Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [1].

---

Pearl Jam discography

I am nominating the discography because I believe it meets the criteria to be a Featured List. A lot of work has gone in to the article and I believe it to be complete and well-referenced. If there are any issues I will make sure to address them.-5- (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "9.5 million + (US)[21]" – What's the + for? "More than 9.5 million?" Just put 9.5 million since that would be the maximum that has been verified; this goes for all of them.

Gary King (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I copy-edited the lead and cleaned up anything I could find a while back. This is great work by -5-, just like his effort with all Pearl Jam-related articles. I just have two questions for the reviewers as I'm unclear what MOS:DISCOG has to say about them:

• Should Tribute albums be included in a band's discography (since its technically not by the band)?
• Is it alright to list the total number of live albums including the official bootlegs in the template or should just the major Live albums be counted there (ie, 6)? indopug (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks really really good! I only have a couple minor suggestions:

• I'd like to see the certifications re-arranged slightly. Mainly I think it would work better if country abbreviations come before the actual certification rather then after, to avoid parentheses. IE "US: Gold" or something like that. Also, the first time a country is mentioned in the certification column(s), wikilink it to the certifying body (RIAA, BPI, etc), or if the certifying body doesn't have a page, then the country. Lastly, I think it's only necessary to wikilnk certifications in the first table.
• I see that most of the certifications have {{nowrap}} on them, which is good, but not some of the singles.
• Why do all of the miscellaneous tracks have a bullet point to their left?
• It appears that some of the Misc. tracks have already appeared on other Pearl Jam releases. In general, it's not necessary to mention these, since they've already been released. In tables like this, we're only concerned with original, previously-unreleased material.
• The tribute albums are also unnecessary, since Pearl Jam aren't the one's that made them. For this and the previous point, see MOS:DISCOG.
• Citation #21 needs a publisher.
• The dash in "rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003" should be an en-dash (–) not a hyphen (-).
• Why is are tracks that were never released as a single in the singles table?

• This also relates to the singles tallies in the lead and infobox. If they aren't actually singles, they probably shouldn't be mentioned in the tallies of singles, right? Maybe you could just move those to a different table? I've never come across a situation like this, so I don't know if I have the perfect solution, but as it is it's kind of confusing.

• At one time it looked like this. Perhaps we could try it this way again?-5- (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• In citation #14, All Music Guide is now Allmusic. And it should be wikilinked at least in the first citation.

• Same with #35.

• Citation #25's publisher should be Australian Recording Industry Association (spelled out, not abbreviated).

• I'm not sure what "Accreditations. aria.com.au." is doing in citation#25.

• Citation #30 needs to be formatted properly. Drewcifer (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1. 30's publisher value doesn't match #9, #31, and #32. ("Billboard.com") And some are wikilinked some aren't.

• "with Irons being replaced by former Matt Cameron" what does former mean here?
• There's not need for the two hearers in the single chart column in the Videos table. Drewcifer (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I know this might become a nightmare, but should the discography at least list the "official bootlegs" that were commercially released? A few of them charted on Billboard. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Here's what I have to say:

• "Love, Reign o'er Me" should have a note as to where it comes from (i.e which album/CD)
  • It doesn't come from an album. It was only released as a single.-5- (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Miscellaneous songs should only be songs that have never appeared on anyway PJ albums/singles etc. "Go" from Riding Giants: Soundtrack is an example of something that shouldn't be listed. Anything that's live (apart from live songs that have appeared on PJ albums/singles) can be included.
• Is bootleg really the correct term. It's a bit of a misnomer; describing officially endorsed/released music recordings as bootlegs. Do any official sources actually ever describe these recordings as "bootleg"?
  • They have always been referred to as "bootlegs" by the band itself. Check Pearl Jam's official website , for instance.-5- (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Music video directors need to be cited. The self-referential argument does not apply here as some of the music videos were not released. Would it be prudent to note why these weren't released?

mvdbase is generally not considered reliable. Try to use individual magazine articles (like you did with Chris Cuffaro). indopug (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Official bootlegs will be available for the band's 2008 U.S. Tour in FLAC, MP3, and CD formats." statement isn't cited.

That's me. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Ref 44 needs proper completion.
• 72 "live albums" but the infobox doesn't agree, perhaps the infobox ignores these releases? Maybe something for DISCOG to discuss - 72 is a significant number of releases not to be included in the infobox...

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The 72 are not called "Live albums" per se, but "Official bootlegs". I wonder if the template can accommodate an new header for them. indopug (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [2].

---

List of Governors of Ohio

Back again, following the promotions of List of Governors of Pennsylvania and List of Governors of New York, here we are again. A preemptive comment - yes, three governors were Postmaster General, but only one was when it was a cabinet-level office, which is why only that one is mentioned in the listing of higher offices. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see some images next to the main table of the governors similar to the New York and Pennsylvania articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • IMAGES! I knew I forgot something. I'll get to that. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article history [3]; were the images removed for a reason? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; they were incomplete, and past FLCs have demanded images only be included in the table if we have all of them. Also, previous FLCs also wanted the bold links gone from the intro, which is why it and PA were formatted in that fashion (since I just reverted those, letting you know why.)

• I'll either have to suspend this or ask folks to bear with me, but in my hurry to get the governor list up to snuff, I completely forgot about the lieutenant governor column. This'll take me a day or two to properly work out, since the state of Ohio, in its wisdom, seems to have chosen not to have historical information on this office available online. --Golbez (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I've finished up the Lt. Gov column and added a few more references, so I open this one back up. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice, well laid out, informative. Good job. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Society (1969). Retrieved" — unlink the year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • You're going to have to take that up with the architects of the cite web template, I won't be blamed for their work. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "165-166" — use en dash per WP:DASH
  • Already done by someone else. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The H's and S's in the "Other high offices held" table should probably be centered like in the other governor Featured Lists
• The page range in note [C] needs to have an endash, not an emdash
• While it's obvious after a moment what it means, at first glance note [17] makes it sound like two terms were three years long; perhaps "thus, Pattison's term (completed by Lieutenant Governor Harris) was extended to three years" or something similar

Otherwise, it looks very good. —Salmar ^(talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • All done, not necessarily by me. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks good, support —Salmar ^(talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I must admit, I like the list alot, but one thing really confused me: why are the in-line citations in letters not numbers like every other article I have ever seen on Wikipedia? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I think somewhere along the lines the citations and the footnotes got swapped around. But that's my best guess. Is this intentional? Drewcifer (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. See the other featured governor lists. The prime reason for this is that we don't have two true classes of footnotes available with the ref tag. Ideally, I would be able to <ref group='footnote'> for the table notes, and use <ref group='citation'> for the citations for the notes. Unfortunately, while the group parameter does exist now, we can't nest them, which defeats the whole purpose of splitting footnotes from citations. So until such capability is supplied, I see no way to totally separate footnotes and citations except to use both <ref>s and {{ref}}s. The way I do it has been to use <ref>s for the footnotes, and {{ref}}s for the citations; List of Lieutenant Governors of Wisconsin, a related list done by someone else, flipped this around, since if that one was done that way, it would have run out of letters. So, long story short - this is the best way, at present, to separate footnotes from citations. I would love to be able to use all ref tags, but since they cannot be nested this is not yet possible. --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I like the way this list was organized! I have just one suggestion:

• In the lead, please link the first mention of "lieutenant governor" to Lieutenant Governor of Ohio.--Dem393 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1, 6.

• Many folks will find it strange to think of military and naval forces of a US state. Can it be more explicit, further down, rather than privileging this claim right at the top? Why are both words linked?
  • Why? Because it was the template I copied. I'll link specifically to Ohio National Guard.
• "six out of"—which word can go?
  • Fixed.
• an election.
  • Fixed.
• removed/moved
  • Fixed.
• MOS breach in piping of OHS ref., among others. See en dashes.
  • You're going to have to clarify this, what do you mean by "MOS breach in piping"? --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• The old "noun plus -ing" grammatical problem: "11 days after the governor preceding them resigned". Euuuw.
  • Fixed, I think.
• Etc. Needs a careful copy-edit throughout (not just these random examples), preferably by someone fresh to the text.
  • I agree, more eyes are always good. Like yours! --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why no brief explanation of the parties/party names? They seem to have evolved during the period covered by the table.
  • That's actually a good idea, explain the major shifts in party power over the years. (Though really the only major shift was to the Republican Party in the 1850s; everything else has been due to the growth and death of parties)
• Strickland pic badly interfering with the table; so is the Cox pic. Others elbow into just the right-most column. Rather large pics, some of them. Why not put more of the pics in the lead and move the mini-list there down? TONY (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) PS Check MOS on right-facing portraits. TONY (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I work on a huge monitor so such picture/table issues escape me; however, I shrank my window and still saw no specific problem with Strickland and Cox. What problems are they causing? As for rather large pics, I think that's for the user to decide, isn't it? I used to force pics in these tables to 130px but now I leave it to the user's specifications. What resolution are you running at, so I can see what you're seeing? As for the MOS, I'll take a look at that now... OK, I see, though I chose the pictures based primarily on availability, and secondarily on notability. If I switch to use only left-facing photos, I'll have to change a few of these to possibly inferior choices... --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Golbez, it's a very good list, as usual.
• I've taken the liberty of following WP:IMAGES and made all the images upright thumbs. This means they're all the same size, regardless of their original size/orientation etc.
  • Oh. Well. Nice to know that exists, then, I'll make use of that in the future. :)
• I feel that the text in the Governors section (e.g. "New York ceded its claim in 1782") could use citation.
  • Good idea, since looking at state cessions et.al. this seems poorly sourced. Done.
• Now, incomplete sentences (fragments) in the notes. Strictly speaking fragments shouldn't have periods. What do you think?
  • I think it's cleaner to have them all have periods. I think the current image MOS is that if you have one image with a full-sentence caption which requires a period, it's best to put periods at the ends of all the captions, even if they are fragments (I could be very wrong on this but that's what I recall); I see no reason to not do the same with footnotes. :)
• Higher offices held table. Very expansive. I'd force the col widths as on my display (only 1280 wide), the Term col looks ridiculous - almost three times too large with the dates crammed up on the left hand side.
  • Or, I could simply get rid of the width enforcement, I see no reason it has to be 100%.
• Strickland looks like he has an em-dash in that table - ranges should be en-dash (and maybe you could add "Present"?)
  • But shouldn't open ranges have emdashes? Either way, it's -present now, though I prefer an emdash! :P

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• All fixed. --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [4].

---

List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks

Self-Nomination copied the format from other first round draft picks pages, and created this page. Put references down at the bottom and the players whose pages don't exist aren't wikilinked. --Gman124 ^talk 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Support Citations now meet my satisfaction. GreenJoe 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • added refernces. --Gman124 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The references you've added are great. In the table itself, you have this nice, tidy notes section, but only a handful of the boxes are used for in-line citations. Do you see what I mean? GreenJoe 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I only added notes for picks that were involved in a trade, so do they need to be for others as well?. Gman124 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, I didn't understand that. If possible, it would be great if you could. If not, let me know. 13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
  •  Done cut the opening sentence, since it didn't really give additional info.--Gman124 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• WP:LS#Bold title says don't wikilink the bold text
  •  Donemoved the wikilink of Eagles to the next time Philadelphia Eagles is written. --Gman124 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Put NFL in parentheses after "National Football League" Done
• Per WP:ACCESS, don't use small writing (as in the key table) as it hinders poor-sighted people Done
• I think other lists are using italics rather than bolding "No pick"s
  •  Done the other lists use both bolding and italics, so I italicized the "No Picks" and changed it to No first-round draft pick.--Gman124 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Image captions "Eagles" should be "Eagles'" Done

That's it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Oppose for now

• • I think "most recent first round" pick should be mentioned in the end of the lead.
  • In the lead, "selections was" - grammar?
  • The "Every year during April, each NFL franchise..." sentence needs in-line citation.
  • "always" shouldn't be in italics.
  • The "The team has also selected number two..." sentence needs to be reworded better.
  • ^same thing with the "The Eagles have selected players..." sentence.
  • Per WP:COLOR, color shouldn't be the only indicator.
  • As of now, there are six players that are not linked. First-round selections are notable, plus I have not seen any similar FLs so far with "unlinked" players.
    • The pages for those players don't exist, so can't really have red-links. So that's why they are not linked. --Gman124 ^talk 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What I was saying is that those pages should exist. In this case, unlinked=red linked, since the names are notable. --Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Linked the players' name, though I don't see why you want the articles that don't exist to be linked. --Gman124 ^talk 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Separate notes from citations. Examples: Packers and Saints.
  • Please, proofread the notes one more time. Done
    • Notes e, k, m are missing the subject(Eagles), and the last note states Philadelphia while other notes mention "Eagles". Also link those teams that were mentioned in the trade notes.--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Linked the team names and fixed up the notes. --Gman124 ^talk 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Adding two more comments:

• • In the table, there is a mention of "early era" and "modern era", but not in the lead. What do these eras mean?
    • modern era is just the time when the AFL and NFL completed their merger. early era is before that. --Gman124 ^talk 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Mention it in the lead.--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Put a line about it in the lead. --Gman124 ^talk 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A "Key" for the positions should be added. Done
    • Just to be consistent with recent FLs, could you make the "Key" a separate section? Done--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, where did McNabb's picture go?--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • i accidently removed it, now I put it back. --Gman124 ^talk 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments I have several questions.
  • Why do you use either "T" or "OT' to represent offensive tackle, why not just use one abbreviation? Done
  • Right now, "number one overall picks" are indicated by color, asterisk, and a note([a]), don't you think that the note becomes redundant? Same thing with Hall of Fame selection. Done
  • Why is No first-round draft pick bolded? I don't think it's so important that it needs to be bolded. Furthermore, why not just "no pick"? It's obvious that we're talking about first-round of some draft by just looking at the title of the page. Done

