Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [1].

---

List of emperors of the Song Dynasty

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you guys liked List of emperors of the Han Dynasty (a Featured List), you should find no faults or problems with this one. Enjoy.Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I see no problems with this list. One tiny detail, though, there is a part in the article where it says "it planted the seed for authoritorianism in later dynasties". I find that claim quite interesting, as the Mongol and Manchu dynasties did not inherit Song institutions, and it would be extremely hard to call the Ming "authoritorian".Teeninvestor (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wonder what protocols about treating the emperor with deference (i.e. not sitting together at same meeting but standing erect or only sending messages, never seeing emperor, etc.) were inherited by the Yuan, Ming, or Qing, but I'll give Mote the benefit of the doubt until I find something completely contradictory.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - should the page be at List of emperors of the Song Dynasty? rst20xx (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support though I agree w/ Rst20xx that the page name should be List of emperors of the Song Dynasty—Chris!_c/t 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, guys! I'll talk to someone who manages the FLCs and see if this can't be done.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can help you move the article.—Chris!_c/t 23:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 23:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quick! Excellent.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The images need alt text per WP:ALT. You probably have not done this before, so you might want to consult Eubulides (talk · contribs) on how to write it. What exactly does "too tedious" mean in "too tedious; thus, not used when referring to this sovereign"? Ref 7 refers to Rossabi 1988, but I could not find such a ref in the bibliography. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Ah! I just added the full Rossabi reference, forgot to do that. I'll add Alt Text as well; I've done it before for Ancient Egyptian literature; once again, just forgot to add it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I have added alt text to the four images found in the article. I hope you find the text sufficient. I believe Wilkinson (1998) touches on why the posthumous names are too tedious to use in regards to Song rulers; let me pull that up and see what I can find.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I believe I have fully answered that question about posthumous titles being tedious by expanding the titles and names section of the article using Wilkinson's Chinese History: A Manual (1998).--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I think the tables could be made sortable without too much trouble if you use a hidden sortkey with {{sort}}. In the Han emperor list, you italicize "r", but you don't here. Can we make that consistent? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Sure! I can do that. I believe r is italicized because it is for Latin regnum, not the English "reign". A nice throwback to the Romans there. Heh.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The sort thing sounds spiffy, but could you provide me with an example of another article that does this? The template explains a little but I want to see an actual example of this in a table already found in a Wiki article. That would make things a lot easier to figure out! Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC) See IWGP Tag Team Championship as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why isn't the last sentence in the last paragraph of Background referenced?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
2. There is an image of each of the Emperors. Could u add another column and add for each Emperor an image?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
3. The lead should be three paragraphs because of the length of the list. Or have paragraph expanded.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • 1) Done! Thanks for pointing that out; I simply forgot to add a Morris Rossabi (1988) citation there while writing that section. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 2) I'm afraid I can't do that, as it would jeopardize this candidacy over the issue of non-sourced material. I selectively cherry-picked the images of emperors out of many which to this day lack an essential source. And to anyone who might point out that some do have a quote-un-quote "source," I would simply say no, "Chinese Wikipedia" or "Russian Wikipedia" is not a reliable source! Lol. I hope you understand. Maybe one day when every single last image is sourced properly, then the images can be added to the table as such. But right now that is simply out of the question and we'll have to make do with what we have (—what we have that is sourced, that is).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • 2D representations of over 100 year old images are in the public domain. No one can hold copyright on it. So you can upload any image you find on the web of the Emperors and add {{PD-ART}} as simple as that. All the images in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Portraits_of_Emperors_of_the_Song_Dynasty are in the public domain if the date is given. If you have a book that contains images of the emperors with the date of the painting given then you can upload that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but them being in the public domain is not the issue; the issue is the source of where they came from when the person uploaded the pictures. I hate to be a stiffler here, but there is no proof that these images are in the public domain until a source is provided proving that this is so. It's not that I doubt that these paintings are genuine; it's just a basic requirement that an image should be sourced.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. There are many sources of such images like http://www.chinapage.com/emperor.html . In any case it's not a requirement that you provide an image of each Emperor. Just add a commons category link ( {{commonscat}} ) to the portraits. The list is of great quality and I support its nomination.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I'll at least add the link. If I can find a proper source for each image on the web, then I'll be glad to add the images to the table and change the lead image to something else. Cheers and thanks for your support!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • 3) Really? I thought that the length of the lead should match the amount of material covered in the body paragraphs, i.e. the prose. But since you insist, I have reorganized things and added three new sentences so that three paragraphs are now in place as you request. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. I found no problems in this list. Ruslik_Zero 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [2].

---

List of districts of Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I withdrew the first nomination of this list in July because of a major error in the statistics given (the area column). I finally found a ref from the government's statistics department, and the information is now accurate. All the other concerns raised at the previous nom have been fixed, so I think it's time for another try. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've renominated this because there wasn't a lot wrong with the first nomination and I see that you've now got rid of the "notable attributes" column which I think is a good move. I do have a few comments however

• In the table the three area columns aren't sorting correctly. For example on the land area column, Colombo and Jaffna districts are appearing at the bottom when they should be at the top. My guess is that it is sorting on the actual text rather than the numerical values.
• There are a few minor prose problems in the last paragraph of the lead.

By 1955, the district had become the main administrative unit. It is not clear to me why 1955 is significant here. Were provinces abolished then, or was there some other significant administrative change?

I think the bit about the creation of Mullaitivu and Gampaha districts should go as part of the description of the provisions of the constitution of 1978 as otherwise the chronology reads rather oddly.

...and the current constitution states... when I read this I thought that there must be a later constitution than 1978 but this is not the case. I would remove the word "current" here.

These districts may be subdivided or amalgamated by the resolution of... I would remove the word "the" before "resolution" or possibly replace it by "a".

I hope these comments are helpful. Boissière (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the sorting. Yes, districts replaced provinces as the main administrative unit in 1955. I thought that was clear, and the following line says provinces became the main unit later on again. Would you suggest a rewording for this? The others are fixed I think. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 00:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done: Sorting problem fixed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest putting In 1955 provinces were abolished and districts became the main administrative unit. Its the use of the worb "By" (and to a lesser extent "had") in the original sentence which, to me, implies something had happened before 1955 rather than in that year. Boissière (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you mean. How is it now? I didn't actually use "abolished", since I can't find any sources on what happened to the provinces, but it is clear that the district became the main admin unit. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I have just realised that I have not formally said Support. Boissière (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. The list is up to FL standards. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Why do u reference to a book while you could reference the official census found on Department of Census and Statistics website ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Which reference do you mean? I have used books for the history part; these are not covered by the Census and Statistics Department. I meant here the Population note and reference. You can say Population (2001 Census).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Oh right. The book is talking about the census (includes information about the estimates and reasons, and also mentions that the 2001 census is the latest) and is a reliable third party ref, so I thought it would be alright there. I didn't include the official census itself because it's being used as a general reference. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) The list isn't comprehensive. When were the Provinces established? What is the population increase? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Provinces are not the focus of this list. I didn't think this was necessary. Ok, provinces aren't necessary. How about the increase of population from 1991 to 2001? It's a bit interesting...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) How would you suggest including this? I've checked a few other lists, and didn't see this sort of thing. I'd appreciate it if you could provide an example or tell me how you think it should be included. Also, I have a doubt about how this would look and if it really is necessary; wouldn't the reader wonder why it includes population increase only for a certain period of time? On the other hand, if we are going to include every statistic regarding that, the article will focus unduly on population increase, which would make it look like a demographic history article. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Don't give a note in Population Density, just add per square km and also add the miles conversion.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Done: Conversion templates added. I have left a note in place saying that land area is used for calculations. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Give the reference to the Population and not a note. Add a sign for estimates indicating that the figures are estimates.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Done: Symbol added to indicate the estimates. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I'd like to suggest merging Provinces of Sri Lanka with this list like the featured list List of districts of West Bengal--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Merging would be entirely inappropriate IMO. Provinces are the country's main administrative unit, and Districts are secondary. The scope of each topic is wide and both should have its own article to cover them. This article is about the administrative divisions of a country, whereas the list you mention is about a single state. Note that the administrative divisions of India and Sri Lanka are different, and it is not possible to compare them that simply. Your suggestion would be similar to merging States and territories of India with the lists of divisions and districts of each state. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I see your point.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support The list has been improved and is of FL quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Much improved from the time of the first FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [3].

