Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2007
![[1]](http://img476.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snewalbum0qo.jpg){kind=link}
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 2 oppose. One of the opposes seems to have been made in bad faith and I think the other has been addressed. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I submitted WWE Championships as a featured topic, initially using the category as the main article, only to find out not only do I need a lead article, but it has to be at least GA, if not FA status. Therefore, I whipped this list together, put some pictures on it, and am now submitting it as an FL. It's got sources for all the wrestlers; they're taken from the individual title lists. Also, I have pictures for everyone except two wrestlers, since no free images exist for them and there's not really good enough fair use rationale to please the image Gestapo on this site. So I hope this will suffice; if anything further needs to be done, please let me know. The nomination for featured topic is pending, though only a few hours older than this one, so hopefully there will not be any conflicts. Anthony Hit me up... 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - are the flags really needed? Do the notes need to be tiny? I would also suggest against using state abbreviations. --Golbez 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The notes are a bit out of context; it should probably include who they defeated to win the title. In particular Hornswoggle's note only lists the other challengers, which is fine for the Cruiserweight title list but needs to be elaborated in this situation. Same for all the others. --MarcK 06:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The "notes" listing needs a lot more space considering their content is going to be much larger than any other part of the listings. –– Lid(Talk) 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- For one thing, there's not too much more information to be included in the Notes. I also made the "C" in Champions lower-case because as someone pointed out, the capital C refers only to the WWE Championship; this is about all titles, and so no capital is needed. Anthony Hit me up... 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- The John Morrison note is expanding its listing to exceedingly long proportions and is nearly impossible to read easily because of the lack of space. –– Lid(Talk) 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've got my monitor at 1600x1200, so I guess it looked fine to me. What's your res at? There should be a standard for the site (nothing against you, but I've noticed a lot of articles get into edit wars over size). If someone with a smaller, more common res wants to edit the page so it looks OK on, say, 1024, that'd be fine. Anthony Hit me up... 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- The John Morrison note is expanding its listing to exceedingly long proportions and is nearly impossible to read easily because of the lack of space. –– Lid(Talk) 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- For one thing, there's not too much more information to be included in the Notes. I also made the "C" in Champions lower-case because as someone pointed out, the capital C refers only to the WWE Championship; this is about all titles, and so no capital is needed. Anthony Hit me up... 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Davnel03 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You're going to need to remove all those images of the wrestlers with the belts. That's not fair use, I'm certain of it. See this for more info. Also, all dates should be linked. And i don't think you need the sentence on what is contained in each field. Hmm. At the moment, I'm going to have to Oppose. --SteelersFan UK06 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Er, those are all free images, or at least the description pages say so. --MarcK 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Aah, ok, sorry some of them looked like they weren't free use, i didn't bother to check though. I think they should be resized so that each field isn't random sizes though <:-| --SteelersFan UK06 05:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off, there isn't a single belt visible in any of the images; they're only of the wrestlers. Secondly, please look at the image before jumping to conclusions that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's ridiculous fair-use policy (which I have massive problems with but won't get into here). As far as disrupting the table size, that I don't have a problem with, and it is on THOSE grounds and those grounds ONLY that I am removing the images. Anthony Hit me up... 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixable oppose - lead is shortish, table columns should be of consistent width, and I think images should go away because they just throw the whole table balance away. I know only one case when tall images look ok in tables - it's when they are in the first column. But this particular table requires that the first column would be the campionship name. Renata 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree regarding the images. Maybe just one in the lead (with a longer caption) would be enough. Circeus 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Removed images from the table & threw one in the lead, which I expanded & fixed up a bit. It does look better, IMHO. Anthony Hit me up... 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree regarding the images. Maybe just one in the lead (with a longer caption) would be enough. Circeus 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Looks better with the images removed. The list is just fine. DSachan 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think there should be some deliberation on the title of the article as there is one more article 'List of WWE champions' and this one is 'List of current WWE champions', although when one reads through the article, the difference gets clear but still it creates some confusion in the beginning. An idea might be to rename it to 'List of current winners of WWE championships'. - DSachan 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong' Support
but nit-pick Comment I will do it myself but I think the wrestlers who are champions there needs to be a link to there WWE superstars page which will give you all the information. I feel that the date won number of times won also needs references but if you add a link to all the superstars pages then it saves adding all them ref's. I will do it myself if I have time.Everlast1910 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Everlast1910 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC) - Support Sorry for the whitespace. I didn't expect the Tableof Content to reappear an fill in the blank space. Circeus 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't even think this is notable for a page, let alone a featured list. Biggspowd 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- According to Biggspowd's page he has been blocked for three months. So how can we get an answer for his point of view?Everlast1910 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not part of the featured list criteria. –– Lid(Talk) 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also the block length has been lowered to a week, the reason given being vandalism. –– Lid(Talk) 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Biggspowd, this is an unactionable opposition made in the entirely wrong forum. If it's not notable, nominate it for deletion insetadof disrupting other legitimate processes. Circeus 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support what more can I say. MPJ-DK 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 1 oppose. There is an unstruck oppose, but the concerns raised in the opposition seem to have been addressed.. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I am nominating yet another anomalous list for FLC. I have solicited some reviews from FL reviewers (they are available here, here and here). I have tried to address the original research concerns raised by one editor (and shared by myself) and two other editors' concerns over the inclusion of too much historical context in the timeline. I had wanted further reviews and tried to post the list at WP:GAC, but apparently they don't do lists. As WP:PR is backlogged beyond belief, I thought I would bring the list here, hoping it would pass (I do believe it meets the criteria), but prepared for it to fail. I am thinking of the nomination as a review, really. As far as I can tell, there are no personal timelines that are featured lists. I based my initial ideas for the timeline on pages such as the following: Vincent van Gogh chronology and Lord Byron (chronology). As you can see, though, this timeline has developed beyond those barebones lists. The reason I created this timeline was to supplement a series of articles I have been working on for a Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic (they are Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Original Stories from Real Life, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, Mary: A Fiction, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (still under construction) and A Vindication of the Rights of Men (still under construction). Awadewit | talk 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - An amazing effort. This should set the standard for biographical timelines. Kaldari 19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Would recommend, however, images be taken out of thumbnail boxes unless captions are added to each of them (which I don't recommend, considering the small size). Nice work, very easy to read, and I love the context provided. --Midnightdreary 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- On the images: I added them after images were suggested for List of works by Joseph Priestley. I agree that captions would be ridiculous at this size. I tried to pick images that were obvious, but I am willing to remove them if that is the general consensus. Would others weigh in on this? Thanks.Awadewit | talk 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Midnightdreary was recommending removing the images, just not putting them in thumbnail boxes. Kaldari 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, how silly of me. I have removed the boxes. Awadewit | talk 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I first came across this when as a GA nom; I removed its nomination status as GA doesn't handle lists, and recommended it be taken here, as it seems to easily pass FL standards. And as noted by Midnightdreary, the "thumb" paramater should be removed from the image lines, since the only real purpose of that parameter is to make a caption visible. Given that there are no captions, it adds a superfluous box that only takes up space. One tip, add a note in the timeline sections (such as (pictured) ) where it is unclear whose picture goes with what image. For example, the cameo in the 1778 box is next to two author's names; it is unclear who this is.... But other than that, this is a GREAT list. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the "thumbs" and added "(pictured) in all relevant locations, I think. Thanks for that suggestion! Awadewit | talk 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dig it! looks fantastic now... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - impressive. Geraldk 13:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Needs proper date linking. Rmhermen 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- IMO, linking all of the dates would make the page much harder to read, would not significantly add to the reader's knowledge and would detract from the more significant links already there. I don't think that the small benefit accrued by linking the dates - they would appear in the fashion chosen by registered users - outweighs these significant costs. Most readers will obviously not have chosen a date format, anyway, as they are not registered users. Awadewit | talk 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would concur with that. I have always thought that the date-format issue is moot; as long as an article is consistant saying "15 August" or saying "August 15" are BOTH unambiguous. No one is going to be confused by one or the other. Its the same as the British/American usage issue: Be internally consistant, and respect what is already there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree. And see the MOS. It is not the same as the British/American usage issue. Rmhermen 15:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Done for the sake of argument: it wasn't something that bothered me, as my earlier support indicated, but the MOS does indicate it should be so. (Also fixed the "-"s to "ndash;"s as appropriate, before I supported, not that anybody had raised this as a MOS issue). If anyone thinks that the [[day month]] format does make the page harder to read, please feel free to revert those changes. BencherliteTalk 01:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I really do feel that the dates should not be linked. Another part of the MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links says that pages should not be overlinked to the point of distraction. I do feel that linking all of the dates reduces readability. I won't revert the changes, but please consider thinking about the readability of the page which seems more important than the date format requested by a minority of users. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did think about the readability of the page, by previewing it repeatedly in the course of wikilinking the dates (or "wikiliking" as I accidentally called it in my edit summary!) before saving. I actually think it makes little difference to the readability of the page, and I don't think that it's over-wikilinked by doing so. What do others think? As I say, I don't mind either way, but was only trying to help overcome the one oppose opinion. At least now people get to compare "with" and "without" by comparing the diffs. If people are happy to pass the list without linked dates, then anyone is free to undo my date-linking, as it won't bother me in the slightest. BencherliteTalk 03:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I really do feel that the dates should not be linked. Another part of the MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links says that pages should not be overlinked to the point of distraction. I do feel that linking all of the dates reduces readability. I won't revert the changes, but please consider thinking about the readability of the page which seems more important than the date format requested by a minority of users. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support. A thoroughly researched and presented timeline. Interesting to read and obviously the product of much work. BencherliteTalk 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I tried, but cannot find fault with the page. Ceoil 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm personally quite iffy with the table format. I ad planned to offer up an alternative, but my wiki editing kept steering me in different directions. Circeus 01:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did try a year-by-year list (modelled on the examples I cited above), but it started to look really messy. It was hard to find the events in Wollstonecraft's life when they were jumbled in with the other events. (You can go back in the page's history and see the change - I think my edit summary was either "changing format" or "changing format AGAIN" - I went through several permutations). The way that the timeline is currently set up, readers can either just look at Wollstonecraft's life (the topic of the timeline) or spend time looking at all of the other events and their relationship to Wollstonecraft's life. It offers that alternative. A year-by-year listing does not offer the two different ways of reading. I was trying to cater to as many audiences as possible. If you have yet a third alternative that offers this dual reading style, I would be happy to see it. Awadewit | talk 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 01:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom. Another good county list. With this, Maine, and New Hampshire, all of New England is done. And I need a beer. Geraldk 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I need a little explanation over the apparent difference between Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony, as you have three that say "one of original counties of Plymouth Colony" and four that say "one of original counties of Massachusetts". --Golbez 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I added a couple new sentences in the lead and tried to make the individual descriptions better. I could also add a reference note to each of the counties created before the Plymouth / Massachusetts Bay unification in 1691. Thoughts? Geraldk 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support, though I would like at least a stub on Devonshire County. --Golbez 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Geraldk 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- PS, looks like an article already existed. I'm redirecting your new one to Devonshire County, District of Maine, Massachusetts Bay Colony. --Golbez 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support, though I would like at least a stub on Devonshire County. --Golbez 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I added a couple new sentences in the lead and tried to make the individual descriptions better. I could also add a reference note to each of the counties created before the Plymouth / Massachusetts Bay unification in 1691. Thoughts? Geraldk 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine to me. (Decleration of contributions: I set up the basic layout, but the content is mostly Geraldk's). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support There are three of four original counties created in the Massachusetts Bay Colony listed here. I am interested to know which one was the fourth. --Crzycheetah 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. All concerns met. Promote. Raime 13:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Self-nomination. Another "tallest buildings" list. This is a well-organized and well-referenced list that meets criteria. Its lists the 30 tallest buildings in boston, along with all proposed/approved/under construction buildings. Each entry has at least two references, and most have three. In addition, Historical Tallest buildings in the city and Listing by Pinnacle Height are included. There are 12 images in the article that fit well with the context. Out of these, one (Image:Trans National Place 1.jpg) is a copyrighted image of a proposed building, of which there are no free images available. It has a thorough fair use rationale on its page. According to a previous debate under List of tallest buildings in Providence, this image is available for use in the article. Any issues with this will be addressed. Overall the list is clear and informative, with a three-paragraph introduction, two free-images of the existing skyline from two vantage points, a list of the city's 30 tallest buildings, an informative notes section, a list of the city's Historical Tallest, a listing by Pinnacle height, and a lengthy reference list.
The list meets Featured-list criteria:
- The list is useful and informative.
- The list is comprehensive, as it contains a list of the 30-tallest and most notable buildings in the city, as *well as all tall proposed buildings.
- The list is accurate, with reference links to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, Structurae, and other notable sources.
- The list is not at all controversial and is very stable.
- The lead summarizes list scope, with the list's title in bold.
- The list has 11 free-use images, and one fair-use image with a thorough and complete fair use rationale.
All possible issues brought up here will be addressed. Raime 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Initial comments:
- I dislike having a panorama first, text should be first.
- Done: First skyline image has been moved to below the introduction, and second is below the first list.
- Move the 'ranking' explanation into prose rather than a ref. --Golbez 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done: Ranking explanation now in prose, but not so sure about this one. It is now very awkward in prose, and seemed to work fine as a ref. Is there a reason why you think it could not stand as a ref? Raime 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I dislike having a panorama first, text should be first.