--Crzycheetah 09:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support I will support as soon as those six articles are created. In sports pages like this, all items should be blue-linked(no red links or black text), meaning that all players should have their own articles. Those six players don't have an article in Wikipedia, even though they deserve to have one.--Crzycheetah 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • added pages. --Gman124 ^talk 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Players who played on collegiate level are notable. There was a disamg. link that I fixed, so Harry Jones is a red link for now. I am going to support anyway, though. Thanks for your hard work.--Crzycheetah 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • added Harry Jones as well. --Gman124 ^talk 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "pick. [4]" — extra spaceY
• Why are the years bolded? There's no reason is there?
  • Y removed the bolding from years. --Gman124 ^talk 05:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• You don't actually state who the Philadelphia Eagles are - this is an important introductory concept for those unfamiliar with NFL.Y
• "...after they went ..." unclear who "they" are in the context of this sentence.Y
• "which ended the NFL's early era and started the NFL's modern era" a little clunky, and what exactly does it mean? Who said it was the end/start of eras?
  • I had copied that from other lists and the NFL article, but seemed kind of trivial to include that in this article so I have removed it. --Gman124 ^talk 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Jay Berwanger is linked twice in quick succession.Y
• As is Chuck Bednarik.Y
• Don't force the thumb size, just thumb is fine.
  • Y removed the size, but now the pic is too small. --Gman124 ^talk 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• remove spaces betweens notes (e.g. [a] [b] [d])Y
• Colours alone should not be used to distinguish certain features (see WP:COLOR).Y
• "Overall" or "overall" in the notes?Y
• "profootballhof.com" or "Pro Football Hall of Fame official Web site" in citations?Y
• You have "PhiladelphiaEagles.com" but not "NFL.com" - why not?
  • I have the NFL.com listed down at the bottom under general references, plus the NFL>com doesn't explain very clearly why the team didn't have the pick for some year, they just had traded to X or acquired from Y. while the PhiladelphiaEagles.com explains everything like what the Eagles got for trading their first round pick or what they gave away to get additional first round pick, so in my opinion PhiladelphiaEagles.com is just a better source. --Gman124 ^talk 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great job on fixing up the others' concerns, it seems to meet the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [5].

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s

previous FLC (18:54, 21 May 2008)

Renominating this list. Previous FLC was not promoted, though all issues presented by reviewers were addressed and no other objections were given. As before, article is in similar format to previous FLs for Guitar Hero I and II. --MASEM 11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Rocks the 80s was sold only as a game, rather than a bundle version with a guitar controller as both Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II did." Needs a a ref.
• What does Setlist mean?
• The second paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph of Setlist seem similar (covering gameplay). Could they be combined?
• Song and Artist columns are centered, and the rest are not; they should be all consistent.
• The Year column is not really clear; maybe you could have it as Release Date, or something like that.

Noble Story (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Point by point:
  • Ref added
  • Wikilinked "set list" in a new sentence after that lead
  • They are close, but different; the first para is about the general gameplay (that you mimic guitar playing); the second is about how the functionality of the songs work. Merging them is possible, but given that there's a section break between the concepts... I can try if this is really a problem but I think logically it makes better sense this way.
  • There's no special centering formatting. On my browsers, all columns are centered. (and if this is the header, I can't change it's location to make the header titles centered).
  • The setup is similar to a discography per comments from other GH lists, and this has the first column as "Year". I have mentioned what the year column is in the preceeding text to help though.
• --MASEM 15:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support My concerns have been put to rest, and I think it looks goods. Noble Story (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Not sure "did" is the correct word in "Rocks the 80s was sold only as a game, rather than a bundle version with a guitar controller as both Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II did."
• According to What I Like About You (song) which coincidentally, I was reading earlier today, the Romantics have sued the makers for it's inclusion. Perhaps this should be mentioned.
• Was the title released in Europe? Were any of the songs changed like Rock Band has?
• I still feel strongly that most visitors to this page probably want to see what order they play the songs in and what is unlocked when, and I think the default sort should reflect that

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Fixed the first two points. There is the lawsuit issue, but this is covered in the article on the game itself. There was a European release, but beyond a name change, nothing else was changed (that can be cited, at least).
  • The last point, again, the argument is that we are presenting these lists as a discography, and not as a game guide (which it would be if ordered in the tier information), See the previous discussion at [GH1 songline FLC]. This also allows for the consistency that is needed in that GH2 and GH3 have two different orders of the songs in the game, likely the 4th game (Guitar Hero World Tour) will be like Rock Band (video game) that also can be sorted in 3-4 different ways. If we go by the approach from the standpoint of just listing songs, and not so much to replicate the gameplay experience, it is much easier to create these more complicated lists. --MASEM 13:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Following your explanation above re the sort order you're probably right, so I can deal with the default sort order of the table. Unfortunately I'm still not ready to support at the moment. The Lead section of WP:Lead section says the Lead should "introduce the article" and should also "stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." I'd like to see a secondary reference for the European game title (from a video game magazine or something for example, rather than a sales website). The article is about the songs in the game, yet out of the two paragraphs, only one sentence discusses the songs: "As implied by the game's title, all the songs were either created during the 1980s, or, in one case, parodies works of the 1980s." The gameplay paragraph doesn't really introduce or stand alone as an overview of the article, because the songs really have nothing to do with gameplay. There should instead be only one or two sentences which include the link to Guitar Hero (series)#Gameplay , and that's it. It should mention the fact that some songs are master recordings, some are cover versions (perhaps mention who performed them if you can find it anywhere, maybe in the game's end-credits). It should mention that the songs are released to play in groups and each group is unlocked by completing the previous. Are the tier's grouped by difficulty, or by genre? Basically a lot of the==Set list==prose should instead be in the Lede. Re controversies, I still think the Romantics' lawsuit regarding "What I Like About You (song)" should be mentioned here as it relates directly to the songs. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reordered the lead (along with other points), taking out excess information about the gameplay but leaving the general overview, and how the songs are presented (addressing the tier and difficulty issues), I also included the Romantics lawsuit, with the seealso to the main article for more. --MASEM 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Master recording tab doesn't seem to work in the table. The problem is also present in other Guitar Hero lists. --Mika1h (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Comment Everything looks good except for the Master recording tab. What's up with that? Drewcifer (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• (and an External links section would be nice too). Drewcifer (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• What's up with Note 3 on "Ain't Nothin' But a Good Time"? Doesn't seem to go anywhere.

• "Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (Guitar Hero: Rocks the 80s in Europe) is a music video game developed by Harmonix and published by RedOctane and Activision in 2007 for the PlayStation 2 console that allows players to use a guitar-shaped controller to play along with several rock songs." Very long intro sentence.
• "The is considered" the game? the what?
• "parodies works of the 1980s as listed below." kind of awkward. As what is listed below? Doesn't the rest of the sentence make this phrase a little redundant? Drewcifer (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think I know - there's no "text" in that to sort on. Some hidden stuff will fix it - will do RSN. --MASEM 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This list is fixed (master recordings should be sortable) but I will apply the same to the other two lists. --MASEM 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional points above have been dealt with. --MASEM 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The game [...] The game" → "The game [...] It"?
• "the Guitar Hero series, part of" → "the Guitar Hero series, and is part of"
• "Rocks the 80s was sold only as a game," → "Rocks the 80s was sold without a peripheral,"?

Gary King (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, though I'm trying to figure out ways to make "80s was sold without a guitar" more clear, if that's possible. --MASEM 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Last one

• Ref [1] has the publisher= field, filled out, but it's not rendering in the actual reference. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually it just had "published" (d, not r) filled in; fixed and also took liberty to link publisher when possible. --MASEM 12:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I just have one objection right now:

• Please explain how the game itself works in terms of difficulty and tiers. Take a look at List of songs in Guitar Hero. The Main setlist section has a little paragraph that explains the tiers and difficulties. Other than that, I really like this list.--Dem393 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• One of the earlier comments suggested that the gameplay needed to be cut back, linking to the common gameplay elements section in the main Guitar Hero (series) page. This is sorta conflicting advice. (I think in GH1 it was fine as there was more to the whole list, as you had extra content. Here, you just have a list and that's it. )--MASEM 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well...could you at least explain what a tier is? Not everyone who reads this list might know what a tier is, so a little explanation would be helpful. You don't have to explain the various difficulties, I guess.--Dem393 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Added. --MASEM 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, now I looked this list over again, and I have another comment right now. In the "Controversy" section, please provide the date in which the lawsuit was filed. This way, readers could see this in perspective and think "Gee...this wasn't too long ago! That's why the case hasn't been resolved yet!"--Dem393 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  While the dates are in the references, I've added month/years for the two key points for reference. --MASEM 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  Looks good! Support --Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Ref [1] should be moved to other side of parenthesis.
• "...which were also sold in a bundle .." why is "also" here if this version wasn't sold in a bundle?
• "...in one case, parodies works of the 1980s..." in one case then it just parodied one work of the 1980s?
• "cooperative " or "co-operative "?
• The "see also" is awkwardly placed - wouldn't a subsection be better?
• "(Bang Your Head).." sorts first - presumably it shouldn't, but it's doing it because of the parenthesis.
• Can you fiddle with the col widths so the Encore tiers fit on a single row and the sort button is on the same row for the Year heading (which, incidentally, doesn't look centrally aligned but it may just be me)?
• Not sure if song links should point at albums.
• Note 3 is missing a full stop.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Limozeen song does not parody any one specific work of the 80s, it's a style parody as opposed to a song parody. The column widths are consistent with previous tables and with discographies - what this means is that the year column is that short, and unfortunately, the control of the sort gadget is uncontrollable so the titles do end up off-center; the tier column is lined up in a way so that when the column is large enough, the tier numbers and names line up easily, the encores being just the line below it (BRs are used here). Songs should not point to albums so that has been fixed, as well as the other points. --MASEM 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You can use the {{sort}} template innovatively to solve these sort of problems. And as for being consistent with other tables, perhaps they're all wrong. There's no requirement for the tables to be identical across lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Looks great! Seems that the comments that were here first have really helped to bring this list to where it should be a featured list. It meets all the criteria, the way I see it. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:11, 15 June 2008 [6].

---

List of tallest buildings in Denver

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I found two prombles in the lead, but I went ahead and fixed them. Alaskan assassin (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Baldrick90 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks great. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- Let me know about image mapping. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support The only thing that I'd recommend is to update the retrieval dates. None of the links are dead, but the information may be changed/removed. I even saw a link that was last accessed more than a year ago. I think it would be better to go over the links one more time.--Crzycheetah 21:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Emporis seems to rank the Ritz Carlton, Denver at 16th. I don't see it mentioned on your list. Am I misreading something somewhere? Zagalejo^^^ 08:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and in case you didn't notice, several of these buildings (including the second-tallest in the city) have been listed at AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support another great list. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [7].

---

List of Nine Inch Nails tours

A little more robust then most tour lists I've seen, so hopefully this list will set the bar a little higher. Though with more scope comes the potential for more issues, so I'm definitely open to suggestions. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks pretty good. I'd like to see a separate column in the tables for the citations, might look a bit cleaner, but otherwise it's very well done. GreenJoe 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do the table headers need to be coloured? I generally disapprove of colour unless really needed and here it doesn't seem needed. indopug (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the grey areas to differentiate the headers from the main table. Usually the difference is fairly obvious, but there's alot of crazy merged-cell type stuff going on in the tables, so I thought it would be best to make them stand out a bit. And I don't think it hurts the list any. Drewcifer (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why are there no authors listed for the Spin and Musician cites? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Both sources are actually interviews with Reznor. So, like alot of interviews, the question part of the interview is just "Spin/Musician" asking a question, and Reznor answering. Nothing is really "written", so an author does not apply. Drewcifer (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should North America, South America, Europe, Australia, Japan, and China in the lead be linked? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so (done). Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, can't find anything else wrong. Support Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help and your support! Drewcifer (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if I can express myself clearly but I'll try: I think the table may confuse a few people the way it is structured now, esp. the Year and Tour leg columns. When somebody sees that the Tour leg cell of the Sin tour is so vertically small, they may interpret it as meaning that the tour lasted for lesser time as compared to say Lolapalooza, instead of realising that a tour's cell height is solely dependent on the stacking of info in that row. (For eg: the Lolapalooza row is bigger because there are more bands in the Other acts section, hence occupying more space).

