Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [1].

---

List of Ozzy Osbourne band members

Nominator(s): CallMeAndrew (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because when i first came across this list, it was pretty good already. it had all the band members. it had a summary at the top. i worked hard and made a table at the bottom of the list, added some pictures and checked if there were other things i could add. i think its ready. how about you? CallMeAndrew (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - just looking at the list

• Per WP:WIAFL #3b, why split this info into a separate list when it could be include in Ozzy Osbourne#Backing band?
• Also info should be in table format

—Chris! _ct 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

After some thoughts, I tend to agree that this is too long for inclusion at Ozzy Osbourne#Backing band. So, I strike my oppose.—Chris! _ct 19:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree it would be easier to read in table format, but it make sense that this is a stand-alone list. Between the major releases column (on a future table) and the large and very helpful chart at the bottom of the article, this is way too much information to include in the main article, especially with the main article so long already. Geraldk (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, i will make all the info into a table, making it nice and easy to read. but should i really include it into the backing band? Geraldk has a good point. CallMeAndrew (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is definitely OK here. The main article is huge as is, and the list adds a lot of information that would make the main very clunky. What I would recommend, and what is proscribed by MOS, is that you use some of the information in the lead here as a summary paragraph in the backing band section (it shouldn't be just a bulleted list - perhaps just write out a short summary about the current backing band members?), and then use a see also link to direct here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, its all fixed up and lookin sexy. does it need anything else? jeez this is hard work. CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Where are the references?
• No need to link English.
• "Keyboardist Don Airey was also brought in temporarily" done
• "In 19 March 1982, while on their way to a festival in Orlando, Florida" done
• "the band were taken" "were"-->was (I know that British uses collective nouns differently, but we're talking about one band.) done
• "During an attempted prank, the plane crashed, killing the three people inside, one of which was Rhoads." What was this prank? done
• "one of which was Rhoads" "which"-->whom done
• "and he was followed" done
• "late-1982" No hyphen. done
• "and he remained as guitarist" done
• "ex-Sabbath member Geezer Butler also joined" done
• "in 1987, and he was replaced by" done
• "Former Faith No More co-founder Mike Bordin became the band's drummer in 1997, and he remains to this day"-->Former Faith No More co-founder Mike Bordin has been the band's drummer since 1997. done
• Can you make the table sortable? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, i fixed all the crossed off ones. i dont know what u mean by sortable table. just tell me what i should change. and i got 1 reference in there about the randy rhoads death. i dont know what you mean about no need to link english. i dont know who wrote this but they had bad grammar. anything else? User:CallMeAndrew (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not strike other people's comments, thanks. I went ahead and unlinked English for you. I still don't see any references. For sortability, did you read the link I provided? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose no references! Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference does [[2]] count as a reference? CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the references must be reliable, and I'm not sure if the above qualifies. See List of Metallica band members as an example of a well-referenced band members list. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/osbourne_ozzy/artist.jhtml. This good? CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:CITET on how to cite sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the help with the references. i will add more later. but you said make the table sortable. i looked at the link to sortable tables and i get what a sortable table is but what would i sort this table by? alphebetical name order? CallMeAndrew (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources need to be used in the lead and the list of members, too. See List of Metallica band members again for how to do this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [3].

---

List of helicopter prison escapes

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after making the recommended changes after the peer review it is ready for you to pick apart. But I do have a question in the Escapee field most of the time there is only one person so it is nice to sort the table so you can find a specific Escapee. But sometimes there is several people who escape by helicopter. So my question is how do you handle the formating in a sortable table for the escapes with several people? Do you sort just the first person, don't sort that field, give a default sort symbol like a dash? If you have the time any advice would be great! -- Esemono (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you close the peer review, please? As per the FLC instructions, nominations may not be listed at PR at the same time as being here. Cheers. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I closed it for the nominator.—Chris! _ct 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Chris. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! My mistake, thanks Chris -- Esemono (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Even though it has a key, the "Success or Failure" images also should have alt text. I personally think the whole thing is tacky. I'd just have a column "Success?" and Yes or No. If you want to have graphics you could use {{Yes}}/{{No}} or {{Tick}}/{{Cross}}.
  • They have alt text -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Helicopter prison escapes as the name implies is escaping prison using a helicopter." is not a good opening sentence. As it stands it is missing a couple of commas, but I would suggest changing it completely. You don't have to repeat the title of the article in the lead.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not happy with the fair use claim for the non-free image. We have very strict criteria for fair-use images. Just because a free image doesn't exist, does not mean we can use a copyrighted one.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• "One of the first instances of using" if there were others before it, this list isn't comprehensive. Ideally I think there should be a reference for being the first escape to use a chopper.
  • What if it's changed to, "one of the earliest"? -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ref for the book existing and being based on his experience.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do thinks like horizontal and
  • Unsure what you mean-- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• "The most spectacular" according to?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Also the Times article mentions "spectacular" in reference to 10 jailbreaks. Who's to say the most recent 11th wasn't more spectacular
• "On one of her first solo flights" The reference doesn't say that, it's WP:OR
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Titles is "escapes", lead says "to be counted as a helicopter escape, a helicopter must be used to free prisoners from a place of internment, a prison or correctional facility". But foiled plans like the January, 1983 one are included.
  • Tried to clear up-- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Prose needs copyediting.
  • "By far the most helicopter escapes happen in France with at least 11 helicopter jail breaks." bad wording
  • "in Jan, 2003" don't use three letter months
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • nor a comma between month and year Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
      • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Of the five only Victor Gonzalez Diaz wasn’t recaptured immediately." should have a comma after five.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "use a helicopter free a one or several people out of the prison" missing word.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, is is really necessary to define what a helicopter and a prison is? Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the toolbox to your right, there is one disambiguation link that needs to be fixed and a one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the dab and that Timesonline link isn't dead its just something with the timesonline site. -- Esemono (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• I also find the explanations of what a prison/helicopter is unnecessary, these are common items that people are aware of.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'By far the most helicopter escapes happen in France with at least 11 helicopter jail breaks.' --> By far, the most helicopter escapes have occurred in France, with at least 11.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'Using her new found skills she a rented white helicopter and flying low over Paris plucked her husband off the roof of his fortress prison.' --> Using her new found skills, she rented a white helicopter and flew low over Paris to pluck her husband off the roof of his fortress prison.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• 'Michel was later killed in a shoot out with police and his pilot wife arrested.' -- 1)Comma before 'and' 2)+was before 'arrested'

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The lead could use some expansion to summarize the list more, such as the most recent jail break via chopper, and other significant statistics.

• expanded -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

List

• I too find the use of the images to detail successful/non-successful attempts a bit tacky. If you're going to at least use them, can you write Yes or No next to them?
• I don't know about the use of that much details is good for this list. I think just a summary of why the convict is in jail should suffice.

Escapes in fiction

• Why is this needed? Its a bit trivial to me, as it takes away from the overall meaning of the list.

References

• There is an inconsistency with formatting of some of the publishers, be consistent. Such as Times/TIMES.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Linking of the publishers also needs to be consistent: link all, link on first occurrence, or don't link at all.

• Cleaned up-- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 40: Filmhobbit is the work, Cinema Blend LLC is the publisher.

• fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

--Truco 23:11, 25 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [4].

---

List of convicted computer criminals

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm curious if it will pass Esemono (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose/Comments from KV5 Your curiosity can be satisfied eventually, but not in this list's current format. Lead is extremely short. The two paragraphs that are there could probably be combined into one, and at least two additional paragraphs about the list should be included. No bolding on "computer criminal" because it's not the title. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) "Computer crime being a relatively new crime the amount of notable computer criminals is quite small as often governments have to write the laws after a crime has taken place." - sentence fragment Changed-- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Image caption: don't capitalize hackers Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know that the flags are necessary, but they are definitely used improperly - please see WP:FLAG. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Use the {{sortname}} template for the name column. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Table columns that are plain text (Conviction, Penalty) should not be sortable. I suppose that the penalty column could have some benefit to being sortable, but you'll have to add a hidden sortkey that makes sure that they sort correctly, so that 8 months comes before 4 years, etc. changed to not sortable -- Esemono (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Don't put leading zeros before numbers. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ISO dates need to be converted to a normal format (November 14, 2007, etc.). Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Is there a reason that Mark Abene's entries can't be combined into one? He's the same person. Merged -- Esemono (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Use consistent formatting in cells. If one cell in a column uses complete sentences, then the whole column should. Don't punctuate incomplete sentences (e.g. "11 months in a Massachusetts juvenile detention facility.") Stubs should probably be created for the people in the table without articles; if they are notable enough to appear in this list, they should likely have their own articles. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) References need to be consistently formatted. Some author names are last, first, and some are first last. I would also consider removing links from author names; I don't know that it's necessary. Also check for caps in titles - all caps should be converted to title case per MOS:CAPS. Definitely unlink all of the dates in the reference section; they aren't relevant. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) You use USD randomly in the middle of the article; you should link $ (or US$) at each occurrence in the table because each row needs to be able to stand alone as its own element. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Did Nahshon Even-Chaim have to pay 1000 USD or 1000 AUD? Needs to be clear. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Link LexisNexis on all occurrences, de-hyphenate. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC) "theft of the ZARDOZ file." - the who what now file? This needs a link or an explanatory footnote. Add explanation of the ZARDOZ file-- Esemono (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) It needs a reference—Chris! ct 03:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) There may be more going on here, but hope this gives you a good place to start. I might suggest a peer review next time before a featured list nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Featured lists don't start with "This list..." anymore. See recently promoted FLs for an example of more engaging lead sentence. fixed --Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Lead is still very small - please expand Expanded -- Esemono (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Also sorting doesn't work correctly for some columns (I'll help you fix this, but that why peer review is helpful) Thanks -- Esemono (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) "Penalty" column shouldn't be sorted in my opinion - since suspended sentence, psychiatric treatment, prison and probation are different and thus cannot be compared Changed to not sortable -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Chris! ct 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looking good, I will support —Chris! _ct 04:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Is this a complete list of convicted computer criminals? What about The Pirate Bay guys or the Isohunt guy? What about Shawn Fanning, Gary Glitter, Pete Townshend? Are there any notable people (with or without WP articles) arrested and convicted due to Operation Ore, Operation Avalanche or any of the other Kiddie porn stings? (Note that I'm not saying for sure they have been convicted; you'd need to check up on it, and any others to make sure they're not missing)
  • There will always be future computer criminals but:
    • Pirate Bay is under appeal
      • But they were convicted, or not? The page isn't "List of convicted computer criminals who have not appealed their conviction or had their appeal turned down" Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • Pete Townshend was never charged with any crime and in an April 2007, an article in The Guardian stated that Townshend was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography".[5]
      • OK. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • Shawn Fanning of napster fame was also never charged with any crime and napster still functions.
      • OK Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • ISOHunt the company was never charged with any crime and is still running. So I doubt any of their members would be charged.
      • OK Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • Operation Ore and Operation Avalanche netted lots of individuals but not really any notable ones. Also U.K investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote a series of articles criticizing police forensic procedures and trial evidence which basically prosecuted a large amount of innocent people who had their credit cards hacked.[6]
      • So what? Does his criticism mean the convictions don't stand? If there are no notable ones, so be it, but just because someone complained, doesn't mean they automatically get discounted from the list. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
        • Yeah I see what your saying but the scope of the article doesn't include copyright infringement or child pornography. The article defines computer crime as criminal activity involving an information technology infrastructure, including illegal access (unauthorized access), illegal interception (by technical means of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system), data interference (unauthorized damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data), systems interference (interfering with the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data), misuse of devices, forgery (ID theft), and electronic fraud. -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
          • But isn't it misleading? Computer criminals can be people charged and convicted of child pornographic crimes, and other non-hacking crimes. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
            • The scope of the article is defined in the lead. I just go by what the sources say, I didn't think original research was encouraged.... -- Esemono (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Convicted computer criminals or hackers are people who break into computers or computer networks." but not all people who break into computer or computer networks are convicted computer criminals.
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• "The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground." By whom? When? Is this subculture notable enough to have an article? There should be a link to it. Could we get this statement referenced?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Computer crime is a relatively new crime." Relative to what? Will this statement still hold up in a year? Five years? Perhaps anchor it to a certain time with {{as of}}. Again, do you have a reference?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• "often they have to write the laws after a crime has taken place" so technically, many may not have commited a crime because there was no law to say it was a crime?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Below is a list of computer criminals" Is there a way to avoid the article referencing itself?
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not fixed; it still says "Below is a list of computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:" Matthewedwards :  Chat 
      • I had changed it but then a more senior editor disagreed with you and changed it back -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • • Well that put me in my place! Even King Jimbo is no more senior editor than an unregistered IP. Still, it made me laugh! Articles referencing themselves is poor practice. We know there is a list below. We know they're computer criminals, and we know they're convicted. We know all this because that is what the article is about. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
            • Whatever you say man! I don't want to get involved in your senior editor power struggles. -- Esemono (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• "From the earliest days of hacking criminal convictions have been hard to come by as in the beginning of the hacker subculture there was some type of honor ethic, a sort of honor among thieves." -- A bit long winded. Can this be broken down with some punctuation?
  • Still unresolved. Matthewedwards :  Chat 
    • How about now -- Esemono (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Hackers who felt this way broke past computer security for non-malicious reasons and did no damage, akin to breaking into a house and looking around. These types of hackers enjoy learning and working with computer systems, and by this experience gain a deeper understanding of electronic security. This would change as the computer industry matured and those with malicious intentions would emerge to exploit computer systems for their own personal profit." All requires sourcing
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• WP:LAYOUT -- page is formatted incorrectly
  • Can you be more specific? -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• A contents box for one real section isn't really necessary
• There are two dabs and a few redirects that should be fixed
  • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of punctuation errors. Could you find someone to copy edit the prose, including that in the "conviction" and "penalty" columns of the table? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• How about Dutch Kournikova virus author Jan de Wit? He was convicted. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • He is in the list -- Esemono (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, and comments, from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) Some, but not all, HTML references have an HTML tag. Why not all of them? I tend to not use this and use PDF etc where it isn't an HTML resource. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Your link to White hat hackers does not capitalise the term. You have. Any reason? Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "These...", "These...", "This...", "This..." last four sentences of lead, doesn't read particularly. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "early 90s" - don't we typically say 1990s here? Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Handle, in the table heading, is not explained or linked, and could be confusing to a non-expert. How about online name? -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Abene's sentencing dates don't line up horizontally with the convictions. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Conviction column, odd and inconsistent use of full stops - e.g. "Unauthorized access to computers at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a Los Angeles bank[36] Also guilty on two counts of "making harassing telephone calls".[37]" no stop before 36 but one before 37... "Illicit use of proprietary software (UNIX 3.2 code) owned by AT&T.[1] Pleaded not guilty to 2 counts of computer fraud and three counts of interstate transportation of stolen property[30][31]" stop before 1 but not before 30,31... Please check all and be consistent. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Refs 10 to 12 (for example) have a full stop after accessdates, refs 13 to 15 (for instance) don't. And some accessdates are ISO, some aren't. Be consistent. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "AUS$1000 " needs a comma. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Calce's references, as a preference, would be numerical order please. Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Lots of numbers below ten in numbers rather than being spelt out. Why? Fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose until thorough copyedit is made per GeraldK's comments below. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Review by Truco (talk · contribs) -- Lead 'Convicted computer criminals or hackers are people who get caught and convicted of breaking into computers or computer networks.' -- Comma before and after 'or hackers' fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 'People started to be convicted of computer crimes or hacking as early as 1983 as in the case of The 414s from the 414 area code in Milwaukee.' --> Convictions of computer crimes, or hacking, began as early as 1983 with the case of The 414s from the 414 area code in Milwaukee. fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 'In that case six teenagers broke into a number of high-profile computer systems, including ones at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Security Pacific Bank.' -- Comma after 'In that case' fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 'In the infancy of the hacker subculture criminal convictions were hard to come by because there was ethics, a sort of honor among thieves.' -- Comma after 'subculture' fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 'As the computer industry matured this would change and those with malicious intentions, (black hats), would emerge to exploit computer systems for their own personal profit.' --> As the computer industry matured, individuals with malicious intentions (black hats) would emerge to exploit computer systems for their own personal profit. fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 'This is the case with Jeanson James Ancheta who created hundreds of zombie computers to do his bidding via giant Botnets.' --> This was the case with Jeanson James Ancheta, who created hundreds of zombie computers to do his bidding via giant Botnets. fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to summarize the list better, the lead right now just explains and goes into a lot of technical details but not much summary of the list itself. The lead should summarize the list itself, such as stating the first/most recent convicted criminals, describing statistics like who was the first individual to do such and such, what nationality has the most criminals, etc. I see that you have the first/most recent listed in the lead, but please clarify that more with dates. Tried to expand-- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Images 'Famous hackers Adrian Lamo (left) with contemporaries Kevin Mitnick (center) and Kevin Poulsen' -- Removed 'famous', in this case its a WP:POV. fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 'September 2005 image of Mark Abene who was convicted of a number of computer charges in the 1990s' -- Comma before 'who' fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Is there a need for 2 images in the lead? I think 1 should suffice because 2 leaves a lot of whitespace in the lead. With expanded lead there is less white space-- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Computer criminals 'Below is a list of computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:' -- No need for this, as the reader is made aware about what the list is about in the lead. Left align the dashes. Because Abene had more than once conviction and sentencing date, the columns should reflect that as Conviction(s) and Sentencing date(s) fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Seek a copyedit of the penalty and conviction columns, they need a copyedit for tenses, grammar, and wording that is more encyclopedic. References Why is the FBI ref have 'pub' for the publisher? I'm guessing it was a typo? fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 35: The publisher is Sophos Plc fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) What makes 'livinginternet' a reliable source? replaced -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) The USA Today ref should be properly formatted and have USA Today as the work and Associated Press as the publisher. fixed -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 22: Information week is the work and United Business Media, Inc. is the publisher. fixed-- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) --Truco 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will support once I am ensured that the content in the table has received a copyedit for grammar and tenses.--Truco 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - there are still a great many inconsistencies in spelling and grammar throughout. Please in the future either have your lists copyedited or peer reviewed before bringing them to FLC. Specifically:

