographic Industry". Done The amount of charts in the singles tables exceeds the maximum (10). Done Dt128 let's talk 16:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Don't abbreviate organisations such as ARIA. Done Some of these were added recently by an IP, such as the mariah-charts source, and have been reverted. I'm fixing the others now. Thanks for the comments. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Why have you used the search pages on the Hung Medien sites rather than the discography pages? They bring up all the necessary chart positions. On some sites, such as charts.org.nz, there are no discography pages for artists. The only way to show an artist's complete charting is to use the search page. Actually, they do! Discography Gwen Stefani. Dt128 let's talk 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done You should use the actual page titles for all of the references. Has this been addressed? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done Why is "Italian charts." in italics - you should you the website name in normal font followed by "Hung Medien." The website is the "work", Hung Medien is the "publisher". The work is automatically in italics. See Template:Cite web. I have tried to be consistant here. Has Italian charts been replaced with Italian-Charts.com? Dt128 let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done Have none of Stefani's singles been certified? The certification column should go to the left of the album column. Remove "to be filled". Dt128 let's talk 16:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Done Finally, has Stefani not featured on any other artists' albums? Dt128 let's talk 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Stefani sings backing vocals for husband Gavin Rossdale on single Love Remains the Same (song) from album WANDERlust (Gavin Rossdale album), link, under the alternate title "Some Days" (it's the same song). I'm not sure whether to include this or not as she's not on the single cover or even listed on the album's credits here. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Found some other songs. I'll add them to the discography tomorrow. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Added? Dt128 let's talk 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In progress -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Got several. I don't know if the list is complete but I'll add songs as I find them. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Have none of Stefani's singles been certified?
  • Has this been addressed? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) In progress Done
• Have Stefani's albums not received more certifications?
  • Has this been addressed? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done
    • All found? I give my support now. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Is there a reason the music videos aren't mentioned in the opening para of the lead? Done "a music DVD" is probably better described per infobox, as a "video album". Done " electro / dance " not sure what or MOS says, but the "spaced slash" looks a bit odd to me... Removed space Always vaguely bemused by subsections of one, i.e. you have a 2.1 but no 2.2... If it was me, I'd either make the 2.1 a 3, or have another heading which was 2.1 singles as a solo artist... Done Probably said it before, never been a fan of small text, just makes the words less accessible. "US: Gold[45];" shouldn't that reference go after punctuation if possible? Check others. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Fixed the issues you brought up. Thanks for the feedback. I like having small text in the singles table because it doesn't get confused with the song titles. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Still maintaining my neutrality on the list. I still do not like that aCharts is used (not a high-quality source), but understand that it may the only available source for important information. Therefore, I will sink this FLC by opposing, and will allow the closing director (I will recuse from closing this, obviously) to weigh my comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All the information taken from aCharts is backed up by the Hung Medien charts. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As a prospective closer of this FLC, I've looked at what is being cited by the aCharts references, and have grown doubtful that most of them are necessary at all. Most are simply repeating information found in the tables; in those cases, no cite is required on top of the ones in the tables. There are only a few facts that seem uncited in the tables. First, there's the bit about "Rich Girl" performing well on different formats; I'm not sure this is even necessary to say, since a top-ten single figures to do well in multiple formats. Second is "Cool" "replicating the popularity of its predecessor", which is called into question by the figures themselves. Third, there's "Now That You Got It" charting in Norway; I don't suppose there's a good site with Norwegian charts? Also, if you're concerned about the sentences that say "released in all countries" or similar, you could re-phrase to indicate that it covers all countries with major charts. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry to butt in! the hung medien norway ref from the albums table confirms that "now that you got it" charted in norway. :) Mister sparky (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed aChart references. They weren't needed - I just wanted references that showed how well a particular song charted across several countries, rather than many songs charting in one country (i.e. the Hung Medien charts). -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

yea acharts are useful because then you only have to use 1 ref instead of lots of them but ah well. Mister sparky (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That still leaves a couple issues I'd like to see sorted out. As I said above, I don't see how "Cool" can be described as similar in popularity to her previous single when it did worse on the charts. Also, the Norway part can apparently be cited by Hung Median, which I recommend doing since it is uncited now (it's only being used to cite the albums' performance now, not any singles). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cited the Norway part. Reworded the sentence about "Cool". Any other outstanding issues? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [16].

---

List of WCW World Television Champions

Nominator(s): --WillC 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the FL criteria. Remember me? Yeah, I'm back. Been a while since I nominated a list, but finally got another finished. As usual all comments will be fixed as soon as I become aware of them. I expanded this thing fully. From the old bad format to a newer cleaner better sourced look. Was pretty annoying considering the history of changes is unsure at times, but I believe I have gotten it to be correct.--WillC 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Alt text for image says man is holding a US flag. That is not apparent from the image. Might also be worth mentioning he is in a wrestling ring. Duggan's gimmick is that of a true american, so he carries a US flag with him. I'll remove it since you can't tell it is a US flag.--WillC 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The inaugural champion was Danny Miller, who defeated Ole Anderson on February 27, 1974 in the finals of a tournament to determine the first champion. I don't think the last part of the sentence is needed as you already specified Miller was the inaugural champion. Done.--WillC 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Booker T holds the record of most reigns "hold the record for most reigns"? Done.--WillC 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I still feel like the lede needs a bit more work but don't have time right now to really look at it. I will try to later. Hopefully these comments get you started.—NMajdan•talk 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Considering the title is so old, the history was hard to get complied right in the lead so that it doesn't become content forking with the main article when it is expanded.--WillC 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Support.—NMajdan•talk 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) Lead You pipe the link for "world television championship" to a section which doesn't exist in the linked article.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) The section was renamed without my knowledge of it; fixed.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Remove the abbreviation "(GCW)" after "Georgia Championship Wrestling" because the abbreviation isn't used elsewhere in the article. Okay, done, habit; I'm use to giving it after writing in a promotion's name. Most companies just go by the abbreviation in wrestling.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) "and also apart" should be "and also a part". Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Remove the apostrophe in "1980's" Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Remove the abbreviation "WWE" after "World Wrestling Entertainment" because the abbreviation isn't used elsewhere in the article. Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) The date of the title's end isn't given; I suggest putting it in after "starting in 1991 and continuing until the titles deactivation" Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) "NWA or WCW–promoted events" should be "NWA- or WCW-promoted events". Note the hyphens in place of endashes and the additional hyphen after NWA Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I suggest changing "also unknown, however, it is" to "also unknown, although it is" to remove choppiness. Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) "ended on January 1, 1980 or at any later date then" sounds awkward. I suggest "ended during or after 1980 then" I did a small reword, because the system for things like this involves ending the reign on the shortest possible day. That would be January 1, 1980. I feel that date should be mentioned to keep consistent with the format.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Table In the key, I suggest centering "—" and "N/A" as is done in the table Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) All the durations should be unspaced endashes (–) I believe there was a small discussion on this before, that it should be the way it is now.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Some of the references in the "Notes" column are centered while others aren't. Be consistent Fixed, didn't know reign 26 was like that. I've got to go for now, but hopefully I'll finish the review at some point in the near future. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC) The vacant rows don't sort correctly. They should show up at the top when the arrow is pointing down for names and days held. Which column are you going by? Because I have them sorted by Vacant, to be like the rest.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) What do you mean to be like the rest? Currently, if someone wanted to see who held the title for the most days with the table, the vacant rows come up first. Forget what I said about the names, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) link battle royale? Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) In the second key, the first symbol isn't used in the table I usually use that, but must've forgot to remove it.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) "October of 1980" take out "of" Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) References Use endashes (–) for page ranges For the general references, you don't need to use chapters unless there's a particular reason (i. e. written by a different author). You can take the "|chapter= out of the cite book templates In this case it would be needed.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) What makes Solie.org a reliable source? If it's not used for anything in particular, it may be removed. Gets its information from books, magazines, etc. In this case, it gets its info from the Wrestling Titles book directly, plus with work of the sites staff, who are long times wrestling fans who have worked in a few different promotions. Site has been used in numerous lists, which are now happily at FL status.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) You format access dates inconsistently. Some have "January 1, 2001" while others have "2001-01-01". Also some put day before month, which should be changed for consistency I got stuck in between the changing of dates on refs. I usually write the 2009-11-26 way, but the cite help does it November 26, 2009. Fixed--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) You cite multiple authors incorrectly. It should be "Last, First; Last, First" and so on, alphabetically by last name. Done--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) What's with the less than sign (<) in ref 13's quote? Direct quote from article, must of been a typo or something. Left it to keep it an exact quote.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Pretty good, I'll support once these issues are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, all fixed. Thanks for the review.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• The vacant rows don't sort correctly. They should show up at the top when the arrow is pointing down for names and days held.
  • Which column are you going by? Because I have them sorted by Vacant, to be like the rest.--WillC 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What do you mean to be like the rest? Currently, if someone wanted to see who held the title for the most days with the table, the vacant rows come up first. Forget what I said about the names, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean now. Not sure how to correct that. The days held column is done by the age in days template, combined with Template:nts (|{{age in days nts|month1=02|day1=27|year1=1974|month2=05|day2=10|year2=1974}}). Vacant sections are done with the sort template, with a dash and sorted by double zz to appear last (|{{sort|zz|—}}). Not really sure how to fix the problem.--WillC 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Eh, no big issue. If someone wants to help fix it, the can go ahead. Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Okay, thanks for the support.--WillC 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Comma after "including the rights to the WCW World Television Championship"? Done--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Last sentence of first paragraph: Replace "billed under the names" with "called". It's a little simpler to read this way. Rewrote that part.--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Little problem with the rewrite, as "it was was known as the NWA Mid-Atlantic Television Championship" has a double word. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Done, didn't notice it.--WillC 09:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) "on the November 29, 1999 episode of one of WCW's several television programs Nitro." For a smoother read, remove "several" and place a comma before "Nitro". Next sentence could use similar changes. Done--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) "Overall, there have been 107 reigns shared between 55 wrestlers, with 11 vacancies." Shouldn't "have been" be "were" since this is not an active championship? Fixed, didn't notice that.--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) In the table's notes column, please check for present tense to weed out. There's a lot of "wins", "is" and similar, which should all be past tense ("won" and "was", in those cases). Done--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Still see three more, all in vacancies. They are between reigns 7–8, 43–44 and 106–107, and the problem words/phrases are "gives up", "drops" and "abandons", respectively. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Hopefully they are all fixed now.--WillC 09:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) In the second general reference, decapitalize CHARLOTTE. Done--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Please check the spelling of this if you work on the other things. I see "Charoltte" right now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Damn typos are so annoying. Fix--WillC 09:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Reference 13 has a typo hidden in it; look after Chris Jericho's name. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC) That typo is from the reference. A direct copy quote. Thought to leave it in.--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments You may not be able to say it's a flag, but you do need something in the alt text to suggest he's holding a pole over his head with both hands... Done--WillC 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Q: Should "now defunct" be hyphenated? I don't think it could hurt.--WillC 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) "was later renamed WCW in the early 1980s" later & early 1980s. Do you need both? Fixed--WillC 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) When ordering by date, the # goes out of order. I know why it does, but I have no idea how to fix the problem. Date column is done by Template:DTS.--WillC 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Don't understand why the reigns of the unknowns are sorted by, say, their lowest value? Sorting by reign length gives odd results therefore, with the lead saying Steamboat had longest reign, yet ordering in either direction doesn't show that at all. They are actually sorted their longest length possible, rather than there shortest. Something must be wrong here.--WillC 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Valentine and Diamond have same note but it only mentions Valentine - confusing. Fixed--WillC 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) If folks tie in total reign length, it would be clearer to say 27= rather than just 27. Never thought of that, I'll think about it. We usually just give the note, and that is it.--WillC 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [17].

---

List of unreleased Michael Jackson material

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments; I'm new to the voting process, so I may be incorrect, but I have some comments:

• The colour of the yellow, pink and purple used in the table is very harsh, and the purple especially is difficult to distinguish from the black text, making it difficult to read.

• Changed the purple to orange. I'll wait for further opinions on whether others share the view that the colours are harsh; as I had thought they were ok. :)

• Maybe the table should also list who holds the patents, unless of course this is unavailable or unable to be referenced, after all, they are mentioned in the lead, then (almost) never again.

• There is no detail on whom owns the patents, though it is usually the songwriter(s).

• Were any reasons given as to why some of the songs were not listed on their original albums?

• Information is given where possible, because reasons have not been given to the majority of the songs.

• Which songs were the ones brought up in the court case, or were they already previously released songs and thus not on the list?

• The unreleased songs mentioned in the court case are highlighted in blue with an accompanying asterisk (*).