Another similar problem is that users may co-relate the position and height of a row with the corresponding year and assume that that particular tour happened during that time of the year for that long. For example, looking at the way the Sin tour is placed, people could misunderstand that it occured in December 90 and Jan 91. While looking at the bigger Lolapalooza row, assume that it stretches from February (immediately after the Sin tour ended) to around October 91, before the band immediately began the GNR tour. Another example, Fragility 1.0 happened for the whole of 99. I guess a solution would be replacing the Year column with a Duration column: like Feb 90 to March 90. indopug (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting points. I follow you completely, but I'm just not sure if it's a big enough problem to rework the whole table for. Of course it's impossible to know how many people would be confused in such a way, but I just don't see a very reasonable solution. I could resize the cells to mimic the dates/times of the tours, but that would be a hugely difficult task code-wise, and would pretty much assure that only I could edit the article from now on. Furthermore, I don't know if I've ever seen an article or list at all in Wikipedia with proportional sizing. Maybe this one template? Not that that doesn't mean I couldn't do it, but I'd have no examples to work off of, so the results might not be as expected. I could add dates and what not, but the tables are already jam-packed full of info as it is. What about adding a little prose-based note/disclaimer? That would be simple enough, and hopefully address the problem. Or, a slightly fancier solution would be to add one or more time lines, akin to the time line I put in Nine Inch Nails live performances (towards the bottom). Either one for the whole page or one per-tour, detailing each leg and it's proportional length. What do you think? Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is no need of all that. Just have a separate Duration column with a different cell for each Tour leg. So for the Hate tour it would be August–October 1990 while for Sin tour it would be December 1990–February 1991. This column could replace the Year column. indopug (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like it is now? (Look towards the bottom) Drewcifer (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I'd prefer full month names, but if it makes it too cramped and ugly, don't bother. I suppose you have difficulty finding durations for the earlier tours? indopug (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, full months names were kind of cramping my style, and they made some of the rows taller then they had to be. And as far as the earlier tours go, I don't think I'll have any trouble, but I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not replace the lead sentence with "Nine Inch Nails is an American industrial rock act, founded in 1988 by Trent Reznor in Cleveland, Ohio." We already know its a list of NIN tours from the title. Nine Inch Nails as a live band → The Nine Inch Nails live band? "Skinny Puppy, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Peter Murphy, and Guns 'N' Roses." and "Unkle, Marilyn Manson, Atari Teenage Riot, and A Perfect Circle." why are these lists of names neeeded at all? If you want to bulk up the lead, maybe you can include stuff from its sister article about the difference between the studio and live sound, the elaborate stage set-ups etc.

(←)The list of other bands was in an attempt to summarize the list as best I could, per WP:LEAD. So, I tried to have every column of the table(s) represented in some way, and the "Other acts" column is best summarized through a short list of the most notable acts that have been associated with NIN tours. As far as describing the band as "NIN as a live band" vs. "The NIN live band", it's a tricky situation semantically, since both the studio and live incarnations are known by the same name, but are inherently different. It's a tricky word game, but I think the way it is right now works best. As for the lead, I've reworked it a bit to reflect your suggestions, including redoing the first sentence, and using a bit of stuff from the NIN live performances article. I'm hesitant to include too much from the other article, especially stuff like visual elements and the like, since it doesn't really apply to this list. So, the main thing I included from the other article is a clearer explanation of the NIN in-studio vs NIN live thing. Let me know if you think its alright. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that image free? It has an OTRS tag but it has a fair-use license (I'm quite confused actually). If its not free, it doesn't satisfy fair-use criteria; you'll have to remove it. There are pplenty of free NIN pics, and any one of them can be used. indopug (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not 100% sure. The pic itself is GFDL, but technically it's a picture of a copyrighted poster. Do you know how that kind of thing works? Drewcifer (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use that picture of Reznor from Lollapalooza? It's from a notable tour the group did, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for the time being I've swapped them as you suggested. However I'll check with WP:FUC about the posters pic, since I'd much prefer having that one up. But the Reznor Lolapalooza pic will certainly do in its absence. Drewcifer (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked about the photo, and got these responses Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Photos of copyrighted material. So, looks like it's cool to use. I've swapped the posters photo back. Let me know if there's still any concerns with it. Drewcifer (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: Great job. More importantly, a model article we can all rip off :) indopug (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and your support. And by all means, steal away! Drewcifer (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Interesting, and comprehensive. I prefer this over the only other Tour FL, List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, even though I prefer Kylie's music to NIN's any day!

That's WP:POV and is unacceptable. =)

• Refer to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence FIXED
• It's unclear which the Pretty Hate Machine tour is in the first table

That would be the Hate and Sin tours. Do you have any suggestions to make this clearer? I could put something like "Pretty Hate Machine tour – Sin tour" I suppose. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm assuming "Self-Destruct", "Fragility", etc are the names of the major concerts, but this isn't clear

Those are names of entire legs. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also, given that they are the section titles, is it necessary to repeat the same in the header of the tables? REMOVED
• Perhaps the columns titled "Location(s) (dates)" should be "Location(s) (number of dates)" or "(# of dates)

I'd rather keep it as is, as I think it's pretty self-explanatory, and I'm not a fan of putting symbols in column headers. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I only clicked on one, but the references don't reflect the names of the tour legs. For example Performance 2007's "European tour" - it isn't called that in the link, and it seems odd that as the other is the "Summer/Fall tour", this isn't the "Spring tour". How did you come by the names?

That's all I got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the names are the official names of various legs (ie. "Fragility 1.0", "Sin tour", etc). But there are others that are discreet legs of the tour, but lack an official title. So for those I just named them something descriptive based on when/where the tour was. ie "Summer international tour", since it was during the summer and was international. Is this not clear? Do you have any suggestions to make the difference clearer? I could put the official titles in quotations, but I'm not sure that's the best solution. But you're right, they were a tad inconsistent, I've tweaked a few of the names to hopefully fix this. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

More I still like this list so I want to support except for the following remaining things regarding references

• The LS goes into a lot of detail regarding the band lineup and how much it has changed over the years, and yet none of the tables' references that I clicked on had anything to verify the lineup.

• Good point, good point. I guess that means that I'm going to have to import a ton of citations from Nine Inch Nails live performances. I'll start on that right away.

• Do references 3, 5, and 6 have authors that can be attributed?

• All of these are interviews by the publication in general. So "Spin" (or whatever magazine it is) "asks" a question, Reznor responds, and then the magainze asks another question. So there's not really author per se (or at least they're not acknowledged).

• Do references 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 have internet links?

• Yes and no. They're on The NIN Hotline, but they're technically copyright violations, so I can't link to them.

• This is a pet hate of mine, so its up to you, but ref links in tables that are next to words without punctuation (such as "Nights of Nothing tour[9]") are ugly. Can reference columns be created instead?

• I could go either way, but with your above point in mind, and the fact that the refs are going to be increased dramatically, I think a separate column might be called for now.

That's it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll start on this stuff right away. Might take me a little bit, though. Drewcifer (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, turns out adding all the citations wasn't that much work after all. All done! Drewcifer (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and just to be clear: intstead of having a million repeated citations in each row, I tried to just cite changes in lineup. Hence, there's more citations when a change occurred, rather then for tours where the lineup remained the same from the previous tour and/or remained the same for the next. Hope that makes sense. Drewcifer (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Meets all criteria. I really like this one. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help and suggestions. Drewcifer (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's "Guns N' Roses"
• You don't need "See also" since you've already linked to that article

Gary King (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed both. Drewcifer (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed Remove that section header called Tours, and make the various tour sub-sections into section headers. Its like how discographies don't have a Discography section under which there would be albums, singles etc. indopug (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [8].

---

Faith No More discography

The Discography for Faith No More. I'm nominating it because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support After chasing down a million of my innane suggestions, I'm happy to finally support. Very nice work! Drewcifer (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Oppose Definitely a good start, but it still needs alot of work. In general, the list's style is pretty much contradictory to every other FL discog. In many cases the discog's style differs from precedence in ways that aren't just aesthetic, but hurts the functionality of the list as well. I'd recommend a close look at MOS:DISCOG for some adive, as well as looking at previous FL discogs for good examples, my personal favorites being Nine Inch Nails discography and The Prodigy discography. Drewcifer (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looking better. Few more minor issues I see:

I originally based the design of it on the Powderfinger discography, which is why many of the parts of it are styled the way they are. I have now changed it to better suit, however. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]]) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A few more issues I see:

• Why do all the tables use small font?
• The singles column on the Studio albums is unnecessary: the singles table says the exact same thing, no need to repeat the same thing twice.
• The dashes in the chart columns should be em-dashes (—).
• The chart columns should be in the following order: home country first, then alphabetical by English-language name.
• Don't wikilink dates if not complete (like just a year).
• Some of the release titles are indented some, aren't. I'd go with unindented throughout. Scratch that, it just appears that way because some of the tables are squished and the titles are center aligned. I'd recommend left alinging them (like normal) to avoid this problem.
• This is just a personal preference, but I'm leaning towards a single certifications column, not a column per certifying body/country. IE like The Prodigy discography. IT would help make the tables (which are a little wide) more manageable.
• "Chart positions" isn't specific enough. I'd recommend "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions" or something like that.
• B-sides are generally discouraged in discographies: this is a discography, not a songography. We are concerned with the band's releases, not the individual tracks on those releases.
• Some instances of "Platinum" are lower-cased, some are upper cased. Upper case is the correct form, I believe.

Hopefully this will be enough to get you started. All this and more can be found on MOS:DISCOG. Please take a look for more suggestions/advice/examples. Drewcifer (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for reordering the columns, those things are now done. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]] 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the BooYaa tribe footnote thing might be better suited to the same section, rather then the references section. Drewcifer (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Consider merging the two successive Ralph Ziman cells.
• What happened to the directors of the music videos for Another Body Murdered and Richocet?
• Try adding a # to catalog numbers. Also consider putting it in small font, to differentiate it from the label.
• For the certifications, I would recommend replacing the RIAA/BPI/etc with the countries (abbreviated of course), but linking to RIAA/BPI/etc.
• External links shouldn't be a subsection.
• In the lead, "Slash" should be "Slash Records".

Y Done all them, including the chart rows reorder. The BooYaa tribe footnote is used in two sections, so its at the bottom to avoid repeating it. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The citations in general need alot of cleanup. They all need to give full attribution, and as much as is available. Consider using citation templates since they do alot of the work for you.

The citations still need alot of work. They're overall inconsistent, and many don't give full attribution.

• MVDBase is not considered a reliable source. but the good thing is music videos are typically considered to cite themselves (since they usually contain credit for Directors), so you can just remove the citations and you'r cool.
• Why does You Fat Bastards have a Recorded date?
• Canada should be abbreviated as CAN, not CA, so as to not be confused with California.
• Also concerning abbreviations, 3-letter abbreviations are generally better then two-letters, except where two is more appropriate (such as US, UK, NZ, etc). Also, abbreviations should be in English, not the country's official language. Also, they should be alphabetized by English-language name, not indgeinous name. Also (lots of alsos, I know), many of the abbreviations are not consistent throughout the article. the United States is abbreviated as USA and US (latter preferable), Netherlands as NLD and NET (the former preferable), Switzerland as SWI and SWT (the former preferable), France as FR and FRA (the latter preferable), and so on.
• Since there's so many citations for the certifications, I'd recommend putting them next to the content being sourced, not the column header. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. You Fat Bastards had a recorded date because it seemed like a good idea at the time. All the citations now use {{Cite web}}. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "As of March 2008" is a little unnecessary. Mainly since the band is defunct (and has been for 10 years now). Also because, since the band is now defunct, I'd imagine most of the prose should be in the past tense. And also because it's a phrase that constantly needs updating.
• "Their second album, Introduce Yourself, was released in April 1987 and shortly afterwards they fired Chuck Mosely, their vocalist at the time, and replaced him with Mike Patton." Like previous sentences I've pointed out, this sentence is confusing becuse it's long and changes topic midway though. Split it up into two sentences to make it more readable.
• In general, consider whether it's important to the band overall body of work what month/day something was release. For example, I think it would be a cleaner read if "ased their fifth studio album, King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime, on March 13, 1995" were changed to "ased their fifth studio album, King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime, in 1995". The day doesn't seem to have any significance here in the lead, so it's unneccessary detail. Same thing with the other full dates.
• Australia is abbreviated as AU in the certifications column of the first table. Drewcifer (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Similar columns between tables should ideally be kept a consistent width (ie the Title and Certifications columns in the first few tables, and the Title columns in the singles and music video tables).
  • Looks better, but I think you overdid it a little bit. Namely, the first few tables are now so wide that they squish some of the other columns on smaller monitors (such as mine). I realize this is to make space for You Fat Bastard's long title, but I think it would be better to have that break into two lines, and make the title column a little closer to everything else.
• I'm a little wary of http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/. Furthermore, I'm a little wary of the sentence it's sourcing (that The Real Thing) is highly acclaimed. Not that it's a disputed fact, but I don't think it belongs here. So I'd just kill two birds with one stone and get rid of the phrase and source. Drewcifer (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see enough citations. GreenJoe 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many featured discography's with less citations. I've added some more citations to it. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No need for "This article is a comprehensive listing of all official releases" If featured, comprehensiveness is assumed, and a discog shouldn't contain unofficial releases either,
• So if anything, simply "This is the discography of Faith No More", but before that, read Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Per WP:LS#Bold title, don't link the bold text
• Kerrang! is a magazine, so should be italicised.
• "Number 1", not "#1"
• But actually, don't do that at all, because they weren't number 1 in every territory they were released. Or you could state where they were number 1, I suppose
• Move "Throughout this article, "—" in the Charts cell indicates that the selected release did not chart, or was not released in that country." from the album section to the Lead section, as it applies to every section, not just albums
• Include catalog numbers for the albums and compilations
• I'd prefer to see the certifications columns combined into one, so for The Real Thing, it'd be something like

RIAA: Platinum

CRIA: Platinum

BPI: Silver

• Include a link to Music recording sales certification
• Move the ARIA certification reference from the cell, to the header as they are for RIAA, CRIA and BPI
• Remove the singles column from the compilations table and move them to the Singles table
• I'm not sure if this applies here as I know nothing about the group, but make sure only original recordings are in the "Soundtrack contributions" section, rather than songs that have been licensed from albums. Might be worth renaming the section "Other appearances" per other discogs

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all those, The contents of the "Soundtrack contributions" was "Other appearances" but that got changed. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 19:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More comments.

