Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 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 not promoted 15:22, 26 April 2008.
SELF-NOM For those people who are looking at this thinking, "isn't this already nominated?", the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is in charge of the law enforcement of Unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and also for the many incorporated cities who have contracted the Department. They also provide Bailiffs for the courthouses in LA County, operate the county's jails, and have their own training academy, which is also contracted to train smaller police departments. In contrast, the LAPD is in charge of law enforcement in the city of Los Angeles only.
So this is another fallen officers list, comparable I think to the List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty, which was nominated some days ago. As usual, all comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Difficult with a short lead but avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
Done. I placed it after the text, but I'm not sure about it now. What do you think? Isn't there some special code that will force the "Officers" section to be placed correctly below the image, rather than having half the line chopped off?
- "recognised" - US article, run with a zee here.
- Done
- You have STARS but never use it, any need for the abbreviation?
- Done
- " This includes law enforcement officers who, while in an off-duty capacity, act in response to a law violation, or is driving to or from work.[1]" - officers (plural) versus "or is" (singular)...
- Done
- Put (LASD) after the second time you use the expanded version (so it's a) not in the bold and b) the last time you use the expanded version).
- Done
- Sacramento is linked twice in quick succession.
- Done
- "Whittier, CA." - avoid CA, just use California so us non-US centric types get it.
- Done Is it necessary to include "California" at all, since it's obviously a California-related article?
- What does 1' mean? (in Little's row)
- Done
- Tenure doesn't sort properly for me.
- Done
- Ref 10 needs work and be consistent with the use of pp or not for pages.
- Done
- Support my concerns addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks like a good list, great work. Gary King (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This list looks to be of high quality and in my opinion it is worthy of Featured Status. --Mifter (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for many some of the same layout issues as in the other list.
- Cause of deaths seem too generic, and I'd rather see short summaries of each entry to give the "story" when few will ever be notable enough to have their own article. If not in a field at the end, maybe a single merged cell under each entry (similar to how episode articles have summaries under the cells with their basic info).
- The notes are confusing tacked in a column at the end, along with the codes and color-coding. It doesn't make it very easy to read or comprehend entries and causes readers to have to keep scrolling up and down to find out what each means.
- The list says it is a list of "officers killed in the line of duty" so why are there entries for people who died of a heart attack? That isn't being killed, it is dying of natural causes. And one entry died during surgery on his knee. His receiving the injury to his knee on the job doesn't mean his dying during the surgery is "being killed in the line of duty." Another who died in a train crash on the way to work doesn't seem like being "killed" in the line of duty either. I realize the criteria in the list seems to be just to be on the official list, but if that's all it is, we aren't doing much but replicating the official list.
- This is a good point which I second SGGH speak! 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Minor note: See also should be above Refs.
Collectonian (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, as before:
- The criticism of the other list did not seem to have any effect on this there is still the use of color to emphasize the unimportant, such as the differentiation of those who died on the same day as the incident and those who died on later days. Much more important, there is still the hazy criteria. Unlike the previous commentator, I am personally willing to accept people who died during knee surgery after an accident actually on the line of duty, and someone dying of a heart attack during a chase (for example) is also OK with me--but these disagreements highlight the uncertain criteria. In particular I am not willing to accept as reasonable the department's definition of line of duty as including traveling to and from work--I regard that as a dubious publicity device, possibly to increase survivor's benefits. I see no reason why we should accept the designation as significant used by a source with an obvious COI in increasing the impressiveness of the list--that is not exercising NPOV or even common sense.
- Again, the details are unsourced. We need to assume the proper research of the authority we're using, and almost all the information that might be of value to a reader is eliminated. I see, for example, someone who died of gunfire, but not a work. I'd like to know more about it--was it a domestic dispute, or was it perhaps something more distinctive for better or worse--did he get into a extra-curricular gunfight, or was he surprised by a robber, or whatever?There's a fall at work--was it actually during a chase (as frequently occurs in the movies), or did he misstep in the station house stairway, or what? Car accidents have a very different meaning if they occur during a police action or otherwise; struck by vehicle--was this a by a suspect, or an accident at a traffic stop? Note G is an example of the sort of person who does not belong on this list. But note A sounds fascinating, and is certainly worth a full article--there must be full accessible sources for this. and
- Notes D and F are good examples of the type of information that's wanted. Now get similar information for all the others, and then propose as a featured list. Ity will then be a very good one! DGG (talk) 18:57, 23 April 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 not promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.
My next lists were going to be season articles for Degrassi Junior High, but I'm getting really annoyed with that whole thing at the moment. Instead, here's something that isn't media or sports related.
So, yeah. A list of LAPD cops killed in the line of duty. Every cop is listed, some, especially the more recent ones, have specfic references, the others can be referenced by the three general references given. If I'm forced to I suppose I can make a trip to the county library in downtown LA, which has archived the Los Angeles Herald, but I'd rather not. I've tried to keep the Lead WP:Neutral, but let me know if it needs tightening, and as always, any other comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Support as nominator -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- When I sort by 'time on force', for some reason, Dorris and Schmid come after Villalobos. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is why I hate making sortable tables :) Done -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is why I hate making sortable tables :)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Not sure you've completely justified your inclusion of the other four individuals who aren't classed as LAPD officers... (same old title vs content argument)
- I can see the two mentioned in the lead who aren't LAPD, not 4, but actually one of them really was part of the LAPD. The 2nd City Marshal in the list was the head of the LAPD (which was founded in 1869) before his murder in 1876, upon which the title Chief was used. I included the one before him as he was also a City Marshal, which was the only law enforcement agency before the LAPD was founded, even though the title was carried over for the first 7 years of operation. Do you have any ideas on a reword? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- "who isn't " - is not. Avoid these naughty contractions!
- Done
- Put (LAPD) after first full use of the expression.
- Done
- "such as that for the most recently killed officer, " avoid this - as soon as the next LAPD officer is killed you'll need significant rework. Same for the image caption, I'd just stick to absolute fact rather than timeframing it.
- Done
- "..Arnold Schwarzenegger.[7] and featured .." - bad full stop there.
- Done
- I'd avoid spaces between notes and refs in the notes column.
- "James H." sorts strangely. As does "William H." and "John M." (that's in Safari by the way).
- Done
- Why allow the notes column to sort?
- I think I've done it using
class=unsortablein the table heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I've done it using
- "Assault|Vehicular assault" for Beatty needs sorting out.
- Done
- 1876 and 1853 don't sort properly in the date of death col.
- That's probably because only their year of death is known. How can this be fixed using {{dts2}}? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pratt's six month tenure isn't sorted correctly. Ricardo Lizarraga has a similar issue. As does David Charles Schmid.
- Done
- Simmons age in the table is given as 31 while 27 years in the service.
- Done — should have been 51
- Notes C to F need references I think.
- As I said above when I nominated, their deaths came either before, or while the internet was in its early years. Also, the Los Angeles Times is notable for ignoring its website readers, and has been slammed for it numerous times. I have to make an 80 mile trip into LA to the only county library that has archived an old local newspaper, alternatively, each officer has a page at the Officer Down site, which I could link to, but I gave the LAPD page at Officer Down as a general reference. It's no hassle to add those, though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's me done! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Detailed, filled with all sorts of information, and utilises innovative ways of organising it, and representing the different kinds of incident, late deaths and so on, and incorporates a useful lead section as well. --SGGH speak! 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I dont think the entire list is encyclopedic, and I notice the FA nomination as I was about to list it for AfD. They have a web site for the purpose, referenced above. I do not think it needs a WP article. DGG (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I began creating a few articles for some officers who had been killed. They were deleted, but those deletions were reverted. They were then prodded. After five days, the prod was removed, and the articles still stand. However, as a result of the prods, deletes and reverts, it was suggested that a list would be more suitable, and would be unlikely to be deleted. I don't see why the fact that there is a website which also has the information is a reason not to have the list here. There are plenty of other lists based off of 3 main reference points which still stand. It would have more references, except that the internet dates back maybe 15 years, and the earlier deaths, while reported on in newspapers, aren't available online. If it is absolutely necessary, then I will make the trip to the library in LA which has archived the local newspapers, but I'm not looking forward to that hassle, let me tell you!
