Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2008: Difference between revisions
m GimmeBot updating FLC archive links |
archiving {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.}} |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/U2 discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/U2 discography/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Linkin Park discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Linkin Park discography/archive1}} |
Revision as of 09:15, 6 July 2008
previous FLC (09:15, 6 July 2008)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:09, 5 July 2008 [1].
I'm nominating it. --U2 is alternative rock (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- old nomination Previous FLC
comment Use Em dashes for the blank boxes in table per WP:DASH --Gman124 talk 13:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is a sockpuppet of User:Wellwater Conspiracy. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of issues. These are my comments:
- "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by U2" Comprehensive listing is implied by FA status.
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Second para is incredibly short considering the number of albums that band has released. How about expanding it, to discuss all the albums, videos etc.
Done. Borrowed from U2 under GFDL :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the "Comment" column from Theatrically released films.
- I think the see also recommendation is a bit unnecessary.
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's a "full-length collaboration", and why does it warrant special note on the intro para?
- No idea. I was wondering the same thing. Removed it.Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "U2 have sold more than 170 million albums worldwide" This is a whole para on its own. Not FA quality.
Done
- Inconsistancy: You say "US: Platinum" then "RIAA: 3× Multi-Platinum".
Done
- Add in the ""—" denotes albums that did not chart." row in the table per Foo Fighters discography.
Done
- I'll look into this. Do you know of any sites that offer the information? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC
- The RIAA site lists at least one award for a U2 video last time I checked. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Video releases" should be "Videos". These are all releases anyway.
Doing... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a lot of "non-album single" These need notes explaining where they originate from etc.
- Wouldn't it simply mean they don't appear on an album? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but then there should be an explanation about where the song 'comes from'.
- Certifications for albums need more countries. What about Canadian certifications? Irish certifications?
Doing... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "more than 79 videos" is not precise.
Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Remove the bold formatting in the lead or the link from it, per WP:BOLDTITLE. Gary King (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE Another indef-blocked sock-puppet nomination. indopug (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Then I'll take over this nom if no-one minds. I've been looking for something to do something in namespace. Maybe this'll help me with my mental block. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lots of factual errors. For example, a few iTunes Store exclusive digital only albums are listed as having been released on CD and cassette. Theatrically released films should not have "record labels" as they are not albums, but should have movie studios instead. There are also too many redirected links, and I also think that the order of the sections should be consistent with the order listed in the infobox. Needs a decent amount of work before it can get FL status. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific with which release details are incorrect? Feature films have had the label info removed. I'm looking into studio info instead. Which links are redirected? Will work on the order last, once all the other concerns are addressed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Hmm... I always thought that this was already featured.
- Lead sentence needs work. "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by U2," Numerous issues: comprehensive is implied if it's featured -- the word is redundant. "official releases", yet "discography" in the title. US is wikilinked bold text. Read WP:LS
- wikilinks needed for studio albums, singles, extended plays, compilations, videos
- How about opening with: "The discography of U2 consists of 12 studio albums, 58 singles, 3 extended plays (EPs), 3 compilations, more than 79 music videos, and 1 full-length collaboration. // U2 are an Irish alternative rock band. They formed in 1976 when the members were teenagers..." (// signifies a new paragraph)
- Don't wikilink single years such as 1976
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "noted for their anthemic sound, Bono's impassioned vocals, and The Edge's textural guitar playing." Noted by who? "Anthemic", "impassioned" and perhaps "textural" sound POV to me. Sentence needs neutralising
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilink Bono and The Edge
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 needs placing after punctuation- Final lead paragraph is a stub. And it doesn't have any punctuation.
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LP, cassette and CD only need wikilinking once in the album table
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As does Island Records
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Best of 1980-1990" and "The Best of 1990-2000" — ndash for year spans. Numerous times throught the article
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence for "Music videos" is unnecessary
Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any music videos that aren't related to a single? If so, keep those and get rid of the rest. Music videos are generally just an extention of a single
- I suggest removing the content of the Videography section, and making a new U2 videography article, wikilink to it under the Videography section, and providing a small over-view table or prose.
Agree with Dream out Loud. And there's a lot of MOS breaches at the moment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:09, 5 July 2008 [2].
I've been working on this article for a while now. --Linkins Parkl (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Remove the bold formatting from the lead if you are going to include a link in it, per WP:BOLDTITLE.The reference accessdates should not be linked like however it is done here, because they are showing up as just a bunch of red links; please take a look at Template:Cite web for the template's documentation.Formatting is completely askew in some areas; for instance, "U.S.:Diamond" needs a space (and I think you can just use US to refer to the United States, without the periods)"UK:4x platinum" also needs a spaceYou have "platinum" and "gold" as lowercase but "Diamond" as uppercase?- I'm not too familiar with Discography standards, but I fear that list is not meeting a few of them.
Gary King (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As another editor has pointed out, this is likely a re-incarnation of another editor which was blocked indefinitely quite recently. They had similar trends in the context that they too provided premature nominations for consideration at FLC/FAC. I don't know what the next step from here will be (i.e. closure of nomination, etc.) so I leave that up for the more experienced in this particular process. Rudget (logs) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll "take over" the nomination, and see what further comments I could possibly resolve. Since Linkin Park is one of my favorite bands, I'm sure I could be of assistance here. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish. I am sure you are more than capable. :) Rudget (logs) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll "take over" the nomination, and see what further comments I could possibly resolve. Since Linkin Park is one of my favorite bands, I'm sure I could be of assistance here. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be a shame if the sock is to get credit for it on the WP:WBFLN, though. indopug (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes it would, haha... Gary King (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments:
Remove "Song appearances in media"Music videos needs to be reliable cited.
- Moved the Videography section to the page Linkin Park videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Film album" should be changed to "Videos"
- Moved the Videography section to the page Linkin Park videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Demo should not be piped.
- What do you mean
- "Hybrid Theory EP" is actually "Hybrid Theory". This is backed up by AllMusic and the album artwork.
- The band has this as a album on their official homepage. Allmusic is wrong.
Good luck with this Milk's Favorite Cookie. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now. Great start, but I have too may suggestions and complaints to support at the moment. Not quite ready to support just yet, but the list is definitely not oppose-worthy at the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The chart columns are a little out-of-whack. They should be home country first (check), then with the option of list all other countries in alphabetical order, or listing all english-speaking countries first then all other countries in alphabetical. It appears you've taken the latter route, but that still means the English-speaking countries should be in alphabetical order (ie Australia, New Zealand, UK).I recommend changing U.S. to US, not because it's wrong (both are right), but because the periods are inconsistent with the other abbreviations (which don't have periods).- That's actually in the MOS guidelines. WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know that. Nevermind. Drewcifer (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually in the MOS guidelines. WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linkin Park is an American band, so American-style dates (Month DD, YYYY) should be used.Please include a # in catalog numbers to make it clearer.- Consider bolding the album titles in the tables. And at least be consistent (Xero is bolded the others aren't).
The EPs section should be spelled out to Extended plays.How does one define an "Underground album"? Needs to be explained. See this for an example of explaining an odd/unique section.
- Something else i should fix. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drewcifer (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations for certifications should be dispersed into the individual cells. Having six citations in the header is very vague.And they should be taken out of the header as well. So we only need them in the individual cells, but not the header.
More certifications stuff: 3× not 3x. Platinum should be capitalized. Multi-platinum certifications should have a non-breaking space between the words. so either do {{nowrap|3× Platinum}} or 3× Platinum. Include a link to List of music recording sales certifications in the column header (take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography or The Prodigy discography to see an example of what I mean.- Please take another look at this one, specifically the examples I provided. Drewcifer (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Xero doesn't link to anything important.
- Should i remove it.
- No, just unlink it. Drewcifer (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should i remove it.
The Underground albums names all link to the same page. I'd just leave the one link in the explanation, and leave the individual names in the table unlinked.I'm not sure "It's Goin' Down" should be included. It includes two members of Linkin Park, but not Linkin Park themselves.Some external links are needed.The third paragraph of the lead could go. It doesn't really say mucha bout their discography, and is a little POV-ish.Drewcifer (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]The citations need alot of work format-wise. I'd recommend using citation templates throughout. Many feature redlinks, and #18 is just broken.Also concerning citation formatting, publishers like RIAA/ARIA/etc, should be spelled out and wikilinked.