• Can you find a free-use image for the infobox? If not, this will be the only Featured discog without.
• For some reason the Header text in the infobox is squashed. See this snapshot image of the page to see what I mean.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Nation of Ulysses discography doesn't have an image. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it'd still be nice! -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The squashed header text is rendering error, no idea what's causing it, I've only seen it a few times and it goes when I refresh or resize the window. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

More

• I'm still not liking the "This is a discography.." as the intro sentence. The reader knows that from the title. How about "The discography of Faith No More, an American alternative rock group consists of six studio albums, eighteen singles...."

• Y done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you find cites for the music video directors?

• Aside from the credits on their music video compilation release? — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, that works fien, I think Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Extra line after "Studio albums"

Gary King (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The {{clear}} was there to stop the first table and the infobox overlapping at certain resolutions. It was of more use before I added the extra paragraph to the lead. Y Removed. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I now wholeheartedly support
  • I had some qualms about the prose in the lead, but I'm rewriting that.
  • I don't really think "which has been called the most influential album of all time by Kerrang!" is really necessary here. Is that kind of thing normal in discography articles?
    • I'm not sure. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I don't think we should be including just one critical opinion on that album here, and none that are less enthusiastic about that album, nor anything about any of the others. It's cherry-picking critical response, and I don't think any critical response is needed here. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Y Removed, I also added a part on their many compilation albums to the lead. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks, looks good! Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Added some fixes, changed some stuff about. Music videos are now cited. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

does this include compilation albums and singles released from the soundtracks? because "The Perfect Crime" was only on the soundtrack and 12 years later on a compilation and "Another Body Murdered" was released as a single from the soundtrack it was recorded for. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have added them back in but not under the title of soundtrack contributions. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [9].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex

I've based this list off List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire, a list which Rudget (talk) and I collaborated on a few months back. All the towns/villages where the SSSIs are located in are linked too if the article exists, and all the rest are unlinked. Individual articles about each SSSI don't exist, as to be honest, I don't believe they'd meet the notability guideline. I'm willing to address any issues. Thanks, Qst (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been pretty much established that all SSSIs in discussions previously that do meet the notability criterion. Even the least notable ones will be referred to in multiple published sources, which is the basic test we ask subjects to meet. SP-KP (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to link to all the sites, regardless of whether they exist or not.
  • Consensus was made in this FLC that links which would be red should be left un-linked. Qst (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Although that was the consensus there, consensus for featured lists in general is that a substantial majority of the lsited items should be bluelinked, and the remainder redlinked. For this reason, I'm going to have to Oppose, reluctantly. (see below) SP-KP (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Er, link them then. There's no need to oppose. Al Tally ^talk 00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If there was something to link to, I agree that this would solve the problem. The difficulty is that there isn't - and even the currently bluelinked ones are usually linked to nearby towns etc. The number of items on the list which have articles is very small and as this is a FL criterion, then, I'm sorry, but that is a good reason to oppose. SP-KP (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • No its not, you're opposing because probably NN town articles don't exist. So you're asking me to chuck the notability guideline out the window and create them? The only info I could probably get is "xx is a town in East Sussex, England." I ask that you reconsider your oppose. Qst (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
            • No, I'm asking you to create SSSI stubs for a good majority of the articles listed. To quote FLC criteria, a featured list "has a minimal proportion of red links" - this, to my knowledge, has always been interpreted as meaning that the non-existence of articles for members of the list is a problem - and not one to be fixed simply by unlinking or disguising the links. Do you have any examples of existing FLs where the article subject's notability rests on its inclusion in the list but where a significant proportion of the entries do not have articles? SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
              • SP-KP, how would you feel if I created some of the articles on SSSIs, and kept some of the links to towns? Qst (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I'd apply the same test - how close to being the "perfect" featured list of East Sussex SSSIs are we? i.e. a list of East Sussex SSSIs for which every entry has a bluelink leading to an article on the SSSI, as is that case for Avon, Somerset etc. Actually, even those are a long way from "perfect" as most of the articles are still stubs, but anyway ... In FLC discussions elsewhere, I've seen two-thirds quoted as the minimum proportion needed for a successful candidate. The actual phrasing in the criterion is "minimal proportion of redlinks" which is open to interpretation. SP-KP (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Okay, I've used the PDF files to find the nearest borough/district to the SSSI, and now, rather than leaving the link red, I have linked to the nearest borough/city. I'll finish up the last few tomorrow morning. Qst (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • All links are now blue. Qst (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't there be a bold part in the lead?
  • Nope, adding a bold part in the lead would mean linking Site of Special Scientific Interest, and linking in the emboldened part of the lead should not occur, per MoS (I'll find the link if necessary.) Qst (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That doesn't override the MoS guideline that all articles should have their title bolded in the lead - the correct thing to do here is to mention SSSIs somewhere after the bolded text, and wikilink it there. SP-KP (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would tend to agree with you here SP-KP, that this is what is normally done. However there is discussion about how sensible this is for lists, not sure where consensus lies.Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:LEAD#Bold_title, on the contrary. Qst (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Last time I looked into this, that wasn't the guideline - I accept I'm out of date on this point. SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• "In terms of size, the region is bordered by Kent to the north, and Surrey to the south." How is that anything to do with size?
  • Fixed. Qst (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "East Sussex itself, however, has an estimated population of 757,600..." Why the however?
  • Fixed. Qst (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't believe something can be "As of 2009". Anything could happen tomorrow, we aren't a crystal ball. Al Tally ^talk 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's as maybe, but it means up until this date. If an event were to occur which was relevant to the list, I'd update it. Qst (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Qst (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - overall the list looks good, however I have a few suggestions:

• The lead is on the short side, and I would prefer to see it expanded. Natural England have good documents about an areas general wildlife here. These are the ones specific to east sussex: [10], [11], [12].
  • I think the lead is sufficient as it is, and I can find nothing to expand it any further. I had intended for it to be bigger, but I feel its comprehensive as it is. Qst (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Template:Reflist, which is used, makes the references a small font, which is fine. However reference 5 then has small tags for each PDF. This means the PDF titles are very small. They are just ok on my laptop screen but I have seen them on other screens where they are indecipherable.
  • Swapped to <references/>, done. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This will probably be picked up by others, but I would like to see a few more of the non-links become blue. (I will try to help out with this as I have created a number in my time!)
  • I'll see what I can do over the course of today. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Most of the other SSSI lists have a note saying if a particular site extends into another county, see this edit for details [13]. The natural england website will tell you if this is the case. Here is one [14] for this list.
• I agree with Al tally that as of 2008 is more appropriate than 2009.
  • Okay, done. Qst (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Finally, and I apologise that this is rather petty, but I would prefer to see the list of PDFs in three columns rather than 4, as the 4th only has four in it and looks a bit odd!!! (it would also fit with other SSSI lists, not that that is that important!) - Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've split them up into four columns, each with 16 listed in each. This way, each column has the same amount in. Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One other comment - can we split the list up into (arbitrary) alphabetic sections, as per the other SSSI lists? SP-KP (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because people agreed in the Hertfordshire FLC that all of them should just be in one big table. Qst (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just one (restricted-audience) FLC discussion though. The majority of the SSSI FLCs do use this convention, and it wasn't invented for those but taken from other example lists. There are several reasons why this has been done for long lists such as this, to do with editability, readability. Are there some reasons why it should not be used here? SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, nice work. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as someone who has been interested in writing these lists for a while now, I believe this meets the FL criteria and is of a standard similar to the other SSSI lists. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't come close to exemplifying "our very best work", which is ably done by the Avon and Cleveland lists for example. Those lists, linking together SSSI articles, are the "best" you have to match. Please create the relevant short articles (if they are of scientific interest, they'll be notable and will be documented by English Nature amongst others). Oh, and don't talk about "Consensus was made" in some other list when in fact it was just one reviewer giving in after being pushed. Colin°^Talk 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who do you think you are telling me what to do, pal. And by the way, the individual SSSI articles are not notable, so why would I create them. I'd appreciate some input from you on this. Qst (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of arrogance? I'd say the Cleveland list which you nominated is far from perfect. Qst (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a point, Colin didn't nominate that. :) Rudget (Help?) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad, he didn't. :) Qst (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And can you please tell me what your problem is with the SSSIs being linked to the town they're in? I fail to see. Qst (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Less of the "pal", please. This isn't a pub and we aren't squaring up for a fight. You're in the minority in thinking SSSIs aren't notable. The word "Special" and "Interest" in the title is sort of a hint don't you think? Stop trying to bully reviewers. I'm entitled to my opinion and nothing you have said makes me want to change it. And to add to the link issue, there should be photos. These are beautiful parts of our country. Colin°^Talk 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bully reviewers? Well, everyone is free to their views I suppose. And no, The Rambling Man brought up in the Herts FLC that a map would be appropriate, and it is, and they're not beatiful parts of the country, just nature reserves with a few trees. Okay, I'll start creating the articles soon, but I highly doubt you will be willing to help, am I right? Qst (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nature reserves with a few trees". "not beautiful". Have you even looked at the entries you are linking? I suppose not when Castle Hill is just a DAB page. It looks like this, which I found after about 10s on Google Images. Or Arlington Reservoir? Or Romney Marsh? Or Newhaven cliffs? You've got to be passionate about the subject to write featured content. If you were, you'd be happy to write about it instead of moaning about reviewers not helping. Colin°^Talk 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I look through everyone in the list, but of course I have an interest in SSSIs. If I wanted an essay in an attempt to change my views, I'd know you to be the person. =) Qst (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether SSSIs are notable is clearly going to be important for this, and many subsequent, featured list candidates. I would like to point people to Whitton Bridge Pasture which is a good article about a single SSSI. As SSSIs go this is among the least important, notable or interesting; it is essentially a small field. However, I believe (and I should seeing as a wrote it) that it is notable and is a suitable subject for a wikipedia article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get to work creating some tomorrow (probably) so at least half of the article has links to them in. Thanks, Qst (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one! :) Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, would you be satisfied if I create half of the SSSI articles for this list? I'm sure you can appreciate the tediousness of one person creating all these articles? Qst (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created 10+ SSSI articles? Is this enough for your to offer your support and leave the others linked to the appropriate town/district? I can create more if you like. Qst (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see two-thirds of them done (if that's the solution we're going with now) before withdrawing my oppose (see below). The rest should either be redlinked, or wikilinked to an article with at least a mention of the site. SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm heading off on Wikibreak in a few days, so there maybe a delay. Qst (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have re-created the first table in my sandbox with the addition of a sortable function. I'd like you to use it for all SSSI tables. First, though, tell me what's wrong with it.--Crzycheetah 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I dislike it, as I think it makes the columns look weird. It looks as if there is too many, and I just don't find it seems as comprehensive as the current layout. This may seem like bad reasoning, but its hard to put in to words why I dislike it. I'm open to discussion. Qst (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Qst in that I prefer the current layout. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't add any columns; even though it may seem that there are too many of them, most of them are short. Sorting by hectares is very useful in such long lists as this one.--Crzycheetah 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I also would like to know why you don't use "!" for the headings and bold the titles manually instead.--Crzycheetah 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorting by area and by year are both useful facilities. The two formats don't look radically different. I'd turn off sorting for the map column, though. Colin°^Talk 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Personally I think the current format is more aesthetically pleasing, however having sortable columns is such a useful feature it probably over-rides my aesthetic preferences :) Given lack of clear consensus on this issue, the question of sortable columns should maybe be decided on a list-to-list basis, rather than enforcing the decision of this FLC on all lists. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Every SSSI has a source in the References section. The use of in-line citations is only a technique, not a requirement. Colin°^Talk 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd support any call for full inline citations, but in this case the referencing method achieves the intended result; there is nothing in relation to auditability that inline citations would add, they'd just be a presentational change. Not a barried to FL in my view, therefore. SP-KP (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the FLC directors, whom I know, has agreed to close this early at my request. I shall re-submit the nomination when everything is done, and 2/3 of the SSSI articles are created. Thanks, :) Qst (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Following Qst's hard work on the issues I raised above, I'm very happy to withdraw my oppose vote and switch to one of Support. SP-KP (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And Sunderland06's. Could you possibly strike your vote so it makes it clearer when this comes to be closed? Cheers. Qst (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just under 60% of the SSSIs now have articles and correct links. Good, well done. But 24 still direct the reader to some nearby town or even a whole council district. This doesn't help Wikipedia or the reader. There's no obligation on the writers of those town articles to develop or even keep any mention of nearby SSSIs. Many of the links listed below make no reference to the SSSI, so the reader does not gain any new information by following the link. In addition, the use of piped links rather than redirects means that this list will not automatically gain when an SSSI is written and it is not obvious which require writing. In the interests of keeping links simple and honest, I suggest the following entries be changed to redlinks. I hope this will have the desired effect of encouraging the writing of the rest of them. These small articles can have info boxes and categories in a way that the current town/district linked-articles can never.