---

List of Project Runway contestants

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the previous FL nomination was closed before one particular issue could be addressed. Several reviewers have already offered support for this list, so I am re-nominating it now hoping that all concerns have been addressed. Be sure to take a look at the first review, if needed. Thanks so much! Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text is acceptable - but "Picture of" could be removed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• "In addition to winner, competed in final round", not clear. just "competed in final round" would be imo more clear. This gives the a hint that this contested won.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

However, might it confuse some people to see that one color represents those that competed in the final round, while another color signifies the winner (without pointing out that yellow coloring includes final competitors in addition to the winner)? Personally, I prefer the current wording, though I would not be opposed to changing it if another reviewer raised issue. I believer it was Killervogel5 (a reviewer from the first nomination) who added the current wording. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "In addition to the winner? Since it's only one winner...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest changing from Dashes in Season six to "TBD" since it will be determined.-Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The lead should be expanded. It's not clear how exactly the contestants get eliminated. "Progressively" should be more defined. Is it weekly or what exactly? "few contestants" how many is the minimum for the final round? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Contestants are eliminated in a fairly subjective process, which varies depending on the purpose of the assignment. There is no set point system or guideline the judges follow, at least not one that is apparent/obvious to viewers. The number of contestants that compete in the final round is typically three, although it has been four as well in the past. Also, sometimes a fourth competitor showcases a collection at Fashion Week, but it is not televised as part of the finale. It is a bit confusing, which is why I think it is best left out. I think most television viewers are familiar with the typical reality competition show format... a single competitor is eliminated each week until a final winner is named. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the day of elimination relevant to this list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The competition does not run on a "day" basis in that viewers do not know how much passes between each round. It is not like Big Brother or The Real World, where contestants enter the house for a specific number of days. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why is "Wendy Pepper" 3rd and "Kara Saun" 2nd even though both lost in the final round. Or do they also rank the looser? Please explain this in the lead if it is so.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Pepper was eliminated before Kara Saun. Judges always eliminate a contestant to come in 3rd place, leaving two competitors on stage at the end of the finale, of which one will be named the winner of the season. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Feel free to reply if you have any concerns that still need to be addressed, otherwise your support would be very much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could u add more images from commons ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the images that could be used are already in use, as some of the others ones pictured there are duplicate (of the same contestant), of poor quality (blurry), or do not meet fair use requirements. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, assuming the above issues are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Small thing, shouldn't the key mark the blue background as "Appeared in more than one season"? As it's currently used it marks BOTH appearances, so the current text of "Contestant appeared on the show for a second time" doesn't really capture it properly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Originally, I only highlighted Danny Franco's cell the second time it appeared, but since both cells are colored I think the wording in the key should be corrected. Thanks for noticing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, this sort of list doesn't particularly appeal to me, but it's written well, it's complete, and it ticks all the right boxes at WP:FL?. Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems that all of the outstanding issues both here and from the first review have been addressed, so I'll support as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [4].

---

George Michael discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i have done alot of work to improve the content, quality and sourcing etc of this article in the past few weeks and feel that it is a good, well referenced reflection of the artists work. It has also been peer reviewed and the suggestions acted upon. Mister sparky (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Where's the reference for "Careless Whisper"'s director?

having problems finding a reliable source for the careless whisper and i want your sex videos :( Mister sparky (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• The first general reference just goes to the home page of his official website? Where's the link to the page with the relevant information? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

you cannot actually link to the discography page of the website, but have changed the link so all you have to do is click on the discography tab. Mister sparky (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