• • Some of the entries under convictions and sentences have periods, some do not. I would look for a way to make them consistent, which would probably require rewording of a number of statments to make them either sentences with periods or sentence fragments without.
  • "One count of computer trespass and One count of computer conspiracy" - if this is a single sentence, the second use of 'one' should not be capitalized.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Pleaded guilty"... in multiple entries should be 'pled' if the article is using North American English spelling, if not it's fine. But repeated use of "Also plead guilty" is wrong either way because plead is present tense in both version, and the statements should be in past tense for consistency.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Two years three months imprisonment"... should have an 'and' between years and three.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "One year suspended sentence, he was put on a AUS $1,000" should use a semi-colon rather than a comma.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Eleven months in a Massachusetts juvenile detention facility[13] Although a search shows as of May 6, 2009" needs punctuation near the ref, and if it's a comma 'although' should not be capitalized.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Microsoft, LexisNexis and The New York Times" vs. "guilty to seven counts of mail, wire and computer fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice" - if you are going to use a serial comma, you must use it consistently throughout the article.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Forty six months" to Forty-six months.

Forty six months

• • • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center" to "Memorial Sloan-Kettering" and wikilink.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do not introduce the list with, "Computer criminals with a conviction in a court of law:". Either get rid of it or give more information about what the criteria for inclusion in the list are. Right now, it effectively repeats the title of the article so is repetitive and not additive.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ancheta is the latest notable computer criminal to be arrested, convicted and then on May 9, 2006 sentenced." should be more like "Ancheta is the latest notable computer criminal to be arrested and convicted, his sentencing having taken place on May 9, 2006."
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "He is also the only person to be sentenced to more time in prison, with five years." more than what?
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "criminal convictions were hard to come by because there was ethics, a sort of honor among thieves" probably better with 'a code of ethics'.
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "These white hat hackers broke past" vs. "They enjoy learning and working " one is present tense and one is past tense, though both are talking about the same topic. If you are talking about white hats at the time, it should all be past, if now, it should all be present, if both, there needs to be some transitions so that the differences in tensing make sense
    • fixed -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking the list of definitions of computer crime in the lead's first paragraph may work better as a bulleted list, as in Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles

Geraldk (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I won't fully review, as Geraldk has provided a substantial list of examples to work from, but the first sentence is a red flag: "Convicted computer criminals, or hackers, are people who get caught and convicted of breaking into computers or computer networks." "get caught" is much too awkward and sounds like something written by an elementary schooler. How about "...who are caught..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • Fixed. -- Esemono (talk) 01:23, 30 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 00:34, 30 May 2009 [7].

---

List of Nabari no Ou chapters

Nominator(s): ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C}

I've compared it to other Featured chapter lists and I think I've got everything. Prose looks fine to me, but there's probably an issue or two with it. I'm sure it's long enough too, at ten items. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No support or opposition, restarted on 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) General The date format is inconsistent. Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) What about the references? -- Goodraise (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) "[who] possesses a powerful secret art within him" - I find this confusing. How can one possess an art? Attempted to fix. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Still confusing. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Tried again. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Still not there. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC) How about now? 22:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC) OK, now that I understand it... How is that important enough for the first paragraph? What are the consequences? Does it give him some kind of super powers or what? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Is that okay? ~Itzjustdrama ? C 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I'm still not happy with that sentence. How is it relevant that he doesn't know about his powers? Is that condition permanent? Does he find out about it during the story? What is "Nabari"? - The lead should be able to stand on it's own. As it is now, I need to read the summaries to understand the lead. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC) I think kind of got it now. I had to write two sentences. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC) We're getting closer. Maybe something more along the lines of: "The story's plot follows Miharu Rokujo, a fourteen-year-old student, who becomes king of the hidden ninja world Nabari because the means to control all of creation is written onto his cells as he tries to escape the peril of his new position by searching for a non-leathal way to remove his ability." -- Goodraise (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Ah yes! That's so much better. Your sentence construction skills best mine. Added that. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I had not intended that to be a possible end product, but I'll let this go for now. Let's see if another reviewer finds it inadequate. Maybe I'm just overzealous. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Yea, rewriting that is beyond my ability. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Noting drama CD adaptations is a bit uncommon. Maybe remove the mention? I only did that to fit DYK requirements. Removed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) "Since its premiere" -> "Since the series' permiere" Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) The article is overlinked. I think I got that. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Miharu Rokujo should be linked in the lead. Additionally linking him in the caption is not a deal breaker. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC) "14-year-old" - Looks ugly. Change to "fourteen-year-old"? -- Goodraise (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Added one more comment. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Summaries "Miharu Rokujo is attacked by Iga's Grey Wolf ninja organization from Nabari" - Who is Iga? Fixed. "a world "underneath" where society is known as the front world" - Why is underneath quoted? What does that mean, "underneath"? And what society is this referring to? I quoted it originally because technically you can't be underneath society. Fixed anyways. "secret art the Shinra Banshou" - Is this missing a comma after "art"? Added comma. "all of creation" - This wording is already used in the lead. It seems like it's some kind of semi-quote. What does it mean, "all of creation"? Is it everything or maybe less? Maybe I'm over the top again, but if it doesn't come from the manga, it could be considered POV towards creationism. The wording is quoted from the manga. Shinra Banshou actually means 'All Things in Nature' "but Thobari stops her flow of power" - This is confusing. How does one stop the flow of "power" from something written onto someone's cells? Changed to "but Thobari prevents this". "Miharu must learn ninjutsu and become Nabari's ruler" - Why must he do that? Fixed. "the samurai Raimei Shimizu from Fuuma Village" - What is Fuuma Village? Fixed. "Raimei and the Banten ninjas decide to ask Kotarō Fuuma's opinion" - Who are the Banten ninjas and who is Kotarou Fuuma? Fixed. "As they approach the village" - What village? Fixed. "the Grey Wolves attacked Fuuma" - Clarify here that Fuuma Village was attacked, not Kotarō Fuuma. I hate the fact they're named the same. Fixed. "to search for the village's kinjutsushō, forbidden technique, in Kotarō's absence" - I can only speculate what this means. There's a grammar problem here that keeps me from understanding this sentence. These are the rough problems with the first summary. TBH, this isn't looking good. I suspect the other summaries aren't better, which means that the whole list needs to be rewritten as not to confuse a reader like me, who doesn't know the manga. And after that, the list will need a copy-edit. (It needs one now as well, but there is not much point to doing it until the prose is accessible.) -- Goodraise (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I actually laughed when I saw the edit summary. I expected this. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: the ISBN hyphenation for the seventh and eighth English volumes is incorrect, and should be 978-0-316-*. Yes, I am aware of what the Yen Press site says; no, I do not believe they are correct. Full reasoning here; the Yotsuba&! page not referenced there is here. 67.175.50.253 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Almost, anyway. Fixed for real now. 67.175.50.253 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks! ~Itzjustdrama ? C 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Comments from User:NocturneNoir Resolved comments from NocturneNoir English language adaptation information of the anime is non-relevant to a chapter list. Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Yen Press will be releasing the first collected volume of the series in May 2009. You should specify "in North America". Added. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Needs an {{inc-up}} template. Added. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) More later when I actually read the summaries. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Miharu Rokujo is attacked by the ninja village Iga's Grey Wolf organization from Nabari, a world unknown to most people . Careful, you've got an extra space there at the end. Got rid of it. She tells Miharu to fulfill his greatest desire, but Thobari prevents this. Wait, is "she" referring to "Shinra Banshou"? If so, how can an art be personified like that? (Yes, it's a Japanese manga, but it still needs clarification.) Additionally, would that desire be important enough to mention? Is "spirit of the Shinra Banshou. She" better? Reworded: "to draw from her powers to fulfill his greatest desire" Soon after, the samurai Raimei Shimizu from the ninja village Fuuma is not convinced Miharu will not succumb to the Shinra Banshou's power and vows to kill him if he joins the Grey Wolves. Fix the double negative. And how on earth is a samurai from a ninja village? Fixed. "believes Miharu might succumb to the Shinra Banshou's power" added "dislikes ninjutsu and has chosen to become a samurai" Raimei, Miharu, Thobari and Aizawa decide to ask the leader of Fuuma Village, Kotarō Fuuma, his opinion on the Shinra Banshou's removal. Ignoring the material within commas, this reads Raimei, Miharu, Thobari and Aizawa decide to ask the leader of Fuuma Village his opinion on the Shinra Banshou's removal. which sounds extremely awkward and needs to be reworded. "for his opinion". As they approach Fuuma Village, they learn Kotarō is not at the village and that the Grey Wolves attacked Fuuma Village to search for the village's kinjutsushō Wouldn't this logically go the other way around, as in As they approach Fuuma Village, they learn that the Grey Wolves attacked Fuuma Village to search <blah blah blah> so Kotarō is not at the village? Actually, the Grey Wolves attacked because Kotarō wasn't home. "As they approach Fuuma Village, they learn the Grey Wolves attacked Fuuma Village to search <dadada> because Kotarō has left the village."? With them is Yoite With the wolves or with Raimei, Miharu, Thobari and Aizawa? Fixed. Before Yoite can kill Thobari, Kotarō returns. Wait, they're fighting now? Fixed that. First chapter only. More to come if I find the time. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Link those characters; I had no idea what was going on for the entirety of the first volume and I couldn't click on links to find out. Unless they were linked before or don't have a section on the character list page, they should be linked at their first instance. (Be careful with your later links for cover characters; some people may consider linking characters twice overlinking, while I don't really have an opinion on this). Might also want to link the first instance of samurai and the like. A comment on the linking of characters: While they should definately be linked if they have entries on the character list, I don't think that is enough. Unless a character has appeared before the first volume, I would expect a chapter list to be accessible without consultation of the character list. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Replies. I'm still unsure on who to wikilink. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Wikilink the first instance each character appears (i.e. the first time, a reader will encounter each character) and introduce them generally as Goodraise said. If you still can't do this, let me know so I can wikilink for you. If I wikilink, you'll still have to add the character intros yourself though. Attempted. Well done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Thobari prevents this. I prefer Thobari prevents him from doing so. Fixed. As his teacher Thobari Kumohira and classmate Kouichi Aizawa protect him From ninjas? What kinda school is he attending!? (Yes, this is a semi-serious comment.) And when, if ever, do these guys go to Nabiri and how do they do so? Added "from the ninja". "middle school"? Wikilinking helped solve this. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) The more I read this, the more confused I get. Maybe this manga is like Speed Grapher in its insanity... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC) It's just everything in the series is so vague (And my writing skills are terrible). ~Itzjustdrama ? C 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Nabari, a world unknown to most people I'm 100% uncertain what Nabari is; is it an alternate reality, a completely separate world, another dimension, etc.? "Nabari, a ninja world living in the shadows of normal society"? You still haven't answered my question. "living in the shadows" - Does this mean that the world is part of Earth, except we just don't see it? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) "the underground culture ninja live in"? Probably the hardest thing to define in the entire series. In exchange, Kira slowly drains the user's life until the user dies. Not so sure this is relevant. Well, it's not relevant to the first volume, but it becomes relevant in the second. Should I move it there? Yep. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Moved. I'm pretty sure the plural of "ninja" is "ninjas". It can be either way. I prefer the "ninja" pluralization became it's a Japanese word. I share Goodraise's concern. I will look at other volumes when I get a chance, but the first volume looks good now. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 3 replies. This doesn't look good at all. ;P ~Itzjustdrama ? C 23:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Please hold until nominator has a chance to respond. Not accusing, but just checking: you're not repeating significant strings of text in these boxed plots from elsewhere without full acknowledgment, and even quotation marks, are you? WP's Signpost has a big article on "borrowing" and "paraphrasing" text in last week's edition. Is it possible to paragraph some of those boxed grey masses of text, logically? Not always, but look for a few opportunities with the big ones. As with all WP:ANIME FLCs, this shows no evidence of being copied from another source. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 11:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Lead: remove "story's". And this opening is a bobbydoozler winding snake ... so many links in the chain that I'm dizzy. "The story's plot follows Miharu Rokujo, a fourteen-year-old student, who becomes king of the hidden ninja world Nabari because the means to control all of creation is written onto his cells as he tries to escape the peril of his new position by searching for a non-lethal way to remove his ability." Tony (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) None of it is copied from another source. And I removed story's. I really don't know how to make the sentence less confusing. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I sat down and decided to read this, but then didn't. Unfortunately, real life^TM decided to interfere, so I simply haven't had the time to comment. But I'm back!