There doesn't seem to be any rationale to why some of the following aren't yet SSSI articles -- just that nobody has written them yet. They're not any less notable than the ones that have been created. Could you do Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay, as is the big one and should have plenty to write about. If you agree to create the redlinks, we'll have about 1/3 redlinks, and I'd be prepared to support that. Colin°^Talk 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I create another 4, 2/3 will now exist. Qst (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Blackhorse Quarry
• Brede Pit And Cutting
• Burgh Hill Farm Meadow
• Buxted Park
• Castle Hill
• Combe Haven
• Dallington Forest
• Darwell Wood
• Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay
• Eridge Green
• Eridge Park
• Fore Wood
• Firle Escarpment
• Hastings Cliffs To Pett Beach
• Heathfield Park
• Herstmonceux Park
• Lullington Heath
• Marline Valley Woods
• Offham Marshes
• Seaford To Beachy Head
• Waldron Cutting
• Willingdon Down
• Wilmington Downs
• Winchelsea Cutting

I agree with Colin, redlinks for these would be more helpful. SP-KP (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please wikilink hectares and acres in the table headers. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done this for the first table header, probably not worth doing it for all the headers? Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think so.
• I'd like to see the entries sortable too, but I prefer the look of the headers in the article to the way Crzy displayed them. Not sure why...
  • I've changed my mind on this one since no other Featured SSSI list does it.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Weak Support. Comments addressed, but some redirects still need addressing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why is TOC turned off? It would be very useful for such a long list.
• Are all those links necessary for the "Natural England citation sheets for each SSSI. Retrieved on February 26, 2008. (PDF files). " reference? Or did someone request that?

Gary King (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll remove the NOTOC. Yes, the PDF links are necessary, as they are essentially the references. Qst (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've redlinked to the links provided above, yet have created about half a dozen or so more, and I'll work on expanding the lead further tomorrow. Qst (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I'd consider linking or explaining anticline (I don't know what it is and I'm dead smart).
• Why is Asham Quarry's acreage N/A?
• I recommend numbers to be right aligned with consistent decimal places.
• Not sure about spaces between the initial letters and the en-dash in the section headings.
• In fact, I'm not sure why the table is split at all?
• Ref 2 - " (August 22,2007)." looks a little odd to me, and not linked - is the cite formatted correctly?

That's my lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, that's everything done. The reason the table is split is because it was requested I do this above, but on the SSSI list for Hertfordshire, I was told not to split the table up, so you can see how its jumping around here... Qst (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [15].

---

List of schools in Northland, New Zealand

I've listed this article as a featured list candidate because it is a comprehensive list of all current primary, intermediate and secondary schools recognised by the New Zealand Ministry of Education in the Northland Region of New Zealand. The rolls and decile ratings change each year. I last updated them in January and intend to update them once a year. For each school, the information in the table can be verified using the MOE link, and very occasionally if the MOE website is not up to date, using the link to decile updates in the references section. Very few of the schools on the list have their own article; the links are redirects to the local town, suburb or community, which includes a paragraph on the school. I created 72 articles on such communities, some of them stubs, most start-class, and a few B-class.

It is not practical to add a photo of every school, and attempting to do so would greatly increase the size of the article while adding little value. I believe the map of secondary education locations is sufficient to illustrate the article.

I'm not sure whether the incomplete lists of closed schools should remain in this article or be split off. I am not aware of any comprehensive and reliable source which lists closed schools for before 1999, so I have pieced these lists together from the lists that are comprehensive for schools closed since 1999, and the material in several books written on local history of the communities.

There is a recent peer review for the list.-gadfium 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I believe it meets the criteria. - Shudde ^talk 02:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• In the lead, Whangarei Boys and Girls schools redirect to Whangarei. At the very worst it should redirect to Whangarei#Education, but even this is a cop out. Also, the school links in the section at Whangarei#Education are Self-links, which doesn't help the reader here either.

All school which don't have articles now redirect to the Education section of the locality article. This may be a cop out, but not all schools warrant their own articles. This is a highly-debated area; see Wikipedia:Notability (schools).-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• A NZ Yahoo! search returns enough results for Springbank School that it could have it's own article, not be redirected to Kerikeri

Some schools could have their own articles, especially those schools offering secondary education. Such schools have their redirects marked with {{R with possibilities}}. I provide a sentence or two for every school in the locality article, which I believe is sufficient.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Explain what Te Kura Kaupapa Māori is, instead of relying on a redirect to Māori language revival

The lead already says "Several Te Kura Kaupapa Māori schools exist, all but one in the Far North District. These schools teach solely or principally in the Māori language." I don't understand how this is unclear.-gadfium 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The term now links to the new article Kura Kaupapa Māori.-gadfium 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. what I meant was to perhaps translate it if possible. As it was, I don't think people outside of New Zealand would know what it means. This is better, though :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kawakawa is a disambig page. There's a few instances of this

Done. I've fixed several links to dab pages for Kawakawa and Tikoki, also in the now split-off Closed schools in Northland, New Zealand. I've checked each entry in the localities column and can't see any more.-gadfium 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Really sorry, but all those piped links which go to the town have to go. criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical". What's the point in making piped links to the towns when that link is there anyway under "Location"?

All piped links go to an article which contains some information about the school. As a result of your feedback, the piped links go directly to the relevant section. I believe this satisfies the Featured List criteria.-05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The notes [1] to [5] should be explained in the Lead section, rather than being relegated to references

Done.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• For the years, make it obvious that it doesn't relate to the age of the child, by pipe linking first grade, sixth grade, eighth grade Twelfth grade etc

I've linked to the United Kingdom articles Year One (school) and Sixth form in the lead, as the age ranges are similar to New Zealand's. As I understand it, first grade is for slightly older children than New Zealand's Year 1 is.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Roll could be called "Enrolment figure", unless Roll is the term used by the Ministry of Education

"Roll" is the term using by the Ministry of Education (actually, "School Roll". I can change this if you insist, but the longer title carries no more information. This might be a difference between New Zealand and British English.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No that's fine, then. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move all the closed schools to a new article. I doubt it will pass when it states that the list is incomplete

Done. I will improve the format of the new article, Closed schools in Northland, New Zealand, in the next day or two.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Blomfield Special School and Resource Centre has no entry for Years

Done. Blomfield is not a conventional school; it deals with intellectually handicapped students. "Years" of education is not an appropriate measure for this school, so I have given the age range of students accepted.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Use an mdash (—) to indicate schools without a website, per WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN

Done.-gadfium 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move the website and MOE columns to the end of the table, as these are more like references

Done.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can English translations be provided for the Māori named schools?

Done.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I love seeing lists that do not relate to North America or the UK, and this one is especially nice because I can relate to it on a personal level as I lived in Whangarei for two years when I was 16–18. Unfortunately I can't support at the moment :( Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to satisfy some of your comments, and replied to others. I intend to satisfy or reply to the remainder over the next day or two.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have now satisfied or responded to all of your comments.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The gender column is fairly unnecessary as all but two are coed, and those two are explicitly mentioned in the lead section

Gender criteria is one of the defining aspects of a school. For Northland, it isn't terribly important because only two schools are single-sex, and as you say this is mentioned in the lead. However, I think the tables should have the same layout as those for other regions of New Zealand, and elsewhere there are greater proportions of single-sex schools, including some with names which don't indicate gender, e.g. Auckland Grammar School.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But we're not reviewing other pages. On this one it's not really needed. If more NZ school lists are brought to FLC, I don't think they'll be opposed because they do have a gender column when this one doesn't. Anyway, it's still early on in the process so let's just wait and see what other reviewers think. In the meantime, you've satisfied all my other points so I've hidden those and I've left this one comment open so other reviewers can see it. Otherwise, a great list, well done. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a little python script to reorder columns in the tables to move the website and MOE columns to the end. I can very easily modify it to remove the gender column if necessary. I'll wait for more feedback first.-gadfium 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds extremely handy. Can you respond on my talk page about how that works? Would you be prepared to share it? :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's very vague. You may want to be more specific, or your oppose could be disregarded. - Shudde ^talk 01:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• How many in-line citations do you believe are necessary, per school? At present, apart from any school website, which is a primary source, there's one - the MOE link. I could add a link to the latest Education Review Office report if necessary, but the MOE link verifies the basic information in the table, and the MOE listing links to ERO reports. Sometimes MOE carries an old school website or misses a new one, but in this case the accuracy of the list is pretty obvious. The decile ratings for schools are updated about October each year, but MOE updates its figures about February. That's why we have a separate reference for deciles. At this time of year, it isn't an issue as MOE is up to date. ERO information would be significantly less up to date than MOE, on average, since ERO reports are only held every few years.-gadfium 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I would be inclined to say that this editor's oppose will probably not be counted, considering he has popped up out of nowhere today and opposed every single FLC and supported the removal of every single FLRC. As you said, the school websites are all primary sources, and as WP:PSTS says, an article shouldn't rely on those. The inclusion of the MOE links for me satisfies secondary sources. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I really like this. I can relate to the subject, it is interesting, well written and presented, and it's about something in the Southern hemisphere, something which Wikipedia lacks too much of, IMO. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I am with Matthew here regarding the "gender" column. It's kinda...weird to see "coed" in every row. Also, what do the numbers mean in the last column? I couldn't find an explanation.--Crzycheetah 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The number in the last column is the New Zealand Ministry of Education Institution Number. It links to the appropriate record in the Ministry of Education database, which verifies the information in the table row.

I'll remove the gender column if consensus is for the removal.-gadfium 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a note in this page that explains what those numbers mean.--Crzycheetah 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note, at the end of the lede.-gadfium 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove total "coed" column and say so in one statement elsewhere with the single exception.
• "state integrated" lower case in lead, but I in table? Why is it explained twice in the lead?
• "these are schools formed by a religious body but have subsequently become a part of the state system"—ungrammatical.
• "at 5 years old"—at the age of five.
• g for Government, normally.
• Rolls provided "each year"? Safer to give the actual year, to be updated when the info is updated. TONY (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on these in the morning.-gadfium 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made the changes you suggest. Since you were the third person to suggest that the gender column be dropped, I have removed it.-gadfium 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Are the links in References actually used as general references? If so, then have a section called References, and then have "General" and general references under that, and "Specific" and specific references under that.
• The web references are missing access dates, which are required per WP:CITE/ES

Gary King (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reorganised the references as you suggest, and added access dates.-gadfium 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I like the way you explained all of the various terms on your table. I suggest, however, that you link "Ministry of Education" to Ministry of Education (New Zealand).--Dem393 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've linked the first occurrence, in the fourth paragraph.-gadfium 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [16].

---

List of Buffalo Sabres head coaches

Self-nomination - It seems to meet all featured list criteria. It is well illustrated, well written lead, and it is also well referenced. This list seems ready for FL. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you at T:TDYK, the article has false information, and doesn't match the sources. Why would you list it here knowing that? Or is having correct information not a criteria for featured lists? - Bobet 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the source was correct. Gatoclass was confused because this wasn't added at that time. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've no doubt that the source is correct. The problem is, that the article isn't. According to the very source you've cited (this one), both Ted Nolan and Lindy Ruff won the Jack Adams, while coaching the Sabres. The article, however, specifically states that Scotty Bowman is the only Jack Adams winner. - Bobet 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Did not notice this - apologies. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• First caption is garbled.
  • Now it is only grammatically incorrect. There should be a second comma for the offsetting the parenthetical phrase "the current head coach for the Buffalo Sabres".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Second para: rm "only" from first sentence.
  • The sentence is still ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Something is wrong with "... lowest winning percentage of any Sabres coach, with .370 during his 120-game tenure." Try "with a .370 percentage" in place of with .370.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• What was Floyd Smiths record.
  • coaching record s/b winning percentage I believe, but I am not sure with the new overtime tiebreaker point system. Does the term come from a secondary source?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• You should state who the coach was for each Stanley Cup appearance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• See WP:CAPTION#Wording regarding punctuation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Second caption still fails.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done with the comments above. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lest there be some confusion, if I did not strike the initial complaint you have not resolved it to my satisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment It should follow the style set by List of New Jersey Devils head coaches, an FL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find half the information on the assistants for this list. It would also require a complete redesign table. Furthermore, that list doesn't meet criteria #6. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, you should not sacrifice useful information just for the sake of making a page look nicer. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Specific phrases should not be linked multiple times in a given table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:DASH. There should not be spaces at times and none at others as I see it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am talking about the team column. The spaces are not correct, if I understand WP:DASH.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Object Until you get back to me on the WP:DASHes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support All my issues are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support, looks good but short enough it could be merged into the main article. GreenJoe 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Scorpion over the presentation of the table. See also the head coaches articles of NFL teams that are FLs (and yeah, I know it's not the same sport). Anyway, a precedence has been set, and to change it because the information for this one hasn't been found is a poor excuse. Sorry.. :-/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, except I have a few issues.

• Some way of stopping the "have [page break] [1]" in the lead?
• Relocate the comma after "record" to after "Ramsay". Possible comma after "2001" if you like it.
• "Win – Loss percentage"—unspaced en dash; any need for capital L? Unspaced en dashes for year ranges in column three.
• The top row: unless you open you window wide, the (W–L–T) and W–L % break lines horribly. No space before the %.
• 'Tis a pity the two lower images can't be repositioned say, in the "Key" section, to allow the table to spread out without unreasonable widening of the window. Might be hard on smaller screens: to get the table functioning properly in horizontal terms, I had to widen the window to 31 cm, which takes up most of my large 24-inch monitor.
• The "Hockey-Ref.com" site: the copyright owner at the bottom is "Copyright © 2000-2008 Sports Reference LLC." I'm sure that has to be cited in the ref section. Ask User:Ealdgyth, the expert? TONY (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay - working on the comments. Please don't close this FLC until they are finished. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done with everything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Good enough, but...

• In the first mention of the Jack Adams Award, you should have reference after the comma.
• The following sentences do not have a reference: "Punch Imlach, Scotty Bowman and Roger Neilson have all made it to the Hockey Hall of Fame...He is followed by Craig Ramsay who coached the team to a .412 record from 1986 to 1987. Floyd Smith has the best coaching record in terms of winning percentage, with a 0.503 record, during his term from 1974 to 1977. He is followed by his successor, Hall of Famer Marcel Pronovost, who coached the Sabres to a .611 record from 1977 to 1978."
• The third paragraph has no references.