All of the text needs a thorough copy edit. There's poor grammar and misspellings throughout.What makes this a reliable source?
- New source Allmusicguide. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drewcifer (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking much better. Two more things I've noticed: the labels are over-linked. They only need to be linked the first time they are mentioned. Also, similar columns between tables should be kept to a similar width. Drewcifer (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't get that last one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd recommend putting anDrewcifer (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
between the country and its corresponding certification.
- Didn't get that last one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The column widths are still inconsistent. The coding for this should be done in the header section of the table. Something along these lines:
{|class="wikitable"
!rowspan="2" width="33"|Year
!rowspan="2" with="200"|Title
!colspan="17"|Peak chart positions
!rowspan="2" width="100"|[[List of music recording sales certifications|Certifications]]<br><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
|-
And then make sure similar tables use the same width. Those widths are just guestimations though, you'll have to play around with what looks best. Also, you dont need to do the chart column, since that's defined by the number of charts.
Also, I noticed that there's no general references citing the discography as a whole. Using Linkin Park's Allmusic discog page would be a good idea. Check out the references seciton of The Prodigy discography for an example of a general references section. Drewcifer (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comments
"This is a comprehensive discography of Linkin Park," Yuck. "The discography of Linkin Park consists of three studio albums, nine-teen singles, four EP, one Demo and two remix and collaboration albums. Linkin Park are an alternative metal band from Agoura Hills, California. Their discography does not include solo material performed by Mike Shinoda's side project Fort Minor or Chester Bennington's side project Dead By Sunrise." Wikilink where necessary"a Agoura Hills, California based alternative metal band." An Agoura Hills.Mike Shinodas and Chester Benningtons need apostrophies.Who are these two guys? You need to say who the band are, which if you follow my suggestion for an introduction, would go after the Agoura Hills sentence, and before the "Their discog does not include...""the band has sold more than fifty million albums and won two Grammy Awards and nominated two times." too many ands"Billboars 200" typo and needs wikilinkingWikilink to Billboard ChartsCollision Course needs itallicising"second grammy award and the album was certified platinum in the U.S. and the hit single "Numb/Encore" was certified gold in the U.S." Numerous proper name casing issues"Linkin Park is also known for their Underground albums which is only available if you are a member of the Linkin Park Underground." second person tone. Wrong tense. Who knows them for this?- The Peak chart position countries header isn't unified. Some use superscript while others do not
- What do you mean? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The code for Finland is:
!style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<small>[[Finland|FIN]]<small> <ref name="Finland">{{cite web | url=http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=Linkin+Park | title=Finnish Album Chart | publisher=finnishcharts.com | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref>
- The code for Flanders is:
!style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<small>[[Flanders|FLA]]<small> <ref name="Belgia FLA">{{cite web | url=http://www.ultratop.be/en/search.asp?cat=a&lang=fr&search=Linkin+Park | title=Flanders Album Chart | publisher=ultratop.be | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref>
Yet the code for France and Germany is:!style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<sup>[[France|FRA]]</sup> <ref name="Frankrike">{{cite web | url=http://lescharts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=Linkin+Park | title=French Album Chart | publisher=lescharts.com | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref> !style="width:2em;font-size:80%"|<sup>[[Germany|GER]]</sup> <ref name="Tyskland">{{cite web | url=http://www.charts-surfer.de/musiksearch.php | title=German Album Chart | publisher=Charts-Surfer | accessdate=2008-06-24 }}</ref>
- Some county code names are in superscript, but others are not Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The code for Finland is:
- What do you mean? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What format is CS? CD, CS and LP all need wikilinking. Don't we usually use "CD, cassette, vinyl"?Xero needs a referenceWhat the heck is an "underground album"? Are these unofficial releases? Bootlegs? MOS:DISCOG, while in its infancy and proposal stage says "no thanks".Refs for DVDs please
- Moved the videography section to Linkin Park videography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be unhappy to see the music videos gone. A music video is an extension of a single, used to promote. They should be mentioned there and that's it. It's like a radio-friendly version of a single release that the company provides to radio stations. We don't list those. Unless any of the music videos do not coincide with a single release, I say get rid. If not, "Given Up" needs a director."Song appearances in media" -- Change to "Soundtrack/compilation appearances", and only include anything that was on an actual release, not what was used as background music on CSI. Note that MOS:DISCOG says only list original releases, so anything already found on a Linkin Park album shouldn't be listed here.
- It's Gone --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck taking this over. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it.... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose: Discographies on Wikipedia are not comprehensive unless music videos, video albums etc are included. See any other featured discography. I see absolutely no reason—other than perhaps to evade opposes for uncited music directors—why they should be branched off to a separate videography article. indopug (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose: Per above. This has been a growing problem amongst noms and I think a stand has to be taken. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In all fairness to the nominator, this is something that is currently still be discussed at the WP:DISCOG talk page. I don't aim to negate your oppose votes, but I would like to point everyone to the larger discussion. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see both advantages and disadvantages in moving the video albums and stuff to a videography in some lists, but not this one because it doesn't make the size of the list offensively large. I did comment that music videos should be removed if they match up with a released single and only list music vids which didn't come with a released single, but I appear to be in the minority with this suggestion! So I'll sit on the fence and go neutral. :-/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:08, 4 July 2008 [3].
I'm submitting the discography for DragonForce, I'm pretty sure its all there and done. Any issues will be speedily resolved. — Balthazar (T|C) 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Use double quotes; so "of 'DragonHeart' in" → "of "DragonHeart" in"; same goes for the other ones.Gary King (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C) 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few suggestions:
- Inline citations need to be added for the US Heatseekers and Indy charts
Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As DragonForce is an English band the dates should be arranged in the European style (example [[1 January]] [[2008]])
Y Done, but I was under the impression that this was unnecessary as its always displayed as "25 February 2003", for me at least, no matter what the code layout is. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should be expanded. See: The Strokes discography or Sonic Youth discography -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Expand the lead somewhat
- Expanded ever-so-slightly, there isn't that much that can be said about 4 albums and 3 singles, I could still add a part on "Fury of the Storm" and specific chartings for Inhuman Rampage and "Through the Fire and Flames" but that's about it. Would that be enough? — Balthazar (T|C) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is waay too long.
Y Split in half. — Balthazar (T|C) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs needed for US Heat and Indie (which I'm pretty sure is the correct abbreviation, rather than "Indy")
Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd not be unhappy to see the Billboard Comprehensive Album Chart gone, because the only way to see it is through a paid subscription to the website.
- I'd also remove the three digital charts from the singles information.
- If you do keep them though, the size of their names in the table headers needs to be bigger, per WP:ACCESS. You've got <small>, then <sup> which is really hard to read for those with good vision
Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm little perplexed as to how little information is contained in the tables. Look at all of the blanks, and the one-item table. This looks like a topic that's awkwardly forced into list format just to get a bronze star. TONY (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not blanks, they just didn't chart, and Valley of the Damned – Remixed & Remastered and Ultra Beatdown have yet to be released. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're yet to be released, they shouldn't be in a discography. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been hidden. — Balthazar (T|C) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're yet to be released, they shouldn't be in a discography. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short and sweet. Job well done! Drewcifer (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose Didn't realize it was only nine items, so I guess I have to undo my support. I've supported the 10-item rule of thumb in the past, so I should stick to my word. However, I do hope to see the list resubmitted once that 10th item is released. Drewcifer (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks pretty good so far. I only have a few suggestions:
- Since there's only on certification in the Studio albums table, I'd recommend putting the citation along side the certification itself, not in the header. Also, BPI should be changed to UK (but should still link to the BPI).
- The infobox specifies that Valley of the Damned is a demo, but the actual table does not. I suggest adding a note in the table. Also, I think the note about Dragonheart should be in the same not (and therefore not in small font). Also, to differentiate between the demo and the album, it might be good to have "(Demo)" after the demo's title (where the dragonheart note currently is).
Y Done, I think. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is kind of a new addition to MOS:DISCOG (this is the first FLC I've suggested it at, but the certification column header should also link to List of music recording sales certifications. See The Prodigy discography for an example of what I mean.
Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Billboard" is not consistently italicized in the citations. Drewcifer (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. — Balthazar (T|C) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Oppose. Recent discussion at The FLC talk page suggested a List with so few entries be merged into the main article, or at least wouldn't become Featured. I tend to agree, even though it satisfies the rest of the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be long enough when the fourth album is added to it, in August? as it would be 10 items then. — Balthazar (T|C) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that would work. I'd prefer to see it higher than ten myself, but that's the agreed-upon base limit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens until that time then? — Balthazar (T|C) 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the community believe that's required for FL status then this FLC should be withdrawn and resubmitted at the appropriate time when the next album is released. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens until that time then? — Balthazar (T|C) 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that would work. I'd prefer to see it higher than ten myself, but that's the agreed-upon base limit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be long enough when the fourth album is added to it, in August? as it would be 10 items then. — Balthazar (T|C) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:Gimmetrow 00:20, 4 July 2008 [5].
I am renominating this article since I think I resolved all the criterias in order for this article to become featured list material. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsMuch improved since the last nomination.I believe the last page move was unnecessary and violates WP:TITLE.- Where are the trade notes with their references? PARTIALLY DONE!
Why are the territorial picks listed at List of the Los Angeles Lakers' first and second round draft picks?Double check the college links. The same college is linked to different articles. Example:Cincinnati.
--Crzycheetah 01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The territorial picks are on the list because teams who forfeit their first round draft picks usually pick a territorial pick for a replacement. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trade notes are the ones where you say Lakers traded player X to Team Y for player Z. Take a closer look at all Cincinnati links and you'll notice that they are linked to different articles.--Crzycheetah 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for misunderstanding your question. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
All years, positions, and colleges should be linked because this is a sortable table. The trade notes are still incomplete.--Crzycheetah 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Crzycheetah, Gman124 told me to remove the overlinking from the table so I thought it would be the right choice. I'll undo the unlinking right now. Annoyomous24 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Sorry for misunderstanding your question. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Trade notes are the ones where you say Lakers traded player X to Team Y for player Z. Take a closer look at all Cincinnati links and you'll notice that they are linked to different articles.--Crzycheetah 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(→) I have added several trade notes, but there's still missing many more. Just take a look at how many picks the Lakers had in one round. By the NBA rules, each team is allowed to have one pick in one round, but the Lakers had 2 or more in one round in several years; therefore, we should mention where the additional picks came from.--Crzycheetah 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the second paragraph, last sentence, I wrote "Teams can also trade their picks, so some years a team could have more than or less than two picks." Annoyomous24 (talk) 3:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, where did you get the trade notes. I want to know the reference. Annoyomous24 (talk) 3:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you do mention that they may have more than one, but you also have to mention which ones they traded for. The reference I use mostly is the Lakers Media Guide, but it's in a flash format, so I m not sure whether we can put it as a reference here on Wikipedia.--Crzycheetah 03:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks or Los Angeles Lakers draft history would be a better title.Buc (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment
I would suggest that perhaps a Table of Contents be forced on the page with Help:TOC, as it would take a lot of scrolling to get to the bottom of the page if one wanted to see the references.Gary King (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Opening sentence is blah.. Can a more engaging one be used instead of repeating the article title?Is "of those in the sport of basketball." necessary? It mentions NBA and WNBA, so it's sort of obvious."got its official name" → "took its official name" perhaps?It also needs explaining why the team from the most south-western state in America takes its name from a state over 2000 miles away in the north of the country"The Lakers are generally regarded as one of the NBA's most successful franchises." Who does? It needs referencing"Then in 1989," poor word to start a sentence. Passive voice going on here, too."Many notable first round draft picks from the Lakers include Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Norm Nixon, James Worthy, and A.C. Green." Surely every player picked is notable?- Split the key into four columns so it's not as long
You need something other than green cells to denote a Hall of Famer, per WP:ACCESS. Asterisk, daggers or carets will do the trick.n or mdash, not hyphens in the cells to denote "nothing"What does T mean in Round?F/C, G, C/F etc all need explaining in the key so that the reader doesn't have to navigate away- Why does "Retired Lakers' Number" need pointing out. What's the notability behind it?
Refs 21 to 25 should be rendered as footnotes
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People who are not familiar with the NBA or WNBA don't know what's the NBA or WNBA so it's not obvious to them. Every pick is notable put I just put the ones that are more notable. Comments 11 and 12 are on the key. Retired number should be pointed out because they are the players who did something special for the Lakers and I think they should need pointing out. Also, the Orlando Magic draft history also repeated the article title so I don't think repeating the article title would be a problem for this article to become featured list status. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you give the full meaning of NBA and WNBA (which includes the word basketball), so it is unnecessary Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes them "more notable". According to who? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What did they do that was special? Why were the numbers retired? If you're going to point something like that out, you have to explain why. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Orlando Magic draft history was promoted a little whiles ago, and things change. See WP:LS#Bold title: "the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". From WP:LS#Establish context: "Where an article title is of the type "List of ...", the repetition of the title in the first line should generally be avoided in favour of providing readers with useful information about the context of the list." This is a recent change to the MOS. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So how come some other featured lists related to basketball include the Hall of Famers? Those lists don't even explain why the Hall of Famers are on this list. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I wasn't talking about Hall of Famers. I don't get your question Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think retired numbers are more of a honor than the Hall of Fame so I think the retired numbers should be on this list. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's this list being reviewed at the moment. You should explain the importance of retired shirt numbers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think retired numbers are more of a honor than the Hall of Fame so I think the retired numbers should be on this list. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I wasn't talking about Hall of Famers. I don't get your question Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So how come some other featured lists related to basketball include the Hall of Famers? Those lists don't even explain why the Hall of Famers are on this list. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People who are not familiar with the NBA or WNBA don't know what's the NBA or WNBA so it's not obvious to them. Every pick is notable put I just put the ones that are more notable. Comments 11 and 12 are on the key. Retired number should be pointed out because they are the players who did something special for the Lakers and I think they should need pointing out. Also, the Orlando Magic draft history also repeated the article title so I don't think repeating the article title would be a problem for this article to become featured list status. (Annoyomous24) (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are the position and college names Overlinked, in my opinion they should only be linked the first time they appear. --Gman124 talk 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How come most recently, the Toronto Raptors draft history was a featured list but it also was overlinking? (Annoyomous24) (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether something is overlinked is rather subjective. You can't seriously expect every same-genre article to have the same number of wikilinks. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So should this article be overlinked or should it not? (Annoyomous24) (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, remove the overlinking from the table. --Gman124 talk 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So should this article be overlinked or should it not? (Annoyomous24) (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether something is overlinked is rather subjective. You can't seriously expect every same-genre article to have the same number of wikilinks. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How come most recently, the Toronto Raptors draft history was a featured list but it also was overlinking? (Annoyomous24) (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:12, 3 July 2008 [6].
I believe this list meets the FL criteria. My only concern is that it may contain too much information (most other articles have separate articles for population, area, GDP (PPP), etc.). I felt that a comprehensive list of countries should incorporate the basic facts of each country. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I don't think the text in the table should have a smaller font size than everything else. Perhaps the images, especially the flags, could be smaller to give the text more room.
- Heh, hadn't even noticed the reduced size. Fixed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other lists" → "See also"? That would conform with WP:LAYOUT better (and place it before References).
Gary King (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This looks good now. Gary King (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- Name:
- I say separate the common name from the official name, and also include the names in the native languages.
- Well, given how some of these countries have multiple native, or official, languages, it seems best to not to include the native name. I have separated the common name from the official name, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I suppose I can let that slide. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, given how some of these countries have multiple native, or official, languages, it seems best to not to include the native name. I have separated the common name from the official name, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right now, to someone who doesn't know they are dependencies, it looks like "UK" is the official name of the Falklands, and "France" is the official name of French Guiana. So that's another reason these should be separated.
- French Guiana is not a "dependency" of France; it IS France. No one would ever say that Alaska or Hawaii are dependencies of the United States, and French Guiana's status within France is identical; it is a fundamental part of the republic. So really, the table should include one dependency, and instead of saying "French Guiana", it should say "France", with perhaps "French Guiana" in parentheses (once you get rid of the 'official name in parentheses' bit. Or maybe the other way around. But either way, French Guiana is not a dependency.