OpposeMix of existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. See also my oppose under Providence.- Done: New table created, non-existing buildings removed. Raime 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a listing by pinnacle height. You don't need to detail those in the first section's note column. Just specify at the beginning that radio masts etc. are not accounted for.- Done: Information removed
Reduce the width of the images on the side of the table.- Done: All images in article, with exception of broad skyline image, are now 200px. Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Notes full of facts irrelevant to article's topic. Trim those.- Could you please specify somewhat? I went ahead and removed some notes, but not exactly sure what qualifies as "relevant". Do you think it would be better to just remove the entire section and replace it with a "References" section, as with the other two lists? Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, if the "note" is not relevant to the building's current, past or future height, its name, or its relationship with other buildings on the list (e.g. "part of foo complex"), it doesn't have a purpose in this list. e.g. "Known for its unique X-bracing exterior and distinctive rooftop box design." (One Boston Place), the entire notes of the First national Bank Building, One Financial Center, or One Post Office Square. Here, size matters; anything else? Not really.
- I see your point, but that will leave most of the entries empty. Should I just remove the section? And for the new "Proposed" section, do you think anything in that notes section is relevant? I will remove the information you specified. Thank you for your review. Raime 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done: All irrelevant notes removed. All that is left is alternate names and "tallest building in X section" or "tallest hotel", etc. Raime 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but that will leave most of the entries empty. Should I just remove the section? And for the new "Proposed" section, do you think anything in that notes section is relevant? I will remove the information you specified. Thank you for your review. Raime 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, if the "note" is not relevant to the building's current, past or future height, its name, or its relationship with other buildings on the list (e.g. "part of foo complex"), it doesn't have a purpose in this list. e.g. "Known for its unique X-bracing exterior and distinctive rooftop box design." (One Boston Place), the entire notes of the First national Bank Building, One Financial Center, or One Post Office Square. Here, size matters; anything else? Not really.
- Could you please specify somewhat? I went ahead and removed some notes, but not exactly sure what qualifies as "relevant". Do you think it would be better to just remove the entire section and replace it with a "References" section, as with the other two lists? Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Under "historical tallest", South bay Tower and Trans National Place are not completed; those "estimates" have nothing to do there whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball.- Done: Buildings removed. Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Circeus 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still opposed? Raime 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- No. I've made a few other fixes, but everything now looks okay. Circeus 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still opposed? Raime 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support, all my concerns addressed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 August 2007.
- Comment Why did you list thirty buildings? Why not twenty? ...or forty? Why thirty? Is there a size limit?--Crzycheetah 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- 30 seemed a reasonable number. Why does the Paris structures list have 100? It just was an assigned number. If you think it more appropriate, I'll remove the final three buildings to make it an even "400 feet or more". That might be better. Raime 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be better. I Support, by the way. --Crzycheetah 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. I have removed the final three buildings, making the list buildings at least 400 feet (122 meters). Raime 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be better. I Support, by the way. --Crzycheetah 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- 30 seemed a reasonable number. Why does the Paris structures list have 100? It just was an assigned number. If you think it more appropriate, I'll remove the final three buildings to make it an even "400 feet or more". That might be better. Raime 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support good work. BencherliteTalk 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Certainly as good as your List of tallest buildings in Providence, which is now FL.--Loodog 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the main article Aston Villa got FA status me and Woodym555 have put our efforts into pages such as this one Captains and managers. I would be grateful for feedback and what needs doing to this article but i feel it meets all the criteria! User:Everlast1910 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
NeutralAppearances, goals, nationalities do not sort correctly.- They do if you click them twice, don't ask me why, they just do.
Notes should not be sorted, IMO.- removed section, replacement section is not sorted.
Format your references. {{cite web}} template may help.- References now formatted correctly
It would be better if you had a See also section where you could list all those "for...,see..".- I have now added one in.
--Crzycheetah 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can't make one column non-sortable. Either all the columns are, or none. There's no issue with it, really, except the fact the column is not necessary to begin with. Circeus 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you can. You can just add class="unsortable" before the title of that column. See Nadir Afonso artworks for an example.--Crzycheetah 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Summary of my recent edits: I have removed the notes section, was primarily trivia that should be in own articles. I have now added the unsortable tag in to the records section that is the replacement for the notes section. I have added a see also section. I agree that the "for..." was getting a bit unsightly.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you can. You can just add class="unsortable" before the title of that column. See Nadir Afonso artworks for an example.--Crzycheetah 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose- No images
- FL guidelines state "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject," I dont think that it needs any images, they wouldn't add to the list. Also any images would disrupt the table format and other related featured lists do not have any (including List of Arsenal F.C. players which was the basis for the article).
- For the most parts, the "notes" are entirely unnecessary. The captains, if included, would be best placed in a separate section. Other articles (Central Coast Mariners FC and Queensland Roar FC) have sections for "notable players" and "records" instead. Keep the table short and sweet.
- No images
- Circeus 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Summary of edits in reply: I agree with the statement about the notes, they were unneccessary and as such i have removed them. A colour coded system is now in place. With regards to the FLs that you have listed i do not think that they are relevant to an English Club. They seem to cover recent players only. I have based the list around the featured List of Arsenal F.C. players. With all due respect the list will be as long as it needs to be to ensure that it remains comprehensive.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Still oppose. Information that should have been placed in separate sections from the beginning are now only available via color, which is even worse for accessibility. Besides, the captainship years should have been kept. Circeus 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate on "information". As far i know, no information has been lost. Can you suggest any separate sections? The "notes" section had degenerated into trivia, the statements that weren't trivia are dealt with elsewhere in wikipedia more accurately. The List of Aston Villa captains deals with all of the information regarding Captains. This page should not become a duplicate of that page. With regards to accessibility "Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels." The footnotes deal with what the colours mean. There not that much information covered by the colours really, hall of fames and captaincy are the only things. Woodym555 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Still oppose. Information that should have been placed in separate sections from the beginning are now only available via color, which is even worse for accessibility. Besides, the captainship years should have been kept. Circeus 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
neutral Circeus 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)- Weak support List has seen tremendous improvement since my previous neutral, but I'm still iffy with the use of color. Circeus 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Summary of edits in reply: I agree with the statement about the notes, they were unneccessary and as such i have removed them. A colour coded system is now in place. With regards to the FLs that you have listed i do not think that they are relevant to an English Club. They seem to cover recent players only. I have based the list around the featured List of Arsenal F.C. players. With all due respect the list will be as long as it needs to be to ensure that it remains comprehensive.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose- Bill Walker (214 goals) is described as the club's top goalscorer, but Harry Hampton is listed as having scored 242 goals. Either somethin's wrong, or something hasn't been explained clearly enough.
- It has now been corrected, (FYI Bill Walker scored 244 goals)
- Further to Crzycheetah's comments, notes and rerfersnces should be in a seperate section; and anything denoting multiple spells at the club should go in the "Aston Villa career" column.
- Removed the star (*) denoting multiple spells, they were unnecessary. Also separated notes and used correct format for references.