sorted now. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

It says under Music videos "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." ??? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) dont know why it said that, just need to find 2 directors. removed now. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) The title column width of al tables should be consistent. Singles and Albums aren't fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Why can't you give George Michael Official Website Discography as a link in General References?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) What's "Studio: (#)" in DVD and VHS ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) dont know why that was there, gone now. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Change "DVD and VHS" to "Video albums"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Have a column in "Video albums" for the certificiations.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done, but need to add the uk ones. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Who is the distributor of those videos? Please add that to the second column. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Change "DVD" column to Video details--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Move video albums before Music videos --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) See if you can find chart information for the Video releases--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) any ideas where from? as far as i'm aware i dont know of any country that archives dvd charts? Mister sparky (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) There seems to be two releases of "Twenty Five" one in the UK and one in the US.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) as with most artists there is always different versions for different countries but they are still classed as the same release. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Merge the two "Andy Morahan & George Michael" cells in Music videos and find references for the two new directors.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) wikilink "English" in the lead to the appropriate article--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) have been told in previous flc's not to do that as its very self explanatory what english means? Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Expand the Infobox to include Video Albums, other appearances (As featured artist)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Wikilink various Music video directors.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) This is a great list, some comments though: Aren't the music video directors notable enough to have red links? i thought redlinks weren't allowed in featured lists? or am i wrong with that? Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Redlinks are very much allowed on FLs, unless of un-notable subjects.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) okay cool, thanks for clearing that up :) added now. Mister sparky (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) The notes column in Video Albums is a bit weird. I think certifications might be better before the notes columns and the two last video albums could have a bit longer notes to fill the row... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) swapped the columns round. what other info do you suggest then? Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Careless Whisper" music video director doesn't have a ref.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) i know, as i said above i cant find a reliable enough source :( Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "and was certified diamond." for people who don't know anything about discographies and music certifications it might be good to explain what certifications are and what diamond means. Maybe a wikilink or some short explaination.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Wikilink British Phonographic Industry in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Five Live EP" Maybe separate EP from the wikilink cause it doesn't include EP in the name.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "and was certified 4× platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)" is repeated twice in the second paragraph.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) haha oops! fixed now. Mister sparky (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "which peaked at number two in the US[3] and number one in the UK[1] and was certified 4× platinum." maybe a comma instead of the first "and"? fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) You linked in "Peak chart positions" under Singles to "UK Albums Chart" and "Austria". Please differentiate between album charts and singles charts. There are also many MegaCharts which one is here? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Not yet. Why is Austria wikilinked in the Albums chart? Billboard 200 is for albums, and Billboard 100 is for singles; which one do u have under singles? Make sure you don't have the same charts. There is a differentiation between singles and albums.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) forgot about those. according to their website "o3 Austria Top 40" is the name of both the album and singles charts, but the wiki article only mentions the singles charts... Mister sparky (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) The publishers in the references are incorrect. Ie. The publisher for the this is Hung Medien and not australian-charts.com, which might be put under |work=. Please fix all refs accordingly.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) have formatted the hung medien sites how i was advised to in other flc's Mister sparky (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) looks good.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "The album is Michael's most successful in the UK, having reached number one, and was certified 7× platinum." maybe instead having reached, "reaching"?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "included new interpretations of popular songs" don't understand new interpretations. New music, melody, lyrics?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) altered phrasing. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "celebrating the 25th anniversary of his music career and debuted at number one in the UK" I think "and debuting"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Please specify MegaCharts for Albums section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) the Mega Album Top 100 doesnt have its own wiki page, its just got its own section on the MegaCharts page. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) You didn't mention him as featured artist, video albums released by him or music videos. These are sections that should be handled in the lead. Try to reduce some portions and increase this part in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) his 2 most successful collaborations are mentioned in the lead, the music videos and video albums are mentioned in the infobox and first sentence of the lead. i have never seen a discography where they have any other mention in the lead? Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "UK Gold" should be "UK: Gold"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) In extended plays the UK: Gold doesn't have a bulletin--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Songs from the Last Century" received a silver and not a 2X Platinum in the UK.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) according to the bpi website it is 2x platinum, you have to click on more info Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 10 x Platinum = Diamond. Why don't u have that in the Certifications? There are also differences between the country specific certifications. US has diamond for 10 million wile Canada has it for 1 million (be careful). I suggest putting in brackets the actual numbers.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) in other flc's it has been discouraged to include numbers bcos it clutters up the column and it states what different countries limits are in the sales thresholds wikilink at the top of the column. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes releases that did not chart" should be consistent in all tables. replace the two other tables that have ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." with this.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) ive made all the tables have the 2nd one, cuz somebody else would probly ask "well how did u know that x was released in this particular country?" 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The year column and title column should have consistent width in all tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) they are all the same width as far as i can see? Mister sparky (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I think that covers all that I could think of. Tell me what you think about the two points and I'll support.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support after about 35 resolved comments the list is undoubtedly of featured quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see a discography for an artist that has produced a body of work long enough to be worth listing stand-alone. None of the external links meet our WP:EL policy for this list, and that includes the Commons link. Colin°^Talk 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well researched and referenced. I checked quite a few, but not all, references to verify chart positions and all corresponded correctly. I have no problem with the musicbrainz and discog ELs in a discography list. As with Colin, it's nice to see a discog of this standard for an artist with 20+ years of records behind them, rather than a five-year old boy band with 3 albums and a handful of singles. Well done, Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Fundamental question - do we have other discogs from other solo artists where we don't include their collaborations? Just a question... In fact, the opening sentence appears (to me) to be slightly self-contradictory : "The discography of solo releases of..." vs "a number of other appearances with other artists." yea i see your point. removed solo. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Platinum in the lead tends to be non-capitalised while it's always capitalised in the tables. Consistency? sorted. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) "...with Queen and Lisa Stansfield and it debuted at number one in the UK and was certified gold..." and x 3 here, not great prose. altered sentence. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) It may be my ignorance but I've never seen a double A-side noted in lower case ("...double a-sides...") - but once more it could be just me...! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) "details to be confirmed" - you've capitalise the other notes, why not this one? Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Promo - use full word please. Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Link South Bank Show. Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) You link Wham! in the videos but not in the Singles. Any reason? removed the link from the video albums. the band is linked at the top of the article. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Several directors are redlinked, not itself a problem, but why is Vaughan & Anthea not linked at all? Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Also, Waltz Away Dreaming is redlinked in the template but not the list. I'd be consistent and redlink both. done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [5].

---

List of Outer Hebrides

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now complete and I hope ready to join its peers in the pantheon of Scottish island FLs. Ben MacDui 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"This is a list of..." Featured lists no longer begin in this way. See recently promoted FLs for suggestions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to keep up with the ever-changing style guidelines, and easy enough to make this change, which I will be happy to do. Co-incidentally I recently raised an issue at WP:BOLDTITLE on a related theme after an editor started removing the bold in the opening sentence of various FAs. This guideline still says: "In lists (including outlines, indexes, and glossaries), the subject is generally preceded by the article type (such as "List of")." It's a confusing world. Ben MacDui 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Intro is way too long. A large chunk of it should go into a lower section. As a corollary, I don't think we need the geology, settlement history, economy, etc.; that's better dealt with in the main article, rather than a list article.

Done.

• • This may be just me, but I prefer to see references and footnotes separated.

I have not been asked to do this in previous FLCs, but I agree it is a neat method and I will have a go.

Done.

• • The table of Gaelic appears to be there randomly and doesn't really add anything to this list. Perhaps that belongs better on a page of Scottish island terminology.

Done - although not sure where else it would go - might need to create something.

• • Is there a source for the minor island list?

Done - its a trawl through the Ordnance Survey maps. Ben MacDui 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Why are some in the list double-indented and not bold?

The double indentation indicates that it is a sub-set of the emboldened section. I could bold the double indented sub-section name, although that style has not been used elsewhere. Ben MacDui 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Why is St Kilda not linked in the small archipelagos section? And why isn't it in the table?

In the end I decided to include St K in the outlying islands and not here (it could have gone either way), but I will look at this and make this more explicit.

Hopefully now completed. To be explicit, it's not in the table as its not in the list, whereas the others are. Ben MacDui 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments - all now done, I hope. Ben MacDui 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on it, so you might seek him for advice on writing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I fear that if we have got to the stage where we need experts to write image captions we are in a pretty pickle , but I will certainly look into it. Ben MacDui 07:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite an intriguing task. I have had a go and will ask the good Eubulides for assistance. ( I have noticed that a fair number of lists don't have many images....).Ben MacDui 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The alt text that was added is excellent, except for the maps. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more on that; briefly, a map's alt text should focus on the gist of what it says to the sighted reader rather than accidental visual details (for example, it shouldn't mention map colors, and should say "north of" rather than "above"). Also, several images still are missing useful alt text; please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - the latter is fixed - stray parameters - and I will look at the maps later today. Ben MacDui 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Map fixes now also attempted. Ben MacDui 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good, except I'd replace "A red dot lies at the northern tip of this island indicating the location of the Butt of Lewis." with "The Butt of Lewis lies at the northern tip of this island." as per WP:ALT#Brevity and WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - and thanks again. Ben MacDui 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for fixing it up. Eubulides (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Ben MacDui 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I've made a few minor changes, and I find everything to be great. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - foolishly, I had not thought to use "Note" singular before. Ben MacDui 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Although one change is necessary - there's a stray sentence after the table in the uninhabited islands list which could probably be placed either in that section's lead or in a note. Also, when you get tired of doing this for Scottish islands, we've got plenty of islands over here in the Americas that need better lists... Geraldk (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - and fixed. Three lists down and four to go - so many islands and so little time. I see from List of islands of Canada that there are "34377 other minor islands", which must have taken a while to count... My favourite is Landsat Island. Ben MacDui 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. "Smaller islets and skerries" section doesn't have a table that conforms with the rest of the list. It is missing the area, height and other information. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is very little such information available mostly due to the small size and large number of islets involved. There are two main sources of area information; one only includes inhabited islands, the other very few that are smaller than 40 ha. Another complication is that for smaller islands, area estimates have to take the tides into consideration. See for example this OS map - at lower stages of the tide, some islands merge with one another. Height data is available on Ordnance Survey maps for some of the more elevated of these islets, but where they are relatively flat (as per grid reference HY445262) there is no detailed information. Next to none of them will have highest points that are individually named. For larger islands there are usually Gaelic and English or anglicised names, but few of the smaller islands have the latter. It might be possible to offer "translations" into English, but a lot of the names are ambiguous and this would probably involve OR in many cases. The existing FLs of List of Orkney islands and List of Shetland islands use the same technique. In my view the alternatives are either to include them for completeness or exclude them altogether. There simply isn't enough information to tabulate them I'm afraid. Ben MacDui 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A solution could be having another column for the two previous table with "Islands in the vicinity" listing those island. My main problem is that the style switches badly in the "Smaller islets and skerries" section. You are repeating the main island's names and saying in their vicinity is xx so why not have this in the first columns?

