Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of U.S. states by date of statehood/archive1

List of U.S. states by date of statehood

Mostly not my work - I expanded the lead and added references. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's simple and straightforward, well formatted, and includes thumbnail images of every state flag. Durova 15:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the "preceding entity" of California was either the territory of Alta California (as part of Mexico) or the very short-lived, but still notable, California Republic. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 02:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support - simple, cute, & straightforward list. Renata 05:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if you change the reference format to follow the guidelines. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the conditional support (and smiley noted, too, btw), but which changes and which guidelines? Are you asking for one of those "retrieved" thingies? Isn't it obvious from the edit history when the reference was added? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why make the reader go through the hassle? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can add it if it really exercises you that much, but how many readers are going to worry about when I last read those web pages? If they want to know where the information comes from, they can click and look for themselves. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because it's good academic practice. I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        An encyclopedia is not an an academic paper. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CITE#Citation_styles. And then we wonder why people question the project. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 06:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That is a style guide. So the problem is that the reference does not look right? Even most of the reference on that page do not comply with the mandated style! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        He, no. The issue at hand was to put the "retrieved date" on web refs, which you did anyway. I don't know where you got that idea that I don't like how it looks (style may refer to doing things consistently, by the way, cf. "writing style"). And also WP:NOT says nothing about an encyclopedia not being subject to the same rigours an academic paper has to go through before publication. It says we aren't writing a paper encyclopedia, and that only refers to limits in the number of articles or their extent. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I'm asking for the format of "Author (last update). Website name. Retrieved 1 January 2006." or "Website name (last update). Retrieved 1 January 2006." if not author is available. —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely done. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rmhermen 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]