- Oh, I briefly glanced at Dependent territory—missed the entire "French Guiana is not a dependency" thing. French Guiana is still considered a part of South America, so do you think I should move this article to List of South American countries and just make a note of FG's current status? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it should stay like this, since the Falklands are politically and geologically linked with South America. But even more so, France IS a South American country (and an African country, and an Oceanian country, and a North American country... the French got around), so it should definitely be included, just as the United States and Chile are Oceanian countries, and Turkey is both European and Asian. So I suppose it should include just French Guiana, but make it very clear that it is part of France, and the statistics given apply only to the South American portion of France. (Such a distinction isn't needed for Easter Island, since it's politically linked with the mainland as part of a mainland region, I guess) --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I briefly glanced at Dependent territory—missed the entire "French Guiana is not a dependency" thing. French Guiana is still considered a part of South America, so do you think I should move this article to List of South American countries and just make a note of FG's current status? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to say somewhere in the table that it is a dependency; you cannot rely on coloring alone, due to accessibility reason.
- I say separate the common name from the official name, and also include the names in the native languages.
- The table header doesn't need to say 'area in km2 (sq mi)' when the data itself says km2 and sq mi.
- For the GDP per capita column, move US$ into the header, and just say $ in the column itself, without repeating the link every time.
- This is an interesting one, but in a list of countries of Oceania, would we put the United States' GDP for Hawaii, or Hawaii's gross state product? Likewise, should we put France's GDP, or French Guiana's gross regional product? I suppose we should make it clear that the table is including only the South American portions of France.
- Note added. Is this clear enough? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, though you still have French Guiana noted and shaded as a dependency. :) I don't know what Wikipedia common law on this is, but I don't think it should be counted as one, and more than Hawaii is a dependency of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note added. Is this clear enough? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which brings up another fundamental question - are we only listing information for the portions of the countries in South America? In that case, we would only include French Guiana, but we would have to also exclude Easter Island (an Oceanic part of Chile). I see that you are including Easter Island (courtesy of a footnote), so either you should include the whole of France, or make it very clear that it's being left out. (It makes sense to include one but not the other, since Easter Island is politically part of a mainland Chilean region, but French Guiana is its own department)
- These are my issues so far. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor note added. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Name:
Comments: Most of my suggestions were already mentioned by Golbez above, but I do have a few more:
- Do you have any websites that could potentially form an "External links" section? If yes, then please make that section.
- Besides the CIA World Factbook (which is used as a ref repeatedly), there's no single source of info for all countries. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "See also" section goes before the "Notes" section.
- Could you please separate the footnotes from the references? It makes it very confusing on the list as to whether I'm about to read a footnote or a citation.
- Never been a supporter of this designation, but I guess I could do it. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could wait for a consensus first, if you want to.--Dem393 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or not...nevermind! I like the notes and references now.--Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could wait for a consensus first, if you want to.--Dem393 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never been a supporter of this designation, but I guess I could do it. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are the map perspectives different? Why do Argentina and Brazil have a world map while others have portions of the South American map? I think you should be consistent with the perspectives of all of the maps.
- I was wondering the same thing. I looked on Commons, but had no success in finding more appropriate images. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's fine.--Dem393 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering the same thing. I looked on Commons, but had no success in finding more appropriate images. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "South America has an area of approximately 17,840,000 square kilometers (6,890,000 sq mi), or almost 3.5% of the Earth's surface. Its population is more than 380 million, according to estimates of country populations in the The World Factbook." Please cite all of these statements.
I hope that these suggestions will help. Good luck! --Dem393 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the way the list looks now! Support --Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Abbreviating GDP per capita to PPP is confusing - can you say "GDP per capita, also called Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)"?
- GDP per capita is not PPP. This statistic is "GDP at PPP per capita". I've clarified this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - you say French Guiana is an " overseas department and region" of France - is that the same as a dependency? You explicitly state the Falklands to be a dependency, but not French Guiana.
- French Guiana is not a dependency. See my correspondence with Golbez above. I'm still waiting on his reply regarding my proposal to move this page to just "List of South American countries". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But I did reply, several days ago. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, ignore what I said above. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And actually, rereading it, I have no problem with moving it to "List of South American countries" (though I would prefer 'List of countries in South America'), as long as the Falklands is kept. =p --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, moved. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And actually, rereading it, I have no problem with moving it to "List of South American countries" (though I would prefer 'List of countries in South America'), as long as the Falklands is kept. =p --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, ignore what I said above. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But I did reply, several days ago. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- French Guiana is not a dependency. See my correspondence with Golbez above. I'm still waiting on his reply regarding my proposal to move this page to just "List of South American countries". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Its population is more than 380 million" can you put a timeframe on this, say "As of x 2008..."?
- "South America ranks fourth in area " just make it clear you're talking about continents here.
- Official language in the table should be language(s).
- These are official languages, not just languages. I didn't want to include languages because some countries have dozens of widely spoken languages. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, not clear was I? I meant the col heading should be "Offical language(s)" because there's more than one in some instances. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. Done. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, not clear was I? I meant the col heading should be "Offical language(s)" because there's more than one in some instances. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are official languages, not just languages. I didn't want to include languages because some countries have dozens of widely spoken languages. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right align population col.
- It's currently left-aligned like every otherr column (except flag and map). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, so right align it so the commas align properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's currently left-aligned like every otherr column (except flag and map). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a (July 2008 est.) in the heading and then in the same column a single (January 2007 est.) for population. You could do the same with the PPP col since only two aren't 2007 est.
- No MOS requirement but I'd prefer to see references centrally aligned.
- "kilometer" in the lead, "kilometre" in the notes. And presumably note E means "square" kilometres?
- Fix the template so it points directly to this page and not via a redirect.
That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan to move this article. Also, see the template code. I don't think I could get it to directly link to this title. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the template code was a little more complex than I first imagined... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan to move this article. Also, see the template code. I don't think I could get it to directly link to this title. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper cr. 6 of WP:WIAFL. The table has too many columns and it is too widened and messy. Flags should be smaller than they are now.--Crzycheetah 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- What resolution are you using? Flags and map sizes have been reduced and I have reduced column widths. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My res. is 1024 x 768. It looks fine now. The only minor concern is that the GDP column heading is too long(for a heading that is), but I don't see how it can be improved. Maybe move the contents of the parentheses to the footnote? --Crzycheetah 23:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What resolution are you using? Flags and map sizes have been reduced and I have reduced column widths. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A more engaging first sentence is needed, rather than a straight repetition of the article title
- I'd prefer to see the table header for area state km/sq miles, and remove it from each cell
- No need for the dollar sign in the GDP column, cos you already say it's in US dollars.
- How come two different style maps are used? One beige and red, the other grey and green?
- Perhaps you could include a footnote to say that the Population is an estimate from 2008, except where stated otherwise, and also put all that extra GDP info in a footnote, which would shorten the height of the table headers
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should add a key explaining what the rows highlighted in light blue mean. -- Scorpion0422 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is mentioned in the lead, but I guess people might miss that. Key added. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, unless I'm howled down by more experienced reviewers. My chief concern is that it's kinda workaday, too easy, and sacrifices a lot of usefulness, to put together this info: constructing the table was probably 30 minutes' work. What would add value to this list is the provision of another one or two tables that give more information for comparison. Like notional GDP, which will show how undervalued or overvalued a currency it; like form of government; like Quality of Life index; like demographic profile (um ... isn't there a single ratio of below and above 25 years of age in the UN database? You could have a basic info table first, then a demographic one, then an economic one? But your choice. Therefore, I have to say that I think it doesn't yet meet our primary requirement, that "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." I see other nominations that are much more useful.
- GDP PPP is the way you'd say it, as opposed to GDP notional value. Overlinked (I've removed some culprits).