- "Notable" is not defined in the article
- I think it does define it. The main lead paragraph defines it as such: over 100 appearances and/or a special record. These "special records" are noted in the notes section.Woodym555 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tompw (talk) (review) 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I feel my concerns have been dealt with, but the points made by others still apply. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bill Walker (214 goals) is described as the club's top goalscorer, but Harry Hampton is listed as having scored 242 goals. Either somethin's wrong, or something hasn't been explained clearly enough.
- Comment There is a new thing that I didn't like. The footnotes in the claret color don't look very well, especially when they get purple after use. I understand your desire to use the club's official colors, but maybe you could use a lighter color to represent club record holders? --Crzycheetah 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, i had been trying to change the wikilink colour in my sandbox but it didn't work out. Anyway the claret was harsh on the eye so i have changed it to green, works better now. Woodym555 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe appearances and goals columns don't sort properly. The reason being, the first entry "n/a" isn't a number, so it forces the column to sort alphabetically rather than numerically. The sort mode is dependent on the first entry in the column to be sorted at the time the sort button is clicked. See Help:Sorting.- I have added the sm=n syntax but it still doesnt work correctly. As such i have asked for help on the sorting table talk page.
- Format the numbers using {{nts}} eg {{nts|95}}. Then they will sort correctly first time. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have added the sm=n syntax but it still doesnt work correctly. As such i have asked for help on the sorting table talk page.
The white on blue isn't very clear for those like myself with less than perfect colour/contrast vision - to me, it looks blurry (I realise I may well be the only one for whom this is a problem).Struway2 | Talk 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)- I have turned the text black now to avoid any problems. Looks better for me as well actually Woodym555 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question Why do Walter H. Price and George Ramsay have "n/a" in the apearences and goals columns? Tompw (talk) (review) 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Simply put: the information is not available. Every source that i have looked at does not have the information listed. As far as i know the information is not listed. Ramsay in particular is more famous for his secretary/advisor/Vice-President/directorship roles at the club than for the actual games played. Hope that helps?Woodym555 18:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- In which case, add a note to that effect - "N/A" means not applicable, which isn't the case here. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Must have had a mind blank. The N/A was originally put in to avoid the sortable problems. I have provided an explanation at the top (in the key). Woodym555 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- In which case, add a note to that effect - "N/A" means not applicable, which isn't the case here. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Simply put: the information is not available. Every source that i have looked at does not have the information listed. As far as i know the information is not listed. Ramsay in particular is more famous for his secretary/advisor/Vice-President/directorship roles at the club than for the actual games played. Hope that helps?Woodym555 18:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral a couple of quick points
Two players are listed as being "Utility" players without explaining what this means, it may be better to lose the term altogether or link them to Football (soccer) positions- Have added a note at the top of positions linking to Football (soccer) positions. Added wikilink for Utility player in columns.
Consider creating stubs for those redlinksIt's not essential and no it shouldn't be a bar for a Featured List- Will do when have time. I think over 90% are not but don't think it should disqualify the list.
Done Stubs now made (Everlast1910 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
See also - is there a need to have two links to the same article?- Nope there isn't so have removed Aston Villa F.C. which is linked in the intro anyway
Captaincy column - shouldn't this use ndash's between years as in the career column?- Yes it should and now it does Woodym555 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Foxhill 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - List is well created, nicely laid out and comprehensive. Foxhill 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The list got even better during this nomination.--Crzycheetah 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good but I don't like the images or the see also section. Buc 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- (Deleted images in see also section as well as deleting see also section) Woodym555 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well done. I don't think the "see also" section is needed, given that the Aston Villa template has the links already, but that's not enough to qualify my support. A couple of minor things that I fixed, in case someone wants to check: (a) changed "-" to ndashes (b) fixed the nationality sorting order problem (Serbia and Trinidad were first, before Australia) by using "<span style="display:none">England</span>" etc (is there a better way?) (c) consolidated references for e.g. FA Cup winning captains (d) for John Devey, removed the note that said "Won the First Division and 2 FA Cups" as this seemed to duplicate the following note "Won the First Division and 2 FA Cups as Captain". BencherliteTalk 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- (deleted see also, THANKYOU for fixing nationalities, (only way as far as i can tell) THANKS again.) Woodym555 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
Use of colour/clarity is much improved, but any more use of colour would make the list look messy again- I agree, no need for anymore colour! Don't think anything else could be highlighted by colour to be honest.
Don't think the images at the bottom add anything to the list, and they distract from the notes section.- Given the persisitenet concerns, i have removed them.
Suggest removing the See also section - perhaps add a link to current squad at the top as on List of Arsenal F.C. players, and for the rest, there is already a navbox at the bottom of the article- Already removed
Clarify the note against Tom Waring - 50 goals in League, all comps? club record or English?- Clarified
Thomas Sørensen (158 League appearances) isn't here. Are you sure there aren't any more?- I have trawled through the Comprehensice Fansite and have added as many as i have found. There may of course be the odd one that has been missed, mainly current players. I am 99% sure that this list is comprehensive. Woodym555 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Struway2 | Talk 09:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral My concerns have generally been dealt with adequately and very promptly. I'm still not really very keen on colour being used as the major indicator of a particular piece of information, though the list as amended is much clearer and much less excessively colourful than it was. Struway2 | Talk 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 18 days, 3 support, 0 oppose. Three supports, plus the nominator. Promote. Crzycheetah 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all who commented.
Checking against Wikipedia:Featured list criteria:
1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
- (a) the table is "Useful".
- (b) "Comprehensive": list all the wild mammal species in Florida as per The American Society of Mammalogists. Species from other sources not in the list are mentioned but not included in the list itself.
- (c) "Factually accurate" The list comes from the list compiled by The American Society of Mammalogists from several sources. Common names are identified as they are used in their own Wikipedia articles, since they vary greatly. Scientific names were updated using the Red List. The meta:cite format is used.
- (d) (e) (f) "Uncontroversial", "Stable", "Well-constructed": I hope so :-). The table will change once more species are introduced.
2. It complies with the standards:
- (a) the lead summarizes the list scope.
- (b) besides the lead, there is a little explanation on how the list was constructed.
- (c) There are several tables in the article. The orders with more species have a separate table and smaller orders are grouped. All the lists are sortable. A table in the beginning summarize the species' counts. Introductory paragraphs explain how the species arrived in Florida and their current situation, going down to subspecies level.
3. Images: I added free pictures to each animal when possible. I uploaded several pictures myself when they were missing.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank for the peer review that some editors made.