--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, I thought you had listed the court case ones, but after a couple of read throughs I couldn't find where it was, *wipes egg off face*. I stand by my statements on the colours, but the orange is much better. Thanks for answering the other questions too, if you don't mind, I think I'll wait for some other comments before a final decision. But I'm happy right now.--Lightlowemon (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all comments by other editors addressed, and I have no other qualms. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

* I don't like the third paragraph in the lead. It's very vague and seems more a token attempt to list his discography. I think there is scope for talking about his albums, but I don't like the way it's been done. It's there to note which album the majority of the songs came from. They are also there to avoid overlinking in the notes section of the sortable table. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it. Part of the issue is that six (albeit bigger) albums have arbitrarily been picked. To list this many and not the rest seems strange. Then again, I suppose making the sentence even longer won't improve the list, and you make a good point about overlinking. I'll wait for another opinion on this. WFCforLife (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not a fan of those bullet points in the notes section of the table. The bullets are there to avoid long rambling paragraphs, which I had to begin with. Can I wait for a third opinion on this? I'm happy with that. If there's no policy prohibiting them it won't stop me supporting. WFCforLife (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) In response to the colour conversation, I think the pink is too strong. Try something like this shade: #FF99EB Much better colour! Thanks. :) Hope those help! WFCforLife (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for you comments. Pyrrhus16 14:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Comments from WFCforLife: The criteria for inclusion isn't clear. State of Shock was released by The Jackson 5, Higher Ground has been released by both Stevie Wonder and RHCP, and I'm guessing there are several other songs that fall into one of these categories. Tried to clarify in the third paragraph of the lead section. It's better, but if songs released by the Jackson Five and then re-written/recorded by Jackson are going to be counted as unreleased, this should be explicitly mentioned. Personally I wouldn't consider a song released by an act Jackson was in at the time as "unreleased Michael Jackson material". WFCforLife (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Covers should be denoted as such. Noted in the prose of the notes section where known. You may want to wait for a second opinion on this, but personally I'd go as far as to say that there should probably be a separate colour and symbol to signify covers in the table. WFCforLife (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) At this point I would consider myself neutral. Of my two remaining comments, one is a small thing that I'm not really too bothered about, and have left it on the off chance that someone else has an opinion. But the clarification about Jackson 5 songs is what is keeping me from supporting. IMO they should either be removed, or the lead should explicitly state that released Jackson 5 material is included, with an explanation as to why they are considered unreleased for the purposes of this list. Covers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but with Jackson 5 strictly speaking Jackson has released the material. WFCforLife (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Added "and Jackson 5 songs" in order to clarify. The J5 songs in the list are considered Michael Jackson material because it was only he that recorded the unreleased demos of the songs. They are the solo works of Jackson; his other brothers weren't involved in the recording of the material, only Jackson. Hopefully my edit to the page has clarified that. In regard to the cover versions, there are only two songs on the list recorded as covers and they are noted in the notes section. Pyrrhus16 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. WFCforLife (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "of the pop star's" - POV. Changed to "pop singer". Second para, what relevance does this have to unreleased material of MJ? It explains to the reader that many of the unreleased songs are known to exist solely because of Jackson's testimony at the deposition. "The pop star's unreleased material " - ditto above. Changed to "pop singer". "and notable demo versions" - notable? Why? According to whom? Removed "notable". "One such example involved" such is redundant. Removed "such". "time of the leakage" - just leak is fine, leakage sounds, well, a little too medical for me... Done. "of the peace song" what's a "peace song"? Is this referenced? Changed and linked to anti-war. 1988-1990 - endash required. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I am not familiar with the subject (apart from having heard of Michael Jackson), so please ignore if my comments don't make sense. Could we have a little statistics in the lead: how many unreleased songs (Is this list complete?), how many of these written by Jackson, how many jointly written by Jackson, how many by other writers If a song was not written by Jackson (e.g. "Angel"), does it mean that it was written specifically for Jackson? Is it possible to find out the year a song was registered with Broadcast Music Incorporated or EMI Music Publishing? How is the sorting of the "writers" column arranged in case of multiple writers? In the "Key" section, the phrase "Jackson-written (unless otherwise noted)" could be removed in my opinion. It is like saying A OR (NOT A). Is it technically possible to have a combination of the blue and magenta color instead of the orange? The lead mentions the "Songwriters Hall of Fame" (with apostrophe or without?), the ASCAP and the CMRRA as bodies which registered unreleased Jackson songs. However in the main table, I cannot see any of these bodies mentioned. Why? bamse (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The exact number of unreleased Jackson songs is unknown. I have added to the last paragraph that there are known to be hundreds of unrleased songs written/recorded by Jackson. The list is incomplete, in that not all of the existing unreleased songs/collaborations have been named in reliable sources. No, not all of the non-Jackson-written songs were written specifically for him. The book I'm using doesn't have dates for the songs published with BMI or EMI. Their websites don't provide the dates either. In the case of multiple writers, the person with the highest letter surname (eg, Sue Shifrin) comes before those with lower letter surnames (eg, Terry Britten). The only exception is when Michael Jackson is one of the multiple writers. In that situation, he is above everybody else, as it is most probable that readers are sorting to find songs written by Jackson. Note to any other reviewers I am, of course, open to any other suggestions on how to deal with multiple writers in a sortable table. Removed "Jackson-written (unless otherwise noted)". Blue + pink = a light purple(ish) color, so I've changed the orange to medium slate blue, as purple was considered too harsh (see first review). Removed apostrophe from Sonwriters Hall of Fame. Jackson is known to have published unreleased songs with ASCAP, CMRRA, etc, but they have not been named. That's why they don't appear in the table. Thank you for your comments. :) Pyrrhus16 14:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC) See "6." below. I see. What makes the songs that were not written specifically for him a "Michael Jackson material"? OK. Would be interesting though. This way of ordering makes sense to me. An alternative would be to introduce a sortkey and have multiple writers sort as "multiple" or something like that. I was thinking of a striped blue-pink, but the new color is fine with me. Also, could you rewrite the line "Denotes the year a song was registered with the United States Copyright Office" in the same style as the other keys, i.e.: "Denotes songs registered with the United States Copyright Office and the year of registration"? Also in the same line, the "(Year)" should be made smaller as it appears as superscript. It should be made more clear which songs are included in the list (all? songs registered with Broadcast Music Incorporated, EMI, United States Copyright Office, mentioned in his 1993 deposition?). Thank you for the reply. bamse (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Re: number 2, it is considered Michael Jackson material because it has been recorded by him, despite it not being written for or by him. Done number 5. Re: 1 and 6, I've tried to clarify with this edit to the lead. Pyrrhus16 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Re number 2: Does it have to be the first recording of that song or could it be the recording of an old song (released and sung by others a long time ago, but now with Michael)? Thanks for fixing 5. Also 1 and 6 are much clearer now. I suppose that all songs mentioned in the 1993 deposition are listed. Correct? bamse (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I believe the only songs on the list that have been recorded before by other artists are "Behind the Mask" and "Higher Ground". I believe the rest are first recordings, though the sources do not explicitly state this. And yes, all of the songs mentioned in the 1993 deposition are listed. Pyrrhus16 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. bamse (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Not a big deal, but could the out of order references in the second paragraph ([4][1]) be changed to numerical order?

• Done.

• Should internet be capitalized in the fourth paragraph? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is in the Internet article, so I guess it should be. I never knew that... Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Complete sentences in the notes need to have periods at the end, example: "Jackson worked on the song with Temperton and Quincy Jones during the Thriller recording sessions" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Added periods to the ones I think are sentences. Hopefully, I got them all... Pyrrhus16 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [18].

---

List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories

Nominator(s): Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after much work (with major help from User:Georgejdorner), I believe it qualifies. I have checked the FL criteria and it seems to hold up. A recent peer review offered some comment, which I used to improve the list, but such little comment that it may have not needed much improvement. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Citations should be formatted properly. Some miss publishers and accessed dates.
• Legends should be at the top, not the bottom
• Is "If All is selected, expect the page to load very slowly, or even crash." necessary?

—Chris!_c/t 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I've cleanup up the refs, moved the legend to the top, and removed the "if All..." statement, which is no longer applicable anyways. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support—Chris!_c/t 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If there is a sortable list with all the aces, with the same level of detail, why do the sublists exist? Either the "all" list should be deleted/merged as being too long and redundant, or the sublists fail 3b and should not exist. It currently fail this: "...does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article".
• Can the KIA/MIA/DOW asterix be changed to a dagger or other symbol, to avoid any chance of confusion with the awards asterix. I would make them clickable too, as the list is so long and there is so much footnote info (scrolling continuously back and forth is annoying for readers).YobMod 13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The list of all aces was once at List of World War I flying aces, but it was deemed too long, and at 300k+bytes, too big. It was split into the current lists, which are all trancluded into the "All" list at List of World War I flying aces-All. Therefore the all list (at 600bytes) does not technically exists as a list, per se. I'll change the KIA asterix to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

But transcluding cannot be used to simply bypass the 3b criterion, otherwise all lists that should not be seperate articles could become FL. Transcluding the lists still means it largely recreate material from another article. As long as the "all" list exists, this list is redundant, and according to the criteria cannot become a FL. I could cut up a FL discography into "albums", "singles" and "eps", and tranclude them all into the parent, but that likewise should be opposed for failing 3b, rather than giving 4 FLs. Another example is our TV series FLs. For the main list and the season specific lists to become featred, they have to do more than just recreate the info and transclude it back to the parent list. If a parent article is desired to link all the lists together or for a topic, it should be written as an article using summary style - i'm certain a GA could be written on this topic.YobMod 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand. But I wonder, would it be better to delete the all list, or replace it with some sort of summary text? I'm thinking along the lines of List of Medal of Honor recipients/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think summary text. Even if only a stub with links or short paragraphs for each sub-list, it gives a starting point for expansion and links all the similar articles for interested readers.YobMod 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the "All" page, since without the actual lists it would just be a rehash of the base page List of World War I flying aces. Any attempts at summaries of each list can be made there. I've changed the killed * to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, as my concerns were met.YobMod 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment very nice list. I think the Template:Wwi-air should be taken out of the table and put at the end of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops, if accidenlty deleted the table close bracket. Should be fixed now. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• question would it be possible to separate the notes from the citations? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a line break, and removed notes that weren't strictly applicable. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• The article page of Fulco Ruffo di Calabria indicates that he received 1 gold, 2 silver and 4 bronze Medals of Military Valor. The legend explains that an * denotes a second presentation (a bar is added) of the same award. In the table Fulco Ruffo di Calabria is listed with MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze) which would mean that he received 1 gold, 3 silver and 5 bronze. I think something is wrong here or not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My bad, it happened with this award for a few aces. I've fixed them all. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• One more issue: for every FLC I created citations for every item I listed under the "Notes" column was required. If this is a rule than it should be applicable here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All three are only linked to in the Legend. I use the same code for each use, regardless of use. For example for the first one, Medal of Military Valor, which is a disambig linking to the three levels of a specific award, I use the same code MMV for all three (e.g. "MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze)" ). For the second, Military Merit Cross, and the third, Order of the Star, I again use the same codes, MMC and OS throughout the pages. I think the disambig links work in these cases, but if you disagree, I can try to fix it. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I rewrote Medal of Military Valor so it is no longer a disambig page. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 14:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I changed the link to Military Merit Cross, dividing the awards by Country. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why the hopelessly small text for the key? I had trouble reading it, and I have perfect vision. Try using this code in the first line of the table instead of all the superscript tags: style="font-size: 90%" (make the number smaller if need be).
• Isn't MOH is the more common abbreviation for the US Medal of Honor? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I took the key from List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain. I'm not sure why "sup" was chosen. I'll replace it with style="font-size: 90%". You're right, MOH is the generally accepted abbreviation. I'll fix it. I don't think there is an official abbreviation for most of the awards, including MOH, so I had to make them up. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Bump) Have I addressed all the problems above, or have i missed anything? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - very interesting subject, especially as we head towards 11/11... Not sure why the Nieuport is lead image when this is about aces, and you have an ace image underneath it? In searching for images for the article, I could find none that both represented the pilots and the act of a WWI dogfight. I chose two images to represent the different aspects, perhaps in this case no images is better than a confusing one. I think a link to World War I seems reasonable somewhere in the lead. Now linked. Particularly in preference to linking France... but that's cool. See above I think, if diacritics are available, they should be used. Pégoud deserves his accent! Fixed that instance. all the rest should be correct. "At the beginning of World War I air combat had not been invented, aircraft were for reconnaissance only" - I would replace the comma with "so" or "and". Replaced it with "and". "different air services had different methods of assigning credit for aerial victories, and the actual number of air victories required to officially qualify as an "ace" has varied" - tense change. removed the has to fix. "term 'ace' " or "term "ace""? changed 'ace' to "ace". "10 kills" - literally or ten aircraft shot down? ten aircraft shot down. A kill (pilots death) is not required, or part of it. Fixed. You link German and French, not British or United States or Russian - is there a reason for this? Nope, linked all now. "The term "ace" was never used officially by the British." - this is really interesting, but how do I verify it? I know I read it in one of my sources, but I'll have to find it and inline it right after the statement (I'm surprised i hadn't already). It's now cited. Other, similar lists have "flying" in the title, i.e. "... flying aces ..." (e.g. List of World War I flying aces)- is there a reason why this doesn't? I'm not sure. It was probably decided on this name when the master list was split up. Probably a name length concern. All the lists in this series are named the name way (e.g List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories). If it's a concern, I'd be more in favor of moving List of World War I flying aces to inline with these lists. Improve alt text, you could include the colour of the aircraft for instance. Reworded. It seems that abbreviations are in small text. No need, just makes it less accessible. Removed font sizing from tables. Find the appropriate link for "bar" in the medal context. Added link. "exceptionally meritorious service" presumably this is a quote? It's a direct copy of the medal's Wikipedia page. I presume its a direct quote there. According to the Americal Division Veterans Association website it is. I'll add a source for this and the next. The quotes in the Notes need citations. Direct quotes cited. Surprised that not all honours have notes, like "Order of the Bath", you must be able to come up with a succinct description of that? All missing notes added. The notes for WB have a full stop, the only one in all the notes. Be consistent. Fixed, removed full stop. Composition prose is five paragraphs, mostly single-sentences paras. Work on improving this, merge them and more importantly, reference them. "two seated"- hyphenate. Fixed. "most renowned of which" - prove it. Can't, reworded. Should Austria-Hungary be separated with a hyphen or an en-dash? Be consistent. Fixed, removed full stop. "Air Service(s)" - why is Service capitalised? Because early air forces (in WWI usually called Air Services, were part of the name and capitalized, e.g. United States Army Air Service. If its improper, I can un-cap it. Where do you say what RNAS means? Check other abbreviations that are used without explanation. Fixed, spelled out only instance. Not sure notes, air services, names should be centrally aligned. Removed center alignment from table Why are some air services in italics, others not? I'm not positive, because it's been there since the list was created years ago, but I believe it's because of WP:ITALICS#Foreign terms, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English.". I can undo it if this is wrong. "Leading balloon buster of war." this needs explanation as to what a "balloon buster" may be. Linked to applicable article. "MC*." - full stop not needed. Removed full stops from all notes. Why do some pilots have up to three citations for their count while most others have nothing specific? The citattions are for counts that are disputed. The rest are generally considered correct. Ref 7 doesn't need a full stop. Fixed. Ref 9 needs to use en-dashes. Fixed. What makes [19] a reliable source? Interjectory note: This site lists its link to references in the left hand sidebar on the home page. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) What makes [20] a reliable source? Interjectory note: The World War I aviation historians who run the site have listed their sources under the misleading heading of "Links". The Aerodrome Links can be found at http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/. The link to references is found on that page; it is http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=9. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) First two books in bibliography have same ISBN number. Fixed. Must be a typo in the copy in my library, it had the incorrect one on the inside page, and the correct one on the back cover. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Should you be consistent when italicising foreign terms, for instance you italicise Pour le Merite in the caption but not in the table? bar or Bar? And no need to overlink it. for the display of highest valour and skills in the face of an exterior enemy - is this a quote? Noticed that the PLM has a reference, why not the others, especially where you claim "highest ... order" or "highest ... award"? Is "Red Baron" referenced anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Fix the Pour le Merite ital, and the bar linking and capitalization, working on the Award refs, most of the "highest" stuff was pulled of the individual award pages, but if I can't easily find a ref, I'll reduce the note to "military/civil award of X country" and the like. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Endashes are required in the page ranges used in citations. Fixed The Croix de guerre is generally abbreviated as "CdeG", but up to you. Changed abbrev. Single, stand-alone sentences should be merged with paragraphs. Done. I would stear away from the abbreviation of "WWI" in the prose. Fixed Citations are inconsistent, with some having full stops, and others not. Fixed Not all of the citations are formatted correctly. I fixed a few minor things, but are there any blaring errors still existing, I can't see any. Cite #25 contains a raw URL. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral – while the majority of the issues I raised have been addressed, I do not quite feel I can support this article. The reason for my hesitancy is predominantly based on the concerns raised by Ian Rose, several of which I have considered myself to be an issue when previously reviewing this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mention in Despatches is present in the key, but not a single ace has this in their note section.
  • The key is used across several lists, it is used in at least 1 of them. Should I create a separate key for each?
    • No, it would probably be best to keep the lists consistent. However, it is highly likely that a number of these top British/Commonwealth aces were Mentioned in Despatches (for example, prior to 1943, one had to be MID before they could be awarded the DSO), just that it may be a little harder to find out exactly which ones were. It might be an idea to drop the MiD from the lists althgether. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Interjected note: I was not aware of the significance of Mentioned in Dispatches when I was doing the data entry on this list. In the future, I will keep this in mind. Thank you for the information. As the saying goes, "It's a good day when you learn something."

