Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2009: Difference between revisions
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) ←Created page with '{{Featured list log}}' |
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 10 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1998 Winter Olympics medal table}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Silver Slugger Award winners at second base}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA X Division Champions}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Clint Eastwood filmography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Davy Medal}} |
Revision as of 22:19, 4 April 2009
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [1].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria especially since I used a current FL (List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts)) as a template. Just like the Naval Academy lists, this list is one of many sublists that will eventually be part of a Featured Topic. I am appreciative of Rlevse's assistance with this list and taking care of the majority of the issues with the format which were identified in the FLC for the Naval Academy astronauts. -MBK004 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Lots of nit-picking, but couldn't see anything fundamentally wrong. BencherliteTalk 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Previous oppose is striken; support since the remaining matters that were outstanding from my comments are, on reflection, too trivial to deny this list promotion and are matters on which opinion could legitimately differ without either side being "wrong" (I hope). I take account also of my isolation on these matters after thorough reviews by more experienced eyes. Good work, MBK004 and Rlevse, and apologies if the tone of my contribution to this discussion was not always what it should have been. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Oppose from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previously promoted USNA lists have been moved to de-capitalize the common nouns. Now, there is consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, good work on resolving the issues I brought up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out USMA and NASA at least once in the references (I would prefer every instance, but it's not a dealbreaker)Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Again, butting in, one of my resolved suggestions was that the mixture of "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy" should be made consistent (I expressed no preference as to which); they were changed to "USMA", which was fine by me. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad that they were made consistent, but I would like the abbreviations spelled out in the publishers on the first appearance at least. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, butting in, one of my resolved suggestions was that the mixture of "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy" should be made consistent (I expressed no preference as to which); they were changed to "USMA", which was fine by me. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 1 April 2009 (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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [2].
1998 Winter Olympics medal table
- Nominator(s): Giants2008 (17-14)
Nobody has nominated an Olympic medal table in a while, so I decided to give it a shot. It has fundamental similarities to other similar FLs, but I've made changes to the introduction, among other things. This has been through one of the shortest peer reviews in FLC history, which I cut short when Scorpion0422 indicated that he thought it was ready. As always, I appreciate the community's feedback and will be around to respond to it. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing like seeing a page with one of my images end up at FLC..... Just sayin'. -- Scorpion0422 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments — I copyedited the lead a bit, so the prose quality seems sufficient. I do have some other concerns/questions, however:
- A TOC to balance out the page would be nice, but this isn't a big deal.
- I can't figure out how to force a TOC properly. Can anyone help with this?
- [3]. I didn't realize there were only two sections, though, so I'm not sure if it's justified. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't figure out how to force a TOC properly. Can anyone help with this?
- The first paragraph in the Medal table section seems rather redundant, as the chart itself is fairly self-explanatory.
- There are some who think that the table should be sorted by total number of medals won. I borrowed this format from 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, where this was repeatedly debated. I'm sure the intention behind that paragraph is to avoid possible disputes.
- Alright, fair enough. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some who think that the table should be sorted by total number of medals won. I borrowed this format from 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, where this was repeatedly debated. I'm sure the intention behind that paragraph is to avoid possible disputes.
- Is that reference really needed in the caption for File:Nagano 1998-Russia vs Czech Republic.jpg?
- The reference was for a photo that was replaced; the new one didn't need it, and I removed it.
- I prefer 2-column reflists for articles with more than 10 citations, but this is a matter of personal opinion.
- The article now has a two-column reflist.
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing it so quickly. Let me know if you have any advice on the first two comments. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, now that my concerns have been addressed. Nice work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I think the parentheses in the first sentence should be removed.
- I turned them into commas.
- The Athletes from 24 countries... sentence is too long and sounds a little awkward to me.
- I made it a little shorter and eliminated the semi-colon to improve readability.
- It says that a star(*) denotes a host nation, but I don't see it.
- That's because I forgot to include it until now. :-)
- Sports Reference LLC is the company that owns the Sports-Reference website, isn't it? So, Sports-Reference should be the publisher and Sports Reference LLC the work.
- This one is going to be controversial among many FLC participants, since they have pushed for this system. If I had my way, I wouldn't use a work column at all there, as I don't consider it vital to note the difference between Sports-Reference and Sports Reference LLC. That's what reviewers want, however, so I've gone along with it until now. I'd like to see what others think about this one.