- Cr 2, inadequate lead. I mean, what about the larger context of how so many languages came to be spoken there? A sense of the chronological span of its invasion by Europeans, and its independence in the 20th century. Why it's so fragmented into little nation states (Columbia used to be three countries until the mid-1800s, I think). For an ordinary list, it's fine; for a featured list, I want more. TONY (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list didn't take me 30 minutes to create (see the article history). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it was a throwaway line, not well-chosen. I still think the scope is too small and wastes potential to be a really interesting collection of data. TONY (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I actually thought I covered too many things in this list. There are other lists (e.g. List of South American countries by GDP (PPP) per capita) that cover the data from this list. In any case, do you propose I make separate sections with a table including economic statistics and another with demographics? Also, given your feelings about the data in this list, you might want to nominate List of countries, which contains no data, for FL removal. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it was a throwaway line, not well-chosen. I still think the scope is too small and wastes potential to be a really interesting collection of data. TONY (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list didn't take me 30 minutes to create (see the article history). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←List of countries does contain lots of info, and is partly excused because it has corralled a huge number of items into a list. It's still a pity that it chooses flags (pretty meaningless) above more useful, interesting info. South America is much smaller, and to be "among our best work" begs for an interesting combination of data criteria that allows readers to compare the countries in useful ways (even unique ways, but that would be a stroke of luck if you came upon a combination of data that isn't out there already). I guess I'd like to encourage WPians to nominate for high status lists that are deeper in terms of data mining. Frankly, the List of South American countries by GDP (PPP) per capita needs to be merged into this one and combined with fascinating comparative data, nominal GDP of course, but housing, telephone and car ownership, size of public sector in the economy—I don't know, but that's one of the enjoyable tasks of creating a list, I think: skimming around for combinations of data that show the expected and unexpected associations. OECD and CIA Factbook should give a good foundation, and there's so much to select from that the very filtering of the criteria is a valuable contribution in a WP list. And the lead! TONY (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony has made some interesting suggestions. In my opinion, one way of thinking of the list is a summary of the information found in the infoboxes of each country's article. Also, I think that the list has grown beyond simply a table by now; I suggest using a separate level 3 heading for each country and then listing the information below it. Something like what I have posted on this FLC's talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_South_American_countries#Example_of_an_entry. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I know it's bordering on pedantry, but I'm still not entirely happy with the labelling of French Guiana as "not a country." France is a country; French Guiana is part of it. If this were a list of the countries in Europe, would you equally say Metropolitan France was not a country, because France extends beyond Europe? Perhaps a better terminology would be "French Guiana is part of a predominantly European country." It's a delicate thing which appears to have not been dealt with yet on Wikipedia...? And likewise, maybe "France" should be listed first in the table, with "French Guiana" in parentheses... since this is a list of countries, then France is the country, and French Guiana is the part of that country actually within the scope of the list... --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aruba doesn't mention being South American. In fact it appears in Template:Countries of North America. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid the user who just added Aruba and two other "countries" to the list. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to the FL directors, I'm going to handle the concerns raised above in Tony1's oppose shortly. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, please let me (and Tony) know when you're done. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to the FL directors, I'm going to handle the concerns raised above in Tony1's oppose shortly. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid the user who just added Aruba and two other "countries" to the list. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: what should I list under "type of government" for the Falkland Islands and French Guiana? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now (not yet ready for FL status) and response to Nishkid64's last question:
- Please get rid of the sentence that says "The Falkland Islands and French Guiana, which are not countries themselves, are highlighted with a cyan background and marked with an asterisk in the table." That's much too self-referential for a lead section; save that kind of information for a table footnote or table legend.
- Regarding that cyan background and asterisk... You explain the cyan background in the legend, so the text explanation is not needed. As for the asterisks, I find them off-putting because the asterisk doesn't point to a footnote. I suggest deleting the asterisks.
- Just a comment, but there has to be some indicator in actual text; for accessibility reasons we can't rely on color alone to convey information. --Golbez (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. When I made the comment above, I was assuming that the following item would take care of that need, in that the table would clearly indicate that these places are not sovereign countries. --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment, but there has to be some indicator in actual text; for accessibility reasons we can't rely on color alone to convey information. --Golbez (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for what to put under "Form of government", for the Falkland Islands say "UK overseas territory and dependency, also claimed by Argentina" and for French Guiana say "overseas department and region of France".
- I'd like to see a separate "Notes" section at the bottom of each table that has lettered notes, instead of clumping them all at the end of the article.
- The note letters should be sequential. That is, the first note in the first table should be "A", the second note should be "B," the last note in the last table should be "H", etc.
- To minimize confusion, please don't use the same word "Notes" for the lettered notes and the right-hand column headings which link to numbered references. I suggest that you either (1) call the lettered notes "Footnotes" or (2) change the right-hand column title to "References", but there might be an even better solution.
- I suggest that you use a lettered note (or footnote) to indicate that Argentina calls the Falkland Islands "Islas Malvinas." When that is done, I think you could delete the sentence "The Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory and dependency, which is also claimed by Argentina as the Islas Malvinas,[2] while French Guiana is an overseas department and region of France" from the lead section.
- The abbreviated titles in the "See also" list are odd. Spell out the full names of the other articles.
- Also, now that most of the contents of these other articles are included here, why not add population density to the "Demographics and geography" table and add a "GDP PPP" column to the "Economic statistics" table?
--Orlady (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A general note: The article is currently being revamped to address Tony1's concerns. I still have to add a number of columns before I can call this table complete. I'll fix the kinks out within the next day or two. Thank you for your patience. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The list is unstable, as there is question whether Aruba, Trinidad and Tobago, et.al. should be on the list. I've done some work on the France issue, still not entirely happy with it but it's there to work with. --Golbez (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue was already resolved. Aruba, TT and Netherland Antilles were on the list before I started working on it. These sovereign states are sometimes considered part of South America, so I think it's appropriate to include them in the table, with a note indicating their status. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they aren't in the table... And if they are put there, then the intro needs to be changed to reflect just whose definition of South America is being used. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is being revamped anyway. See the article history. It's changed signficantly since the start of this FAC. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is precisely why it needs to be refined and stabilized before the FLC can continue. --Golbez (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm in the process of doing that. By the way, the FLC's closed now. TRM archived it hours ago, apparently. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... oh. Well then, carry on. :) ... Shouldn't this have been moved to an archive then? --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GimmeBot will be here to archive shortly. I'll renominate the article once I've made all the appropriate changes. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... oh. Well then, carry on. :) ... Shouldn't this have been moved to an archive then? --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm in the process of doing that. By the way, the FLC's closed now. TRM archived it hours ago, apparently. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is precisely why it needs to be refined and stabilized before the FLC can continue. --Golbez (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is being revamped anyway. See the article history. It's changed signficantly since the start of this FAC. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they aren't in the table... And if they are put there, then the intro needs to be changed to reflect just whose definition of South America is being used. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue was already resolved. Aruba, TT and Netherland Antilles were on the list before I started working on it. These sovereign states are sometimes considered part of South America, so I think it's appropriate to include them in the table, with a note indicating their status. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:50, 2 July 2008 [7].
As part of the FL contest and the need for a better list, I've spent hours working on this, and now that it's complete, I feel it meets the criteria. Comments are appreciated, as always. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Doncram
- Hey, the intro paragraph statement about saving $2,000 is bizarre and strikes me as non-encyclopedic. The statement is "New York's Interstate Highway system saves the average state resident $2,170 per year in reduced accident cost, lowered gasoline use, among other factors." It is supported by a reference. But the statement is so bizarre, i don't believe the reference. What it appears to be is someone's weird calculation, to many significant digits of accuracy, of how much each New York State resident saves relative to some unspecified alternative, such as having no highway at all. Or what is the alternative: having use of just canals, or railways, or travel by balloon? I would rather expect the state population would be different if there were no highways. Why would there be no highways? It appears to be a ridiculous self-serving promotional calculation, perhaps used to justify getting a certain budget or something. It is just bizarre, to repeat myself, it is just bizarre! A wikipedia article simply cannot state something like this as a fact.
- And, i don't think the description of 690 is complete and accurate. It does not describe the extensions of 690 off in various directions, to Fairmount and to Camillus. It is not a single route that you can travel from one end to another. The inadequacy of description is not limited to this list article; I believe it is a problem in the separate article on 690 itself.