• Although Fuuma Village is dedicated to preventing the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō admits he wants to use it as it allows Miharu to surpass human understanding. Try Although Fuuma Village is dedicated to preventing the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō admits he wants to use it as because it would allow Miharu to surpass human understanding. And are you sure Kotarō wishes to use it, as "he wants to use it" implies, and not Kotarō wants Miharu to use it?
  • Well, Kotarō is saying "if I had it I'd use it". I guess it's to emphasize how the man really isn't on their side or something? "Although Fuuma Village is dedicated to preventing the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō admits he would use the Shinra Banshou if it were in his possesion because it allows one to surpass human understanding."?
    • If he only "mentions" this, I have some WP:WEIGHT concerns, but I can't judge without reading the series.
      • The only significance is Kotarō wanting to use it in some way. "Although Fuuma Village agrees to help prevent the Shinra Banshou's use, Kotarō is not completely dedicated the cause." I'm iffy about using "the cause"
• Such a thing can be considered "God". EH!? Miharu can become God? What?
  • Kind of random. I don't know why I put it there. I think it's a direct quotation, so I guess. More pressure on Miharu? I removed it.
• Kotarō and Hattori declare that they must obtain the kinjutsushō before the other. Firstly, it should be the other does. Second, is there only one kinjutsushō? That's what it sounds like here.
  • Well, there's five (I think). But kinjutsushō is a Japanese word and cannot be pluralized (or something like that). I'm afraid Jump Guru will kill me if I do. I'll add a number.
• Kouichi, Raimei, and Miharu return to Banten Village. Where? Why? Why do we care?
  • It's there because of another fear. I'll remove it.
• Thobari claims Kotarō's methods cause too many casualties. Kotarō, however, believes Thobari is too naïve and kind You can probably combine these two sentences.
  • "Thobari claims Kotarō's methods cause too many casualties, but Kotarō believes Thobari is too naïve and kind"
• he is trying to do something he is incapable of. I can guess which he is he, but there are too many hes, making he confusing. (Clarify which he you are referring to; you can either do this once or twice, depending on which you clarify).
  • "Thobari is trying to do something he is incapable of."
    • Alright, what exactly is he incapable of? Not causing casualties?
      • "Thobari is trying to something beyond his capability: fight a war without harming anyone."
• In Banten, Yoite knocks Kouichi and Raimei out. Err, context?
  • Removed. Didn't contribute much.
• When Yoite dies, the fragments and those carrying them also die. I told you to copypaste this, didn't I? Needs some context; why don't you just tell the reader that he threatens to kill Kouichi and Raimei?
  • Because the group would die when Yoite dies, the rest of the series (Read: Up to volume 10) is spent trying to beat the clock. IMO, it's a bit different. Now says "When Miharu starts to refuse, Yoite tells Miharu that Kira left fragments of Yoite's ki in Thobari, Raimei, and Kouichi. When Yoite dies, they will also die."
• Miharu agrees to help and Yoite promises to make Miharu Nabari's king. Help... Yoite?
  • Fixed.

Anyway, sorry for the off-kilter comments. I'm tired, it's late, etc. More later when I'm less tired and more sane. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Any kind of comment is good for me. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded to a few. I'm so utterly confused by this that I would like the aid of other capable reviewers, if possible. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a request on the project's talk. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm neutral on this one after reading it very carefully. Non native English readers may need to re-read of the beginning to get in the train as i did. I guess it can't be help with the numerous in-universe terms present (no criticism here) --KrebMarkt 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no actual article for underground culture. So I don't know how to fix that. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

• Considering this is an on-going series, isn't there an offiical site listing the release dates rather than just Amazon (and why is it listed as Amazon.com instead of Amazon.co.jp)? Square Enix is usually good about having official pages.
  • I can answer this one. They have official page [8] but to get the ISBN & release date you have to use Amazon links (Evil money scheme) --KrebMarkt 06:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • They do like to hide it more, but Square Enix does publish it on their site. I remember having to hunt it down for another series to replace ANN links....searching....searching...found :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok i will fix it. Don't you need some sleep ? Fear Zombie No sleep Collectonian ;) --KrebMarkt 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Done
        • I looked for it but I didn't find it. Thanks!
• Checked FUR on image, looks good.
• The plot summary sentence in the lead, "The plot follows Miharu Rokujou, a fourteen-year-old student, who becomes king of the hidden ninja world Nabari because the means to control all of creation is written onto his cells as he tries to escape the peril of his new position by searching for a non-lethal way to remove his ability." is too long and gets confusing. Maybe break into two sentences.
  • Didn't do much to it. "The plot follows Miharu Rokujou, a fourteen-year-old student who becomes king of the hidden ninja world Nabari because the means to control all of creation is written onto his cells. He tries to escape the peril of his new position by searching for a non-lethal way to remove his ability."
    • It still isn't really clear to me. It took me several sentences to get the idea. Why is position "perilous" and how can the means to control all of creation be written into his cells? Why does make him king of a ninja world rather than the whole world? Might be good to note that he hold the Shinra Banshou. From the summaries, it seems he is nearly killed first, then made king? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • "The plot follows Miharu Rokujou, a fourteen-year-old student who becomes able to control all of creation because a secret art called the Shinra Banshou has merged with his body. He tries to escape those wishing to posses the Shinra Banshou by searching for a non-lethal way to remove it."
• Why doesn't the lead mention the French license nor the seeming novel adaptation?
  • Fixed the non-English licensor (France & Taiwan) --KrebMarkt 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • D: There's a novel adaption!
      • There seemed to be one from the Square Enix pages? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'd move the sentences on English license and serialization to the third paragraph, and move the Japanese tankōbon release info up to the second paragraph after the first sentence, to better follow the ordering seen in other FL chapter lists and keep it more cohesively organized.
  • Gotcha.
• The unreleased chapters section has no serialization info to identify where they were found. Adding a sentence along the lines of "They were originally serialized in issues of Monthly GFantasy from month year to month year." (see List of Bleach chapters for an example of this in another FL on-going series).
  • Got it.
• Kotodama should probably be in italics in that note

Will go through the volume list section later. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Some half-joking replies. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Few replies. Others confirmed fixed. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

+1 reply. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Prose looks OK. Next time, please aim for slightly shorter sentences overall. Most are of reasonable length, but the longest 20% are needlessly hard. I lose the sense of a table when the plot texts are so long, but maybe this is a well-accepted format. Tony (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  That goes along the way of my first comment. If some sentences could be a bit shorter, i will pass from Neutral to Supportive for this FL review. Thanks --KrebMarkt 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  • That certainly motivates me. ;P Let's see what I can do. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The big chunk to chew it the first summary which determine to reader understanding for the rest of the list. I tested with tool the readability of the whole list and it ok [9] but if i check just the first summary :( [10]. I had to copy paste the summary into my user space to use the tool. Hoping to have been helpful. --KrebMarkt 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It's extremely helpful. I was tweaking the first summary and I improved it a couple of points (http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/readability1.4.py?page=User%3AItzjustdrama%2FClean-up) I still don't think it's good enough. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I admit I've been avoiding this FLC because of all the anime I would have to read, but I don't want this to fail because of lack of commentary. So, I'll review the lead and three chapters right now, two chapters later today, and the rest on tomorrow and Monday.

• "it was announced that Yen Press licensed the manga for an English language release in North America" Do we not know who announced this?
  • Fixed
• "July 29, 2008 with five Square Enix titles including Nabari no Ou." Comma after "titles".
  • Added
• Please check the toolbox, I see disambiguation links that need to be fixed.
  • Well, there isn't an article to underground culture. Fixed anyway.
• "control all of creation."
  • Removed.
• "Kotarō is not completely dedicated the cause." Missing "to".
  • Added
• "The Grey Wolf leader Tojūrō Hattori declares the Grey Wolves" Needs "that" after "declares".
  • Added
• "To remove the Shinra Banshou, the kinjutsushō are key."-->The kinjutsushō are key in removing the Shinra Bansho.
  • Fixed
• "Thobari is trying to something beyond his capability: fight a war without harming anyone." Who makes this generalization?
  • Fixed
• "At a conference, Thobari has an opening to kill the target." I think "finds" is better than "has" here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Although Oda has control of Yoite's secrets, Yoite's mind is too unstable and he attacks indiscriminately." I don't see the logical connection of these two facts. Is there blackmail involved?
  • Fixed.
• "revealing Katō as a Fuuma Village spy" "as"-->to be
  • Fixed.
• "She agrees locate Banten Village's kinjutsushō Engetsurin." Missing word.
  • Fixed.
• "Disabling the teacher, Yukimi and Raikō go downstairs." "Disabling" doesn't sound like the right word here.
• "Meanwhile, the teacher shoots Kouichi kills him." Missing word(s).
  • Fixed.
• "Miharu is given the wisdom to fulfill Yoite's wish; instead Miharu saves Yoite's life" How does he recieve this wisdom?
  • Fixed.
• "she demands Daya" Demands Daya to do what?
  • Fixed.
• "After, Thobari looks"-->Afterward, Thobari looks
  • Fixed.
• "Yukimi gets a list of Hattori's past"-->Yukimi receives a list of Hattori's past
  • Fixed.
• "Yukimi finds the half-brother of Sora, the boy Yoite used to be." This is very confusing. Did Yoite switch bodies or something?
  • Fixed.
• "However, Miharu refuses" Comma after here.
  • After refuses?
    • Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Can you cite Note 1? It shouldn't be hard. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Got all but one. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 00:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose in its current form. Far too many grammar errors - needs a good copyedit before coming to flc. In addition, despite the specialized nature of the topic, I believe that the prose in the chapter description could be made much more clear to the lay reader. As it is, it's enormously confusing. Examples of grammar and stylistic issues, aside from the two minor fixes I made to the lead:

• "Thobari is trying to ? something beyond his capability"
• "When the clan's head refused to step down, she and her husband were accidentally killed." lacks clarity as to who 'she' is
• "a panacea that uses the brains of ninja children." doesn't make sense, needs clarification, uses the brains for what, and in what way is it a panacea?

... interrupted, more later. Geraldk (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Yoite suggests Raikō he should use Daya to help Gau"
• "When visiting Yukimi, Miharu starts to remember he erased someone. As Yukimi remembers he forgot about someone, the erasure was not properly done." unclear use of 'he' in the first sentence makes this passage confusing.
• Also, why is there no plot information filled in for the chapters not yet in tankōbon format? They have been publicly released in a different format, so it should be possible to summarize their plots as well. Geraldk (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There isn't a plot summary for those to avoid blow-by-blow summaries of recent chapters, and the constant updating. Other FLC chapter lists, such as List of Gantz chapters and List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters do not summarize the chapters either. Although I do agree with my stylistic issues. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 16:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I see. That makes sense. You're running up against the wall here with the nomination, so if it fails, I just want to encourage you to seek out a thorough copy-edit and then re-nominate it. It is a well done list, just has some prose issues. Geraldk (talk) 16:36, 26 May 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 12:53, 29 May 2009 [11].

---

Kate DeAraugo discography

Nominator(s): Alex Douglas (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The final, Young Divas member discography for FL! The discography has been formatted similarly to other three Young Divas members' discographies, Jessica Mauboy (FL), Paulini Curuenavuli (FL) and Ricki-Lee Coulter (FL). I'm ready to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. Please see below for notes about objections or comments that may arise during the featured list candidacy process.

NOTES:

• Kate DeAraugo's albums have only charted on the Australian Top 100 Albums Chart.
• Kate DeAraugo's singles have only charted on the Australian Top 100 Singles Chart.
• Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the successful featured list candidacy of Jessica Mauboy discography, found that a list can become featured when it contains ten releases, the same number of releases this has.
• The only reference, in existence, that can cite the last assertion made in the lead ("As of December 2008, DeAraugo is working on her second studio album."), is the one currently used; a YouTube video. If you consider it unreliable, notify me and the assertion will be removed.

I ask you to consider, the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I'm fine with most of the notes above, though I don't agree with the third: that this discog has enough releases. Or with the assertion that it has 10 in the first place. First, I don't think I'd call a music video a bona-fide release, since it's really a release based on a single, not so much an independent work. That aside, the last table (Other Appearances) has 4 songs, but only on 2 releases. This definitely seems like a case of fudging the numbers a bit. Finally, I'm not sure if I'd count The Final 13 either: she's appears in it, but along with 12 other people. The same could be said for "Ready", where she is one of 13 artists. I'd hardly call either a "Kate DeAraugo" release". None of these complaints are earth-shatteringly big deals, but combined they make me question whether you have the necessary 10 releases. And I'm not mentioning this just to adhere to an arbitrary number, but with such a low count, which barely just reaches 10 even with a fair amount of creative counting, this is a list that could probably be incorporated into DeAraugo's main page. Drewcifer (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your expressing your unactionable objection. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All bitterness and/or sarcasm aside, the action I suggest is to simply cut+paste most of the content into the main DeAraugo page. If you're dead set on getting an FL notch in your cap, I guess I can't help you there; if you actually want to make Wikipedia better, than maybe you should consider my suggestions rather than pout about it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No sarcasm or bitterness intended, I apologise if you felt that my comment exhibited it. Thankyou for your suggestion, I have merged the list to Kate DeAraugo. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry I misinterpreted your last post. But yeah, glad to see the stuff moved; I think it helps keep things centralized and more user-friendly. I'm sure miss DeAraugo will have more releases in the future, so I look forward to seeing her discog back here once there's enough content to warrant a separate list. Keep up the good work! Drewcifer (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Glad we found common ground. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Merged with Kate DeAraugo. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:27, 29 May 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:40, 28 May 2009 [12].

---

List of Police Squad! episodes

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. I have my doubts about the episode summaries, but I figured this is the best I could do. Please feel free to give you honest opinion. Thanks.--Music26/11 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Yet another list that I believe violates the 3b criterion of the WP:WIAFL. There are only 6(!) episodes listed here that can easily be mentioned in the main article.--Crzycheetah 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—3b. There's no need to split off a new list that contains six episodes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, is there anyway I can withdraw this from FLC?--Music26/11 15:14, 26 May 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 14:26, 23 May 2009 [13].

---

Commissioner's Trophy (MLB)

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. It's another step in my (hopefully coming soon) baseball awards topic (I'm sure you all saw the Silver Slugger lists). I recently expanded this article and added references. I added the list of winners, which is separate and distinct from the list of World Series winners because of the inclusion criteria. Additionally, this is about a specific award rather than simply a list of champions. I realize my edit count on this article is low, but I added all of the references and the entire list of winners, so I think that qualifies me as a major contributor, rather than pure edit count. Questions/comments will be addressed by me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment How is this any different from List of World Series champions#The modern World Series? It looks like the exact same thing except that this is only since the trophy was introduced in 1967. I suggest they be merged. The same info is also at List of World Series winners and List of World Series champions#World Series (modern) appearances by franchise. All three of these lists need to be incorporated together somehow before I can support. Reywas92^Talk 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The other two lists you mention definitely ought to be merged. This list, however, contains additional information. I ask you: what becomes of a "Baseball awards" topic if there is no article on this trophy? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The trophy itself is important, but there's still no need to duplicate the info. You could easily say, "See this article for the list of winners. This specific trophy has been awarded to all winners since 1967" or something to that effect. I do not like redundancy. Reywas92^Talk 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So is this article a perpetual stub in your eyes? There's very little available information on it besides what's here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary "a perpetual stub". It can actually be a GA like my article Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy.—Chris! _ct 19:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I've included every piece of information I could find on the topic. I don't think that there is enough information available for it to become a GA. If you think there is, then I will certainly considering withdrawing this nom, removing the list, and going that route instead. However, there's very little that can be done to expand the current lead into an article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is enough information already for this to become a GA, that what I am trying to tell you. Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy is even shorter than this article, but it still passes GA criteria.—Chris! _ct 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. In keeping with this line of thought, I'll withdraw this nom and try to work it up to what I would consider GA quality/length in the next few days. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck.—Chris! _ct 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is withdrawn in case anyone doesn't know. I can help remove this, but I am not sure if nomination withdrawal required FL director's approval first.—Chris! _ct 01:50, 23 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 03:49, 22 May 2009 [14].

