Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2008

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

The list was promoted 20:07, 29 February 2008.

---

List of North Carolina hurricanes (1950-1979)

Self-nom. I published this earlier today, based off of several other featured hurricane lists. Regarding the lack of a top-right aligned image, I requested a track map of hurricanes that affected the state, as used in some other lists. Hope you like it :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nothing wrong that I can tell. Juliancolton (Talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Never dared get involved with these incredibly detailed articles so forgive me if I cross over old ground. Good news is I might see things that other hurricane addicts may have missed! So...
  • "during the time period" wouldn't "during that time period" be better?
  • "(2008 USD)" in the lead - explain more fully what this means, or reword the damage estimate (maybe link to US $ page).
  • "Category 4 hurricane" is in the lead. Needs linking or explanation for non-experts.
  • Any reason why you don't use {{convert}} template which gives you free non-breaking spaces and perfect (!) conversion?
  • "damage is fairly minor" - tiny bit POV - minor or not minor (unless it's a quote).
  • Can the modern estimates of damage be cited (as they seem to be inflated versions of the reported damage at the time)? Or is that covered in each citation?
  • "extratropical remnants of" - not clear to non-experts. All subsequent uses seem to be linked.
  • "overall damage was limited" - limited to what? (I know, it sounds churlish, but surely all damage that has ever occurred had a limit?)
  • Stats section is aesthetically displeasing (to me, at least!). Table needs some work (perhaps just Storms as a heading, centrally aligned, and a footnote to explain what Storms means) and the graph could do with being "thumbed" and captioned accordingly.
  • Deadly storms isn't defined (although it's clear to me...) and none of the stats are referenced. Also, direct vs indirect isn't defined either.
• So oppose for now until these are dealt with. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I love a good review from a non-hurricane addict :)

• • "during the time period" wouldn't "during that time period" be better? - good idea. I changed "the" to "that", though once the context was established, I left the others as "the".
  • (2008 USD) in the lead I changed to in 2008 USD, with a link to USD. Is that good?
  • Category 4 hurricane I linked it to a relevant article
  • damage is fairly minor - removed fairly
  • Can the modern estimates of damage be cited (as they seem to be inflated versions of the reported damage at the time)? - there's never been a problem with the other lists. The tropical cyclone Wikiproject uses this site.
  • extratropical remnants of - got it.
  • The monthly stats are the tables that are used in every other hurricane list article. I tweaked it a bit, but I would rather the format be uniform among the articles. Also, I explained the difference between direct and indirect deaths. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hey, thanks for responding and reacting so quickly.
  • Still think you should use the {{convert}} template - it provides a wiki-wide consistent approach to units, non-breaking spaces and conversion.
  • Just noticed New Holland, North Carolina doesn't have an article - a good opportunity to expand the Wikipedia by creating a stub?!
  • Is it just me or is there a dot at the bottom left hand corner of the graph?
  • Sort on number of deaths doesn't work correctly. Suggest you have a glimpse at the {{sort}} template which can probably help here!
• That's about it for this round! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah yea, I forgot about the convert template. I got them. I was going to create an article on New Holland, but I added information and redirected it elsewhere (better to have a longer stub than to have two stubs). I found a way to fix the sorting. Yea, I think there's a dot on the bottom-left of the graph, though I have no idea why it's there, nor how to fix it (I admit, I'm not terribly computer savvy). That's it for this round :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - all of the dealbreaker comments have been admirably and quickly dealt with. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support — I had the chance to meet Mr. Hudgins while I was a student at Virginia Tech. Excellent choice on sources. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - good work! :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:07, 29 February 2008.

---

Slipknot discography

After recieving a lot of attention with the help of Slipknot Wikiproject I feel that this article is a competent, stable article that is of FL status. REZTER ^TALK ø 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments looks like a very good and thorough list. Some specifics...
  • "metal" or "nu metal" (which is what their main article says)?
  • "Des Moines, Iowa." linked twice in consecutive paragraphs - not necessary. And I would tend to link it Des Moines, Iowa myself.
  • "...live performances; each member wears individual masks and matching uniforms during all live performances..." - repeated "live performance", could do with a little bit of rewording.
  • Is it worth linking the individual wiki-linked years to "... in music" articles?
  • Not sure why August is linked on its own?
  • Isn't Finland normally abbreviated to FIN? (just a question) - it is further down.
  • "U.S." or "US" - I think it should be consistent.
  • Another question: why is "Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat." listed under miscellany? Isn't it a studio album?
    • There is contention over what it should be listed as. Some argue that the band call it a demo and they certainly don't regard it as the same as their other albums. However other people argue that it is of a much higher quality than standard "demos". The mutual agreement was to list in Miscellany yet the decision whether to declare it a demo album or studio album in the main article hasn't been settled. REZTER ^TALK ø 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you could expand upon that in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Videos & DVDs" section, my IE7 is showing "U.S." and "FIN" as left aligned column headings.
    • I honestly think this is a bug or something with IE7 - even with "style="text-align:center;"", it doesn't fix anything, and Firefox displays them properly. I've been having this problem with tables I've created too. -- Matthew

Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Well done, thorough discography. WP:SLIP is very prolific with their work. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Looks really good! I only have a few minor suggestions:

• Canada should be abbreviated as CAN, since CA usually means California.
• U.S. should be US.
• There's no point in having the UK, NOR, NZ, and FIN columns in the Live albums section.
• I don't think its necessary to wikilink the years in the tables.
• The album column in the singles table is way too big because of "Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)". Put a <br /> or two in there and it'll look much better.
• Only wikilink to RIAA certification and Canadian Recording Industry Association in the first table.
  • May I ask why there shouldn't be a link to the BPI? REZTER ^TALK ø 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My bad, I meant to mention that one too. All three should be wikilinked appropriately, but only in the first table. So basically unlink the RIAA and CRIA column headers in the Videos & DVDs table. Also, the Certifications column in Live albums is odd since it's not stated what organization did the certifying. So, since it's only one entry, I'd recommend naming the column RIAA certifications. Drewcifer (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• The title of the Soundtracks section is a little deceiving. Should be "Soundtracks contributions" since they didn't do the whole thing.
• Billboard should only be wikilinked in the first citation.
• An external links section would be good. Take a look at other FL discogs for some ideas. Drewcifer (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Try and avoid abbreviations in citations (ie RIAA/CRIA/etc). Blabbermouth.net should also be linked in citation #29.Drewcifer (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, all points have been adressed. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• The first RIAA citation (currently #14 should be wikilinked). Same with CRIA (#15).

Supprt An excellent list! Drewcifer (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - why are individual years and months linked in the lead? indopug (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Further - I made some fixes. Where are the B-sides? A discography isn't comprehensive without them. Also, it's rude to strike out another reviewer's comments (read the "Supporting and objecting" instructions above on the WP:FLC page). indopug (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologises. There isn't any b-sides on any singles. The only track released that doesn't appear on any version of any album is "Snap" which appears on the Freddy Vs Jason soundtrack. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the b-sides were already part of a studio album when the single was released then then I guess there isn't a need; however, if even one b-side is later collected onto a compilation/studio album/miscellaneous album, all the b-sides would need listing (for completeness sake). Then again, I'm not sure, ask around. indopug (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are b-sides. Look at the singles on discogs. Live, remixes etc. Those need to be added. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought b-sides were just different tracks, not live versions or different mixes. REZTER ^TALK ø 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:07, 29 February 2008.

---

List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania

List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania is a complete list of all current 13 municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. It has had a peer review, which is here, that found no major problems. The suggestions for improvement have all been addressed and we believe the list meets the requirements for featured list candidates. This article, including the picture gallery and large clickable map, follows the model of List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, which is a featured list. The picture gallery also follows the model of List of Pennsylvania state parks, and the clickable map also follows the model of List of Kentucky counties, both of which are also Featured lists. This is a self-nomination in that we are the editors who have worked the most on this list and the municipality articles themselves. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, glad to see the smaller counties getting the same respect and treatment. :) --Golbez (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and for recognizing that small places are getting some attention. Dincher (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - a nice list, very well illustrated. Some specific comments...
  • I'd use the {{convert}} template for unit conversions as it provides consistent units and conversion factors.
    • We had {{convert}} in List of Pennsylvania state parks and had to take it out as it was used so much it both stopped working and made the whole page very slow to load. While that would not be a problem here, we have avoided the template since. Will add it if you insist, or could add other conversion templates. Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That's fine by me. I didn't realise it caused issues with page loading and incorrect behaviour. All I'm really looking for is consistency (within the article as a minimum) in the way units are described and the non-breaking spaces (which I think you've done anyway). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • " There are no unincorporated areas in the county, since all territory in Pennsylvania is incorporated." - this sentence seems pretty redundant to me, perhaps just merge the second half into the previous part of the paragraph.
  • "according to Godcharles " - I'm no expert - who is this?
    • Added that he was Pennsylvania state librarian (I believe he was also director of the state museum at some point) in the 1930s. He wrote one of the standard histories of Pennsylvania counties. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove spaces before citations in the table column heading (specifically Remarks but there may be more).
    • Removed Remarks space, will double check others. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure the description column should be sortable - it's free text so sortability is a little irrelevant. And "sorting" by Map is a strange idea too. I'd make those two columns non-sortable.
    • Done, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the list is sortable by various columns, I would repeat wiki-links since there's no guarantee the first linked occurrence will be the first one the reader encounters (e.g. Cherry Township).
    • All "Formed from" townships are now linked. Since thre are two Shrewsbury Townships, if it formed while part of Lycoming County, I linked to Shrewsbury Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, but if it formed after the formation of Sullivan County, I linked to Shrewsbury Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "County seat; Named " - capital letter following semi-colon?
    • Switched to "County seat; named for...". Also put it in the proper place (as the borough of Laporte is the county seat, not the township of Laporte - whoops!). Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Clickable map didn't work for me (using IE7) - the links within it worked but nothing else - was that the idea?
    • Yes that was the idea - sorry. This kind of map is much easier to make;-) I changed the sentence to: The map shown below is clickable; click on any municipality name to be redirected to the article for that borough or township. Is that OK / clearer? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• That's about it from me for now... Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns address, an excellent addition to the WP:FL roster! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your helpful comments and support. FYI, per your suggestions I've changed the clickable map caption in List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania and will link the "formed from" townships there too (52 vs 13, so will take a bit longer). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• The formed froms have been linked in Lycoming County article. Dincher (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Epbr123 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and the copyedits to the article Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto. Thank you for noticing the work. Dincher (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Crzycheetah

• Comments This is a comprehensive, well-referenced list. I prefer some changes to be made, though.
  1. I don't like links to categories in the last paragraph of the lead. I think there has to be a link to township (Pennsylvania), instead.
     • Link switched, thanks. Please note the Township (Pennsylvania) article has at least one error - there are larger townships than the largest area (40 square miles) it cites (i.e. Davidson Twp here is 78.2 sqare miles). I need to do some research to find the largest township to fix it. My guess is there may be smalller townships than the area it cites too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. There also should be a link to borough (Pennsylvania) in the lead instead of List of towns and boroughs in Pennsylvania.
     • Link switched, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I think the gallery in the History section is not needed. The images can be right-aligned as thumbs.
     • Respectfully disagree - the table is 100% wide so I am not sure where the images would fit (not enough other text for 4 images). As noted above, there are two other Featured Lists (that I know of) that also use this "gallery and 100% wide tables" format that we are using as models for this list. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. The references in the "Settled" and "Formed from" columns should be cited individually because there are more than two references. It just gets hard to verify the information when there are 3 or more references in the table header.
     • All now fixed, I believe. Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. I also prefer to see sq mi instead of mi².
     • Good catch - the MOS agrees with you, see Wikipedia:MOS#Unit_symbols_and_abbreviations. Have switched them all (although I think it looks inconsistent to have "sq mi" and "km²", that is what MOS stipulates). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just my personal preference and may be ignored. I just think those changes will make the list even better, that's all.--Crzycheetah 06:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your helpful comments - I will move the references to the individual entries per your suggestion above, but it will take me some time to double check them all and do the edits. When this is done, I will note it above. I also fixed the sq mi in the List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania and will check it for the other points raised here when this FLC is done. We will have to agree to disagree on the gallery. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support No worries about the gallery. Thanks for the changes, great list!--Crzycheetah 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, edits and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I thank you as well. Dincher (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

1. The clickable map seems unduly large for such a small county. Could it be made smaller?

Thanks, currently all the borough labels are in the same position relative to the borough (about 4 o'clock) - if the map is made much smaller, there is not room to put the label there for Eagles Mere. The townships are aligned in two horizontal rows of 3 and 4 twps. each (plus Davidson Twp.). I am not sure where else to put the labels to be consistent for both boroughs and townships. It is a lot of work to change the size of the map as every label must be repositioned, but I am open to specific suggestions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

2. I'm skeptical of the claim that the county seat was the second-smallest in the U.S. in 1969. I haven't checked the population histories, but as of 2000 at least 3 county seats were smaller: Amidon, North Dakota (population 26), Medora, North Dakota (pop. 100), and Booneville, Kentucky (pop. 111). (I found those by looking at Wikipedia list articles in a few places where I thought I might find tiny county seats. I did not do a comprehensive study of county seats.)

Removed, obviously we did not do a comprehensive study of county seats either. (The book cited is a reliable source for the railroad, but not county seats). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

3. When I perused the article, I found a couple of typos. That leads me to think that other typos might still be lurking...

Thanks for your copyedits - the typos you found were (I believe) all made after User:Michael Devore's proof reading. I will ask him to please make another pass through the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. Support for FL. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I made a few copyedits to hopefully make the article better and requested the proofreading. If you have specific suggestions for label placement in a smaller map, I would be glad to try it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Devore found no typos, but made some comments here which I have now addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:41, 28 February 2008.

---

List of Birmingham City F.C. statistics and records

Self nomination This list follows the format of the recently-promoted List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records. Improvements were made as a result of suggestions made at peer review. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria, it is well referenced and has appropriate free-use images. I leave it to your good selves to decide if it is worthy of promotion. Struway2 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, all concerns addressed either before or at the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic piece of work, well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Brilliant work, no issues with it well done NapHit (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:41, 28 February 2008.

---

Alice in Chains discography

Self-nomination I have been working on this list for the past few days, and it is already ready for FLC. I started work on it after Alice in Chains was promoted to FA status, and this list meets all FLC criteria. The band has no B-Sides, so please don't ask about them. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 05:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments The list looks great, and I only have a few extremely minor suggestions:

• Naming the main section "Main albums" is a little wierd. I'd just recommend making each of the current sub-sections into their own full-fledged sections. Done
• The catalog numbers should have a # before them, since it's kind of confusing without them. Done
• Chart positions should be Chart peak positions or Peak chart positions or something like that. Just to be more specific. Done
• Why is the Netherlands abbreviations as LND? It's typically NLD in discogs. Done
• I would recommend making all of the album title columns similar widths. It would like much cleaner that way. Done
• It appears that all of their videos charted on the same chart, so I'd say "U.S. chart peak" should be changed to Billboard Top Music Videos Charts or something like that. Not done because then that column becomes too wide. Also, since there isn't an article for "Billboard Top Music Videos Charts" nor is there an appropriate section for it in the Billboard charts article, why is the heading change required?
• MVDbase is not a reliable source. Most discogs don't source music video directors anyways, so you could just take that out. Done
• Some external links would be nice. Done

And that's about it. Drewcifer (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments yeah, looking good, a few comments:

• Don't like red linked extended play in the lead - is this ever likely to be an article? If so, perhaps make a stub for it? Also, I'd place (EP) after the "extended play" so when you use the abbreviation it's clear what it means (to the non-expert). Done
• "released it's debut" - rogue apostrophe I think? Done
• "quadraple" - probably quadruple! Done
• Move [3][4] to after the comma. Done
• "After six years of hiatus, Alice in Chains officially broke up.[8] In 2005, the band reunited with" - I'd merge these - the first sentence is a little too short and makes the prose read choppy. Done but a little differently.
• "release it's first" - apostrophe again? Done
• I'd like a space between 2xPlatinum so 2 x Platinum or 2x Platinum. Done
• Is CS abbreviation for cassette? Not clear. Done changed all to cassette
• Is there a reason U.S. has full stops and UK and NZ don't? Just a question really.

I think that's standard actually, I've seen it being said on quite a few peer reviews/FACs etc. Maybe its because "US" could be ambiguous as a capitalised "us". indopug (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support 'Nother gem from the incredibly prolific Burningclean. I was bored so I did a CE and also took care of all of the above concerns :) indopug (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support my concerns all addressed, this is featured quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support My comments have been taken into account. Definitely a great list. Drewcifer (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Are there no sources for the music video info? If so, where did the info come from?
  • Wow, Australia has good taste in music ;)
• dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A reviewer above stated that mvdbase is unreliable and that the director doesn't need citing. I can't seem to find any Aussie chart numbers in the link you have posted. indopug (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

MVDbase: OK. Aussie: Yeah, it was a payout at Alice in Chains; not the best band in the world :P Support dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note There are four supports and zero objections. Wow I missed alot in the day I was gone! Thanks to everyone who participated! Also, indopug has a good point: directors are kind of self cited. In my previous FLC (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Godsmack discography), it was stated that directors don't need a citation, and I think it was mentioned that Mvdbase was unreliable anyway. I only added it incase somebody wanted it included. It would be easier taking it out than it would be to add it. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Great looking article - the only minor wording things I see are these 2 sentences:

Alice in Chains had not toured since the release of Dirt, causing the band to go on a hiatus.

On April 20, 2002, Staley was found dead in his condominium after overdosing on heroin and cocaine, causing Alice in Chains to break up.[8]

Those endings just don't sit quite right with me(maybe its only me) They could possibly be rearranged a little to incorporate the "causing..." sections into the sentence more, like "AIC went on hiatus, as a result of ___" or "overdosing on heroin and cocaine, which resulted in ___" or somthing like that. Anyway thats probably just nitpicking, great article! Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn I just remembered a notable exclusion; what about the appearance of "Would?" on the Singles soundtrack? That was a pivotal release for the band. indopug (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't released as a single for the movie, it only appeared in it. Perhaps I could make a notation mark that links to that fact. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't warrant a miscellaneous section; are you certain there aren't any other soundtracks, compilation contributions? indopug (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The band contributed two songs to the Last Action Hero soundtrack, from what I recall. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, I missed that. Should it just be under "Soundtrack contributions" or something else? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do what Nirvana discography does with miscellaneous tracks. Also, try and look for non-US/Uk chart placings for a wider worldview. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the section. "Would?" appears at 33 on the Dutch charts, and that is the only other chart any of their songs appear on. Should I add a Dutch section or let it go? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to add it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My last comment: make sure you have all the miscellaneous tracks listed. I think Music Bank has a discography in the booklet; I'll check later tonight. Once we're sure we've got everything I'll support. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you want demos and stuff? There is a lot on Music Bank, I have it if I need it. It comprised of album tracks, demos, and the songs that appeared on movie soundtracks. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean tracks that don't appear on the band's releases. So not just soundtracks, but any sort of compilations (see Nirvana discography) WesleyDodds (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Them Bones" appeared on the soundtrack to a documentary, so I added that. Other than that there are no other miscellaneous tracks. Ten days have passed with four supports and zero opposes. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the band's entry on Discogs.com last night (I think it was) and there were actually some single b-sides listed. They were mainly tracks already available on albums, but a few were live tracks and there was at least one remix (of "Again"). Read up on and add that stuff. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright. So, there were two remixes of "Again" that later appeared on Music Bank and I added them, and eight live tracks. The rest were previous album cuts, so they don't need to be added. Just let me know if there is anything else. FLCs usually close after ten days, and this one is eleven days, and has enough supports. Thanks, —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Add all B-sides; just indicate where the album tracks come from. Also, should "tattoo of pain" be captialized? Forget the number of supports and days the nom has been up; when the article's ready it's ready, and it's almost there. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

True, add all B-sides for completeness sake. Also, I'm not sure if the two versions of "heaven beside you" and "again" should be listed separately; maybe include a "Version" column for CD1 and CD2? For those live tracks, is there info as to which concert it was from? In the Comments column of the Miscellaneous table, there is no need to repeat the name of the song. "Soundtrack" should not be italicised. indopug (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All done. Besides, adding them isn't goig to hurt anything. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked you to add that version column was so that an A-side entry doesn't repeat; "Again", "Heaven" and "Down" should only have one entry each in the table. Combine adjacent comments entries with the exact same info ("Later appears on Music Bank"). indopug (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks great now. The only thing I have an issue with now is the sentence "Alice in Chains had not toured since the release of Dirt, causing the band to go on a hiatus." It sounds very awkward. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the refining. I fixed the sentence too. That was a really awkward one. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 05:44, 25 February 2008.

---

List of York City F.C. statistics and records

I have been improving this list over the last week or so, making it fit the model of List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records, which recently passed WP:FL. I believe it meets the featured list criteria, but I await the community to decide that for themselves. It recently had a peer review, which came up with lots of useful comment. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all my comments were addressed either before or at the recently closed peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support assuming the few things mentioned below are addressed. This is a well referenced list which follows the format of a recently-promoted list. Nominator has dealt with everything I raised at peer review. Couple of things I failed to raise:
  • In honours and achievements, you could clarify that York were the first team to break 100 points in any division of the football league.
    • I'd say it's clear it's referring to the whole of the FL, isn't it...?
      • Probably. Ignore me :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struway2 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Your Third Division promotions is a little misleading, with 1973-74 being at level 3 and the 1992-93 one at level 4 after the divisions were renamed. You could have a look see how a similar list clarified the matter.
    •  Done Organised. Think I've done it right. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You may want to add the division or competition in which your oldest and youngest first-team appearances were made.
    •  Done Divisions added. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work, well done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Made one minor change. Otherwise spot on. Great work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 05:44, 25 February 2008.

---

List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest

Self-nomination. Well-organised, sourced, clearly written and decorated with free images. I believe this list meets the criteria. I will address any problems as promptly as possible. Thanks. Chwech 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments Hi.

• The colours in the map are too similar. While it's easier to distinguish between the dark orange and red of Spain and France, perhaps because they're bigger countries, the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland are smaller, and it's really hard (for my eyes at least) to identify the difference. I think the pinker colour of the 70s could also be too similar to the red.

• True. I'll get working on that now. Done.