The solution would work well enough if each larger island had few islets. However, consider the "Lewis and Harris" section of List of Outer Hebrides#Smaller islets and skerries. At a quick guess there are about a hundred, which would create havoc with the tabulation. Ben MacDui 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is no real solution in this case. I support the list it's of FL quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - many thanks. Ben MacDui 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "Various Gaelic names are used repeatedly. The suffix ay or aigh or aidh is generally from the Norse øy meaning "island". Eilean (plural: eileanan) also means "island". Beag and mòr (also bheag and mhòr) mean "little" and "big" and are often found together. Sgeir is "skerry" and often refers to a rock or rocks that lie submerged at high tide. Dubh is "black", dearg is "red" and glas means "grey" or "green". Orasaigh is from the Norse Örfirirsey meaning "tidal" or "ebb island"." shouldn't this be referenced? Isn't it considered OR? Or is this from the general references?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OR - goodness no. Even monoglot English speakers who live in the Hebrides would know most of these words, so often do they appear in a topographical context. However, you are quite right, they deserve a reference and I have added a standard one. Note that in order to access the individual pdfs you have to click through from the web page specified. Incidentally, I noticed your interest in Abid al-Bukhari. There are, even today, Hebridean men nick-named "gillie-dubh", literally meaning "black man" - although they are not Scots of African descent, but those with dark hair, whose supposed ancestors were ship-wrecked mariners from the Spanish Armada. Ben MacDui 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good level of support so far, just fix his last, last moment oppose and job done. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Oppose

• The area column on both tables doesn't sort correctly. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As well as IE, I've tried Firefox so I don't understand the nominators comments below but I shall bite my tongue about making personal remarks. Anyway sortability is in the criteria (note to the supporters) so until the area/population columns get fixed I'm opposing. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Jpeeling, I'm working on the sorting right as we speak. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
      • And I've already promoted the list per WP:BADTIMING which probably doesn't exist but is a scenario when someone identifies an issue at the same time that I'm promoting lists.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I believe that the sorting issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Excellent list. Could you make the approx area (e.g., "c. 30") sort alongside their nearest exact areas. I think this is also Jpeeling comment. Colin°^Talk 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of this right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets all criteria, interesting list. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• One question though: where the highest point cell is blank, does that mean the info is not available or there is no highest point? If the the info is unavailable, leave the cell blank, but if there is no highest point put a centered em dash in the cell (code: {{center|—}}) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sort fix. To be absolutely explicit, every island has an eminence that the Ordnance Survey almost always mark as a spot height. In the cases of some of the smaller and flatter islands, this eminence does not have a recorded name. When the island was inhabited the residents probably did give this eminence a name, but it has not been recorded. I therefore think the "info is unavailable" and the blanks are fine, but you could argue the other way. Ben MacDui 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are right, blanks are correct here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lead image suggests we look at the orange islands for the Outer Hebrides. This is a challenge for those who are colour-blind and must contravene WP:ACCESS. "This is a list of inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides,..." not good prose. Although this isn't the lead sentence, isn't there a way you can express this without "This is a list..."? Table doesn't sort correctly for me for Area or Population. I would guess it's because those columns have non-numeric text in them. You use commas in the prose for separating thousands but not in the tables. Be consistent. "grid reference NF785186" is this really required? In-line links like this aren't good. Last inhabited column of the table - 18th Century should be about 100 years before 1890 when sorted chronologically, it isn't for me. Post 16th century is in an odd place too. Plus Area sorts incorrectly for me. What do blanks mean in the "Highest point" column? Forgive my ignorance but what is a " continuing list"? "The location of the Butt of Lewis" caption is really small text for me, smaller than all the other captions. Is it my setting or is it something else? Small archipelagos - why sort by location? Ref 23, spare ). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Wrt colour. The text "(Outer Hebrides in orange)" is not the only way that colour blind readers can identify the Outer Hebrides. There is a colour key in the map image, with sufficient shade variation. A better map with legible text would help further. Colin°Talk 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Re comments by The Rambling Man Lead image suggests we look at the orange islands for the Outer Hebrides. This is a challenge for those who are colour-blind and must contravene WP:ACCESS. User:Colin's comments notwithstanding I have attempted a fix by amending the text. "This is a list of inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides,..." not good prose. Although this isn't the lead sentence, isn't there a way you can express this without "This is a list..."? Done Table doesn't sort correctly for me for Area or Population. I would guess it's because those columns have non-numeric text in them. It seems to sort OK for me - please see above comments ending in statement by Dabomb87 at 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC). I'm not sure what else I can do. I wonder if this is a Safari vs Internet Explorer issue... If you can sort it okay, then I guess around 87% of our readership will be able to as well. Shame I can't! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC) If you are using Safari I definitely had problems with sortable tables. Firefox seems to do the trick. Ben MacDui 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC) You use commas in the prose for separating thousands but not in the tables. Be consistent. I thought using commas in tables caused problems for some browsers, but I have added them. They work OK for me. "grid reference NF785186" is this really required? In-line links like this aren't good. I have moved the link to a note. Last inhabited column of the table - 18th Century should be about 100 years before 1890 when sorted chronologically, it isn't for me. Post 16th century is in an odd place too. Plus Area sorts incorrectly for me. For areas see above. The last inhabited one is tricky. I am trying to find a way that will allow the tables to sort the items with text. It seems to work if you put "19 th century" rather than "19th century" but it looks silly. "19 th century (mid)" also seem to work better than "mid 19th century" but suffers from the same problem. I will keep trying. Certainly working better now - it all looks in place to me except Gighay , which is still two places out of order in my browser. I have undertaken a fix that seems to work, although it feels more like a bodge. Ben MacDui 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC) What do blanks mean in the "Highest point" column? I've added an explanatory comment to the reference that "Blanks indicate that no name is recorded for this eminence". See also above thread ending in comment by Dabomb87 at 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC). Forgive my ignorance but what is a "continuing list"? It by no means a technical expression! I wonder if this is Scottish English - it just means, well that the list is continuing - perhaps like a continuing drama. (Not that I have ever seen one you understand). "The location of the Butt of Lewis" caption is really small text for me, smaller than all the other captions. Is it my setting or is it something else? It was nicked from another article and the text was made deliberately small for no reason that I am aware of. Fixed. Small archipelagos - why sort by location? Why sort at all in such a small list? In the interests of transparency I should say that the sort function was introduced by an FLC reviewer. I have switched the sorting off, but I have no strong views on this subject - please feel free to amend as you see fit. Ref 23, spare ). Thanks - fixed.Ben MacDui 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC) OK - mostly done I think - I will check the table sorting issue again tomorrow. Ben MacDui 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) General comment: there are a number of templates which assist sortablility in tables, such as {{nts}}, {{sort}} etc. It may be worth checking these out. As far as I know they're browser-independent... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Ben MacDui 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [6].