---

1900 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because... the one I just nominated got shot down for length and is about to be merged. However, this one will not be affected by the medal count mergings and is of good quality. It was nominated once before, and I think pretty much all of the issues raised during the nomination have been resolved. Geraldk (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support With 21 entries it's long enough. I see no problems here, except to lowercase the names of sports. Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, and good catch. Switched them to lowercase letters. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - don't think "To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title" is necessary—Chris! _ct 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Right, if we assume our readers have a functional brain, that is. It's gone. Geraldk (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like how note b starts with "Also ..."—Chris! _ct 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If this gets promoted, will it be the smallest WP:FL? I know that the table is long enough, but there's no additional info in this page other than those 11 more countries that received medals. There is a FL that's longer and bigger than this one and it is about to be removed because of its size (click here). So, how does this list pass WP:WIAFL's 3b criterion?--Crzycheetah 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think List of United States Presidents who died in office is the smallest FL we have. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Technically, 1900 medal table is smaller (in size) than that one.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume you're focusing on the latter part of 3b, the question of whether it could 'reasonably' be included in another article, since that seems to be the point of discussion on the No Doubt article. It seems that the long-standing consensus on WP:OLY is not to include more than 10 places in the main article. In the absence of WP:WIAFL including an objective standard for length, it only makes sense to me that one would defer to the wikiproject with the most experience on a certain topic and/or the standing wikipedia tradition. Otherwise, the length issue would be utterly and completely subjective. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • So, what you're saying is that since 21 countries instead of 10 are listed in the table, it must be in a separate list? Does it really make sense to you? It doesn't, to me.
      All I know is that these Olympic medal tables look eerily similar to those awards pages that Gary was producing last year. I have a feeling that if start promoting these Olympic tables, we'll see them at WP:FLRC in about 6-8 months.--Crzycheetah 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know about that one, these pages have existed for several years, whereas Gary created most of the ones he nominated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
        • What does that have to do with what I said? I never said these medal pages were created recently.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
          • What I meant was that it is different because most of the awards lists were created solely so they could be FLCs, whereas in this case, it's improving on existing content. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is that there is no objective standard for length in the featured list criteria. Until there is, yes, I feel a list that has 21 items is of length significant enough to be a stand-alone list and that the WP:OLY standards tend to override inexact concerns about length (and therefore that this list is eligible for FL - I wouldn't have nominated it otherwise). Frankly, if the rule becomes that 21 items is too short, then there are a lot of current FLs that would need to be reviewed. The only difference here is that the medal counts include single numbers for each entry and so the information in each individual cell is not quite as long as some. And FYI: There are already 8 olympic medal table lists with FL, though one of them (1896, which is significantly shorter than this one) is likely to be merged per previous discussions here and at WP:OLY. Geraldk (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
        • It really doesn't matter whether there are 2, 3, or 20 items listed; what matters the most is the content. Right now, there is not much content other than those 21 countries to split it from the main page. We will never put any arbitrary numbers in the criteria because there are so many factors involved.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought about this, and I'm going to oppose on 3b for this list. I feel it doesn't meet the "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" part of the criteria. I am aware some people will consider this significantly above the 10 item threshold, but this list really doesn't provide much information. The top 10 are all ready included in the main article, and I don't think it would make it too large if the other 11 were to be included. There also isn't much prose to be merged across. I realise that eventually medal tables to become long enough (i.e. I have no problem with 2008 being split), but I don't consider this list to have enough material to "exemplify our very best work". If you are interested in my opinion, I would probably advocate merging tables up to around 1936. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• So what is the cut-off, then? Geraldk (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• By which I mean - what is the exact number of entries that make a list pass 3b. For example, the 2002 Winter Olympics medal table only has 24 items, and the 2006 Winter Olympics medal table 26. Is it 22? 23? Both of those are featured lists, and have been for some time. In other words, as I was saying to Cheetah, just looking at a list and saying 'not enough' is utterly arbitrary. If you guys feel there should be some lower limit to the number of items in a table, fine, but then that needs to be spelled out clearly in WIAFL. Otherwise, the decision to support or oppose is little more than random. As to the list not providing much information, well, I suspect that's what this really boils down to. Because a number of medals is a single number, and not, as on some lists, a name of a video game or career earnings of some poker player, it looks like it's less information, when in reality each number is a discrete piece of information as important as a discrete piece of information on any other list. Geraldk (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• There purposefully is not fixed cut-off. The cut-off is whatever is sensible. The 10 items threshold isn't a "rule", hence not being in the criteria. Here, the cut-off should be when it becomes no longer reasonable to keep the medal table unsplit, and I do not think this list falls into that category. Also I do not want to get into discussing which other lists are/are not suitable, but I will mention that both were promoted to FL before 3b was implemented. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Look, here's my frustration. I'm a teacher, right, and when I give my kids writing assignments I provide a rubric that tells them exactly how they will be scored. In effect, WIAFL is a rubric. Now, 3b says that the list submitted "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." You use the word sensibly, WIAFL uses reasonably, but in effect what that means is a gut feeling. A gut feeling has no reasonable use as part of an assessment. If a student asks me how long an essay they should write and I tell them, "whatever is sensible", or if I hand my kids an essay and say that their argument "could reasonably have been longer", they would rightfully complain. If I expect a minimum of 5 paragraphs, I ask for it. Otherwise, the assessment tool itself is invalid, because I am scoring them by a standard I never made clear. For the purposes of FLC, different assessors will judge 'reasonable' in different ways, which means there will be no consistency in the process. I can nominate a list (like this one) and have you raise an objection saying that it doesn't seem long enough. Someone else can nominate a list, and if you or the other people who interpret 3b very strictly don't happen to assess that particular article, it can get FL. It's frankly unfair to editors and the articles they create. And, in my opinion, comes perilously close to conflating quantity with quality. Geraldk (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Also, FYI, I was pointing out those other lists partially because you, again rather arbitrarily, suggested 1936 as the cutoff for when medals tables should be separate lists. Geraldk (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to make up an arbitrary value just for you. It is worth noting that recently this 20 item list was delisted under 3b, whereas a television series list of less items (e.g. this 16 item one) are not in danger of delisting. Basically, we don't have a value because we are not able to compare all the lists using one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm only sorry you're sinking an FL nomination based on the arbitrary application of an unclear standard. I have no problem with there being no exact number specified if 3b is being applied to lists that are blatantly short like List of counties in Delaware, which was rightfully rejected from FLC. But 21 items with four pieces of data per item? That's a significant list, and if 3b is going to be applied in that gray middle, than it needs to be more specific. Otherwise, your doing this undermines FL as any kind of objective standard. Geraldk (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I guess it's open to interpretation, but I'm not sure if 3b comes into effect because the main 1900 Summer Olympics article could conceivably be expanded quite a bit (see 2008 Summer Olympics for an example of how big these pages can get). There's also the case of notability. I may be biased because I love the Olympics, but I find the medal counts (which have received a lot of third party coverage) to be more notable than how many Kerrang awards Good Charlotte has been nominated for. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment If this article were in the main article...!. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Before any review from me, I must address the 3b issue. Perhaps I'm biased (I got 1998 Winter Olympics medal table through FLC), but having the full table in the main article really unbalances the end of it. The table itself is not so bad, but the prose before it is longer than that on any of the events. A 10-item list and a few descriptive sentences would be fine, but SRE.K.A.L.'s example is pushing things a bit. Also, I agree with Scorpion that lists like these are not what 3b was created for; one of the goals was to get editors to stop creating forky lists for FL purposes only and to start improving existing lists. Hard to complain that this is an FL grab when the page has existed since August 2004. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think SREKAL's version of the main article with the list merged looks fine, but I am not opposed to keeping this separate either. I always prefer merging for anything, but this one's long enough for me if others agree. I will, however, be merging the smaller ones as previously discussed. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You may get some pushback on that. Many of the commenters at WP:OLY are opposing mergers for various reasons. Geraldk (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise - OK, so this discussion seems to be stuck in neutral. I've got a proposal for a compromise, and let's see what everyone thinks. Cheetah and Rambo have concerns about the length of the list. I and some others don't have the same concerns. The core issue to me is that some of these medals tables have qualified for FL and some have not because of length, and there is no firm rule on exactly where 3b applies. That's because, as Rambo has stated, it's impossible to set an across-the-board rule for all lists because 3B applies differently to different types of lists. But there is nothing that prevents the reviewers here from agreeing to a sort of unofficial policy for only the Olympic Medals Tables. Specifically, I suggest the following:

• That medals tables with 24 or more entries (the size of the smallest current FL medal table) be considered to meet the 3b standard, assuming a sort of precedent from the current FLs. This will limit the lists of this kind eligible for FL to somewhere between a third and a half of the total.
• That I (and hopefully others who are interested in working on those tables) refrain from nominating any Olympic medals tables shorter than that for FL, instead nominating them for GA a la List of counties in Delaware (given that there was significant opposition on WP:Oly to the idea of merging the shorter tables that followed from my nomination of the 1904 list, I'm not going to merge them).

Thoughts? Geraldk (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I oppose cutting them off. As I've said elsewhere, either a list should be able to be featured or it should not exist as an independent list. If the others refuse to let them be merged, then I support them being able to be become featured. There's no reason to have such a cutoff. Also, 1896 Summer Olympics medal table with only 11 members, is the current smallest. I will go to OLY, but there's no reason to duplicate the info solely for the sake of having articles for all of them. I think the Delaware counties got through a loophole; according to WP:WIAGA, lists may not be GAs, and that's not comprable to FL. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then. That brilliant idea is shot. Didn't realize that was in the GA criteria. So... look, there needs to be some sort of consensus reached about whether these lists meet 3b. And frankly, at this point, I don't know what the answer is. If they don't meet FL standard, as Rambo and others have argued, but they aren't eligible for any other standard like GA, than they become effectively the only true content on Wikipedia that I know of which have no set standard towards which to improve. Kind of removes a major motivation for dedicated editors to work on them. Geraldk (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They do have a standard to improve towards. They can be merged into a parent article, which can then be aimed for GA/FA. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate with OLY over this, but keeping articles split (e.g. especially 1986) just to have a complete set of unsplit medal tables is not the right course of action. The navboxs could easily be piped to a section in a main article, and consensus at a WikiProject, in this case not to merge, should not dictate. Basically, if a list is short enough to merge, it should be merged. By that I mean, I don't think it should be an all or none merged situation, so somewhere we need to have a cut off. I've already stated my rough opinion on a cut-off, with which some disagree, and that is fine. This takes us full circle, and means we are getting nowhere fast. I'd be keen to hear what the other people who discussed 3b's implementation think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a review needed here or not? If so, let me know so I can get going on it. If not, I see no reason to keep this FLC open; the discussions should be taken to FLC talk. Personally, I don't think a cut-off date makes sense when many of the Winter Olympics tables are much smaller than some of the earlier Summer Olympics tables. A number would be better, but I'm unsure what it should be. The table I worked on is 24 items, so I'm not the best person to comment on Gerald's proposal. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 is right, we're not talking about this list anymore, we're talking about Olympic medal tables now. I am against that "all or none" talk, as well. If we start encouraging this "all or none" talk, then one can say "if Metallica has its awards listed separately, so should Blink-182", some even can start threatening by saying that they're going to have an anxiety attack if their lists somehow get merged. I believe if we go with all or none, we're going to have those low quality lists again that we're trying to get rid of with the implementation of the new 3b criterion. As for the cutoff, I don't think using an arbitrary number is the best solution. It depends on the amount of content next to the table, as well.--Crzycheetah 04:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see the comment above! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you did merge(props to you!) and the main page became a quarter of a screen longer. Oh, it's also worth noting that 1900 Summer Olympics is in a bad condition even without the full table and it's hard to analyze how the merger will change the quality of the main page. If there is something that I didn't notice, please point it to me.--Crzycheetah 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is now a larger discussion. Frankly, its a larger discussion than FLC, something which should get wider attention from the community. I'm fine with this nomination being withdrawn until some resolution is reached. Geraldk (talk) 14:38, 21 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 22:50, 16 May 2009 [15].

---

List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose and comments. First, why does 1980-present include Washington D.C., but this one doesn't? Second, why does this list even exist? It's rather small, and it could easily be part of a larger time period. Stopping it at 1950 seems like a pretty arbitrary split for the larger "List of Maryland hurricanes" list, which is not yet made for some reason. More importantly, perhaps (which would negate one of my questions), the list is not complete. I see a lot of storms that produced rainfall in the state but were not included. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples of missing storms would be appreciated. A trace of rain is not notable enough for inclusion in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But you include Isbell in 1964 and Hallie in 1975 for producing light rain. I count 12 tropical cyclones in the rainfall page, which you already use, that are missing from the article. Do you care to comment on any of my other comments? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aiming for each list to encompass a ~30-year period. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) has gone on Wikibreak, so I don't really know what to do with this oppose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I maintain my original oppose, that several storms are missing. Like I said, you include Isbell in 1964 and Hallie in 1975 with their light rainfall, so the list is not comprehensive if it does not include every known storm in the state. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, a trace of rainfall is not notable enough for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And as I said, you include two storms in the list for having very little rainfall. Those 12 missing storms produced as much rain as Hallie or Isbell. It isn't a matter of notability, rather it's a matter of factual accuracy. If you don't include them, then this article fails FL criterion 3a, as the scope is not well-defined. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I removed Hallie and Isbelle. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What does that accomplish? If the scope of the article is supposed to be any tropical cyclone affecting the state of Maryland, then you're removing legitimate data. Also, of the missing storms, one caused over 4 inches of rainfall, which is more than some of the other storms listed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to write an encyclopedic article, not a rainfall database. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you have a comprehensive list of tropical cyclones if you're arbitrarily removing storms that only have rainfall data? All other tropical cyclone list articles like these have the same format. If there is rainfall info known, then it is included. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The prose in hurricane FLs and FAs has been improving; this is great to see. But the issues raised by Hink need to be addressed. Just a few things I noticed.

• Why link "US state" bumped up against the link to "Maryland", which surely contains a link itself to "US state"? Select the links carefully and they'll stand out more, and attract more clicks. Too much choice ends in fudge.

• Good point, fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• "During the time period"—huh?

• Reworded. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Any reasons for saying "1955 USD", where it's clear from the example in the lead that money amounts are from the period cited? Why specify US? I'm sure MOSNUM says US and UK currencies are just $ and pound symbols. US is tagged to every amount. And why are some amounts translated into 2007 equivalents (not 2009?), and others not at all?

• I've revised these for consistency. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Do we need the histogram as well as the table? They both say the same thing, and really, the amounts are easy to conceptualise. True to that, the deaths below is not histogrammed. Hmmm ... unsure either even needs a table, but I'm willing to be corrected by regulars here on that point. Tony (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed; removed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "twenty-nine"-->29 (per WP:MOSNUM)
• "known tropical cyclones have affected the U.S. state of Maryland." Is there such thing as an "unknown" tropical cyclone?
• Why are "List of Delaware hurricanes and List of New Jersey hurricanes included in the see also section? Seems to me that you might as well include List of Pennsylvania hurricanes too. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• All fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Please link and define abbreviation of NOAA on the first appearance.

• Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html reliable?

• It's a branch of Unisys, which is fairly reliable in my opinion. Also, the information it cites is uncontroversial. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise http://www.midatlantichurricanes.com/Maryland.html?

• This is a truncated copy of Hurricanes and the Middle Atlantic States as far as I can tell, so it should be reliable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 4 and 17 seem to be from newspapers. If this is true, they should be in italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Got it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment If we have to have a list of hurricanes for each state why dont we have a general list of all known Maryland hurricanes that are not split off by date. As far as i am aware all of the other countries that we have are a general list of Cyclones that have hit Jason Rees (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose After a bit of my own research I found that ten storms (including depressions) were missing from the list. Until they are in, I'm opposing this nomination. Cyclonebiskit 18:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

One dab found. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 22:50, 16 May 2009 [16].

---

The Simpsons (season 14)

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²²

This is my first Simpsons-related list in quite some time, so... Yay. As always, all concerns will be addressed by me. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - The plots should be consistent in size. There are some that are 2 lines long, and others that are 4 lines long (that's a big difference in word count). I'm not sure if the other season lists that are featured for The Simpsons is like this, but I have to ask, why is the lead being treated like the body of the article? The lead should summarize, not be the primary substance of reading.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Some are, some aren't, it depends on the article. The Simpsons (season 8) has a large lead, while The Simpsons (season 5) uses sections. I just felt that everything seemed to work better in the lead, rather than having more sections. As for the plots, I'll see what I can do about making them consistant. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Then maybe we should think about drafting some amendments to WP:MOSTV's section on LOE pages to state something to the effect of "By definition a page is generally identified as a 'list' because it lacks the necessary amount of prose to be considered an 'article'. As such, the lead may sometimes be converted to be the sole location of certain information because...blah blah" (this would need to be hashed out on the MOSTV page), because right now this would fail (and so would the other page) the criteria for meeting the guideline standards (which would be MOSTV and LEAD). I mean, I have no probably is this is going to be the growing trend among LOE type of pages (and it kind of makes sense...it's hard, and dumb, to summarize a list of names that are going to appear two inches below the lead).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • So you think I should move all of the writer/director/cast info to a "cast & crew" section? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I think at the moment, that would be the best bet because, even though LEAD doesn't dictate List pages, at the moment it's all we have next to MOSTV (which just follows that LEAD says).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Okay, a section has been created. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the toolbox, there is one dab link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot find a source listed for the airdates, at least not one in-text cited. Is it the source that's at the end of the plot, or is that solely for the plot?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the source at the end covers everything. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It might be good to put a source in the infobox or the lead sentence for the beginning and ending. You could just use the two you have in the episode table, or possibly TV Guide's website or MSN's website, since they should list every episode for the season. Just a thought on that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Many areas of unclear wording and awkwardness.

• No need to link United States in the infobox.
  • Fixed.
• "amongst "-->among (mutiple occurences)
  • Fixed.
• "could have sworn it's been 302."-->"could have sworn it's been 302".
  • Fixed.
• "Hank Azaria also won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance for voicing various characters in the episode "Moe Baby Blues"."
  • Removed the also, but I think the various should stay in. The sentence reads better with it in there.
• "The show also won four Annie Awards in 2003" The show, or the season of the show? You give a year for the Annie Awards, but not for Emmys...?
  • Fixed.
• "including it's twelve consecutive " wrong "it's", and "twelve"-->12th
  • Fixed.
• "Other nominations include: "'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky", which was nominated for an Environmental Media Award for Best Television Episodic Comedy,[12] the series was nominated for a Golden Globe Award in 2003,[13] and Chris Ledesma was nominated for a Golden Reel Award for Best Sound Editing in Television Animation – Music for his work on "Large Marge".[14]" This listing doesn't make grammatical sense; when you isolate the listed items, you see the problems: "Other nominations include: ... the series was nominated for a Golden Globe..." Suggest:

Other nominations include: "'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky", nominated for the Environmental Media Award for Best Television Episodic Comedy [in year?]; the series, nominated for the Golden Globe Award in 2003;[13] and Chris Ledesma, nominated for the Golden Reel Award for Best Sound Editing in Television Animation – Music for his work on "Large Marge" [on date?].[14]

Fixed.

• So, "Treehouse of Horror XIII" actually contains mini-episodes within itself? Please explain.
  • Done.
• "Homer attempts to feel intoxicated breathing thin" Needs "by" after "intoxicated".
• "Homer attempts to feel intoxicated breathing thin air on top of a mountain, licking toads and giving blood. However, he is sent on a taxi home in his drunken state. Unbeknown to Homer, the taxi is part of the show Taxicab Conversations; consequently, he rants about his family. " You say Homer attempted to feel intoxicated, but then the next sentence affirms that Homer was actually intoxicated. Then, "consequently": So Homer rants about his family because he doesn't know about being featured on Taxicab Conversations (is this a fictional show?)? Doesn't make sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I rewrote that entire section. I'll also give all of the other summaries a copyedit. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Bart learns that he was once a child actor in commercials and all the money earned was blown by Homer." "blown" is much too regional and colloquial in register, and what exactly did he blow it on?
• I'd like to know whom the guest stars act as.
• "in the process becoming the pride of the town" She becomes the "pride of the town" (another questionable phrase) during the spelling bee or in being selected for the Spell-lympics?
• "However George Plimpton" No need for "However", there is no contradiction here.
• "out on the date." "the date"? The definitive, all-time date? I think you mean "a date".
• "The noise starts to ruin their lives" I think "disrupt" is a better word.

All this to show that you need an outside copy-editor is needed. Not withdrawing my oppose just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 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 not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 22:34, 16 May 2009 [17].

---

1904 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on this before a veeeeeery long wikibreak and it seems to be ready for FLC (edited it as Le Comte, my editing handle at the time, not Geraldk, in case anyone checks the history and wonders why I'm nominating it). Thanks in advance for comments. Geraldk (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: FLs do not start with "This is a list of..." or any similar statements anymore. See recently promoted FLs for suggestions on how to change the lead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any ideas for how to modify it so it avoids that? I'm having trouble figuring out a way to word it so it still keeps the words 1904 Summer Olympics medal table in bold. And, unfortunately, the comparable FLs don't help, because they're all worded like this one. Geraldk (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Or is that no longer required in the lead? Geraldk (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• You don't have to force it; if it works better without, you can certainly discard it. I will look here and come up with a suggestion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would say you can just start with "The 1904 Summer Olympics were held in St. Louis, Missouri, United States from July 1 to November 23, 1904 as part of the St. Louis World's Fair." I'm sure you can find somewhere else to fit in the link to National Olympic committees, and you don't need to say how it's ranked because this is a sortable table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done and thanks, that reads a heck of a lot better now. Geraldk (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that you can discard the "Mixed Team" section and incorporate that information into the lead after you mention the mixed team. It would help the length of the lead due to the increasing demand for prose at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a member of WP:OLY, and this would obviously have to be discussed, but do we need these for the first few Olympics? The custom tends to be to list the top ten countries in the main article and all in the sublist, but for early Olympics, there were only 10 or 11 countries total. This entire list already exists at 1904 Summer Olympics#Medal count. These lists are great when they're longer, but they should probably be merged when they're so short. Other than the length - and therefore likely 3b fail - this is a great list. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd argue that having a separate list has value, but am not the best person to comment on this since I've put a ton of time into a number of the early medal count lists and therefore don't exactly have a neutral perspective on the question.Geraldk (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's rediculous to have the table of ten in the main article and simply duplicate it in the list. There's really no need for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• This issue could certainly use more discussion. I've noted it at WT:OLY. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Jonel. Reywas - there is more to these lists than the list itself. The main reason to have separate medal tables, even short ones, is because of the content and contextualization provided in the medal table leads. I'd argue that a reader of a general article about the 1904 Summer Olympics could care less, for example, about what exactly the term 'mixed team' means or that the water polo medals are not currently recognized by the IOC even though they were part of the games at the time. Having it separate allows one to be more detailed. Further, I'm operating under the assumption that at some point one of us editors is gonna get off our tookus and actually make the 1904 Olympics article not blow quite so much. When that happens it will presumably be a very long article detailing information about competitors and events and all that fun stuff, at which point taking up more space with a detailed discussion of what mixed teams are will make even less sense. There is also the point that there is a certain uniformity to the ancillary articles for olympic games, and that kind of makes sense for ease of user navigation. Further, since we always need to keep in mind the reader, I think there are plenty of people out there who are happy to flip through the medals tables without ever reading about or scrolling past text about exactly what the mascot of a particular games was or how much it cost to host the games. And finally (although this may be a larger discussion about the philosophy of wikipedia) who cares whether it's a separate list? It's not like it's breaking the servers to have it so long as it has some purpose and some readership. But, as I said, I'm a little biased on this one, though I certainly see your point. I would, however, avoid using words like ridiculous which may be a little inflammatory. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gerald, I've read your comments and agree with much of them; however, on the general issue, I may have to side with Reywas on this one. I know you've been on an extended wikibreak, as you mentioned, and during that time there were substantial recent revisions to the FL criteria. A lot of this was to cut down on content forking, and I didn't realize when I first looked that this was largely recreated in another article. Honestly, your comments above about the information not being appropriate to the 1904 Summer Olympics article... well, I don't want to say that they are wrong, and won't, but I don't believe those concerns are justified (just my opinion, of course). Having this information in the article could prove very valuable because it gives context. Additionally, the table here is sortable, which the table at the main article isn't. Technically, this article is a daughter of 1904 Summer Olympics and, as such, that article should have a need to be split before it gets done. For an example, the contents of List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons used to be entirely contained in the article Philadelphia Phillies. Before it was split out, it took up a huge amount of space, and adding things to it would have made the article bulky and unwieldy. Once it was split, more necessary information could be added. However, in this case, the table is short enough, and the lead is short enough, and the parent article is short enough, that this may need to be merged back into the main article. I know that it's tough if someone wants to merge a lot of your hard work into another piece; it's happened to me before too. But think of it as motivation to improve the main article; it could become an FA too! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Gerald, I agree with your argument that there's more than a table, but that's not enough. Other than that, the other information is rather insignificant. Yes, it might not be fully relevant to the main article, but it can be condensed. You claim that eventually 1904 Summer Olympics will expand, requiring a separate article for the further information, but look at 1896 Summer Olympics. It's a featured article and has plenty of room for the table. Yes, there is also an FL for its medal table, but that is mostly redundant and could easily be merged. Since Olympics other than the first few summer/winters have more than 20 countries, they may be more qualified for a separate FL-able list, but I don't feel that the information must be duplicated for these early Olympics when there's insufficient info to require a separate list. Reywas92^Talk 02:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw - bah. You guys are right. Reywas - your reward for pointing this out is getting to help me merge the early medal counts and fix the template. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure. Sorry for the hassle, but separate articles aren't needed for everything. I'm sure you'll do a great job on getting the more recent lists to FL! Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 16 May 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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 17:23, 11 May 2009 [18].

---

South Park (season 1)

Nominator(s): Theleftorium (talk), Nergaal (talk), Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills all the criteria of a FL. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Some phrasing needs touch-ups. Sentences such as "going a Nielsen Rating rating of 1.3 for the first episode" (where did it go?); "Several episodes have received several award nominations" (repetitive wording); "From television critics instead" (an odd order of word placement); "The low-budget crudely made Jesus vs. Frosty film" (needs commas); "did not do well" (crude); "However," (shouldn't be used to begin a sentence <use a semi colon>; "they requested" (Comedy Central is an 'it')
• Why "the Simpsons" and not "The Simpsons"?
• You should have a cast section. Who voiced the four main characters? Do they provide voices for other background characters (like in The Simpsons)? Did any big names guest star? Etc etc
• Finally, I'm not sure FL is the right venue. Yes, it's a list of episodes, but the majority of the page is prose. Some of the most recent FL season pages have prose too, but it's just a list of directors, actors, awards, etc written in prose form instead of a traditional list. There are a few season pages that are listed at GA, and I think this might be better suited there.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right about the FL/GA thing. Can the nomination be withdrawn? TheLeftorium 14:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the article/list debate for a second, where should this page be submitted for featureed reviewing? I bet somebody at GA will simply pass it, but when it comes to FAC, I am 100% sure the reviewers there will say to submit it to FLC. So why go to GA if this IS going to come back here ? Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Smallville (season 1) is an FA so I don't think that will be a problem. TheLeftorium 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ks then. Sounds fine by me. Nergaal (talk) 03:05, 11 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [19].

---

Territorial evolution of the Caribbean

Nominator(s): Esemono (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for promotion, but will quickly make any changes deemed necessary by the reviewers.. Esemono (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now:
  • I'm not sure a near-identical caption is required for every image.
  • Need dates. It's not sufficient, for example, to say "Barbados became independent in 1966"; give the exact date.
  • This is slight vanity speaking (since I originated these types of lists :), but I think the images need text labels rather than relying on color; color alone makes it impossible to see which is which in a monochrome environment or with someone who is colorblind.
  • Each image, IMO, doesn't need the graphic timeline. That's a tool for the animation; since each image includes the date (well, year, more on that in a moment), the timeline is superfluous.
  • You currently have one image per year; need one image per change.
  • It's okay to remove obsolete countries from the labels, especially in the individual maps.
    • Yes, that means you should use one set of maps for the article, and a second, slightly modified, set for the animation.
  • For a map including North, Central, and South America, it's bad to label a part of the United States as "America"
  • IMO, possessions should be listed separately from lands that are part of a particular country. Specifically, I see at least:
    • Puerto Rico should be listed separately; it is a possession of, not part of, the United States.
    • The Cayman Islands are a territory, not part of, the UK
    • Now, St. Martin and St. Barts appear to be part of France, though not an integral part like Guadeloupe is, so I'm not sure an extra map is needed for 2003. (This may seem out of place but I initially had a long bit explaining why a 2003 map was needed =p)
  • You should mention from whom these nations are becoming independent.
  • You don't need to mention that a nation joined the Commonwealth of Nations.
  • Belize is marked as independent starting from 1964; however, as the text notes, it didn't actually declare independence until 1981. It could be argued that it also be marked disputed between Belize and Guatemala, however since Guatemala never acted on that claim, that could be seen as superfluous.
  • This is the biggest nitpick ever but the Panama Canal Zone was not a straight band.
  • I might suggest that the British occupation of Guadeloupe, however brief, should be mentioned, at least in a 'disputed' mark.
  • I'm impressed. When I was planning these things out I had intended to simply omit Florida, South America, and Central America, and only deal with the changes in the islands. But this is probably a better idea. --Golbez (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the captions, you're right they don't add anything. Added specific dates for independence days and from who they became independant. I'll try and work on the others later. -- Esemono (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"This is a timeline of the territorial evolution of Latin America and the Caribbean" FLs don't begin like this anymore, look at recently promoted FLs to get an idea of a more engaging start. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to rain on this any more, but there is no such country as Holland, as least not in the last century or so. It is actually a region of the Netherlands. Also, the see also section's animations really slow the whole article down. Replace those with still maps. Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They should be replaced with links to the articles, since most of those do have articles. However, many seem random - there's no reason to have a link to the evolution of Poland in this article. Or Australia. That's what the category is for. The US, Mexico, South America, etc. make sense, since they are part of this article. However, that brings me to another issue... the list makes no mention of the U.S. Civil War or the Confederacy, of which Florida was a part for several years. --Golbez (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose
  • The note section is unreferenced
  • I see some citation need tags floating around
  • Gallery of images in see also is irrelevant to the topic being discussed
  • A side issue: not sure if the images in each section are even needed b/c they are already in the animation