- Comments Nice riffing off List of mammals of Korea. The list manages to be independant and still very similar. However, I do not believe it is a good idea to present the IUCN status as is done. Information available only in images when it can (and arguably should) be text is not a good idea. This also obscure any particular status the species might have at state or county level (e.g. Tamias striatus is "Special Concern" in Florida, while Ursus americanus[specifically floridanus] is "Threatened".). Also, consider keeping with the 100px width. I think 150 gives the images a distracting prominence (and adds unnecessary whitespace). Circeus 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here are some tests on different sizing; commenters please vote on their favorite. I still like 150px better.About the threatened species, there are some problems related to it. The list is of species, not subspecies, so the threat level must be necessarily on species level; detail is provided on the introductory paragraphs. About the icons, I think they should stay how they are for keeping the same visual connection to other animal articles. The icons are ordered using soft keys.--Legionarius 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
CommentSupport
The lead needs to summarize your list. Talk about terrestrial and marine mammals in one paragraph. You have a lot of text in those sections, so it won't be a problem for you to sumarize that. Done Actually, I am a bit stuck on that, since the individual paragraphs are very specific. Please, do you have any articles you could refer me to?--Legionarius 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I don't. You could just write something like "there are terrestrial mammals of ...families and marine mammals of ...families." I also think that you can just expand the first paragraph, no need for the additional paragraph.--Crzycheetah 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UT)
- hope it looks better now... please let me know.--70.60.86.178 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just what I needed. Thanks.--Crzycheetah 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Mexican Gray Squirrel is the only red link; it would be better if it were a stub. Done somebody killed my redirect.--Legionarius 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)I like the 120px size because the table get broken up at 100px and 150px is just too big. Done. Good reasoning. left 120px for now.--Legionarius 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
--Crzycheetah 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great referencing, absolutely spectacular use of graphics and photographs. Kudos. Geraldk 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support, very, very well done. Wizardman 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. All previous concerns addressed, and no new objections or concerns raised. Promote. Raime 13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Self-nomination. This is a well-organized, well-referenced list that meets criteria. There are six images in the article that fit well with the context. Out of these, one (Image:Onetenwaterfire.JPG) is a copyrighted image of a proposed building, of which there are no free images available. It has a thorough fair use rationale on its page. Any issues with this will be addressed. Overall the list is clear and informative, with a three-paragraph introduction, a free-image of the existing skyline, a list of the city's 15 tallest buildings, and an informative notes section. The list currently only has one table, but approved, proposed and under construction buildings could be broken into another table if it is deemed necessary.
The list meets Featured-list criteria:
- The list is useful and informative.
- The list is comprehensive, as it contains a list of the 15-tallest and most notable buildings in the city, as well as all tall proposed buildings.
- The list is accurate, with reference links to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and other notable sources.
- The list is not at all controversial and is very stable.
- The lead summarizes list scope, with the list's title in bold.
- The list has 5 free-use images, and one fair-use image with a thorough and complete fair use rationale.
All possible issues brought up here will be addressed. Raime 07:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I made it sortable and did some minor work; support. --Golbez 07:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
There are a few unsourced statements such as the Westin comment. References also aren't in a standard format. Should use cite web template for all.Fixed. Thank you.--Loodog 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)- Done: All buildings have at least one, if not two, sources.
- Done: References now in standard format; cite web template is used for all Internet References.
- Comment
My understanding is that you can't use the Image:Onetenwaterfire.JPG image because there is a free image available. I mean you don't need to illustrate that exact building, you just need to illustrate the tallest buildings in Providence. There are free alternatives available to illustrate the tallest buildings in Providence, such as Image:Providence-first impression.jpg or Image:Providencetextronside.JPG.--Crzycheetah 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The list does not only consist of existing skyscrapers, it also includes proposed, approved, and under construction buildings. Images of existing buildings are obviosuly necessary to portray the content. However, there are no free images available for under construction/proposed/approved images, only the copyrighted images released by developers. Since these buildings are included in the list, however, I believe that one fair use image that greatly adds to the article and is used in fair use context is available for use in the article. At least one under construction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted, and yet there are no free images available for these structures. Nevertheless, if you think keeping the OneTen image is a serious problem, I will remove the image. Raime 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if the list was about "proposed buildings", then there would be no problem. I disagree with your "at least one unserconstruction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted" statement. Why should it be depicted? Anyway, I would love to keep that image, it's a great image. I just don't think we have a right to have that image in this particular list. Any third opinion would be very welcome, preferably from a copyright expert.--Crzycheetah 00:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The list is about existing and proposed buildings. Maybe should was a bad word choice, but it seems like one image of a proposed building would make sense to portray all content of the list. However, if we do not have a right to use the image, then you're right; it should definitely be removed. Other than the image, do you see any problems? Raime 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:Non-free content, this image is fair game for fair use. If the images are going to be representative of the items in this list, we should have at least one image of a building not yet built. Whatever image that is, is irreplaceable since no one can take a picture of a building that does not exist yet. This image falls under "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." so I don't see a problem.--Loodog 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am glad that we have a right to use that. And no, I don't see any other problems, yet.--Crzycheetah 02:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:Non-free content, this image is fair game for fair use. If the images are going to be representative of the items in this list, we should have at least one image of a building not yet built. Whatever image that is, is irreplaceable since no one can take a picture of a building that does not exist yet. This image falls under "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." so I don't see a problem.--Loodog 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The list is about existing and proposed buildings. Maybe should was a bad word choice, but it seems like one image of a proposed building would make sense to portray all content of the list. However, if we do not have a right to use the image, then you're right; it should definitely be removed. Other than the image, do you see any problems? Raime 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if the list was about "proposed buildings", then there would be no problem. I disagree with your "at least one unserconstruction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted" statement. Why should it be depicted? Anyway, I would love to keep that image, it's a great image. I just don't think we have a right to have that image in this particular list. Any third opinion would be very welcome, preferably from a copyright expert.--Crzycheetah 00:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The list does not only consist of existing skyscrapers, it also includes proposed, approved, and under construction buildings. Images of existing buildings are obviosuly necessary to portray the content. However, there are no free images available for under construction/proposed/approved images, only the copyrighted images released by developers. Since these buildings are included in the list, however, I believe that one fair use image that greatly adds to the article and is used in fair use context is available for use in the article. At least one under construction, proposed, or approved building should be depicted, and yet there are no free images available for these structures. Nevertheless, if you think keeping the OneTen image is a serious problem, I will remove the image. Raime 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