- I also added your oppose back in; it had been removed because it was a H2 header, but the oppose still stands. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for messing up the format. Here is my view in more detail.
- I am willing to accept the inclusion in an official department list as evidence of the basic facts--obviously not for notability such as would make an individual article, but certainly the basic facts of the name and the date. As for the details of how the person died, that might take the actual news story. And that brings me to the more basic point that :
- These of of very different notability. There is a difference to the public between those killed in traffic accidents and those shot by criminals. One is unfortunate, worthy of commemoration within the department, worthy of a special pension, but not really of public interest, then or now. It's really just the same if a policeman is killed by in a car accident while going to work as if anyone else is. And even slightly more job related, if a policeman is struck by a truck while making a roadside car stop, it is not more noteworthy than if a member of a road repair crew is killed in a similar manner. These are misfortunes common to anyone who works on highways. The public interest and notability for an encyclopedia is the people who are killed while carrying out their duties by criminals, or in some similar manner very specifically job-related to the peculiar aspects of the profession. The drama attaching to this is why people care about the topic. (I'm aware that some of the deaths by traffic and the like may have been directly caused by criminals, such as being run over by the people being stopped for investigation--that's one reason why more exact sourcing is needed.)
- I agree that being killed in a traffic accident isn't as wowish as being shot up by a gangsta, but the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial states that those deaths (and those happening while off duty) are in the line of duty. Those who have died by being knocked over by a car, or from traffic accidents, both on and off duty, are listed at the LAPD's fallen officer webpage, the California Peace Officer's Memorial etc etc. The websites also indicate how they died. That's why each officer doesn't have their own article, but a list of all of them covers all bases. To include the officers who were killed as a result of someone else's actions, but leave out those who died by some sort of accident would be POVish in my opinion. It isn't a List of murdered LAPD officers, it's those that have died in the line of duty, and the provisions of that statement have been verified in the article. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I accept the use of the lists to indicate the basic facts about individuals, but a greater number of the more recent people where there are not specific references should be findable online. This may not be practical immediately, but it should be done relatively soon. I do not think it can be called a FA while this is incomplete. A FA is supposed to have complete sourcing, not a portion of it that still needs to be done. DGG (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the LA Times doesn't keep its articles online once they're about 3 years old, unless it's really big news such as the 94 Northridge earthquake. The LA Daily News is a little better, and that's really it. I will keep Googling though. If there was a way of Googling through newspaper articles from 1998 that have been archived by Wayback, that'd be wonderful, but I don't think there is so it's kind of impossible to search. Each cause of death is given by the three references at the start of the reference section, though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- A lot of what you're opposing, however, seems to me to be more to do with the subject of the list, as in importance, rather than the quality of the list, which is what Featured status is about. FL is about presenting all the facts (which this does), verifiable (it is), well written (IMO it is!) and everything else at the Featured list criteria. Each individual death may or may not be on its own notable, but when put together like this, I believe as a whole it is notable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from DGG (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- The use of color seems inappropriate--color is usually used to highlight something as being particularly distinctive or different. Here it is used merely to indicate a degree of uncertainty or particular minor point about the exact day of death, & its relationship to the event causing it. This really should be done by something like a footnote marker, and asterisk or the like, that would be less conspicuous.
- This one I have less of a problem addressing, although I do feel it helps quickly identify certain things. It's not like different shading isn't being used to identify different causes of death, and I would say that more than one officer dying in a particular incident is distinctive or different. Those who died off duty is also distinctive IMO, especially when the term in the line of duty is used. It's not a list of every officer who died while employed by the agency, after all, which would then call for all those who died of duty, sitting at home watching TV with a beer in hand, for example. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- since the LAPD & the NLEOMemorial define "in the line of duty" as including those killed in accidents going to and from work, those people are not conceivably significant in an encyclopedic sense. Whatever they think for purposes of publicity or morale, it is not publicly significant, even for article content. Agreed individuals in this sort of list do not have to be individually notable, but they have to have some encyclopedic relevance. Since the currently easily available data does not provide for sorting them out adequately, it is possible that they might have to be included temporarily as a matter of practicality--but I think that dubiousness is enough to disqualify the list for featured status. It actually would take finding true sources to justify placement on the list. The LA Times is available via Proquest back to vol. 1. It is available at UCLA and other UC campuses, & the LA public library--and probably other libraries. (It is also possible that the LAPD maintains an information center with clippings) Doing a featured article takes doing the necessary research. DGG (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- This one I have less of a problem addressing, although I do feel it helps quickly identify certain things. It's not like different shading isn't being used to identify different causes of death, and I would say that more than one officer dying in a particular incident is distinctive or different. Those who died off duty is also distinctive IMO, especially when the term in the line of duty is used. It's not a list of every officer who died while employed by the agency, after all, which would then call for all those who died of duty, sitting at home watching TV with a beer in hand, for example. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- The use of color seems inappropriate--color is usually used to highlight something as being particularly distinctive or different. Here it is used merely to indicate a degree of uncertainty or particular minor point about the exact day of death, & its relationship to the event causing it. This really should be done by something like a footnote marker, and asterisk or the like, that would be less conspicuous.
Comments from Collectonian Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC):
- the image of Randal Simmons seems unnecessary, though if it has a justifable purpose, it should be moved to the right side as it is totally messing up the menu. Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll move it to the right for now, if any more objections come in, then I'll remove it. It's there basically to show Simmons, as he is discussed in the paragraph along side it. Done-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll move it to the right for now, if any more objections come in, then I'll remove it. It's there basically to show Simmons, as he is discussed in the paragraph along side it.
- I also must question the inclusion of two city marshals. They died before the LAPD existed, and as such can not be considered Los Angeles Police Department officers. It would be one thing if the list were List of Los Angeles law enforcement officers, but as it specifies "Los Angeles Police Department," it should only include those who were actually LAPD officers.Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- As above to TRM, the city marshal was the highest ranking of the LAPD from 1869 when the force was created, to 1876, when the second marshal in the list died. They then changed the title to "Chief". The first one in the list is there because although he wasn't part of the LAPD, his position was. I can see this is contentious though, so it may be better to simply remove it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also must question the way the Cause of Death's are listed. For example, the footnote on Ian James Campbell seems to indicate he was kidnapped and murdered, but his cause of death is only listed as Gunfire. While it would make the list longer, perhaps if the notes in the notes column were put with the names, and the badge number dropped (which seems to be rather personal information, even for deceased officers, as well as somewhat superflous as their badge numbers is unrelated to their deaths), the column on cause could have room for longer comments where necessary. This would allow a more accurate reflection for cause, and some small story as most of these will never have articles and so I think some brief summary should be included here.Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- He was still murdered by gunshots. The fact that he was kidnapped may have contributed to it, but it wasn't the cause of death. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll remove the badge number column tomorrow, but I'm not sure if removing it will give that much room to add even a sentence of additional information.
Doing... -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll remove the badge number column tomorrow, but I'm not sure if removing it will give that much room to add even a sentence of additional information.
- He was still murdered by gunshots. The fact that he was kidnapped may have contributed to it, but it wasn't the cause of death. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the MOS requires the dates to be in full format, as ISO dates are generally discouraged except in references. Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- DATE#Dates says "ISO 8601 dates are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I will change them tomorrow when I do the badge numbers though.