- Sorry these quick comments are not more positive, but I hope they are nonetheless helpful. Good luck with the article! doncram (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So I take it you don't like that lead sentence? ;) I agree about that, so it's gone. I also tried to clarify the I-690 description. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Lvklock I live in the Syracuse area, so I looked at those descriptions pretty closely. At first, I thought the same as Doncram, that the 690 description wasn't wrong. I also thought 695 was here, not in the Bronx. Upon checking a map, I realized that 690 changes from Interstate to a State Route at I-90, then continues to the N of Baldwinsville. Similarly, the 695 that branches off I690 is also a NYS Route. Maybe some mention of these would make the description less confusing. Also, I'd like to see some mention that I690 is the access road for and passes by the New York State Fair Grounds, which are significant to residents all across the state. Lvklock (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I tried to clarify the I-690 description some. Let me know if it's any better. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much clearer, thanks. I like the State Fair mention. :) Lvklock (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks! Can you see anything else that needs to be fixed? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much clearer, thanks. I like the State Fair mention. :) Lvklock (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps give the gallery a caption and center align it. Gary King (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good job on this list! It's very comprehensive and detailed. One suggestion, however.
- "Unlike in some other states, Interstates in New York are not referenced by NYSDOT with their number." Then how does NYSDOT refer to these interstates?--Dem393 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job! One more problem arose due to your edit: In "U.S. and Interstate highways are classified as state routes in New York," please link "state routes" to List of State Routes in New York.--Dem393 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed again. Thanks for the suggestion! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem!--Dem393 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed again. Thanks for the suggestion! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job! One more problem arose due to your edit: In "U.S. and Interstate highways are classified as state routes in New York," please link "state routes" to List of State Routes in New York.--Dem393 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation, people. I can't believe nobody commented on it. Come on, here are four undisambiguated links just for the highways, and many more in the "locations" columns!
- And if I'm going to comment, I might as well say several of the descriptions are unfortunate in wording. For example, more often then not it's unclear that an Interstate continues or not from/to another state. Also, stuff like "I-87 is an intrastate Interstate Highway located entirely within the state of New York." is kind of redundant, and the one for I-86 is hardly better. Circeus (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, although I fail to see the undisambiguated location links. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed by anon. Tonawanda, New York is th eonly one left. Circeus (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, although I fail to see the undisambiguated location links. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that I took the time to review most of it, I might as well wrap up and then support: Why was the sortability removed from the Length and Dates columns? Seemed perfectly legit to me (what's the point to have sortability on only one, already sorted column??). Putting the reference on the header cell of "Length" would be simpler than in each cell, btw. Also, have any NY Interstate been decommissioned? Circeus (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it (sorting isn't my strong point). Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Sorting's done. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several descriptions are still less than ideal. Circeus (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please specify which ones? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I-86and -87 start with "I-86 located in the U.S. states of New York and Pennsylvania." (syntax plz) and "I-87 is located entirely within the state of New York." (given context and the usual wp style distinguishing New York from New York City, there's redundant stuff here, also, why say it for this Interstate, but not I-88?). Circeus (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I-86and -87 start with "I-86 located in the U.S. states of New York and Pennsylvania." (syntax plz) and "I-87 is located entirely within the state of New York." (given context and the usual wp style distinguishing New York from New York City, there's redundant stuff here, also, why say it for this Interstate, but not I-88?). Circeus (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please specify which ones? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several descriptions are still less than ideal. Circeus (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting's done. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Outdent) Just on last thing: Has any Interstate been decommissioned in NY? Other than addressing that, I'll happily Support the list. That map is nifty, by the way. Circeus (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been a number of Interstates decommissioned in NY, but since the list focuses on current designations, I didn't think it was necessary to add them. However, if you think they're needed, I'll look into it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if I'm going to comment, I might as well say several of the descriptions are unfortunate in wording. For example, more often then not it's unclear that an Interstate continues or not from/to another state. Also, stuff like "I-87 is an intrastate Interstate Highway located entirely within the state of New York." is kind of redundant, and the one for I-86 is hardly better. Circeus (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions: (a) clarification on routes that are also part of the Thruway system with regards to maintenance as well as tolls; (b) inclusion of legislative route numbers; (c) addition of unbuilt routes that are listed in state law; (d) peak traffic data would be an interesting addition. --Polaron | Talk 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to keep the descriptions short and concise, but I'll look for that info. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thruway info added to the lead. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to keep the descriptions short and concise, but I'll look for that info. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- List of Interstate Highways in Texas, already featured, has a Notes column
- mi and km is over-wikilinked
- Change the opening sentence to "The Interstate Highways in New York" instead of "List of..."
- Might be interesting to add who polices the interstates? Local PDs, Highway Patrol, or State Troopers, whatever
- Can you request a map be made showing the interstates, such as the one at the Texas list?
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking and opening sentence fixed. Working on the other comments, although I prefer the current note formatting better. I could request a map, but as the most active member of WP:USRD/MTF has retired, I doubt I'll be able to get one before the FLC ends. Thanks for the comments, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work on getting the map done. I think the gallery should be sectioned ==Gallery== though, rather than just plotzed there. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose; one of the main sources - Gribblenation's "New York Routes" - is not a reliable source. Neither is Interstate-Guide or Kurumi. In some cases, they are incorrect; I-87 was part of the initial Interstate numbering approved in 1958. It also lacks former designations, of which there are a fair number of in the NYC area (I-478 on the Manhattan Bridge, for example). --NE2 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I replaced all of the unreliable references. Just a question, though. As the opening sentence clarifies that the list documents current Interstate Highways, are former designations necessary? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; a list should not be limited to the present. Wikipedia is not bound to the present. --NE2 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd noticed recently that there is no centralized "former Interstate" list (although there is a tentative category). This is quite surprising given the amount of Highway buffs around on WP. Circeus (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; a list should not be limited to the present. Wikipedia is not bound to the present. --NE2 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I replaced all of the unreliable references. Just a question, though. As the opening sentence clarifies that the list documents current Interstate Highways, are former designations necessary? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 12:13, 2 July 2008 [8].
I have recently written and published this list and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this page even necessary? The 56th National Hockey League All-Star Game page also includes a roster, and that one also includes positions, starters and numbers. A lot of the information in this article just duplicates that one, and I think it would be much more useful if this table was merged back there. -- Scorpion0422 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is notable enough to be a list; you could merge any list that relates to something within another article into it. But I feel this list is just as useful as any other list, featured or not, that relates to another article. Hello32020 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but in most cases the list is moved to its own article. In this case, the main article still has the same table, and this one has more information. -- Scorpion0422 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could add more information to an article for every list comparable to this and then delete the list. However, this list is still as useful as any other list that could be merged into an article, which is probably at least half of featured lists. Hello32020 (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, there is a difference. There is a List of Stanley Cup champions and a Stanley Cup article. However, the two both have original content, don't overlap and combining the two would make the article too long. In this case, everything said in this article is already at the main one, including a more informative table, which makes me think this one is not necessary at all. Why not merge the two and work on getting it to GA status? -- Scorpion0422 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could add more information to an article for every list comparable to this and then delete the list. However, this list is still as useful as any other list that could be merged into an article, which is probably at least half of featured lists. Hello32020 (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but in most cases the list is moved to its own article. In this case, the main article still has the same table, and this one has more information. -- Scorpion0422 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is notable enough to be a list; you could merge any list that relates to something within another article into it. But I feel this list is just as useful as any other list, featured or not, that relates to another article. Hello32020 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps force a Table of Contents (Help:TOC) as generally I think it makes sense to have one if readers are required to scroll to reach the bottom of the page, to see, say, the references. Gary King (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hello32020 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any navboxes and external links suitable for this page? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added one navbox and external link. Hello32020 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am with Scorpion here. I don't feel that this list is necessary. If this list remains separate, then the main article will lose its comprehensiveness.--Crzycheetah 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remove the overlinking of Teams from Team columns, link the teams the first time they appear in the table. --Gman124 talk 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:54, 2 July 2008 [9].