• In the list itself, I don't see the importance of shading those countries that did not participate in 2007. If you're doing that, why isn't each year of non-participation shown – because it would be too much shading probably. Perhaps another column between entries and wins for, and you'd have to word it better than this, non-entries since debut, though each cell may call for {{ref label}}s and {{note label}}s or something to clarify which years they didn't enter.

• Before I started working on the table there was a column which said each country's most recent entry; but seeing as 80% of them said "2007" it seemed to make sense to change it to prose. I could bring that column back though.

What I meant was just putting the number of contests a country has missed since their debut appearance, so the UK would be "1", Lituania would be "3". Then again, with Morroco, it'd be "27", and a {{ref label}} for those years would be pretty big. So maybe not such a good idea. I still don't see the importance of pointing out which countries didn't take part in 2007, though. Why was that such an important year to miss compared to the others?

Because it was the most recent Contest. Countries generally don't pull out for one year only, so in most cases it's a good indicator of who's still interested, and who's not likely to take part in the future. I'll make that clearer in the article. Chwech 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to put in the channels of the broadcaster, so instead of BBC, use BBC One and BBC Radio 2. It's not necessary though, and later I might think it's not a good idea at all!

• The problem with this is that some countries' channels have gone through numerous name changes etc. and that some (the UK, Ireland and France for example) show the semi-final on a different channel to the final. This could make the table very messy.

Okay, you convinced me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Being in North America, I don't know why Canada would be in there (and it's not), but I seem to remember Celine Dion performed once and she's Canadian. Is this a country you missed? Perhaps it's allowed to enter due to its French and English ties?
• I don't like graphs as it is, and I have a couple of problems with the one for "contestants per year".

• When you're getting over to the right, it's kinda difficult to follow which point in the line is for 2004, which is 2005, and which is 2006. (Specifically the big spike up from 25+ to 35+, the jump to about 38 or 39, the dip to 36ish, and then the little spike up again.
• And that's another problem I have with it, it's not easy to make out whether it is 36, 37, 38, or 39.
• The line looks like it's gone to the very end of the table at the marker for 2008, but 2008's event hasn't happened yet.
• Following future contests, will an editor be able to update the chart, or does a new one have to be made? If it's the latter, it may not happen as more than likely, people will consider it a ball-ache.
• It looks like it was just plotzed in there as a last-minute idea. There's no prose to go with it, explaining for instance, does it mean (a) the number of countries that entered, or (b) the number of singers. If it's (b) does it include all band members, dancers, etc? Example, Ruslana is a solo artist, but she had a band there and a group of wild dancers, so what is being included in the count?

• I've changed "contestants" to "countries". I'll come up with some prose to make the whole thing clearer and make the gridlines a little more defined. I have a copy of the graph myself, but I see what you mean; it would be a pain for someone else to update it. Not sure what to do about it though :)

• I'm putting together a few paragraphs to explain the graph, but I think I've made it redundant now. I'm going to remove it and let the text explain it. Chwech 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC) - Done.

• The redlink of ERTT concerns me, primarily because I'm not sure of the rule myself. For me, if it doesn't already exist, then it's not notable, so it shouldn't be linked to. I've heard arguments to keep them too, incase the article is created in the future sooo....

• The article for ERTT was created before, and deleted: although looking at the deletion log, not much of an effort was made to establish notability. I should be able to write a stub.

Other than that, it seems all right. And I like the intro alot. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Chwech 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Re Celine Dion: Canada isn't missing, since she represented Switzerland, somehow (and won, incidentally, with Ne partez pas sans moi). Bencherlite^Talk 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! Then I'll strike out that part. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. Everything looks in order to me, and my comments have been resolved. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

  Well, I'm no expert in these Eurovision matters, so I'll review it from an outsider's perspective, sometimes that can be useful...!

  • Not sure why countries is bold - okay so it's in the title of the article but it looks weird to me. I'm sure I recall WP:LEAD has some suggestions here and I may be wrong, worth a look?
    • Unbolded.
  • "As of the 2007 Contest," and then "since it started in 1956" probably only need one of these, and I'd suggest ditching the former - it's an odd way to start an article.
    • True, and I added it in minutes before nominating as well. Removed.
  • I'd rework the opening paragraph to discuss a little bit of the history of the contest, then discuss qualification, countries who automatically qualify etc before going in with the stat-attack you currently have.
    • Doing. Done, I think. Chwech 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "an eligible television service" what is this? It needs explanation, especially with it being in the first para of the lead.
    • I'll bring the EBU info above that, which would explain eligibility before it's mentioned in that context.
  • " has steadily grown" - "has grown steadily" would be marginally better.
    • Done.
  • "Kvalifikacija za Millstreet" probably deserves a translation in English here.
    • Done.
  • "Big Four" should be explained as well.
    • Done.
  • Colours on the map really make it difficult to see subtle differences, particularly the yellow/green combo...
    • Already doing per above. Done.
  • I would be sorely tempted to move the para after the table to beforehand as an introduction to what the reader is about to see.
    • Done.
  • Write at least a stub for ERTT.
    • Doing per above. Done.
  • I'd expand the contestants per year section with some prose instead of a huge graph with a lengthy caption.
    • Doing. Removed graph; see above. Chwech 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • • Thanks, they're definitely of use :) Chwech 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The map's been changed and I've put together a stub for ERTT. I'll do more later. Chwech 13:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments
  • Consider centrally aligned the year, number of entries and number of wins in the table, the current left justification with wide columns looks odd.
  • There ought to be some prose in the "Unsuccessful attempts.." section to introduce the data. Also, I would left align the notes, centrally align the references and make the first column wide enough to contain the flag and country name on a single line.
  • "forty", "forty-two" - usually number over 10 are written as numerals.
    • But not if they are expressed in one or two words (sorry to butt in!) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Quite so. Ignore me! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Liechtenstein does not have a EBU-member broadcaster and is therefore ineligible to enter the Eurovision Song Contest." - no need for the Eurovision Song - you've used Contest consistently throughout so do so here.
  • The Times source for "Country duo quit..." is no longer available.
• Almost there I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All done, I think. Chwech 21:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: In the "unsuccessful attempts" section, I have some qualms
  • Lebanon withdrew from the 2005 Contest as its legislation prevented it from broadcasting the Israeli entry. This would have violated the Contest's rules. - these two uses of the word "it" are vague (generally, a pronoun should refer to the closest noun it agrees with in gender and number, but "2005 Contest" and "legislation" aren't the referrents here). And "legislation" seems like a weird word to use here.
    • I've fixed the occurances of "it", but "legislation" is the word used in the reference. I've changed it to "law", anyway.
  • Tunisia was to perform fourth in the 1977 Contest's running order. Its reason for withdrawing was never officially established; rumours suggest it did not want to compete with Israel. Same issue with the pronouns here. I also don't like referring to countries "wanting things", though I wouldn't suggest that's an ironclad rule. Tunisia, being an abstract entity, can't really want (or not want) anything. Who actually made these decisions?
    • I would assume it was the broadcaster. I've made that clearer.
• Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Chwech 13:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I slightly tweaked the Lebanese thing, which still isn't perfect because it repeats Lebanon/Lebanese, but I think the only way to fix it is to be more specific, either naming the law or at least describing what exactly it does. "Lebanese law made it nearly impossible" is kind of bad style, but it may be too difficult to explain the legal situation in such a brief note. Anyway, I'm satisfied with the current wording, and I'll support, but if you can find out what specifically made it almost but not quite impossible, please do include that in the footnote if not in the actual column. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all my concerns addressed (and now hidden). Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:42, 23 February 2008.

---

The Simpsons (season 4)

This time, I've got another season of The Simpsons. I will address any concerns brought up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - a very good and comprehensive list. I have a few comments for you.
  • Just a minor format issue but The Simpsons' fourth season" looks odd with the apostraphe there - why not "The fourth season of..."?  Done
  • "Following the end of the production of the season, Jean, Reiss and most of the original writing staff left the show, causing more staff to be hired." - I'm sure this is relevant but if staff leave they're generally replaced. As this must be significant because it's in the lead, can this be clarified or expanded upon?  Done
  • "The season would be .." why not just "..was..."?  Done
  • You need a fair use rationale for the DVD cover specific to this article.  Done
  • "would leave" - why not just "left"?  Done
  • "original team" - your quotation or from someone else?  Done
  • "production eun" -typo I think.  Done
  • "would leave" x3 then "would return", "would stay", "would receive", "would return" in the Development section - odd tense and somewhat repetitive language.  Done
  • "return a few times" - not particularly encyclopaedic.  Done
  • "...series would win ..." as above.  Done
  • 60-1 - move Mr. Black to after "director of the camp, Mr Black, ..."  Done
  • 61-2 - "and manages to get" - "but manages"..  Done
  • 63-4 - "Guest stars: Bob Hope.[20] " - only one star?  Done
  • 64-5 - why is zombie capitalised?  Done
  • 68-9 - "demolishing and wrecking" - surely demolishing supersedes wrecking!  Done
  • 69-10 - Jeff Martin links to a dab page.  Done
  • 73-14 - "After leaving Bart alone at soccer practice, Homer's inept care for Bart prompts Bart...." triple Bart! Rephrase.  Done
  • 73-14 - "ventually" - missing an e?  Done
  • 79-20 - "Guest star: Barry White" not cited, seems like the only one?
    • The reference for the episode is one line lower. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Page ranges in references should use en-dash, not hyphen.  Done
• That's about it from me. Hope the comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have addressed all of your comments. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - now all my comments have been (rapidly and accurately) addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good job, only a few comments that hardly pass as concerns:
  • The lead uses "show runner" while "showrunner" is used several times below.  Done
  • Al Jean and Mike Reiss, who had also ran the previous season... Who had also run?  Done
  • Several sentences in the Development section deal with crew leaving, but the tense changes to present briefly when mentioning David M Stern and Jon Vitti.  Done
  • "Treehouse of Horror III" was nominated for Emmys for... How about "nominated for Emmys in the categories of"?
  • Should "the Ayn Rand school of tots" be capitalised?  Done
  • "...eventually Homer becomes injured" sounds a little... weird. If you're in a brawl, you don't usually "become injured". How about "Homer is injured" or something less, um, accidental?  Done
  • "Springfiedians"? You'd know better than me, but I seem to recall them referred to in other episodes as "Springfielders". But again, I'd trust you on that one.  Done
• Good stuff, and I hope the comments are useful. :) •97198 talk 06:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the DVD release dates appear as "Region 1 on 15 June 2004, Region 2 on 2 August, 2004 and in Region 4 on 25 August, 2004" - the latter two with commas - because some setting defaults to no-comma if the year's linked. Is that just my settings, or is it universal? •97198 talk 06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure. Anyway, your concerns have been addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Coolies, thanks :) And that date thing is a little weird - who knows. •97198 talk 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Conditional support
  • It's only a minor one, but I think the table headers would be better in white text, rather than black against the dark blue. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I switched it to a lighter colour of blue. Is it better now? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is better, but it's not great. I dunno, maybe it's my eyes, but I still think

this looks better

than this

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. An exemplary list. great work, Scorpion0422. Qst (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 04:22, 23 February 2008.

---

List of members of the Swiss Federal Council

Self-nomination. Going through the required attributes of a FL, I think there is not much doubt that point 1 and 3 are well-covered; for point 1c (accuracy), let me just mention that while compiling this list from the indicated sources, we managed to point out a mistake present in the official list of members Swiss Federal Council managed by the Swiss Government ! It has been corrected since, with much congratulations and praise for Wikipedia from the person in charge. I think the style, according to point 2, is also at a featured list level, but it can always be improved, so I'm ready to address any comment that could improve this page ! (just for information, there is also a sister list, List of members of the Swiss Federal Council by date, that will probably be proposed as a FL in the near future too, depending on the feedback on the present candidate, and a few more modifications that remain to be done) Schutz (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• One detail I forgot: I saw in the comments for other articles that some people prefer leads that are not too short. In this list, the lead was shortened a bit just a few hours ago; if you think that the current lead is too short, please have a look at a previous revision, to see if it suits you better. Schutz (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - firstly I do like the previous lead more than this one - it provides a better introduction to the purpose of the council and the mechanisms of election, so consider replacing some or all of it... Other things I noticed:

   Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Title of the section "List of members of the Swiss Federal Council in order of election" could lose "in order of election". The list is sortable so that may not be true, and to be honest, it's not really necessary to specify the ordering in any case.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • What is the sequence column all about? It stops pretty soon down the table and isn't really explained.

     Done. This was added just after the article got listed here; it is now complete, with a footnote to explain what it means. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove spaces in front of citations, the citations should preferably be placed after punctuation.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You've colour coded parties and added the party in each row. Are both necessary?

    This was a feature; colours for quick recognition, and party for direct linking, to allow sorting and to prevent the need to go back to the key. I think both are useful. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think "reelected" should be hyphenated.

     Done. So does my dictionary. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Where are the notes referenced? For example, the suicide in office really ought to be cited.

     Done. All are referenced now, except for the ones that died in office (for them, last day in office=date of death, and it is easy to check). Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think the department headed column should be sortable, it's not particularly useful if the department you're looking for is second in the text.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Canton abbreviations need explanation (e.g. a key).

     Done, in the form of a footnote and a link (there are >20 cantons, that would make a large key). Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • For councillors elected in place of those declining, add a note in the table.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Presumably bold dates mean those councillors are still in the Council? Add it to the key.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems unfortunate that only three members don't have articles, and those are all in the same table. Consider a stub for each of these, surely notable politicians.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's about it for the moment. I hope these help, feel free to get in touch with me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  This helps a lot, many thanks ! Please tell us if you have any other comment, or if you think one of your suggestions could be implemented in a better way. Schutz (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment
  • I don't like "only twice in living memory." in the lead - it's a little woolly - should be quantified in my opinion.

     Done. Schutz (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Is it possible to reference the claims in the last paragraph of the lead?

     Done. I've added a reference (the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland talks about this topic); ideally, I'd like to add a ref to the Church book (with the advantage that it is in English), but I had it through an inter-library loan and had to send it back already. Schutz (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Almost there I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the first section should be renamed along with the second section. My suggestions are: "List', "members", or "list of members". "List of members of the Swiss Federal Council" is just too long for a section and I find it redundant to have a section named after its page.--Crzycheetah 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

   Done. Yes, good point. Schutz (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - much improved, I've tucked my comments away. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, if I may (I've contributed a little to the final cleanup of this list). A very well-made, informative and accessible list that helps readers understand Switzerland's idiosyncratic system of government. Sandstein (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, although I can't pretend that it caused me to understand Switzerland's idiosyncratic system of government. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 04:22, 23 February 2008.

---

Depeche Mode discography

It would appear that this is a complete, accurate list of all records released by this influential and long-standing pop-group. Sunil060902 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Oppose For the following reasons:

• The lead is way too short.

>Check! (I think!) Sunil060902 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• The tables could be organized much better. The majority of my complaints stem from the list looking unlike the majority of other FL discographies. Also note that I realize much of this list is designed to look exactly like Dave Gahan discography, which is featured. However, I opposed its nomination then, so I would obviously oppose this nomination as well. So, some examples of what I mean:

• "Charts" is too vague, as is "Chart positions" in the singles table. It's the peak position on a given chart, so "Peak chart positions" of "Chart peak positions" is more accurate.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why is Switzerland abbreviated as SUI? I'm sure there's a logical reason, but most FL discogs use SWI, and that is the most logical English-language abbreviation.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Charts should come before Certifications.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• The charts column could be organized better: instead of saying "BPI certification"/"RIAA certification"/"CRIA certification" in every single row, just divide the Certifications column into three separate columns, one for BPI, one for RIAA, one for CRIA. Then at the top, wikilink Certifications to be more clear. At the top of each column, wikilink as such: UK, US, CAN. Also, any column-wide references (RIAA and CRIA all share the same sources), one citation at the top would suffice for the whole column.

>Check! Sunil060902 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• The citations are over-wikilinked. Only wikilink the first instance of British Phonographic Industry. Same with All Music Guide. Drewcifer (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

>BPI dealt with, will have to reformat the AMG. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

>AMG now dealt with! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely looking better! Here's a few more things: the lead's looking better, but it introduces the topic a little odd. First, the bolding in two paragraphy is really strange. Second, the first paragraph should mention first and foremost what the article is about: their discography. The band's history is second to stating that it is a discography and expounding upon that. The very last citation is from Discogs, which isn't a reliable source. And I think that about does it. Drewcifer (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

>Lead improved (I think!), Discogs replaced with IMDB. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead is looking better, though IMDB isn't a reliable source either... and I don't think Yahoo music is either. Drewcifer (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What would you define as 'reliable sources'? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything that complies to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. And my mistake, NSR77 is correct, Yahoo! Music is reliable. So that just leaves IMDB. Drewcifer (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Music is definitely a reliable source. NSR77 ^T_C 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've reinstated the Yahoo link for the box sets. Modern Girls is a bit problematic, so deleted the link and left the Wiki through to the film article on here, best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support All of my suggestions have been taken into account. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I just realized something else. What's with all the blank spaces in the chart cells? I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable reason (ie their downloadable songs, limited release, etc, etc), but the dashes are meant to cover those kinds of things too. Drewcifer (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start the discography article off, but I presume the Dashes indicate release without charting, and Spaces are for "no release" in that country. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, that does make sense. But what about the German cell for the greatest hits album? Drewcifer (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that this was released in the old East Germany - I wouldn't think chart info was/is that freely available for that regime! Though it must exist somewhere. I presume 81-85 was the release in the old West Germany. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm reasonably sure that the original version of "Strangelove" did not chart on the Modern Rock Charts (the chart did not exist until the following year; if anything it was probably "Strangelove '88"). "World in My Eyes" was a single from Violator but is not indicated as such. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

> "World In My Eyes" sorted! Sunil060902 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

> "Strangelove" (1987) sorted for US Mod Rock, definitely not in list of #1s, definitely started in second half of 1988. Need more info for the '88 mix, so left it blank for now. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall "Strangelove '88" was an American-only remix single, released because they thought the song should've done better in America (and the remix did indeed chart higher). WesleyDodds (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case probably wasn't in US Mod Rock - it's in Dance, where I would have thought it would have been best suited, agree? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Where are all the b-sides? All discographies I've seen list them. See Nirvana discography for an example. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to do everything??? (Kidding!) Sunil060902 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone's gone and done it :) Sunil060902 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments sorry I'm late but some bits to think about...
  • "comprehensive" in the opening sentence is unnecessary - this is an encyclopaedic article heading for FL so it's self-evident it should be comprehensive!

> removed!

• • "Depeche Mode are one of the longest-lived, most successful and influential bands to have emerged from the New Romantic and New Wave era." in the lead - needs citation really otherwise it's WP:OR.

? I think the discography speaks for itself, no?

No - I can't tell the band were influential from bare statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

> OK, I have excised the statement from the lead. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I may have missed it but why not have one of those neat little infoboxes which summarises all the releases?

X OK considering it

> Check! (inserted info box) Sunil060902 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "(giving them more charting singles without a number one hit than any other artist)" - needs citation.

X will have to dig this one out

> Reluctantly, I will remove this for now, as I can't find a direct link to the statement, though I'm sure if someone has the time a search of the UK singles archive will provide an answer! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Other discographies have US as U.S. and I'm curious why you have AUT but not SUI.

> User:Drewcifer3000 suggested SWI not SUI (see above) (and I've told you about US!)

• • I'd keep Platinum capitalised, even when dealing with multi-plat.

> Check!

• • Big set of blanks in the compilation tables - the em-dash signifies didn't chart, what does blank mean?

> Blanks removed

• • "Other appearances" table is mis-shaped to me (I'm using Safari under Mac OS 10.5).

> seems OK in Mozilla/Firefox and IE!

• • "Track contributed: "Photographic", a version different from that on Speak & Spell. This track also makes an appearance on the re-released CD version of The Singles 81-85" missing full stop.

> Check!

• • "Track contributed: "Dirt" (a cover of an original song by Iggy Pop). This track appeared as the B-side to "I Feel Loved" released in 2001" ditto.

> Check!

• • "not released as standard singles" - what does this really mean?

> Changed to "singles"

• • "November 28 1991" comma missing.

> Was there this morning!

> Sorry missed the other one, now corrected. Sunil060902 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • March 30 2004 ditto.

> Check!

• • Check punctuation (particularly full-stops) in the B-sides section.

> Check!

• • Odd bits of bold in the B-sides section. Why?

> Removed!

• So, I think there's a little work here before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments A little way to go:

• How come none of the chart positions are cited? Each column header (the name of the chart) should be cited to be corresponding chart's website. Check Nirvana discography to see what i mean (you need to do this for all album tables).

> References section at the end contains all the relevant weblinks

> Chart positions now linked straight through to websites. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another column solely for the year would be nice for a brief look at when it was released (for all the album tables).

> Check!

• "CD, Vinyl, Cassette, Digital download" - why so many capitalisations?

> Check!

• platinum should always be Platinum.

> Check!

• Compilation albums - why no "—"es? Why is (North America) written smaller than (East Germany)?

> Check!

• Live albums - again no "—"es.

> Check!

• The "Other appearances" section would be much clearer if it was modelled after the "Miscellaneous" section of Nirvana discography; this way the primary part of the table would be the band's songs.

> Check!

• For uniformity, ""—" denotes singles that were released but did not chart." should be in small letters.

> Check!

indopug (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the lead; right now its 6 small paragraphs, while I think it would work better as three big ones. "Depeche Mode have also released..." that information can be included above itself when you are counting studio albums, singles etc. The detailed info about the band's music video collaborators seems unnecessary in this context. Maybe also include an overview of the band's career? I don't understand the merit of that last paragraph; why are only those two releases mentioned by name but no other from the band's career? indopug (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no more than three paragraphs needed here really. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Better now? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 04:22, 23 February 2008.

---

Vittorio Storaro filmography

Fresh of the heels of the Christopher Walken filmography being promoted, I've nominated two more: Vittorio Storaro filmography and Woody Allen filmography (see below). As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "AIC" - what does this mean? Not clear to non-expert readers (like me!).

Technically speaking cinematographers typically have all the societies they belong to abbreviated after their names, ie. "Vittorio Storaro ASC, AIC" but since that's kind of techno babble to the layman, I've reworded it a bit, without the abbreviations. Drewcifer (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, but now you wikilnk American Society of Cinematographers twice in the lead and state he's a member of it twice in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Details, details.=) fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "whom he has continued to collaborate with throughout his career" - "with whom he has continued to collaborate throughout his career" would sound better.