Not done I can't seem to make the sorting work when written out as full dates, and the MOS says it's okay for use in tables, so I'm going to leave it for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- If its needed for sorting, then its fine. Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- DATE#Dates says "ISO 8601 dates are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also must echo the other remarks on the last column and the color coding, particularly the numbering to indicate two officers died in the same incident. I'm not sure how to better format it though, if it should be done with a notes column under some items, or notes to the side, but the current system seems confusing. Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I could make footnote links for those who died in the same incident. Do you think all the different shading should go, or just some of it? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- as currently used, all the different shading should go. The one thing I can think of that would be valuable--as you in fact suggest earlier--is to distinguish those who were actually killed directly by criminals, from accidents--except that you do not actually have full information on that for many of the people. On duty/off duty is not the same thing. If you want to brighten up the table, use color for those awarded stars or medals, instead of symbols. Color should be used to mark the more significant, not the less significant. DGG (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Something I noticed in the other list, before noticing here but the list is declared to be a list "officers killed in the line of duty" so why are there entries for people who died of a heart attack? That's natural causes, not being killed. As I said in the other, I realize the criteria in the list seems to be just to be on the official list, but if that's all it is, we aren't doing much but replicating the official list which would call to question, as others have, whether the list belongs at all. Collectonian (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I really don't like the use of numbers in the last column to indicate ones who died in the same incident; they look too much like footnotes, and the numbers have no actual meaning. --Golbez (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was an easy way of identifying, for when the list is sorted by anything other than date. The bolded 1s can be distinguihed from the 2s, can you think of any other identifier that would be more suitable? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't like the use of numbers in the last column to indicate ones who died in the same incident; they look too much like footnotes, and the numbers have no actual meaning. --Golbez (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose — in my opinion, it's not encyclopedic; it's an original research. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting, although I'm puzzled as to which part you feel is original research. Each officer and his/her death is referenced through three different sources, and others have addtional sourcing where it's available online. If you can tell me which bits are OR, I'll attempt to make it not so. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with DGG. Notability of this list is at most borderline. A list of officers who were killed intentionally because of their work might be a different matter, but this list is no more notable than the List of USC Medical Center staff who died at work. List of USC Medical Center staff who died from a disease they caught at work might be more notable though, especially if it was unusually long. (Which I suppose it isn't, because I just picked this hospital at random.) The list currently looks more like propaganda for a police department, and this needs to be corrected. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Propaganda? I don't really know what to say to that... -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Propaganda is an old-fashioned word for advertising. It used to be used for everything, including consumer products, but for propaganda reasons it was renamed in that context. Now it's mainly used in political contexts, and this is a political context. To quote from Propaganda: "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." That's what this list is doing, whether it is intentional or not. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:53, 19 April 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 not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
Self nomination All the concerns I think have been addressed since the last FLC. It no longer looks like a Skittleopedia, and has all the relevent information, with a suitable Lead section, and is fully referenced. All concerns/comments will be addressed. Thanks -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I made some changes. You need to explain what a "prod code" is. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done -- Matthew 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Image caption is fragment - remove the full stop.
- Done
- Spaces between the years and the en-dash in the tables for "originally aired" should be removed.
- Done
- Per above, what's a "prod code"?
- Done
- Decap Airdate in the tables.
- Done
- Why aren't there any episode synopses?
- Purely for WP:SIZE reasons. Episode summaries for 240 episodes would be a strain on the page. I'm not opposed to doing episode summaries, I'd just rather make individual season pages. Also, the summaries that were there were direct copies of those at tv.com and had to be removed as Copyvio. -- Matthew 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comments:
- A list of episodes page usually does not use a show infobox, having only an captioned image in the upper right corner. Why use one here?
- I bulleted your comments so it would be easier to respond. I hope that's OK with you. Consider this point Done.
- I bulleted your comments so it would be easier to respond. I hope that's OK with you. Consider this point
- Rather than have refs in the season table headers, why not divide the refs into a General and a Specific section as is seen with other featured episode lists?
- Done Although I've seen just as many done like this
- Where are the specific season articles with summaries?
- I, or rather, the Wiki community haven't created them yet. I don't mind doing them, and I will if no one else gets around to it.
- Individual season sections should be subsections under the first season header.
- Done, if I understand this correctly
- I'd go ahead and remove the template at the bottom since its pretty clear it will be deleted.
- Done
Collectonian (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments so far! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I changed the list to show you what I meant about the general episode section. Feel free to change it back if you don't like. :) Beyond that my only concern is the lack of summaries and season pages. It would be one thing to have no summaries but seasonal pages, but I'm not sure an episode list that doesn't have them yet is ready for FL until it does. ~thinking~ Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know why I put done when it wasn't! Thanks though. I don't mind doing the season pages but if they need to be there for this to be passed then maybe it should be closed, because as quick as I was with the Degrassi season pages it still took me an entire day to write each one. That would mean the season pages wouldn't be complete for at least another 11 days from now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it would need to take that long. You'd basically need to make an episode template hack (or use an existing one of it works for what you need). Then cutting and pasting the tables into the new articles, adding at least a basic intro and front matter, change the template name (search/replace), and then include those pages into the main list. Then the tables don't have to be repeated. If you aren't sure what I mean, take a look at List of Lassie episodes and then List of Lassie episodes (season 1) to see how this works. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know why I put done when it wasn't! Thanks though. I don't mind doing the season pages but if they need to be there for this to be passed then maybe it should be closed, because as quick as I was with the Degrassi season pages it still took me an entire day to write each one. That would mean the season pages wouldn't be complete for at least another 11 days from now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- More formally opposing. While its a good start, without summaries or season pages, I do not feel it meets the completion requirements to be featured at this time. Collectonian (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I changed the list to show you what I meant about the general episode section. Feel free to change it back if you don't like. :) Beyond that my only concern is the lack of summaries and season pages. It would be one thing to have no summaries but seasonal pages, but I'm not sure an episode list that doesn't have them yet is ready for FL until it does. ~thinking~ Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments I would like to see seasonal pages created as well before featuring this list. Also, could you remove <br /> from production code, season #, and series #? The reason is that it forces wide headers for users with higher screen resolution. "Another" also, could you change the table widths from pixels to percentages? --Crzycheetah 07:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Removed the line breaks. Why do the table widths need changing from pixels to percentages though? It's going to be kinda difficult to calculate the changes necessary. Also, see above my reply to Collectonian about season pages. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Could you compare the tables of seasons 6 and 7 located in my sandbox to List of 7th Heaven episodes#Season 6? Then tell me if you see any difference.--Crzycheetah 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not in the column widths, the only change I see is that all the headers are centered now. I'll adjust all the seasons to fit your sandbox, though. Thank you for the effort. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I wanted you to see is that the "prod code" column of season 6, for example, looks wider than the "prod code" column of season 7 in List of 7th Heaven episodes's current version. Meanwhile, in my sandbox those two columns have the same width.--Crzycheetah 00:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed it already, but I looked at the old diff and I can see what you mean now. I also think it all depends what browser is being used. Firefox recognises pixels, whereas IE7 doesn't. They both recognise percentages though, so it was a good suggestion. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I keep forgetting about those differences in browsers. It looks good now. Seasons 7-11 don't have heading colors because there is no DVD available yet, I assume. But missing seasonal pages is an obstacle here, though. I am going to stay neutral because of that. I think this will set a bad precedence, i.e. passing lists of episodes without summaries.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. No DVD; no color. That's okay. I understand and respect where you're coming from. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I keep forgetting about those differences in browsers. It looks good now. Seasons 7-11 don't have heading colors because there is no DVD available yet, I assume. But missing seasonal pages is an obstacle here, though. I am going to stay neutral because of that. I think this will set a bad precedence, i.e. passing lists of episodes without summaries.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed it already, but I looked at the old diff and I can see what you mean now. I also think it all depends what browser is being used. Firefox recognises pixels, whereas IE7 doesn't. They both recognise percentages though, so it was a good suggestion. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I wanted you to see is that the "prod code" column of season 6, for example, looks wider than the "prod code" column of season 7 in List of 7th Heaven episodes's current version. Meanwhile, in my sandbox those two columns have the same width.--Crzycheetah 00:11, 7 April 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 not promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.
I believe that this list os worthy of being a Featured list. Please let me know if additional changes need to be made.--Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think linking to things in headers is generally discouraged, and it would be great if you could explain what the purpose of the "Foreign" section is.-- Scorpion0422 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)- Done Please let me know if you see anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is an excellent list, very comprehensive and detailed. The only thing I could say is to find a refences beside the U.S. Army Center of Military History Medal of Honor Citations Archive to further validate all of the listings. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comments a few quick things...