---

List of Popotan soundtracks

Nominator(s): 陣内_Jinnai 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the item meets the criteria listed as far as I can tell. The article has been overhauled, peer-reviewed and re-assessed. 陣内_Jinnai 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment "This is a list of soundtracks attributed to the" Please recast to a more engaging start. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Also added all necessary refs to the re-edited intro.陣内_Jinnai 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, there's also a dab link (see the toolbox on the right-hand side of this page) that needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 06:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Popotan is a 2002 Japanese visual novel by Petit Ferret that was adapted into an" What do you mean by "2002 ... visual novel"; was it released in 2002? "produced theme song, "Gemstone" both bands" Missing word? "The opening theme song for Poporaji was also performed placed on the CD." Doesn't make sense. ""Popotan Maxi Single (ぽぽたん Maxi Single?)" is, as its title suggests, a maxi single." link for "maxi single"? "The opening theme, "Popotan Hatake de Tsukamae te" (ぽぽたん畑でつかまえて?) performed by Umder17, the closing theme, "Suki", by Funta and a collaborative theme song, "Gem Stone"." That's not a complete sentence. "Oricon albums chart" Link? "In addition the opening and closing theme songs for the live radio broadcast Poporaji, which is based on the anime." Not a complete sentence. "The disc also continues to story after the original six tracks from the first disc." "continues to" doesn't make sense. ""Popotan", "Catching the Popotan Field" and "Popotan Kiss" were later sung during their live world tour" Whose live tour? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC) "Oricon albums chart" Link? - not sure which one you're talking about here. Is there an article about "Oricon's album chart" that you can link to (I was asking to a link to be added)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Oricon#Charts is the only thing we have for an article or there is the website. I added a link to Oricon in the prose.陣内Jinnai 22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I think I have fixed the other items.陣内Jinnai 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. I did not evaluate the foreign-language sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Link titles should not be in all caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The ones like that are listed as such on the website itself because they are in Japanese.陣内_Jinnai 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if they are listed like that they need to be changed to title case. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Done.陣内_Jinnai 22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from G.A.S (talk · contribs))

Comments from G.A.S (talk · contribs) Per WP:MOSTITLE, works of art titles' (e.g. musical albums' titles and songs' titles) should be italicized (refer to List of Final Fantasy compilation albums for an example). Did I miss some? If so, let me know. The only ones that isn't should be the maxi single, which isn't an album. It's closer to a single.陣内Jinnai 05:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I was referring to the H4 section headings. G.A.Stalk 05:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Done.陣内Jinnai 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Consider adding infoboxes to the albums' sections. Those were dropped per some discussions as other anime soundtrack lists which this was modeled on removed them because of such discussions about being superfluous since the relevant info was right across from it.陣内Jinnai 05:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Accepted. I have not been following those discussions myself :). G.A.Stalk 05:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Did you consider converting the table in List_of_Popotan_soundtracks#Release_details to a 6×7 sortable table by converting the bullet lists in the first column to new columns? G.A.Stalk 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I don't know how and for a list that small I doubt it would do much. There isn't much to sort.陣内Jinnai 20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC) See article talk page for code. G.A.Stalk 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Please use {{Nihongo2}} and {{Nihongo}} to format all remaining Romaji and Kanji properly per MOS:JAPAN. E.g. (1) {{Nihongo||ぽぽらじのうた|Poporaji No Uta}} (Alternatively: {{Nihongo2|ぽぽらじのうた}} ''Poporaji No Uta'') or (2) {{Nihongo2|ぽぽらじの歌}}. G.A.Stalk 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Done and the table is sortable now using the template you created with somewhat better spacing.陣内Jinnai 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Good, though {{nihongo}} has not yet been applied. G.A.Stalk 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Please note where it or {{nihongo2}} hasn't been applied. As I remember adding them to all the kanji/kana on the page not in refs.陣内Jinnai 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC) It has not yet been added in any of the tables' |notex= fields. G.A.Stalk 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Alright. They all have the nihongo2 template.陣内Jinnai 06:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I have gone through the list and Italicized all Romaji. G.A.Stalk 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support G.A.S^talk 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support It looks like all issues raised were addressed.--Remurmur (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is there any particular reason why the tracks are inconsistent with giving romaji transliterations and English translations. Like the track "Answer" is missing Kotae and "Minna de Odekake" is missing its translation. AngelFire3423 (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I did actually wonder about that myself: many of the tracks do not seem to have translated titles ("Answer" missing Kotae was due to a syntax error, though). G.A.S^talk 08:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops. Looks like missed one. I added a translated title.陣内_Jinnai 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Alot of tracks in Popo Music are untranslated still. AngelFire3423 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. I think some of them I wasn't sure on, like 22, at the time since I didn't have my CD on me, but don't know about others.陣内_Jinnai 19:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It does not look like this has been addressed (correct me if I'm wrong), but is there any reason why the tracks are not hidden like at List of Aria soundtracks? A few of the track lists on this page are inordinately long which extend the page unnecessarily. If there was a past discussion on showing the tracks by default, I would like to see it. Also, why do the album titles in the Release details section not include proper {{Nihongo}} templates? At the very least just write them in their English forms; its not right to just put it in Japanese.--十八 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I uncollapsed them because they violate Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please tell me why the template has the option to hide the tracks if so desired? Why should any template on Wikipedia have options to hide text if it was violating accessibility?--十八 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why. Perhaps the creators of the template were not aware of the problems posed when they put in that capability. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont no if this will help, but i think i recall User:SandyGeorgia saying once on a featured article candadate that a collasped template doesnt mirror and therefore shouldnt be used. I think it was on one of Fuchs' FAs dont no exactly which one though. Salavat (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mirror? Don't quite get that. Anyway, Juhachi does bring up a legtimate point. Some of these lists are rather long, especially as they must include Japanese, English and romaji translations. On the other hand, a couple notations are inside the lists. The reason I had them collapsed is because it does make the page unnessasarily long, especially the Poporaji and Popo Music soundteacks.陣内_Jinnai 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MIRROR. For more details on the accessibility problems, see MOS:SCROLL. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't violate anything on MOS:SCROLL. It does say they shouldn't be used in the article's body, but that's unclear what it means because the examples given do not really note lists of this type nor whether those would be considered the "body". IMO it wouldn't as i see prose as that, but I can understand someone disagreeing with my opinion.陣内_Jinnai 02:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well by name this may be a list, but in technical terms the collapsed list is still within a body section of the article, so I think that's a moot point. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comment The reference dates are inconsistent you have sometimes 2009-08-28 and other times August 17, 2009. Please standarize.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Where are the references for Release details? and shouldn't this be before all the sections since it serves as an overview of the list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Look in the prose. Tables don't need them if its in the prose. The only one that doesn't is "Popotan Maxi Single" which has conflicting dates none of which seem more or less reliable since some sites claim it came with the visual novel and others claim it was released soon after the visual novel. The website doesn't go back that far. Edit: The only sites that even list release dates are fansites, blogs from non-experts and the like. Even shops don't list the release date.陣内Jinnai 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Is there a general reference? Where did u get the title, Lyrics, Music, Arrangement and length info?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) No general references. All are gotten from the item itself or a website or in the case of some infomration on "Popotan Maxi Single", the visual novel.陣内Jinnai 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Why doesn't "Poporaji no Uta" have a lyrics column? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Because its not clear who wrote "Poporaji" theme song.陣内Jinnai 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support issues resolved.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A few last minute comments that seem, to me, important enough to be resolved to fix up before I promote. I'm watching this nom so please fix up and I'll get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The release details table is still horribly formatted. The titles needs translating into English. Lantis and CD should only be linked once. The Oricon peak positions need in-line references, and the sales figures do as well. And why doesn't the first one, the Popotan Maxi single have a release date?--十八 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oricon peak positions have in-line references, the sales information (which i assume you mean the units produced as that's the only info I have) is also referenced with in-line citations in the prose. The tables don't need them if the pose have it. As for the names in the table, I can translate them if you'd prefer English, but I see no reason the tables need to have both English and Japanese versions. The prose is good enough for that. And I already explained Popotan Maxi Single - see info in Diaa's hidden comments...essentially no reliable source cites a specific date. Reliable soruces just note its exitstance. Unreliable sources cite dates, but those dates vary.陣内_Jinnai 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a specific date, a month/year or even just a year will suffice. The names in the tables should at least be written in English; it's useless to anyone who can't read Japanese. And why exclude the cite from the table if it's in the prose? I don't know about you, but wading through prose to find a cite when it could be easily accessible in the table is making the reader do more work than is required.--十八 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is the CD was released around (or when) the visaul novel was, which was just before Christmas so some sites say 12/02 and some 1/03 and again none of them I've found give even a relative date, just that it was released as a promotional item for the visual novel. I can put down 12/02 based on its release, but that might be considered synthesis. As for excluding cite from the table, its the same reason we exclusde it for other tables. If it's already cited in the prose its unlikely to be challenged by anyone who reads the article if we assume good faith. The average reader isn't likely to wade through the prose for such information anyway for almost any reference, table or not.