 Done Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "Awards and Nominations" should be called "Awards and nominations".

 Done Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Just an aside really, it's a shame that half his films don't have articles... one of the possible FLC criteria is bringing together a set of existing articles in one place. Just a thought. Maybe something to do in your spare time!

I'd definitely say it meets that particular FL criteria, but you're right, it is a shame. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Any reason the film titles are in italics?
    • MOS:TITLE dictates so. Seegoon (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I thought there was a good reason. Thanks Seegoon... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • BAFTA wins are explicitly cited where nothing else is, why?

Because all the other awards are covered by the second "General" reference, the All Movie Guide source. For some reason AMG doesn't mention his BAFTA awards, so I had to do those separately. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Just a quick peek down at the external links, you have a search engine linked to there with instructions. This isn't particularly elegant, and not recommended under WP:EL - is there an alternative?

That's not an external link, it's a source. And it's there (and has to be there) for the same reason the BAFTA awards are sourced separately: the AMG source doesn't cover them all. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • As per Woody Allen FLC, try to make column widths of each award table the same as it makes the appearance a whole load better. You can use the <br> where needed to force linebreaks in long award cateogries for example.

See comment at Woody Allen filmography FLC. I'm not sure what's going on with that. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Think I fixed it. EI strikes again! Drewcifer (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "According to the same site, Storaro's films have grossed a total of more than $410 million, with an average of $25 million per film." link this as a reference as well.

See comment at Woody Allen filmography FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Again, mil. - why not just m.?

See comment at Woody Allen filmography FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's about it. Hope these comments are useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Object re the box office section. I know you're aware of my position on the matter generally, but I would be more willing to let the matter drop regarding actors, producers, and directors. However, cinematographers tend not to be judged on their box office performance, either by the industry or critics, the gross has no bearing on their ability to continue working on big budget films, and their participation on any given project has a negligible impact on turnout, even for the most notable of names such as Storaro. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I obviously saw this coming, so although I don't have much of an argument against your position, I'd like to keep things as consistent as possible. That said, as with the Chris Walken list, I'd be willing to compromise (give gross of each film), or leave the decision up to a larger consensus. To try and clear up the issue, I'll see about bringing it up at WP:Film, and see what they think. I'll keep you posted. Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the little bit of discussion at WP:Film, I've removed the grosses section from Storaro's filmography. Drewcifer (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The award column in the "Award and nomination" seems unnecessary; it just repeats the name of the award each time. The column can be removed and that Lifetime achievement could be be moved under the category column. indopug (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that, though. Many awards shows name the award after the ceremony, but many don't. There's two set of Emmy awards, for instance, the day-time and prime-time. Cannes has tons of differently named awards in a variety of different categories. This particular filmography has a few examples, but take a look at a few others I've worked on to see more examples of what I mean (Woody Allen filmography, Spike Lee filmography, Christopher Walken filmography). That particular column isn't going to be relevant 100% of the time, but I think it comes up often enough to warrant it being there. Drewcifer (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not up to speed on the discussion above re: box office performance. From an outside perspective, it may not be directly relevant but it is certainly of note and interest so I see no harm in the details being there. My concerns have been addressed, so I'm offering my support. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Drewcifer (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very nice. I agree that the box office gross should have been removed, although it might not hurt to mention what the highest grossing film he's worked on is in the lead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! The lead should only summarize the article hand, so I couldn't mention his highest-grossing film without mentioning it in the article proper. Drewcifer (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support No complaints here.--Crzycheetah 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 04:22, 23 February 2008.

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2)

Self-nomination I feel this list is of featured quality, being that it is well written, comprehensive, referenced and correct. I think it meets all the criteria. This continues my drive to get all the season pages for Degrassi: The Next Generation to featured list status, especially with the current plans regarding List of (insert show title here) episodes, which looks like episode summaries will be removed and then transcluded from season pages where possible. As the main episode list of D:TNG is already a FL, and a lot of the content in this nominated list is from there, I hope there won't be many problems, but any comments and suggestions will be acted upon. Thank you. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy-close - Unable to complete this at this time. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems I was a little hasty in saying I was unable to complete this candidacy. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• This may sound a little lazy but can you apply the same comments I made to season 1 to this list? For example, the citation of award noms in the lead, episode numbers, etc?
  •  Done
• "for Canada's younger viewers. " pretty non-specific...
  •  Done
• "The second season had fifteen roles getting star billing. Thirteen of them returned from the first season." merge - "...billing, with thirteen of them..."
  •  Done
• "high-achiever and lonely" - "high-achieving yet lonely"...
  •  Done
• Lead said series premiered with "When Doves Cry" and Cast section says "...the series premiere, "Mother and Child Reunion"..." A different series? A little unclear.
  • That's correct. Season 2 did premiere with "When Doves Cry". In the cast section, "Mother and Child Reunion" was the series premiere, in which Pat Mastroiami guest starred. I could make it less ambiguous by saying "first episode of season one", but it seems clumsy as there is a clear distinction between "season" and "series" in American and Canadan terminology, unlike the UK where we use "series" for both.
    • Ok, I get it. The problem for me was realising a difference between series and season... Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• "D:TNG" is used for the first time in the Cast section without being explained - it's best to put this acronym after the first "Degrassi: The Next Generation" in the lead.
  •  Done
• Those age ranges could be written as 2 to 11. Or 2–11. But not separated with a hyphen as you currently have it.
  •  Done
• I hate stuff in parentheses so just write it out as the end of the sentence.
  •  Done
• Hmm, "teen" again. I know what you're saying but not keen - not 100% encyclopaedic in my opinon.
  •  Done - except where "teen" is used in a quote, but I could change those to "teen[aged]", "teen[ager]" or "teen[agers]]" where applicable if you want?
    • No, leave them in quotes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• The N - this needs linking or explaining again.
  •  Done - see lead.
• "stands on it's own" - did the quote really have that apostrophe?!
  • It's a reprint so I'm not sure. I've removed it though as it is incorrect. Done
• " the season had won or been nominated for" - why not " the season had been nominated for or won..."?
  • Because winning is more important than being nominated. I've  Done it though.
• Episode numbering confusion warning!
  • "episode fourteen, "Careless Whisper"
  • Table says Series #29
  • Production code 214.
  • End of the Episodes section starts using Production codes as episode numbers...!
    •  Done Each number is now changed to production code.
  • I'd suggest having Episode numbers from 1 to whatever and using those to describe episodes - there shouldn't be any confusion with other seasons.
  •  Done
• I'd tend to hyphenate re-run.
  •  Done
• 80's - not sure but I think the manual of style suggests we usually skip the apostrophe here.
  •  Done changed to "'80s" unless you think the century is unclear, per Wikipedia:MOS#Calendar items and I'll put "1980s", but most '80s dances I've heard of aren't called "1980s dances".
• "Jimmy takes advantage of the situation" - I think this needs explanation (my mind is racing...!)...
  •  Done - I think?
• "he's got" - a little too familiar - he has.
  •  Done
• Same for "can't " and "it's" in the following episodes. (check all episodes please!)
  •  Done
• "Liberty acts out in an attempt to show J.T. he doesn't know anything about her." - I don't get what this means, and "doesn't" is too familiar again.
  •  Done
• "sex-ed" - ucation.
  •  Done
• "honour" - would Canadian English put the u in honor?
  • According to Canadian English#Spelling and dictionaries, yes. Unfortunately, I don't know of a free online Canadian English dictionary website.
    • Fine. No worries, I'm British English so that's what I know best - sounds like Canadian English is part Brit part Yank! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Easy for you then! I'm a Brit who moved to New Zealand, then moved to America, and writing in Canadian. Ugh! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Craig feels a huge weight lifted with," - unusual turn of phrase.
  •  Done
• Canadian Awards database link is dead now.
  •  Done URL was wrong, but fixed now and all are checked with Link checker tool

Hopefully these are constructive enough to help push the article on to FL! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. All but 1 were  Done, further input would be appreciated for that one. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More comment - Hey Matthew, going really well, need a couple more things...

• "date rape" or "date-rape"?
  •  Done - I'd actually changed it while going through your earlier comments!
• Not sure now if it's the right thing to do to relate to episodes by their production code - do you do that for season 1 (I can't remember)? We need to be careful and consistent across the articles.
  •  DoneI used words-as-numbers for season 1, so that's what I've done here.
• I've responded to a couple of outstanding issues above. Nearly there I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hope so! I've got season 3 to list, and season 4 to work on! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - a lot of good work has gone into this. Well done. Let me know when the next seasons are ready! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And I will - Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although, I think "split into two parts in syndication" part should be explained better. Maybe add a link to Broadcast syndication. I'd also like to see a complete sentence here without parentheses.--Crzycheetah 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - changed to "Broadcast as separate half-hour episodes in broadcast syndication". Thanks for the support! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. is that too many "broadcast"s? Perhaps change it again to "Broadcast as separate half-hour episodes in stripped syndication" -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Aired as separate half-hour episodes in broadcast syndication"?--Crzycheetah 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question - I'd like to add this information: User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/season 2 DVD to the article, but am unsure of where to place it. Before or after the list of episodes? Do you guys have a suggestion/preference? Thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Rambling Man. I added it in after the episodes. Could you just re-review the added information? Cheers! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. I made a few manual of style tweaks but beyond that I'm not changing from support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I saw them and applied the same changes to season 1. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Looks good, but I'd like to see the plot summaries expanded a little because none of the episodes have their own pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Doing... It'll take a couple of days to complete, but I'll get it done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)  Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 01:20, 21 February 2008.

---

San Diego Chargers seasons

Just had a PR. With the end of the NFL season this seems like a good time to nom. Buc (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) and User:Golbez

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Oppose for now, some comments...

• Consider wikilinking "head coach" in the lead to help non-experts.
• " three major periods of continued success " - sounds tautological to me. either "three periods of continued success" or "three major periods of success".
• "period of success" is then used three more times in the next four sentences, it reads pretty poorly.
  • However, this "The most recent ranges " needs work, the most what? You need to add something here, preferably not "period of success" but something with a similar meaning to improve the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Re-phased Buc (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• "AFL " - when you use American Football League the first time, put (AFL) after it to help the non-experts.
• What's the difference between a "winning season" and winning "Division Championships"? It's not clear why you've distinguished between them.
  • Winning season is having more wins than losses. Division Championship is comming first in your division. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not clear in the article so explain it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Re-phased Buc (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• "3rd " - third.
• "period of failure " repeated also. Reads poorly.
• "going 1-15 into..." this is jargon, needs explanation for non-expert readers, plus you need an en-dash there, not a hyphen.
  • What needs expaining exactly. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What 1–15 means! You know, I know, but people who don't know American football won't! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Re-phased Buc (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

*"They are as of 2008" missing comma or, better still, start "As of 2008, they are..."

• "They are as of 2008, the only team to win AFC West on multiple occasions since the NFL restructure in 2002 when the division was reduced to four teams. They have also been conference champions six times but only once since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. In their 48-year history, the Chargers have played 748 regular and post-season games and have appeared in the post-season fifteen times." all these claims need citation.
• Reference [3] is unnecessary.
  • Someone asked why the NFL season were in bold. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It was me. That was when the column just contained years. The note is no longer needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

*"Italicized numbers mean that the records are subject to change each week due to regular season or postseason games being played." but in the lead you say this is a list of seasons "completed" by the Chargers. One or the other.

• • Well the season is over now so both are true. Changed wording anyway. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

*Why is that statement bulleted?

• Why use small fonts above the table?
  • Why not? I think it looks better. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Why though? People who have difficulty reading small fonts or awkward colouring should be considered. It doesn't add anything to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • • Fine, but I really don't think it looks as good. Many existing FL have it like that. Buc (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Which says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Buc (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
              • And who's essence is that just because A exists, and B is like A, B should exist. So what if another FL has tiny fonts? It doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
                • No but it gives a good indication of what the basic consensus is. Might take this up on the NFL wikipoject page after this nom is over. Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

*"Post Season Results" - why the capitalisation? Post-season results. *MVP should be wikilinked the first time it's used.

• • It is but I've added an appropriate link for the All-Star Game MVP. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Link Pro Bowl, and why is it in a set of parentheses on its own?
  • It is linked the first time it is used. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why is Offensive Player of the Year wikilinked twice while Defensive Rookie of the Year isn't? Consistent wikilinking required.
• Ties total column is blank, why?
  • Can't have ties in the post season. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So add a zero and a footnote - not everyone who reads this article is an Amerian football expert and a blank cell is very uninformative. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • • Fixed

*Reference [2] is just floating around, it should be "tied" to something. *Superbowl champions in the key but not used.

• "1982 was a strike-shorten season " - shortened, presumably, and what strike?
• "The strike of 1987 " - what strike? Link it for non-experts or expand the point.

That's it from me. Hope the comments help push the article to FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I've struck out the comments I consider completed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • • Ok all done now as far as I can tell. Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• All done as far as I can tell. Buc (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've done some cleanup; however, I have a question - do we really need all of the refs about seeding? What relevance does the seeding of the Steelers in the playoffs have to do with a list of the Chargers seasons? --Golbez (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It effected the Charger's seeding. Buc (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • But I don't see the Chargers' seeding mentioned anywhere... like, for example, 1992, where does it say the Chargers' seeding? Is this a common thing on lists of seasons? --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Added the seed # in. Buc (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • But only in the footnotes? Is this needed information? --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Where should it be? Buc (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Do other featured lists of seasons include the seeds, either in the table or the footnotes? It cannot only be in the footnotes, but then again I doubt it's needed in the table - people can click the article for the playoffs if they're really into seeding (which has no impact on the season, anyway). --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I believe so. Don't do any harm to have them. Buc (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
                • I disagree; they clog up the footnotes with irrelevant information and, as you can already see, beg questions from readers. I don't think the seed information is either needed or desired. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • How do they clog up the footnotes?Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • The reader comes across a footnote, which takes him to an irrelevant statement about seeding (Which had ZERO impact on the season), which annoys him. I say remove them. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • You've now got "In their 48-year history, the Chargers have played 748 regular and post-season games, and have appeared in the post-season fifteen times.[2]" in the lead. This makes the article inherently unstable and would need it to be updated for every single game. This is about seasons, not individual games so I think this should go.
  • Shouldn't "conference" in the lead be capitalised? Same for "division champions" - Division?
  • Link the Superbowl win in the lead to the appropriate Superbowl article.
  • Full stop required in the caption for the image of the stadium.
  • "and recorded the worst record of any Chargers team in 2000," - reads odd - there's only one Chargers team in 2000?
  • "postseason" should be hyphenated in English. Or post season, but be consistent.
  • "AFL-NFL Merger" split in the table isn't needed - it should be a footnote. It doesn't relate directly to changes in the franchise (as the other complete rows do).
    • It does because it effected the Chargers. Buc (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Usually in these articles, it's a list of the seasons *completed* by the team. For some reason, this doesn't have that. That would make it much less unstable. As for conference and division, I don't think so, no more than you would capitalize league. The Conference Championship might be capitalized, but not "conference champions", the same way you would capitalize "President of the United States" but not "The American president." All of this IMHO, of course. I agree that the AFL-NFL merger could be moved to a footnote. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, as well as some of the above, the article still remains problematic in these areas...
        • "postseason" or "post-season"
        • "Division Champions" or "Division champions"
        • "Conference Champions" or "Conference champions"
        • "seasons (a season with more wins than losses)" plural vs singular.
        • "Italicized numbers mean that the records are subject to change each week due to regular season or postseason games being played." - there aren't any? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The season is over now. Buc (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
            • And this article should only ever deal with completed seasons, as you've been told many times. Remove the sentence and keep this article stable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
            • This is the way NFL season articles are done. Many are already FL. Buc (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ever crossed your mind that this may be a shortcoming of the other FL articles? You know it undermines the stability of the article so just stick with completed seasons. It makes perfect sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• It seems most people don't agree with you and the general consensus it what matters, all other NFL season articles are done this way and it didn't stop them becoming FL. Buc (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Undoubtedly you're right Buc, as ever. The fact that this will stop me supporting is probably of little relevance to you, as is the time and effort I spend trying to explain to you how I think you can improve your articles. To be honest, I'm a little fed up of talking to a brick wall. Good luck in your endeavours. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to implement these changes, Rambling Man, let me know if I've missed any. The only ones I disagreed on were capitalizing Division and Conference - they aren't proper nouns. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That's fine Golbez. I just wondered. Let me know if you think you're done with updating the article and I'll re-consider my position. Thanks for discussing it with me... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I already did, which is why I asked "let me know if I've missed any." :) Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Indeed you did! I'll go and have another look! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - much much better. I found a final post season so added a hyphen in so I think I can safely say I was a major contributor.... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support too! (I hope you don't mind, I struck out your initial oppose) --Golbez (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Shame it was so painful getting to this point. I'll hide the comments so this stands a chance of others popping by to look at it! If you object, feel free to revert. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest all NFL season articles, including throughs already at FL status be re-written like this. I'll look in to this more once this nom is over. And thanks to Gol for filling in while I was away. Buc (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Although it might be better to use an image of the players as the lead image. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 01:27, 21 February 2008.

---

List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar

Self nomination I've based this article on the same lines of List of Test cricket triple centuries, an FL in itself. I've checked for factual accuracy and feel that it is a nicely-written article. However, if there are any minor errors, please do elaborate so that I can promptly address them. Thank you, reviewers! Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey, good start, I have some comments which, despite their possible inclusion in the FL you've described above, I think should be addressed before I can support.

Thank you Mspraveen (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• "a former Indian batsman with 34 Test centuries, coming second to him along with Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara..."
  • "coming second to him"? is second to him?
  • This could infer that Ponting and Lara are second equal with Gavaskar, is that what you mean?  Done
    • • Indeed, but you now need to heed WP:CITE to ensure the references are placed appropriately, i.e. immediately to the right of punctuation where possible. I'd place all citations at the end of the sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Done
• Remove the full stop in the image caption, per the WP:MOS.
  • As per WP:MOS, complete sentences end with a period symbol, isn't it?
    • My apologies - a complete sentence takes the full stop, you're right! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Make the (as of January 2008) the start of the sentence with no parentheses. Done
• There's a Not out article you could link to for your explanation of asterisks. Done
• I'd prefer to see a Notes column for the references in the table rather than force the citations to be in the score column.
  • I created a # column and set the references within this itself. It fitted in perfectly, what say?
• I'm really not keen on the in-line linking to the test scorecards, but I won't oppose on this alone. I'd like to think of another way of doing this...
  • I felt that this would be appropriate as the corresponding Test scorecard can be viewed instantly.
• The dates need to be written out properly, the ISO format is unfriendly. The {{dts2}} template should help with the sortability.
  • The dates are sortable in their present format, aren't they?
    • Yes, indeed they are, but in their present format they're not really human readable. All I was suggesting was that you could convert them to really dates, i.e. 6 February, 2008, and {{dts2}} will sort them appropriately without having to rely on a YYYY-MM-DD format to get it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed, but the column has not a single date, but successive dates. So, will adding dates in the format you suggested be correct? Let me illustrate this: His highest score was scored on two days. If I write it your format, I would have to write it as 11 December, 12 December, 2004, isn't it? Or, do you have a better way of using the date format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspraveen (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course, it's a range. Hmm. Difficult. But whichever you approach this, the ISO format isn't good. You can do a lot with the more basic {{sort}} template, it means more work for you, as you can write what you like and then pipe it to sort against the ISO date you're currently using. I think you may need to experiment because right now those dates are pretty grim to read. Either that, or you change it to the date the innings was completed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)  Done
          • Changed the dates to the date on which his innings concluded and also used the dts2 template for dates. Mspraveen (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• I know Inn means innings, as do you, but some may not so expand it in the table or explain it below. Done
• Since the table is sortable, consider adding a # column so if it's re-ordered, it's still easy to see the temporal relationships between the various centuries. Done
• "...first innings collapsed for ..." should be cited as it sounds a bit POV to me. Done
• "record for the fourth wicket for India." needs citation. Done
• " record total of 705 for 7 declared" needs citation. Done
• Follow-on has an article which you could link to in the notes. Done
  • Already has a wiki-link. You might not have observed it.
• More POV/journalistic examples which need citation or work on the tone... (P.S. I recognise all of these are commonly used in cricket and make a lot of sense to the aficionado but if these notes are to be part of a featured article they need to be accessible to all).
  • "the Windies survived in their final innings. " - sounds POV again, journalistic even. Citation or neutralise the tone. Done
  • "Indian second innings collapsed " Done
  • "A quickfire South African second innings " Done
  • "The Indian second innings collapsed " Done
  • "making a draw all but inevitable" Done
  • "A close finish ensued with the Indians managing to hold out and scoring the winning runs with two wickets to spare. " Done
  • "India collapsed for 195 " Done
• "notable contribution " - why notable, because he made 162?
  • There are many such instances of "notable" within the article. This is to suggest the primary contributions by the players.

Hope that these comments help. Feel free to get in touch if you need anything further. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out all those which are clearly addressed. The rest are retained with my comments so as to allow any further discussion. I thank you once again for taking out time in reviewing the article. Please feel free in letting me know of any further ideas so as to improve its quality. Mspraveen (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments...
  • Make the default sort in chronological order, that's more logical. Done
  • The # column doesn't sort correctly.
  • Avoid leading zeros in the {{dts2}} like 02 December etc, it's not necessary. Done
• Keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I made some amends. Hope you agree they improve the Lead. I think there's a problem of editorialising in the footnotes. The footnotes are entirely unreferenced and for the standards of FLC smack of WP:OR, which is a big negative. I'm not sure how you'd fix this; you could just remove them and leave people to find out what happened in the match from the link to the scorecard. I would suggest, however, that you restrict yourself to pertinent facts - just note any large partnerships in a dry, statistical manner. And add a column to the table, showing the match result as W/D/L (so it's sortable) and add the size of win/losing margin in the footnote. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the lead is much better now. Thank you! The footnotes contain statistics - as is. I hope this would resolve the WP:OR issue. What say? Mspraveen (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one other idea. Sometimes players make a substantial innings that is a very high proportion of the team score. Might be nice to have a column showing the % of India's total that ST contributed, for each of his hundreds. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since a substantial score by a batsman is not that frequent, I felt adding a column for the same would not really be appropriate. It could, very well, be suitable for a list of scores with high % contributions to the team totals. Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - A well developed, informative list, that meets FL criteria. I have made several updates and tweaks; and some changes per talk page discussion. - KNM ^Talk 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above suggestions, I've setup a results column and the references in the same column as this would be most appropriate. Thank you KNM, Dweller and others in lending me a helping hand in improving this further. I hope that I was able to address all the main issues. There still is not # column as the references will serve the numbering in case of other column-sorts. Mspraveen (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - still not keen on the in-line links for the test scorecards, and would prefer to see centrally aligned innings and score columns... but it's a lot, lot better than when I first reviewed so good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks nice but if you build a list of his ODI tons then the articles could be combined for "List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar" I think; two articles detailing one player's centuries seems wasteful. Anyway, looking at the article as it is,

• Remove overlinks of the countries and stadiums in the table. Done
• Why not "not out" instead of the potentially ambiguous "unbeaten" (below the table). Done
• Consider the possibility of additional columns like method of dismissal, bowler dismissed by, or something like "c. Gilchrist b. McGrath".