**Dates should all be formatted per WP:DATE and date ranges should separate using an en-dash per WP:DASH.
- Done If I understand this correctly.--Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
**Avoid links in bold sections of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
- Done I only found one link that was in bold and I corrected it.--Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
**Why are there several sections which just link to other articles? If there are no medal of honor recipients for those campaigns they shouldn't be linked to here. If there are recipients for those campaigns then they should be included here otherwise this list will be incomplete.
- DoneThe reason for this is because there are 3500 recipients so there are far too many to put into 1 list and I do not agree with holding up the list because there are too many and had to be broken up.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ensure image captions which are fragments don't end in a full stop.??I don't know what you mean here. Maybe someone can explain this to me.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, oppose until these are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment regarding the "completeness" of the list. It may be worthwhile you reading what's going on with a current candidate for delisting, the List of Arsenal F.C. players, considered incomplete because not all Arsenal players are listed. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1 is where you'll find the debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is different, in the article you mention not all players are listed, so in my opinion it does NOT meet the criteria. In this case all of the Medal of Honor recipients are listed but for ease of use and to ensure that the page doesn't reach critical mass they are split up. They are all there, they just are not on one page. To list all 3500+ on one page would not only make the article difficult to read, navigate and edit it would far exceed the reasonable length an article should be.--Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's an interesting outlook. The debate at WP:FOOTBALL is ongoing and I'm interested to see how it pans out before I can commit to supporting any article which doesn't meet similar requirements. I understand length is an issue. In fact, the Arsenal list would be around 1000 long if the debate ends in the conclusion that all players should be listed. In fact, I think this is an interesting point. Thanks, I'll take your opinion there! More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just FYI I've added this perspective to the on-going debate. I think its valid and would be interested in the opinion of the wider community. Until it's resolved, however, I'll have to reserve my support. Sorry, nothing personal, but there's little point in promoting this list just to see it delisted under an ongoing debate. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will keep an eye on that one as well.--Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hsa this been decided yet?--Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hsa this been decided yet?--Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will keep an eye on that one as well.--Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just FYI I've added this perspective to the on-going debate. I think its valid and would be interested in the opinion of the wider community. Until it's resolved, however, I'll have to reserve my support. Sorry, nothing personal, but there's little point in promoting this list just to see it delisted under an ongoing debate. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's an interesting outlook. The debate at WP:FOOTBALL is ongoing and I'm interested to see how it pans out before I can commit to supporting any article which doesn't meet similar requirements. I understand length is an issue. In fact, the Arsenal list would be around 1000 long if the debate ends in the conclusion that all players should be listed. In fact, I think this is an interesting point. Thanks, I'll take your opinion there! More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is different, in the article you mention not all players are listed, so in my opinion it does NOT meet the criteria. In this case all of the Medal of Honor recipients are listed but for ease of use and to ensure that the page doesn't reach critical mass they are split up. They are all there, they just are not on one page. To list all 3500+ on one page would not only make the article difficult to read, navigate and edit it would far exceed the reasonable length an article should be.--Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Further comments
- "the 3,464th will be presented April 8th, 2008)" makes the list unstable, and see WP:DATE for that date.
- Done I fixed the date and the list isn't unstable its true that there will be more recipients of the Medal of Honor occasionally but they are extremely rare.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- "1863-1973 " en-dash needed.
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- "The following is a complete "... not really, it's a list of some and a lot of forks to other articles which may or may not be complete.
- Done, It is a complete list if you include all the forks. Again, it is not reasonable to include all of the recipients on one page so this is the only way to do it without the article hitting critical mass. If wikipedia has a rule that says that an article cannot become GA status or higher if it has forks then we need to add an exception for extremely large articles. If an article can never be allowed to achieve greatness then it should be deleted. Otherwise it would just be a waste of time.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why it's unreasonable to include all recipients on one page. That's what's being discussed at the Arsenal players list. That's why I can't support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you check out List of Medal of Honor recipients for the American Civil War: A-L you will see that list has exceeded 100kb and it has been suggested that it be split up. Also bear in mind that the American Civil war list is already 1 of 2 and that it doesn't have anywhere near the info it will need to reach GA status some day. If you add together all of the recipients and assuming the page has all the info required for GA status I suspect they will be close to a 500k article.
- Not if you transclude the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean, could you give me an example?--Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, have a look at List of Latin phrases (full) - it transcludes three large lists into a single page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean now but that list is extremely long, its knowwhere near FL status and its less than half the size of what the Medal of Honor list would be.--Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean, could you give me an example?--Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not if you transclude the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you check out List of Medal of Honor recipients for the American Civil War: A-L you will see that list has exceeded 100kb and it has been suggested that it be split up. Also bear in mind that the American Civil war list is already 1 of 2 and that it doesn't have anywhere near the info it will need to reach GA status some day. If you add together all of the recipients and assuming the page has all the info required for GA status I suspect they will be close to a 500k article.
- Not sure why it's unreasonable to include all recipients on one page. That's what's being discussed at the Arsenal players list. That's why I can't support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- (Outdent) The List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality has a similar pattern, I do believe. It's an acceptable standard for long lists with easily defined sections to have the exceedingly large parts moved into seperate lists. The list of latin phrases is not a FL, but VC is, so it has a precedent that is applicable here, especially since it is a list almost exactly like the Medal of Honor listing. Cromdog (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- "The Medal of Honor" = avoid The in headings per WP:HEAD.
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ref [2] needs placing after the comma.
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The rest of the Medal of Honor section has no citation, e.g. the quote and the comparisons with the VC etc.
- Korean expedition has no references.
- Nor does Samoan Civil War.
- Nor the whole of the Boxer Rebellion section.
- " Two time " in captions, why not two-time?
- I couldn't find this one.--Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- "1916-1924." en dash required. Done and no citations in this section either.
- "The immediate cause of the war was the June 28, 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Black Hand. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare." no citations.
- So according to your key, none of the awards were made posthumously until 1993?
- Done Again, if you look at the forks they were, its just that on this page there are none until you get to that. You seem to be stuck on the forks thing, if you insist that is the only way to pass it I will add all of the recipients to one page, but I don't recommend it.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I was just ensuring that none of the other recipients on this page were posthumous recipients. The thing is that in the lead you say more posthumous awards are made than not, and this table (exc. forks) tells the opposite story. That's confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The list of unknown soldiers is odd, you talk about Canadians and then there's just a list of unknown soldiers.
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- So some more work and still the outcome of the Arsenal list before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to wait on doing any more changes until the Arsenal debate stabilizes, because if they come back and say that it must contain all players/recipients then this article will never reach GA status because it will be too big to edit or read. Sorry if my attitude seems bad but for this article to be held up because we chose to split it up into digestible peaces is ridiculous to me.--Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry that this has occurred while you're mid-FLC, but please don't take just my opinion into account. The consensus rules and just because I'm going to oppose until the Arsenal situation has resolved itself, it doesn't mean others will. You're perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that the entire list in one page is ridiculous, just as a lot of us have at WP:FOOTBALL. But the NHL guys are arguing the list is incomplete without everyone. Your forks may or may not contain every person but that now means that a FLC would need to check all subforks for completeness, so the whole FLC process would involve reviewing every fork from the main FL. If this is the way forward, then so be it. But in the meantime, don't be disheartened by me, please continue and resolve the other issues (which need to be sorted anyway, most are MOS issues) and other folks may overlook the ongoing strife and support anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to wait on doing any more changes until the Arsenal debate stabilizes, because if they come back and say that it must contain all players/recipients then this article will never reach GA status because it will be too big to edit or read. Sorry if my attitude seems bad but for this article to be held up because we chose to split it up into digestible peaces is ridiculous to me.--Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Matthew
Comments
- "For years, the citations highlighting these acts resided in archives" Try to be more specific on how many years
- This depends on the citation, since the Medal was created during the late 1800's it could be anywere from 80 to 100 years.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "For nearly 100 years", then? -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- "For nearly 100 years", then? -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- This depends on the citation, since the Medal was created during the late 1800's it could be anywere from 80 to 100 years.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "and only sporadically were printed" sounds like Yoda language when compared with "and were only sporadically printed"
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- As the "American Civil War", "Indian Wars", "Spanish-American War" "Philippine-American War", "Boxer Rebellion", "United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914", "World War II", "Korean War", "Vietnam War", and "Peacetime" sections send the reader off to another page, some prose is needed here.