- If the information is sourced from the actual sports-reference.com website, then having work and publisher is unneeded (Sports Reference LLC will suffice). However, if it comes from a subpage (baseball-reference.com, pro-football-reference.com, etc.), then both are necessary. I recently had a discussion with Truco about this on the FLC for Silver Slugger Award regarding Major League Baseball's website; you can read his capped comments there for more info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After some pondering, I changed it to just give Sports Reference LLC. Since the site is just sports-reference.com, I really don't think anything else is necessary, though I am open to debate on the issue. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the information is sourced from the actual sports-reference.com website, then having work and publisher is unneeded (Sports Reference LLC will suffice). However, if it comes from a subpage (baseball-reference.com, pro-football-reference.com, etc.), then both are necessary. I recently had a discussion with Truco about this on the FLC for Silver Slugger Award regarding Major League Baseball's website; you can read his capped comments there for more info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is going to be controversial among many FLC participants, since they have pushed for this system. If I had my way, I wouldn't use a work column at all there, as I don't consider it vital to note the difference between Sports-Reference and Sports Reference LLC. That's what reviewers want, however, so I've gone along with it until now. I'd like to see what others think about this one.
- Since for some refs The Washington Post is the publisher, why is it in italics?
- Because it's a printed publication, and printed publications should always be in italics. FAC reviewing has ingrained that in me.
- I think the parentheses in the first sentence should be removed.
--Crzycheetah 02:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm repeating myself, but thanks for the quick review. I'm interested in the Sports-Reference issue since that has always bugged me a bit. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher Sports Reference LLC is reliable, as it is used in many other sport-related FLCs.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about formatting, not reliability. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. According to the site, the name of the subsite is "Olympics at SR [Sports Reference]" and the publisher is Sports Reference LLC.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about formatting, not reliability. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher Sports Reference LLC is reliable, as it is used in many other sport-related FLCs.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title." necessary?—Chris! ct 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm assuming this was placed there because of debates on how to order medal lists. I decided to remove the note because anyone familiar with Wikipedia lists should know what the sort tab does. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the references, instead of usingDabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]work=Associated Press
, useagency=Associated Press
.- This must be a new feature of the template, and it makes sense considering how many AP stories are used as references. The three AP stories here now use the template. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:24, 30 March 2009 (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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [4].
List of Silver Slugger Award winners at second base
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria, etc. Article 3 in the forthcoming featured topic (see bottom of this page) on Silver Sluggers. All concerns to be addressed by me. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Looks quite nice and very similar to the first basemen list. I only have a few complaints:
- Comma after "who played his entire career with the Houston Astros".
- The year Cano set the batting average record is wrong in the lead.
- "who won the award in the inaugural 1980 season". Move "inaugural" to before "award" so it doesn't sound like 1980 was the first MLB season.
- Cheers, I was looking for a better way to say that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be ready to support once these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With these done, I support. Wish every review was that quick. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- All previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [5].
List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the criteria.—Chris! ct 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help without nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments - I like the idea behind the improvements to this list. The career achievements lists are generally in rough shape and could use a good model. Here are my thoughts:
|
Support - Nice to see a new kind of list at FLC. For an original list, it's quite good and I think it meets the standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Overall, really nice job. Just a few things that need addressing.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the "career statistics" table, would it be possible to note the years in which he led the league in a certain statistic? For example, if he led the league in free throw% in 06/07, could that cell be bolded or something? -- Scorpion0422 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is possible. I will add a symbol and color.—Chris! ct 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only do it for point per game since it is the only one that appears in the career statistics table.—Chris! ct 03:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is possible. I will add a symbol and color.—Chris! ct 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - very good. A few things...
Give me a shout... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [6].