This seems o meet all FL criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there needs to be some sort of divide between the National and American league tables. You could turn it into two seperate tables, or add some sort of thick line/narrow blank column between columns 2 and 3. Drewcifer (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, what about including their positions? Players are added to the roster based on position, correct? Drewcifer (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have most of the positions in the lead. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I actually haven't read the lead yet. Busted! =) But technically speaking the lead should summarize the rest of the article/list, but not introduce anything new. So that info should be in the table in some way, right? Drewcifer (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the rows organized? For instance, why is Alfonso Soriano on the same row as B.J. Ryan? The fact that everything is in one table necessitates a bit more structure. Table-wise, I'm honestly more akin to the style of 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Which leads me to a related question: why do we need this list anyways? It's already done in the other article, and in my opinion better. Drewcifer (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have most of the positions in the lead. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to my comments above and (so far) a lack of resolution to them. To recap, I have three over-arching issues:
- This list is made redundant by 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. This list contributes nothing the article does not, and is in fact inferior (IMHO) to the list contained in the larger article which is formatted more carefully and logically, aesthetically more pleasing and readable, and contains more information. The only thing this list does that the article does not is add a bunch of pictures on the side, which isn't particularly compelling to me.
- The formatting and structure of the tables is arbitrary and seemingly haphazard. This is mainly due to the fact the both leagues occupy the same horizontal space in the same table.
- Lastly (and this is a new one), the sorting does not work at all. I believe this is due to the common row at the bottom with the source, but I'm not too sure about that. Drewcifer (talk)
- Comment
Can the table in Key be fixed so the color fills the entire cell?Gary King (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Ya - done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main article for this list still has a table. Why can't the one here be moved there? Then, that article would be a lot more useful. -- Scorpion0422 06:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now. I usually don't oppose right off the bat (no pun intended), but I see a lot of issues and incorrect grammar.- The contest was the fifth hosted by the city of Pittsburgh -- tying the Indians for the record of most times hosted by a single franchise. Oh noes! Not the double hyphen!
- Oh no! Replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The game resulted in the American League defeating the National League 3-2, thus awarding the AL champion (which was eventually the Detroit Tigers) home-field advantage in the 2006 World Series. Change "3-2" to "3–2".
- Ivan Rodriguez made his eleventh all-star appearance, while Alex Rodriguez made his ninth. Why is Alex in italics?
- I have no clue (removed) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the American League, Catcher Ivan Rodriguez making his 13th all-star appearance, received 1,826,720 votes, the most for the catcher position. Something funky there.
- Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- New York Yankees players Alex Rodriguez Derek Jeter, both making multiple all-star appearances, received over two million votes to play third base or shortstop, respectively. "Alex Rodriguez Derek Jeter" is not one person. Also, that sentence is very pooly worded.
- Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Albert Pujols, received 3,418,555, the most that year for any position.. Why the commans?
- Fixed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chase Utley, making his first world series appearance, received 1,971,920 votes. I thought we were talking about the All-stars game, not the world series.
- Yep, just as I thought - I've lost my mind. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The key confuses me. It says the color green and a bullet point indicates that a player ppeared more than once in an all-star game, but some of the entries in the table are only colored green and don't have a bullet point. Do they signify different things?
- Not any more I hope. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see more references. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little blunt Julian. The question is: where? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, I guess that was a bit blunt. For example, what source does the entire table rely on? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This - okay - I'll add a source at the bottom of the table. That fine? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that should be fine. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that should be fine. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This - okay - I'll add a source at the bottom of the table. That fine? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, I guess that was a bit blunt. For example, what source does the entire table rely on? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little blunt Julian. The question is: where? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments Starting to look better. I struck my oppose, so just a few more comments.
- The game resulted in the American League defeating the National League 3$ndash;2, thus awarding the AL champion (which was eventually the Detroit Tigers) home-field advantage in the 2006 World Series. Funky non-breaking space.
- Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Albert Pujols, received 3,418,555 votes, the most that year for any position[3], to play first base in the world series.[3] Because you're using the same ref, kill the one in the middle of the sentence.
- Killed... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Albert Pujols, received 3,418,555 votes, the most that year for any position... Still too many commas.
- Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the outfield, Vladimir Guerrero topped the list with 2,833,601 votes. Maybe becaues I'm going crazy, this says to me that he topped the entire All-star list.
- By spelling because wrong, it seems you are :P - Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Bay was voted to play outfield 2,635,930 times, the most in that position that year. Gah! Jason Bay played outfield 2,635,930 times?! :P
- Uh... not really. It says: "Jason Bay was voted to play outfield 2,635,930..." - I don't see anything wrong. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, OK, but I still think it's slightly confusing. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, OK, but I still think it's slightly confusing. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... not really. It says: "Jason Bay was voted to play outfield 2,635,930..." - I don't see anything wrong. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image layout looks fine on Firefox, but poor on Internet Explorer. I can't imagine there's a way to fix that, so it's no big deal.
- Ya, asked too many people how to fix that. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya, asked too many people how to fix that. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the entire chart isn't a key, it might be best to eliminate the "key" subheader or move it to the bottom.
- I did something else - check it out. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment Why is {{2007 MLB season by team}} at the bottom? Shouldn't it be 2006? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya, I've definitely lost my mind. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, what is the organization for the table? It appears to be done alphabetically, but in that order, wouldn't Barry come before B.J. in the NL column? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No - the B.J. - Symbols are before words when it comes to alphabetical order. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang, I forgot about that. That was stupid... I'll give the list a a last full look-over tonight. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, that's OK. I assume you copy and pasted from the 2007 list and forgot to change it?;) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No - the B.J. - Symbols are before words when it comes to alphabetical order. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOppose If we're listing the all-stars separately, then what should we have at 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game?--Crzycheetah 07:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- As I've already said, I don't think this page is necessary. 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game should have these tables.--Crzycheetah 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The source at the bottom of the table should be in a "references" section, like Wikipedia instead of the seemingly misplaced [5] as it is now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remove the overlinking of Teams from Team columns, link the teams the first time they appear in the table. --Gman124 talk 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:59, 1 July 2008 [10].
Seems to meet all criteria. Well illustrated, referenced, and informative lead. Comments are (of course) welcome. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Use en-dash for score separator i.e. not 5-4 but 5–4.
- Done.
- Is it All-Star or all-star?
- Its "all-star" - replaced. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Russell Martin received over 600,000 votes, the most that year, to play as catcher in the 2007 all-star game" vs " Carlos Beltran led the outfield postion ballots with 1,017,795 votes.[5]" - doesn't make sense to me - "the most that year" except for the following sentence?
- Clarified. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOS#Color says not to use just colour to indicate a property, so include an asterisk, dagger etc... for those guys as well as modifying the colour of the cells.
- Added an asterisk (*) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Carlos Beltrán a 4-time all-star (2004-07) appeared in the 2007 All-star game" - caption could use work - a comma after his name, that weird 2004-07 needs to be tuned into English, is it All-star, all-star or All-Star, and if it's a complete sentence, add a period.
- "Renovated" caption. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Albert Pujols, first basemen for the St. Louis Cardinals appeared in an all-star game for the 6th time." - when?
- Added. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason why NL had one more all-star than AL? If so state it. Looks odd at the moment.
- mlb.com or MLB.com - be consistent.
- No actually there isn't. I was looking through other years and NL seems to often have more all stars. I looked around on the web, couldn't find anything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know if it's just me, but the color in the Key table is messed up. There's a bullet in there... Gary King (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No its not you - I just added the <nowiki's> - should be all set now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please see my comments at the 2006 FLC, all of which apply here as well. Drewcifer (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (almost verbatim from my oppose at the similar 2007 FLC) Due to my comments above and (so far) a lack of resolution to them. To recap, I have three over-arching issues:
- This list is made redundant by 2007 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. This list contributes nothing the article does not, and is in fact inferior (IMHO) to the list contained in the larger article which is formatted more carefully and logically, aesthetically more pleasing and readable, and contains more information. The only thing this list does that the article does not is add a bunch of pictures on the side, which isn't particularly compelling to me.
- The formatting and structure of the tables is arbitrary and seemingly haphazard. This is mainly due to the fact the both leagues occupy the same horizontal space in the same table.