- For this one I would like to request some clarification. I believe since the page that the actual list resides on will have an outline of the battle or war I shouldn't put it on this list as well, but I could put a shortened version and say something referring the reader to the corect list page. Would that be acceptable? I did the American Civil War and the Indian Wars entries as an example.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Something like that is fine, although I don't think the sentence "See the link below" is necessary. Also, those main page links should go before the prose. -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done I still need to do a little scrubbing and refining but I believe this requirement has been met.--Kumioko (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Something like that is fine, although I don't think the sentence "See the link below" is necessary. Also, those main page links should go before the prose. -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- For this one I would like to request some clarification. I believe since the page that the actual list resides on will have an outline of the battle or war I shouldn't put it on this list as well, but I could put a shortened version and say something referring the reader to the corect list page. Would that be acceptable? I did the American Civil War and the Indian Wars entries as an example.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved follow-up comments from Matthew
Follow-up
- All the prose needs citations now:
- Anything in quotes, such as ""…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the..."
- The sentence Because of its nature, the medal is commonly awarded posthumously.
- The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government
- I would say each sentence in the Civil war section
- Unbold "American Civil War" Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done Can't do because this forks off to 2 separate articles currently and it will probably be several by the time I'm done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- and "Indian Wars" in the prose, and wikilink
- Done --Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- More info on Indian Wars: How many were awarded, how many posthumously, etc
- Done --Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unbold "United States expedition to Korea", and link to United States expedition to Korea instead, at the same time removing {{main}}
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, all facts presented need referencing
- The rows for John Andrews, Patrick H. Grace, Michael McNamara (Medal of Honor), and Hugh Purvis aren't inline with the others
- Use piping to link the names with "(Medal of Honor)" so instead of John Andrews (Medal of Honor), it's just John Andrews
- If you can make this work please do, I have yet to figure out how to use pipes in the name when useing the nowrap and sort name templates.--Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm.. TRM will probably be able to help if you ask. I've only used sortable tables once and don't know how to do it either. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
- He did and I fixed it Done --Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- He did and I fixed it
- Hmm.. TRM will probably be able to help if you ask. I've only used sortable tables once and don't know how to do it either. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
- If you can make this work please do, I have yet to figure out how to use pipes in the name when useing the nowrap and sort name templates.--Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unbold "Spanish American War" and link per comment above
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reference each fact
- Same for
Samoan WarEvery other section — Unbolded and link, remove {{main}} where it links to the War and not the list, and reference each presented fact- Done--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Haiti list is really narrow. I'd move those pictures to a horizontal gallery
- I didn't like how it looked so I commented out the images for now. Maybe we can add them back in later.--Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- " This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously" — "This along with the *," sounds clumsy
- This is the standard formatting and statement used on all the other lists that have made it to featured status which contain posthumous recipients. If I change it here it should be changed on ALL of the others and something should be documented to say what it should say. For now I am leaving this as is.--Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" when no other has the date in the header?
- Are you kidding, some of this is exactly what was already there and I changed per somone elses comments. Some of this makes sense though and I will start working on it.--Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not kidding, and which parts were already there? this diff between the 17th when the nom was put forward and now would suggest otherwise. If any other clarification is needed though, let me know.
- Just a quick note - it's better not to strike out, hide, or otherwise alter people's comments, per the FLC procedure "Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text." Many people will do this when they feel their comments have been addressed to their satisfaction. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
- No, I'm not kidding, and which parts were already there? this diff between the 17th when the nom was put forward and now would suggest otherwise. If any other clarification is needed though, let me know.
- Why no prose for the Second Haiti section?
- There is no article on wikipedia yet for this. Once its created I will gladly add it.--Kumioko (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just because there's no existing Wikipedia article, doesn't mean nothing can be added. If we looked at things that way, Wikipedia would never have gotten off the ground -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
- Thats not what I meant, there is very little information for that period, other than the fact that 2 Marines got the Medal of Honor I have not seen any other documentation that documents the 2nd Campaign. Perhaps you can find some or know someone who does have some.--Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, now I understand. If that is the case, is it definitely a second campaign? Note the wording for the first one: "[It] began on July 28, 1915 and ended in mid-August, 1934. Other occupations include ones that began in 1994 and 2004 (though under the UN banner, the US was the prime mover of the actions)." Perhaps it would be better to move these two recipients to this main section as the dates, 1919-20 coincide with the dates given for the first, 1915-1934? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:58, 28 March, 2008
- Done I consolidated the 2 sections on Haiti.--Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, now I understand. If that is the case, is it definitely a second campaign? Note the wording for the first one: "[It] began on July 28, 1915 and ended in mid-August, 1934. Other occupations include ones that began in 1994 and 2004 (though under the UN banner, the US was the prime mover of the actions)." Perhaps it would be better to move these two recipients to this main section as the dates, 1919-20 coincide with the dates given for the first, 1915-1934? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:58, 28 March, 2008
- Thats not what I meant, there is very little information for that period, other than the fact that 2 Marines got the Medal of Honor I have not seen any other documentation that documents the 2nd Campaign. Perhaps you can find some or know someone who does have some.--Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just because there's no existing Wikipedia article, doesn't mean nothing can be added. If we looked at things that way, Wikipedia would never have gotten off the ground -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
- There is no article on wikipedia yet for this. Once its created I will gladly add it.--Kumioko (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Support though I had a thought last night. If you gave each section here their own page instead of having 5 or 6 lists and then redirects to all others, brought them all to FLC and passed them, you could use this page as the main one for a Featured Topic. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:24, 29 March, 2008
- Thanks, My plan has been to get all the Medal of Honor lists up to featured status. Once approved this will be the 2nd, I am working on the Korean war now and should have it ready in a few more days and then I will submit the next one (Probaly either the Philippine-American War, or the Boxer rebellion but I have to create missing pages for most of the ones that are left). The only problem with this is that most of the ones that are left on this page in my opinion don't have enough (less than 10 rows) to make a good list and therefore likely would not pass on their own. I suppose it is possible to simply incorporate these small lists into the main articles but in some cases the main articles are already very long. I do like the idea of making it a featured topic though.--Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Great list. One quick thing.
This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Any reason to have both the background and *. I believe the background color is sufficient. PGPirate 15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree however that is the format used by all the other articles with posthumous recipients that have made it to FL status. I can easily remove the * but I only want to do that if we make a consensus to do it for all of the others as well. Otherwise it will be confusing to the readers if we have some one way and other another way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I have to disagree with PGPirate here, for a change ;-) ! Check out the manual of style, read Wikipedia:MOSCOLOR#Formatting issues where it suggests that colour coding alone is insufficient. The asterisk + colour colour coding meets WP:MOS. All good. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree however that is the format used by all the other articles with posthumous recipients that have made it to FL status. I can easily remove the * but I only want to do that if we make a consensus to do it for all of the others as well. Otherwise it will be confusing to the readers if we have some one way and other another way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments Definately a good list. I only have a few comments/suggestions. First, the wdith of the columns should ideally be kept consistent. This is an aethetic issue, but it also has ramifications for the content: the notes section in some of the tables gets really really squished. Take a look at Ross L. Iams' entry and you'll see what I mean. To solve this problem, you could probably shrink the name column(s) a bit. Additionally, the Korean Expedition table should be kept consistent as well, even though there's no images to its right. Also part of the problem is that some of the notes are very wordy, and at times POV. For instance: "desperate hand-to-hand combat", "selflessly hurled himself", "remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire.", etc. Lastly, the posthumous awards is a good, but I'm not sure why you need the grey box AND the star. Just the grey background should suffice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, on the colour/star issue, read Wikipedia:MOSCOLOR#Formatting issues please. Colours alone are not enough. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by ERcheck:
- List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#American_Civil_War — "nearly 1522 were awarded" — the word "nearly" does not make sense in this context as 1522 is an exact number.
