Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 27 September 2011 [1].
List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruby2010 comment! 03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Ruby2010
done
done
done
done
removed
done
done
done
done
done
reworded
done
done
done
done
done
done for the accessdate, no url because its a treelink
done
done
done
done
done These need resolving. Ruby2010 comment! 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Article now looks great. Ruby2010 comment! 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments (feel free to intersperse responses): –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Wikilink publisher and work fields in references at all applicable occurrences, not just the first one. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about WP:Overlink?
- Oh... that's weird. I thought reference lists lists were excluded from that, because they're lists. I'll ask about it, but for now, it's okay as-is. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)/Archive 11#Does overlinking apply to the references section? with, as with so many discussions on Wikipedia guidelines, absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. I guess that the refs can be kept as-is, but I'm not particularly happy about the layout. What if someone clicks a citation link to jump down and read a reference? Are they supposed to search through all the references to find a link if they want one? I won't oppose solely because of this issue, but I'm not thrilled with it either. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think linking refs every time is fine. Who knows which ref will be clicked on first? I think of it in the same way as I think of sortable tables. If there's no guarantee which link our readers click first, then we should link everything every time... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about WP:Overlink?
- Wikilink publisher and work fields in references at all applicable occurrences, not just the first one. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
done
done
done
done
corrected
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
After first linking them in the lead, I chose to link them once again on first use only
reworded
done
done
done
fixed
lol fixed
done
done
done
done
removed refs Crystal Clear x3 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
done
done
done'
done
done
done
done Crystal Clear x3 09:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
|
- Support Meets the criteria, well done NapHit (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.