—Chris! _ct 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The images in each section are indeed useful outside of the animation; however, only if they were truly standalone illustrations. They aren't. (See Territorial evolution of Canada for an example of how the individual images can be different from the animation frames. More context given, a snapshot of a particular period, etc.) Also, it's not right to expect a reader to have to sit through a lengthy animation to get a picture of the particular period they're reading about. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you mean.—Chris! _ct 02:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a withdrawal; while I admire the work put into this list, and the goals of it, it's months from being featured quality. Every image needs redoing, and the prose is disintegrating as the editor tries to keep up with improving it. I hope it would not insult the creator if I said I wanted to try making new images for it, based on his work of course. --Golbez (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Did some work and made the following changes:
  • Changed the images so that there is no superfluous timeline.
  • Changed ``America`` to ``USA``
  • Changed Belize`s status to disputed from 1964 till its full independence in 1981.
  • Changed Holland to Netherlands
  • Added the events of the U.S. Civil War and Florida in the Confederacy
  • Added references to the notes and moved other items into the actual list.
  • Added better representation of the Panama Canal
  • removed the gallery of images
  • mentioned from whom these nations are becoming independent.
  • Found references for all the citation needed tags

And no I won`t be insulted if you use the images, I was trying to get them up online so that people can make their own animations or different more specific lists. -- Esemono (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• The GIF seems to leave black marks where text has been added then removed making it painfully difficult to read at the end.
• Using the individual images down the page, they all need alt text
• See WP:DASH, spaced hyphen seperators should be ndashes
• We don't avoid having bold with links in the opening sentence.
• Is any of Territorial evolution of the Caribbean#1700 referenced?
• References are a mess, some missing publishers, accessdates, some with unnecessary "format=HTML" fields.
• All the images need more specific descriptions, and some need better layout: e.g. File:Political Evolution of Central America and the Caribbean 1860 na.png looks very cluttered. Legend is not consistently aligned. It is not stated what two colours together mean, I could guess but I shouldn't have to.
• Prose needs thorough copyediting
  • "since the Christopher Columbus" the?
  • "wiped out many of the Carib amerindians" capital A
  • "pre-war coniditons on the island" typo

I think this nomination was a bit premature, and I would advise withdrawing, making the suggested changes, and getting this list looked at in a peer review before returning. Good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:14, 6 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [20].

---

Rain or Shine Elasto Painters draft history

Nominator(s): –Howard the Duck

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets the FL criteria (heh). One bad thing may ne that it has too few entries I dunno if that'll affect this nomination. –Howard the Duck 12:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose / Quick-fail

• I'm afraid being to short does affect the nomination. We usually require a minimum of 10 items in a list, apart from in exceptional circumstances. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean I'd have to wait for at most 2 more years to re-nom? If shortness was disregarded, would this pass? –Howard the Duck 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry you will have to wait. We had to come up with a limit to prevent lists like this from becoming featured. As for whether it would pass if length was not a consideration, I'm not a director so could say for definite, but after a couple of prose sweeps I think it would do fairly well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently, the FL criteria was revised. One of the changes was the explicit provision against content forks. This fails that criterion (3b). One could easily merge the table into the main article without introducing unnecessary detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think pages such as draft history can stand in their own in articles such as this. We do this for the NBA and NFL, no reason to exclude this one. –Howard the Duck 10:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that regardless of 3b, this would have failed even before the criteria was revised. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How so? –Howard the Duck 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for being to short. The opening sentence of WP:FL? has said a variation of "A featured list exemplifies our very best work" since the beginning. It is considered that very short lists don't do this. I'm not just picking on this list, others have failed for being to short (e.g. This "list" was not promoted for being too short back in August 2008). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I remember one FLC of some African country where there were like only 4 presidents and it failed. Any more objections besides the length? What else has to be worked upon? I know length seems to be important here but I want to know if this can still be an FL if it is disregarded. –Howard the Duck 11:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have to make a convincing argument as to why a 6-item list does exemplify Wikipedia's very best work for that to be disregarded. If you can't, instead of using the FLC process to receive input on how to improve it, I suggest withdrawing this nomination and taking it to WP:Peer review instead. Personally, I think it should be merged into Rain or Shine Elasto Painters. It can always be pulled out into it's own article in a few years' time. There is no deadline. See also WP:CFORK, WP:SAL, and WP:EMBED. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought of merging that a long time ago, but if we'd do that for every Philippine Basketball Association team article, the team article would've been really long already, only this franchise has a relatively short article since they're the youngest of the bunch. If follow the philosophy if it applies to one, it applies to all. Nevertheless at most in 2 years' time this can be FLCed again. –Howard the Duck 10:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nevertheless at most in 2 years' time this can be FLCed again." -- Are you asking to withdraw the nomination? I don't want to have misinterpreted you, and just want to make sure that's what you mean before I close it by accident and have to reopen it. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for an oppose for a reason other than "not enough content" if that's possible. –Howard the Duck 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't mean for this to look like a plie-on oppose, but with no activity the last few days, I feel it's safe to make my position clear. There is simply not enough content to justify calling this list our best work, as Rambo said above. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 3 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [21].

---

List of Case Closed episodes (season 1)

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list, again, to see if it is the best it can be as I will be using it as a base to split the other animated seasons of the series as well. I'll be able to fix problems addressed to try and promote the article. The summary length have been expanded to try and keep the size constant. DragonZero (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from User:NocturneNoir

Resolved comments from NocturneNoir

The first season of the Case Closed, originally titled Meitantei Conan (名探偵 コナン?, Detective Conan), anime was directed by Kenji Kodama and Yasuichiro Yamamoto and produced by TMS Entertainment and Yomiuri Telecasting Corporation. While this is grammatically correct (or so I'm lead to believe), originally titled Meitantei Conan (名探偵 コナン?, Detective Conan) causes the phrase to sound extremely awkward. Split and put Detective Conan in own sentence. I think its fixed now. The episodes' plot covers the incident causing Jimmy Kudo to become a child again and his life under the alias Conan Edogawa. Replace "causing" with "that caused". "again"? The list doesn't mention when he was child before, so he cannot become one "again" unless this is clarified. Finally, I initially read "and" as part of "the incident", which made the entire phrase confusing. I can see now that it is part of the "plot", but "the incident... and his life" should be brought closer so this is clear. Fixed? The episodes use five pieces of theme music: a single opening theme and two closing themes in the Japanese episodes and a single opening theme and a single ending theme in the English ones. Instead of saying "a single", just say "one". Changed singles to one, hopefully I didn't miss anything. The Japanese opening theme is "Mune ga Dokidoki" (胸がドキドキ?, lit. "My Heart Pounds") by The High-Lows, and the first ending theme being "Step by Step" by Ziggy followed by "Meikyuu no Lovers" (迷宮のラヴァーズ?, lit. "Lovers of the Labyrinth") by Heath. Replace "being" with "is". Might want to split the sentence several times, making it "...by The High-Lows. The first ending..." and "...by Ziggy. The second ending...". Further, can add the episode numbers of the openings and closings? Split but left out on episodes for some as they are used throughout the series. Based on article List of One Piece episodes (season 5) The English opening theme is a remixed version of the "Mune ga Dokidoki" named "First New Century" and the ending theme being the remixed version of "Step by Step", both of which are arranged and sung by Carl Finch. Comma after "Dokidoki" (are you sure it's not doki doki, Japanese for the sound of heartbeats?) Break this sentence at "..."Step by Step". Both are arranged...". Split. When episode one and two were rebroadcasted in Japan on April 2009, its opening was "Everlasting Luv" by Breakerz and its ending was "Doing it Right" by Garnet Crow. "Episode one and two" should read "Episodes one and two". Additionally, that phrase indicates a plural, which means "its opening" should be "their opening". Same issue with "its ending". "Rebroadcasted" is not a word; pleas replace this with "rebroadcast". Replaced words. The first season premiered in Japan on Yomiuri TV in 1996 and was released in Japan in seven DVD compilations by Shogakukan between February 22, 2006 and February 24, 2006 containing twenty eight episodes of the series. That is a really long sentence... Can you break that up? What probably would be best would be to state each fact in a separate sentence, i.e. a sentence for the premiere, a sentence for the release, and a sentence about the details of the release (twenty eight episodes, etc.) Further, it should be "twenty-eight". Finally, can you give the exact date of the premiere? It's January 8, 1996, I believe. Fixed? Case closed was broadcasted on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block and on Canada's YTV station. Capitalize the second C in "Case Closed". "Broadcasted" is not a word; replace this with "broadcast". Fixed? The English adaption was released on four DVD compilation between February 21, 2006 and September 19, 2006 with the first compilation containing nine episodes of the series with the rest containing five episodes each. Since there are four, you need an "s" at then end of the first "compilation". You might also want to split this sentence. Fixed? The first season DVD boxset was released by Funimation on July 22, 2008 containing the first twenty five episodes of the series, three episodes short of the Japanese season. Replace "containing" with "and contained". "twenty five" should be "twenty-five". Add "making it" in front of "three episodes". Conan is certain that the company's owner, Ms Howler is the one who killed her but can prove how as Megan went directly to the 8th floor in the elevator while Ms Howler went to the 15th . You've got an extra space. Further, but can prove how as Megan went directly to the 8th floor in the elevator while Ms Howler went to the 15th is confusing because it is grammatically incorrect. Many of your notes are quite obvious (such as "Episode's numbering as followed in Japan"). Are you sure these are necessary and not extraneous? I based them on the One Piece season 5 article. What makes aga-search.com a reliable source? The site has been reviewed and compared to other reliable sources (such as Animage, various books published on the topic, and so on) and has been found to be accurate in all cases. The site is not visitor-editable. The site is being used to verify the titles of episodes, and as the site has all of this information which has been verified to be correct, it seems better than citing the at least nine (possibly 10) separate issues of Animage (or other magazines) which would contain this same information. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC) On an interesting note, it would require citing almost 160 issues of Animage to properly cite all the seasons so far due to the series covering over 13 years of episodes now. It's nice to have all this information all in one place. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC) The large amount of errors I found in the lead alone make me worried. You may want to find a good copyeditor to clean through this list because I don't believe this can pass in its current state. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 22:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, probably, but pointing out problems well help the article improve, even if it doesn't pass. In Japan the series were both titled Meitantei Conan (名探偵 コナン?, Detective Conan) but was changed due to legal issues with the title Detective Conan. Series is singular, so use "was". What "both"? And there needs to be a comma after Japan. Fixed? When episodes one and two were re-aired in Japan on April 2009, thir opening theme was "Everlasting Luv" by Breakerz and their ending ending was "Doing it Right" by Garnet Crow. Thir should be "their". Typo fixed The episodes were later collected into seven DVD compilations by Shogakukan containing twenty eight episodes of the series. Replace "containing" with "and each contained". The "twenty eight" issue has not been fixed. Each contained makes it sound as if the DVD's each contained twenty-eight episodes, unless my grammar is terribly off. Right, stupid of me. Ehrm... how about Twenty-eight of the episodes were later collected into seven DVD compilations by Shogakuka.? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed with the first compilation containing nine episodes of the series with the rest containing five episodes each. Try "with the first compilation containing the first nine episodes of the series and the rest containing five episodes each." Thanks, copy pasted. The first season DVD boxset was released by Funimation on July 22, 2008 and contained the first twenty-five episodes of the series, making it three episodes short of the Japanese season. Clarify that this is the North American release and not the Japanese one. Fixed? Thanks. Well, I asked a person if it seemed reliable but otherwise then that, I can't really prove it. DragonZero (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, I fixed everything you suggested. For the notes, I was following the recently promoted One Piece episode list. DragonZero (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) There are several points to which you have failed to respond. Can you mark exactly what you've fixed? I've also added several more comments. On the issue of reliability, you need to prove the source's reliablilty or else you cannot use it. Could you link to your previous discussion over this source? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 12:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Well, the user I asked said it's accurate, and when I posted asking whether the site is reliable or not,the discussion receives no reply. Other places I posted about this.1 2 DragonZero (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add more comments later. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 12:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• The Japanese general reference covers the Japanese airdates, but the English airdates are completely unreferenced.
  • Done.
• "They English adaption of season one was released in a" - The?
  • Fixed, typo.
• "an English remixed of "Step by Step"" huh?
  • Fixed
• You say all the other DVD's have five episodes. This one has six.
  • Fixed
• Taking the above error into account and assuming (needs a ref so people can check) the other two DVDs have 5 each. 9+6+5+5=25. At the moment the last few sentences make it sound like it was only the box set that had the shorter 25 episodes. Did the individual release also not include certain episodes?
  • Removed information.
• The box set is released by Funimation, and going by there numbering is the first 26 episodes. Try and make the sentence less ambiguous.
  • Fixed
• I had a look on Amazon and the last 3 episodes are on the S2 DVD. This should be noted.
• Summaries need a copyeditor. I only looked at the first one and found:
  • • • How can I find one?
        • You might want to try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or at WP:ANIME. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "uncovers a murderer" doesn't make sense
    • Fixed
  • "Shortly investigating the scene" after?
    • Fixed
  • "victim dumped her" - dumped is too colloquial
    • Fixed
• "Episodes 11 and 12 were originally a single hour long episode but split into two parts in the English release." better wording required
  • Fixed
• English general references should have number ranges seperated by an ndash.
  • Fixed
• YTV (TV channel) in the references should be piped as [[YTV (TV channel)|YTV]]
  • Fixed
• I don't think http://conan.aga-search.com/501-2-2-1996conantv.html is a reliable source. This page (at the bottom) says that "website is an unofficial fan site". This affects (a lot) the Japanese airdates and ref 3.
  • Is there a way to prove it's reliability? I thought NihonJoe put up a good reason for it's reliability. It's not an official Conan fansite because the website is actually a fansite for detective themed media. DragonZero (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This Signpost should tell you how to establish reliability. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Reliability proven. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Detective Conan reliable source, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources.DragonZero (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry that thread does not "prove reliability". Reliabilty is established by third-party publications, or proof of rigorous fact checking by the site. That Signpost piece will tell you everything you need to know about showing reliability. However, currently I have seen none of these valid arguments, and only someone saying they checked out some of the content and it was correct. Whilst we're one reliabilty ToonZone.net also needs to have it's reliabilty established. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Hmm, so to support the reliability of Aga-search, I would have to show a reliable source that prove that the information is correct?DragonZero (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
            • You can do one of the four things listed here.
              1. Show a page on the website about how they gather/check information
              2. Show that they are part of a bigger reputable media company – I'm pretty sure this isn't the case
              3. Show the author is a reputable member of the press – again I don't think this is likely
              4. Or, most likely, show a third party source (for example, a newspaper reviewing the site).

            Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the summaries are decent, but not particularily well-written. It would be a huge help if you could get a copyeditor to look over them. There are a lot of short (which I suppose is forgiveable since there you do need to try to keep the summaries short) and some awkwardly phrased sentences. For example, "Conan at school meets up with Amy Yeager, Mitch Tennison, and George Kaminski" doesn't read very well. "At school, Conan meets up with [...]" would be better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah I've been posting around to try and find a copyeditor. I'll go fix that sentence right now.DragonZero (talk) 22:29, 8 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [22].