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I've started to fix the above. More (mostly reference issues) to come. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife: The alphabetical links don't work, and given that the table is default sorted by victories they seem somewhat unnecessary. Why is the "and" italicised for Fonck? Coppens and Caldwell should probably be denoted as the leading Belgian and New Zealand(er?) aces for consistency. Ref 22 should ideally be expanded upon, either to give alternative figures such as those in refs 20 or 21, or to explain the uncertainty surrounding the figures, similar to ref 25. I'm not too familiar with conventions of this sort, but does "The Red Baron" belong in the name column? Overall, looking very good. WFCforLife (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) How do the alphabetical links not work? If I sort the names, I get William Melville Alexander first and Kurt Wüsthoff last. The and was probably italicized for emphasis, I'll de-emphasize. Notes added to Belgian and New Zealander aces. Other nicknames arn't mentioned, but "The Red Baron" is so universally know, that I think it merits mention. I'll work on Ref 22. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I was referring to the box underneath the main table, that links to A B C D and so on. The other links (Legend, Awards, Allies and Central powers) are very useful, just wondering if there was any way of getting rid of the letters. WFCforLife (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see, I didn't notice that. I removed the A-Z links. And I fixed the Ref 22 problems. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Having had a quick read of some of the leading aces' articles, I see what you mean about the Red Baron. I can see why ref 22 was originally left as "disputed". Nonetheless, it was a worthwhile expansion, and you've done it very well. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to support. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Given this nom is for Featured status I have concerns about the presentation and, more importantly, about the verifiability of the information here, but will refrain from opposing outright until I've had a response just in case I've missed anything.

• Presentation/style-wise, there's still tidying up to be done:
  • Inconsistency in citation formatting, e.g. "pg." (which equates to "p.") and "pp." - I think the most common way of denoting page references is "p." and "pp.", and these should be used here.
  • Capitalising citations #7 and #15; even if the titles are all upper case in the references, simply capitalising each word is sufficient for here.
  • Since there are a fair few footnotes mixed with the citations, I think you'd be better off separating them into Footnotes and Notes (or Citations), though I won't oppose outright on that point.
  • In Bibliography, the title of Kennett's book needs all words capitalised, likewise Toliver in Further Reading.
• Referencing-wise, I have three main issues:
  • I can't see where the total for each ace is cited or, alternatively, where a blanket statement is made along the lines of "All figures are based on such-and-such source, unless otherwise noted". For data which is so often disputed, you need to spell out who or what you're relying on for your figures. Further, citations #20 and #21 both say the figure in the table is disputed, but give no source of the original number, nor of the alternative.
  • I don't generally push particular sources but I would have liked to see Shores/Franks' Above the Trenches (British/Empire WWI aces), Above the Lines (German aces), and Over the Front (US/French aces) utilised. I know you've employed the Osprey books by the same authors, which is helpful, but the aforementioned titles would certainly add still greater weight to the referencing - plus I see no book in the Bibliography for sources of German and French aces, only British/Empire and US. Also, including the Nieuport book makes things look like they were employed for convenience not comprehensiveness; this was just one of the relevant aeroplanes involved.
  • I can't really accept TheAerodrome as a reliable source at Featured level. Despite its sober tone and excellent presentation, it's still not an official source nor does it generally cite where it gets its figures. In any case, with so many printed works to choose from, I can't see the need to reference it anyway. By all means include it as an External Link for convenience, but it shouldn't be relied upon like the book sources.
• Generally this is good work, but I'd like the above comments addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • • I believe I've fixed the reference style issues. I'm not now working on adding sources for each score. I don't have any of the books you mentioned (although if I can find a copy to buy online, I plan to), so I have to use others. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I found a copy of Above the Lines, and have been using the other Osprey books I have to source each score. I should soon be able to have a source for each one. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks Trevor. Let me know if you can't find anything you need; though I don't own any of the titles mentioned, I have access to a number of them. Also, aside from the hard copies, I find GoogleBooks and Amazon have a number of Ospreys available for online preview. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

In answer to Ian Rose's concerns: The Aerodrome is run by the same aviation historians we also rely on in print. So why are they unacceptable online, and acceptable in print (I ask for the zillionth time)? If online information cannot be deemed to be accurate, then what are we doing building Wikipedia?

Nor do I understand Ian's preference for older books as being better sources than newer ones. Especially if they are being written by the same authors. Don't you think that the authors may have learned a bit more in the intervening years? The Aerodrome forums reflect the fact that the research continues.

Lastly, I do not believe there is any other listing as complete as The Aerodrome's listing of aces. Except for ours. Certainly, without The Aerodrome, we would be bereft of most or all of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Now I realize some of these nationalities do not show on this particular list, but there are eight more lists on this subject.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Self-correction: All nationalities of aces do show on this table. However, without the aerodrome, I do not know how we would gather lists of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Trevor/George, first off, the above responses don't address my question of why the individual claims are not directly cited in some fashion, either one-by-one or by using an overarching source with exceptions noted. WP requires citations for information that is contentious or may be challenged, and aces' claims certainly fit those categories. One of WP's pillars is verifiability, not truth, and at the moment I can't even verify the presumed sources of truth employed for the numbers presented. Again, if I've missed something, then pls let me know.

George, to take your responses in order:

• As I've said, TheAerodrome is a great site. I use it myself, even relying on it where it clearly cites its sources. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the majority of its pages. I also don't see that expressing concerns about relying on this particular site in an FA candidate article casts doubts on all online sources. There are a number of official online sites and online copies of books that are acceptable as sources for WP articles, I've used them myself. I also don't see that my comments cast doubt on an online encyclopedia like WP, for the very reason we're having this discussion: WP demands inline citations to reliable sources and effectively has a transparent peer reviewing system for its more highly rated articles, i.e. what we're doing right now - I don't see the evidence that TheAerodrome does. I'm also not sure where the evidence is that TheAerodrome is run by the same people we rely on in print; I saw your reply to an earlier query on the reliability of the site but the Links page appears to go to a number of government sites and some private ones but I didn't see key books or authors mentioned - as usual, happy to be pointed in the right direction if I've missed something.

• I don't recall expressing a preference for older books as references, I would always look to recent books or even online sources that are reliable according to WP guidelines. Of course authors learn more as time goes on, hence Above the Trenches having a supplement printed 6 years after the original book. Not using particular books isn't the major stumbling block for me, more not using a decent range of sources. As I said, the Osprey books used are worthwhile and certainly satisfy the reliability criteria, but they only explicitly cover British, Empire and US aces, not French or German.

• This last response leads to your final point, George, about where one sources figures for Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Well, Osprey has titles for the first two, and Australian aces should be covered under the British and Empire book, and I'd be surprised if Belgian aces aren't in a French aces title. Admittedly I can't help with a Russian one at the moment but therein lies the problem with such list articles, one does have a broad amount of data to source and verify. Be that as it may, I still have to treat this as I would any FA candidate when it comes to referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the status on Ian Rose's concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They should almost completely addressed. The style issues have been fixed, and I am in the process of referencing each score, and re-sourcing any currently using TheAerodrome.com. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've sourced every score that I could find in my books. There are a few still missing, and they all seem to be observers who became aces while flying with various pilots. I should probably be able to cobble together sources to get a score foe them, but it will take time.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ian, old cobber,

Thank you for answering questions I have been asking for many a moon. And I must confess, when I look at what I thought was the sources for the Aerodrome, I find I have been deceived.

I made the remark about the books you mentioned because they are all older than the Osprey releases. I do believe you are the one who mentioned they were by the same authors; I must confess, I did not check for myself.

When I started populating this list 14 months ago, as a brand new contributor to Wikipedia, I worked off the Aerodrome master list because I could find no other. I thought I had cited it at that time. Of course, that was many many iterations ago, before it was divided in nine because of its size.

I've hung around the Aerodrome long enough to have a pretty good idea of whom to trust. The guy who writes the forum asking, What color was the Red Baron's plane? is obviously unreliable. However, I have learned that Greg Van Wyngarten and Adrian Hellwig are both contributors, under the screen names Greg Wyn and Breguet. Dan-San Abbot has written extensively for "Cross and Cockade, and has interviewed more aces than anyone alive. There are many more contributors whose screen names I have not penetrated, but seem reliable, such as rammjaeger.

And, Ian, I don't expect anything of mine to get preferential treatment. I do what I can, and it gets rated however it gets rated. I've become rather unconcerned about that end of Wikipedia. I am only concerned about doing the best, most objective research and writing that I can.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Okay, a great deal of work has been done citing individual entries per my request so I am close to supporting, there are just a few items I'd still liked actioned:

1. The final paragraph of the introduction needs one or more citations.
   • Just waiting on this still, but also noticed Footnote A needs a citation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
     • I see these are now taken care of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
2. We're missing citations for the scores of Gass, Fletcher, Hayward, Cubbon and Edwards.
   • I've taken care of this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
3. There's still some reliance for citations on TheAerodrome that I believe should be removed per my earlier points, specifically:
   • 19 - the figure currently listed in TheAerodrome differs slightly from what we have in the article anyway and, given continuing research, the article may always be out of sync with TheAerodrome so much simpler to drop this citation and find one from a book that says "approximately 1,800" or some such; failing that, drop the whole sentence, since we're concerned with a minority of aces here anyway, namely those scoring 20 or more
     • Removed the statement completely. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
   • 89 - Roderic Dallas' undisputed score of 32 and his possible tally of over 50 doesn't need to be cited from TheAerodrome; both Above the Trenches and Dennis Newton's Australian Aces tabulate the 32 which are beyond question and can be used as sourcing for that figure; Newton is also a source for the "official" score of 39 and the figure of possibly over 50 - I'm happy to provide relevant publication/page details for both Above the Trenches and Australian Aces
     • Aerodrome "source" removed. That would be great if you could add those sources, and I'll look again in my books. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
       • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Just formatting, there's some rubbish immediately below the table of aces that needs to go.
   • Fixed, was a problem with the footer template. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work, if you can just take care of the above, I'll be happy to throw in my support. This'll be a great source of concise info not just for the general public but for those of us working on WP bios of the individual aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support with alacrity - all issues I raised have been taken care of - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Table: Air Service(s) column should be made so that the second word isn't capitalized.
  • This was mentioned previously, but I countered that because early air forces were usually called Air Services, and the words were part of the name and capitalized, e.g. United States Army Air Service. I'll change it, but I reserve the right to change it back if somemone else confirms my view. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the notes column, the quotation mark in "The Red Baron" (first entry) is throwing off the sorting. Not sure if this one can be fixed or not, but it's at least worth an effort.
  • Removed the quotes. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• The References column looks shrunken, as do the cites themselves. Is the column width setting causing this? It's not the most aesthetically pleasing setup I've ever seen, that's for sure.
  • Oops, that was caused by the notes template being a mistaken ly removed. It's now fixed. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Page ranges in references require en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [21].

---

2007 Pan American Games medal table

Nominator(s): Felipe Menegaz 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very detailed medal table that can be compared to the Featured Olympic similars. Felipe Menegaz 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Just participated in the Peer Review and I think this list is featured quality. My only remaining concern is the lack of images of athletes from countries other than Brazil, but if that is all we have to work with then I am comfortable with the list as is. Geraldk (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

However, if we expand the type of images beyond simply those showing medal awards, there are images available of athletes from other countries, or at least of other athletes in addition to Brazilian athletes. Some standouts from commons include: table tennis, volleyball, Badminton, basketball, Soccer, and Swimming. I'm curious what other reviewers think - keep the images to medal awards or expand the scope to allow for some diversity of nationalities. Geraldk (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

Just one quick comment I noticed in a drive-by: the legend is ambiguous. Does "First medal in the Pan American Games" mean that the country earned its first medal in the Games (ever?), or does it mean that the country earned the first medal in these particular games? Likewise for the "First medal in the Pan American Games". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means that those countries earned their first ever medals. Added ever in the sentences. Felipe Menegaz 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Joey80

The legend for the table (i.e. host nation, first ever medal, etc.) seems to contain two legends per subject--the numerical superscript/note, and the color coding. Maybe this can be simplified by removing one or the other. Personally, I prefer removing the numerical superscript, since that gives the idea that there is are notes at the bottom of the table/page worth considering, which is not the case. Joey80 (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The numerical superscript must be there to meet the needs of readers who have trouble seeing colors, as per Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles. If your concern is simply that symbols may work better than numbers, than I'm sure Felipe can find alternatives to the numbers. Geraldk (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If such is the case, then the numerical/text legend is ok, but the color coding can be removed? Joey80 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think is better to keep both. As you said, numerical legend only gives the idea that there are notes. The featured list 1998 Winter Olympics medal table already use this template. Felipe Menegaz 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, to support Geraldk's comments, it might be better to also include images of athletes of varying nationalities other than Brazilian. Joey80 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should only use images related to the medals. Felipe Menegaz 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So this includes images of non-Brazilian athletes who won medals. Joey80 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no free pictures of non-Brazilian athletes during those awards ceremonies. Felipe Menegaz 14:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All of my comments have been resolved. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40