EDIT: The table is now all in English.陣内_Jinnai 04:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess. Lantis and CD still need to only be linked once.--十八 05:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean in the table?陣内_Jinnai 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'd even go as far to suggest removing all the links in the table anyway, since its all been linked in the article before.--十八 06:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.陣内_Jinnai 07:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support All things dealt with that could be dealt with.--十八 07:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The prose in the lede section is extremely weak.

• There are indefinite articles and punctuation missing, as in this sentence: "was adapted into an anime by Shaft and radio drama broadcast on Osaka Radio."
• Tense is also incorrect. The past participle, "Three soundtracks based on the visual novel have been released" sounds better than the simple past that is currently used.
• "The first was a maxi single" -- "was" indicates it used to be a maxi single but isn't any more. The release still exists, so "is" should be used. Same "was"/"were" vs. "is"/"are" issue appears further in the paragraph:
  • "It was a limited print", "All three songs were sung by Under17."
• Other sentences or part-sentences just don't make sense:
  • "Three soundtracks based on the anime." -- what??
  • "The single contained vocal and instrumental songs of the opening theme," -- can an instrumental be considered a song? "recordings" works better here
    • Edited the first, the second I don't agree with because it implies the songs are still being sung by Under17, which isn't true; just the recordings of the songs are being sung.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • song can be used even when its not acompanied by the vocals.
      • Not according to that article. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...of the opening theme, "Popotan", the closing theme "Answer", and "Magical Girl Mii"'s theme, "Magical Girl Mii's Pong"." -- inconsistent use of the serial comma here. Semi colons would actually work better: "...of the opening theme, "Popotan"; the closing theme, "Answer"; and "Magical Girl Mii"'s theme, "Magical Girl Mii's Pong"."
• "The vocals were later re-released as part of their "Best" complications. The songs "Answer" and "Popotan" were also sung during their live tour." -- This isn't necessary information, but shouldn't "Best" be italicized?
• "A promotional DVD for the anime came with a CD" -- poor language use. "Accompanied", "was released with" etc etc
• "PopoTime, an anime soundtrack, was released with music by Osamu Tezuka with a TV cut opening and closing by Under17 and Funta, respectively." -- What's a TV cut? "containing" works better for the first "with", but the second part of the sentence is hard to read
  • Added a note for TV cut (note this is how they are noted on the liner notes)陣内_Jinnai 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, got it. Still the sentence is poorly written, though. It needs plurals: "containing TV cuts of the opening and closing themes by Under17 and Funta, respectively." Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • In the lead, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentance "A song is a piece of music for accompanied or unaccompanied voice or voices or, 'the act or art of singing,'"陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Past tense issue appears again with words such as "contained"
• "It's a PopoTime! was also produced" -- Was it released? It isn't clear

I didn't read the rest of the prose thoroughly, but I did take a glance and noticed some of the same issues regarding tense, punctuation and odd phrasing. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• copyedited the article. The remaining issues of past-tense are time-related. I also edited similar instances throughout the article. I have commented on the 2 items above.陣内_Jinnai 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've stricken resolved issues. The tense thing does need correcting. Even though you're describing something from the past, the releases still exist, and should be discussed in present tense. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited the items above except where I have made specific contentions to them and why.陣内_Jinnai 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [7].

---

List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates

Nominator(s): DJ 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is on par with other similar featured lists such as List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests and List of American Idol finalists. DJ 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Done

Comments

• The actions of the participants are recorded 24 hours a day, seven days a week by multiple microphones and cameras situated in each room. - Change "24 hours a day, seven days a week" to simply "constantly". Done
• On regular occasions, the housemates nominate two other members of the group each - Nominate for what? Done
• 527 viewers complained to Ofcom during the 2009 series - Per the MOS, numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out. Done
• Images need alt text. Done
• Newspapers in the sources need to be italicized. Done
• 2-column reflist? Done