---

List of songs in the Guitar Hero On Tour series

Nominator(s): MASEM (t)

This is a slightly different approach from the other GH lists. First a bit of article history: originally each of the Guitar Hero On Tour games had their own article with each article having its own embedded track list, but given how similar the games were to each other, it was determined that the best course of future action was to merge the games into one list, and the track lists into another. This is further a benefit since these games allow "sharing" of songs between them in competitive play so effectively this is a list of songs that any of these games can play to a degree. To note, both of the original game articles were WP:GA but I'm restarting the quality process for this.

I will note that the Modern Hits list is not yet complete and when that list will be complete or if it will have the same issue with regional setlists, however, I can promise that whatever it ends up being, it will follow the same general format (years and tiering lists), so I hope that is not an issue in terms of "stability". MASEM (t) 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "this unit is incompatible with the Nintendo DSi at the present time." "at the present time" is a DATED statement and is redundant anyway through the use of the present tense. "with a third title, Guitar Hero On Tour: Modern Hits to be published in mid-2009."-->and a third title, Guitar Hero On Tour: Modern Hits will be published in mid-2009. "The games utilize the DS's local wireless features to allow two players to compete against each other, including through different versions of the game, allowing the songs to be shared between games during play." Eliminate the "allowing" repetition; sharing games and versus mode are a bit too different ideas to be separated in a sentence with a comma. "Twenty are exclusive to this version of Guitar Hero while the remaining six songs have previously been used within the series. " "previously" is redundant, and "within" can be simplified to "in". This sentence doesn't make sense: "Game Informer stated that the songs ... and makes some of the songs not "exciting to play"." I also think it would make the quote stronger if you could include "not" inside the quoted material, if possible. "IGN commended that the track list was" Surely you mean "commented"? I don't really like the 90% font size. It makes the tables unnecessarily smaller and creates potential accessibility problems for our readers with sight problems. Only the first word of the header titles should be capitalized, e.g., "North American Version"-->North American version Why are some dates in the references linked while others aren't (otherwise, sources look good)? Check the toolbox, there are a couple dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) All issues should be fixed. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think this page really needs an image. Could you add an image of the guitar controllers, or at the least a band with multiple songs in the game? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a free image of the Guitar Grip for the game series. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Would it be possible to standardize the look a bit? I mean, the first list has those huge green/yes and red/no tabs, but they aren't on the second one. I get that the songs on the second one are all masters, so the tabs don't apply, but maybe you could remove the colors from the first one? It would make scrolling down the article a lot less jarring. If it isn't possible (as in, embedded into the template), I understand. I'm not going to support or oppose either way, since my knowledge of FLCs is zilch; I just saw your comment on the Wikiproject:Video games talk page and decided to drop by. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The colors are there to keep consistent with the other Guitar Hero lists, which were suggested during their own review back when (see List of songs in Guitar Hero II). They could be removed, but again, I'm trying to keep consistent across lists. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 9 May 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [23].

---

List of chemical arms control agreements

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)

I believe this meets all the standards and requirements of an FL. It's been reviewed by another editor over at WP:MIL and assigned a B-class rating, and it is comprehensive, accurate and referenced. Cool3 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I believe that the list as a whole would be more effective as a sortable and complete list, rather than mini-lists. Therefore, I suggest: Combining the internal paragraphs into the lead Combining the mini-lists into a complete and sortable single unit Well, let's see what others think. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's better to split up the tables. The three groupings really represent analytically distinct categories, and most of the literature in the field draws clear distinctions for three phases of chemical arms-control as is done here. The first phase is pre-WWI, the second interwar, and the third is sometimes referred to as Post WWII as I've done here, but other authors will draw the distinction more as the result of Yemen and Vietnam, as they really provided the impetus for a new round of arms control. In any case, these are different phases. It's also of great analytical significance, that essentially all of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 chemical arms control efforts failed (more or less), while all of the Phase 3 agreements are still operating. In other words, there are enough differences in the generations of chemical arms control to justify separate groupings. All of these things can be explicated in the lead, especially since FLs are becoming increasingly prose-conscious. I think that if we are presenting this as a "list of" rather than "lists of" (which wouldn't make sense anyway), it should be one list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I respectfully beg to differ. Many historical lists are sectioned off by period. For example, Timeline of prehistoric Scotland (not the best example, I just happened to be looking at it earlier). I really don't see what's gained by creating a mega-table. Personally, I think the present formulation with an introduction to each section is much clearer. Cool3 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC) What is gained is sortability, which is recommended if at all possible by the FL criteria. What is lost is nothing, because everything that's currently in the text gets incorporated into the lead. This would not be a "mega-table", as you put it, by any means; 12 entries is not a long list at all. I offer FLs that I have worked on as examples: Silver Slugger Award, List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers, and List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) The use of World War I and World War II would be preferred since these are the names of the articles, rather than World War One and Two, respectively. Changed I would like to see these changes made and then return to review the article in that format. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Additional comment (KV5) "In one survey of Americans, 367,000 favored banning chemical warfare while only 17 supported its continuation in the future." - checked this statistic against the reference, should be 19, not 17 Thanks for catching that. Must have hit the wrong key when I was typing it in. Future comments will be made under this header once the above issues are handled. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• The "References" subheaders shouldn't be level-3 headers; rather, they should be section headers, created with semicolons (as shown above "Additional comment (KV5)"). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Changed.

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Shouldn't World War One be written as World War I? (same for World War Two) Changed What about those in the paragraphs?—Chris! ct 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Totally missed those, changed now. Thanks. While this is not required, I think items in Nature of prohibition column shouldn't be center aligned. Any particular reason why? It just my preference. You don't have to do that, I guess.—Chris! ct 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Anyone else have an opinion on this? I have no problem with the whole thing being centered, but I don't see the need for the number column; they are in chronological order so I think that's sufficient. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC) You should set the width for each column, so that the Parties or the Agreement columns can have more room. I wasn't aware you could set a column width. Would someone be so kind as to tell me how? Thanks. I set the width for you.—Chris! ct 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Is there a reason why the table is not sortable? Well, as the tables exist now, they each have only 4 entries. I saw no reason for sorting four entries. If the tables are combined into one big one, I would make it sortable. Ref 10 and 25 need publisher info and access date Done. Just notice this, please change the name of the link to small case in note 4 even if the source capitaizes its title Done. —Chris! ct 21:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - looks pretty good to me—Chris! _ct 02:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Terms should only be linked the first time they are mentioned, not multiple times.

  Overlinking removed, although I've left the names of the agreements linked in the tables even if they were mentioned in the lead as it seems more helpful. They can be delinked if needed.

• Cites should go after puncuation, not before.

  Found and corrected one instance of this, did you see any more?

• "that these weapons....are abominable" - the ellipse should consist of three dots not four, and a non-breaking space (&nbsp) is required between "weapons" and the ellipse.

  Done.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Brief comments from Hassocks (Two more added: Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
I spotted one typo: "Strasbourg Agreeements" Fixed Also some instances of "p." instead of "pp." in the references. Fixed Ref [22] (Coleman 152–153) needs a dash instead of a hyphen. Fixed "and chemical arms control agreements in particular gained renewed support": I think this should have a comma after "particular". Good catch, fixed.

• Ref [27] (Croddy 176-177) needs a dash instead of a hyphen.
• Per The Rambling Man, "Forbid" → "Forbade" to keep tenses consistent.
• As to whether the table should be split or single, both approaches have advantages, but I would tend towards having a single table, with the three sections of prose (currently under the headers) being combined into either an extended lead or a new paragraph under a separate header below the lead. I don't have a strong preference for this, though.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well-presented, well-sourced and easy to read. I think that it's featured as it is now.--Gökhan 11:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "that these weapons ...are abominable,"-->"that these weapons ...are abominable", (see WP:PUNC) Changed. Do we really need to link France in the lead? Same with chemistry, which I would pipe link to History of chemistry. Piped to History of Chemistry. We don't have to link France, and if someone else delinks, I won't relink, but I wouldn't consider the lead overlinked, and it's something that a reader might plausibly click on. More WP:PUNC: "to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole objective of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."-->"to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole objective of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases". Changed. "Iran-Iraq War" En dash (multiple occurences). Changed. "while only 19 supported" Let the stats speak for themselves. Alright, I suppose that this is technically what WP:WTA demands. Watch your logical punctuation in the notes also. "due to the fact that"-->because Wording changed to "as" Any reason why the tables can't be made sortable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Tables are now sortable. Cool3 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • I too would prefer a single table.

    I'm not quite sure if there's a consensus for this here, but things seem to be moving in that direction, so I'll say something about it. Personally, I think a single table is a horrible idea and I'm not going to change the article myself. Of course no one owns the article, so if someone else makes the change, so be it, I'm not going to revert or start an edit war. That said, if someone feels strongly enough about this, I invite them to change it. If no one has a strong opinion, then I'd be very happy for it to stay as separate tables. I'd also be quite happy to carry on further discussion about this on the article's talk page, which to me seems a more appropriate venue for this particular debate. Cool3 (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Unfortunately, the onus of fixing issues raised at a review falls to the nominator, not the reviewers. If the reviewers that have commented so far have all made mention of changing to a single table, then it should be done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a sandbox version could be knocked reasonably quickly so we can all see what it might look like? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I've done it here. Note that I made no changes to the text as it stood in the article; it's simply been mushed into one paragraph. It would probably have to be trimmed for redundant information and revamped a bit. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Now then. Besides the central justification, I like that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Have done, left the years centered. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I see no need for the # column, nor for the "Nature.." and "Ref" and "Parties" cols to be sortable as they're free text.

    Changed no longer sortable. I see some value to sorting the "Parties" column, but I've leave that up to others.

    Parties didn't sort correctly anyway... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • "For several centuries..." is a little too vague for my liking, particularly as an introductory sentence to the whole list.

    It carries the right message. Sure you could say since 1675, but it lacks the message conveyed by "for several centuries". It's really a style thing.

    Agreed it's a style issue, but it the lead does have a whole vagueness about it, and this is just one example, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Image could be made larger, I believe up to 300px is still acceptable per MOS for a lead image.

    Size increased

  • "In the several centuries..." still not blown away by "several" here.

    Deliberately vague timeframe. Chemistry advanced over time. There's not some specific point when chemistry went from being primitive to advanced. It was a gradually process. I'd be open to "Over the next two hundred years", but really I think that implies an unjustified specificity.

  • "still remains the largest case of chemical warfare" is this cited anywhere?

    That's covered by the cite at the end of the next sentence.

  • "no significant instances of their use" what criteria is used to judge "significant" in this context?

    Those of essentially every scholar every to write about the issue. It's inaccurate to say there were zero instances. In fact there were several small-scale episodes and accidental dispersals of chemical agents. There was, however, no deliberate large-scale or systematic use and no significant use. If you'd like, I can replace that with a quote to that effect, but this is a point in which 100% of scholars are in agreement, and most use similar wording to "no significant use"

  • Do we know who was intended to be parties to the Brussels convention? And the other agreements which weren't ratified?

    The whole world. Seriously. If they had entered into force, they would have been open for signature to any country. In practice, success probably would have come in the form of 30-40 states parties (like the Hague Convention) but that's highly speculative.

    I think a note to that effect would be instructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe the past tense of forbid is forbade.

    You're quite right. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • "A proposed expansion of the Geneva Protocol to provide a precise definition of chemical warfare and prohibit chemical warfare against states who had not signed the Protocol." does not read grammatically correctly to me.

    I've changed the wording. I don't think there was anything wrong with it per se, but all of the other entries begin with a verb and that one started with a noun. Now it starts with a verb.

  • I would move the "books cited" up as a subsection called "General references" and then the specific pages you reference into a subsection called "Specific references".

    Done

• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update. I have now, by popular demand, created a unified table and merged the remaining text into the lead section of the article. The lead is a bit long now, but I think it's acceptable and we didn't really lose any information in the transition. Cool3 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, that image is depressing. It's not a big deal, but isn't the image a little out of place though? After all, it's a list of chemical arms control agreements, not chemical arms attacks. Also, would it be possible to create a stub on the Brussels Declaration? It's not a requirement, but it would make the list more complete. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'll agree the image is depressing. I looked long and hard for an image that would be more agreementish, such as a signing ceremony for one of the agreements or something, but I couldn't find any, so I went with one an already uploaded image pertaining to chemical warfare. If anyone has better ideas for an image, please be bold. Cool3 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:50, 5 May 2009 [24].