Done with everything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "the Jack Adams Award [1], an honor " — reference goes after all punctuation per WP:FOOTNOTE
• "See also" section goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT

Gary King (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done with everything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well, I've tried hard, but I can't find anything wrong with the article. Good work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 20:26, 9 June 2008 [17].

---

List of New York Jets head coaches

This list is based off of List of Chicago Bears head coaches and List of New York Giants head coaches, which are both featured lists. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from User:Gonzo fan2007

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support All my concerns have been addressed, great list! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Just like the similar featured lists, I don't see why not. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 01:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think there is scope for more information to be given as prose, not necessarily just as a lead section. For example, Bill Parcells' tenure overlaps with other coaches. Why is this? More background could be included to give the reader a greater understanding of the topic. An example of what I mean by this is given by List of Manchester United F.C. managers. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This was brought up in a previous FLC. Milk's Favorite Cookie created a separate article "History of xx coaches". I can do the same if you wish. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks really good. GreenJoe 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I can't see anything wrong. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Me either, although all the other head coach FLs also use a Colour along with the asterisk to highlight the Hall of Fame people. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, WP:COLOR doesn't state that you need to show something in both color and an asterisk as an indicator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • True, but other FLs within the same scope have set a consensus-by-silence precedence for using colour. If you know what I mean. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Color-sighted people notice colors quicker than asterisks, so adding colors would benefit them a lot.--Crzycheetah 08:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I have added the colors, but what scientific evidence do you have to back up said claim? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Link, granted it's not a WP:RS, but you're not going to cite it anyway. ;) --Crzycheetah 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Support now the color's been added. Can't see a thing wrong with anything else. Nice work. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but ...
  • "Twice in Jets history has there been an "interim" head coach." Word order a little forced.
    • Any suggestions? I was thinking "There has been an "interim" head coach twice in Jets history". That seemed a little off to me, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The team began as the New York Titans in the American Football League in 1960, but was renamed the New York Jets three years later." Why "but"? "And" is needed here.
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One "also" needs weeding out.
    • Removed first one. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • W–L but spaced en dash equivalent ...
    • So it should be W – L? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Why not move the pic up to the "Key" section so the horrid squashy text in the "Awards" column can be given space to breath?
    • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "2006–Present": why cap P? And why not "since 2006" (so much nicer)?
    • Well, I'm trying to keep the date range (XXXX–XXXX) format consistent. Is there any reason not to capitalize the "P"? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You sure leading zeros are customary for the averages? TONY (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I was meaning to remove these in one of head coach lists I was previously reviewing. I'll go ahead and remove the 0. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is extra space before the "References" section
  • Space removed.
• Remove the number from the bold and perhaps remove bold altogether – it is not required.

Gary King (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there some reason for doing this? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are some pathetic comments. ;) More importantly, there's no reason to remove the number from the bold. The 16 head coaches are the subject of the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I don't really see why the bold needs to even be there at this point. It's just "head coach" really. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it can be done. But since there is no reason for the "16" to be unbolded, why change it? Just because it can be done? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Even with the 16, it still doesn't capture the "essence" of the article – it would be better if the team name was included in the bold, but if that is not possible, especially without including any links, then the bold might as well just be removed. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The list is a list of NY Jets head coaches, and as there are 16 head coaches, it seems correct to leave it as it is. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find another head coach article that bolds it this way, but I could be wrong. Gary King (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I prefer not to start the article with "This is a list of New York Jets head coaches". Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And to comment or oppose based on what other lists do would violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the article is not about any "16 head coaches", which is what the bold implies. You should be able to look at what is in bold and then immediately get what the article is about. Gary King (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, what do you suppose I do? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally suggested to remove the bold. Bold text in the lead is not a requirement, especially for lists, which can sometimes have content that causes a convoluted bold title. Gary King (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, it's fine as it is. There is no reason to remove the bolding. Why fix something that isn't broken? So what if it's not a requirement? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

← Because of my comment above "You should be able to look at what is in bold and then immediately get what the article is about." I don't understand why you are so defensive with this list, especially when it wasn't you who nominated it? The eyes are automatically drawn to bold text, and when you first see "16 head coaches", you don't have a firm understanding of what the article is about. However, in the last 5 articles that have had bold text in the lead, they are:

• Boston Red Sox seasons – "Boston Red Sox"
• Geri Halliwell discography – "discography of Geri Halliwell"
• List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present) – "List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes from 1980–present "
• 2004 Summer Olympics medal count – "2004 Summer Olympics medal count"
• 2006 Winter Olympics medal count "2006 Winter Olympics medal count "

4 of the 9 most recently promoted lists didn't have bold text in the lead. For Boston Red Sox seasons, I would have suggested that the bold be removed, but at the very least, it still helps identify that the article is about the Boston Red Sox. It is very uncommon to only bold common nouns in the lead of any article when it isn't the title of the article. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not defensive of the list. I am simply active in FLCs, and I commented on what I believe is not an accurite statement. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to continue discussions, but a statement like "Why fix something that isn't broken?" began to seem defensive. The whole point of FLC is to, ideally, make lists that have nothing else wrong with them. If I bring up a perfectly reasonable (note: it could be wrong; reasonable just means that it's worth a discussion) issue, then I see no reason why it does not deserve a discussion. Apparently, Nishkid made the change, so if this is the final action on this issue, then I am willing to cap my comments. Gary King (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry I began to sound defensive there. At least in my area, "Why fix something that isn't broken?" is a known sarcastic question. Feel free to cap your comments, as I have no further comments. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Why fix something that isn't broken?" is also known as a common argument. Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:52, 8 June 2008 [18].

---

List of highways in Warren County, New York

I am nominating this article for FLC because 1) I feel it is ready, and 2) it meets all criteria except that needs feedback that there is a non-replaceable source in the article.^Mitch32^contribs 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd really like to see a source or two for the Scenic byways section. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the table, at least for me, is not sorting right. The "Year of commissioning" row especially has no form of organization at all. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Moderate support Well done for the most part, but it needs an overall copyedit. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I'd really prefer to see this in a table format, similar to List of Interstate Highways in Texas.
• Wikilink or explain what is meant by "interchange"
• What's a "spur"?
• "but the it was later redesignated" doesn't make sense
• "To the current time, US 9..." again a bit confusing
• 38.53 miles (62.01 km) for one highway, and then 40 miles (64 km) for another. Either be specific to two decimal places for them all (preferred), or be specific and round off for them all (not preferred).
• Sentences shouldn't start with conjunctions such as "Also"
• "The country assigned 13 scenic byways" Surely county?
• What is a "scenic byway"?
• What's NY 28N?
• Link to loop
• What's a "touring route"?
• "county–maintained" should be "county-maintained"
• "a special few" What makes, or who has decided that these are special?

So it's an oppose for now. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did everything you listed except the first one because it would turn the article into an eyesore, and I feel detailing things in prose such as in the List of xxx hurricanes articles, is much better than one large, eyesore chart.^Mitch32^contribs 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I have noticed one other thing, and that's that the miles in the statistics table should use the {{convert}}, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, its done as well. Thanks.^Mitch32^contribs 19:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, although the sorting is messed up now. {{convert}} can be used within one of the {{sort}} templates, though I'm not sure which :-/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not nearly enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are 15 references and every fact in the article is sourced. Could you please explain what needs to be referenced? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The "length within Warren county" column isn't sorting properly. MeegsC | Talk 19:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above on how to fix it. Also, the "Towns crossed" column shouldn't be sortable because it only sorts by the first town where multiple towns are given. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not ready to support at the moment. Cr. 4 says it must be easy to navigate. With the table not sorting properly, it currently isn't. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the sorting out, as it appears it just wasn't going to work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Then I support, although may I strongly suggest that you contact User:The Rambling Man after he returns on June 7th. He knows how to do sort converts. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the sorting problem, though I believe there's an easier way of doing it than what I just did. I just added those {{ntsh}} templates throughout.--Crzycheetah 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1 and MOS breaches. Needs a new copy-editor throughout.

• Joe's oppose appears unactionable.
• Opening sentence: can "within" be just "in"? And again. "30 miles (48 km)+ long highways"—ouch; hyphen required, singular "mile", what's the plus sign for?
• state-signed (hyphen, not en dash).
• Redundant "alsos".
• "Year commissioned" would enable a narrower Column 2, which is ugly at the moment.
• MOS says use the leading zero. TONY (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done except for the last, as i have no idea what you mean. Anything else?^Mitch32^contribs 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest Tony means where you have ".2 miles" (for example), the manual of style requires you to use "0.2 miles". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TRM, that has been fixed.^Mitch32^contribs 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Gah, Mitch you're such a road addict. Good definetive article, with plenty references. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support — much improved since the FLC was started. All actionable opposed appear fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:04, 3 June 2008 [19].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands

• Nomination. I recently stumbled upon this list earlier on, I've introduced a revised lead, fulfilled the list and added a little more here and there. It is based upon other featured lists: List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire. Kindly, Suicidalhamster had worked to provide a basis for this list, and I will expect he would probably wish to co-nominate this list for featured list. Thank you for your time. Rudget (Help?) 15:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - A few suggestions:

• The last paragraph before the geography subheading, in my opinion, is talking about the areas geography and so could go in the lower section. However overall I'm not completely sold on the idea of having subheadings in the lead anyway. I'm not that fussed about either of these so see what others say.
  • Subheading removed, and sentence shifted. Rudget (Help?) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This document [20] about the the west midlands natural area may have useful information for the lead (if nothing stands out as being really good don't worry, the lead already sets the scene well).
  • Will read now. Rudget (Help?) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Template:Reflist, which is used, makes the references a small font, which is fine. However reference 5 then has small tags for each PDF. This means the PDF titles are very small. They are just ok on my laptop screen but I have seen them on other screens where they are indecipherable.
  • Done? Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Made the change that I was thinking of [21]. - Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reference 4 needs an accessed date.
  • Done. Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• West midlands, in the 1974-1996 county system is bordered by three counties, however only two are listed in the see also (I guess this is why they are there?). Additionally are these links necessary as both are listed in the template at the bottom? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure is. But the Worcestershire list doesn't exist at the moment. I was thinking of adding the link when I get around to creating the page, which I will do. Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oddly enough Worcestershire doesn't appear in the natural england's list of counties to search [22]. Not quite sure what that means. Suicidalhamster
      • It's there as "Hereford and Worcester". However as discussed somewhere else (talk:sssi?) Natural England didn't use Hereford and Worcester as an AoS - so separate Hereford and Worcestershire lists WOULD be more appropriate. SP-KP (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't come close to exemplifying "our very best work", which is ably done by the Avon and Cleveland lists for example. Those lists, linking together SSSI articles, are the "best" you have to match. Please create the relevant short articles (if they are of scientific interest, they'll be notable and will be documented by English Nature amongst others). Colin°^Talk 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done.' Rudget (Help?) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There are more SSSI articles. Good. But there were still seven links to housing estates and nearby towns and villages. I've redlinked them to where they should go. I'll see if I can find time later to create some of those, if you don't beat me to it. Also, I've left notes in some of the other SSSI article talk pages of other potential sources. They could all be expanded with a bit more wildlife text and improved with some pictures if you can find/take some. Also, they should all be added to Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands. Polishing those articles isn't essential to this FLC but we should manage to at least create them all. If we can get a photo or two into this list, that would be great. Even if it was a stock photo of some endangered newt. Colin°^Talk 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, good. I'll look to expand the ones that currently exist later. Rudget (Help?) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All the created articles are in the category now. Will expand/create some when I get a bit more time. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok all the articles are created now. Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. I support now. Sorry I didn't find the time to create any but well done to those who did. Colin°^Talk 08:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Every SSSI has a source in the References section. The use of in-line citations is only a technique, not a requirement. Colin°^Talk 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to specify which part of the list needs referencing? This seems an unreasonable request considering the number of PDFs in the referencing section. Rudget (Help?) 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: You have commented on more than 37 candidates within the space of an hour. I do not feel at this time you have provided either a sufficient reason to oppose or given a proper review of what is both needed to make a featured list and what is actually contained in this particular list itself. Rudget (Help?) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Referencing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence, I'd remove the very first sentence, which is a repeat of the title.
  • Had a go at adjusting the opening sentences. Hope its an improvement! Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• How about "In the Areas of Search of the English county of West Midlands, there are 23 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), of which 11 have been...."? (I'm not saying use this one, but find a way to re-word the lead part.)
• Can you wikilink conurbation at the beginning of the second paragraph of the lead
  • It may seem a little crude, but if the reader has found themselves on this page, it's likely they know the definition of conurbation. Rudget (Help?) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I changed it to a link of Largest conurbations which hopefully puts the fact in context. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Between the West Midlands conurbation and Coventry" but the second paragraph says that Coventry is within the WM conurbation, so perhaps a re-word here?
  • Done. Rudget (Help?) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• "A smaller piece of green belt between Birmingham, Walsall and West Bromwich which includes Sutton Park in Sutton Coldfield." Missing word? Perhaps "A smaller green belt is located between Birmingham...."

Done. Suicidalhamster (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why are the area figures aligned to the right? Most columns containing numbers look better if centered.