- List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#Invasion_and_occupation_of_Haiti — The way the lead paragraph is worded, it begs the question of whether any Medals of Honor were awarded for the later occupations. If not, then rather than distract with that detail, omit "first" and just put the year.
- List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#Korean Expedition — "the reason for the presence of the American military expeditionary force in Korea was..." — please provide citation.
- Lead-in paragraphs for each section — The introductory paragraphs in each section are inconsistent:
- Some provide citations with regard to details of the conflict, others don't. I favor citations — especially when the phrase "the reason for..." is used, I look for a citation.
- Some list the number of recipients and others don't — this applies to both the sections with or without main articles. I think each section should give the number of recepients, not just a synposis of the conflict.
- In general, the language/syntax needs to be tightened up in the prose.
— ERcheck (talk) 14:54, 12 April 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 not promoted 15:50, 14 April 2008.
I *believe* this is a FL. I have reviewed other FLC and fixed most of the mistakes. I do believe it needs a picture, but I haven't found a free photo yet. This can be added later. PGPirate 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support as nom
- Comment You need more refs in the lead - one is nowhere near enough. You might (note the emphasis) want to include the results for the other two incarnations as well, because the list seems very short at the minute. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was told that information in the lede only needs to be sourced if not mentioned in the list itself. PGPirate 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Pirate, you are correct. WP:LEAD states that no information should be included in the lead that is not in the main body, and a reference should be in the article if the peice of information is not included in the lead. Also, you might want to consider moving it to List of Carolina Hurricane seasons. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- All sports season list I have dealt with use this form.
- Comment Pirate, you are correct. WP:LEAD states that no information should be included in the lead that is not in the main body, and a reference should be in the article if the peice of information is not included in the lead. Also, you might want to consider moving it to List of Carolina Hurricane seasons. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was told that information in the lede only needs to be sourced if not mentioned in the list itself. PGPirate 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
comments
- Oops.. I expected this to be about hurricanes in The Carolinas, sorted by winter, spring, summer and fall!
- Sorry about the confusion. Some aspects of that list would be short. I can only think of one hurricane in the winter.
- Is there an image to go in the lead? Perhaps a stadium photo or something?
- There isn't one on wikipedia, that I have found yet. I am going to look on flickr for a free image.
- Wikipedia:LEDE#Citations says that cites aren't needed if the rest of the article cites it, however, I see no further mention of them being called New England Whalers or Hartford Whalers
- In the references section, there is Carolina Hurricanes Franchise Timeline which mentions it. Should there be a inline citation as well?
- Finally, and this is the reason that I oppose, the title suggests it's a list of all seasons not just NHL seasons, and as this list is very short anyway I feel it would be better if it was merged with that of New England Whalers' and Hartford Whalers', which would give a complete season-by-season coverage. And also, even if they were using a different name, aren't they essentially the same franchise? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe they are different teams. And I would believe most Hurricanes/Whalers fans would think the same thing. Also, Calgary Flames moved from Atlanta, and has two different seasons articles (The Flamers seasons is a FL): Calgary Flames seasons and Atlanta Flames seasons. The only rebuttal with this is the Flames has about 20 more years more in Calgary.
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Done Don't use the small fonts in the key, what's the point? Just makes it more difficult to read.
- "35th for the Hurricanes franchise" but only nine seasons in this list? It's incomplete per Matthew's comments. You could easily split the table into the various named teams. Or you need to modify the name to state clearly what I'm going to see. Either way there's a discrepancy which non-experts will find confusing.
- I change the sentence to this "The 2007–08 season represents the 10th in Raleigh." Is that OK?
- Done Don't overcapitalise - Regular Season and Post Season, just season is fine.
- Done What is "² " next to the 2005–06 season?
- Done Why is 2007–08 season bold?
- Notes should have full stops.
- Notes should be full sentences?
- Done "in parenthesis. " parentheses.
So, as per Matthew, I have to oppose primarily over concerns with this list not actually being what it says it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Would it be ok if I take out most of the Whalers information in the lede to make it a Hurricanes specific list?
- Support Doesn't say it is supposed to cover the Hartford seasons. It is fairly standard to split the incarnations of franchises into seperate articles. This article is well written now and more than meets the standard of other such FLs. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely nothing "standard" about this. All seasons should be merged here with redirects where appropriate. NFL lists do that. Take a look at Washington Redskins seasons which is also an FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. Calgary Flames and Atlanta Flames, Colorado Avalanche and Quebec Nordiques. Numerous times this has come up and numerous times it was consensus that when a franchise moves it should have a seperate article. -Djsasso (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well it seems odd that you'd do that while the NFL guys have it differently. And their lists are complete. Especially useful when you have fickle franchises who move every few years, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is usually that each team has its own history and is often considered its own team albeit linked to the old location. Another reason it is often brought up is that there is no reason to try and cram everything onto one page when it can quite succinctly be seperated into two pages to stay under the page size limits. Now the old incaration will obviously not grow anymore. But the new team will continue to grow and eventually the list will be too big and the two teams will be split anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the franchise moves? Sorry, not convinced. It should be on a franchise basis per the NFL seasons which are good, complete, not misleading. Featured lists which are English football club season articles exist with over 100 seasons, they're just fine. I don't think you need to worry about your list becoming too big. Especially compared to the NHL player lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- How is it missleading? The title is Carolina Hurricanes seasons. Not Carolina Huricanes franchise seasons. Its not Hartford Whalers seasons. Its quite clear that the seasons are for the team called the Carolina Hurricanes and not its franchise. It even says it in bold in the first line. Your arguement against the FL smells pretty heavily of WP:POINT because people who edit hockey articles are objecting to one of your soccer lists. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- No not at all. I don't understand why you'd split the franchise. The NFL guys don't, the NHL guys do. Why? And you didn't respond about the length, you won't have a problem with that. As for WP:POINT, I find that accusation a little rude. Until the whole "100% complete list" is resolved, I'm not budging. I've said this at the List of Medal of Honor recipients so don't take it personally. I want to understand what is and what isn't acceptable. An attempt to make a football list acceptable it was suggested it was moved to "...who have made 100 or more appearances". Thus removing the subjectivity. It was rejected. What can we do? I don't know. But if the NHL and the NFL are doing it differently then something's wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would note, that not all of those were NHL teams. Some were professional baseball. NFL actually seems to be the exception to the rule. We never objected to the renaming of the article, we actually supported that idea. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- But the community didn't, so that's that. Until a "general" consensus is achieved, I cannot support partial lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- But this isn't a partial list, its a complete list of seasons that a team named the Carolina Hurricanes competed in. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- But the community didn't, so that's that. Until a "general" consensus is achieved, I cannot support partial lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would note, that not all of those were NHL teams. Some were professional baseball. NFL actually seems to be the exception to the rule. We never objected to the renaming of the article, we actually supported that idea. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- No not at all. I don't understand why you'd split the franchise. The NFL guys don't, the NHL guys do. Why? And you didn't respond about the length, you won't have a problem with that. As for WP:POINT, I find that accusation a little rude. Until the whole "100% complete list" is resolved, I'm not budging. I've said this at the List of Medal of Honor recipients so don't take it personally. I want to understand what is and what isn't acceptable. An attempt to make a football list acceptable it was suggested it was moved to "...who have made 100 or more appearances". Thus removing the subjectivity. It was rejected. What can we do? I don't know. But if the NHL and the NFL are doing it differently then something's wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- How is it missleading? The title is Carolina Hurricanes seasons. Not Carolina Huricanes franchise seasons. Its not Hartford Whalers seasons. Its quite clear that the seasons are for the team called the Carolina Hurricanes and not its franchise. It even says it in bold in the first line. Your arguement against the FL smells pretty heavily of WP:POINT because people who edit hockey articles are objecting to one of your soccer lists. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the franchise moves? Sorry, not convinced. It should be on a franchise basis per the NFL seasons which are good, complete, not misleading. Featured lists which are English football club season articles exist with over 100 seasons, they're just fine. I don't think you need to worry about your list becoming too big. Especially compared to the NHL player lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is usually that each team has its own history and is often considered its own team albeit linked to the old location. Another reason it is often brought up is that there is no reason to try and cram everything onto one page when it can quite succinctly be seperated into two pages to stay under the page size limits. Now the old incaration will obviously not grow anymore. But the new team will continue to grow and eventually the list will be too big and the two teams will be split anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well it seems odd that you'd do that while the NFL guys have it differently. And their lists are complete. Especially useful when you have fickle franchises who move every few years, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. Calgary Flames and Atlanta Flames, Colorado Avalanche and Quebec Nordiques. Numerous times this has come up and numerous times it was consensus that when a franchise moves it should have a seperate article. -Djsasso (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely nothing "standard" about this. All seasons should be merged here with redirects where appropriate. NFL lists do that. Take a look at Washington Redskins seasons which is also an FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Which says in the lead that the "Carolina Hurricanes franchise was founded in 1971" and I believe the list should contain the seasons for the franchise. Otherwise it's the list of seasons for when the franchise was known as the Carolina Hurricanes. It should be per the NFL lists. Chicago Bears seasons deals with different leagues as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I personally think the sentence This list documents the records and playoff results for all nine seasons the Carolina Hurricanes have completed in the NHL since their relocation from Hartford, Connecticut in 1997. More than covers the ambiguity. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed we will! I look forward to the day someone submits a FLC for an NHL franchise which moved to a new location for a single season. Even nine seasons here is pushing its luck as a list when both NFL and English football seasons sometimes deal with around 100 seasons... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What did I do?:) PGPirate 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- What should I do now?