List of TNA X Division Champions
- Nominator(s): WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. Been wanting to make it an FL for a while now since it is the only current TNA Championship that has enough champions to become an FL. It is reliably sourced to best I can. I can't find reliable sources for the weekly PPVs at the moment but if WrestleView.com will allow me to get to their results, which for some reason they've made off limits while they re-design their site, I'll add those into the list. I'll answer any questions rather quickly to speed this along; not a fan of long reviews. This is my first FL nomination just to state.WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to state that there is a problem going on right now with the title. The character Suicide, is rumored to be played by two people: Christopher Daniels and Frankie Kazarian. Reports state that Kazarian is injured and being replaced by Daniels. Though Suicide won the title this week, and we don't know who was in the match, since there is no reliable that states that Daniels was Suicide that night. The reports he took over the gimmick are around two months old. So, a few ips might edit the article based on rumors that he was the character on Sunday. If it is wanted I'll get the article protected.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- This list has come a long way since I first review, as you can see ;). I can't support yet because I am very used to this list now and I also expand these types of lists, so by supporting first I feel it maybe COI. I will support once another reviewer gives it an okay, I hope you understand.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah okay, it is cool. Also, it being referred to as the TNA X Title since 2004, it covered by solie.org. Just thought to make sure that was covered.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 01:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"prior to "-->before
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Question - Why can't this be merged into TNA X Division Championship? That article is very small at the present time, and I don't see why a split is needed. A combined article would still be a good FLC candidate, if that's a concern. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Looks much better now. One more thing I wanted to ask about was the initials of A. J. Styles' first name. The usual naming convention on Wikipedia is to have a space between the two initials, and I was wondering if Styles' name should be like that throughout the list. Not something I'd hold up support over, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, I usually just write it the way the article title has it spelt. Never took that into consideration.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never seen his name spelled with an extra space. I've only seen it with the standard English of no spaces between initials or no periods (i.e. his name is always either "A.J. Styles" or "AJ Styles", never "A. J. Styles"). TJ Spyke 22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just found WP:NAMEPEOPLE, which states that while most articles use spaces between initials, there is no consensus either way. In other words, don't worry about it too much. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man
|
---|
|
- Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes are out of order, they go D, C, A, B?? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--WillC 04:21, 4 April 2009 (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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [7].
List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who were awarded the Medal of Honor. It is hopefully the last in a set of five lists of USNA alumni. All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The lead looks fine, but I was going through the notes and I noticed many errors (some I have fixed) but I recommend seeking a copyedit of the notes. In addition, are some of these notes actual quotes from the sources because using "courage" without quotes is WP:POV, if it is a quote, please use quotation marks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed "courage and leadership" to actions, will ask Julian to ce. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read through the list, and admitted I could find nothing to change. Could you please provide examples of said errors? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing it was done? Or I must be smoking. Support -- meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter seems more likely. ;) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing it was done? Or I must be smoking. Support -- meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good—Chris! ct 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets the criteria as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) After seeing the above comments, I was afraid that I would not find anything ;)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved image issues |
---|
Dabomb87 asked me to do an image review on this Firstly a note about the images from http://www.history.navy.mil. Images from that site are PD if the image can be verified as being from there. Currently many of these images have a dead source pointing directly to the (no longer existing) "image". However by searching the site many (all?) of these can probably be verified:
For example:
There were a few which needed very minor fixes which I took care of. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Images look good. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General rant directed at no one: This is directed at a general situation, not at any person. I've also seen this trend at other Featured Candidate pages. Why do we have to reverify an image's PD status because of something like links changing? If it was PD, it's always PD. It does not lose that legal status because some website dropped off the net and User:JoeBlow can't find it anymore. But as it is, there is a trend to say "I can't find it, so you have to prove it even though we all know it was PD". Here I'm talking cases like it was sourced to a known PD site or even just trusting the uploader didn't invent a URL, but no, we say "the guy could have been faking a URL, so prove it again, to me". This is all unnecessary and avoidable by using a method that is used on Commons where trusted users verify a flickr image's status for Commons; it's called Flickr review. We could have "PD review", where trusted users verify a PD status and tag the image with a template. That way, two years later when User:JaneBlow posts a FLC/FAC, etc, you, me, and others don't waste our time reinventing the wheel. Not to mention a known PD image can't be used anymore because a URL changed or whatever. Do we do this with images from books? Not yet, but we probably will...Do we say "I don't own that book and it's not in my local library so you have to prove it's PD from 1900 by sending me the book", nope we don't yet, but that's basically what we do with images. Obviously, I'm not talking cases such as when the uploader didn't source the image at all. Food for thought. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE CENTRALIZE DISCUSSION HERE ON COMMONS: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments another good MOH list.
|
- Support, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [8].