The ALT text needs work. For the pictures of athletes, you shouldn't mention their name in the ALT text because a non-expert can't see that just be looking at the picture. Instead, describe what the athletes look like, what they're wearing, etc. See Wikipedia:ALT#Verifiability. Also, for the map at top, there's no need to describe the colors, just describe what you would take from it. Maybe something like: "The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc. received at least one gold medal" and continue that going over most countries (see Wikipedia:ALT#Maps). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

After a huge blackout here in Brazil, I am back. Alternative texts improved. Felipe Menegaz 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

;Comments from Giants2008 Mostly of the picky variety, since the list is very good overall. Regarding the images, I would like to see one or two that represent a country other than Brazil. Having four Brazilian photos and none with athletes from other countries could be seen by some as introducing bias. I also have a hard time believing no alternatives are avaliable, because the Brazilian agency where the existing photos come from has such friendly policies for our purposes; surely they didn't photograph just Brazilian athletes. Any of the team-sport finals photos in particular would make an ideal addition to the list, and are still strongly related to the medal count. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, they did. There are pictures of competitions between Brazil and another country, but I can not distinguish what is the competition phase (final, semifinal, etc). Therefore, I can not tell you if there are medals to be disputed. Felipe Menegaz 15:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC) The image pages for the volleyball, soccer and basketball photos linked above specifically say they are from the gold-medal matches. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Particularly I prefer the pictures from award ceremonies, but if everyone agree we can add these images. Could you give an example of caption to these pictures? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 1998 Winter Olympics medal table, an FL I worked on a while back, has a picture of a hockey game. Perhaps the caption there could be used as a model of sorts. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Felipe Menegaz 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Proper names shouldn't be in alt text since they cannot be verified by just looking at a given photo, as a commenter above said. The same rule should naturally apply to stadium names, which are not present in any of the current pictures. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC) In reference 13, USA Today, whose website the story came from, should be mentioned in the citation. I'm assuming that the {{citation}} template lets this be added since I don't use that one myself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – After the resolution of these and the other comments, I'm confident that this meets the standards. Saw a grammar glitch in the alt text of a photo before coming here, but fixed it myself to expedite matters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks great and seems to have already been taken care of. Reywas92^Talk 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Merge the rather choppy "first medal" and "first gold medal" sentences with a "while". Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "general medal board " medal table? Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Why link Brazil at the games on the second usage in the lead, not the first? Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "in December 18, 2007" surely "on"? Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "2,196 medals were awarded " in lead, table total is 1,076 - you need to explain the discrepancy. Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) When sorting by Gold from fewest to most, it seems odd to me to see Peru (with 4 silver, 8 bronze) to be ranked above (and therefore "worse") than Trinidad and Tobago (with 1 silver, 3 bronze). Same is true when ranking by other medal types, the sub-ordering seems a little odd to me. Well, I think that the problem is in {{RankedMedalTable}}. See 1998 Winter Olympics medal table, 2008 Summer Olympics medal table... Felipe Menegaz 13:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) You're probably right - perhaps you could start a discussion on whether it's doing the right thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Actually it is a problem with Wikipedia's script. I don't know if it can be resolved. Felipe Menegaz 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Template_talk:RankedMedalTable#Problem. Felipe Menegaz 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "During the closing ceremony of the games on July 29, the Rio de Janeiro Organizing Committee, after the event closed without a single positive test for illegal drugs, hailed them as the cleanest ever." too many clauses for me. I would split. Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "detected by four of 1,262 tests" detected "in". Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "fourth-place winner " odd - perhaps "who placed fourth"? Done. Felipe Menegaz 13:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment What does the "..." mean in the "Changes in medal standings" table? Also, why do you use pictures of the medals in that table but use words in the main table? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are just aesthetical reasons. Medal pictures removed. Felipe Menegaz 20:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant for you to clarify in the article what the three dots meant. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

They mean nothing, zero, unchanged. I saw the 2004 Host City Election — ballot results table in Bids for the 2004 Summer Olympics with the dots and I liked. Well, dots removed. Felipe Menegaz 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just made the blank spaces dashes (since they mean the same thing). Problem solved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Felipe Menegaz 01:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [22].

---

List of tallest buildings in Oakland, California

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Hydrogen Iodide

I am nominating my first tallest buildings list and I think it fulfills the FL criteria. —Chris!_c/t 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am aware of the criteria regarding red links. I am reluctant to create extremely short stubs for shorter, less notable buildings, but I will do so if requested.—Chris!_c/t 00:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Looking over the history of the article, User:Hydrogen Iodide should also get credit for this nomination, as he was also a primary contributor to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Added.—Chris!_c/t 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Is the year column for the year construction began or completed? Might be worth specifying. Maybe I'm missing it, but what does the asterisk on the Height column for proposed building signify? Add name from article to references 49, 56 (Christopher Heredia) and 52 (Ryan Tate). —NMajdan•talk 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Done all—Chris!c/t 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The Year column in the proposed section still needs to be clarified. If its the year it was completed as with the previous section, then obviously the building needs to be moved to the previous section. I would assume in this case it means when construction began, will begin, or is anticipated to begin.—NMajdan•talk 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, miss that. Now done—Chris!c/t 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Copyedit the image captions. (two examples, and there are more: "Oakland City Hall is was the...", "The Tribune Tower is the eleven eleventh tallest...").—NMajdan•talk 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Support.—NMajdan•talk 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments I'd start with "United States" rather than "U.S." "over 69" - sounds odd to me. So not "over 70"? Or what? alt text could be a lot more comprehensive, for instance the lead image you don't even mention it's a night-time image. "back in 1907." - "back" not needed, sounds a little colloquial. " to the Bank of America Building" why repeat the building name? Poor prose. And it gets a little confusing - when was the building made taller? If it was 27 stories, was it taller than the Oakland City Hall? "August 2009" - almost November 2009, can we update? the "clear blue sky" in alt text has several clouds... as before, the alt text could be much more descriptive. What does an en-dash in the Year mean? Not sure 330 (101) and 336 (102) are consistent - for one extra metre, you get six extra feet? " Table entries with dashes (—) indicate that information regarding building floor counts or dates of completion has not yet been released. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a project was announced or construction of a building began" - inconsistent... these are proposed, so they must have a date of proposal, right? Any reason why some are redlinked and some are not linked at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I fixed most of them. I realized that the alt texts I wrote aren't perfect. But I am not exactly a good writer, so any guidance would be appreciated. The height discrepency results from rounding and I am not sure how to fix it.—Chris!c/t 19:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Template:Convert actually yields the same height: "330 feet (101 m)" and "336 feet (102 m)".—Chris!c/t 19:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Any reason why there isn't a full stop after the notes for Oakland City Hall? "information regarding building floor counts or dates of proposal" all have floor counts but one doesn't have a height so reword this. Street address doesn't sort correctly, in fact I wonder if it needs to sort at all... Everything else is fixed.—Chris!c/t 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC) "dates of completion has not yet been released." - this is odd because it implies (to me) that the buildings are incomplete, doesn't it? So they should be in the other table perhaps? I'm confused... How is this confusing?? Can you explain more?—Chris!c/t 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I find it confusing because these buildings are in the "Tallest building" section, not the "under construction or proposed" section. So I would infer that the buildings are complete. So why do they not have a date of completion? How do you know they're complete if they don't have a completion date? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I see what you mean. But there isn't much I can do. If RS like Emporis.com tells me that a building is complete but doesn't show the date of completion, then it is recorded as such here.—Chris!c/t 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Well I understand your position but this is a bit of an issue for me I'm afraid. If a building is complete, it's complete. If not, it shouldn't be in the list which infers complete buildings. Perhaps there are other sources which could help resolve this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I can certainly try to obtain the year from the building official site. But simply because the date is unknown, doesn't mean that the building is not complete.—Chris!c/t 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC) The year for the 2 buildings are not known. I looked everywhere. Although the year is unknown, the buildings are completed based on the sources.—Chris!c/t 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Hmm. A challenge. No paper sources available for this kind of thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Whether these can be used is another matter, but it would seem that the taller building was opened in 1956. That's not a definitive source of the year of opening, but I'd say its beyond question it has been opened. I think I may have gotten myself confused here (and this isn't a reliable source anyway), but is this the smaller building? Obviously we can't use that as a source, but if it is the same building then that should help in the quest for a reliable source. WFCforLife (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for helping me. The first source definitely works since it is government document. I am not sure if the second is referring to the same building. There are many AT&T buildings in the US.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

* "Tallest building in the 1900s" could do with a footnote to disambiguate between the decade and the century. I know it's a bit picky, but sort by year and you will see why this could potentially cause confusion. Fixed—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) How do we know that Emerald Views be the tallest building in Oakland? Is it definitely going to be finished before the taller buildings in that table. Not sure what you mean. But if the Emerald Views is built, then yes it will be the tallest.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) The year column in the under construction table is questionable. Personally I think it should refer to the year in which the project was first proposed (presumably there would be a record of planning applications, meaning that we could complete this column?). Alternatively it could be used for the date that construction started. In any case, it should refer to one or the other, not both. Fixed—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I'll leave it there for now. As an aside I absolutely love the panoramic shot. WFCforLife (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I think 325 7th Street should be removed altogether. No height suggests to me that it's at a very early stage and should at best be considered tentative. It can always be re-included if something more concrete (literally or metaphorically) unfolds. Removed—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Table entries with dashes (—) indicate that information regarding the building has not yet been released. Needs changing. If a building has been proposed, it has been proposed publicly (otherwise the sources wouldn't know about it). I accept that finding the year this happened may be impossible (and therefore am not saying you have to do so), but the information has been released. Reword, see if it works—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The 555 image cuts through the header, and should be moved down. Fixed, I think—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for the redlinked articles to be created. Indeed, the creation of articles for the sake of an FLC is a bad thing in my opinion. But I'm wondering if some of them should be linked at all? Oakland is a city of around 500,000 people, and it strikes me as somewhat surprising that it would have that many notable buildings (and that's ignoring the fact that there are several notable buildings that aren't skyscrapers).

I have tried finding an articles to link the building to,but I don't see anything.—Chris!_c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a speific guideline that relates to buildings? I just find it difficult to believe that every high-rise in the world warrants an article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, so I can remove the red links. I don't know of any guideline specifically—Chris!_c/t 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by from KV5

• I like the panorama too, I think it's a great idea, but it's even wider than my widescreen monitor. It may need to be made scrollable in consideration of WP:ACCESS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Resize—Chris!_c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Good article, but some questions. How is the lower cutoff (200 feet) for inclusion chosen? High-rise does not seem to mention such number. This is really arbitrarily chosen, so I don't know—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Why not include all of the "over 40" high-rises? Compared to other "List of tallest buildings in US-city", this list is rather short. Yes, this is short but I don't see the need to include all buildings. Other tallest buildings lists do not include all buildings. List of tallest buildings in New York City only includes buildings above 600 fts. List of tallest buildings in San Diego only includes buildings above 300 fts.—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) On the other hand, the New York City list has 82 buildings and that of San Diego 29, compared to 21 for this list. Are those below-200 feet buildings not notable? No, they are not.—Chris!c/t 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Is there a chance to have a picture for every building in a "picture" column? Most buildings don't have image—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Are there no wikipedians in Oakland who could take pictures? Did you check flickr and other sources? bamse (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I try flickr but can't see anything.—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You could try contacting somebody from Category:Wikipedians in Oakland, California or put a request at WP:RP. place the request image tag on the talk page—Chris!c/t 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Good. For the time being it is ok. I hope that you will have enough pictures for a dedicated picture column soon. bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) What is the default ordering of the table? Fixed—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. How does the "coordinates" column sort? Removed sorting Thanks. Same for the last table please. Done—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Is it possible to have a "coordinates" column for the under construction/proposed table? Coordinate unknown for proposed buildings—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. What does the note in the caption: "(Some buildings are identifiable using cursor)" mean? It means not all buildings are identifiable, or the name doesn't show when your cursor hovers on the picture.—Chris!c/t 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Cool! bamse (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) two more questions: In the caption "Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building complex was the seventh tallest along with EM Harris State Office Building." you probably want "was"->"is"? Done—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. What is the point of the "status" column in the section: "Tallest buildings under construction and proposed"? If there are no buildings under construction it is not necessary to write about it in the section heading and text. It seems unnecessary to have this column at this point since all are in the proposed status. But if construction begin, then this column will be useful—Chris!c/t 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I see. OK. bamse (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. bamse (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - "feet (m)" should be "feet (meters)" or "ft (m)". --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:MOSNUM the conversion is always abbreviated, so I undid this edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that.—Chris!_c/t 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [23].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Rahul Dravid

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Another cricket list, but this time not an Australian... I hope I got the basics right, sortability, dabs, live ext links, alt text, MOS-compliance, and hope that the list meets with the approval of the community. I look forward to any and all comments, thanks in advance for your time and reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Another, shame it's not an Australia; at least it's not a pom :) "He was named as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 2000, as well as both ICC Test Player of the Year and ICC Player of the Year in 2004." Is this really necessary for a list on centuries? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not strictly necessary but it adds a little flavour to suggest that he was recognised, in some part, for his successes with the bat (especially in 2000 after his amazing 1999...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

*Comment -- Really good to see Dravid here! Shouldn't the 180 in the Second Test, 2000–01 Border-Gavaskar Trophy find mention in the lead? While he's scored better, this innings has received a lot of coverage, although it wasn't the highest score in that game. -SpacemanSpiff 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Sure thing. I'll see what I can conjure up! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Added a bunch of stuff about that match, hope it works for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC) That looks good, some other minor stuff below. -SpacemanSpiff 18:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC) More comments "...scored his first international Test century..." -- redundant "international"? "...Dravid led India to victory by 171 runs..." -- led --> helped lead? Perhaps reserve "led" for Laxman's list? "...score is 270, achieved in April..., helped India..." -- some sort of a rephrase maybe? "...against each of the other..." --> "...against all the other..."? Should some mention of his 78 100+ partnerships be included? It's not directly tied to the centuries, but is a world record and sort of related to his centuries. I think it'll make a good add for context of his scores, but isn't covered by the lists, so I don't have a strong opinion on this. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much for your comments. I think I've covered them all, please don't hesitate to comment further. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC) The partnership record is a Test record,[24] so it should move up to the earlier passage; don't think he's got as good a record in ODIs. Looks good otherwise. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Moved up. Existing reference backs up the record. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I just made a change from "international" to "Test" for the record, hope you don't mind. -SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support All comments have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like another century to add on another pathetic track. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support – Went through the list and found no problems. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [25].