• Not sure how much of value add would this bring in. In the list, I think sufficient stats have already been provided. IMO, mode of dismissal is not so relevant and would add to clutter, in an already constrained space. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• The "Test" column heading is potentially ambiguous; it took me a while to realise that you mean the #th test of that particular series. Done

indopug (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since 11/39 centuries of his remained unbeaten/not out, I felt adding a column for the mode of dismissal might not be suitable. However, now that you pointed it out, I will be doing this soon.

• On the hindsight, I'd rather not want to do this because as I began doing this, the setup appeared clumsy to me. Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Since both forms of the game, that is, Test cricket and ODI, are quite different in their approach, it seemed appropriate to me that there be two articles for his centuries in both these forms. If insisted based on a common achieved consensus, I am willing to put the ODI tons along in a separate table in this page, which will be renamed as per your suggestion.

Thanks for your comments. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to delink the countries. Fine about the dismissals. indopug (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• The countries and their flags come directly from the respective templates. For example, England. I am not sure of any ideas on how to unlink the countries. Would you be able to suggest me of any? Mspraveen (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok; I didn't know that. Is there any pattern to the additional information listed under "Notes" for each match? Do you think there is scope for additional information like a table for number of centuries against each country? Maybe also a mention in the lead about how he has most no of 90s too (correct me if I'm wrong about this). indopug (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)  Done added in the lead section Mspraveen (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the pattern is chronological and the section shows the key statistics from the match. Mspraveen (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thoughts / suggestions / issues:
  • I would prefer without the external link under "Test #", but with the link reformatted as a reference using {{cite web}} in a new "refs" column. It looks odd to me to have an external link in that location, and it's not obvious that that's the link that verifies not just the number of the test match in that series but also the other information in the row.
  • I'm not that keen on the detailed notes, even though they are less detailed than previously. Many add little value to this list (e.g. names of others who scored centuries, margin of victory): even if there are interesting comments in there from a cricket fan's point of view, they distract from the main point of the list. Anyone clicking through the scorecard will see that information anyway.
  • I would prefer another table on this page with a list of ODI centuries to there being a separate page for an ODI list. The combined result isn't going to be too long and I think it makes sense to have the two together together.
  • Were any of his centuries scored during his periods as captain? If so, it would be good to highlight these - if not, worth a sentence somewhere?
  • Image:Sachin tendulkar.jpg / Image:Tendulkar closup.jpg are Commons images showing Tendulkar celebrating one of his centuries against Australia (Jan 2007) - might be worth adding.
• So it's a weak oppose at present, with the points in descending order of importance. Bencherlite^Talk 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm presently working on the highlighted points and will revert with an update within 3-4 hours. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, now the list has both ODI and Test cricket tables. The references format have been altered in both these tables as per the suggestions. Comments are welcome. The lead section will be re-written within 24 hours. Mspraveen (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• The name of the list has been updated and the previous FLC discussion has been shifted to this one. Thanks to User:Amarrg, things have been speeded up and the lead section has been setup nicely. Sensible additions and changes to the tables make it look more complete now.
• Further thoughts from reviewers are welcome. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent work, much improved. I took the liberty of replacing four references for the no of centuries scored by Ponting, Lara, Gavaskar and Tendulkar with just one, added an "accessdate" to another reference, and added one of the photos I mentioned above. Switching to support: excellent work. (Oh, and I fixed the cut-and-paste move of this discussion free of charge!) Bencherlite^Talk 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• If you wanted something else to do to make it even better, then you could add in the batting position to the test match list for consistency, as it's there in the ODI list. I don't think S/R would be needed for the test list, though. Bencherlite^Talk 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 01:20, 21 February 2008.

---

List of National Park System areas in Maryland

previous FLC (05:51, 22 July 2007)

I am re-nominating this list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Most of the credit goes to Geraldk, who created and expanded this list. I made several minor edits and got rid of the red links by creating stubs. Any questions/comments are welcome!--Crzycheetah 23:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
• Some comments before I can support.
  • I think the lead could use some expansion, particularly to improve upon the single-sentence opening paragraph.
    • The single-sentence opening paragraph is gone. If you still think the lead needs expansion, then please tell me what you would like to see there.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • " 24 units " what is meant by a unit here?
    • Unit is a standard measure of a quantity. The very next sentence describes what those units measure.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead could also use citation.
    • Cited one sentence only because I believe others are easily verifiable in the table.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Should congress be Congress? (Question, not sure myself).
    • Yes, it should.--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Consder adding a <br> between "Date" and "established" to narrow the column, or force it using a width parameter.
  • Consider a Notes column so that the references and notes you've got scattered around the table are in one column.
  • It's a shame the images are so small, perhaps reworking the column widths will allow you to make them larger? I can hardly see the Antietam National Battlefield image at all.
    • I believe they're large enough now. How about you?
  • Because the table is sortable, you probably need to wikilink all rows (e.g. the repeated instances of Washington County etc) as they could appear in a different order from the one you currently have.
  • The notes also need to be referenced.
    • Added references to the first three notes. The last two are verifiable by looking at the map. Should I add an external map as a reference?--Crzycheetah 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. Five out of nine are done, the rest I'll do in about 10-11 hours.--Crzycheetah 10:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're very welcome, as always. Feel free to strike out comments you have attended to. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd make the date established and notes columns centrally aligned. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • They're centrally aligned now.--Crzycheetah 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. The list looks very nice, but I find myself wanting to find more information in the list. The list would be more useful if it provided more information on the properties, such as identification of the feature(s) for which each was established (e.g., Civil War battlefield, historic home, or "military fort restored to its condition during the War of 1812"), land area (or length, in the case of the parkways), and/or indication of which properties are part of the National Capital Parks system. Also, the introduction should explain that some sites are administered by the NPS as part of the National Capital Parks system. I think this information is needed in the intro because it helps to explain why NPS manages some Maryland sites that are smaller and less consequential than most NPS areas. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Before adding the information you mentioned, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Do you want to see the info on properties as notes or in a separate column (which is going to be as wide as "location" column now)? Some of these units are located in other states, as well; therefore, I have to ask how useful the land area really is for this list(since we're talking about Maryland only). Also, if I provide the info on units located in Maryland only and not on others, then it will be inconsistent on our part.--Crzycheetah 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • I would like to see the additional information in a table column or columns, not as a footnote. Furthermore, it would be desirable to reduce the use of footnotes by incorporating information into the table. My issue is that the current version of the table, which lists name, location, and establishment date, plus notes, leaves me feeling that the table has little informational value. Format is one reason for this "feeling"; I think that the need to frequently toggle or scroll between table cells and footnotes significantly diminishes the value of a table as a vehicle for presenting information. (I recognize that an additional column either makes the columns narrower or displaces the images. To be candid, I think that additional information in the table would add more value to the article than the series of images along the side of the table. I think one or perhaps two images could be positioned above the table, and others could appear in the references sections of the article. Also, additional space could be acquired by changing "Date established" to "Date founded".) --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Confession: When I commented earlier, I wasn't entirely sure which additional information I wanted this list to contain. However, after thinking further, I now think a column of short descriptions is needed, but not a column of land areas. Descriptive details could be somewhat free-form, depending on the site. For example, if the park is the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, it's misleading to say that it's in Washington County, Maryland; instead the list could say that it is a footpath that extends from Maine to Georgia, crossing Maryland in Washington County. For some sites, such as the 9.35-mile Suitland Parkway, the length or area could be informative parts of the description, but it can be omitted in most cases. The information in notes C, D, E, and F could be included in the table in the description column. --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll work on it. What if I rename the "Location" column to "Description" and keep all the info about locations, then add the descriptions? So, an additional column won't be needed. --Crzycheetah 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That works for me, but I suppose it might be seen as a negative by users who want to be able to sort the list by county name. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Information about National Capital Parks is added.--Crzycheetah 21:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. How about going further, and moving the "note A" callout into the table, inserted in the first column after the name of each park that is included in this system? That way, the table would convey the information, not the footnote. Also, with that change the note text could be shortened to something like "Unit of National Capital Parks." --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A final comment on note positioning: Since Note B adds information on the park's founding date, it would be more helpful to the reader if the callout were attached to the date (rather than sitting in a "Notes" column). --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, then User:The Rambling Man is going to oppose. That note used to be attached to the date(some notes were attached to the name of the parks, too), but TRM suggested to place it(among other notes) in a "Notes" column. There is a contradiction going on here.--Crzycheetah 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, I wouldn't oppose simply on that. If the consensus says those notes are better next to the dates then fine, but I still think the references should stay in a notes column for appearance. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Orlady for taking over here. I added a description for Greenbelt Park. I don't like it as much, but there is the size of the park mentioned at least.--Crzycheetah 06:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nearly there comments
  • Would you also consider providing metric conversions of the imperial units you've got in the table using the {{convert}} template?

I started adding conversions. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "refreshing streams and scenic vistas" sounds a little tourism-esque to me - is this a quote? If so it needs to be placed within quotation marks, if not I think it's a little too adverty.

Replaced that segment with statement that park is in the Appalachian Mountains. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • D.C. or DC - needs to be consistent, as does whether its wikilinked on every instance in the Description column.

Converted all to "DC". Can fix the wikilinking.--Orlady (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "signer" - is that US English for signatory? (question)

Answer: Yes. See Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's the icing on the cake really. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support my comments have been addressed, it's a nice piece of work, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - My comments have been resolved. I was happy to pitch in to help resolve my concerns because I think this will become a good model for similar topical lists. --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support It's a bit on the short side, but I can't find anything to oppose over. However, the images on the right overlap into the sections below, perhaps the images should be shrunk a little or one or two of them should be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:50, 19 February 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester

Self nomination - I am nominating this list as it is clear and concise with full references. Similar to the featured list List of tallest buildings and structures in London and brings useful information with links to the notable buildings and statistics for the ones not notable enough for an article. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello, I enjoyed the list, but have some comments before I can support.

• The comparative height chart is so small it's not really useful unless clicked on. Consider making it larger? Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• "Manchester has a recognisable skyline..." - can you qualify this statement? Unable to find a source so removed, although true in my opinion it may be a breach of WP:PEACOCK so best to get rid.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool. I agree entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• (Not a policy, but)... I prefer a more British English with Second World War rather than the US sequel variant of World War II. Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐
• Could link Beetham Tower in the lead. Done Rudget. 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• "An even taller ..." - axe the "even" - "A taller..." will be fine..! Done Rudget. 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why is "Inacity Tower" bold in the lead? No need.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• (Not convinced by myself but....) isn't high rise hyphenated usually? Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• "... the tallest town hall in the United Kingdom,..." needs a citation really. No source can be found on the net or in the books I have checked so removed.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• When image captions are complete sentences, they should end with a full stop (per the WP:MOS).
  • Hmm...would this be applicable here? As far as I can see, the captions are too short for full stops in my opinion. Rudget. 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well it all boils down to (a) whether you consider the captions to be complete "sentences" and (b) if you wish to comply with the WP:MOS. Seriously, such a minor point I couldn't really care less either way, but compliance with the manual of style is usually mandated for featured content... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Good point.  Done Rudget. 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Per one of the possible FLC criteria, 1(a)-1, it should bring together a set of existing articles. A number of these buildings aren't linked. Something to consider (since there are other criteria which could equally apply to this list) - I'd expect to see articles for each of these - some of the US lists of tall buildings are complete in that they have articles for all buildings in the list.
  • Criteria 1(a)3..."contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". Most of the smaller buildings are simply residential apartment towers which have no notable features for an article. Obviously they can't be missed out from this list so they are added with no linked article but full statistical information. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I appreciate that criterion, I've used it myself. No worries, I won't object based on this by any means, just wondered if it was possible (although a lot of work) to create articles for the buildings not linked to at this time. Wouldn't hurt but in a way it's outside the remit of this FLC if we go with 1(a)3... so no bother! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done Great! Well thank you immensely for all your suggestions, you have been a huge help and incredibly prompt. Hope we can count on your support! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Consider central alignment of some columns in the table, particularly Built, Height and Floors. Also, narrow the Built column and expand the Use column, you may just about get every row on a single line (I'm running low-res so if I can see it, most can!).
  • I have changed some of the widths now, how does it look? I'm using a large 22" monitor so it always looked fine on mine and it looked fine on my 15.4" laptop screen. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Much, much better, I'm on a 12" iBook and it works so I'm guessing everyone will enjoy it! Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Great stuff.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Any reason why you say "Office & Retail" and not "Office & retail"? No need to over-cap. Done Rudget. 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why are Lowry House and Ramada Renaissance Hotel without Built dates? Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• While the tallest structures won't have a Floors column, try to make all columns beforehand the same width as above to make the tables look consistent where possible. Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope the comments help, and please let me know if I can be of any further use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I think the lead could do with a bit of work - the opening paragraph should adequately describe what this list will contain, so it needs to expand upon not only how tall the buildings are but the number of storeys, the function of the building etc. You've currently got four paragraphs in the lead, I'd expect maybe only three, and the first one ought to tell me what I'm about to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have moved some of the lead around and added some more, I'm not great at leads but is this any better now? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, thanks to some help from User:Jza84 a bit of info about Manchester has been added to the lead and about how significant a city it so justifies having these big towers. Is the lead stronger now in your opinion? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Seegoon

Comments from Seegoon

I have a few grievances with this article, but all in all I'm very impressed.

• Is there any chance you could improve the lead image? I added a {{ShouldBePNG}} template to it, because it has compression artefacts that really aren't necessary.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• The first and second sentences don't really run on to each other at all. I'd be tempted to put a paragraph break between them.  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• "1960s and 1970s including" - shouldn't there be a comma before including?  Done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• "including the 118 metres" - shouldn't this be "metre", the singular? You don't say "the 30 storeys XXX tower", for instance, you say "the 30-storey XXX tower". The same applies throughout the article.
  • The reason is says metres is because the {{convert}} template has been used which automatically generates the words, I have no idea if there is a way to change it to the singular form but your right, it should be metre. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done Just found out how to make singular units. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• As for the table - it would be useful if some columns were sortable. I'm not an expert on this however, I'm sure The Rambling Man might be able to help out. Another issue is your use of ampersands, which is generally discouraged at all times.
  • I'm happy to help with any tabular suggestions!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure a sortable wikitable will work here, I tried defining the table as "wikitable sortable" and it made a real mess of it, I think it is because two rows are used for the header of the table. If you know of a way to make it sortable without changing the formatting too much that would be great. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You can actually make specific columns unsortable. The problem is that I think your table is fucking gorgeous the way it is and arse-ing with it too much would be a shame. Anyway, information on how to go about this can be found here. Whether it can work on headers split over two rows I don't know, but that'll be fun for you to try. It's not something I'd describe as a major grievance... Seegoon (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Wow you really like the table then! Anyway I tried the class="unsortable" and everything but it really does bugger the whole thing up, it moves the headers into the middle of the table, makes empty boxes and just makes a total mess. Either I remove all the pretty colours and formatting or leave it as it is, it's not a huge table but it would be nice to sort the years but I think people will survive. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        •  Not done as the table will not sort with current formatting and is not totally necessary. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All in all, the content is perfectly decent, and I like the lead a lot. Seegoon (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• 82 King Street - As far as I can tell this is the 3 storey Former Bank of England Building do you actually mean the much larger Ship Canal House a couple of doors down ?Pit-yacker (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore me - there is another part behind the banking hall [1] Pit-yacker (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - much better than when I first read an already good article. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm a fan. Seegoon (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment Both this article and its model, London tallest buildings, should have their columns sortable. This is the defacto norm for such tables. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As you say, that is de facto, therefore not a fail in terms of FLC criteria. To make the table sortable, one would have to remove all style formatting on the table including the split column heading. This would make the table untidy and vulgar to look at. The table is already ordered by size and the only other ordering I think anyone would want to see is by year, as there are only 20 buildings on the list, the majority of people will be able to rank them in their head. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd have to agree. This isn't a codified policy as such, and thus in noway a reason to oppose the promotion to FL. However, I do note that it was just a comment anyway! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I would also agree. It's not really necessary. I think the tables currently look elegant and just making the sortable would wreck all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - not worked much on it apart from a few edits, either way meets FLC criteria. Rudget. 13:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - A beautiful list (and article), meets the criteria, and improved through the FLC -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Numerous tallest building lists have been promoted following the format proposed herein. However, I am disappointed that so few of the buildings are represented by images. Personally, I would prefer that all tallest building lists either used a format like say List of longest suspension bridge spans with as many images as possible represented or using {{double image}} or {{triple image}} along the right side. I am sure many more than five of these buildings have good images. Either of the latter two templates could accommodate many more images and for many cities almost all of the buildings have images and could be reformatted like the list above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Twenty images would be excessive in this case, in my opinion. The current images are a representative sample of the tallest in the list. The double or triple image templates would not work as there is not enough room at the side of the list especially for those using a smaller resolution and would cause overlapping onto the table. Thanks for your suggestions but I really don't feel it would be possible, others may have a different opinion though. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport I would like to see an historical tallest list as seem in the other tallest buildings lists. Besides making this page less repetitive than other lists that exist online already, the information is useful, interesting and makes the article closer to the tallest buildings lists that already exist.Medvedenko (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you point us to a good example of this - for inspiration? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I found the example List of tallest buildings in New York City#Timeline of tallest buildings but it seems a bit pointless as the tallest history is just Town Hall, CIS, Beetham so a mention in the lead could be more appropriate? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Having learned this, I personally wouldn't make the change as the data is too banal here. It is probably worth doing in about 12 months or so when the approved towers are constructed???? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Four buildings in a timeline list equals the tallest buildings in Philadelphia and the tallest buildings in Dubai articles and is more than the tallest buildings in Providence article. Besides there might be information on what was the tallest building in the city before HMP Manchester Tower was built somewhere out there. Medvedenko (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Though I suppose the timeline lists were more relevant on the other articles because they limit buildings listed to nothing lower than 122 meters, which this list doesn't do becuase of the lack of buildings that height. However, I'm still of a fan of the Timeline of the Tallest buildings section. Medvedenko (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)  Done Timeline done _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a great list (after seeing the blue tables, I am tempted to change all U.S. building lists to this method). But I have a few questions. Why are twenty tallest, etc., bolded at the beginning of a section? This is not needed. Also, has converting the list from a set number of entries to a height limit (50 m, perhaps) been considered? This is common for all building lists (see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Boston). Also, is there a skyline image that can be added to the lead? This is also a standard for most building lists. Rai-me 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, why is the section titled "Approved and under construction buildings" when there are proposed buildings on the list as well? "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" would be more appropriate and more consistent with other tallest building lists. Rai-me 20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose, until a height limit is added to this list. Also, per Trance addict's comment below, I agree that individual references to Emporis and/or SkyscraperPage in each entry would add to the list, and that the "Status" section is unnecessary for the completed buildings section. Finally, I also think that a timeline section should be added; as noted above, almost all building lists have them, even if they are only a few entries long. But the most pressing issue is the height limit. Cheers, Rai-me 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I have already added the height limit to the list before you opposed, I will do a timeline now. I have also added a reference to every building on the list as requested. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Support - I didn't think to check the list again, as there were no replies here. My mistake! Overall, this is definitely a great list! Cheers, Rai-me 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but each entry in the building list needs a reference(s) to Emporis and/or SkyscraperPage, as per the tallest building-FLs. There also needs to be a section titled Notes for these references. A status column is unnecessary for the first two sections (tallest buildings and tallest structures), since all entries listed under "tallest buildings" are either nearing completion (topped out) or completed. The third section, Approved and under construction buildings, needs to be split up into two or three sections, as per List of tallest buildings in San Francisco. Good luck with this list! Cheers. _{Trance addict} 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think I can support now. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for both of your supports, I have done the timeline now too. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: Why do some of the buildings have links and others do not? I think that all buildings should be linked, even if no article exists. This would create consistency with other tallest buildings lists. Also, what is the purpose for having Salford Quays, Beetham Tower and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester in the "See also" section? They do not seem to relate directly to the tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. I think they should be removed. Third, I think the last template on the page, {{Manchester B&S}}, should be converted to a navbox so that it fits with the two other templates. And last, I think the buildings need more sources. Most of the featured tallest buildings lists have at least two sources for each building. These sources are usually Emporis.com and SkyscraperPage.com. Sometimes buildings are only listed on one database and not another. By using information from multiple sources, you ensure that there are no missing structures. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that links to the Beetham Tower and Salford Quays should be removed, but I don't see a strong reason to remove Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, as both that page and this page cover information relating to Manchester buildings. Also, if you believe that a template transcluded onto a page should be changed, that should be brought up on the template discussion page; the template not being a navbox dosn't relate directly with the quality of this list. And I agree about the sources. Cheers, Rai-me 04:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sources. |  Done See also. | I don't think there is any point creating masses of red links for no reason as many of the buildings are residential towers and will never be notable enough for an article. As already mentioned above, that template was created before the development of this article so a message on the talk page would be more appropriate and has nothing to do with this FLC. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:50, 19 February 2008.