List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel that it meets the FL criteria, and in hopes of a future FT of the former titles. Yes I know the lead is a tag long, but that hasn't been a problem at FLC before. This is the first of this type of list at FLC, so I don't know what to expect. Happy reviewing ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraphs are not consistent, try to merge into two dense, or three that are proportional. While editing, hide temporarily the image (using
<!-- Comment -->
) and see how the paragraphs are divided. Cannibaloki 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That's because they all are about different topics. The first is mostly about the early history of the company and the first titles. The second is about the titles that were lent to other promotions, while the last is about titles that were retired as a result of the acquisition of WCW. Which is why they maybe disproportional.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
(outdent) A general reference would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the addition of the wrestling title book you actually also have a source to say that this is as accurate a list as you're going to get, they did a LOT of research and if they don't mentione another WWWF/WWF/WWE title then there isn't one or it was too short lived to even matter. A problem a lot of "list of fomer" lists suffer from, excellent. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I still think this could be merged with List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment to create a "List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships", but I guess the PW project disagrees with me. -- Scorpion0422 16:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the article sizes of each, I disagree.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Looks like it meets FL standards after the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Weak support - meets the criteria, still not keen on the acronym farm for a lead, but unavoidable I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [9].
Clint Eastwood filmography
- Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)
After working on this list, I now believe that it meets the FL criteria. There currently are not that many actor filmographies that are featured and after recently getting Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography passed, I moved on to Clint Eastwood. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. This is much better than the Arnold list that came here the first time.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I reviewed this list pre-FLC, so these are minor things.
In the lead, "Gran Torino" links to a car article.
- I thought I had already fixed that, but it's taken care of now. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and other related media." Not sure what "related" would mean here.
- Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"while excluding appearances as himself on talk shows, interview shows, ceremonies, and other related media."-->and excludes appearances as himself...Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments I would like to add:
- The introduction states: "After beginning his acting career primarily with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, his career has spanned more than 50 years in both television and film productions. He has appeared in over sixty films, including Hang 'Em High, Escape from Alcatraz, The Bridges of Madison County, and Gran Torino. Eastwood also appeared in several television series, most notably Rawhide." I think this would be better if this introduction was reworded so that Rawhide is mentioned before the film titles are, thereby putting the listings in a chronological order. It should also be stated that Eastwood starred in this series for its entire eight-season run and that it provided him with the foundation for his later film success.
- I rearranged the sentences and expanded on his role in Rawhide. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remember correctly, Eastwood made an unbilled cameo appearance in the film Casper (1995). If he did, then this should be added to the filmography. Eastwood also directed episodes of the TV series Amazing Stories (1985) and The Blues (2003). These should be added to the TV section. Perhaps two "Yes" columns could be added for actor and director in this section.
- I added the several roles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might consider hyperlinking the years for the filmography and TV listings. Examples: {{fy|2009}} or [[2009 in film|2009]]; {{ytv|2009}} or [[2009 in television|2009]].
- Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes section of the filmography could include information about awards that Eastwood won or was nominated for. Just having "uncredited" for a handful of films seems barren and makes this column seem rather superfluous. I also don't think it's necessary to have "—" for the cells with no information.
- Filmographies don't cover the awards. Usually there is a separate list for awards/nominations won by an actor/director. That will likely be created down the line. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these suggestions make your day help. Jimknut (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for you suggestions, I appreciate it. According to the Man with No Name: "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with FLCs and those who review. You review." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second look:
- "His role in the eight-season series led to his leading role in A Fistful of Dollars and its two sequels." — The other two films are not really sequels. Perhaps it would be better to state "... leading roles in A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
- Reworded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eastwood started directing in the 1970s, and in the 1980s, began producing many of his films." — I think it would be better if you state the exact year and film that he made his directing and producing debuts.
- Specified, please check to see if it reads well. I must have rewritten that sentence ten times. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the filmography where you have category headings change "Music" so that it's hyperlinked: [[Film Score|Music]]
- Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the television section all the green "yes" listings should be centered so that they're uniformed with the filmography section.
- Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can, list the character he played in the episode of The West Point Story (provided you can find the information, which might be tough considering that's its not currently a well-known series).
- I've looked for this on numerous sites already and haven't been able to find anything. I'm sure if the show is ever put on DVD we'll eventually get the answer. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although perhaps not necessary, you might want to list the titles of the TV episodes that he appeared in or directed, rather than just the series title (with the obvious exception of the Rawhide episodes — a listing for them warrants an entire page of its on). Possibly you can do it this way:
Year | Title | Credited as | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Series | Episode | Director | Actor | Role |
- Changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For Rawhide you could put "Series regular — 217 episodes", or something similar. You may also consider this link: [http://epguides.com/Rawhide/ List of ''Rawhide'' episodes]
- I just stuck with the 217 episodes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps. Jimknut (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Random musing The one set of columns is named "credited as", but some rows also say "uncredited". Isn't that a contradiction?