When right aligned it is much easier to compare figure size, especially as they are all rounded to 1 d.p. Suicidalhamster (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please wikilink hectare and acres in the table.
  • Done. Rudget (Help?) 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd remove the two SSSI links in the "See also" section, as there's a navbox at the bottom of the article with the rest.
  • They are relevant to the list as they are the two nearest counties, and it is reasonable to think that if the reader is researching SSSIs in the West Midlands, they may also be doing the same for Warwickshire etc. Rudget (Help?) 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: The term "Areas of Search" is jargon that doesn't scan well and IMO shouldn't be used in the lead sentence. Try to find a way of defining the list without jargon. Then explain that the geographical area is called an Area of Search by a government body called Natural England, etc. Try to imagine the paragraph without wikilinks--does it still make sense. For example, most readers (including those in the UK) won't know who Natural England are (a company, a lobby group, a charity or a government body) so they need a little help and you shouldn't rely on wikilinks for folk to understand what the words mean. Colin°^Talk 08:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • • Had a go at reducing the amount of jargon and assumed knowledge. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - The list has certainly improved, and I now believe it fully meets our criteria. For the sake of transparency, I was involved early on with setting up the list as well as responding to some of the concerns raised here. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [23].

---

The Strokes discography

This is my second FLC nomination. The other one, The Libertines discography, is below without no opposes. Anyway, this is discography is comprehensive, adheres to existing discography standards and meets all criteria. Concerns will be swiftly addressed. Thanks, indopug (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a better way to title the "Videos" and "Music videos" section or is this the standard? In addition, those two sections should have citations, as it isn't clear (to me at least) where that's coming from. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty much self-referential. As for the titles, yeah its standard. (See: MOS:DISCOG or any discography FL). indopug (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tenacious D Fan (talk · contribs)

{{{2}}}

Support Excellent work. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice! Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks really good. I only have a few minor suggestions:

• Usually we're only concerned with the original release, not re-releases or different releases in different territories. However, I see a good reason to break that rule for the release dates/label of Is this It. However, I don't see any reason to break it with Modern Age. And I'm not sure what why there multiple labels for everything as well.
• I think some general references would help (ie the AMG page, their homepage's discog, etc).
• A few more external links might be good (ie Discogs).
• The second paragraph of the lead is a little long, consider splitting it up. Drewcifer (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Instead of general references, I included an ext. link to AMG's Strokes discog, since there already is a link to AMG bio in the refs. There are two record labels because Strokes records are simultaneously released in the US with RCA and in the UK with Rough Trade. They are not labels for reprint versions. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, not enough in-line citations for 2 of the sections. GreenJoe 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They are self-referential, and don't need citing. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Indopug; all assertions are cited, and anything is expanded upon in the table data. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Read Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Just a suggestion, but how about removing the bolded lead, and moving it to the bit about the releases, making it go something like, "The discography of The Strokes consists of three studio albums...."

That discussion makes a lot of sense, and I agree the current lead sentence standard for discographies is rather dull. The best I could come up with was "The Strokes are an American alternative rock band. The band's discography consists of ____." The advantages of this are that the band's name is linked on first occurrence (as opposed to second occurrence per the current way) and the word "discography" can be linked (important, since it is not a common term). Of course, the downer is thatI can't figure out anything to be bolded.

WP:LS says that if nothing lends itself to being bolded, then don't force it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the US Pop 100 chart from the singles table. As a general rule, component charts shouldn't be used if unnecessary, and in this case it is because it made the Hot 100.

The article you've pointed out doesn't say that the Pop 100 is a component chart of the Hot 100. In fact, Billboard invented the Pop 100 a few years ago because of the perceived unfairness of Hot 100 having mainly Hip-Hop artists at the top.

You're actually right. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd remove the Miscellaneous section. Those songs weren't recorded for those albums, they were simply liscensed for inclusion and I'll bet there are plenty more compilation albums that could be included if you looked hard enough. As a rule of thumb, only include original songs that have not previously appeared on any of the artists official releases.

Done. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great band though! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Nothing else to comment on. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak support

• " The band eventually signed to RC"—signed up with? "Eventually" is one of those vague words deprecated by MOS. You're the expert: tell us when.
• "number thirty-three"—think I'd rather figures.
• I'd prefer en rather than em dashes for blank squares. I think MOSDASH recommends this. Try it and I think you'll find it doesn't clutter the real info. TONY (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All done; although I don't have an opinion on the emdash matter, standards prescribed by MOS:DISCOG (and all other featured discographies) require emdashes. I'll bring it up there though. indopug (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [24].

---

Boston Red Sox seasons

This is well referenced, and has a nicely written lead. It seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments I'm tempted to oppose based on the team. ;) Joking aside, some of the references aren't in {{cite web}} form. Also, make sure punctuation marks are before the reference at the end of a sentence. Just a couple things at first glance. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • References look good, but ref #2 is still inside the period. Other than that it looks good from what I can tell. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright (I know it looks like I'm talking to myself here), from what I can tell it looks good. Seems well-written, and from what I can tell (don't know much about sports) it looks factually accurite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's good enough to support. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Support, the in-line citations look good. Thank you for doing this. GreenJoe 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't need to include inline citations for every single line in the list when all information comes from one source. It's properly indicated at the bottom of the list. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • However, the information does come from an unreliable source (xx.tripod.com), so it looks like inline citations for each season will be necessary. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Done, every season now cited. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't split the bolding of the lead over two sentences.
• Refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• I don't get it.. the opening sentence says "not including playoffs", yet the table has a playoffs column
• "Boston, Massachusetts", rather than "Boston, Massachusetts
• "Major League Baseball (MLB)" should be "Major League Baseball (MLB)"
• No need for "both of" or "itself", so "current champions of the Major League Baseball (MLB)’s American League Eastern Division and the American League (AL)." will do fine
• I think the nicknames should be placed within quote marks rather than being italicised
• Is the season over yet? If so, "Every home game since May 15, 2003 has been sold out—a span of over four years.[6]" might be better as "Between May 15, 2003 and <<the date of the final game of the season>>, every home game has been sold out.[6]
• Image:Pumpsie Green 1960 Topps 317.jpg needs a fair-use claim (it actually doesn't have a single one)
• Footnote [e], "95—67" should use " – " per WP:DASH

That's all I've got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Though you didn't have to remove the image, just provide a fair-use claim. Nevermind, it's no big deal. Everything else is good, criteria is met, so Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [25].

---

List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches

previous FLC (23:18, 14 May 2008)

Re-nomination

I am re-nominating this list because it was removed as a candidate, despite all issues raised have been addressed. Blackngold29 04:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I supported the last nomination, which I feel was hastily archived, and should have been given more time, so I see no reason not to support again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per last nomination, as I also think it was hastily archived. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • this user was outright asked to support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was merely pointing out that it was a re-nomination, not to be confused with the original nomination, which he had already supported. I did not mean to "vote stack" by any means. Blackngold29 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Did I say it was vote stacking? I was just pointing out that he was asked. You seem to be under the misconception that this process is run strictly by votes. It's not. While a nom does need a minimum amount of supporting users, lists with a majority of support can still be failed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't want to make a big deal about this, I was just trying to clarify my intentions. I will ask no more people about a possible review for this list, and if in the future I do, I will make them more neutral. Blackngold29 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good, though it'd be nice if the in-line citations had their own column. GreenJoe 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• "to represent the city's heritage, of producing steel." Unnecessary comma
• Use mdashes rather than ndashes for the "empty" table cells

That's all from me! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Blackngold29 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else to say here. Comments were addressed, and it satisfies WP:WIALF. Support Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [26].

---

Geri Halliwell discography

Discography of former Spice Girl member Geri Halliwell. I'm nominating it because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller

• Could the tables be sortable?
  • I don't think so while they use colspan and rowspan.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, should the tables be sortable? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think the Lead should specify that the scope of the article does not include Spice Girls material and include a prominent link to a suitable list/article for that
• "number one single "It's Raining Men"," includes geographical POV - unless you'd describe a single as a "number one single" if it reached number one in any chart, anywhere
• "Passion did not perform as well as previous releases, failing to chart throughout Europe." - claim contradicted by table stats.
• Why are album titles italicised by Singles in quotes? Even that is inconsistent - see the Singles table
• Were none of her singles released in the USA?
• What's the rationale for the order of the countries in the tables?
• Are videos normally part of a "discography"?

That'll do for starters! --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added your comments into the lead section. The version you probably viewed was the vandalized version. I have now reverted all the table back. This now includes her releases in the US. Videos are normally apart of a discography. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style for more information. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is D/CP the most authoritative chart for the USA? Isn't there one based on sales? It would seem to bias in favour of dancey tracks... --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the only chart Halliwell charted on in the US. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove it. It's misleading, as the others are "proper" charts, it gives this undue weight. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Can't find anything to complain about! Well done. Drewcifer (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. Specifically the video section. GreenJoe 00:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added inline citations for the music video section. As for the charts themselves, they are all cited in the references section. This format has been widely used in other featured discographies (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Citations and references). -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Did Halliwell debut in 1994? I know that's when the Spice Girls were formed, but their first release wasn't until 1996.
• Typo: "reccording"
• I always find it odd that singles charted in certain territories, but albums didn't. Can it be verified that her albums didn't chart in Australia and Ireland, and the singles didn't in the US?

Fixed the typo. I changed it to 1996. It's true what you said. They formed in 1994, but didn't actually "debut" until 1996 with "Wannabe". I cannot find any reliable sources that say Halliwell's album charted in Ireland or Australia. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right re Ireland and Australia. I've done a big ol Googling of both today with nothing to speak of. I can't see anything else with the discog to comment on, FLC wise, so I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [27].

---

List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present)

Alright, I know I only published this a few hours ago, but I firmly believe it passes the criteria. There might be some prose issues that I can't see, but if so they are probably very minor. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All resolved, good work. Marrio (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a list of pre-1980 hurricanes to compliment this one, and if so, where is it linked?
• There are no sourced footnotes for the deadly hurricanes list at the end of the article.
• In the lead:

• Why is there different phrasing for Maryland (tropical cyclones) and DC (significant storms)?
• Your lead needs some references for statements that are not summaries of info in the list, including the sentences that start 'The Delmarva Peninsula', 'Central and western Maryland', and 'Additionally, on rare occasions'.

• There has to be an article to link to for Assateague Island, which is redlinked.
• Just a preference, but there's an image related to every subection except 1990-1995.

Marrio (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's not a pre-1980 list yet, but I'm planning on writing a series similar to List of North Carolina hurricanes, so once I get his list done I'll move on to the next one. The deadly storms table doesn't need sources, as it is simply counting up all the deaths already mentioned in the article. In the lead, the reason there is different wording is because it is mostly a list of Maryland hurricanes because I mention every single storm, but it only gives information on significant storms for Washington, D.C.; chances are any storm that affected Maryland also affected Washington, D.C. Also, there is no need for references in the lead, as everything is already said in the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the separate phrasing is necessary. It just doesn't seem necessary to phrase that sentence as, "encompasses 53 known tropical cyclones that have affected the U.S. state of Maryland and significant storms that have affected Washington, D.C" rather than, "encompasses 53 known tropical cyclonesand significant storms that have affected the U.S. state of Maryland and Washington, D.C".

As to the lead referencing, I've looked through the list, and I can't find where there's a reference for the idea that, "The Delmarva Peninsula is often affected by cyclones that brush the East Coast", or, "Central and western Maryland, including Washington, D.C., commonly receives rainfall from the remnants of storms that make landfall elsewhere and track northward." I don't believe this is a summary of content further along. These are more general assertions that need a cited authority to back them up.

Speaking of, copyedited that Central and western Maryland sentence - it now reads, "commonly receive". Central and western Maryland are two regions. Marrio (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded the lead a bit, so that should be better. About the lead referencing, there are no references in the article. It is simply a total of how many storms have affected what areas. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll support, contingent on a couple of fixes to references I didn't notice before (apologies).