---

The Office (U.S. season 3)

I've worked with this list for a while, and I believe it's ready for FL status. The article is well detailed and well referenced, and I believe it would make a fine addition to the list....of featured lists! -Mastrchf91- 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Per precedent, it should be titled The Office (season 3). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would consider renaming the article to The Office (U.S.) (season 3), The Office (U.S. TV series) (season 3), or something similar, because the article for the show is The Office (U.S. TV series), the list of episodes is List of The Office (U.S.) episodes, and someone may assume from the title that it refers to the third season of the British series (even though there isn't one). -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do, I think that The Office (U.S. TV series) (season 3) is probably the best option because it corresponds with the parent article, as well as the majority of other Office articles.-Mastrchf91- 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Confusion I'm not really sure this should be considered a list per se. The closest thing to a list here is the episode list, but that's just lifted form List of The Office (U.S.) episodes. I think WP:GA would be a better venue. But I'm not sure. Drewcifer (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

*Yeah, I was a bit confused on where to place it. But, looking through, I noticed that articles similar to this (Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3), The Simpsons season 9) were classified as FLs, so I presumed that it was the best place to place it.-Mastrchf91- 13:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I was having the same issue when I wanted to list Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), but as (1) there are no season pages at Featured Articles, only FLs, and (2) WP:GA says specifically "no lists", I listed my nom here, too. - -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This raises an interesting issue: do we define an article type by others like it or by what is actually in the article? Looking at the Simpson example provided above, that is surely more of a list than anything else. But with the addition of the cast, crew, and reception sections (all of which are more prose than list), the shape of the article changes drastically. That's great information to have, and I think the other articles you've mentioned should have them, but it makes it into more of a standard article and less of a list, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My main reasoning on placing it here is that the main content of the list is the list of episodes itself. I for one don't believe that the list should be a FLC unless it contains some form of prose. For a season of a TV series, I wouldn't feel that the list is complete without some mentioning of the cast, crew, awards, etc. But because the article itself is about the episodes composed in a list form, I'd believe that it would be better to be placed here than WP:GA.-Mastrchf91- 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps a discussion needs to take place at either the FL's talk page, or the FA's talk page. It would probably make more sense to have this article, the Lost and Smallville season articles moved over to Featured Article content, as the list of episodes featured isn't the main part of the article. (Hope that made sense.) Pages like The Simpsons' season articles are probably better off left here as FLs. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support- Might as well, as nom.-Mastrchf91- 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments From the top:

• As discussed above, definately move the article so that the words "Season 1" are in parentheses, without the capital letter, and consider moving to The Office (U.S. TV series) (season 3) or similar to avoid confusion with the British series.

 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• A personal preference, but I'd like to see the word "24" in the article's lead written as "twenty-four".

 Done- Looks good this way. -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Other than the infobox, there is no mention which network the show aired on. It does mention it's produced in association with NBC Universal Television Studios, but that doesn't necessarily mean it airs on NBC.

 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Steve Carell, Mindy Kaling, Paul Lieberstein, and B.J. Novak are all wikilinked twice, as is Pam Beesly.

 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any sources for any other actors? (I'm not sure if this is necessary. Is this information verified through the episode itself, much like plot is, since the names of the cast appear on screen in the credits, or should it be verified through another source?)

I felt that the information is verified through the episode credits, as well as being backed up by the main page. I had some trouble finding sources, but if you'd like, I guess I could dig a little deeper :D. -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know for sure what the rule is on this. IMO, the on screen credits would satisfy, but someone else may think otherwise. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Office (U.S. TV series) mentions plans for Mackenzie Crook, Martin Freeman and Lucy Davis from the British version. Is it worth mentioning here?

I thought about this while writing, but since it didn't work out, and no major efforts were actually made to feature them, I felt that it wasn't notable. But I can always add it if you or anyone else would like. -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Thinking about it some more, it seems kinda trivial. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Season 3 was also popular for it's use of non-mainstream songs for its soundtrack, using songs decades old, as well as less notable songs from the 21st century." - The reference doesn't back that statement up. The lead says "If a song is popular now, don’t expect to hear it on “The Office” until late next year ... This NBC comedy ... avoids the template most series use for their soundtracks. Currently the common approach is to tap an obscure band’s material." James Blunt, John Mayer, Styx, Pat Benetar and Black Eyed Peas are hardly "non-mainstream". A simple removal of the prefix "non-" will suffice, but also note that the reference didn't state that the use of popular songs made season 3 popular.

 Done -Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• All instances (4) of the words "The Office" should be itallicised. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done -Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any other critical reviews of the season or episodes, negative as well as positive, other than just EW's? I'm not sure about having EW's comments in a stand-alone box, either. Can it be worked into the prose?

• Haven't got a chance to look at other views, but as for the box, I thought that since the statement was applauding such a drastic change of plot that pertains to this season only, it might be good to put it in a box. But if needed, I can work into prose.

• In Reception, you have "18–49" and "18-19". I'm not sure which one is correct, but they should both be the same not different. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done -Mastrchf91- 04:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Can anything be included in a section about production details? Where it is filmed (ie, a real office or a studio (IIRC, the first season was filmed in a real, working office, and then production moved to a studio set). Where is it filmed (ie, city, state), the length of time to film an episode. Look at Smallville (season 1) for ideas.

 Done -Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Under "CREW", as well as producers and writers, consider including directors. Do they have a team of directors, are they freelanced, or both? If the information is available, why did J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon and Tucker Gates, who are associated with (for lack of a better word) cult programming, direct. Same for movie director Harold Ramis. Are they fans of the show, did they request it, or were they approached for a particular reason?

 Done -Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• In "Reception": "Fans of the show were initially disgruntled when it was announced that Jim Halpert would no longer be at the Scranton branch due to the events of season two" This definitely needs a reference. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and removed it.-Mastrchf91- 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now, I think -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I did some of the ones that would require less work this afternoon while I had a little time. I'll get to the rest hopefully this evening.-Mastrchf91- 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs work. Episodes should be surrounded in quotation marks (e.g., "Gay Witch Hunt"). Too many multiple links, you'll need to fish them out. Use the DVD cover for the infobox image. The Cast section needs splitting into separate paragraphs, and the lead section could use some expansion with information actually pertaining to the plot of the 3rd season rather than just background information about The Office in general. Can any external links be found that could be relevant? A link to the official website's section on season 3? All Movie Guide review or something? I also see multiple instances of spacing between the period and the reference (i.e., "Sentence. ^[1]" as opposed to "Sentence.^[1]", which is the correct format). Each episode of The Office follows on from its predecessor, and so it is possible to write about the plot of the story in this article. I haven't read the full article (I'm reluctant due to spoilers ;)), but just a quick glance over it shows me that it really doesn't discuss the plot at all or what happens in the season (like it does on the main article). I personally don't feel that it is ready for FL status, or rather, if it even is a list at all. Spebi 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Image added, quotations fixed, a few multile links fixed. Split cast section. I'm hesitant to add plot, as that would move it further over into the GA/FA category instead of FL. The way it currently is, I believe it's best listed in FL. -Mastrchf91- 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  Regardless of how much content you can stuff into the article, it is primarily a list. ON that note, the list of episodes should appear directly under the table of contents rather than at the end, because that is the most important part of the article. Strong oppose as incomprehensive and for several other errors I see that haven't been fixed yet. The lead still doesn't have a summary of what happens in the season, rather, it just gives technical information. Some episode titles (in prose) are still missing quotation marks, and regardless of whether it is referred to in a quote or not, The Office (I'm referring to the show, not the actual office) must have italics. Captions are not sufficient, and the only image that it uses (excluding the DVD cover) is missing a fair use rationale. There are several problems in this article that need to be fixed up before it can be promoted. Spebi 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Summary placed in lead, fixed quotations on episodes, fixed italics, added fair use rationale, added to caption. -Mastrchf91- 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I really think that inserting a plot would be something you would want to include in the article if you want to satisfy 1b of the criteria. I know that perhaps other articles that are in the same category as this article that are featured and don't have a plot, however, I'm discussing this article. It's quite important because The Office is a series so each episode follows on from its preceding episode. I don't feel this can pass without a plot section; the article is a list regardless of how much prose (or non-list content) is featured in the article. Spebi 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there is plot in the lead, and in the list. I truly don't want to get the plot too exceedingly deep, and the individual episodes could be used for any bit of meaningful plot. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Added the requested external links, and cleaned up the refs to be after the period. Maybe I missed a few, but I couldn't find many. -Mastrchf91- 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I ran AWB on it. You'd missed one, I think, and it fixed up some other stuff. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, the formation of the page looks familiar… Anyway, I have not had a chance to read the page yet, but I will. Glancing over it, I see some style and typographical errors. But good job revamping the WikiProject and doing this page. I suggest that the title be changed to The Office (U.S. season 3) because it looks awkward right now. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I based it significantly off your pages. The format seemed great, and since they were passed for FL-status, I thought it'd be just about the best way I could do it. -Mastrchf91- 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'll second that suggestion for the title change -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Page has been moved to The Office (U.S. season 3). -Mastrchf91- 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support since this has been refined through the FLC so far, meets the criteria, and looks like a job well done. Cliff smith (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, all my issues have been resolved, and echo Cliff Smith's comments. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The lead says that there are twenty-four episodes. The episode list only lists twenty-three episodes, unless you count the hour-long episodes as two each, in which case there are twenty-five. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done I cleared that up. I was using my handy-dandy Office DVD set, where through the combined episode, there are 22 episodes listed, and thinking of the 2 hour long, I put it at 24, not realizing that the list still had them separated. So, I've gone ahead and listed it at 23, as to correspond with the list. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose late as ever, sorry, but here you go...
  • Lead says "Consisting of twenty-three episodes" while the infobox says "No. of episodes 24" - contradictory.
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • " Writers Guild of America strike" - that's finished now (so I've heard) so references to this need to be checked to ensure it's up to date.
    • Only one reference, doesn't need to be changed in my opinion. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "aired on Thursdays at 8:30 PM (EDT)" - where? and is that conventionally how we describe time? (Question, nothing more!)
    • Most articles pertaining to TV shows use EDT for Eastern Time Zone (North America). Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Season Three" - why is three capitalised?
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove spaces before citations eg. [7].
    • I didn't see any of these. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It was before [7] - I've removed it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "it's generally large cast"
    • First off, it should be "its".
      •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Secondly, are you claiming the cast are large or the number of cast members is large?
      •  Done Added size in. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "improv work" right on but encyclopaedia's would use improvisation(al) work, wouldn't they?

 Done Changed to improvisational Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Last (lengthy) para of Cast section is entirely uncited.
  • "5.7/9" - what? according to whom? On what scale? What context?
    • Standard ratings for TV episodes. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Featured content should be accessible to all. That rating is very US-centric. It needs explanation and context. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done Clarified it. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks, only thing now is that sentence is really really long now... could do with being split. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Got it. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 18 to 49 is separated by both an en-dash and a hyphen here. I'd prefer it was separated with English.
    •  DoneMastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "...Both episodes garnered favorable reception, with "A Benihana Christmas" garnering 8.5 million ..." garner-tastic. Make the prose more compelling.

 Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "Other nominations include " - included? The rest of that section is past tense.

 Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "to the order each episode was filmed in." - "to the order in which each episode was filmed".
    •  Done Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• A few issues to be sorted before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support conditional on you fixing the one dead link (use this to help!). Sorry to have arrived late in the day with so many comments, I hope they've been of use. In my opinion the list is in a much better state now. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Got that dead link. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 15:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Confusion There's one thing that I've noticed that may not be of importance, but could be added. On the DVD, the episode entitled "Branch Closing" is the directors cut. I don't know if this is important enough to be mentioned, but it is a big longer than the other episodes as far as the DVD is concerned, which is probably the most likely medium it is watched on.User:SephirothSafer

• I'll add something in about that. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 01:38, 15 February 2008.

---

Lester Patrick Trophy

Yes... another hockey trophy article. This one's different though, it's associated with the NHL and is included in the NHL template, but not strictly an NHL trophy. I noticed this was rejected when we where planning the featured topic, so I picked it up recently and fixed it up, read for an FLC. All comments/concerns etc. will be addressed in a timely fashion. Maxim_(talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Wikilink to ice hockey in the lead so non-experts don't get confused between this and field hockey.
  •  Done
• " It honors the then-recently deceased Lester Patrick, who was a general manager and coach " . clumsy English.
  •  Fixed
• Lead says, "It is considered a non-NHL trophy since it may be awarded to players, coaches, officials, and other personnel outside the NHL.", History says "Players, coaches, referees, and executives (within the league or within respective teams) are eligible to receive it." - I'm no hockey exper and I find this confusing, perhaps even contradictory.
  •  Fixed - the lead has the better-worded and correct info
• " member of the Hockey Hall of Fame Builder's section" - again, I'm no expert but is this simply someone assigned to increase the number of people in the hall of fame? Builder in British English is someone who makes houses!
  •  Fixed, this is more of a specialist article, I don't expect too many Brits would be interested about US hockey. I gave a link to an article, but to shortly summarize, someone who has built the game of hockey. Link executives.
    • Specialism is irrelevant - that's why I'm reviewing US articles, this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia! All featured content should be accessible to all English speakers. Glad you've linked it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• "member of the committee changes annually expect for the NHL commissioner, who is presently Gary Bettman." - "expect" - typo.
  •  Done
• There is an article at United States at the 1998 Winter Olympics which could be used (it needs expansion but linking it can only help).
  •  Done
• Why did Granato win it nine years after the Olympics?
  • YBecause she won both with her team and as an individual.
    • But why nine years later? Just because? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Probably coz she was judged worthy to receive irregardless whether she has won it previously with a team. Probably just because. :D
        • Perhaps. Because I'm asking the question, it may be worth trying to answer it, especially as she's a special case having won it with the team several years before. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• You should merge the rows which have multiple winners so the years appear once only for each trophy win.
  •  Not done See NHL Plus-Minus Award; this way, sortable works, and there's kinda of a style to do this upon which this is modelled.
    • Ah. Pesky sortable template. Not sure I'm concerned with the "modelled style", if it sucks, it sucks, regardless of previous articles. However, I won't go to town on it. Plus sortable templates can be fixed using the {{sort}} template, even with empty cells. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• It would make sense to have the images in chronological order and, if possible, the same width.
  •  Done for both
• Consider expanding the widths of the columns in the table a bit, it looks really cramped right now.
  •  Not done I appreciate your concern, but I have no clue how to. If you know, feel free to try it. :-)
• "2004-05 NHL lockout" should use the en-dash.
  •  Done
• General references are bulleted, specific references are enumerated, why the difference?
  • Y Style convention. See Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Hockey League awards
    • Perhaps the convention needs to re-assess - it looks nasty... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, what skin are you using?;-) Modern may screw it up, for me it looks fine. This style was made with monobook skin.
        • No, it's not the skin, it's the style of editing I'm talking about. It's unconventional to say the least... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Is the {{NHL}} template really relevant to this article?
  • Y Style convention.

So, slight oppose for now until the queries and suggestions above dealt with. Hope they're of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied to all separately. Maxim_(talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied again. Maxim_(talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Is this still an oppose? Maxim_(talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There still seem to be a few outstanding issues above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I thought they were all resolved. What issues do you still wish to try to resolve? Maxim_(talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Why did Granato win it nine years after the Olympics?
      • General references are bulleted, specific references are enumerated, why the difference?
      • Ah. Pesky sortable template. Not sure I'm concerned with the "modelled style", if it sucks, it sucks, regardless of previous articles. However, I won't go to town on it. Plus sortable templates can be fixed using the {{sort}} template, even with empty cells.
      • The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to reclarify the Granato part in the article. For the references, the bullets and number is just a form of presentation; some quotes require a direct citation, and other stuff requires a citation as well not covered by general reference. The general refs cover, for example, the list itself. As for the table, what do you wish to be done? You've already stretched it, and personally, I disagree with that. Maxim_(talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you disagree then by all means unstretch it. In my opinion, tables which have expand to fit columns are ugly as the data looks wedged in. But either way, it's not a big problem. I'll review it one last time and get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support we'll probably have to agree to disagree about the finer points of formatting this table but it's a fine list and well illustrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Object Expand the text. It's mostly pictures and a recipient list. Only three refs too. OOPS, I thought it was an article. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's coz it's a list. xD The trophy is modelled upon others, see Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Hockey League awards. And there's not much more stuff that can be added to the text. :-( Maxim_(talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per the other hockey trophy lists. Resolute 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and speedy close User:Maxim tried to promote his own nomination while disregarding WP:FLCs guidelines. Since the List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks failed because of the actions by its nominator, so does this one.--Crzycheetah 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with Maxim's actions (I have closed my own FLCs before but never prematurely), I think it's unfair to fail the list solely because of that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • At first, I thought it was unfair to fail the List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks. It was failed because of the actions of the nominator, though; therefore, this one should be failed, as well. Right now, it will be unfair if we do not fail this list.--Crzycheetah 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That was a different situation. It was a list that failed, then renominated even though the editor had made zero edits to the article between noms. It was not FL ready. This is a page that is basically FL ready and one vote away from passing. What are we going to do, bar Maxim from ever nominating it again? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see any big difference, really. During the New Orleans nomination, people were opposing because User:Bole2 nominated that list right after it was closed by stating that he should wait for a couple of weeks or so. Here, this nomination was promoted prematurely by the nominator, which should be acted upon. I suggest to close this nomination and re-nominate it in two weeks. Again, it will be very unfair if we do not close this nomination, now.--Crzycheetah 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure opposing on an editor's behaviour is what this is all about - it's about whether the article meets the criteria and has sufficient support. Maxim was wrong to promote his own article after such a short time and with such limited support, but it's been reversed now. Opposing, in my opinion, is a little too pointy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly weren't thinking about being too pointy when you failed to provide any constructive criticism at List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks, were you? You were among others who created a precedence that allows such lists to be failed because of the actions of the nominator. I am simply following that precedence here. OR maybe there is a double standard around that I don't know about? Yes, that must be it then. The New Orleans nomination was made by a simple user User:Bole2, who could be just bullied around. This time, User:Maxim is an admin and no one should dare to go against him, right?--Crzycheetah 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare them because they were different situations. It's rare here, but articles at WP:FAC have been speedily closed because the nominator renominated it without making any changes. However. what's the point of failing this list though? That list was questionable, but this one is FL material. If we fail it now, he'll just renominate it and in 2 weeks it'll pass, so I'm not sure why failing it would do so much. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was not any concerns raised at the New Orleans nomination, it was closed simply because the nominator re-nominated it to receive feedback. He didn't receive any feedback that he could work on, he just received several speedy close votes that didn't make any sense. That list was FL worthy, as well, so what's the difference? The only difference I see is that User:Bole2 was given 2 months before he can re-nominate it. I think 2 weeks is fair enough. Renominate this list in two weeks--Crzycheetah 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? What good will that do? I'm in half a mind to ignore the rules and reverse your reversal. So what if I closed this a bit out process? There's no harm done, and there's absolutely no point in letting this wait for two weeks. Maxim_(talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're getting into personal attacks now, huh? Yes, you're right, I forgot you are the admin around here, you can do whatever the fuck you want, right? That's called abusing your powers!--Crzycheetah 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I'm an admin. And I can do whatever I want irregardless of whether I can delete/protect page and block users to make the 'pedia better. Maxim_(talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Going against the consensus makes Wikipedia better? How? You basically said a big "FUCK YOU" to everyone who opposed your rule change! Yes, that made Wikipedia better, sure.--Crzycheetah 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no consenus there for the rule change in the way I proposed it. But I counted Rlevse's comment as a support, you don't. I think you're right on that one. But, shut up and go have a cup of tea. Maxim_(talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Job! Thanks for caring about me, I appreciate it.--Crzycheetah 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, never anticipated such a personal attack. The claim that I "failed to provide any constructive criticism" is interesting. I said "can't see any differences from when the previous FLC closed. Perhaps consider a peer review?" and "Sorry Buc but as I've said, a peer review can do no harm. Be constructive and humble - ask the community to spend their time helping you get this article up to scratch. A good PR and this will fly through FLC, just look at what happened to Leeds United A.F.C. seasons with the help of WP:FOOTBALL.." and "Okay, perhaps I can clarify. You need to take this article to a peer review where the community will discuss what they expect to see. It precludes an individual from making an article their own and helps to produce an article which everyone will support. Does that make it clearer?" - at what point do those comments constitute "you failed to provide any constructive criticism"? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't attack you personally, I don't know where you got that from. I just asked whether you were trying to make a WP:POINT at the New Orleans nomination. The last couple of days, I noticed you were giving "constructive criticism" to almost every nomination(which is great). At that time, though, you didn't tell him what was wrong with the article. You just kept saying that the nomination should be closed and the article should go to the peer review. At least, you could have mentioned what was missing in that article.--Crzycheetah 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we all done? Back to the subject in question, are you still strong opposing this? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So, the double standard does exist here, sorry to hear that.--Crzycheetah 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah. I asked User:Bole2 to consider a peer review. Maxim tried (and failed) to self promote the article to FL. What double standard are you talking about? Why not answer the question, are you opposing the article or the editor? Mountain = molehill? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And, incidentally, statements like "Since the List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks failed because of the actions by its nominator, so does this one." hint that you think you own this process. You don't. I may be new around WP:FLC but your opinion isn't final by any means, nor was Maxim's. Move on and judge the article on its merits, not on the actions of the proposer. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. While I disagree with what Maxim did, I don't see any point in failing this nom. I am promoting it because the FL criteria does not say anything about failing a list as punishment for a nominators actions. You keep bringing up the New Orleans Saints draft picks list, but I still think it was a different situation and I did oppose it, but I did not do so simply to punish the nominator. This discussion is getting far too heated, so I'm closing it, so if you wish to continue it, do so elsewhere. It has enough support so this list will be Closed as Promotion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - great article. Maxim did a great job. The article meets all criteria as far as I can see.^Mitch32^contribs 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:36, 14 February 2008.