- It still lists his roles in the films, and although they seem to contradict, I can't think of a better way to list it. I adjusted the column so it doesn't include credited as for the role. Instead of "credited as" should it be "involved as"? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gene Kelly filmography page uses "Functioned as", would that work here? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds better, changed as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gene Kelly filmography page uses "Functioned as", would that work here? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to add a table that has his top 10 highest grossing films or even just mention his highest grossing films as an actor and director in the lead?
- In previous FLCs about filmographies, it was discouraged to include highest grossing films as the box office may be the result of other factors not necessarily the actor's role in the film. The citation about his total box office can be visited by the readers to learn more about his top-grossing films. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should remove "Academy Award-winning " from the opening sentence. Generally, we're supposed to avoid such phrases due to POV concerns.
- Removed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of the Oscars, would it be possible to note which films he received Oscars and nominations for (or any other major award)? -- Scorpion0422 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmographies are not supposed to cover awards, in the future, an awards and nominations page for Eastwood will likely be created. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but could you at least note how many of the awards he's won somewhere in the lead? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned in general some of the types of awards he had won. I'm going to try and develop a list over the next few days so that I can perhaps mention how many. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but could you at least note how many of the awards he's won somewhere in the lead? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "...film ... and television... " + "...television and film..." in one sentence reads poorly.
- Reduced it to mention that it has spanned 50 years, cutting out the television and film. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be a predominance of repetition, perhaps it's unavoidable but, for instance, in four sentences we have "appear" (or derivatives) three times.
- Reworded some of the sentences to limit its use, please take a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " Eastwood's started directing in 1971..." presumably a hangover from a previous way of expressing his debut?
- Could you clarify on this? Not too sure what you're asking. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not grammatically correct. So perhaps you could say "Eastwood started..." or "Eastwood's directorial debut..." - you choose... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I didn't notice the Eastwod's. I changed it to Eastwood started. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not grammatically correct. So perhaps you could say "Eastwood started..." or "Eastwood's directorial debut..." - you choose... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify on this? Not too sure what you're asking. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last sentence first para ("appears" again) is out of place - we've moved on from his acting career at this point of the lead.
- Fixed as mentioned above. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why the roles you've stated as "notable" are more "notable" than any of the other roles? Or is it just your opinion?
- I just mentioned some of the roles in his filmography (had seen this in other filmographies). The majority of those were well-received by critics are performed well at the box office. Do you think that they should be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just nervous about your choice of what of Clint's back catalogue is "notable". That's all. It's borderline WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just chose some of the roles not already mentioned in the lead already. I can add/remove some or all if you think there is a better alternative. Or I could just remove notable? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just nervous about your choice of what of Clint's back catalogue is "notable". That's all. It's borderline WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just mentioned some of the roles in his filmography (had seen this in other filmographies). The majority of those were well-received by critics are performed well at the box office. Do you think that they should be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rawhide needs an en-dash, not a hyphen for its separator.
- Done. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 as BBC News twice. Why?