---

List of South Africa women Test cricketers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it comprehensively covers the topic. The list is unlikely to expand at a rapid rate as women's Test matches are not played that regularly. This is laid out in the same format as the current FL (List of India women Test cricketers and I have read and used the comments from that FLC when creating this list. All comments and questions are welcome, happy reviewing! Harrias (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "Louise Goodall sent a letter to" - why? Honest answer - I don't know. As I said to SGGH when addressing his points on the talk page of the article, I could speculate, but that isn't what an encyclopaedia is for. The sources I can find don't specify. I guess I'm looking for a reason otherwise I'm not sure why this action is relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I feel the letter is relevant as it is in the reply to that letter that the formation of a South African & Rhodesian Women's Cricket Association is suggested, and more importantly, the possibility of a series between the nations. Would it help if I clarified somehow that Louise Goodall was writing on behalf of the aforementioned enthusiasts? Harrias (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Yeah I think so. As I first read it, there was no real context or link to the relevance of the "letter". Anything that makes this more relevant and useful to the reader would be a bonus. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, have now slightly rephrased this, how does it read now? Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) What's an AGM? Done: Annual general meeting, have written it out in full and linked it too. "Australia and New Zealand" - perhaps link to the women's teams. Done: Linked " the same venue as the first men's Test match in the country was held in 1889,[4] and finished a draw." - reads a touch awkwardly for me. Have rephrased this slightly too, any improvement? Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Explain why the Gleneagles agreement was relevant. Done: added more information about this. Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "They didn't play" avoid contractions. Done: changed to 'did not' "South Africa had been due to host an English team in 1968–69, but England" - way out of chronological order, so it reads strangely to me. I listed it separately at the end due to it not being an official Test series. I can move it if you feel it would read better, but personally I thought, after some fiddling, that it was better suited to the end of the paragraph. Done: have now, after some thought and other comments, moved this into chronological order. Harrias (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC) What are " half-colours"? Good point, I'll have a work at making that more understandable. Done: have now removed it altogether. Harrias (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "have therefore played 11 Test" no need for "therefore" as far as I'm concerned. It seems to be a matter of taste. I originally didn't have it in, but then after a comment by SGGH, I added it. I'll see if anyone else makes any comments either way before changing it again if that's okay? Sure thing. No big deal either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) "The list is arranged in the" - initially arranged because it's sortable. Done: now reads 'The list is initially arranged in the' "not dismissed" or "not out" in the key. Be consistent. Done: both now read 'not out' Comply with WP:DASH in the references. Can you be more specific? I've glanced through WP:DASH and my refs and can's see exactly what you're referring to? Ref 4 for instance. It should be a spaced en-dash rather than a hyphen... (don't blame me........!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Done: fixed this in refs 4 and 60, don't think there are any others. Harrias (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I'll check the actual statistics later on! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for all your comments, I've addressed most of them in some way above, and a couple I'll need to put a little bit of thought into. Any further comments will be welcomed. Harrias (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Some sort of statistical summary would be good. With no one playing over seven games, career stats aren't possible, but something like x no of hundreds or five-fors should be added. Have added some stats now, for the moment just centuries and five-fors like you suggest, with so few games it's hard to add stats without them being too meaningless. Harrias (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) A couple of sentences in the first paragraph go into detail that would probably be better off in the article about the team (e.g. the letter, reply to it) I'm still not sure about this, I think it adds good background here without being too in depth. I'll think more about it. Harrias (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Not denying the background aspect, but the letter-writing bit doesn't appear to provide any necessary background; IMO, it makes one wonder why the letter is important, without any wikilink or explanation to find out. How would this read; taking out the bit about the letter: '... and in 1951 Netta Rheinberg, on behalf of the Women's Cricket Association, suggested that a South Africa Women's Cricket Association be formed, and encouraged the possibility that a series of matches could be played between the two associations." Harrias (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I like this version, it definitely reduces the number of questions in my head! Done: changed as I suggested above. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) The first mention of the team is in the second paragraph, long after England, Australia NZ, WCA, IWCC and a tour are linked. SA team should probably be squeezed in earlier. "...and finished a draw." --> "...and ended in a draw." Done: changed as suggested. "...every women to have..." --> "...every woman to have..." Done: changed as suggested. "...did not play a further Test..." --> "...did not play another Test..." I disagree with this change, I think it reads better as it is. If there is strong opinion against me, I'll change it, otherwise I'm happy. A stylistic preference, doesn't matter much to me. "Only two players, ..., and only two, ..." --> "Only two players, ..., and two others, ..."? Done: changed as suggested. cheers, -SpacemanSpiff 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Similarly to above, I've addressed a number of your points and will think about the others before editing. Harrias (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Struck out/expanded above. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Responded inline. Also, you'll need to add alt text for the image. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, have added some alt text, please advise or alter if appropriate. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments There seems to be a problem with the BBI column's sorting. For example, 1/63 comes before 1/72, and 1/51 comes after that. Please check the sortkey. Done: was just a little error with the 1/72, now corrected. Maybe it'd be best to link to the section Wicket#Dismissing_a_batsman rather than Wicket in the key? Done: changed as siggested. Mention that the WCA was the governing body for women's cricket in England. It sounds like something like the ICC when you just say it was the parent body for women's cricket, and might be a bit confusing to the reader when you mention an International Women's Cricket Council later on. Done: actually, at the time, the WCA acted much like the MCC, effectively governing the men's game in the same way the MCC did/do for the men's game. So while it was the governing body for women's cricket in England, their influence was worldwide. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your points, hopefully I have addressed them sufficiently for you. Harrias (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Image needs alt text, no? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Done

• Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "the SA&RWCA accepted an invitation from the Women's Cricket Association to join an International Women's Cricket Association along with Australia and New Zealand, and that international matches would be played between the four nations." Second part of the sentence doesn't match grammatically with the first; more specifically, "accepted the invitation" ... "and that" is the problem. A rewording is in order.
  • Done: have added agreed into the sentence, hopefully it makes more sense now.
• "The first Test involving South Africa national women's cricket team...". Add "the" after "involving".
  • Done: changed as siggested.
• What makes http://beta.ancestry24.com/articles/women-in-cricket a reliable source? I fail to see how a genealogy website would be considered reliable.
  • I have the same concern as you here, however the article itself is taken from Die Burger, a reliable daily newspaper from Cape Town. I have been trying to find an original or better source of this article, but living in England, that's the best I've been able to get unfortunately.
    • If this is from a newspaper, you could have an offline citation for the newspaper story with a page number. Instead of sourcing from a shaky website, why not cite the paper itself? There's no requirement that reliable sources have to be online, either here or in general. Is that what you mean when you can't find an original, or can you not find it on Die Burger's website? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • To clarify; the source I cite lists Die Burger at the bottom as the source of the article. However, beyond that I can't find it; Die Burger's site is in (I assume) Afrikaans, which I'm not too good at, and finding an original of a foreign paper is beyond my means.. Harrias (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Done: until I can find a better source, I have removed the part regarding the Dutch team; as they were unofficial Test matches it's not vital information. Harrias (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Is an image possible for the lead? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I wish it were! I've scoured the web for PD or free use images to put here that show South Africa played Test cricket, but the only image I can find anywhere is one I took myself of them at a Twenty20 presentation, which wouldn't be appropriate. Harrias (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Is it better than nothing? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It does the job. Needs alt text, however. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Alt text appears to be there (as far as I can see) at the moment - is it sufficient for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [26].

---

Shaw Prize

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's ready. This is my first award list in a while. —Chris!_c/t 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comments: Did a quick c/e for spelling and grammar issues hope you don't mind, but also had these: "The award currently has three disciplines: Astronomy, Life Science and Medicine as well as Mathematical Sciences" this sentence is confusing - I know you prefer not to use the serial comma but there has to be a way to make it clearer, because at first glance it looks like it lists four prizes. ..."has preference to award individuals whose work was recently achieved in these fields" end of same sentence, not sure what you mean by 'has preference to', or even if you need it. Can't you just say it 'awards individuals...' Geraldk (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I made some fixes. But I am not sure how to fix point 1. I just added additional comma and hope that it helps to clear things up.—Chris!c/t 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - well done list. Geraldk (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jan Kameníček

Comments. Generally, I like the list, and have just a few comments: I think the tables should be sortable. IMO, this is not that helpful since the only things can be sorted are names and nationalities.—Chris!c/t 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC) And by years: Some people prefer them ascending and others descending. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Maybe some more pictures could be added. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC) All the available images are here already.—Chris!c/t 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC) And what about this one and this one? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I did search for them; missed these two apparently.—Chris!c/t 07:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC) I was thinking about the article a little more and have a few more questions: What is the nomination process? Who can nominate? Where does the ceremony take place? Where does the foundation take so much money? There is a picture of a medal, but the main text does not say that the winners get any medal. Is it possible to describe its design, especially as there is no picture of the reverse? Is the man on the obverse Shaw? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, I added some more info.—Chris!c/t 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC) I still think there could be more about the medal (some info is here). I am missing also the place of the ceremony, but I do not know, whether any regular place is given. However, the prize is definitely connected with Hong Kong and this should be stated in the text somewhere (the fact that the Shaw Prize Foundation is based in Hong Kong could be mentioned at least). Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Added a sentence about the medal and that the prize was established in Hong Kong.—Chris!c/t 23:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC) "... and a seal of Chinese characters" – this could be more specific. I suggest to write something like "...and Chinese language quotation of philosopher Xun Zi, meaning "Grasp the law of nature and make use of it". Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Added—Chris!c/t 19:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. The only unresolved issue is the sources of the money, but this might be impossible to find out and so I do not insist on it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suppport. I like the list and at the moment have no more questions. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose "widely regarded" then just a single reference. Done Why do we need to know Run Run Shaw's year of birth? Done I don't think the fields need to be capitalised, e.g. Astronomy should just be astronomy.. Done "prize as of 2009 was" commas after prize and 2009. Done "is Canadian " was? Done What are "prize 1" and "prize 2"? Is it explained somewhere? Kind of explained in the note; not clear exactly why two prizes were given "Since the first prize was awarded in 2004, no women have been recipients." - "... awarded in 2004, there have been no female recipients."? Done Are the rationales copyvios? We've gone over this a few times before, I'm not convinced we came to a conclusion. A reword would the safest option. Done Brit Eng or US Eng for this article? Could you list them out? I am not good at catching these. "mechanization" for instance, is USEng, while "honours" is Brit Eng... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed "Fall" is also American English. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Refs should preferably be in numerical order. And shouldn't the column be Refs not Ref.? Done Perimutter et al caption needs a full stop. Fixed Why is Mumford image narrower than the others? Not sure why I think it is because it is not available in higher resolution. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Should I remove it then?—Chris!c/t 19:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC) No, it's fine, I just wondered why it was smaller than the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Poor old Coleman, all redlinky... Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) "work was recently achieved" what do you mean by this? rephrased following Bencherlite's suggestion—Chris!c/t 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC) "In addition, the winner receives a sum of money. The monetary value, as of 2009, is US$1 million." merge these. Done—Chris!c/t 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Are "prize 1" and "prize 2" the official names? Still not clear. There is no official name on this, but two prizes were given. Any suggestion on how to reword this—Chris!c/t 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC) "a process that advances our knowledge " still very "quotey" - if you're avoiding the copyvio, we should rephrase into third person. Trying to fix. Does it work—Chris!c/t 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bencherlite

Comments from Bencherlite "The prize awards individuals whose work was recently achieved in the fields of astronomy, life science and medicine, and mathematical sciences; as such, those who have decreased are ineligible." How about: "The prize is for recent achievements in the fields of astronomy, life science and medicine, and mathematical sciences; it is not awarded posthumously." (Definitely changed "decreased"!) "Nominations are submitted by invited individuals beginning each year in September" Do I understand this to mean that individuals can nominate themselves, or that people are invited to nominate others? Yes, people are invited to nominate others—Chris!c/t 19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC) "As of 2009, 19 prizes were awarded to 31 individuals." How about "As of 2009, 19 prizes have been awarded to 31 individuals"? "British Richard Doll" ought to be "British physiologist", or "British (something else)", since "British (name)" doesn't work In the tables, "for proving the Fermat's Last Theorem" shouldn't have the "the" in there; if you want to separate the wikilinks, try "for his [proof] of [Fermat's Last Theorem]" Any particular reason why Coleman isn't linked in the lead? I made some minor changes to the alt-text, including changing "pants" into "trousers" as you appear to be going for British English ("pants" in BritEng means "underpants"...) Otherwise, looks in good shape. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Done all. Also thanks for the alt-text fix. I used American Eng, so I had a hard time writing in Brit Eng.—Chris!c/t 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, issues resolved (I reworded prize 1 and prize 2 as "one of the prizes" and "the other"). Bencherlite^Talk 08:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:30, 4 December 2009 [27].