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Gran2, support

*Comment - This is a nice list, and I will support it. However, the "Claim to fame" column title doesn't seem very NPOV to me. To me it implies that their notability is only a "claim" and not certain. While this is obviously true for the majority of the people here it isn't very neutral. I think "Occupation" would be better. Gran2 09:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Is "Mother of Jade Goody", "Big Brother 2002 housemate", "Non-celebrity", "Mother of Sylvester Stallone" etc an occupation? Could you suggest another alternative wording? DJ 10:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I don't see a problem with "Occupation". The examples you've cited are all true, those four people have made careers based on those things ie. Jackiey Budden is not notable whatsoever save for being Jade Goody's mother and has for some reason made a career out of that. But anyway, if you don't like that, how about "Reason for notability"? Gran2 10:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Done Is there some reason why the page is called "List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates"? Because there isn't a page called "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates" so why the need to specify "UK" in the pagename? There doesn't appear to be any similar list, and indeed wasn't the UK the first "Celebrity" Big Brother series? So I'm not sure that's needed. Gran2 11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It's WikiProject precedent. The fact that there isn't a similar list is irrelevant, it is titled this way to avoid confusion with the Croatian, Australian and Pinoy editions of the programme. DJ 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It's hardly irelevant. "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates" doesn't exist so why the added specification in this page name? If other articles are created in a similar ilk (which seems unlikely), then they should specify the country in the title. This is currently the only one, so it isn't needed here. I'm sure there are numerous people in the world called David Beckham who are not notable enough for pages, but "David Beckham" is called "David Beckham", not "David Beckham (footballer)". It seems illogical to me. Anyone who sees the page will see instantly if it's what they were looking for. And if they were looking for this, I doubt they would be seraching "List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates" so at the very least "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates" should redirect to it. Gran2 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It is also to keep with the title formatting where the seasons are labeled Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK), etc. Also if a list for the Pinoy edition was developed it would create conflict. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Right, how exactly would it "create conflict"? Even in the unlikely event it ever got an article it would then be called "List of Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition housemates". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) says "the disambiguator should be added only if multiple articles would normally have the same name". As said, there is no article called "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates". As for the main series articles having it: "Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles." This is not a life-threatening issue, it just doesn't to me make any sense to disambiguate a pagename on the off chance a similar list might be created in the future. Gran2 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I've redirected List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates and Celebrity Big Brother housemates to this article. Can we consider the issue resolved? DJ 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Not really resolved no, because I still think this is illogical. But it's only a minor grumble, as now that the redirect is in effect I suppose there's no problem and I really don't care that much. I'm not going to strike this because hopefully someone else will contribute to the discussion. But I will, now, Support. Gran2 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I agree in principle with Gran2, but if this is a WikiProject standard, then a discussion should be carried out first before name changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk),

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "in which a group of famous people" Why don't you just call them celebrities? "it was made from gorilla and" Fur, I assume? Don't make readers guess. "it was later discovered that the coat was made from Colobus monkeys" Same as above. There's serious overlinking of commonly known terms in the list. Singer? Actor/Actress? Film director? Journalist? Please delink these dictionary-definition-type terms per WP:OVERLINK. Alt text is pretty good, but not sure what ".right" is doing in some of them. Also, remove phrases that are not verifiable by looking only at the images, such as "A curly haired blonde woman poses for photographs" (unverifiable part italicized). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) All concerns addressed. Dale 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) OK, but please do not strike reviewers' comments; they decide when an issue is resolved. I'll come back either later tonight (North American time) or tomorrow to make sure that there are no other issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the delay; will definitely look in soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out RTE in the publishers. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

On the table, the names should be sorted by last name (you can use Template:sortname), and the notes should be unsortable (put class=unsortable| in front of the notes). I don't think this should be done as, within Big Brother, housemates are never reffered to by their surname but simply as Chantelle, George, Rula etc. In a similar way that we wouldn't sort book characters this way, I don't think we should sort these people this way in this context. (It's also a bit like how they are reffered to as "celebrities" within the programme when some of them aren't) Dale 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I also watch Big Brother too (well, the American version), so I totally understand what you are saying. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) On the guest table, why is it fixed to 75% width? Why not just let it be 100%? I tried that and it looked a mess - there was too much blank space. Could it stay as it is? Dale 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Ehhh...how about the sortable function? Could that be used on the table? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) No, because some of the rows span over a few lines. And its such a small table, it doesn't need to be sortable really. Dale 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC) On the houseguests table, one column says "Reason for notability", while on the guests table, it's "Claim to fame". Choose either or to be in both. Done Would be nice if the notes are aligned center. How is this done? Dale 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Did it myself instead, just so that we won't waste time. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Yay, second Big Brother list nomination! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• One more comment, would you be able to format the tables like List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests, by just removing the rankings, and not including the hometown? If this is too bothersome, just remove the rankings, since its practically the same as the finishes. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Where the Celebs live is disputed - some sources list Pete Burns as Liverpool, others as Italy. Germaine Greer lives in both Britian and Australia, Coolio lives in both LA and Britain etc and it also borders onto WP:TRIVIA. I don't think the rankings should be removed either - they are important. Dale 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the readers have no idea what the rankings are for. Some will probably guess that it is by eviction, but others may not. Best way to fix this is to name the column, or create a key. Also, carefully read what I said. I didn't say include the hometown, since hometowns are usually disputed, and doesn't really matter for Celebrity Big Brother. Is it possible to point out which day that they were evicted, third place, walked, etc.? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think the day of their exit should be included like "Evicted: Day xx" like in List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests other than that I support this list for FL-Class. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Comments On my computer the middle images (and captions) are partly hidden by the table, this doesn't appear to have affected anybody else but is there any chance the table could be made shorter in width? Making the largely repetitive series column just a year could be an option. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I would have appreciated it if you had given a reason for not doing this rather than simply ignoring me. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I don't know where DJ went but I proceeded with the change.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Grazie. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Ref 49 needs fixing. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Alt text needs fixing. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Alt text fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments few nitpicky issues:

• Why is TV presenter linked all other mentions in tables but not for Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan?
• For Alice Barry and Rebecca Ryan's "Reason for Notability", either separate the two or make "Actress" plural.
• Category:Big Brother (UK TV series) is redundant because Category:Big Brother UK contestants is its subcategory. Mm40 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why is it called "Reason for notability " and not just "Profession" ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2. What's the purpose of the Year column?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
3. The day of eviction should be stated.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
4. I don't see what the first column is for. You already said in the lead 57 celebrities, no need to count them again.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
5. A finish column would be useful to compare the various winners.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Just a couple. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Diaa above that something should be done to further expand on when someone was evicted. Perhaps "Evicted first/second/third/etc"?
• In addition, could the winners at least be marked by a background color? It would make reading the table far easier, IMO.

Not much to do now, so please fix up remaining issues and then I'll happily promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The gorilla-fur text consumes a chunk of the lead but has nothing to do with the celebrity contestants; it should be moved to the CBB article. There is already plenty intro on the series in the first paragraph so the remaining lead paragraphs should concentrate on the contestants. None of the external links meet our WP:EL policy for this list and should all be removed. Some may be relevant for a CBB article but not a list of housemates article. The twitter link has no place on Wikipedia. Colin°^Talk 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree fully with what Colin has said, though I do not support. Regarding the first paragraph, the link to Big Brother (UK)#Celebrity Big Brother is included, so there is no need to describe what it is in as much detail. It's about the celebrities/housemates, so let's get to the point and read about them. There was one sentence in that paragraph that struck me as odd, too: "...in which a group of celebrities, called housemates,..." I would remove the "called housemates" and stick that here: "The actions of the participants, called housemates, are recorded..." As for ELs, I could accept the official site, IMDB and TV.com at a push, although they're not exactly housemate related, and that is what this page is about. Twitter and Youtube are totally unnecessary. Will be happy to support if these points are addressed either through a decent argument as to why they are here, or action is made to actually fix. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [8].