- I think if you're happy just having the current franchise then do nothing and I'll oppose. If you decide to go the NFL route then I'll support and, I would guess, Djsasso will oppose. Hope for more interest so these minority arguments don't carry so much weight! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I will solicit advice/consenses from WP:HOCKEY. PGPirate 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think if you're happy just having the current franchise then do nothing and I'll oppose. If you decide to go the NFL route then I'll support and, I would guess, Djsasso will oppose. Hope for more interest so these minority arguments don't carry so much weight! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- What should I do now?
- To me, just because a team/franchise in any sport has changed its name or moved to a different stadium (albeit in a different city), doesn't mean they are different. Their histories can all be traced back to the same event at the same point in time, and if it were not for the New England and Hartford Whalers, I doubt the team would exist in the same capacity as it does today. I'm still inclined to oppose, even if the response you get from WP:HOCKEY is that they're different, as they mightn't see it from an outsider's perspective.
- I'm not a football fan, but as an example, Manchester City was originally known as "St. Marks (West Gorton)" and then "Ardwick A.F.C." when it moved to Ardwick. Then they joined the Football league, then changed their name to Man City. Are these three different clubs? I don't think so, and Manchester City F.C. seasons, a Featured List doesn't present it as such. Spurs is another one with name changes and location changes, and their statistics include the earlier named clubs'. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Name changes in the same location we tend to keep one article. It's the change of cities that we tend to have seperate articles. When pages get larger you are supposed to split out sections into sub articles, as such a natural place to split out part of an article would be when it moves cities. I suppose this is more for the main team articles than lists associated with the team. But I don't see why the lists couldn't follow the examples of the team articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to give my thoughts on this conversation. As a Hurricanes fan, I personally do not care about the Whalers seasons. I believe most fans only care about the team while they are at a specific location. I do not think many New Yorkers would/do follow the LA Dodgers or SF Giants (Both moved from NY) or Baltimore with Indianapolis Colts. Yes on the technical sense, all have lineage to previous locations, but I do not think they are the same team by any stretch. PGPirate 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Name changes in the same location we tend to keep one article. It's the change of cities that we tend to have seperate articles. When pages get larger you are supposed to split out sections into sub articles, as such a natural place to split out part of an article would be when it moves cities. I suppose this is more for the main team articles than lists associated with the team. But I don't see why the lists couldn't follow the examples of the team articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is an interesting debate, and one I went through on my nomination for Calgary Flames seasons. Rambling Man, I also believe this to be comparable to our debate over the FL status of List of Arsenal F.C. players. Specifically, the need for completeness of a data set. As I argued in that debate, even if the set is split over multiple articles, so long as they are clearly interlinked, and the data set is complete, then each article should be judged worthy. In this case, we have Carolina Hurricanes seasons. What we need is Hartford Whalers seasons. That would complete the set. I'll look to create that article later today. As far as the contention that we should be following the NFL wikiproject's lead, I would respectfully disagree. There is no policy or guideline that argues each project has to mime that of others. WP:HOCKEY has consistently split articles along franchise iterations, and in that vein, lists such as this should follow their parent articles. This article defines itself as being a list of Carolina Hurricanes seasons. The Carolina Hurricanes have only existed since 1997, so this list contains the complete history of seasons for the Carolina Hurricanes incarnation of the franchise. This specific incarnation is obviously closely linked to the New England/Hartford Whalers, and those links should be noted and completed. Beyond that, however, this specific article stands on its own merit. Resolute 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment interesting reading. But your franchise view of the world is bizarre to us who have the same club for 140 years. Are you suggesting that a franchise who exists for one year is entitled to a FL? I think the NHL project needs a rethink and needs to consider the history of the franchise, not individual instances of it. You guys are pretty different, as far as I know only Wimbledon F.C. (out of around 100 English clubs) has "franchised". As such most English clubs have 100+ years of history and seasons. The seasons are played in different leagues, the leagues have different names, but the English football articles cope. Why can't the NHL articles? As I said, if a franchise lasts a year, you seriously think a FL is appropriate? If so, why? If not why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously not, simply because there isn't enough history. We've seen this already with other types of lists, such as Mark Messier Leadership Award and List of Nunavut general elections, both of which are part of featured topics, though neither is capable of becoming a FL. Specific to this article, I believe the ten year history of the Carolina Hurricanes is sufficient for FL status.
- I'm not sure how the disposition of European football clubs is relevant to that of North American clubs. It is fairly rare for a team to switch leagues, and especially so at the major league levels. Teams operate as part of the league, and as such, are considered franchises of it. while the Whalers/Hurricanes franchise as a whole has a continuous history, even the franchise itself tends to treat each iteration as a relatively independent part of the whole. i.e.: The Hurricanes this year wore a commemorative patch on their jersies celebrating their tenth year in Carolina. That it is the franchises' 35th year has been completely ignored. This reflects the common view of such teams, as expressed above by the nominator: While someone who follows hockey will be aware that the Hurricanes existed previously as the Whalers, when they think about the Carolina Hurricanes, they are thinking of the team that has existed since 1997, not the franchise that was founded in 1972. Resolute
- Comment interesting reading. But your franchise view of the world is bizarre to us who have the same club for 140 years. Are you suggesting that a franchise who exists for one year is entitled to a FL? I think the NHL project needs a rethink and needs to consider the history of the franchise, not individual instances of it. You guys are pretty different, as far as I know only Wimbledon F.C. (out of around 100 English clubs) has "franchised". As such most English clubs have 100+ years of history and seasons. The seasons are played in different leagues, the leagues have different names, but the English football articles cope. Why can't the NHL articles? As I said, if a franchise lasts a year, you seriously think a FL is appropriate? If so, why? If not why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- A minor detail about the NFL and their version of relocated franchises, more a point of personal annoyance but relevent just the same: The Cleveland Browns were relocated to Baltimore in 1996 to become the Baltimore Ravens. Popular opinion proved to be very against this in Cleveland, and so the NFL created a new team in Cleveland, but allowed it to be a reincarnation of the old Browns. This new team got to keep the original Browns history, records, etc, while the Baltimore Ravens are listed as an expansion team.