- The first occurrence was as the author (since I don't see a single author listed) and the second was for publisher. I removed the first occurrence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am not a fan of the green-shaded cells at all. Readers can discern the "Yes" without the need for color. Also, I am not sure about the "year in film" links. In an individual film article, linking to that film's release year is relevant. This is a filmography where these links are less useful; they feel too one-step-removed from the topic to be relevant here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This FLC has been hilarious. When I change one thing, another editor wants to see it done differently. I think you guys are messing with my mind! :) I've removed the year in film. For the green boxes, I did a short study (through e-mails/phone calls/standing outside of a grocery store with a clipboard), and I think Clint Eastwood fans enjoy reading more when they see green yeses. No (indicating my sarcasm), I had used the green-shaded cells to agree with the previous FLs that use it (such as Spike Lee filmography). I know we had that discussion a few months back about the green/red for awards/nominations but I wasn't sure if we were speaking for filmographies. I'll change it if there is consensus to do so, as all of the above editors haven't disagreed with it. I don't care too much either way, but I would probably recommend that WP:FILMS determine the best way to handle these types of tables so we can revise previous FLs and future nominations. Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem with the green since there is accompanying text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb87, what is the accompanying text for the green-shaded cells? If a cell says "Yes", then does color need to be injected? Nehrams2020, I was reflecting on this layout, and I was wondering why "Yes" cells were being used at all. When I first came to the article, I scrolled down through the list, but I had to go back up a couple of times to identify which columns were which. I imagine that this is grounded partially in precedent, but would it not be easier to identify the extent of his involvement in one cell beside each title? For example, "Actor" for Escape from Alcatraz, and "Director, producer, actor, and musical contribution" for Gran Torino. ("Musical contribution" can be something else, obviously.) It may use less of the table, but readers will identify his involvement with each film immediately. Just food for thought until we have a broader discussion about filmographies. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying, but I think as it is currently labeled is the best method. I think it would be redundant to keep mentioning each role for each film especially since he contributes in so many capacities. Would it be easier to read by also adding the same role heading to the bottom of the table (or halfway through) as well? I didn't have any problems with the headings, but then again, I added them so that may be why. In my opinion, this format works, and since the table isn't especially long, any scrolling wouldn't be too much of an issue. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb87, what is the accompanying text for the green-shaded cells? If a cell says "Yes", then does color need to be injected? Nehrams2020, I was reflecting on this layout, and I was wondering why "Yes" cells were being used at all. When I first came to the article, I scrolled down through the list, but I had to go back up a couple of times to identify which columns were which. I imagine that this is grounded partially in precedent, but would it not be easier to identify the extent of his involvement in one cell beside each title? For example, "Actor" for Escape from Alcatraz, and "Director, producer, actor, and musical contribution" for Gran Torino. ("Musical contribution" can be something else, obviously.) It may use less of the table, but readers will identify his involvement with each film immediately. Just food for thought until we have a broader discussion about filmographies. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem with the green since there is accompanying text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [10].
Davy Medal
The latest in the series of Royal Society medals at FLC, seems FLable. — neuro(talk) 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention, I am in the WikiCup. — neuro(talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose due to the almost total lack of prose. Don't drag my good FL name into the dust with you, dammit! :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose-- Due to the lack of prose, the formatting from a glance looks fine, but the lead lacks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of my comments are the same as pointed out by Dabomb below, except the following
- The medal has been repeatedly awarded to multiple individuals in the same year; in 1877 it was awarded to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[3] in 1882 to Dmitri Mendeleev and Julius Lothar Meyer "For their discovery of the periodic relations of the atomic weights",[3] in 1883 to Marcellin Berthelot and Julius Thomsen "For their researches in thermo-chemistry",[3] in 1893 to Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff and Joseph Achille Le Bel "In recognition of their introduction of the theory of asymmetric carbon, and its use in explaining the constitution of optically active carbon compounds",[3] in 1903 to Pierre Curie and Marie Curie "For their researches on radium"[4] and in 1963 to John Cornforth and George Joseph Popjak "In recognition of their distinguished joint work on the elucidation of the biosynthetic pathway to polyisoprenoids and steroids". -- the semi colon should be a colon
- The lead needs to summarize the list more, as in who was the first recipient, the most recent, and how many overall, etc.
- It does: "*The medal was first awarded in 1877 to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[1] and has since been awarded 131 times.[1] .... The medal was most recently awarded to James Fraser Stoddart "For his contributions in molecular technology".[1]" Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my bad. I must have not paid attention.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name column should not be sortable because some cells have more than one entry, and when sorted, it isn't representative of everything sorted.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All points addressed. Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the name column all squeezed in? The rationale column shouldn't need all that space.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try now?
Oppose Can't accept such a short lead—Chris! ct 04:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Can I ask that this is put on hold whilst I get Ironholds to write a lead? He wrote all of the other ones and did a really good job, but it seems that whilst I thought that I had done all right I in fact did not. — neuro(talk) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try now; prose added. Ironholds (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask that this is put on hold whilst I get Ironholds to write a lead? He wrote all of the other ones and did a really good job, but it seems that whilst I thought that I had done all right I in fact did not. — neuro(talk) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Chris! ct 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every row uses a quote, so there should be attribution for each one. -- Scorpion0422 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing something, are all attributed. — neuro(talk)(review) 20:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries for 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2007 and 2008 do not have any reference, so the quotes are unattributed. -- Scorpion0422 23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, all the quotes are attributed by the "general" references at the bottom. The references in the notes section are there as third-party verification that X won the medal in Y year. Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments a lovely piece of work. Let's see if I can come up with anything...
|
- Support thanks for taking the time to go through my comments - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
|
- All issues resolved, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.