---

List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Dabomb87

Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.—Chris!_c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold

Oppose Why is there no table for Players, Coaches, etc, etc? I understand the are included at those sub-pages, but a list of lists with no table info is rather dull. Maybe at least include the most recent class or something? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I can certainly include the most recent class if you want. But I will wait and see what others think first?—Chris!c/t 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC) The most recent class would be helpful, but according to WP:Summary style, just having a "main" link here is insufficient. A paragraph summarizing the "main" article is also required under each subheading (and I think that the 2009 class should be shown in addition, preferably as a transclusion rather than a copy and paste table). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) These are both good ideas. Chris, if you can add in the tables, I'll write the summaries. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Tables are done, I think. For contributors, the most recent induction in 2008, so I just put the 2008 class instead.—Chris!c/t 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I don't get it - why are all the refs and teams listed but only a tiny fraction of the other categories? The lead says "The following is a list of people who have been enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame" but gives no explanation as to why, for example, only 3 out of 200-odd players are listed. And why those 3 in particular? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC) It really confuses me to. I understand that the tables would be big, and I understand that you guys (I assume) are trying to work towards a FT on this subject. However look at List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, a current FL (at FLRC, but mostly for sourcing which is being added). It's long, but a list of HoF members should really list the members. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Well, there are FL precedents for this kind of arrangement. List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government is split from the main List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford. And the law and government section on the main list summarized the spin-off list. This what we are essentially doing here.—Chris!c/t 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I also think that having only the latest class looks weird and does not summarize the whole list adequately. I don't see any reason why the latest class should have special treatment and be listed in the main page above the other members, which I think is as important as the latest class. I'm suggesting the following idea: List all the members in the main article without the achievements column, while the sub-pages retains all the details including the achievements. The main page would be long, but it would have a complete list of all the members. If you do that, the teams and referees sections should have their own sub-pages to make them consistent with the other categories. Therefore the main article would fulfill the WP:FL? criteria 3 for comprehensiveness, while the sub-pages can also be retained with little concern of content-forking. Other suggestion is to merge all the list into the main page similar to the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Just ideas to think about. Cheers. — Martin tamb (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, this is why I do not like placing the latest inductees on the main page, either. But I also dislike the idea of having several unnecessary content forking sublists that largely duplicate the info on the main page. That is why I suggested to follow the FL precedent above: have a brief summary that describes the sublists (see List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford).—Chris!c/t 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Comments on my oppose In answer to the three questions above: 1. Yes, if they include information such as a sub-list article like List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base. 2a. The same as is at Rawlings Gold Glove Award which includes all information at positional lists such as List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base. 2b. I would support the list even if it was long, but as I said to 2a I wouldn't merge so much as have separate lists (easy FT for WP:NBA, by the way). See List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. That's a proper FL of HoF members (recently majorly reworked to save it from FLRC) with 300 references and lots and lots of data. I apologize for opposing this still, I always like to resolve my comments and end up supporting, but I really don't see how a list of NBA HoFers can literally have no HoF players listed on it. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Well I am sorry, but I must say that your request is not actionable. No disrespect to you, but I have a feeling that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria. The Wikipedia:Featured list criteria never requires a list to have all items.—Chris!c/t 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Criteria 3a reads "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." It's most certainly practical to include a complete list of items, that's already done in similar lists like the baseball one. And even barring that, this makes absolutely no provision for the biggest ground of all the players. Even if you are set on doing things in the style of the Jesus College list, the Players section has 2 sentences and a redirect. Look at those Jesus College lists again. The List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government gets two big fat paragraphs at List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford and another one in another subsection. Here the players, the largest and arguably most important aspect of the Hall, get 2 sentences. That's hardly "providing at least all of the major items." Staxringold talkcontribs 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC) So more comprehensive summary paragraphs for the sub-listed tables would meet your concerns? Geraldk (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I would far prefer full lists, but yes this is clearly an accepted style when lists start getting large so if the summaries are expanded to reasonable length per Jesus College I'd support. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I think Stax and I can agree on this, which is why I haven't supported yet. Section leads for the sub-listed articles should be more comprehensive, in the nature of mini-leads themselves. Geraldk (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, I am willing to expand the paragraphs to meet Staxringold's comment. But I don't think I can satisfy that within this nomination period, I will consult with Dabomb first before withdrawing.—Chris!c/t 03:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I may be wrong, but I don't think that'll be an issue so long as you're actively working on it. 30 Rock (season 3) had plenty of kinks to work out, but we pounded em out. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I add some more. Is it enough? If not, what or how much should I add?—Chris!c/t 04:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Using Jesus College as a baseline, I would say more. What's the breakdown by position? Other countries? Most represented/least represented teams? Largest class? Etc, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I add a lot more to the paragraphs. For the players, I didn't include position breakdown because it is unclear for some regarding the position they played.—Chris!c/t 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support per discussion and expansion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dabomb asked me to stop by, as I'm the major contributor to the group of Jesus College lists. Initially, there was only one list – "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" – and that got the FL star. As more articles were written and added, the list had to be split into various sub-lists: at one point, the template limit had been reached on the page, breaking the citations, and the page regularly exceeded 200kb in total; it's still 190kb+ even with four offspring lists. I hope that it's a good way of doing things where the length of sub-lists means that combining all the names on one page would result in a list that was very difficult to load and edit; looking at the HoF lists, I think that would be the case here too. Another perhaps more relevant precedent, approved by FLC rather than edited this way later, is List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign / Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign - a FL (and lead list of the FT), which links to 8 sub-lists (all FLs) in simple fashion. So I don't agree that this list has to contain all the names in each sub-list in order to be comprehensive, with further details being given at the sub-list. That seems unnecessary duplication. Personally, I wouldn't even have a table for the most recent recipients - it looks odd to me to have such a short table (which hardly need to be sortable), as on first glance it makes it look as though these are the only recipients, and it would help to distinguish between the sections which are complete (e.g. referees) and the summaries if only the complete sections had tables. Far better, I would think, to summarise the sub-list, and mention the most recent recipients in the text. In the Jesus lists, the summaries follow the leads of the sublists, but I think that the summaries here need to be longer and mention more names, as the leads of the sub-lists are quite thin. So, at present, I think the "coaches" section summary needs to be expanded somewhat, and the "contributors" and "players" have no summary at all. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started to revamp those sections according to your advice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them. List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.—Chris!_c/t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.—Chris!_c/t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, the numbers of Basketball Hall of Fame induction and Baseball Hall of Fame induction are almost equivalent. But the reason why Basketball Hall of Fame get split up in the first place is because it is too long. No disrespect to the editors who worked hard on the Baseball list, but I think it is too bare bone compared to this list. It merely lists all inductees without providing much description about them. I have absolutely no problem with you opposing, but I feel that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria in WP:FL?. And I am not sure what I can do to satisfy your request.—Chris!_c/t 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I can definitely try to expand the lead, but don't think I can make it as long as the one on Baseball Hall of Fame. It seems to me that the long length is due to the complexity of the induction and selection criteria. The criteria for induction here is much simpler.—Chris!_c/t 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Splitting players and non-players is one thing, I'm fine with that. My issue is with no information on the individual Hall of Famers for several of these groups on the list page. As I say below, Rawlings Gold Glove Award lists every 1st baseman who has won the award even though List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base exists. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I understand and on balance agree with the splitting of players and coaches from the main article, but contributors seems like an odd split to me. WFCforLife (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Why is that?—Chris!c/t 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC) All of the divisions (including contributors) are official Hall of Fame categories; Chris and I did not divide the individuals ourselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I know they're the five categories, but it just seems odd that contributors has been split off into its own list, rather than a section in this list. The only reasons I can think of for contributors being a stand alone list are the section's length relative to referees and teams, and the fact that it lies alphabetically between coaches and players. I don't think either of these are particularly good reasons to split a list. Consider the proportion of readers who would consider seeking out hall of fame players or coaches alone, compared to the proportion of readers who would consider seeking out hall of fame contributors alone. WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I guess you are right. But since it has been split, I think it is counter-productive to merge them again.—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I agree that it shouldn't be done for the sake of it on my say-so alone, but I disagree that it would be in any way counter-productive. Assuming there was consensus, it would be a simple copy-paste, and a redirect to the parent article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seperate to the discussion above, my only queries are: "Renato William Jonesis the only inductee to be enshrined as a contributor." Firstly the minor typo, secondly it's not obvious what "enshrining" means. I originally thought the inductees were all enshrined into the hall of fame. Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Could teams be included in the final sentence of the second paragraph in the lead, or is there a reason not to do so? From what I can tell they are inducted on an ad-hoc basis at the committees' discretion. Added—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There's no need to create the article, but I just thought I'd check whether Orsten Artis would qualify for an article at some stage in the future? Yes, I suppose—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I'm unsure whether List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (contributors) is a content fork or a necessary and logical split, and can't support without further discussion for that reason. I think it passes all of the other FL criteria. WFCforLife (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Merged now, although I don't agree with it.—Chris!_c/t 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:

• 1. Are List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches) and List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (players) worthy of articles?

• 2a. If yes to 1, what information about players and coaches would you expect to see here, while still making those articles meaningful and useful additions?

• 2b. If no to 1, are you saying that the length of a merged list would not prevent you from supporting the list, if other concerns were met (for instance the player achievements column was completed)?

Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re WFCforLife: I appreciate your attempt to help restart the discussion. There seems to be a deadlock about this issue.—Chris!_c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To opposers: I echo WFCforLife's comment. Please respond below to keep discussion unfragmented, thanks.—Chris!_c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • To the first question, I would say that, in their present format, they could be seen as meeting 3b; in fact, I believe I supported the coaches list when it was at FLC.
  • I would expect a very basic table, without the extensive achievements notes since those are a critical factor in the seperate lists meeting 3b. If the seperate list needed to be beefed up further, perhaps a team column could be considered as well.
  • One more note: I feel better about this list now that the contributors have been merged in. To me, it now feels more like a list in its own right, rather than something that primarily redirects the reader to other lists. Even in Bencherlite's example, the main list has plenty of content on its own without the split-off sections. The merge that happened brings this list closer to that standard. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: I've asked User:Staxringold to revisit. Hopefully he will response soon.—Chris!_c/t 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The format of the list is still not my cup of tea, but the work during FLC has improved it a bit, so I'm switching to neutral. Fair enough? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I guess neutral is better than oppose. :) Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lead says 56 contributors, Contributors section says "In total, 49 individuals..." Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Heading should be "inductee", not "inductees", as each row contains only one inductee, right? Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Any chance of denoting when Stagg was "active"? Done. There were no definitive years, but I gave approximate periods. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) " for 3 decades" - three decades. Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) "last-built, molded basketball" what does "last-built" mean here? Done (removed). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) "5 New England" - five. Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) What does NABC mean? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Link Globetrotters. Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) What's NAIB and NAIA? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 7 terms = seven terms. Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) What's NIT? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 3-time, 2-time - words. What's WNBA? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) What's NHL? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Olympic Games is linked in the players section but you've mentioned olympics in the coaches section already without linking it... Olympic Games is not in coaches section, I think. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) One table achievements are centrally aligned and next table they're left aligned. I'd be consistent. Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) What's SEC? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Sortable tables means that linked items should be linked every time, e.g. the Helsinki olympic games. Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) What's NIT? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) What's ABL? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) "Have played .." no need for "Have..." Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) "25th anniversary tour is highlighted" - was highlighted? Done. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:

• I see some undefined abbreviations; AAU jumps out at me right from the start. Further down in the list, I see this: "National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB)/National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA)". Maybe it would make sense to key all abbreviations at the top of the list and then remove the written-out names from the tables. This especially makes sense because sortability could easily cause a single written-out name to occur after an abbreviation.

Not sure if a key is a good idea. There are 20 or more abbreviations used, done AAU.—Chris!_c/t 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Other shortened names that aren't explicit are "Trotters" and "Rens".
  • Done, after edit conflict 3 times. :(—Chris!_c/t 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Big 8" - the name of the article is Big Eight Conference, and MOSNUM would agree that it should be written out.
  • Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• "7 Big Ten titles during late 19th century and early 20th century (Chicago)" - what school is this? A link may be helpful.
  • Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• "having coached the Kansas Jayhawks (college) and the Detroit Pistons (NBA) to championships" - should be consistent: either (college) ... (professional) or (NCAA) ... (NBA)
  • Done—Chris!_c/t 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• "As of induction of the Class of 2009" - date?
  • Done—Chris!_c/t 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [28].