---

List of former county courts in Wales

Self-nom. Similar idea to the List of county courts in England and Wales, which I have nominated for FL status below, except this time it's a fully-referenced list of closed (rather than open) county courts, limited to Wales for the sake of space. Not as many photos as I would like, but (a) tracking down addresses for these old courts isn't easy (b) the buildings they sat in may no longer exist and (c) I've done what I can with Commons and Geograph photos, plus a request for help at WP:WALES. Support as nom. Bencherlite^Talk 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why were these courts closed? --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, fair question! Sometimes the Order (back in the Victorian era) closing the court says it is "inexpedient" to continue holding the court at a particular location or "of advantage" to hold it somewhere else (we're not told why, unfortunately!). Mostly, though, the order is silent on the reason for the closure and, as courts were closed by statutory instrument rather than Act of Parliament, there won't be any Parliamentary debate about each closure. It seems to be the case that smaller courts have gradually been closed to save money e.g. Monmouth was said to have poor accommodation and cost too much for the amount it was used. I've found a couple of quotes in Hansard about court closures which I've added, and if I get a chance to nip to the library to get a quote from Polden's book, I'll do so. Bencherlite^Talk 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, Support! --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now added some more information about court closures. Bencherlite^Talk 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also put the references next to the date/fact that they were referencing, rather than have a separate column, per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of county courts in England and Wales (now a FL). Bencherlite^Talk 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support The lead is unusually large for a list, yet it was interesting to read. Very informative list, well done. --Crzycheetah 08:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose (late in the day, I know, but thought it worth taking the time...!)
  • ", as shown below," in the lead is not necessary.  Done
  • Captions for images should end in full stops unless they're fragments.  Done
  • "Note –" at the beginning of the List of former courts section - not necessary - keep to the prose.  Done
  • "(using the historic county names)" - why in parentheses? Just add a comma and then the rest of the sentence.  Done
  • Suggest making notes not centrally aligned, it looks pretty grim.  Done
  • CC is used as an abbreviation without explanation.  Done
  • Some opening dates have refs, some closing dates have refs, but in neither case do all of them. Why? It's inconsistent.
• There are some issues here, most importantly for me is the issue of consistent citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. Glad to see that there aren't as many issues with this list as with some others I've seen you reviewing! To explain the references: the 1847 openings are supported by the second general reference; for later openings, and for closings, the date is either referenced directly or if I've said in the notes "Opened in 1920 to replace Foo CC.[ref no]", that [ref no] is the reference for the opening date. I didn't want to overload the table with duplicated footnotes. However, if you want, I will, so  Done. Hope that's everything! Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Support most of my comments addressed, the citation issue isn't massive for me in this case. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:36, 14 February 2008.

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1)

Self-nom I am nominating this list for FL status because I think it is complete and encyclopaedic. The first season of the popular Canadian teen drama series Degrassi: The Next Generation depicts a group of schoolkids growing up and dealing with typical teenage issues. The episode synopses and lead information regarding timeslots and scheduling are taken from the List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, though they are expanded on. It also contains information regarding DVD release dates, awards and its reception, and I think is now of similar standard to the Featured List season pages of The Simpsons, which has much the same information.

I have previously gotten List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes to Featured List status, and am now working through each individual season page. I was going to try to get the page to Good Article status first, and had nominated it, but per the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, lists are not GA candidates and it says to bring them straight here. I'm also working on the other seasons of the show, and if all goes well with this nomination, I will try to get those to FL status too. Then the List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes can be edited to be more like List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Smallville episodes, rather than repeating the information in two places. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Where did you find all those "Title is taken from..." notes from? Why the other 3 titles don't have similar notes? They weren't taken from anywhere or you just don't know?--Crzycheetah 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of sources around (including the Official guidebook) that say all titles from season 2 onward are taken from 80s song titles (although I haven't found anywhere specifically naming each song). Somewhere in the Wayback of the official site, it mentions that some of the 1st season episodes were named after 80s songs (again, nothing specific). I guess it's original research so I'll go on and delete it. :D -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, tv.com gives some ::slinks away quietly:: -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, that's better. Could you fix ref #30? Plus, whenever there are 2 or more footnotes at the end of the sentence, they usually are in order, i.e. ^[2][3] and not ^[3][1]. There are several such instances throught the prose part.--Crzycheetah 07:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support All right, looks much better. Three more minor concerns about references are found, though. First, no imdb links should be referenced(one of the link in #28), second, The NY Times article at #34 asks for a login info(I think it should be noted in the reference), and third, ref #6 opens up an IPod store software installed in one's PC. This IPod store link was weird, really. I think it should be mentioned that by clicking at that link an IPod store software opens. The list itself looks great! --Crzycheetah 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support with an echo of what Crzycheetah said. Nice work. Cliff smith (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

•  DoneThanks guys. I removed the IMDB reference and put notes in the two other links that NYT requires a login (I don't know why this is. I have no NYT account and have never needed to login to access anything of theirs), and the other requires the iTunes software. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I noticed this was falling by the wayside so I'll add some comments to get it up and running again...
  • "teen life" - okay, I can take teen drama but here can we use English (traditional version) and say teenager?!
    •  Done, I only said "teen life" for consistency with "teen drama", which is the title of an article. (Perhaps that should be moved to teenage drama...
  • "(based on registration) " - what does this mean and why is it in parentheses?
    •  Done Because someone in the UK, France, wherever could theoreticly download episodes as long as they had an account registered in Canada or America. (And I saw it on one of the FA Lost pages). Changed it to "Registered users of the Canadian and American iTunes stores are also able purchase and download the season for playback on home computers and certain iPods."
  • "first season had earned itself 365,000 viewers" - what's the scope of this? In Canada, worldwide?
    •  Done - Canadian
  • Award nominations in the lead aren't cited.
    • I thought lead sections didn't need citations, unless it was quoting speech? I will put them in though if you do think it's necessary.
      • No, you're right, they don't need citations but you've got 8 citations there already so I'd suggest to be consistent you ought to cite the award nominations sentence! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done - I guess when you put it like that..!
  • "high-achiever and lonely" reads strangely, perhaps high achieving yet lonely?
    •  Done
  • Throughout the kid's descriptions, are they backed up by the citations or are they your impression of what the kids represented?
    • They're backed up through the citations of the book. WP:NOR :)
      • Yep, just checking! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Last paragraph of Cast is uncited (and a bit of a nightmare to read with so many wikilnks).
    • Well I could add a {{cite episode}}, but isn't this rather like plot, it's verifiable by watching the episode and seeing the characters (and also through the end credits)? I'm always a little unsure over something like this. I guess I could un-wikilink the actors and characters of the people that aren't regulars, but if an article exists, I don't see a problem. Suggestions?
      • Yeah, I get a little sniffy sometimes about these citations. I'd leave it as it is, no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead says this season was "A critical and popular success," while opening Reception sentence says "Degrassi: The Next Generation received mixed reviews about its first season." which seem to almost contradict each other.
    •  Done - removed that sentence from lead.
  • What is [The N] ?
    • I couldn't really explain it because it was in the middle of the quote. What made it worse was that the original said Noggin, as back then The N was regarded more as a block of programming on Noggin, rather than a sepatate network sharing Noggin's channel, which it actually is, much like Nick at Nite and Nickelodeon. Instead, in the lead, I put "In America, it was broadcast on The N, a digital cable network aimed at teenagers and young adults."
  • Does Canadian English support "criticised" simultaneously with "program"?
    •  Done
  • In prose, I'd write "18—49" as 18 to 49...
    •  Done
  • "Five episodes were given six awards " in total or per episode?
    •  Done - in total.
  • In episode table you have a Series # column, shouldn't this really be an Episode # column?
    • Depends. The season article for season two also uses series #, showing that they're episodes 16 to 28. I guess I could put in another column to have both series# and season#?
      • Well I kind of understand but the list is a list of episodes and so I thought episode # was more intuitive. I suppose at the moment it means "#X in the series" - episode would remove that ambiguity in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Check references for page ranges - they should all be separated with en-dash.

 Done

• That's it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I did the majority. There's two I'd like further suggestions on if poss? Thank you. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - much better than when I first found it, well done. I'll get with season 2 now! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I think though, you'll find much the same issues there as you did here! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 10:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:17, 12 February 2008.

---

List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records

I'm nominating this list for WP:FL as I firmly believe it meets the criteria required, (most specifically 1-(a)-3. : contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles). It's been thoroughly copy-edited, factually verified, peer reviewed and I humbly submit it to the scrutiny of the community as part of an on-going drive to bring Ipswich Town F.C. to featured topic status. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support This article went through a very thorough PR and I think all issues have now been ironed out. To me this is a very-well referenced and annotated series of lists that fit together underneath the umbrella of the article's title and meets the criteria TRM suggests. Peanut4 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Crzycheetah

• Comment How did Ipswich qualify for the 1979-80, 1982-83, and 2001-02 UEFA Cups?--Crzycheetah 21:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - They won the FA Cup in 1978 to qualify for 1979–80, and finished second in the league in 1981–82 to qualify for 1982–83 and finished fifth in the Premier League in 2000–01 to qualify for the 2001–02 UEFA Cup. In fact they were only denied Champions League in the final moments of the season thanks to Liverpool! Did you expect to see this in the article? The only place I felt an explanation was necessary was when they got through on Fair Play, otherwise it's always been down league, domestic or European cup success. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I assumed that the FA Cup they won in 1978 allowed them to participate in the 1978–79 Cup Winners' Cup, instead. If what you are saying is true, then how did they get to play in the 1978–79 Cup Winners' Cup? They won only one FA Cup, right? Also, since finishing fifth in 2000-01 allowed them to participate in the UEFA Cup, I think it is a major honour and should be listed somewhere.--Crzycheetah 20:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't really want to clog up this FLC page, but my own feeling is that your points ought to be chronicled at Ipswich Town F.C., or History of Ipswich Town F.C., rather than on a stats page. Peanut4 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • (e/c)Hey, thanks for getting back to me. Righty ho, ITFC won the 1977-78 FA Cup so they qualified for the Cup Winners' Cup the following season, i.e. 1978-79. They did win only one FA Cup, absolutely (unfortunately!). I think the article says that at the moment and has done since this FLC kicked off, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
        • Next up, major honours. Coming fifth in the league isn't a major honour, otherwise dozens of clubs would have hundreds of honours between them that aren't currently listed. It's generally accepted that either first or second (if the number of firsts is low) count as major honours, but otherwise a team like Man Utd or Arsenal would have 50 or 60 major houours each. The qualification for UEFA Cup was, in fact, remarkable because we'd only been promoted the season before and almost got Champions League but that's purely my POV - fact is we finished fifth and for English clubs in the top tier, that will always result in a UEFA Cup place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
          • You're contradicting yourself now. At first, you said "1978 FA Cup allowed them to play in the 1979-80 UEFA Cup". Now, you're saying that "1978 FA Cup allowed them to play in the 1978-79 Cup Winners' Cup". So, which one is true? As far as I know one FA Cup should not have allowed anyone to play in both European Cups.
            Add a note next to the 2001-02 UEFA Cup stating that they finished fifth in the Premier league. --Crzycheetah 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
            • No, the article itself says they qualified for the Cup Winners' Cup. Nothing else. You asked me how they qualified for the UEFA Cup. The article never said otherwise, did it?! So you're right, the FA Cup win meant they qualified for, and played in the Cup Winners' Cup which has always been the case in the article. And as for stating they finished fifth in the Premier League, is it necessary? It's not a major honour and if I added that then presumably you'd like me justify the reasoning behind all the other European qualifications? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes, I believe it should be explained how they qualified for those European Cups, unless it's obvious. To me as a football fan, everything is obvious, except the 1979-80 and 2001-02 UEFA Cups. I think these two Cups should have a note explaining further. You explained to me how they qualified for the 2001-02 UEFA Cup here, but I'm still waiting for an explanation about 1979-80 UEFA Cup.--Crzycheetah 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
                • NB, the article should not be exclusive to football fans. It might be obvious to football fans, but if you want notes to those that aren't obvious then notes should be added to all European campaigns for those who don't know. Peanut4 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

←Sorry, I'm confused here. Are you expecting me to justify every single qualification for Europe or just those you've specified? It should be all or nothing, surely? 79-80 Cup Winners' Cup qualification is obvious since we won the FA Cup in 77-78 as I said above and no-one ever said anything about 79-80 UEFA Cup except for you! It was always the Cup Winners' Cup. Where does it say we qualified for the UEFA Cup? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here is your reply to me where you said that FA Cup in 1978 was the reason they qualified for the 1979-80 UEFA Cup.--Crzycheetah 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, but is the article correct or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And, in that link, it's you asking me how they qualified for the UEFA Cup, I (perhaps unclearly) answered based on what was in the article, which was a justification of their European qualifications for those seasons. I hope we've cleared it all up now! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Haha, I like the way you're trying to change the subject. That link shows what you wrote, that was your edit, not mine. The article should state how ITFC qualified for the 1979-80 UEFA Cup because as of now, it is unknown. Based on the major honours listed in this article, IPFC should not have qualified for 1979-80 UEFA Cup. So what I am saying is that it is possible that there is a major honour missing from this article. Maybe ITFC was a runner-up in the 1979 Championship? There had to be some major honour that let ITFC to qualify.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree with Peanut4. All European competitions have to have notes explaining how ITFC was qualified. It is useful to know how or why they received that honour. Even if they finished fifth or sixth, it should be added beause it allowed them to compete in the European competition. If finishing fifth weren't an honour, then UEFA would not have invited ITFC to the UEFA Cup. --Crzycheetah 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - ok, interesting comment, the qualification into UEFA/Cup Winners' Cup/European Cup is obvious to football fans, and is never considered an honour. An honour would be a FA Cup win or runner up place, a UEFA Cup win or runner up place, a Cup Winners' Cup win or runner up place, a Champions League win or runner up place, a League win or runner up place, a League Cup win or runner up place but not a league fifth place. However, to make the article accessible to all (which is essential in my mind) I'm happy to add the relevant qualification criteria to each and every qualification place. I will not add it as an Honour each season because, simply put, it isn't. I hope when Man Utd, Arsenal, Milan etc get lists like this they're not expected to justify each European qualification because their footnotes will number in the hundreds. Luckily Ipswich are nowhere near as successful so in this case the footnotes will be manageable! Also, I think that Peanut4 was saying it's either all or nothing, erring on the side of nothing, but I wouldn't want to speak on his behalf. Nevertheless, to counter your oppose, I'll add the required notes. Thanks again for your time and critical eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree it has to be all or nothing. Adding just one or two notes would be incomplete. I'd rather have nothing beause this is a list of stats and records and I feel it's an irrelevant and laborious list for this entry. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I've noted every single qualification despite it setting a dangerous precedent in my opinion. However it does remove the problem of qualification criteria not being obvious. I hope this alleviates the issues above. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the notes. I understand your concern about precedent, but it should not stop us from making articles more useful.--Crzycheetah 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Support --Crzycheetah 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Support assuming you'll correct the typo in "Allan Hunter has a toatal of 53" in one of the footnotes..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, correction made, good spot! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Support sorry I've not been more, er, supportive, at the list itself. Great work as ever. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Existing content looks fine, but I've thought of a couple more that could be added, namely streaks (ie. most consecutive wins / losses / matches unbeaten / matches without a win) and most/least points in a season. May need definitions and caveats, but I think they are interesting to know. What do you reckon? --Jameboy (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Added those you've recommended but I must be careful that this doesn't descend into trivia! Hope that's enough for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very comprehensive, excellent. But I guess my mission to find out the number of blades of grass on the Portman Road pitch will have to wait... :-( --Jameboy (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This list had an active peer review as a result of which the nominator improved its quality significantly. It manages to deal with an inherently almanac-y topic without descending into fancruft, and is well annotated and referenced. Three minor points (without which the nominator would be concerned I hadn't considered the matter properly):

The European attendances section uses "v" where other sections use "against".

I'm not sure the successive references to Ipswich's qualification for various European competitions (notes 53-60 approx) need to wikilink Football League First Division every time.

Please could you add the ISBN for your book source.

Good work! Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've adjusted the article per your comments above, I hope you're now completely satisfied! Thanks for your eagle eyes, as ever.. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think this follows a good template and I am glad this has been accepted as a list format. I think it meets all the FLC criteria and stays on the right side of the Almanacy line. Well done. Woody (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic list, definitely worthy of Featured List status, more great work by The Rambling Man! NapHit (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very impressive piece of work. Never thought I'd see a records article reach it this far. Well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:17, 12 February 2008.

---

List of winners of the Mathcounts competition

I'm nominating this list as well-structured, sourced, and satisfying the criterion outlined in WP:WIAFL. (except perhaps images, but it's quite a short list, and the image-to-content ratio I believe to be healthy)

This is a rather short list for FL, but that's obviously not the fault of the list, seeing as its a timeline of events. Cheers, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 04:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if the article is appropriately titled. It appears to be a list of winners, so perhaps it should be titled List of winners of the the Mathcounts competition. As well, the lead needs expanding. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've followed up on your suggestion. I also merged the first section into the lead, as it doesn't really deserve a separate section, and introduces how the competition process works. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support With reservations Id like to see a referance beside all of them, but if they just plain dont exist i understand

there may be a small problem with wp:oversource on the bottom

Source density.

Overall id approveRankun (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find a source for all of them, but they seem to WP:DEGRADE, so it's rather difficult. Thanks for your comments. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've sourced nearly all of them, and I'll try the rest tomorrow, but these last few are extremely tricky. (Presumably because they're the oldest.) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the lead seems somewhat irrelevant to the list. What does the preparation matter? Perhaps some more information on the people and schools who have won, and what they get by winning. --Golbez (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  All right, I'll try to make the lead more relevant. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   Done The lead was rewritten. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written, meets FLC criteria. Shouldn't this be closed by now? Rudget. 13:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  I think there's a guideline that requires four supports before closure. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah I thought that over ten days would be sufficient if there were no opposes, and one or more supports. My bad. Rudget. 11:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak opposeSupport Format the references properly. You're missing the publisher info and access dates.--Crzycheetah 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have one more concern. In some of the notes, it is stated that "The competition was held between Date1 and Date2, with the actual competition taking place on Date3." I don't understand the difference between competition and actual competition. I'd suggest you to be clearer.--Crzycheetah 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I used date= instead of accessdate= for all of them; I've fixed this. Not all of these sources have publishers in the normal sense, per se, and according to WP:CITE they're not required, but I'll try to fix them. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done All the issues you pointed out have been resolved. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I fixed the rest of them. Book publishers are not required, but whenever there is a link to some website, that website becomes the publisher and should be mentioned.--Crzycheetah 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 09:45, 11 February 2008.

---

Deftones discography

I'm nominating this because I don't see how it could be further improved upon. This is my first shot at any kind of featured content, so I'm open to any flak; it's all constructive criticism to me. Seegoon (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment Looks really good! I'm glad to see someone finally looked at other FL discogs before nominating. I do have a few minor comments/suggestions though:

• I never thought I'd say this, but I think the lead is too long. The main problem being that I think it goes into too much detail about each release.
  • I've cut out a huge chunk on the band's formation (ashmedly, it was lifted straight from the Deftones article itself) and removed some cruft.
• There is a bit of over-linking. For instance, Maverick Records is linked every time it's mentioned: you should only link it the first time it's mentioned.
  • I've taken out some extraneous wikilinks. I think it's a dangerous proposition to go delinking too much in a discography, as it intended to be a repository of information, as opposed to a stream of prose read consecutively. A reader might wish to dip in halfway through the article, and find the entry not linked.
• The U.S Sales column is a little problematic. Mainly since RIAA certifications doesn't not necessarily equate to sales. The RIAA numbers are based on how many units get shipped, not sold. So using that as a reference for the column doesn't really work.
  • I actually did this a while ago, but Phorque reassured me it was OK. For now, anything unknown is just blank.
• The certification column is also a little wierd. Since they're all US certifications, it might be better to rename and relink the name of the column to RIAA certifications, and then take out the redundant (US) after each certification.
  • Very true, done and dusted.
• It might be helpful to put a pound sign in with the catalog number, since otherwise it's just an indiscriminate set of numbers.
  • Done.
• Since none of their EPs charted, were certified, or have sales data, there's no reason to have those columns.
  • Done.
• Also, the note about the success of Back to School's single is good, but you may want to put it before the table rather than after. Same thing with the notes in the Live versions table and the Music videos table.
  • Yup yup.
• All the tables after the singles section are a little weird: why is the legend contained in the box? Also, why is the font small?
  • I was just trying to keep things small, tidy and sexy. But seeing as it looks odd, I've changed it.
• The Music video table is great (I never thought to put the edit length in there), but the column order is a little weird. Logically, I would recommend putting the album column last (or maybe before the notes section), since it is a table about the video for the song specifically, and the album it came from is kind of the least important part of the table, having the least to do with the music video itself.
  • I've done this too. It was an idea I was toying with a while back, but couldn't decide on.
• A few external links would be great. Maybe to discogs or to the band's official website.
  • This is straight up something I'd forgotten to do. I've done it in other discographies I've worked on, so it was silly not to. Done.

I know that's alot of suggestions, but everything seems fairly minor, I hope. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou very much for your input; it was all valid, constructive and pertinent. Seegoon (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking very good. There's just two more minor things I notice:

• What I meant by "External links" is that you should add an external links section, but not as general references, as they are now. Mainly because discogs and music brainz are not considered reliable sources. So putting them in an "External link" section gives the reader an opportunity to learn more, but doesn't propose that the information in the article is from those (unreliable) sources.
  • I've done this; I see your point.
• Also, the small font in the notes section still kind of bothers me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue here is that if you make the notes full size, then they end up dominating the table, making entries that might only be two lines three, and so forth. It just looks a tad cumbersome. If it prevents you from supporting, however, I'll change it without any real qualms.
    • This is a pretty minor complaint. I'll let you be the judge on this one. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and mvdbase isn't considered a reliable source. That column doesn't really need citation anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've removed it for now, but do you think it would be worth keeping as an external link?

Again, thankyou for all your input. Seegoon (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support An excellent list! All of my suggestions have been taken into account, and this easily meets the criteria. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I too would like to see the notes at full size, but the more important concern for me is that I didn't understand what citations #14 and #15 meant. Could you elaborate?--Crzycheetah 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Seeing as consensus wins, I've changed the notes to full size. It doesn't look so bad, I guess... As for #14 and #15, they are referring to the insert/booklet that comes with the album. What would be a clearer description? Seegoon (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Now, I understand and I think I made it clearer. I support.--Crzycheetah 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Some recent additions were made to article, all for the better. I do have one suggestion concerning the new table columns: add a <br /> between the country abbreviation and the accompanying citation. That way, the table will be a little less wide, since as it is it's a little unwieldy, especially on smaller monitors such as mine. See Nine Inch Nails discography for an example of what I'm suggesting. Drewcifer (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I did this a while back, but reverted it because I was unsure. I agree with you though, and have done this. Thanks! Seegoon (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I like these new additions, but I'm not sure of the abbreviations. Are you sure that the abbr. for Ireland and Austria are "EIRE" and "ÖST", respectively? I was expecting to see IRL and AUT.--Crzycheetah 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I was winging it here to be honest. I've changed them to be more English-language-centric, according to your suggestions. Cheers. Seegoon (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't even pay attention to the abbreviations, which leads me to another comment/complaint: the abbeviations used aren't the ones typically used in discogs. Again, I would recommend looking at the NIN discog for some established abbreviations. There's a bunch of reasons certain abbreviations have become FL discography convention, and I could go into the reasons if you really want, but suffice to say consistency with every other FL discog would be nice. Also, I'm not sure sure about linking to "Music of ____". Like other discogs, if the chart itself doesn't have an article (ie. Billboard 200), just link to the country. Drewcifer (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure point. I was basing them mainly on what you see when you watch the Olympics or whatever; as for the "Music of..." links, I thought it might abstractedly lead you to some mention of a chart, but that's not a claim that I looked through each one. Anything else? Seegoon (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Still looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support- Good job on the list.Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 16:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 09:45, 11 February 2008.