---

List of 81st Academy Awards In Memoriam tribute honorees

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured list because I find it to be an intriguing list and think it is complete, thorough and high quality. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Leaning towards a 3b oppose. Is a list of people shown during a tribute really all that notable? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the number of secondary sources that have commented on the various events related to the segment. It is an annual tradition and has sufficient encyclopedic content to merit a separate article. This is in far more depth than 81st_Academy_Awards#In_Memoriam has or warrants. Note that I have winnowed the sources down to mostly leading newspapers and magazines, but several additional mentions of the segment exist. Note that the footnotes include the The Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The New York Times (again), New York Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, San Francisco Chronicle, and Chicago Tribune. Even without the table the list would probably merit a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Oscars are notable and they do it every year but it's a list of people that were in a video package... The kind of trivia that should be in the Oscar website. Such a detailed list is not needed anyway. If a list really is needed, it could be compressed into a small bulletted list. This is an embodiment of why 3b was added, it's a fork of limited notability that really doesn't need an individual page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Scorp, take a close look at the value added of this list. Look at the detail about the accomplishments of those included and the lengthy enumeration of those who were excluded. Then look at the explanations of the various controversies. This is a solid encyclopedic contribution. It is probably at too high a level of detail to be rolled back into the article for several reasons.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As a fork, it is not likely to be remerged back into the main article. There is a lot of detail that distinguishes it from the section in the main article. It is more than a common video package. The added detail is beneficial encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the entire (and mostly unsourced) "Explanations" section could go, and the list could be limited to name, profession and possibly date of death (and/or age) and switched to a multi-column bulleted list (in fact, 81st Academy Awards already includes a list, although it is less-detailed, but it makes it fail 3b). I don't see how this possibly gets through 3b. It's not an accomplishment or achievement or really anything of note (I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the pages of the people listed do not say "and was included in the In Memorian tribute at the 81st Academy Awards". It's just a list of people who died in the past year, most awards shows do them and while there are reliable sources, it really doesn't need an individual page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what makes the list interesting is the explanations section. Many names come from blogs and such so I can not cite them, but I could look up individual obits. However, in terms of whether other awards shows have such a section, I watch the Grammy Awards and the ESPY Awards and have never seen such a list on their shows. What shows are you talking about with in memoriam lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't watch a lot of awards shows, but the Emmys definitely do have such a list, and possibly Golden Globes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This should be a featured list. It is informative, accurate and very detailed.--Snowman Guy (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I realise that you were invited to comment, but it should be noted that constructive criticism carries a lot more weight here than !voting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Why are we using multiple IMDb sources when a reliable source like this Los Angeles Times entry gives exactly the same information in a more relevant way.
  • I have swapped out all the IMDb refs for yours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• I believe all the years are one to high (see source mentioned above). Whilst that is the year the award was (probably) given, the awards refer to the previous year in film. (this is ambigous).
  • This edit hopefully fixed all years.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• What is the relevence of the order in which they were honoured?
  • I mention it to clarify the table. The table seems to be in no otherwise logical order.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • What I meant is that if it the order they were mentioned doesn't have any real significance, then the table shouldn't be in that order. It should be in alphabetical order by default. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I have alphabetized.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Random second column header
  • I have retitled.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Column header "Oscar recognition", you haven't mentioned that Oscar and Academy Awards are synonymous.
  • retitled.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• You cannot use Ref 2 or the EL – just because the Youtube user is called "oscarsinmemoriam" doesn't make it official.
  • What is the EL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It would seem that YouTube would be the most reliable source to document that the tribute occurred as described.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes but as a non-official submission there are copyright concerns and it shouldn't be used - see WP:YOUTUBE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • O.K. I have removed the YouTube content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Because of the above "Listed below, in order of appearance, are those who were honored on February 22, 2009 at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles, California during the 81st Academy Awards tribute" will need a citation.
  • Do you accept any of the following as a WP:RS?
    • http://groups.google.com/group/alt.obituaries/browse_thread/thread/b1a99ccff49ae57b?pli=1
    • http://finaltaxi.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/the-81st-annual-academy-award-obit-list/
    • http://groups.google.com/group/alt.obituaries/msg/c500a288b753fd9e
      • No, they are forum groups and blogs. The fact you asked makes me think you knew the answer already. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Is this a viable EL link?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Not really. It is a blog, that borders on a reasonable WP:SPS. Like the policy says "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Missing dates for Joseph M. Caracciolo
• Random linking consistency. Isaac Hayes has Shaft linked in both his recognitions, and why are some years linked but others not. Be consistent.
  • I intended to link first occurrence only for movies and years. I hope I have fixed this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not really fussed, but sortable tables are an exception to WP:OVERLINK because entries soon get out of order. Because of that you may link on each occurance if you wish. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• You've italicised In Memorium in the opening sentence, but not elsewhere.
  • Deitalicised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• "81st Academy Awards' tribute included film critic Manny Farber", sentences shouldn't start with a number.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• "and cellist Yo-Yo Ma did so during the 76th Academy Awards" why is this relevent out of the live performers
  • It is the only sourced example of a prior live performer I could find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have tweaked the text to increase the relevance of this fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Out of "Live music has previously accompanied the tribute however and cellist Yo-Yo Ma did so during the 76th Academy Awards although his performance was solely instrumental." I don't see the point in the later bit. There is no added value in listing live performers, and simply because you have a ref for it doesn't merit inclusion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• "were plans to attempt to dampen" - this is a past event so did the plan happen?
  • I have no source for which audio feeds were open during the telecast. However, the attempt to dampen applause was successful according to sources noted in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Prose seems to be missing a few commas e.g. "Each year, an In Memoriam tribute for distinguished members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who died during the previous year is included during the televised presentation of the Academy Awards." and "During the 81st Academy Awards hosted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,"
  • I added about a half dozen commas.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the 3b concerns Scorpion brought up. This could be compressed into a paragraph plus a bulletted list in the main article. The "Explanations" section is pushing into WP:UNDUE territory; noting everyone who the Academy didn't include when no secondary or tertiary source bothered to note their exclusion from this list is unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I am unable to source a couple of important things so I can't really fight for this as much as I awould like, but this would be listing everyone the Academy excluded. This list is a selective list of notable selections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that the section is UNDUE. You're just listing film related people that died that year. A source that says "shock horror deceased actor Joe Bloggs wasn't paid tribute to" would merit inclusion. Someone simply dying in the allocated time frame doesn't IMO. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • On the top of that, that source is a blog and inappropriate per WP:RS. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, 3b. Yes, the honorees are notable but do not warrant a separate list. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is Sydney Pollack listed solely as an actor? His Oscar wins were for directing and producing. Gran² 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the attention to detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 1 May 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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:50, 5 May 2009 [25].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger

Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded the list and have brought it to one peer review process. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this follow the format of other similar lists, such as List of awards received by Michael Jackson? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's music awards, as oppose to the film awards. If that's the new format, I'll set it up like that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not really the new format, it's the format that's always been used. I prefer that format because the description of the awards are provided on the page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was in the midst of doing that, cause I had seen the Sheryl Crow list, but I turned to another format. But, if I do that format, the Table of Contents is going to be big. Wouldn't that be a problem? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will be overwhelming. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To prove that I am not lying, this is how I had the list formatted. When I opened the peer review, the script noted that the ToC might have been a problem, according to the criteria. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is overwhelming. The script is just triggered by certain conditions, it is not always the firm limit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. If there's anything else, please let me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I'll be back with a full review sometime this weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm here to serve you, so whatever you throw at me, I'll get to it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment -- Now with this new format, you have to be consistent with the wording in each section about the purpose of the awards and the sourcing. For example, each section needs to state the purpose for why they are given such as The (XYZ) awards are presented for (reason).[ref] So each need a purpose and a ref to verify it (for consistency), if not remove the reference since the awards themselves verify themselves.--Truco 02:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The Iowa Film Critics Awards, Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards, London Film Critics' Circle Awards, Online Film Critics Society Awards, Phoenix Film Critics Society Award, Satellite Awards, Toronto Film Critics Association Awards -- These need to be more specific as to why they are given. In addition, either source all these statements or remove some of the references verifying them because their existence verifies themselves.--Truco 21:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I removed Iowa, cause there wasn't an official website, so. Also, I got the ones that you mentioned. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know if that is a good idea, if he won that award then it should belong here. So you can't find a source as to why or how they come up with the winners, right? --Truco 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Well, Iowa doesn't have an official website, but is recognized elsewhere, I guess. I've re-added the award back. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC) It looks fine now, maybe I misread it or you added something.Truco 15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. Its come a long way ;)15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Truco
  • It sure has. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - please link ensemble cast in the lead—Chris! _ct 21:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I can now support—Chris! _ct 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh joy, awards lists have spread to actors now. One might be able to argue that this list recreates existing content, since Heath Ledger#filmography does have [an extremely ugly] list of awards. However, this one is much nicer. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The lead (especially the first paragraph) does not flow well at all.

• "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor, who received numerous awards and honours in the course of a career that spanned over 16 years. " Mentioning his propensity to winning awards and honors is POV; this is a lead sentence, start out simply. Then, we have redundancy and repetition of ideas: "who received numerous awards and honours in the course of a career that spanned over 16 years. He won or was nominated for awards for his work in several films."
  • How is this ---> "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor, who received numerous awards and honours in the course of a career that spanned over 16 years", POV? His career lasted 16 years. This opener is similar to Judy Garland's list.
  • Saying that he has received numerous awards in the first sentence is unnecessarily putting him in a good light; the first sentence should establish notability and establish context, no more. Also, the comma needs to be removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Fine, I've removed "who received numerous awards and honours". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Ledger received acclaim in the Australian crime film Two Hands (1999), for which he received nominations at the Australian Film Institute (AFI) and Film Critics Circle of Australia in the categories for Best Actor." The ideas are poorly presented, try "Ledger received acclaim for his acting in the Australian crime film Two Hands (1999), receiving nominations at the Australian Film Institute (AFI) and Film Critics Circle of Australia in the categories for Best Actor."
  • Done.
• "His next film role was the title character in the 2003 biographical film Ned Kelly. His performance was acknowledged in his native Australia, from which he received his second AFI and Film Critics Circle award nominations." Repetition again: "native Australia"—we already know he was from there.
  • Removed.
• "Ledger's next feature garnered him an Academy Award, British Academy Film Award (BAFTA), Golden Globe Award, and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, for his performance as Ennis Del Mar in the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain." Why keep readers guessing? Try this: "Ledger's performance as Ennis Del Mar in the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain garnered him Academy Award, British Academy Film Award (BAFTA), Golden Globe Award, and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations.
  • Done.
• "In 2006, he starred in the Australian romantic drama Candy, in which Ledger was nominated in the category for Best Actor at the AFI, Film Critics Circle, and Inside Film awards ceremony." Wordy and confusing. Suggestion: "In 2006, he starred in the Australian romantic drama Candy, and was nominated in the category for Best Actor at the AFI, Film Critics Circle, and Inside Film awards ceremony for his role in the movie."
  • Done.

The density of issues is troubling; parts of the lead need to be rewritten. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Itzjustdrama

Under the People's Choice Awards, shouldn't those two award be posthumous? Done. "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor whose course of a career spanned over 16 years." I don't like the way it sounds. get rid of "course of a". Done. "The Boston Society of Film Critics (BSFC) is an organisation of film reviewers from Boston-based publications." Consistentcy with San Franciso and Pheonix. I'm not sure what you mean. It currently says "The Boston Society of Film Critics (BSFC) is an organisation of film reviewers from Boston, Massachusetts, United States, based publications." I suggest changing it to match similar sentences ("The Phoenix Film Critics Society (PFCS) is an organisation of film reviewers from Phoenix-based publications", "The San Francisco Film Critics Circle Awards, founded in 2002, are given annually to honour fine achievements in filmmaking by an organisation of film reviewers from San Francisco-based publications.") I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) "The Chicago Film Critics Association is an American film critic association and it is held annually." Is the Association held annually? According to here it is held annually. The source says the Chicago Film Critics Awards are held annually. The sentence says that the Association itself is held annually. Maybe reword to something like "The Chicago Film Critics Association is an American film critic association and holds the Chicago Film Critics Awards annually. To avoid confusion. Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) "In December of each year, the DFWFCA meets to vote on their Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards for films released in the same calendar year." I think it sounds better as "In December of each year, the DFWFCA meets to award their Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards to films released in the same calendar year." Done. "The Film Critics Circle of Australia (FCCA) is a non-profit organisation, a group of cinema critics that judge Australian films." The Film Critics Circle of Australia (FCCA) is a non-profit organisation of cinema critics that judge Australian films. Done. "Each year, the IFC meets to vote on their Iowa Film Critics Awards for films released in the same or the previous calendar year." Each year, the IFC meets to award their Iowa Film Critics Awards to films released in the same or the previous calendar year. Done. "The Los Angeles Film Critics Association (LAFCA) was founded in 1975. Its main purpose is to present yearly awards to members of the film industry who have excelled in their fields. Each year, the association honours the best in film." The second sentence sounds redudant. Removed. "In December of each year, the SEFCA meets to vote on their Southeastern Film Critics Association Award for films released in the same calendar year." In December of each year, the SEFCA meets to award their Southeastern Film Critics Association Award to films released in the same calendar year. Done. "Each year, the TFCA meets to vote on their Toronto Film Critics Association Awards to honour films released in the same calendar year." Each year, the TFCA meets to honour films released in the same calendar year with their Toronto Film Critics Association Awards to honour films. I don't know if that sounds better. I just really don't like "to vote on" Done and I guess the wording is fine between the two. Whoops. I suggested you write to honour films twice in the the same sentence. Remove the "to honour films" at the end please. Oops, that's my bad, as well. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) "The Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association (WDAFCA) is a group of film critics based out of Washington, D.C. that was founded in 2002." Founded in 2002, the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association (WDAFCA) is a group of film critics based out of Washington, D.C.. Done. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to give some comments, hopefully I've gotten them all. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Three replies. I was a bit unclear on two of them. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 20:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I believe I've addressed them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support I think it looks good. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment What's the point of having a prose for every award? Couldn't readers just click on the award wikilink? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why make readers go away from the article to understand things that are essential to this list? Besides, this is the format followed by all most awards lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's more productive for the reader, but since most awards list has it, then ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 15:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to throw a spanner in the works, because from what I gather from the comments here the list has gone through a few style changes, from the way it is now, to something looking like List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men, and back to this layout. WP:FILMS and WP:ACTOR award lists don't follow the WP:MUSIC award list style though, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Discussion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Possible table format. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll fix the table format, again, to comply with the right style guideline. Though, I may get to it to tomorrow, I can't do it right now. I'm just hoping this doesn't interfere with the nomination process. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, now I have a question. How should the list look like? Should it look like Clint Eastwood's list? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think like at List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men. But you're better off asking at the two Wikiprojects I gave earlier. They'll know more. I'm not a member of either. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I left a message at WP:ACTOR, hopefully that clears it up. For now, I'll change the list style to No Country for Old Men. For now, though. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
          • It was decided that the list should not follow music list awards, meaning that it should not have the "lengthy descriptions" of the awards. So, I've gone with the format that No Country for Old Men uses. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until fixed up nice and proper.

• "more than 16 years", to avoid "spanned over".
  • Done.
• "receiving Best Actor nominations at ...", in which his performance was ack. in his second ..."
  • That doesn't make sense.
• "garnered" ... bit lah-de-dah. Plain English?
  • Is "earned" plain English?
• "category of"?
  • Why "of"? That doesn't make sense.
• "in the category for Best Actor"—is it really necessary to use all of those words? "as Best Actor"?
  • Done.
• "included"
  • Where?
• "also" unnecessary, and discounts the "also-ran" clause.
• This is a noun group (one big noun): "excellence of professionals in the film industry, including directors, actors, and writers." The "head" is "excellence". Put simply, when there's an "of", you need a "the".
• Is this written in AusEng? If not, why not? "theater"?
• St.George ... Do they really us a dot still? Space required.
• If he's dead, don't use the recent past tense: "Ledger has received one award." More than one case.
• Awkward hyphenation: "New York City-based publications". Better "publications based in New York City".
• Why is "Internet" linked?
• Sloppy again: "has decided the winners the past few years"

I haven't read through all of it. Please get someone else to sift for prose problems and glitches. Tony (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten your queries. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • I find the infobox confusing, the totals aren't reflected in the rows above. I understand you've only included the "major" awards to prevent the infobox from being enormous, perhaps you can include the others with a hide/show? Right now it's just a bit odd as the values just don't add up!
    • I fixed the infobox setting.
  • "His next film role was the title character in the 2003 biographical ..." not true. According to IMDB (not 100% reliable perhaps, but...) he was in other film roles before 2003, including A Knight's Tale and Monster's Ball.
    • Added films.
  • "His performance was acknowledged ..." reads a little understated. Anyone could "acknowledge" his performance, but the awards industry actually rewarded him (or similar).
    • Done.
  • " for his role in the movie" - you've already said "he starred in the Australian romantic drama" in the same sentence, so some of this is redundant.
    • Removed.
  • Remove spaces between text and notes.
    • I think I got it.
  • "List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees – Youngest Nominees for Best Actor " younges nominees (these are not proper nouns so don't need the capitalisation).
    • Done.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've gotten all your concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments continuing...
  • May just be me being tired but I get 38 nominations, not 36 per the infobox summary. And 56 wins instead of 57. But I do have The Sugarhill Gang playing too loud so perhaps it's putting me off from counting properly? Could you just check those numbers for me? Thanks.
  • It's not you. I get the same numbers. By the way, can you change the lead sentence to "whose career lasted more than 16 years"?
    • I fixed the numbers and can you give me a suggestion for the "16" sentence, since one does not come to mind. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, I was suggesting the sentence to read "Heath Ledger was an Australian film actor whose career lasted more than 16 years." ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you and I fixed the sentence opener. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "...biographical film Ned Kelly. He received his second ..." - "biographical film Ned Kelly for which he received his second ..." (just to be clear?)
    • Done.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed the continuation comments. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Closing note I am going to archive this page for now, simply because it does have three active opposing users. However, it does seem like most of their concerns have been addressed, so I encourage you to re-submit it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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