---

List of Oregon state symbols

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols, all of which have FL status. Currently, the list has no disambiguation links, all external links are functional, and all images contain alt text. Thanks! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make aware one issue that has been raised. In working on this list, I essentially followed the formats used in List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols (all of which have FL status) for the sake of uniformity. In some ways, I feel the Oregon list is even better in that the description actually indicates why the symbol is significant in relation to the state itself; the other lists mentioned either lack descriptions or do not offer specific significance. Over at WikiProject Oregon, Esprqii and Katr67 commented on the list; I feel I addressed Esprqii's request for the Description column, but Katr67's preference for a single sortable column has not been accommodated (nor has Katr67 edited the list to be a single table). I have no problem with Katr67's request, but I was not sure if having sections (Insignia, Flora, etc.) was preferable to FL reviewers. I will leave it up to review to decide whether a single table is preferable; it makes no difference to me, as I care more about the symbols and descriptions themselves, not necessarily how they are displayed. To all reviewers, thanks for taking the time to offer suggestions and comments. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - lead is a bit short—Chris!_c/t 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly work on expanding the lead. Doing... --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. If additional suggestions are made for expanding the lead, I will be happy to try to accommodate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Ok, I am satisfied.—Chris!_c/t 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Note that Esprqii also mentioned that he would prefer a single sortable table (it's not a !vote, but might be leaning towards a consensus) and that I'm not going to arbitrarily change it to that format while someone is working on it, without discussion. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Until it is decided whether one table would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year (apart from the first one, which does not need the sort function). --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Confirming my preference for a sortable table. I just think people might want to sort by date of adoption or name of the item. Really nice job on the descriptions. --Esprqii (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, until it is decided whether one list would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was initially skeptical of this article's nomination, but I'm really pleased with how it turned out and impressed with the nominator's willingness to work hard and extremely courteously for consensus. (Disclosure: I did a small amount of work on the article prior to its nomination, and somewhat more after the FL nomination.) --Esprqii (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Esprqii. Your support is much appreciated, as are your contributions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Oppose for now - I think you're right that the inclusion of the text descriptions is a big improvement, and will set the standard for these lists in the future. I'm interested to see what other reviewers says about combining the tables to allow for sortability - that's something I'd like to do for the Maryland list as well. But I have serious concerns. First, Chris is right, the lead could use some expansion (as could leads in all three of the existing ones, including the Maryland one I helped get through FLC). First, I appreciate your compliment. I can certainly expand the lead. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Second, in at least one spot the source does not back up claims in the description, the claim that only Oregon sunstone includes copper crystals. Thanks for the reminder! I took the information from the Sunstone article, which uses a jewelry website as a source. Knowing it was not reliable, I did not add the source to the list, but forgot to find a replacement. I went ahead and removed the copper part--I will re-add if I find a reliable source. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Third, some of the text comes perilously close to copying verbatim from the sources, to an extent that is more worrisome than simple paraphrasing. A couple of examples: Your text, "Dawn redwood flourished in the Miocene epoch and left its record embedded in rocks across Oregon." Source text, "The Metasequoia flourished in the Miocene epoch of 25 to 5 million years ago and left its record embedded in rocks across the Oregon landscape." Your text, "Salmon provided the basis for the coastal Native Americans' life, and was the subject of many legends, special rites, and taboos." Source text, "Salmon provided the basis for the coastal Native Americans' life and so was naturally held in high regard. Many legends, special rites, and taboos were connected with the coming of salmon." I can work on paraphrasing further, but it is hard to re-word such short descriptions, especially when I am trying to keep them brief myself. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I worked on paraphrasing further. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) A couple other notes: *What's salal? (in the flower one) Done. I added a link to the salal article and described what it is briefly. Hope that addresses the concern. --Esprqii (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Esprqii. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Why is shgresources.com a reliable source? I can find replacement sources. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Geraldk (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - Rey makes a decent argument, but I'm ok supporting whether or not they are combined. Geraldk (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rather the tables not be combined. Really, I don't think a state's symbols are the kind of thing one would want to sort. I believe the current layout is great as it is. You just need a longer lead. Reywas92^Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Working on the lead now. Any other suggestions as far as expansion goes? I wanted to indicate which symbol types were unique to Oregon (for instance, if Oregon was the only state to have an official Statehood Pageant or Team), but I cannot find sources to cite these claims. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I strongly support having the information in a single table. The current multiple table format is great so far as a presentation by category, but it would also be useful to view the list by year of adoption. To accomodate both presentations requires either two lists or a single sortable table; of these two possibilities, the single sortable table is much preferable. The loss of horizontal real estate could be made up by putting the image directly under the symbol name and putting the notes directly under the year of adoption. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting on this, but don't wish to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, I created a single-table version in my user space here. I like being able to sort by year and type in one table rather than individually. See what you all think. --Esprqii (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Thank you for taking the time to make the single list. It appears there is a preference for a single, sortable table, so feel free to copy the table over (being sure to adjust for the corrections you made to the list since then). I had the symbols sorted chronologically by default, but it does make more sense to go alphabetically by symbol, as you have it. Then, if interested, the table can sort by date. Once you have copied the table over, I will be sure to add the flag and seal, as discussed on the list's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Esprqii's single table looks great -- though it does not include a column for the 'category' or whatever the section headings should be called. Is there any interest in trying to combine columns for better presentation and better usage of horizontal real estate? I tried briefly, but wasn't satisfied. Also, the Portland State Office building includes some artwork for some of these state emblems. The Public Health Division page in the Oregon Bluebook has photo that gives you some idea of what is there, but close-up pictures might make a nice addition here. YBG (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks good as is--I doubt there is a need to indicate that a flower is "Flora" and milk is a "Culture" symbol. I went ahead and used Esprqii's single table form to edit the list, incorporating the wording changes made since then. I added the Flag, so all that remains is the seal (which has quite a bit of history). The list looks great! Thanks so much for collaborating. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Should 1854 be displayed in the Year column for the motto, as opposed to 1987? 1854 was when the motto was originally used, as mentioned in the lead, though 1987 is when the most current motto (which happens to be the same as the original) was adopted. The same question applies to the seal, which has a somewhat complicated history. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Issues addressed) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - fails criterion 5. (b) File:Blazers original.png has no fair use rationale for use in article. Dubious as to whether it would meet the criteria for non-free content. Guest9999 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Image removed and replaced with free alternative. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not terribly familiar with which images can be used and which ones cannot. Am I right in assuming that all Portland Trail Blazers logos are unsuitable for use on this list? Surely there must be an image we can use to illustrate the Trail Blazers. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a free team photo if one can be found or a photo of their stadium (like this one? In order to be included in the article the current image would have to meet all 10 criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Currently it fails 10c but the real question is whether it could ever pass criterion 8, does having it really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - probably not. Guest9999 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Replaced image, along with the caption and alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As the 'state team' designation given to the 1990-91 Trailblazers, it seems a picture of that year's team would be more appropriate. In any event, ground was not broken on the Rose Garden until 1993, so a picture of the Memorial Coliseum would be better. YBG (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. While I am not familiar with uploading images, apart from album covers for infoboxes, I went ahead and changed the Rose Garden image to one of the Memorial Coliseum. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Great job by the nominator to implement all the right suggestions by the reviewers. This is the best list among these state symbol lists and should be used as a model by the editors who work on these lists.--Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "for Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming". Instead of linking to the state articles, you should link to the articles about those states' symbols. Done. Image:Map of USA OR.svg – I don't think this should be in an article about Oregon's state symbols. If readers really want to know, they can click on the link to the Oregon article. I would rather see something more relevant, or no image at all. A good idea; perhaps the state flag would be good here? I think so, if you don't mind having the state flag in the article twice. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I used the map as that is what some of the other featured lists for state symbols used. If this is not preferred, I have no problem with the flag or another symbol being used. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) This is by far the best state symbols list we have on Wikipedia. I don't think we need to follow the example of the lower-quality ones. So yes, I think a flag or another symbol would be better here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC) "100-foot Metasequoia trees" Need a metric conversion (use {{convert}} if necessary, and don't forget to put adj=on into the template). Done. In the See also section, Lists of United States state insignia is already in the navbox at the bottom of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Done, removed redundant link. --Esprqii (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.enature.com/fieldguides/detail.asp?shapeID=1095&curGroupID=9&lgfromWhere=&curPageNum=1 reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that, according to the site, the information on eNature is the "same data set used to create the printed Audubon Field Guides", and "all the data has been carefully reviewed and vetted by leading biologists, zoologists and other natural history specialists." If the site is not considered reliable, I'd be happy to track down another source to provide a physical description of the Oregon hairy triton. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing... --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Retracted idea about combining columns from YBG

(Outdent) I've boldly reduced the number of columns by two -- first merging 'Notes' into 'Year adopted' and then 'Image' into 'Symbol', resulting, I believe, in a better appearing table. Please feel free to object to and/or revert one or both of these changes! Cheers. YBG (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC) While I very much appreciate your attempt to improve the list, I definitely prefer the previous version. To me, this version looks a bit cluttered, with the image sitting just below the symbol name, and it was also nice having a separate column for the references so that the numbers were separated from the other dates and descriptions. However, it would be nice to get feedback from other reviewers as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I have to agree that putting the images in the same column as the symbol name column makes the list cluttered. I don't see any benefit to putting the refs in the "Adopted" column as opposed to their own; also, it makes it look as if only the years are referenced, as opposed to the entire row. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Exactly. I will go ahead and revert to the previous version. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and reverted. For the record, here is the version suggested by YBG. If consensus concludes that this version is better, it can always be changed back. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your input. I appreciate the fact that you waited for another person to aggree before reverting. Incidentally, I agree that it did appear a bit cluttered and needed to be touched up. For example, to correct the problem of the notes appearing to be just related to the date of adoption, some of them could have been moved to the description column or the symbol column. I didn't take the time to sort that out. My motivation was to make it more concise and balance out the columns a bit. While I like white space, having some columns that are almost entirely white space and others that are quite full makes it seem unbalanced. Additionally, the 6-column table is about 50% longer than the 4-column version, and so takes longer to scroll through if you just want to get a quick birds-eye view of the topic. Incidentally, there was also an intervening version which combined Adopted and Notes while keeping Symbol and Image separate. And thanks for your kind words of appreciaiton for the effort I spent editing -- although it really wasn't that much. YBG (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Here's a few additional ideas to mull over:

1. √ Consider using a horizontal rule to separate the obverse and reverse of the State Flag. I made this minor change in the version mentioned above and thought it looked nice.
2. √ Consider using 1987<br>1854-1957 for the state motto dates.
3. Consider putting 'State<br>Animal' and the like in the first column. Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Consider grouping topically like section titles in the non-tabular version. Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Consider left-justifying the contents of description column; centered prose seems a bit odd. Retracted now that column widths are better, no appreciable difference YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
6. √ What about the State Seal? Should it have an entry like the flag?

Discussion of the above now retracted or resolved ideas from YBG

Though I could implement these ideas unilaterally, they are much easier to visualize than the changes I did with the columns, where I thought a picture was worth 1000 words. So I offer these ideas for your consideration and possible implementation. By the way, I really do like the tabular format with descriptions much better than the previous bulleted list with section headings. Great collaboration, folks! YBG (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: I've changed the lists above and below from bullets to numbers for ease in cross-referencing YBG (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC) My thoughts on YBG's comments: I like it. A thin boundary (i.e. horizontal divider) would look better in the middle of that column. Also a good idea. Not sure what is meant here. I don't think the word "State" should be put in each row, as it is clear this is about state symbols. I prefer alphabetical sorting, which is easy, objective and intuitive; also, the topics might be hard to define. No preference; centered or left-aligned is fine with me. I don't see why the seal shouldn't have an entry. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC) YBG, I appreciate your suggestions. This list is truly the product of a great collaboration. My thoughts: Great idea. Done. Done. I do not think "State" is necessary. It would be redundant, and it is obvious the list is about state symbols. Agree with Dabomb87. I think alphabetical is most appropriate. I prefer the centered text, mostly because all other cells are centered, but I don't feel terribly strong about it either way. Oh yes! The state seal. It should definitely be added, but I made a comment on the list's talk page about how the history of the seal is a bit complicated. I was not exactly sure which date to use. Any suggestions? Adding this seal may mean some adjustments need to be made to the lead, depending on which dates/information is used for the entry. Thanks for the reminder. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Update: I completed the row for the Seal, and adjusted the lead appropriately. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC) All of these ideas are resolved or retracted, except for left-justifying the description column. I'd like to defer that and consider it along with some other white-space related issues I'll bring up below. YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Left-justifying now retracted also; entire group of ideas collapsed together. YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a couple more ideas: (a) √ Change column header from 'Year adopted' to 'Adopted' (b) Combine 'Note' into 'Symbol' column -- eliminates a column, but still evident that the note applies to the entire row. (Retracted YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)) What do you think? YBG (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of these retracted/resolved ideas from YBG and column width

(a) I don't feel strongly about "Year adopted" or "Adopted", but I feel "Year adopted" is calling a spade a spade (it is what it is). Although, for the motto and seal, which have a bit more complicated of a history, "Adopted" might be better since they have several significant dates. (b) I like the columns are they are now, and I have no problem with the separate column for notes/references. I like things less cluttered. I was waiting to see if any suggestions were going to be offered regarding the state seal and its history (and which dates should be used for adoption), but I will just go ahead and take went ahead and took a stab at it myself. YBG, if any of the six points made above have been addressed or retracted, feel free to strike them or place them in a collapse box so I know that the issue has been taken care of. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Strike-out, √-marks, collapse-boxes added above to show its mostly-resolved. In the list itself, I changed "Year Adopted" to "Adopted". Looking at the whole list, I think it would be improved if Description was moved to the end (or just before the Notes if we're going to keep that as a separate column). Then if the Description was left justified, and all cells vertically aligned at the top, I think the visual appeal would be greatly improved .... the content-area and the white-space would be both generally triangular in shape, giving each entry a greater distinction from the other entries while at the same time uniting the whole list together. I may be way off base on this, but unless you've got some big issues, I think it would be worth trying just to be able to see if it should stick or be reverted. YBG (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I do not have any problems with the list in its current form, but if it bothers you then you are welcome to experiment. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC) No, the form didn't 'bother me', but I did think there was room for improvement, so I made some changes for others to view: Left justified 'Description' and moved it toward the end Removed the column percentages. This made a significant improvement in appearance -- more than moving the description column =- so I no longer think top-aligning the columns will make any significant further improvement. So, what do the rest of you think? YBG (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I certainly welcome other reviewers to add input, but for the record I much prefer the previous version. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I like the old version too, but not necessarily because the aesthetics were better. For some reason, the current revision of the article occupies only three-fourths of my browser; the far right quarter is just whitespace. The previous version did not have this problem. For this reason, I don't agree with the most recent edit either. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC) (Outdent) I can readily appreciate your frustration with excess white space. That was one of my problems with the previous version -- the way the table was laid out, on my browser, the description column was unnecessarily narrow, creating an excess of white space in the other columns, with the result that you couldn't see very many of the symbols simultaneously. I have put back in some percentages that seem to work on my browser, but you'll have to let me know how it appears on yours. Type Symbol Descr Adopted Image Descr Note Total Old %'s 18% 30% 40% 13% 13% 8% 122% No %'s - - - - - - - New %'s 1 14% 17% 2% 15% 50% 2% 100% New %'s 2 16% 20% 5% 2% 55% 2% 100% As you can see, the previous percentages added up to 122%, but the ones I used add up to 100%. I intentionally made some of the percentages too small in order to avoid putting any extra white space into those columns. My browser at least expands them. Is this any improvement? Any comments about left-justifying the description column or changing the column order? YBG (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I prefer the original order of columns. To me, it looks strange to have the images in the center of the page. I prefer the original version in all ways, except I think the Type and Symbol column widths could be decreased a bit to reduce white space. The current version looks okay as far as the Type and Symbol widths go, though I do think the Description column is too wide, especially compared to all of the others. Again, I think the column order should be Type, Symbol, Description, Adopted, Image, and Note, as this seems to be the best way to convey the information to readers based on importance. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I also prefer the image on the side. I think it would look OK on the left, to the right of the "Type" column as well, but I'm happy with it on the right. --Esprqii (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC) So what more do I need to do at this point? I mean, I feel I should be the one making edits to the article to satisfy reviewers, but at the same time I do not want to step on a reviewer's toes who is making edits to the list. Do I need to revert to the original version, keeping the recent punctuation edits that were made? Do I need to wait for other proposals made by YBG. I have no problem waiting, I just didn't know if there was more I needed to do at this point. I think the best compromise might be to revert to the original version, but lessen the widths of the Type and Symbols columns. This would satisfy requests that the image return to the right-hand side of the page, but less white space would exist, which is something I think YBG, Dabomb, and even I think would be preferable. Shall I do this, or did you have any other ideas YBG? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Go ahead and revert and change the column widths to something not quite a drastic as I had. What about the left-justification of description? In the midst of all of the other changes, did you notice enough difference to have a preference? YBG (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I reverted, replaced the minor edits made since the column width changes, and played with the widths a bit myself. What do you think? I like it, though I think a little longer width would be nice for the Symbol column, with a bit less for the Description and Note columns. I do prefer the centered Description text, mostly because all of the other cells are centered, but I don't think that it would be too distracting if the text were left-justified. Thoughts on the current widths? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Looks great! Thanks for your patience working through my nit-picking and your willingness to take an honest look at my different ideas. (I will shortly collapse have now collapsed some of my comments above) I still have a very slight preference for left-justifying the description, mostly because it is a prose paragraph, but now that we have the widths tweaked nicely, I don't think it makes much difference. To get more width in the 21% Symbol column, would you like to try merging the 4% Notes column into it -- that would give a total of 25%? Yes, a separate notes column is a bit less cluttered, so it is a matter of weighing that disadvantage against the advantage of a slightly wider Symbol column. If the extra horizontal space makes an appreciable difference, I say let's go for it. YBG (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC) OK, I couldn't resist playing some more -- but this time I did it on a sub-page of my user page. Here's the results: Merged Note column into Symbol column — Some improvement. Expanded Symbol column by 1% — This one is the best in my browser. Vertically align — I was a bit disappointed with this one. What do you think? YBG (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I hate to sound like a broken record, or one unwilling to accept changes suggested by others, but I still prefer the current version. --Another Believer (Talk) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC) The current version, version 1, and version 2 all look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC) OK, that's fine with me -- I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse, just responding to the request for more width in the symbol column. In my browser, the extra width removed some of the surplus line breaks in the symbol column. Anyway, I'm satisfied that we've reached the best possible considering the inherit problems of trying to cope with multiple browsers and multiple screen sizes. YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Merge the first two paragraphs of the lead - a short, two-sentence intro para looks weak. Done. Happily you could make the lead image larger if resolution allows for it. I was under the impression thumbs were preferred, as they adjusted based on personal computer configurations. Well last time I checked the MOS, it allowed images of up to 300px. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Now that the lead is shorter, I think the current size is appropriate. If you disagree, I can change. "She Flies With Her Own Wings" really? What makes it not mean "He flies with his own wings"? And not sure we need to continually capitalise those words... Not sure. Just going off what sources indicate. Interesting. I see nothing in that particular Latin phrase that indicates "she" rather than "he"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) "33rd state on" expand a little - the 33rd state of the United States I'm guessing. Yes, and I think this is implied since the first sentence mentions "U.S. state". I think you could expand it for those non-US readers who may not be able to make that jump. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Done. "until more than 50 years later" - more than -> over. Done. Last para of lead should probably be a section after the actual symbols since it discusses, in detail, symbols that didn't make it... Shall I just create a "Rejected symbols" section and move the bulleted list there? My concern is that it would just look like a stand-alone list of facts. Should it be changed back to prose, as it was previously? My preference would be to have a section of rejected symbols in prose, after the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Done. I agree that the rejected symbols should appear after the actual ones. Much better to have the real symbols appear first rather than the wannabee. And if there were just one or two, prose would be best. But with a list of four items, a bulleted list allows the reader to scan the list easily. (Full disclosure: I was the one who reformatted it into a bulleted list.) Also, I think the term 'rejected' could be improved on. The paragraph says 'but were ultimately rejected' -- but it seems to me that 'but ultimately were not adopted' better reflects the various ways that these four symbols failed to gain official status. YBG (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I will let The Rambling Man reply before I make any changes to the article. I don't have a preference for prose or a bulleted list in this case. I have no problem with "but ultimately were not adopted" in the paragraph, but what would the section be called? Rejected does imply that these symbols were voted against, when really they were just not successful. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC) No need to make the "type" of symbol bold. I prefer the bolding, but will remove if required. Was following the format used by other featured lists. The other lists need to be fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Done. "through proper management" - is that fact or opinion? Done. Removed "proper". schoolchildren or school children? I think either is acceptable. "Schoolchild" exists in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Quite, but be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Oh! Sorry, I did not realize both instances were used. I thought you were just questioning the validity of the word "schoolchildren". Both uses now read as "school children" for consistency. Done. "make jelly" - I'd be tempted to link jelly because to UK readers, for instance, jelly is not jelly, it's jam... Done. Linked to Fruit preserves. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the additional suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm happy with the rejected symbols being discussed in prose rather than a bullet point list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [29].