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Isle of Wight

Following on from the good work of Rudget on SSSIs in Greater London I present this list for your delectation. Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support (see below). I don't think "United Kingdom" is necessary after "England". Conversely, try to find somewhere in the lead to mention where the Isle of Wight is, for the benefit of non-UK readers. Also, now that table sorting is fairly configurable (see Help:Sorting), you could make the Name, Hectares, Acres and Year columns sortable. Colin°^Talk 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've done your first two suggestions. I will look into the third. I presume it require the list to be in one single table rather than split into three? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't spot that. Yes, you would. It isn't a huge table, so breaking into chunks isn't essential. Colin°^Talk 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to make this type of tables sortable because of "rowspans" and "colspans" in the heading. --Crzycheetah 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember trying this on previous lists and having that very problem in that the headers get moved about. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My only concern with this list is that there far too many SSSIs not linked at all. They basically were redlinks, but you decided to delink them, instead, in order to avoid the ever-popular comment - too many redlinks. As is, this list doesn't bring "together a group of existing articles".--Crzycheetah 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Darn. I'm a bit rusty at this FLC thing. Didn't spot that. Yes, about 2/3 blue-links would be better. And quite a few of those linked-articles are just one or two lines long (ignoring all the template/refs stuff). If you can expand some to a paragraph (or better still, add a photo -- it isn't a big place and there must be a WP editor who lives there surely). I know the linked-articles aren't part of the criteria, but I'm very reluctant to support a list of stub-stubs as being "Wikipedia's best". Colin°^Talk 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • All the early lists of SSSIs nominated had all blue links (see Avon, Wiltshire, Cleveland lists etc). However the London list, which was the last one to be nominated, had many of the links removed, so I followed that format. I will try to create some of the articles, probably the most important ones first. I would also point out that lists do not have to contain "a group of existing articles" - there are two other criteria. However I presume consensus is that SSSIs are notable enough for their own article.Suicidalhamster (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is the sentence "Natural England, like its predecessor, uses the 1974-1996 county system,[5] and as such the same approach is followed here, and for other counties which can be found at List of SSSIs by Area of Search" really necessary? If so, you might explain why that usage is significant. (And I think you can remove the "...for other counties which can be found..." part of the sentence regardless.) Also, can you update the listing of sites in the reference section so that all the sites are listed in the same font size? Right now, the top entry in each column is larger than the rest. And yes, I realize the format has probably been copied from another list—which means that one should probably be corrected too!  : ) MeegsC | Talk 09:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your copy-edit! The importance of the 1974-1996 system is that it lists SSSIs in areas which technically no longer exist such as Avon and Cleveland. The sentence therefore justifies, why what could be considered as unorthodox, is in fact the most appropriate way of listing SSSIs. Obviously this is less of an issue for the Isle of Wight which does still exist! If you prefer for the comment to be removed that would be fine. I have removed the second half of the sentence referring to other lists following your suggestion. As for the references I don't think I follow. For me atleast, the names Alverston Marshes, Cridmore Bog and Parkhurst Forrest are the same size as the other links underneath them. Is this what you meant? Thanks Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. I think that in this case (since there is no issue with the Isle of Wight county no longer existing) the sentence actually makes this more rather than less confusing. I'd recommend removing it! And you might think about moving the last sentence in the first paragraph (which indicates how many SSSIs were named for biological reasons, etc.) to the end of the second paragraph. Otherwise, it's coming before the detailing of the various categories. Otherwise, it's looking good! Support MeegsC | Talk 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I have removed the sentence. Also moved the sentence you suggested, which certainly makes the intro flow better. Cheers. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - it seems a bit strange to split the table alphabetically, then not offer a table of contents to easily navigate. I suppose this was done to make it easier to maintain but it just comes across as strange, when we've shown on other lists that there's no problem with large tables. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this completely and have restored the table of content. Circeus (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree the table of content makes sense. Were you saying you would prefer not to have the contents but have the list in one single table? Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, actually, there's no problem with a large list. If each letter were 30+ entries that might make sense, but they aren't. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess you may have noticed, but the list is now in a single table. - Suicidalhamster (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support While I agree the table is not necessarily long enough to require a split, I wouldn't oppose over it. Circeus (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Is there a reason that it says "Reason for Designation"? Another minor thing – in the lead you write four as "4", and I'm not sure where it is, but the maxim is that numbers under ten are written out longhand. At least I think so. As far as the issue on redlinks and stubs goes, I don't think it affects the comprehensiveness of this article itself. The more the merrier in relation to it, but three quarters of them are bluelinked, and I expect you'll fill in more over time. Likewise, I'm neutral with regards to the table splitting. Seegoon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spotting that D - also changed the I to i in interest. Yes I have read about numbers under 10 being written out longhand. Even if its not a guideline its probably good practice so have changed it. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support looks better than when I first glanced at it a few days back. Good work. Bencherlite^Talk 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:00, 8 February 2008.

---

List of county courts in England and Wales

Self-nom. As the name suggests, this is a complete list of county courts in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland being separate legal systems). Hardly any of the courts are notable enough to have their own articles, so this is put forward as a "ground 3" usefulness list. It is stable and uncontroversial, and has fully-referenced opening dates, together with as comprehensive a list of name-changes since opening as I can manage, using a mixture of on-line and off-line sources, all reliable. I hope you will consider it both informative and well-constructed. All but one of the photos were either taken by me or added to Commons by me from the Geograph website, so no problems there. I consider that it meets the criteria, but I would welcome your comments on how it can be improved! Support as nom. Bencherlite^Talk 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks really good, but why do many of them have no references? Do those fall under the general references? --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Short answer: yes. Long answer: (a) I didn't add in specific references for courts opened in 1847, because that is covered by the general reference to the 1847 Order, to $save having 170+ references to that Order; (b) I didn't add in specific references for each court still being open in 2008, because that's covered by the general reference to the HMCS CourtFinder, to save having 217 references to that. Bencherlite^Talk 09:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, that's what I thought. In that case, maybe a short note should be provided saying something like, "For all courts opening March 15 1847 see this reference". It was just weird to see some of the rows so well-referenced, and then see so many empty ones. I for one like having general references, but we need to know where to look. :) I dunno, just a minor quibble. That said, Support. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 20:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This is impressively informative and thorough. However, I'm not so impressed by the appearance of the table, particularly the tall and skinny shape of the table cells under "Notes." To improve things, I suggest that you combine the Notes and Ref columns into a single column for "Notes and References" (that should improve the appearance for everyone) and remove the width specifications from the individual columns (that should further improve the appearance for users who have wide monitor screens). --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done. Thanks for the comments. How's it looking now? Bencherlite^Talk 12:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I like the new and improved version. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Footnotes, whenever there is more than one, should be in numerical order.--Crzycheetah 23:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, where is that required? The footnotes were in chronological order, and putting them in numerical order would have lost that (as well as being terribly tedious to do). So, I have addressed your concern in an equally tedious manner, by moving each reference to the end of the sentence that it specifically references. The only sentences in the notes not specifically referenced are those dealing with the name of the court building or whether the court shares premises with a crown/magistrates' court, which is covered by one of the general references (which I have reworded to make even clearer on the point). Is this better now? Bencherlite^Talk 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it will do. The topic has been brought up in FAC before (though never in FLC, because it occurs less commonly), and while I agree with the fact it can be a bit jarring, I wouldn't consider it a good reason to oppose. Circeus (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, most of the reviewers at WP:FAC always bring this up, so I just wanted to mention it here. The list is very useful with a lot of pictures; therefore, I support.--Crzycheetah 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Looks alright to me. Maybe link Crown Court somewhere early in the article? Circeus (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done. Added Some county courts share a building with the Crown Court for the area (Maidstone Combined Court Centre, for example); others share a building with the local Magistrates' Court (e.g. Oswestry County Court). Bencherlite^Talk 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:00, 8 February 2008.

---

List of Atlanta Thrashers players

Basing the format off my previous FL, List of San Jose Sharks players, which is further based off other ice hockey team players lists that made FL status. As always, comments, suggestions, and of course, support is welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I notice a few players are listed as playing for the team in just one year (Kip Brennan, 2004, for example). I believe the standard format for these pages is to list the full season (2003-2004 for Brennan) even if the player only played in games during one calendar year. My assumption for the reasoning behind this would be the difficulty in determining, say, whether a player who played two games for Montreal in 1932-33 played the games in 1932 or 1933. Of course, that type of situation does not apply for a team as young as the Thrashers, but for the sake of consistency, I believe the issue should be addressed. Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Further Comment: On second check, I now notice that this leads to inconsistency even just within this list: Rick Tabaracci is listed as playing one game with the team in 1999-2000. Unless it was a very late game on New Year's Eve, it couldn't have been in both years. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Support: The only issue I had with the list has been addressed. Good work! Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reply Thanks for pointing that out, and the problem should all be fixed up. A user, GoThrashers11, who I want to call a Thrashers fan, made some good faith edits to the list while not aware of what had been done. I left a notice on the user's talk page explaining the situation, so it should be good. Also allowed me the chance to conform the list to the recent standards set out at WP:HOCKEY. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think that the key section is misplaced. This is a list of players, so the main list should be the first section readers see. The Key section should then follow the main list. --Crzycheetah 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment So if I understand what you're saying that the list of all the players should go first, then the key goes at the bottom of the article? If so, I would have to disagree with that idea. Looking at the other hockey team FL's, all of them, with the execption of the Colorado Avalanche article, follow the same convention of the key first, then the list. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is no guideline that states one way or the other. Besides the Colorado list, New Jersey list, too, had the key section listed last, here is the last version right before getting the FL star. As you can see, the first section was the list of goalies, then later on someone added the Key section first. I believe the Key section right now is too large with a lot of whitespace to be the first section. If you could make this section smaller, so that the list of players could be seen right away without scrolling, that would be great. I hope you agree that people click on this article to see the list of players and not the explanation of some hockey abbreviations.--Crzycheetah 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• ReplyI completely agree with what your saying, but feel that for viewers who have no idea about hockey, its beneficial to have the key explaining whats what beforehand. I'm not so up on how to work with tables, so if you give me a little time I'll try and see what can be done, if anything, so switch it up while still leaving the key at the start of the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I shortened the tables a little to get rid of the whitespace in that section. Now, it looks a lot better to me. Does it work for you?--Crzycheetah 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• For the record, I've moved a number of keys to the top for that very reason. Circeus (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can see that working. Certainly clears up a lot of space. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support The only thing that I see is that the lead is shorter than the recently passed Buffalo list. Plus, the references are missing access dates. When you improve these two sections, I'll fully support.--Crzycheetah 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Added everything you said, hope it works. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Condtions are met. Nice list!--Crzycheetah 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Seems fairly straightforward and in the same spirit as other similar lists. I've added ext. links to the references. Circeus (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:51, 5 February 2008.

---

List of Castlevania titles

Myself and some other editors have been tidying up and sourcing this list to improve the quality and believe it is ready for FL. Any comments or suggestions you may have to improve it would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyinblack25 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 January 2008

Comment The lead is too short, and while it does have an interesting format, I'd prefer to see it look more like List of Final Fantasy media (which is a former FL). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the format was modeled after List of FF media before it lost its FL status. May I ask what you would suggest to include in the lead and what benefits would be gained from the format switch? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Both look good, but I think the one for Final Fantasy looks more organized, ie. it's a lot easier to compare the original release dates. It's nothing I'd really oppose the article over though because the present format is a bit different, but perfectly acceptable. As for the lead, it should be a summary of the article, so it should be about a paragraph (6-8 sentences), since there is a main article for Castlevania. Basically, look at the FF one and see how you can model this one after that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been expanded some. If it's not enough I'll look into finding some more content.

The lead is sufficient enough now. Good work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

• Support - Looks really good, extensively referenced, didn't think I'd see so much Castlevania content featured! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - looks good. Nice work on this. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks great! Drewcifer (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:51, 5 February 2008.

---

List of the most populous counties in the United States

Self-nom. There's an unsigned comment on the discussion page suggesting putting population density on the list too, which would be interesting, except that the Census Bureau doesn't provide it and I haven't been able to find it anywhere else for the July 1, 2006 update. So it would be OR. Geraldk (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Population density would be simple math; the areas of the counties are known and stable, so from there it's simple division. However I'm not sure if such a thing is needed. --Golbez (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'd really like for the list to note somehow, maybe in a footnote, those counties that are consolidated city-counties (the ones on this list would be the City and County of Honolulu and the City and County of San Francisco). --Golbez (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I did you one better and included it in the lead. Let me know what you think. Geraldk (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. That said, "County Seat or Courthouse"; in which counties is the courthouse used instead of the seat? I suspect this applies only to the consolidated city-counties, the independent city, and New York City, but this could be spelled out a little more. --Golbez (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address that in the lead as well. Geraldk (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I oppose this until a suitable image of Chicago or Cook County is included?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, with lists such as these it makes sense if the first three on the list are represented. Also, the captions need work, switching between "United States" and "America". "America" is probably not a preferred term. --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Geraldk (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thus, Support. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Although the article passes in my mind as it is, this is one that could be tremendously improved with {{double image}} or {{triple image}} along the side instead of single image. Then, even cities like Buffalo, New York could have images because you could have two or three times as many.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Bencherlite^Talk 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. However, I have a quibble with the Census data on which it is based. Specifically, I was surprised to see that Davidson County, Tennessee was not on the list, since I recalled that its population was well within the range of the listed counties. Sure enough, it seems that Davidson County appealed its 2005 estimate and got its 2005 population estimate increased from 575,261 to 607,413.[2] That 2005 revised estimate would put Davidson County on the list at number 97. However, the Census Bureau's list of 2006 estimates[3] gives the 2005 estimate as 574,395 (lower than both the original value and the revised value) and the 2006 value as only 578,698, all suggesting to me that these annual estimates are not particularly solid and stable. All things considered, I think I might like this table better if it included stable information (i.e., the top 100 counties from the 2000 Census and their Census populations) in addition to the somewhat ephemeral estimates from 2006. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:51, 5 February 2008.

---

Christopher Walken filmography

As far as I know no filmography article has ever been granted FL status, so I'd like to set a good precedent. Specifically, if anyone has any formatting/content concerns or suggestions, I would very much like to incorporate them if possible. So, please let me know what you think, and how (if) I can improve upon the list. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very nice, but would it be possible to add a bit more to the lead (ie. The movie he was in which grossed the most, etc.) and perhaps explain why he used to be creditted as Ronnie and Ken Walken? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions, I'll see what I can do. Though this leads me to one question I have: do you think data like the gross of carious films would be appropriate? Either in the table on a per-movie basis, or maybe as an additional table summarizing his top 5 or 10 grossing films? I ask because we do that kind of thing for discographies (charts, certifications, etc), so should we do it for discographies? And it might be a good way to gauge the films he's been in. And if so, to what extent? I don't mind doing a little extra work, I just want to set a good precedent for any future filmographies, you know? Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to add the gross of his films, but it doesn't necessarily be helpful. I'd be content with a list of his top 5 grossing films for now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm also fairly sure IMDB has been deemed an unrelieable source as far as Featured content is concerned. As a side note, if you keep the soruces as is, don't duplicate them under "external links". neutral I can't realy get much further into noms due to not having a comp anymore. Circeus (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, but I was unable to find any information about it. Do you know of any link? Drewcifer (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to Neutral The list looks good, but Circeus is right, so I'm neutral until better sourcing is found. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Swapped out IMDB and IBDB as sources. Drewcifer (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also done: I added some box office data as well. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I would actually urge that the gross lists be dropped entirely. I don't see how it enlarges the purpose of the article - ie, what Walken has worked on. Instead, it implicitly links the quality of the acting to the box office gross, and I think that we can all agree that the current list is not in any way reflective of what are regarded as his best roles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be as it is a vital statistic in Hollywood and if the gross chart is dropped from this article, then the charts and certifications should be dropped from all of the discography FLs and so should the mention of his award wins and nominations as they both link the quality to sales and awards. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Walken is not the main creative component of the films, unlike the relationship between music albums and musicians. All it does is further reinforce talk about box office grosses, which primarily affects the producers. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with his performance. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as the awards quantify what the critics thought, box office gross quantifies what the public thought. In dollars and cents terms, Wedding Crashers was Walken's most popular film. Catch Me if You Can was his second most popular film. And In my experience, this seems generally true: what is he going to be remembered for, his role in The Milagro Beanfield War, or his role in Catch Me if You Can? I see very little difference between discogs/album articles saying basically the same thing through charts/certifications. The only real difference being that Walken is not the chief creative force behind the film. But surely, he has some impact on a film? This aggregate impact (as opposed to his impact on a film-by-film basis), is reflected on the total gross of his films ($1.6 billion) and the average gross ($31 million). The average implies a trend: films in which Christopher Walken acts (excluding cameos and minor appearances) tend to gross X. You could look at that statistic two ways: "Walken tends to work on films of a certain quality that average $31million gross" or that "Films with Walken's name attatched to them tend to gross an average of $31 million". Either way, the statistics are presented to give the reader the opportunity to interpret it however they see fit. Even if they take the same stance as you are "Gross income doesn't mean anything", the info is still there to be interpretted as such. All of these statistics are just different ways of quantifying public opinion, which I would argue is more important than critical opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Then where is Pulp Fiction? The box office info is unless you're actually showing tickets sold, due to the extreme inflation in the cost of a ticket in the past 20 years. And attendance does not correlate to popularity per se. The Phantom Menace being exhibit number one. There are other ways to gauge public support, including People's Choice awards, polls, and whatnot. Your claim that gross equals popularity and talk about interpreting statistics reeks of WP:OR, and furthermore has no way of knowing if people showed up to Wedding Crashers because of Christopher Walken, much less if they enjoyed the film. In the box office interpretation of affairs, purchasing a ticket is equal to a thumbs up from a patron (who has yet to have seen the film at that point), and purchasing an overpriced one is practically two thumbs up at that. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Personally, I can agree with both sides on this. If it was a case of Walken being the starring role of the film, like Harrison Ford is for Indiana Jones, Tom Hanks is for Forrest Gump, etc etc, then it would be relevant. The problem becomes that these movies did not feature Walken as the primary character of the film. I think the list indirectly implies that the films grossed that because he was the star, and while he may have stolen the film from the real stars in most of those cases, it would be inaccurate to say that "his" films grossed that much. In reality, it was Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn's Wedding Crashers that grossed 209 million. Otherwise, one could say that anyone that was an extra in the film could consider the film "theirs". It says in the paragraph, "not minor roles", but it wasn't like he was primary character of the film. Any film in which he was the key player, I would use in the list. Like, The Dead Zone, The Deer Hunter, The Prophecy....these are films that "starred" Walken. I would list all of his starring roles, not roles that were larger than cameos but still too small to think that they were "his" movies. Aside from that debate, I've found a couple of other issues.
  • First, don't begin a sentence with "Also". I would suggest either dropping it outright, if you want a separate sentence, or connect the two statements with a semi-colon.

Good call, reworded it. Drewcifer (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Second, if you use the term "notable", or "most notable", then it would be good to have a source to back it up. In the SNL section, it states he has a "most notable SNL role", but I can't verify that is what he is most noted for when it comes to SNL.