• You've got a broken link in the first citation. It comes up as "Object Not Found".
• You have one reference that mentions it's a pdf (10), but others that link to pdfs but don't mention it, as in 7 and 8. Having that notation is helpful.
• Is the article title in ref 25 really in all caps?
• Typo in 41 - 'prelinary'

Marrio (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, everything's done. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - All resolved, good work. Marrio (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - check for tense consistency. I see several past tense. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I got all of them. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Another problem is lack of 2008 USD's. Also, the dates are weird. How come the first sub-section is split by decade (1980-9), the next section is 6 years (1990-5), the next one is 4 years (1996-9), the next one is 4 years (2000-3), then the last section is (randomly) 2004-present. Grammar in the following sentence could be better; producing reported waves 12 ft (3.7 m) high. Just a little quibble. When saying, produces up to 2.70 in (69 mm) , it implies that rainfall reached up to, but still less than 2.7 inches. brushes the western border - what does that mean? Tense consistency is needed; Tropical Storm Beryl's remnants track over western Maryland and produces. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I fixed the grammar mistakes. I'm trying to keep the sections as equal in size as possible, which is why the time periods vary. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it would be more important to have the sections equal in size, in terms of time. I can see the argument for keeping the sections in similar lengths, but it distorts the scale of time by splitting it the way it currently is. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • What would you say, five years? 10 years? I'm just concerned that one section will have a few storms, and another will have dozens. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Every other featured state hurricane list article does the same, which this article should be based off of. If there are too few, than have a larger time period, such as a decade. If there are too many, then split it down the middle (1990-1994, 1995-1999). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Done, I think. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                • 2008 USD's still needed. Also, there are several unneeded Wikilinks, like to generator, corn, soy, hypothermia; all of those are common terms that don't add much value. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Done, although I think hypothermia does need a link, and I left it as such. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• I just came over to look at some lists, considering the proposal at WT:FAC; this list has a mess of messed up WP:DASHes, using spaced emdashes where it should have spaced endashes. It's also missing WP:NBSPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed the dashes, but I only found one or two missing nbsps. Could you please specify if there are any more missing? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support with a few questions. I just made a few changes to the lead. Is "brushing an area with light rainfall" normal in metereological writing? It sounds like a weird construction here, and it's used twice. The last two sentences of the Hurricane Isabel item come off as odd too (the part about DC) but I can't put my finger on why. The sentence The following table includes all storms from since 1980 which have caused reported fatalities in Maryland and Washington, D.C. has an obvious error, and I believe the "which" should be "that". Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, to brush an area with light rainfall means to pass just offshore of a state, dropping light rainfall with the outer bands. I fixed that mistake. Thank you for your support and comments. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I'm wondering why Maryland and DC storms are together in the same list? Would it become too short of a list if they were separated, or did each storm that hit Maryland also hit DC?
• Hurricanes Tito and Isobel are linked in the list, but not Ivan
• Wikilink $ to United States dollar, which negates the need for "USD")
• Where did you get the convert from 2003 dollars to 2008 dollars? I think a reference is needed here.
• Perhaps reword the above as "$125 million (in 2003, $146 million in 2008)"?
• Apologies for my ignorance, but if the list is "hurricanes", why are Tropical storms and depressions included?
• There's a number of over-wikilinks to inch and millimeter in the conversions. 1980-89 has 2, for example. I would only link the first instance in each section. Also, some measurements are abbreviated, and others are written in full. Again, I would write the first instance in each section in full, and abbreviate the remainder.
  • Hurricane Bob: Please wikilink the miles, kilometers, feet and meters in the conversions
  • Storm Danielle: Please wikilink mph and km/h
  • Remove the over-linking in Storms Bertha, Fran, Josephine, Bonnie, Irene, Kyle and Isabel.
  • Wikilink acres and km² in Fran
• Ref 26 is mid-sentence and needs moving to the end, or after punctuation
• As the 1990s are grouped 1990-94, and 95-99, I'd group the 2000s as 2000-04 and 05-present.

A few things to be addressed before I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I fixed the linking issues and I tried to clarify those terms some. Regarding your first question, most if not all storms that affected Maryland also affected DC in some way, so it would be redundant to make another list. About the USD issues, that's how all of the similar lists—List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980-present), List of New Jersey hurricanes, List of Delaware hurricanes, List of New York hurricanes, List of Florida hurricanes, etc.—format them, so I don't think it's really necessary to change them. Ref 26 and the year groups are fixed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Terms: "hurricane strength winds", "peak gusts", "X storm tracking" What do they mean? Again, should be clarified.
• The table of deadly storms seems rather short, too short to include as a separate section. Maybe you could just merge into the lead, or something along those lines. Noble Story (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to clarify those terms some in the lead. Also, the deadly storms table doesn't seem to fit anywhere else, so that's the only good place for it. Thanks for the comments, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Still Unresolved

• I'm echoing matthew's bewilderment. What is the difference between a tropical cyclone, a hurricane, a tropical depression, and a tropical storm? I think you should clarify in the lead, or maybe make a key.
• "No storms during the period have caused sustained hurricane strength winds, as only two in recorded history have done so. Hurricane strength winds are sustained winds of 75 mph (121 km/h) or greater." Perhaps you could say "...sustained hurricane strength winds (winds of 75 mph (121 km/h) or greater)..." Just seems a bit more efficient to say it that way.

Noble Story (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I tried again. Any better? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 350 mm, use 350 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 350&nbsp;mm.
• "List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes from 1980–present encompasses 54 known..." - Avoid repeating the title.
• "Hurricane Ivan was the deadliest storm, indirectly killing two women when a tree was blown on their house due to a tornado spawned by the system." - Do you have a reference?
  • Other than those minor comments, awesome job on the list. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, thanks for the comments. Added the missing nbsps. Yep, the Ivan fact has refs in the body of the article. About repeating the title, because it tells what the list is and doesn't just say "This is a list of...", I think it should be fine. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comments

• still a bit of over-linking regarding measurements. (Virginia then Charley; Erin then Josephine; Gordon then Ivan
• link ft/m in Tammy/Twenty-one, and switch the in/mm link from Barry to Cindy
• Jeanne has ref [2] placed mid-sentence

And that should do it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [28].

---

2004 Summer Olympics medal count

Modeled on FL 1976 Summer Olympics medal count. Marrio (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For compound information involving numbers (201 countries, 301 events, etc.), use   between the number and the word (i.e. 201 countries).

I think I found all of them. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The United Arab Emirates won an olympic gold medal for the first time in its history." Capitalize Olympic.

Done Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "...but a spokesman for the European Union, Reijo Kemppinen, boasted of European success in the games..." Is this quote really necessary?

I don't think it's essential either - I just kept it because it's a different perspective on the medal count and was in the article when I started working on it. I'll pull it for now, but would appreciate other reviewers weighing in on it, if they think it should be put back in. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "...although that organization does not officially recognize global ranking per country." What does this sentence mean, exactly?

Good question. It's gone. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "In boxing and judo, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class." Relevance?

Clarified. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I see some specific references, but maybe you could just link to a general reference where you got the table.

The first sentence in the section lead mentions the source, and has a note. Are you thinking of a link on the table itself? If so, I'm not sure where exactly to place it. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Finally, you need to make this table sortable (just as an example, like this).

Done. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

More Comments

• "Athletes from 74 countries won at least one medal, leaving 127 countries in blank in the medal table." What does "in blank" mean?
  • Fixed
• "Host nation Greece finished the games with sixteen medals overall (six gold, six silver, and four bronze), with Israel and the United Arab Emirates winning Olympic gold medals for the first time in their history." "with + noun" is not really a grammatical construction. See here for more info.
  • Fixed
• "Greek weightlifter Leonidas Sampanis was the first, losing his bronze medal in the men's 62 kg competition, with Venezuelan Israel Jose Rubio receiving the medal in his place. Russian athlete Irina Korzhanenko lost her gold medal in women's shot put, with Cuban Yumileidi Cumbá Jay replacing her as the Olympic champion, German Nadine Kleinert receiving the silver medal, and Svetlana Krivelyova of Russia receiving the bronze medal." Same problem as above ("with + noun"). Try making it similar to the following sentences ("shifting", "handing", "resulting").
  • Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion I'm currently working on 2006 Winter Olympics medal count and one thing I think you should include is which athletes were stripped of medals during these games, and how it affected the standings. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Marrio (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a mention to the first ever gold medal of United Arab Emirates. You forgot Israel. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added that in, and thanks for pointing it out, because that sentence's reference was messed up and I found it as I was adding Israel. Marrio (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That reference only states that it was UAE's first gold medal. You can easily find an online source for Israel's first title (e.g. here). Parutakupiu (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ref'd now. Marrio (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Still concerning Israel, I found a photo of Gal Fridman on Commons and I added it to the article, since it's more related to the topic than just the Olympic stadium image. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments—Worth saving, I suppose, after the prose is massaged throughout. Can you find someone fresh to the list to help?

• I was about to pounce on the same "blank" issue as Noble Story, which still hasn't been fixed.
• Where's the boundary between naming numbers and using numerals? "Sixteen" but "36".
  • WP:MOSNUM says "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." but generally I'll spell out any number lower than 20.
• "men's 62 kg competition"—can you pipe this correctly with a hyphen please?
  • Done
• "doping scandals have resulted in a number of athletes being stripped of their medals"—Nope, this is the old noun plus -ing grammatical issue. See HERE for exercises in correcting it. PS the rest of that sentence is yuckie.
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion.
• If we're going to be so tribal as to compare the count of nation-states, I'd love to see added to the table the number of medals per million inhabitants. That would sort out the sheep from the goats. [Not actionable, of course.]
  • It's possible, I have seen medal tables with this kind of statistic added. I'll ask the Olympics project and see if they agree (as this is a change that would affect every other list as well). Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The user that nominated this page has been gone for a while and has shown no signs of a return, so I'll take over handling concerns from this nom for the time being. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The image captions are fragments, so either remove the periods or make them complete sentences.--Crzycheetah 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Final Concern I think it would be better to say: "leaving 127 countries without a medal", instead of what it currently says. Noble Story (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Just a couple of questions, really.

• Is the dash in "men's 62 kg–competition" correct?
• Was Israel Jose Rubio the fourth placed competitor? If so, perhaps it should be added
• Same with the other "replacements"

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! And it was nice of you to pick up the nomination, too. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [29].

---

List of Harvest Moon titles

This list is based off List of Castlevania titles and List of F-Zero titles, which are both featured lists. I believe I have written this list well and it is of featured quality. Salavat (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• The lead is rather short. Add some information about the popularity or something like that. Why is the series as long as it is?

Added. Added comment from Yasuhiro Wada, from an interview he did from Eurogamer. Salavat (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add references to the lead.

Added. Ok i think ive added all necessary references in. Salavat (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• The 'e' in english should be capitalised.

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you wikilink Japan, you should also wikilink North America.

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink "spinoff"

Fixed. wikilinked one in the lead and one at the start of related titles. Salavat (talk)

• Change "spinoff" into "spin-off"

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add Template:Contains Japanese text

Added. Not sure about placement though. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Actually, using this template is discouraged by the WikiProject Japan (who had created the template originally), because it has been made redundant by the Template:Nihongo. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Template:Contains Japanese text. I've removed the template from the article, although if you believe it is really needed I guess it could be re-added. Kariteh (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i read that post on WP:Japan, and yeh it makes sense to remove it. Salavat (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lots of references have incomplete information. Add, where applicable, language, date and author to the references.

Fixed. Added language to all marvelous entertainment links, and date and author to reference #61 Salavat (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• If there is an author, add his name to the parameters "first" and "last", not to the publisher. For instance, your 61th reference says "publisher = Frank Provo, GameSpot". This should be "first=Frank, last=Provo, publisher=GameSpot".

Fixed. Added date and name to seperate fields. Salavat (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now. The list has potential and it deserves an fl status in the future. For now, oppose. Baldrick90 (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)I believe you have adequatly addressed my concerns. Your list deserves a little bright star. :-) Good work. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This is a good list. It is comprehensive, stable, factually accurate, and well structured. Nice job Salavat. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose
• Criterion 1, for example: "the North America", "maintain a farm over a period of time" (what do the last five words add?). Needs a copy-edit.

Fixed "the North America", and "over a period of time" is just helping to explain the gameplay. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• What do the Japanese characters add? They appear to be clutter that means nothing on eng.WP. Why the question mark after every kanji item?

The japenese characters are a basic part of all titles, they are used in the above mentioned featured list of games, and the question mark is part of the "nihongo" template for Help:Japanese. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cr 2—the lead doesn't explain abbreviations such as "NA" and "PAL" that appear repeatedly in the table.

Added mention of PAL region, shouldnt need to explain every abbreviation as they are wiki linked in the table. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cr 5—MOS breach in the blotchy use of bold in the table.

The bold is used accordingly for the games titles as is the same in the above mentioned featured list of games. Although per VG GL it mentions "only English title should be bold", ill be happy to change this if someone verifies this (dont no if i read it right). Salavat (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cr 4—Hard to navigate: what info is it in the top right box for each entry? Lots of white space.

Exactly the same setup as the above 2 mentioned featured lists of games. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Citation requirement—Why the Japanese-language refs? And not all are marked as such. How do we know they're reliable? TONY (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All references come from reliable sources, either from the developer themselves for the japanese characters or from the game sites such as GameSpot or IGN. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please take a read of WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence and WP:LS#Bold title regarding (as inferred) the repetition of the article title with "This is a list of....". Perhaps open with "The Harvest Moon video game series was originally produced by Victor Interactive Software...."

Changed per request. Does make more sense to not be repetitive. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why "North American and PAL"? Surely "NTSC and PAL" would be better, or "North America and Europe"?

Mainly becuase the NTSC region covers Japan as well. Which cannot be grouped together with North America because of the different release dates and language. JP, NA and PAL is the general way that most video game articles follow. PAL is usually used to cover Australia and Europe as the release dates are generally the same, but when different they are listed seperatly. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• "role-playing video games" would be fine, as video game is already linked to in the first sentence

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• "One reason the Harvest Moon series has remained popular is because of the unchanged core system of the games." A claim of popularity should be cited in some way. Perhaps by sales figures?

Im not sure where i could find infomation like that. The main reason that the "popular" part is included was due to a previous request to expand the lead and explain the question of "Why is the series as long as it is?". Maybe, it should be reworded, if so, any help on how i could do that. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the games :( Perhaps it's okay without it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• "it has been the response to the audience's request, which has created the key philosophy of the series popularity." Seems like that comma shouldn't be there

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Again regarding my second point above, in the tables, why not "NTSC" instead of "NA"?

As explained above. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like how the references are placed next to words because they are fragmented sentences and don't need punctuation. Could you make each table a colspan=2 cell as a third column of each table and place the references there?

Following the same layout as List of Castlevania titles, i dont no if this is neccessary. Im not sure how that would look like either. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's okay to follow that one. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• If not, Back to Nature's ref positions need fixing. For the release dates, ref 14 is placed after a space, but ref 15 isn't. Probably best to remove the space, because it's not there for any other references.

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can Harvest Moon Online really be included? It hasn't been released, no platform or date has been confirmed, so I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here.

It is annouced game, as for the lack of a release date and platforms i have left them blank for the main reason to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. I think the game should remain although im not sure if the sentence i have comes under WP:CRYSTAL. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Me either. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A few issues before I can support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Comments have been addressed. Seems to be alright now. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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