In short, it proves that the NFL is not exactly uniform when concerning its relocated teams. One team moves and acts as an expansion team, while a true expansion team gets to pretend its been around for 50 years. If anything, this helps to explain that relocated teams are in effect different than the former team it was. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. An image would be ideal, but not necessary. Hopefully someone can get a picture of the Hurricanes Stanley Cup banner, as that would make an ideal image. Resolute 02:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Irrespective of the points of view, it would be a better article to be like the Redskins season article (IMHO very good) and have the Whalers info. As is, it seems 'not whole', not very strong, missing info. It was a club move, not a 'reinvent', a clear succession. That said, it is what was done with Calgary Flames seasons, per WP:HOCKEY, and it seems weak for that reason too, although they've been around longer. Was that a good precedent? Hmm. Cleveland? That is a special case with negotiated legal terms to govern that special case. Alaney2k (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's pretty simple really. The main pages are separate so the sub articles should follow suit. -Djsasso (talk) 00:14, 10 April 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 not promoted 15:50, 14 April 2008.
Self-nomination. This is a list of all releases by British rock group Bloc Party. The list meets all of the criteria, is well sourced and has a comprehensive lead section, it is accurate and detailed without going overboard with useless trivia. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is well sourced, and a nicely written list. Disclaimer: Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- But look at Feeder discography and Crowded House discography? P.S. Your new sig is very long, code-wise. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely a good start, but the list is generally inconsistent with the vast majority of FLC discographies, in ways that I don't think benefit the list in any way. A few examples:
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
- The Albums and Eps tables are a unnecessarily colorized, and strangely formatted all around. Generally speaking charts are better represented through a number of columns, not in a big list with a million citations everywhere.
- These two tables are inconsistent also with the following tables. Again, the tables are colorized unneccessarily.
- Song samples are generally not allowed in discographies since they are fair-use. Furthermore, there is no fair-use rationale for either.
- I'm also not sure what the point is of having the Singles and Compilations albums sortable. I'd recommend making them unsortable, then merging similar cells.
- Also blank cells for releases that didn't chart shouldn't use 9999 in the same font color, but should have a — instead, along with a legend below the table.
- Overall its a good start, but it still needs alot of work. I'd recommend taking a look at other FL discographies for some ideas. Drewcifer (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The tables with dashes need a legend. Something like
"—" denotes releases that did not chart. - The dash isn't neccesary in the certifications cell of silent alarm remixed. Just leave that one blank.
- The singles charts need sources.
- The "reissue" dates for the two albums are unnecessary.
- The B-sides section is unneccessary. If you really want to put b-side info in there, why not add another column to the singles table instead of a whole new section?
- The Label/Producer column in compilations is overwikilinked. Only wikilink the first instance of it.
- Also related to the sources, publisher values should use the site's/publisher's proper name whenever possible (Billboard as opposed www.billboard.com for instance).
- Some of the sources are also problematic. A blog, for instance, is not a reliable source.
- The EPs table isn't consistent with the others. Instead of a comments column, just add the bullet points to the Album details column.
Good work so far! Here's a few more (much minor) suggestions/concerns I have:
- "Chart positions" and "Peak positions" isn't specific enough, it should be changed to "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions", to be more clear. And, obviously, the same thing for both the albums and singles tables
- The width of similar rows in similar columns should be kept consistent wherever possible.
- An External links section would be nice as well. Drewcifer (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note Please don't edit other people's comments, including putting them into hide boxes, it's rude. Also, I didn't consider all of the concerns you moved into the hide box to be fully addressed. Also, I agree with most of indopug's comments, so you can consider those more reasons for my Oppose vote (except for the B-sides thing. As mathew put it, it's a discography, not a songography). Drewcifer (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Where are the chart positions for EPs?
- None charted. I will add a note at the bottom of the table. Done
- None charted. I will add a note at the bottom of the table.
- Avoid linking in bold lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title. The above two articles were wrong, and have been fixed. Also, WP:OSE is no excuse for wrongness. Done
- Union is a disambig page. Either link to the correct article, or none at all Done
- "B-Sides" is an unpopulated section, and should be removed. Done
- Don't populate the "B-Sides" section, as this is a discography, not a songography Done
- Don't make text too small for poor-sighted people to read. Done, bigger (90% compared to 75%)
Otherwise it's okay. I was actually going to work on this about a month ago and nom it myself, but I got sidetracked! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done most of those things now, if you'd like to check. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
I disagree with the above reviewer; link Bloc Party in the bolded lead, it is the first mention. See ALL other discographies and you'll see the same being done. WP:OSE is certainly valid here.THe lead is WAY too long. Absolutely no need to mention AMG ratings or charting positions of singles (unless very important in their career). For a band that has existed for three years, I'd say two medium-sized--if not one big--paragraphs is enough.
- Better. There's still some stuff that can go and the lead could use a copy-edit. Eg: Mercury prize-nominated is not worthy of mention and the first sentence is a bit too long (shift the founding members to the next sentence). The Irish and Aussie chartings for "The Prayer" can go.
"It was in essence their breakthrough album" - awful POV and unencyclopedic tone too. That sentence also never seems to end, going on and on and on...- Their first single, She's Hearing Voices - MoS?
- Numbers below 10 should be named (seven, not 7). I think listing eighteen would be better than 18 too.
- 38? --> thirty-eight; you've worded the others.
For the record label no need of Recordings, Wichita/V2 will do.Where are the refs for chart positions for each country in the studio albums table? Make it like, say, The Prodigy discography.- Where are the B-sides? If you think it was better with the B-sides, you don't need to remove it. I prefer them there, especially if they are decent/important songs. Plenty of other discogs have a b-sides table; not including them is the stylistic choice of the above reviweer which you don't need to follow.
- If you are removing the B-sides then why have such a detailed Compilation appearances; it might be enough to just list stuff not found on Studio albums/otherwise unreleased stuff. Place refs next to individual songs, not in a separate column.
- Look at The Libertines discography for what I think is a neater way to have the Compilation appearances section. The current name implies that no original music is recorded for these albums at all (being their appearances on compilations), while actually quite a few soundtracks have original music. Change "O.S.T" to "soundtrack" (small case). Also, the Label column is kinda unnecessary and the Type column is kinda obvious (Just click on the album). A Comments column tells where else the song is found, i.e, which Bloc Party album or if it were an original recording. Thoughts?
Not really related but that band template right at the bottom should be updated to the way it is for other bands.That ref with album details is odd. Remove it, as that info is kinda self-referential to the albums themselves.- Silent Alarm Remixed should be somehwere else, or at least mention that it is a remix album. It was rather puzzling to see that the 2nd album performed so poorly compared to the others.
- Might be better to include it in another table called Compilations. A ref saying that its a remix album isn't the way; below Label, have a sentence that says that it is a remix. The single charting can be included that way too, *[[UK Albums Chart]] peak: 54<ref>
- In the albums column make Certifications --> UK certifications, linked to British Phonographic Industry.
- UK, IRE, AUS... Reduce size, again see Prodigy discog.
- For the Singles table? Keep the refs consistently below the Chart name there.
- Check if the refs are formatted properly.
- USA -->US. Change throughout.
- overlinking: after the albums section no need to link the albums/record labels once again.
- Studio albums/EPs still linked in the Singles table.
- indopug (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, you've essentially said the exact opposite to what Matthew did. Does it matter if I follow one person's over the other? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. There may be many more people who disagree with me. The way I see it though is as I said above. A discog lists releases. B sides appear on releases that are already mentioned. But if you're going to be super-consise and add B-sides, then why not the tracks that appear on all the albums? If someone wants to see the single's B-sides, they click on the single's release. If they want to see an album's tracks, they cick on the album. As for compilations, that for me is different as not each compilation has an article, so for thoroughness, the tracks should be mentioned. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, you've essentially said the exact opposite to what Matthew did. Does it matter if I follow one person's over the other? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet; haven't the band made any Music videos!? (check mvdbase.com) What about video albums/DVDs? Check for it. indopug (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.