Why do you rank Turk's Head Building at 11 while emporis.com, your main reference, ranks it at 20? Maybe you need a better reference than that?--Crzycheetah 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The main (or at least equal to Emporis) reference is probably SkyscraperPage, which ranks it (correctly) as 11th. The only problem is that SkyscraperPage cannot be accessed as a city compilation, only by individual building files. Therefore, it cannot used as an external link. Emporis is definitely wrong about their information for the Turk's Head Building; you can find it on other sources that the building is taller than that website states. However, as long as the Turk's Head Building entry does not use Emporis as a reference, and other buildings do, it is not really a problem. Emporis often has small details wrong about certain buildings, but for others it is correct. For those it is correct for, I see no reason why it should not be used as a reference. However, if you think it would help, I'll use SkyscraperPage as a reference for every building on the list, to go along with Emporis. Raime 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- In these types of lists (one that has rankings), there's always a general reference that proves that the ranking is correct. It's missing here. I'd suggest to remove that emporis link from the external links section, since it only confuses readers.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done: Very good point. External link to Emporis is removed. And I've also made references to SkyscraperPage on most building entries on the list, to define it as the main reference over Emporis. Any other problems that you see? Raime 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, emporis is notoriously inaccurate.--Loodog 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I found this link at SkyscraperPage, but it's still off. It ranks Omni Biltmore Hotel lower than Turk's Head Building.--Crzycheetah 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not off. That link only ranks it lower because it excludes the Biltmore sign at the top of the building. However, signs such as these are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. If you look closely at the images on the diagram, you can see that the Biltmore sign is actually higher than the roof of the Turk's Head Building. Oh, and thanks for the link. I've been trying to use that diagram as an external link, but for some reason I cannot get it on my computer. But, since yours worked, I listed it under External links. Any more problems? Raime 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- This explanation needs to be cited and included somewhere in the article. Otherwise, it would be the same deal as was with Emporis, I mean the confusion part.--Crzycheetah 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done: Very good point, that would get quite confusing. I've added the following as a reference under the Biltmore's Notes entry: "The Biltmore Hotel became the tallest in the city in 1922 including the height of the prominent BILTMORE sign on the top of the building. Such signs are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. However, other sites, such as SkyscraperPage, do not include the sign in the total height of the building. Without the sign, the Biltmore stands at 205 feet (62.5 meters), making it the 12th-tallest in Providence rather than the 9th-tallest." Raime 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Get rid of the See also section because you already linked to it in the lead. Plus, fix the Woodward's book citations, preferably use {{cite book}}.--Crzycheetah 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)- DoneWoodward refs now standardized with cite book.--Loodog 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- DoneSee also section removed. Raime 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- This explanation needs to be cited and included somewhere in the article. Otherwise, it would be the same deal as was with Emporis, I mean the confusion part.--Crzycheetah 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not off. That link only ranks it lower because it excludes the Biltmore sign at the top of the building. However, signs such as these are often included in architectural heights, which is what this particular list ranks. If you look closely at the images on the diagram, you can see that the Biltmore sign is actually higher than the roof of the Turk's Head Building. Oh, and thanks for the link. I've been trying to use that diagram as an external link, but for some reason I cannot get it on my computer. But, since yours worked, I listed it under External links. Any more problems? Raime 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I found this link at SkyscraperPage, but it's still off. It ranks Omni Biltmore Hotel lower than Turk's Head Building.--Crzycheetah 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, emporis is notoriously inaccurate.--Loodog 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- In these types of lists (one that has rankings), there's always a general reference that proves that the ranking is correct. It's missing here. I'd suggest to remove that emporis link from the external links section, since it only confuses readers.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The main (or at least equal to Emporis) reference is probably SkyscraperPage, which ranks it (correctly) as 11th. The only problem is that SkyscraperPage cannot be accessed as a city compilation, only by individual building files. Therefore, it cannot used as an external link. Emporis is definitely wrong about their information for the Turk's Head Building; you can find it on other sources that the building is taller than that website states. However, as long as the Turk's Head Building entry does not use Emporis as a reference, and other buildings do, it is not really a problem. Emporis often has small details wrong about certain buildings, but for others it is correct. For those it is correct for, I see no reason why it should not be used as a reference. However, if you think it would help, I'll use SkyscraperPage as a reference for every building on the list, to go along with Emporis. Raime 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose- I absolutely oppose mixing the listings for existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. If there's one thing the Paris list has right, it's that.
- Done: Separate list created, but unsure about what to do with Under Construction buildings that have already topped out. I included them in both lists, a sthey are officially the Xth-tallest building in the city, but are still oficially under connstruction. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The notes are awfully wordy. trim them and remove material that is irrelevant to the topic athand. How does the fact that One Financial Plaza is "featured prominently in the background of the TV Series Family Guy" have anything to do with its status as current second tallest building in the city? Or the fact that Turk's Head "Has a rounded V-shape footprint due to the shape of the lot."
- Done: Notes section trimmed down, Many buildings now have empty entries.
- Instead of throwing past tallest buildings in notes, makes a separate listing (either in a column or section).
Comment: This list would only have four buildings. Is this really necessary? Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)- Well, it turns out that all of the "tallest" information was incorrect, as neither the Biltmore or the Turk's Head Building ever surpassed the height of the capitol, which was built in 1904. Other sources rate them as tallest buildings only becaus ethe capitol is not always included as a skyscraper. However, on this list it is, so I have removed the "tallest from X to Y" information from the Notes section of every building except the Bank of America Building and the State House, which derserve mention. Since a "Historical Tallest" list would only list 2 buildings, it is really not needed. Raime 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- One "under construction" is italicized,but another is between quotes.
- Done: Problem has been fixed, all now use Under Construction format. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I absolutely oppose mixing the listings for existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. If there's one thing the Paris list has right, it's that.
- Circeus 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- What could be done to avoid mixing actual buildings with future is give them their own list, similar to List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, and there list theoretical ranking. Part of the interest in this list is there's a lot of new construction in the city and people wonder where the new projects would rank among existing buildings.--Loodog 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- We are not talking about List of tallest buildings by U.S. state (if it has the same problem, then it has to be fixed). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we cannot list buildings that don't even exist yet in a list of tallest buildings! Just put them in a different section, and move them up when they are actually completed. Circeus 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is applicable here, as no certain claims are being made about buildings not under construction. As of now (August 4), all under construction buildings have topped out physically, so there's no danger of asserting the heights these buildings will rise to. All proposed buildings have heights estimated by developers, though these often change as planning progresses. Proposed buildings could therefore be given their own list, and an appoximate ranking based on current data, knowing that this could change. But by completely ruling out this material, we're removing very interesting information which I'm sure is one of the reasons readers view this article.--Loodog 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Side comment: I don't know if this was unintentional, but please don't remove my postings from the talk page.--Loodog 18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)- I have removed the incomplete buildings from the list, and placed them in a new list. However, I agree with Loodog. There was no presumption of exact claims being made, and it even stated in the introductory sentence: "Future structure's ranks are approximated in parentheses". However, I moved it to keep it consistent with the Paris list, which is currently the only featured "tallest buildings" list. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there are two, but they were listed in different sections of WP:FL (London is the other, and I can see quite a few fixes that should be made to it...). Circeus 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as long as all other Featured lists use this format, this list needs to as well. Raime 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there are two, but they were listed in different sections of WP:FL (London is the other, and I can see quite a few fixes that should be made to it...). Circeus 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the incomplete buildings from the list, and placed them in a new list. However, I agree with Loodog. There was no presumption of exact claims being made, and it even stated in the introductory sentence: "Future structure's ranks are approximated in parentheses". However, I moved it to keep it consistent with the Paris list, which is currently the only featured "tallest buildings" list. Raime 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is applicable here, as no certain claims are being made about buildings not under construction. As of now (August 4), all under construction buildings have topped out physically, so there's no danger of asserting the heights these buildings will rise to. All proposed buildings have heights estimated by developers, though these often change as planning progresses. Proposed buildings could therefore be given their own list, and an appoximate ranking based on current data, knowing that this could change. But by completely ruling out this material, we're removing very interesting information which I'm sure is one of the reasons readers view this article.--Loodog 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- We are not talking about List of tallest buildings by U.S. state (if it has the same problem, then it has to be fixed). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we cannot list buildings that don't even exist yet in a list of tallest buildings! Just put them in a different section, and move them up when they are actually completed. Circeus 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- What could be done to avoid mixing actual buildings with future is give them their own list, similar to List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, and there list theoretical ranking. Part of the interest in this list is there's a lot of new construction in the city and people wonder where the new projects would rank among existing buildings.--Loodog 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Circeus, do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still strongly opposed?