- Lastly (and this is a new one), the sorting does not work at all. I believe this is due to the common row at the bottom with the source, but I'm not too sure about that. Drewcifer (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The American League defeated the National League by a score of 5–4. – That's an MoS breach, unless there's some exception that I don't know about. I'll have more commemts later; just wanted to give it a quick glance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the second point under En-dashes at WP:DASH. – is correct. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This list should be merged with 2007 Major League Baseball All-Star Game because they both basically talk about the same thing.--Crzycheetah 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the overlinking of Teams from Team columns. --Gman124 talk 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:07, 1 July 2008 [11].
A list of all the state highways in Maryland, with a sortable table of their lengths, endpoints and the counties they pass through. The table may need to be split, but it may help to see what people here think of it. Otherwise, I think it may meet the requirements for featured list. Of course, any concerns will be addressed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Remove bold formatting or the link from the bold text, per WP:LEAD.
- Add a section to the table, perhaps named "Maryland state highways"
- "External links" section goes after "References" section.
Gary King (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more comments:
- Format the references per WP:CITE/ES, preferably with {{cite web}}. Be sure to include accessdates as well.
Gary King (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- It looks good. One thing though, how can the western/eastern terminus be verified? Is there a main reference for that, if not, one should be provided to verify it.SRX--LatinoHeat 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For most of the termini, I simply took them from the Wikipedia article (these can be verified using the MDSHA Highway Location Reference), and for the ones that don't have Wikipedia articles, I simply used the HLR. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the reference tag to the column header to make it clear that that's the reference for the termini. - Algorerhythms (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are using the same ref for all of the table, you should make a row just for the source at the bottom of the table, like it is in this table.--SRX--LatinoHeat 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are using the same ref for all of the table, you should make a row just for the source at the bottom of the table, like it is in this table.--SRX--LatinoHeat 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to the Interstates and U.S. Routes? These are state highways, since the state maintains them. The title should probably be "list of state highways in Maryland". The capitalization in the headers is a bit off. --NE2 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interstate and U.S. highways already have their own page. "State highways" in this sense refers to highways that are part of the state-numbered system, so U.S./Interstate highways are not included in this list. There really isn't anything wrong with the title, several other lists are titled this way (List of Maryland state parks, List of Maryland state symbols, List of Maryland state prisons, and List of Maryland state forests to name a few), the title is just a matter of preference. As for the capitalization of the headers, do you mean that the column headers are supposed to be lower case like section headers? If that's the case I'll go ahead and fix that.-Jeff (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're not going to include Interstates or U.S. Routes, the title and text should be changed to make it clear that it's state-numbered highways. --NE2 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially added the Interstates to the list with the intent to also add the U.S. Routes, but removed the Interstates after seeing Jeff's post. I can add them back, but for now I'll wait to get more input. One possibility, though, could be to put the Interstate and U.S. Routes tables on the List of numbered highways in Maryland (which might be a better solution, considering the List of Maryland state highways is already very large.) - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is only one former state highway listed?Never mind - why does only one have the date it was deleted, and how did you determine which were "notable"? Also, what did you do for routes like MD 765 that are (a) unsigned and (b) don't have only two termini? --NE2 04:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, whether a highway is signed isn't marked in the table (tracking down that information would take some work, though it is possible). For routes that have many segments, the longest segment was used. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So some of the lengths, such as for MD 18, are shorter than the actual signed length? --NE2 04:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to check them, but as far as I know, the lengths are correct except for MD 648, for which the length of the longest section is used. For the termini, though, I used the longest section for each of the segmented routes. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MD 18 doesn't use the longest section, which appears to be 18B from Castle Marina Road to US 50. --NE2 04:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been changed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the length agree with the termini listed? --NE2 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now you might see where I was going; the route listed is shorter than what is actually signed. This does not seem to be useful to the reader. --NE2 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the signed multisegment highways (MD 7, MD 18, MD 144, and MD 648) now all have the total signed length in the length column, the western terminus of the westernmost segment in the west terminus column, and the eastern terminus of the easternmost segment in the east terminus column. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now you might see where I was going; the route listed is shorter than what is actually signed. This does not seem to be useful to the reader. --NE2 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the length agree with the termini listed? --NE2 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been changed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MD 18 doesn't use the longest section, which appears to be 18B from Castle Marina Road to US 50. --NE2 04:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to check them, but as far as I know, the lengths are correct except for MD 648, for which the length of the longest section is used. For the termini, though, I used the longest section for each of the segmented routes. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So some of the lengths, such as for MD 18, are shorter than the actual signed length? --NE2 04:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the dates that the former routes were deleted, Jeff has taken care of that - the dates are left out on all of them, making the former routes consistent. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unable to sort by any columns but the first because of the "source" row. --NE2 04:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unable to find a way to get sorting to work with that row (class=sortbottom and class=unsortable both didn't work), so I took the row out. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three comments:
- IMHO, the end of the second paragraph seems to make some claims that probably need to be referenced, but that could just be me. I'm wavering back and forth as to whether it's common sense or not. If you're seeking featured status, it's probably better to be safe than sorry though.
- Also, the third paragraph doesn't seem to be applicable. Is it a holdover from an old format? For example, it says that the higher numbered unsigned highways are listed only if they're notable. What makes MD 963 – a 0.01-mile section of pavement that doesn't intersect any other highways – notable?
- Speaking of 0.01-mile highways, at the end of the list, you appear to have added an extra digit of precision to the kilometer conversion for the "baby" routes. Any particular reason why? I notice that the source listed gives the mileposts to 3 digits, although I suppose this is questionable since 99% of the time, the thousandths digit is 0.
-- Kéiryn (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The third paragraph is a holdover from an earlier format and can be removed. As for the extra digits in the kilometer figures, the convert template seems to be adding those for the numbers that are less than 0.10 km. I'm not sure how to fix that. In addition, I've added a couple references to the first paragraph. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Template:Convert/doc#Rounding. Basically you can force it to two decimal places by adding another unnamed parameter, i.e.
{{convert|0.03|mi|km|2}}
→ 0.03 miles (0.05 km). -- Kéiryn (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Template:Convert/doc#Rounding. Basically you can force it to two decimal places by adding another unnamed parameter, i.e.
Comments
- Can a map of the state highways be made, as is in List of Interstate Highways in Texas, a Featured List passed not long ago?
- This can be done, though it might take a while since the State Highway Administration doesn't (as far as I know) provide GIS data for the state highways.
- Needs a more engaging opening sentence, rather than "Below is a list of Maryland state highways...", which is simply a copy of the article's title
- How does it look now? (I seem to remember copying the original wording from List of Interstate Highways in Texas.)
- There's no need to sort the counties, as where more than one county is listed, only the first county sorts
- Done.
- Inconsistencies with capitalisation: "Road end near Potomac River", "road end near Berlin". "End of state maintenance at Love Point", "end of state maintenance at Assateague State Park". "Dead End", "Dead end". "DC Border", "DC border"
- I've fixed some of the ones I've found; if there are any I missed I can fix those, too.
- "Baltimore County", and "Garrett", "Allegany", "Somerset"
- This was done to avoid confusion between Baltimore County, Maryland, and the city of Baltimore, Maryland, which is separate from the county. I suppose I could add "County" after "Garrett," etc. to make it consistent.
- Changed for consistency. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Navbox templates should be at the very end of the article, after external links
- Done.
- Too many redlinks
- The redlinks to villages that don't have articles can be removed, though a lot of the redlinks are state highways that don't yet have articles.
- "Source:Maryland State Highway Administration, Highway Location Reference, 2005" should be listed in the references
- Done.
- Take a look at Texas Interstate Highways. It may not be suitable for a list of this size, but it has a description column instead of just a terminus
- I had considered this, but decided that doing this for several hundred highways seemed impractical. - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- In the Western/Southern terminus column: "Old Marlboro Pike", "Colebrooke Drive", "Hill Road", "Rousby Road", "Dead end", "Beginning of state maintenance in Grays Inn Creek"
- Eastern/Northern terminus column: "End of state maintenance", "Middlebrook Road", "Chase", "End of Road", "Granny Branch Road", "Dead end".
- None of these are helpful to the reader. None, expect for Chase say which town/city, and Chase doesn't give any cross-streets.
- I've fixed the ones that I've found. If I missed any, point them out.
- I suggest this is looked over by the folks at WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads, and taken to WP:PR.
- Well, two of the reviewers here are ediors at USRD, in any event. - Algorerhythms (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.