Both roles/skits have articles of their own, and therefore are notable, no? I only mentioned the ones with articles. Drewcifer (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Third, I'd probably retitle "Miscellanous" to "Other media". The term "Miscellaneous" sounds like trivia, or that you just couldn't find a place for the information. You know where the place is, it's just too small for its own section. Other than that, it's a pretty good looking list page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Renamed. Drewcifer (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "his" movies, it says "films in which he has acted." Also, as I said above, there's different ways to read the table: "Walken tends to work on films of a certain quality that average $31 million gross" or "Films with Walken's name attatched to them tend to gross an average of $31 million". You both seem to be reading it in the former sense, that Walken happened to work on films where he is not the main "star", and that the box office gross had nothing to do with his performance. But if you look at it the other way, as a quantifiable description of the type of films he tends to work on, it becomes obvious what a big star he is. Look at it this way: how would you describe to a Wikipedia reader that Christopher Walken is a bigger star than, say, Alfred Molina? You could just flat out say it, but that would POV, orginal research, etc. So instead, give them some data, and they can interpret it however they want. I guess my point is that giving the reader data gives them more information, as well as an opportunity to interpret that data however they wish. It's not a perfect system (who knows how much impact Walken had on people's decision to go see it? what about DVD sales? What about cameo roles like Pulp Fiction, which is arguably most famous for?), but what it does show is a trend based on a stable, quantifiable statistic. Drewcifer (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your assumption there is that it is explicitly in violation of OR as synthesis - Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow you. I'm not advancing a position in the article, I'm just doing so here to show possible interpretations. OR is acceptable in project page discussions no? All the article does is present data, and we should expect the reader to interpret it (or synthesize, as WP:OR calls it), however they see fit, even if they conclude it's not a good indication of anything. Drewcifer (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been over what it implies - most notable or popular roles. That's the whole justification for keeping it. See everything written above. Please, just delete the box office data. It is completely irrelevant to a character actor's filmography, and opens up a whole can of worms for future FLCs. It has nothing to do with a list compiling an actor's filmography, and leaves the door open for filmographies to start integrating additional tables for numerous other factors that, quite frankly, boil down to trivia. Which is how I see this - it's a trivial table attempting to peddle film influence on the basis of receipts. The concept is ludicrous when you realize that grosses do not correlate with the popularity of a supporting actor, and furthermore, the amount of ticket inflation makes all such lists extremely prone to recentism (which explains why the only two items on the list which are older than ten years old are a Bond film and a Batman film - neither of which required Walken to ensure large grosses. In short, this is extraneous trivia not directly relevant to the article scope. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I'm pressing the point is precisely the same reason you seem to disagree with me: future FL filmographies. Specifically, with this article I'm trying to set a good precedent for other filmographies to follow. While finishing up this one, I started to work on two others Spike Lee filmography and Woody Allen filmography. It became obvious to me that box office gross was fairly important in director's filmographies, so for the sake of consistency I'd like to see it in all of them. That said, I suppose there could be an inherent difference in actor filmographies vs director filmographies, so a difference in style/content isn't necessarily the end of the world. I think the statistics are worth keeping, but I'm willing to compromise on how they are presented. Would an additional column for Gross in the main table be an acceptable compromise? Drewcifer (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) No, I don't think it has anything to do with the filmographies, nor does it affect the content of the film. If there were a way to track the actual attendence, sure. But the monetary figures are grossly inequitably biased based on inflation, and being as the money is all going to the studio, it's not as if it has anything to do with the actor or filmmaker. I would be more receptive to a salary column, but overall, I don't see the point of including receipts in a filmography. How much more superfluous information having nothing to do with the work shall we provide? Country of provenance? What studio it was shot at? Film gauge? Film stock? Sound mix? I simply don't think these things are relevant to a person's filmography. Keep it simple and directly to the point and scope of the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to compromise, but I guess this is were we disagree. I see gross income data as similar to how discographies chart certifications, chart positions, and the like. It's a measure of a film's success – not a perfect measure, but a good indication nonetheless. I could see where you were coming from with your previous points, but you lost me on this one. Bignole, if you're still following the discussion, does the above compromise work for you? Drewcifer (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my issue with all this. If you are listing these numbers here in an effort to allow readers the chance to "interpret how they like", then it says to me that the list itself has no true relevance to the actor. It's like saying, Walken has worn a yellow shirt in films X, Y, Z, ..., and leaving it at that. What does the yellow shirt have to do with him? Why is the list so indiscriminate. If you are going to do the "let the reader interpret for themselves", then I say list the box office gross for all the films he has appeared in. There's no reason to single these out, just because they are the top money makers, because it presents an interpretation (even if that isn't your intention) that the films were "his" so-to-speak, thus the film's success was because of Walken. As for that bit about notability, I find it inaccurate (unless sourced) to say "his most notable role", even if the role has a Wikipedia page (which doesn't prove notability, let alone more notability than any other role). The statement "most notable" suggests that they were more noteworthy than any other role, when in fact there is no source to verify that statement. You have to have sources on the pages you make the statement, you shouldn't rely on whether there is a Wiki page for it. If the Wiki page has sources that show it was a notable role, then grab those and bring them over here. If all they show is that the role was notable, then that is what should be said. It shouldn't suggest that it was more notable than any other role, unless the sources say that very thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the compromise I was suggesting: we can't seem to agree on whether the top-10 list is appropriate, so would listing the gross for all of the films be a suitable solution? Girolamo doesn't seem to think so, but what is your opinion of this? Given the arguments presented, I'd be perfectly happy with that compromise. As for the notablity thing, your point is well-taken, I'll be happy to reword it a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is, if you're going to be amibiguous about the nature of the "Top List" then there is no point to having them. If you want to stay "ambiguous" then listing all of the numbers would be the way to do that. By selecting a "Top List" you're inadvertantly suggesting that it's because of him, whereas a list of all of them (which, I assume, would be simply tacked onto the filmography list) would keep your ambiguous stance without leaning into any one suggestive area. Might I also suggest adding those filters to the list (if you know how, or can find the code). This way someone can sort the list by title, date, director, highest gross, etc etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's exactly what I was proposing. Something like:

Year	Title	Role	Director	Lifetime Gross
1985	A View to a Kill	Max Zorin	John Glen	$15 mil.

And yea, I'd like to incorporate the sorting function, but unfortunately it doesn't work properly in tables with cells spanning multiple rows (the years in the table). And really, such functionality would only be useful in the date and gross columns. Not really much of a point in sorting the list alphabetically by title, role, or director name. In this case, I think the years spanning all appropriate rows is more useful than the sorting function. Drewcifer (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the sorting function could be useful in the director column, as well. Say a reader wanted to know how many Walken films were directed by Jonathan Demme? The only ways to find out would be to count by hand or use a sort function on the table. But, then, there's the trade-off, because having the years cover multiple rows looks better. Geraldk (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like an unfortunate shortcoming of the current table markup. I've brought up the issue at the village pump, and we'll see how that goes. But for the mean time I would personally prefer the merged cells over the sorting. But, back to the point at hand: would you consider a separate row for lifetime gross to be a good compromise to the current issue at hand? Drewcifer (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as currently constructed - I could support it either way. The context of the main table is the roles which he played and the movies he played them in. The gross of those movies is tangential to that context. So from that perspective, they shouldn't be in the main table. On the other hand, it might help a reader with no knowledge of Walken's work or of American cinema to get an idea of which films he was involved in were major films. It matters to a reader's understanding of Walken's career that Catch Me if You Can was a bigger move than Puss in Boots. Geraldk (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I'll leave it as is for now until we can get some more opinions on the issue. Drewcifer (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Truth is, it looks very good as is, and as there are more and more of these article they will be tweaked more, but it is very strong as is and should be our first actor filmography FL. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and your support! Drewcifer (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although I don't like how "prettytable" looks.--Crzycheetah 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And, just for my own knowledge, what exactly is different between "prettytable" and "wikitable"? I've just been using prettytable because I assumed it's "prettier" (which I'm all for). Drewcifer (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

At first, I noticed that the heading colors here were lighter than usual and were very smilar to the color of rows, so I checked the class. But, when I compare both classes, I don't see a difference. It's weird.--Crzycheetah 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I see. Strange. Drewcifer (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:11, 3 February 2008.

---

List of West Midlands railway stations

(Self-nom) This list follows a similar pattern to List of London Underground stations, which is already featured. As it stands, the list is fully referenced, and noteworthy points are covered in a 'Notes' section. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Many of the tables next to images are scrolling right off my screen - an impressive feat at 1600x1200. Could something be done to remedy that? Also, I don't think we need an alphabetical TOC after every letter, especially when each letter (except B, S, and W, and those still aren't very long) is relatively short. We definitely don't need it after every footer section. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the TOCs now.Y Done - TOCs are now after every 4 or 5 sections, and removed from footer sections. Not sure about the scrolling issue - it's fine on my screen (IE, 1024x768), however I'll have a look on my home PC tonight/tomorrow. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from TRM

• Oppose for now. While this is a good start I have a number of issues...
  • I have scrolling issues too, I'm only 1024 wide but using Safari on a Mac.
  • The lead could do with expansion. And some specific issues:
    • I would use "in the county of West Midlands", wikilinking county, and explaining precisely where in the world West Midlands is (for non UK readers benefit). Y Done
    • Consider wikilinking station as well. It's got to be clear what you're talking about for all readers. Y Done
    • Expand PTE the first time before just using it. I know it's linked but it's jargon. Y Done
  • Not sure about how you've implemented references. What's wrong with using the usual <ref>{{Cite web | url = ...}}</ref>? Much easier to maintain and the reference list is obtained using {{reflist}}. As it stands the reference list looks peculiar and not in-line with most Wikipedia articles. In fact, they don't actually work for me as references (i.e. I click on number [9] and I get taken to the top of the references section rather than the reference in question. Also there's no link back from the reference to its place in the article...) Y references changed. Notes remain hand-coded to force them into a separate section.
  • Date ranges in tables should be separated with en-dash, so 2004–05 and 2005–06. Y Done
  • Can you explain what Zone means in this context? I get it on the Tube, maybe the same here? Needs explanation. Y Done
  • Also usage could be explained. This would help expand the lead as it's not simply a list of stations, it's a list with zones, operators, usage statistics etc as well. Y Done
  • Looks odd when no photo available as the tables don't line up with previous or subsequent sections. Perhaps consider placing images on the right hand side of the article. Y Done - (with thanks to Orlady, who cured me of banging my head against a wall trying to figure out why the images wouldn't go where I wanted them too!)

Glad to be able to help! For future reference, the trick was removing the width="100%" setting from the table format. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• • What's the significance of the coloured squares? Y Done - removed squares.
  • Why all the external links? Trim down completely since you have all those references. Y Done - removed all bar two which are not referenced, but are relevant.
• Hope they help, please do get in touch if you need further explanation or comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and isn't Category:Railway stations in England a super-category of Category:Railway stations in the West Midlands? You probably don't need them both.. Y removed cat:england.The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Rambling Man - I'll get to work on addressing those now. I think the photos are the source of the scrolling issue - I need to look using my computer at home and see what has gone wrong, as on my work PC they are displayed where they should be, on the left hand side of the page, above each section. I think most of the other issues should be sorted pretty easily this evening. The coloured squares signify the colours used across railway related articles to distinguish between train operators, such as on railway staion articles etc - perhaps they over-complicate things. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Meant to add about the ref system - I think you are right - the problem I had was that by putting a ref in the section header, it was produced with a different number in every section. <ref name=...> solves this but leads to abc etc being displayed in the ref section. I was toying with changing to this system anyway as it's much easier than mine :-) TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd definitely go for the <ref name=...> option, and use the {{Cite web}} template too. It does make life a lot easier! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed a fair chunk of points raised. Working on table layout, and need to finish converting my dodgy ref syntax :-D TicketMan - Talk - contribs 22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing, now you've got a neat sortable table you should re-wikilink everything possible on every line since, in theory, the table contents could appear in any order so linking only the first instance doesn't work... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Y Done

• Comment - I've 'hidden' what I wrote above, but have just a couple more comments to attend to before I feel happy supporting, once resolved I'll tuck them into the hiding template!
  • "Their logo and publicity materials can be found at stations and on trains, buses and trams around the region" - is this really relevant? Y removed
  • "a Government body" - link Government to the relevant body. Y done
  • Reduce the width of the usage columns by adding a break between "users" and the date range. Then you can expand the served by column out. Plus do it for the year opened column too. It'll help balance the column widths. Y done
  • I made a slight change to the footnotes, removing the bullets, you could use the
syntax if you don't want an indent at all, I just felt that the bullets were ugly. Plus I made the notes smaller (per normal footnotes sections I think), hope you don't mind! Real close to support now, and congrats on your constructive responses to my many comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with the above - only thing is, regarding the footnote size, not sure what you changed, but in my browser the notes section is still normal size, whilst references and everything else below has shrunk! Apart from that you're right - it does look better without the bullets. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okeydokes, in my (superb) browser (Safari), it looks close to top notch now. The notes and stuff look fine. Can you just double check Zone vs zone, consistency being the key... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Y done

No probs then - probably just my rubbish work computer - IE 5.5 - remember that? :-D Changed Zone in footnote to zone - NWM website is consistently zone so no reason to capitalize, except in the table heading. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Edit - thought I'd changed it - I was beaten to it :-D

Checked and triple checked for spelling, grammar and punctuation. Pretty sure it's all spot on now (ready to be proven wrong...) TicketMan - Talk - contribs 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Proven myself wrong - whilst checking references found 3 dead links. Repaired, and managed to add 2 notes (about Dudley Prt and Sutton Coldfield. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, though involved as editor. I've cleared up and simplified the rest of the ref tags, merging some and using <ref name=...>. This removed 30K from the page size! I'm not sure if it's necessary to provide identical refs in every table header, but I've left them in for the time being. The notes ([a], [b], [c] etc) are still manually coded, but I can't see a way to avoid that. Tivedshambo (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Have dealt with the hand coded notes - all are now 'proper' refs, with thanks to User:Pomte at the WP:Village Pump technical page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TicketMan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, due to one objection and several quibbles:

Objection: I can't find any explanation of the use of the abbreviation "m" in the heading Station users (m). I normally expect "m" to mean "metres." That clearly isn't the case here, and I've worked out that it is the number of users in millions, but it needs to be clearly explained in the article. (List of London Underground stations has the same issue.)

Quibble: Defined or not, millions seems a poor choice of a unit for the numbers in this article. Only one station has more than 1 million users (some have less than 100 thousand, so the values in the table are almost all decimals less than 1. Many users will be confused when 27000 is represented as 0.027.

Quibble: If millions is retained as the unit, can the abbreviation be something other than the confusing "m"? (Surely I am not the only one who sees "metre" there. For me, "M" would be a better choice, as it indicates "mega" -- or one million -- in the SI system.)

Quibble: The spacing of the table is very annoying. I suggest (1) removing all the width parameters from the table formatting and (2) removing the {{clear}} that separates the images from the tables. That will eliminate extra space within the tables and force the images to display alongside the tables -- far more appealing to the eye.

--Orlady (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the {{clear}} tag was added to prevent display problems with Firefox - I'm reluctant to try to put the pictures alongside the table as this will be too compact for smaller browsers. I agree there's no particular need for fixed width colums, so I'll clear that up, and I'll try to do something about the millions. Tivedshambo (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My concerns have been resolved. Removing "oppose". --Orlady (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - It now looks like everything worth fixing has been fixed. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I've hidden the resolved issues, this is in a much better state now, well done on all your hard work! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I am really stunned to see how much better this list got during the nomination. Great job!--Crzycheetah 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

• Looks good. I took the liberty of amending a wikilink.
• Slight problem with "It includes all railway stations in the West Midlands that are currently open". Pedantically, depending on what time of day you visit the page, it may not be true. You clearly mean that the list excludes stations that are not defunct; I'm not sure how you can amend the copy, but suggest that it would be worth fixing. Y Done - changed for now - trying to think of a better term to use.
• The same organisation seems to have three names, mentioned in two different paragraphs, one of them (Centro) not explained. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Y Clarified Centro/NWM/WMPTE, also introduced WMPTA to set context.

Both good points - I'll have a think about this one, and see what I can come up with. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Have addressed both points made by Dweller. Have explained Centro, and also added a footnote explaining their parent body, WMPTA. I've also added an extra column detailing the metropolitan borough each station is in, as noted on the article's talk page. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, better, esp on the defunct stations, which you've handled elegantly. I'm still slightly chary over the explanation of Centro's names, esp. the need to deal with it in two different paragraphs. I know it's dull and obscure corporate stuff, but surely there's a simple way to present the information without losing comprehensiveness? (by the way, this isn't an oppose - see below) --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've sorted this admirably. <pun alert> That's the ticket.</pun alert> --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Groan :-D --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Significant improvement since I first looked at it, now seems to satisfy the FL criteria admirably. Just a couple of points.

• Entries in the Zone column might look better centred rather than left-aligned.
• You've linked every standalone year, both in the Year opened column and in the notes. The MoS says that year articles should be linked to "only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". Not convinced that's the case here. Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Both issues have been addressed by User:Tivedshambo --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support issues resolved, excellent work. Struway2 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support my currently unresolved issue above isn't sufficient for me to withhold support from this FL quality list article. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, my how it's changed since my first comment above. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support great improvements with the single table & sorting columns. May be a link to Commons needs adding for other photos but apart from that looks great. Keith D (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. {{Commonscat}} added. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 01:45, 2 February 2008.

---

List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame

I'm back with another list of hall of famers (my fourth such FLC), this time for the Hockey Hall of Fame. The page is fully sourced and (I think) well-formatted. The only drawback (in my opinion) is that the tables are a tad thin. The only thing I can think of that could be added is a years active column, but that's a tad sticky because the Hall of Fame website does not track that statistic for every player, and how do you define years active? Pro leagues only? And if that is the definition, do you include the AHL or Major-Junior leagues? Either way, any concerns brought forth will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Lots of information about how the election process works, excellent images, including many of older inductees. Well presented article. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - There were some grammar errors I fixed in the text, but you might want to have a more experienced copy-editor go through them. I like the list, but it seems to me that the list is incomplete. At a minimum, I would say it should include years of a player's or official's career, as in List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame by date of induction. For the players, it might also make sense to include teams they played with, though that may be difficult for players who moved around a lot. Geraldk (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the years of a player's career should be included because that can lead to POV and how do you define active? Do you include the years they played in semi-pro, or European leagues? Hobey Baker never played professional hockey, what do you do for him? In the end, it's also really not vital information and has little to do with the hall itself. As well, the baseball Hall of Fame website includes a players active years, but the Hockey Hall of Fame site does not, so being able to compile such info would involve a lot of OR and use of sketchy sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right that the years of a player's career aren't a necessity for a list of hall of fame members, so I've withdrawn the objection. However, I think in general it's better to err on the side of too much information than too little. And for a reader of this list, it may be useful to have more of this information in one place. Say they're looking for hall of fame players whose careers included the 1970's? Or, more likely, what if they're a person trying to find out which Toronto Maple Leafs players were accepted into the Hall of Fame? I can't think off the top of my head where this would go in WP:WIAFL, but I think it's important for a featured list to be broadly useful. Geraldk (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• I too would like a little more context as to why some of these folks were inducted. A notes column could include what teams they played for or helped build, or in the case of the purely amateur ones, point out what was so impressive about their amateur career that led them to being inducted, etc. Still, I give a weak support to what exists now, the intro is very good, and each section has the right amount of context. But I really, really would like a notes column showing the achievements that led them either to being inducted (if such explicit information is available), or more general information of their careers like their teams, any records they held, for referees their years and leagues of service, etc. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to see the nationalities column added. It is useful to know whether a player is American/Canadian. OR maybe add a flag next to the names. As Golbez said, teams played for would be a plus, as well.--Crzycheetah 23:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There have been several debates in the past over the inclusion of Flags and its a tricky issue. The Hall of Fame website has a list of players who weren't born in Canada (and that's less than 20 people) like Stan Mikita who was born in Slovakia but played for Canada on several occasions. As for the inclusion of teams, I'm somewhat opposed to that too as many of these players played for several teams and which ones do you list? NHL only? Pro teams only? Unlike the Baseball Hall of Fame, the HHOF doesn't recognize players as a member of certain teams, so it's a lot harder to do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, well. I give a weak support, as well. I am not too impressed by this list, but I can't offer much to make it better.--Crzycheetah 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great list although like other's said I wish there was something else to provide. But if there isn't anything to add, then you cant do anything. Good work, I liked all the pics! – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:40, 1 February 2008.

---

List of counties in Tennessee

previous FLC (23:51, 21 January 2008)

This is a re-nom, and I'm not entirely clear on why it was withdrawn in the first place since its quality is equal to or better than a number of the existing FL county lists. I've done some extremely minor edits, but credit for the article should go to doxTxob and the members of Wikiproject Tennessee. I'd especially like the opinion of reviewers on the use of the terms 'Indian' and 'Native American' in both the lead and in the table. As a rule of thumb, I kept any reference to 'Indian lands' since that's an historical legal term, but changed any other reference to 'Indians' into 'Native Americans' to abide by the most common current academic usage.

• Support as nominator. Geraldk (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Impressive county list. I would like to see this sort of work in other states. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Credit for the list should got to User:Dan9186 who merged two related lists into this one and to members of the Wikiproject Tennessee, I worked on the list for less than ten minutes. Previous nomination was on behalf of the TN project. doxTxob \ ^talk 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support again. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems very comprehensive, and very well put together. As an aside, I note that there is a redlink for Jacob Tipton - perhaps a stub should be created? --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Meets all the requirements. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted 07:06, 1 February 2008.

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality

Hi there, this list is one that I have been updating as part of my overhaul of our Victoria Cross recipients lists. This list is a "motherlist" that is the basis for some of countries with large numbers of recipients. This follows the same updated format as List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients and List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. I think it meets all the FL criteria. Hope you agree, looking forward to comments. Woody (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Can you improve the "nationality" column, as it's inconsistent? For example, "Denmark", "Germany" and "India" are names of countries, not nationalities, but "Welsh", "English" and "Australian" are nationalities. Otherwise, excellent! Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed column to country, all uniform now I think. Woody (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Does this now mean that it's a list of recipients by country? Bencherlite^Talk 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If you like. I chose that way because I couldn't work out what the nationality of Newfoundland was. I will convert them to nationality in the morning, (and when I find out the answer;) Woody (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Nationality probably makes more sense. Newfie suggests "Newfoundlander" is the correct form, btw. Bencherlite^Talk 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Done. Woody (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Support. Bencherlite^Talk 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In the specific references you have unsourced notes. These notes about nationalities need to be cited.--Crzycheetah 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Added in refs now. Woody (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've combined them to be more obvious. I don't think a link to a WikiProject should be in the See also section, but I am not sure. Other than that, the list looks great. I support.--Crzycheetah 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I tried to put refs inside of refs, but it doesn't like it. Your way works well, thanks. I have removed the link to VC migration, as A) it is dead, and B) not much of it actually relates to the project anymore. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great list. The only thing I see that could be added would be a reference about anyone who has been awarded the medal twice (if this has occurred). Good job!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted 07:06, 1 February 2008.

---

List of Buffalo Sabres players

Self-nom. Based on other lists of hockey players which have been promoted (List of New Jersey Devils players, List of Colorado Avalanche players, List of Calgary Flames players), this list is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. Skudrafan1 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is this the second nomination for this list or was that another Sabres list?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The failed FLC was Buffalo Sabres draft history. This is a separate page. Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Lots of images, which is always good, plenty of references, which never hurts, and it has no redlinks. Feel slighted that you didn't mention the most recent FL ice hockey list, of the San Jose Sharks, but I'll assume you were not aware it passed yet. Good show. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have not been looking closely at sports team lists. Is it common to have so many images of players in other uniforms. I am especially pained to see Hasek in a Red Wings uni.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This came up when List of Colorado Avlanche players was nominated. Esentially, it was thought that it is better to have images of players not in the uniforms of the listed team rather than have no images at all. Of course once an appropriate image were to be made available, that can always change. I know that personally when working on team lists, I have tried to only include images showing the proper uniform, but have made exceptions as necessary. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So getting back to Hasek, did you make the decision that it is less painful to see him in a Red Wings uniform than the overhead of him in the proper uniform on the Hull goal?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually had forgotten that picture is on Wikipedia. Looking at Hasek's page, though, I think it will change the photo on the list to the one of him with the Vezina and Hart Trophies. It fits better with the caption and it doesn't show him in the "wrong" uniform. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like the images too, which somebody else stated above. Anyhow, I see no reason to make this a FL, well sourced and looking good. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, I think the lead could be expanded, maybe mentioning some of the great players from each position and info about the franchise. Right now the intro really doesn't say anything about the players, all it says is info about the list, how its constructed, etc. The lead should "summarize the scope of the list and prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in sections subsequent to the lead." Other than that the list looks great, and I will be glad to support when the lead is expanded.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. I will attempt to get to that at some point within the next 24 hours. Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added an introductory section to the list which I feel suffices. Let me know if you disagree. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Much better now. Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.