- I think I can Support now. Circeus 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Circeus, do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still strongly opposed?
Support.--Loodog 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well done. --Crzycheetah 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. No new objections or comments, just supports. Promote. Geraldk 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is completely sourced and although it is not title "List of _____", the vast majority of the page is a list. Any issues people have will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
Lists should be in chronological ordering.--Crzycheetah 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)- It's overlinked. For example, you have Gretzky's name linked 8-9 in a row, just one would be enough. There are other instances, too. This recently passed FL shows that linking once is enough.--Crzycheetah 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- That list managed to get away with using xxxx-xx... Anyway, I'll remove some of the double links. -- Scorpion0422 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- CommentFWIW, nearly every sports related publication I have handy uses reverse chronological order for lists such as this. I don't see a problem with using the same here. However, I hate the use of xxxx-xxxx to note the year for 1999-2000 NHL season. While I find it utterly ridiculous that someone would assume "1999-00" means "1999-1900", it seems a lot of people do. Ideally, all entries should use the same date format, which means each entry should be "2006-2007", "2005-2006", etc. Resolute 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- So are you saying that every entry should be changed to xxxx-xxxx instead of xxxx-xx? And if it really is an issue, I'll switch the ordering around. -- Scorpion0422 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, on the other lists I've seen, ie the Devils and Avalanche players lists, they were advised to use the xxxx-xxxx format. Resolute 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay then, consider it done. -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, on the other lists I've seen, ie the Devils and Avalanche players lists, they were advised to use the xxxx-xxxx format. Resolute 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- So are you saying that every entry should be changed to xxxx-xxxx instead of xxxx-xx? And if it really is an issue, I'll switch the ordering around. -- Scorpion0422 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support. As an added thought though, if there are more good images of players that have won the award, it would help add some colour and fill some white space to the right of the chart. Resolute 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. I'm just a newbie here so please forgive any errors or mistakes. Here's my feedback (not based on any FA criteria):
- The lead duplicates the history sentence for sentence for naming, donated after 1923-24 season and replacement of the trophy.
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so there will be duplicate info. -- Scorpion0422 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Confusing about the trophy being replaced – is it the actual trophy? Where did it go? And who cares enough for it to be mentioned in the lead?
- On a re-read, I do see that the trophies look different in the photos and that the original went to the Hall of Fame. But more clarity would be helpful. Canuckle 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Inconsistent style on numbers in prose, three or 3 Done
- Spell out MLB, NBA, NFL on first reference Done
- Is it Original research or sourced that ‘the team A won trophy X times and Joe Thornton was first…’
- Comment: It's not OR to just count up the number of times a team has won the trophy; there's no other way to do that than just count. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Overuse of wikilinks to teams
- Instead of a column titled "Win#", I’d prefer to see a column titled "Notes" with details on notability for that year's winner: ie “First win” “First player to win after mid-season trade” “also won the Art Ross”….”lead all defencemen in scoring that year.” “First American” “First European” "Tied with Iginla, won tiebreaker based on more first-place votes"
- Comment: I wanted to avoid a notes section because I felt it wasn't necessary. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any references from outside the NHL?
- Comment: It's an NHL trophy; the IIHF has no say in the trophy whatsoever, so there probably aren't any references outside the NHL. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- By outside of NHL, I meant nhl.com and its sub-site(?) legends of hockey. You know, newspapers, books and stuff. Canuckle 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any controversial picks?
- There will always be controversial picks, but I couldn't find any sources that definitively said "____ is the worst choice" -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any controversy in reliable sources over the selection methods (eg are sportswriters the best qualified to choose?) or an Eastern bias for Eastern players?
- Couldn't find any. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- When does the vote take place? After or before the playoffs? Does playoff success play a factor in the selection? Add a sentence to distinguish it from the Conn Smythe MVP trophy for the playoffs. Done
- The ranking method of the vote is pretty standard but could use a sentence or two more of clarification. Is a first-place vote worth 10 points and a second-place five? You mention a tie, was there ever a unanimous selection or a notable landslide choice?
- Do they typically announce 3 or 4 contenders prior to the awards ceremony? Is that just hype, in that they know who won but just tease the top 3 for entertainment? Done
- When and where do they give the awards out? Done
- You mentioned the Hall of Fame, are there any other impacts on players selected? Salary? Bonuses?
- Note that the sportswriters also vote on Lady Byng and Calder.
- That's not really notable. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikilink Professional Hockey Writers Association then start an article on it so that it’s not a redlink.
- Has the trophy ever been damaged or have rituals associated with it like the Stanley Cup? Does the winner keep it all year?
- Not that I could find. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- What the h**l is the actual trophy supposed to look like anyway? Who made it and what is it made of? Are player's names inscribed on the bottom and replaced on regular basis?
- Is there regular media speculation each year about the merits of candidates and can that be reflected in the article?
- How do voters evaluate "Most Valuable" anyway? Is there an official rule book that you can quote as to criteria?
- Personally, I favour the chronological order and the 19xx-xx year format. Canuckle 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of your suggestions would require a reliable source, which there are few of. However, I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- As follow-up, just wanted to note for others that I too did some googling for reliable sources and the current article reflects generally what is out there. Canuckle 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Although I'm not willing to withhold support based on these comments (at least initially), I agree with what a lot of Canuckle says. I think we could definitely expand the prose section of this article to more than just a brief description of the trophy. In fact, I'm wondering why the list of winners is even included in the article; Stanley Cup and List of Stanley Cup champions are two separate and distinct pages. Anthony Hit me up... 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because there are only 82 winners listed here, and if you split the two, the main page would be a stub. And I would love to add a long, detailed history on the trophy, but I can only add what the sources allow. Besides, a lot of it, such as salary bonuses, falls more under the category of trivia rather than vital information. -- Scorpion0422 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean a list of individual player bonuses. But it could stand a line that says the NHL-NHLPA collective agreement allows players to earn performance bonuses for placing in top 10 of voting for Hart (primary source = [4]) Canuckle 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't think it's that notable, because of course bonuses will be given out. But, if you feel strongly enough, you can go ahead and add info about that. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Though I do think more images (of the players with the trophy, rather than them by themselves) would be nice, it is probably hard to get a hold of free-images like that. BsroiaadnTalk 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Most of my concerns were addressed, and I don't want to be nitpicky about every little thing; I know how hard FLCs can be. You've got my vote. Anthony Hit me up... 07:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Good work, reads like a dream and is a very informative topic. Croat Canuck talk 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support what everyone else said already. Kaiser matias 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support and a comment; I'd like to see active players highlighted. --Krm500 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support and active players higlighted Done IrisKawling 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Other comments. Promote. Geraldk 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of members which contanis notable members of a Greek-letter Fraternity that has gone through peer review and should meet the FL criteria. Thanks for any feedback and of course, Support.--Ccson 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support A very well-written and NPOV list, full of famous and notable people. It is often hard(er) to write a list so well, and I like the fact that it is highly-organized, as well as directly to the point. Jmlk17 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for reviewing the article and your support.