---

List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for Big Brother and Project Runway, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed. Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I can already predict two issues that might need to be addressed. As much as I would love to include the ages of all the contestants that have participated, I have had trouble trying to track down the ages of all the contestants in reliable news sources, especially for some of the earlier seasons. However, I was still able to find sources to provide the ages of the youngest and oldest contestants. Also, I considered adding an "Occupation" column to display how the celebrity became famous, but I didn't know if that would be redundant information, as users could simply click on any celebrity name or even the season number to learn more information about the celebrities participating and how they became famous. To me, a list should be a single source that branches off to other sources of information, as opposed to a single source that includes as much information as possible (and therefore can be somewhat overwhelming). However, I am willing to add this column if reviewers find it necessary. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that would be a good idea to include why they are celebrities. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Doing... --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! Another concern is that Status and Finish are redundant. 2nd runner-up=3rd, Runner-up=2nd, Winner=1st, and Eliminated=4th and below. Keep just the Finish. Also, the lead needs to talk about the professional dance partners, many of which were in multiple seasons. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will definitely add something to the lead to include the dance partners... I will have to think of something. What I like about the Status column is that it displays which contestants withdrew from the competition. In that sense, I thought the column was relevant. Perhaps I could combine them to just say "Withdrew: 3rd" or "Eliminated: 5th" or something similar, still sorting by final placement. Doing... -Another Believer _(Talk) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, before I spend the time to make a change that might not be kept, could I get some feedback about how you think the Finish column should look? I like how now it shows the Status and Finish placement, but I can see how it is possible they could be combined. Maybe something like "{sort|05|5th (Eliminated)}" or "{sort|08|8th: Eliminated}"? --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still a given that anyone 4th and below was eliminated. The three who withdrew are already in the lead and could be denoted with a symbol or footnote. I think just the placement is sufficient. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Removed Status column. If you think an asterisk should be placed in the Finish cells of the three contestants that withdrew, just let me know and I will add it. Such as "14th*", with a note at the bottom indicating that contestants with an asterisk withdrew from the competition. Also, I realize I still need to add something to the lead about the professional partners, though I am still trying to think of something that is relevant. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not sure if the wording is correct (grammatically speaking), I added information about the professional partners to the lead. Let me know if any edits need to be made. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I added a little more about the professional partners, and everything looks great. You can add the star if you want, but I don't care. Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Hope you don't mind that I re-arranged the professional dancers that won at the end of the lead so that they are in roughly chronological order. Figured that would be best since the celebrity winners are listed in chronological order. I appreciate your time, assistance, and suggestions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "three of which " - three of whom, perhaps? Done. I am no grammar expert, but I went ahead and made the change, as requested. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "the ones that have" - "those who"? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "member" or "band member" - be consistent. Done. All now just indicate "member". --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Link Supermodel consistently. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) alt text is really brief, you could add more than you currently have I think. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The category has (US TV series) while this has (U.S.) - while either is acceptable, I think you need to be consistent within an individual article. I think "U.S." should be used when possible, but I am certainly not going to change the category name as that would impact many articles. Does the title of the list really need to be changed? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to review the list and offer comments/suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) You're welcome. I wouldn't change the list, but I would look at changing the category (at some point) for consistency... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I am not sure how to change the category, though I did notice that most of the articles within the category use "U.S.", as opposed to "US". This indicates that the category should definitely be changed. I won't make the move myself, but I will make made a request on the category talk page. Did I address all of your concerns? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would mark some things on the list with colors the way that baseball lists like Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award. At the very least mark winners and the contestants who withdrew from competition. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought about both of these, but I thought it might be overkill, as that information is already conveyed in the lead and within the table (in the case of the winners). I'd be more than happy to add coloring if additional reviewers feel it is necessary, though past nominations for other lists I have created seem to indicate that 'less is more'. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Do any other reviewers have a preference for or against adding coloring for the winners and competitors that withdrew from the show? --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If I could see what the list would look like with color, I might be able to decide. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It would look similar to this list, with three cells colored blue (to reflect the three competitors that withdrew), and nine red cells (to reflect the winners of each season). --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "A total of 104 celebrities have competed" "A total of" is redundant. You might rephrase by saying "As of Season (insert season number), 104 celebrities have competed..." Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) "Muhammad Ali's daughter" Not a profession. You might rename the entire column to "Notability", or "Notability/Profession". Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Link or explain "TBD"? I assumed most people understood the TBA/TBD abbreviation, and this was not required for the other lists, but I'd be happy to comply if required. Please keep in mind that the rest of the table will likely be filled/completed within the next 2-3 weeks. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) In the navbox, where it says "Complete list of competitors", isn't "Complete" an unnecessary word? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Done. "Complete" was there previously, so I left it. However, it has not been removed. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good.—NMajdan•talk 14:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [30].

---

Mexican National Welterweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated this list after working on it for a long time, both the copyedit and the red link criteria. I've created articles for Jack O'Brien (wrestler), Alberto Muñoz, Kung Fu (wrestler), Américo Rocca, Franco Columbo, El Supremo (wrestler), Mocho Cota, Chamaco Valaguez, Águila Solitaria, Ciclón Ramírez, Fantasma de la Quebrada, El Salsero, Nygma (wrestler), El Torero, Karloff Lagarde, Jr., Tigre Blanco, Doctor X (wrestler), Valiente (wrestler) and I now believe it fulfils all FL criterias.

The remaining names on the list are not linked, I could not find much information on them in general, the only notable thing seems to be winning this title and no other titles. I left them unliked as I don't think it's realistic that anyone could find enough information to establish much in the way of notability. It follows the pattern and format of all the other wrestling championship lists I've brought to FL status.

Any and all comments are welcome.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Meets to me.--WillC 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover

WL's review Give review tomorrow hopefully. At the moment, it seems fine from just skiming it, but never know.--WillC 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Lead "The Mexican National Welterweight Championship (Campeonato Nacional Peso Welter in Spanish) is a Mexican professional wrestling championship" → "The Mexican National Welterweight Championship (Campeonato Nacional Peso Welter in Spanish) is a Mexican professional wrestling welterweight championship" To be clear and match articles of this nature. It's pretty clear already, I mean the weightclass is already in the name, saying the welterweight championship is a welterweight championship is redundant IMO. MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Well this is the introduction. It is like world heavyweight championships. We state they are whcs after we give the name still.--WillC 03:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I've never used that introduction and most of my FLs have not been for heavyweight titles.  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  06:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I know, but to show how things have usually been done. Thought it was best to follow the usual format.--WillC 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "The usual format" is one that's not actually applied to 90% of the titles with actual weight limits, so I respectfully disagree that it's "how this have usually been done" and the fact that it's redundant and IMO poor writing.  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  06:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, just thought it was better to keep consistent between championship articles. But that isn't a must. Fine.--WillC 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC) "(EMLL; later renamed Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, CMLL)" → "(EMLL; later renamed CMLL)" Mentioned earlier, don't see a reason to repeat. Good catch, I chose to have the long spelled out name though and removed the abbriviation as that was established earlier. MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Okay.--WillC 03:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) "having defeated Sangre Azteca for the title." → "having defeated Sangre Azteca." Seems a bit redundant. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Okay.--WillC 03:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Title history Fine, but having the notes in the notes section be full sentences would be nice. Reigns by combined length Will assume everything is in order since this isn't your first go around. Footnotes I see some say between 1 day and, etc. You know, I would change it to between 0 days, etc. Maining because it is possible they could have lost the same day they lost it. Just a thought, that is what I've been doing with List of WCW World Television Champions in a subpage. 0 or 1 are both assumptions with 1 being much more likely in Mexican wrestling, It's never been commented before so maybe opening this issue up to other reviwers? Wether reigns with an unknown length should be listed as between 0 days and "end" or 1 day and "end".  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Well if you look at this subpage of my work, you'll hopefully see the reason I think it should be the other way.--WillC 03:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) References Seems fine.--WillC 06:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "While the commission sanctions the title, it does not promote the events at which the title is defended.le Consejo...". What's going on after the period? Not sure what snug in there. Fixed  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "making it one of the oldest still promoted titles today...". Move "titles" to before "still" for better sentence flow. Fixed  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) No need for two Professional wrestling promotion links in the lead. Fixed  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Note in table: "Championship vacated after Escobedo dies in an automobile accident." Change "dies" to past tense. Fixed  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Footnote 2: Comma after "a belt with a 87 kg upper limit". Also, should second "a" be "an"? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed and yes I think it should be.  MPJ-DK  (36,6% Done) Talk  01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Two more things I found during a second look: Note in table: "Championship vacated when Ultraman 2000 changes his identity to Damian 666." I think "changes" should be "changed" to provide past tense. The title of the first general reference shouldn't have all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Done and done.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  03:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) For the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre promotion in the infobox: "–1992"; why is there no year before the dash? Because I have found no documentation when CMLL became the sole promoter, it was between the mid-1930s and the 1960s but I have not found anything more definite than that.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F." Why in quotation marks? Meant for it to be italics, not quotation.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Well, I don't think it should be in italics either. You're not mentioning a word, and even though it is in a foreign language, it is a proper noun, so italics aren't necessary to denote it as a foreign word. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "titles still promoted today and older" "today" is redundant. Removed.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "but as Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL; later renamed Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre) grew to dominance it" Sounds strange. How about "but as Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre ... became dominant, it" Reworded.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "having held it for only two days." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here?  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, disregard. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC) You use an em dash in the key but en dashes in the table. I suggest using em dashes for consistency. Fixed with em dashes.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "(n)" Is this symbol even used in the table? Yes it is, 10th reign - El Santo.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The "Combined days" column in the combined length table does not sort properly. I checked IE8 and Firefox and it sorts fine to me, can you elaborate on what's wrong? MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I'm using Firefox 3.5. Click on the combined days column once, and "100+" comes between 42 and 45. Later on, 1736 comes between 154 and 176. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I got it now, one should have been 173 days, which it sorted by. Fixed and fixed.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "Psicosis two day regin"-->Psicosis' two-day reign Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Footnotes 5–12 need periods at the end. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Footnote 11 has strange "sort" syntax in it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3, what does "pp. all" mean? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• It means the entire book is the source. The claim is that it's one of the oldest still existing titles, the book is the collective title history going back to the turn of the last century and it proves that there are only 2 or 3 titles as old as this one still around (and they're all "Mexican National" titles) I changed the "All" to the page range of the actual title history in the book.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  11:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments "Being a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline. The official definition of the welterweight weight class in Mexico is between 77 kg (170 lb) and 87 kg (190 lb), but is not always strictly enforced.[Note 2][1] Because Lucha Libre emphasizes the lower weight classes, this division is considered more important than the normally more prestigious heavyweight division of a promotion.[2]" - reads odd way round for me. I'd keep defining the competition before you state how it's won. So, simply put, I'd move the "Being a professional..." sentence to end of that para. Works for me, moved.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) "which proceeded to promote " just "which promoted" would be fine. Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) "having held it for" - perhaps "having held the title for..."? Fixed.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Don't see a clear need for linking to wiktionary for "vacated". It's standard in all wrestling related FLs and well "vacated" may mean different things to different people I suppose.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Is the Event column needed since all actual events are Live event? Yes is it, per Project Pro wrestling's Style guide mainly and because is likely that it would change hands at a "named event" in the future.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Any reason why, say, Jalisco Gonzalez isn't red-linked in the list? I have not linked names where I could not find any information other than the fact that they held this title, I deemed that they were not notable and left them unlinked.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) "a belt with an 87 kg (190 lb) upper limit, despite weighing 90 kg (200 lb)" - whose conversion is this? 3kg does not equate to 10lb... Wikipedia's conversions I used a standard wiki weight conversion template.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Specific ref 2 should be "The Bizarre and Honorable World of Wild Mexican Wrestling" Should definitely spell "bizarre" right, but the title does have the "&" in it's title.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your input.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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