OpposeRemove copyrighted images.--Crzycheetah 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)- First, thank you for reviewing the article and I will be quick to make your requested changes. I obtained the images from the main article for each listed member, but if you can be more specific of which images you find objectionable; I will remove them? Thank you again.--Ccson 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I checked half of the list and found five of them, there may be more. --Crzycheetah 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which five copyrighted images did you find?--Ccson 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I hid them, click here.--Crzycheetah 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which five copyrighted images did you find?--Ccson 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I checked half of the list and found five of them, there may be more. --Crzycheetah 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- First, thank you for reviewing the article and I will be quick to make your requested changes. I obtained the images from the main article for each listed member, but if you can be more specific of which images you find objectionable; I will remove them? Thank you again.--Ccson 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are you in support now?--Ccson 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, as I said I just checked half of the list. There may be more. --Crzycheetah 08:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, but, if you're not going to verify the copyright status of the remaining images, how will you be able to remove your opposition?
- That's your job as a nominator to verify the copyright status of the remaining images. I randomly picked 3 images, two of them had copyright issues. I suggest you to go one by one and remove all copyrighted images. The copyrighted image is the one that has a copyrighted tag on it.--Crzycheetah 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are you in support now?--Ccson 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done--Ccson 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I don't see any copyrighted images now. The next problem I have is the overlinking. There's no need to link the people's name under their photos (in captions). They are linked in the list already, so what's the point of linking them again? --Crzycheetah 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done I modeled this list exactly like the List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni which has the names linked on the pictures, so I didn't think it was in violation of the Featured List Criteria. Can you provide a complete list of objections so I can address them at the same time?--Ccson 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't about violating the criteria, it was more like following the guidelines. Your last question had me laughing for a minute. It's just that I saw copyrighted images and stopped reviewing the list. Now, there are two things that bother me:
There are many red links or unlinked names. I assume that some members are not linked because they are just not notable enough to have their own articles. If so, I don't agree about that. There is a sentence at the beginning of the list that says, "Here follows a list of notable Alphas." If they are notable, then each of them needs to have an article about him. If they are not notable, then why are they on the list?
- Surely you're not suggesting that's someone notability is judged base on an article in Wikipedia. This article can and should stand on it own mertis because I have sourced all notability listed. In fact, there is no reason for a reader to view an article to verify facts in this article. The links are provided when there is a corresponding article, but wikipeda does not require that all names listed in an article have wikilink. I created the list based on who was notable based on their contribution to the category. I will remove the redlinks.--Ccson 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough.--Crzycheetah 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no explanation about Pledge chapters.
What do they mean? How one gets those Pledge chapters? What is the difference between any two?There are people who don't have any, why not? As you can see there are a lot of questions about this column, so it needs an explanation.
- Done I don't know which chapter each person pledged, but that's not what makes them notable, it's an optional field.--Ccson 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Is having a pledge chapter an option one may take? Or you mean that Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field?--Crzycheetah 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The latter, Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field. sorry for the confusion.--Ccson 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you need to note that the pledge chapters of those members are unknown because it shows that as if they didn't deserve any.--Crzycheetah 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I used the Featured list List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni as a model and it doesn't have anyhing for "Class Year" for students where they haven't yet verified the year.Would you prefer "Unknow", "?" "TBD" (to be determined), or something entirely different from these three suggestions?--Ccson 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing was missing in that Georgia list. I'd suggest you add ''unknown'' in all cells that misses thosepledge chapters.--Crzycheetah 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then I wonder why I would make such a statement that could easily be verified? What does your computer display for the following persons: Chucn Sannipoli, Stephen Pace, John Brown, lll, James Ellis, Nicole Jordan and Andy Runton? Thanks--Ccson 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- for names such as Josh Taylor, Thomas Okama, or Stan Brakhage where they list Stan as "Never Graduated", but the others who did graduate, but class year is "unkown", is left blank. There are many more, I just stopped checking half way through. I appreciate your suggestion, however; I just want this list to match the standard that has been set by current Featured List. Do you still require ''unknown'' in all cells that missing a pledge chapters?--Ccson 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd make the same suggestion to any of those FL's if I saw their nominations. I just dislike blank cells. Blank cells imply that the list is unfinished and requires additional info. If there is a special reason why those cells have to stay blank, than it has to be mentioned somewhere. I assume that you can't find out their pledge chapters, that's why I am suggesting the unknown note. I understand that this is somewhat of a nitpicking on my part, but there may be some people(readers) who could assume that those without pledge chapters didn't deserve any and their perception of those members worsens. I think we shouldn't leave anything for the readers to assume. Everything needs to be explained. This list may very well be a standard for future FLCs of this category.--Crzycheetah 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
- Nothing was missing in that Georgia list. I'd suggest you add ''unknown'' in all cells that misses thosepledge chapters.--Crzycheetah 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thanks!!
- Again, I used the Featured list List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni as a model and it doesn't have anyhing for "Class Year" for students where they haven't yet verified the year.Would you prefer "Unknow", "?" "TBD" (to be determined), or something entirely different from these three suggestions?--Ccson 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you need to note that the pledge chapters of those members are unknown because it shows that as if they didn't deserve any.--Crzycheetah 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The latter, Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field. sorry for the confusion.--Ccson 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Is having a pledge chapter an option one may take? Or you mean that Pledge Chapters column in this list is an optional field?--Crzycheetah 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I may see some other things that look bad to me, so I may be back with some more objections. This list is only going to improve from this.--Crzycheetah 06:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't about violating the criteria, it was more like following the guidelines. Your last question had me laughing for a minute. It's just that I saw copyrighted images and stopped reviewing the list. Now, there are two things that bother me:
- Weak Support I really believe that this list needs a star, but the article size (113,186 bytes) worries me.--Crzycheetah 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support A very well done list. 2much 21:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Extremely well done list.-RoBoTamice 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- ^ "Venglos first foreign coach". BBC. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
- ^ "Deadly Doug's managers". fansite(br0wn.co.uk). Retrieved 2007-08-23.