---

List of Kansas City Royals managers

Nominator(s): LAAFan^sign _review 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list with the standard from List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim managers and List of Seattle Mariners managers, both of which are Featured Lists. Thanks for comments in advance. LAAFan^sign _review 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The old managers list format didn't include sortability, but it's nearly always demanded at FLC these days, and I will request it now. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, List of Minnesota Twins managers, and List of Baltimore Orioles managers for format. Per a request on my talk page, I am clarifying: This table needs to be sortable. To accomplish that, the format needs to be changed; the bi-level header format has to be discarded. The above articles give examples of what the correct sorted format looks like, including some information that is missing from this article. See also Help:Sorting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)done "They are members of the American League Central division of the American League (AL) in Major League Baseball (MLB)." - two things here: You don't use the abbreviations at all, so remove.done You repeat American League twice in quick succession. Suggest re-word to They are members of the Central Division of Major League Baseball's American League (AL). You can probably also remove Major League Baseball from the first sentence. The link looks strange squished up against the team name, and if you say it in the first paragraph, it should be soon enough. done "The Royals franchise was formed in 1969 as a member of the American League." - another "American League", remove.done "first manager of the Texas Rangers" - relevant? Or just a typo?done The chronology (third paragraph) is very repetitive; List of San Francisco Giants managers may provide ideas for more appropriate wording. Too much focus on one thing right now, seems like WP:UNDUE considering that there is more content than that.done Talk more about statistics in the lead once you cut down on the redundancy in the chronology. Who has the most wins (and how many)? Who lost the most games (and how many again)? Best playoff record? Biggest shoes? Highest uniform number? (You know what I mean, I think...)done There is a symbol for HoF in the key, but it's not used in the table. Per a request on my talk page, I am clarifying: The asterisk in the key for Hall of Fame managers needs to appear in the table along with the color per WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)done Be careful when referring to "coach" and "manager", since these are two completely separate things in baseball (of course you know that!). There are a couple references to "coach" in the lead and the key.done In the table, all year ranges must use en dashes. All blank cells should have em dashes. This includes the "Awards" column.done Could use another image or two; I know Tony Peña has one. For that matter, Tony Peña has an "ñ" in his name, and there's no reason to use a redirect here.done No leading zeroes on winning percentage. Per a request on my talk page, I am clarifying: Winning percentages should be listed as ".500", not "0.500". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)done Check your footnote; this is about the Royals, right?done References are inconsistent. "Baseball-Reference.com" is a work, and should be either "Baseball-Reference" (linked) all the time, or "baseball-reference.com" (unlinked, cap or not is up to you) all the time. The publisher should always be "Sports Reference LLC".done Changed publisher to Sports Reference LLC. Hope these comments help (and made you laugh a little). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – all of my comments have been satisfactorily resolved. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments – The second sentence is structurally unchanged, despite the done tag. I was about to suggest a wording change similar to KV5's proposal before seeing that he had covered it already.done No need for two Dick Howser links so close together in the lead. Anyone interested will already have clicked on the first link.done I also fail to see the need to repeat managers' first names in the lead.done "In 1970, Gordon was replaced with Charlie Metro. Metro was replaced midseason by Bob Lemon." Don't like having Metro's name come as two straight words. Also, it reads like this all occured in the same season. The season Lemon was replaced should be mentioned.done The sentences you mentioned were all in the same season (1970), but I added that Metro was replaced while still in 1970. There are many uses of "replace" and "replaced" to begin the third paragraph, giving the prose a repetitive feel. Please change a couple of these if possible.done "Howser left with only 74 games left in the season". That's almost half the season. Inappropriate use of "only".done Removed Link Manager of the Year Award.done "who was led the team since 2008." "was" → "has".done Images now require alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)done Couple of quick things I noticed in the table sorting: Joe Gordon is sorting first in the PA column despite having no playoff appearances, and clicking the WS column takes me to the top of the page, without any sorting. Tony Pena image still needs alt text as well. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed the Joe Gordon and alt text issues, but both List of Minnesota Twins managers and List of Philadelphia Phillies managers cannot sort the WS heading, and both are FLs, so I don't think that should be a huge issue. I tried to fix it, but I could not.--LAAFansign review 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC) It's a browser bug. Can't be helped. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed this with a workaround. I think it looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Is that really all it needs? I'll go change the others that I've worked on, though I think those bottom cells could be "total managers" and "total seasons" instead of blanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – Took a while for this one to meet FL standards, but it does now and that's what matters. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The names of the columns in the key should be bolded.done No links to World Series, playoffs, or the Hall of Fame in the key?done Change "Years" to "Seasons" in the table.done The key is inconsistent in referring to the manager; sometimes it uses "the manager" and sometimes it uses "this manager". This is something that plagues all the manager lists, but I confess I never noticed it until now.done What references the playoffs stats for the managers? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)done

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Baseball-Reference sources are formatted inconsistently. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)done

Weak Support - The only things I would like to happen is to have the lead expanded and referenced more, since the lead is barely 1300 characters long, and with only two references. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the lead doesn't need a reference, since it is a summary of the referenced table. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossed that part out. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)done

Fully support now. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Royals franchise was formed in 1969." next line "Joe Gordon became the first manager of the Kansas City Royals in 1961". Clarify?done
• "Dick Howser has managed more games and seasons than any other Royals manager" Tony Muser appears to have also managed for six seasons.done
  • I should have been clearer, Muser only shares the most seasons record with Howser and Howser does hold the most games record. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 14:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Howser led the Royals to their only pennant" The main source has Frey winning an AL pennant, if we're talking about different pennants (I don't know baseball) can this be clarified.done Pennant part was a mistake.

--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Another great managerial list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [9].

---

Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Napoleonic order of battle in the same vein as Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo. This order of battle is for a very complex campaign and I've done my best to simplify it, but let me know if it istill not clear. There are also some gaps in the sources that have resulted in gaps in the list, but they are not significant to understanding the information. All comments welcome. Regards Jackyd101 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria as far as I can make out. A great list, excellent work. Woody (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Woody's resolved issues

A few comments from me: Can we reword the second sentence in the lead a bit? To me it currently reads that Napoleon had a crushing victory at Trafalgar. Could it be reworded to something like. I don't know, I have tried to reword it in my head and I can't see any way to reword it. If you can't no bother, it is probably just the way I am reading it. I see what you mean, and have simplified the sentance. I am not a fan of empty cells in tables. In Leissègues' squadron, do we not know those two commanders? If not, perhaps add "Not known" into the table or a dash? The same goes for the other Commander cells in other sections. Do we have more specifics regarding "Keats' squadron also included two other ships of the line." Apart from that, this looks very good to me. It meets the criteria in my opinion. It is well presented, the summaries are well written and informative. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC) All the rest of these points are to do with a lack of information in the tables. The problems here are that the sources I have available do not contain the required information and I have been unable to locate it despite extensive searches. However it is possible that this information can be discovered in sources not easily accessible to me (i.e. French sources). Thus I'm not keen to make a definitive statement that this information is "Not Known" in the table, and a dash is not very helpful (I've always seen it as a sort of "N/A" which also doesn't really apply here.) Thus in the absence of another solution I would prefer to keep them blank, although if you/others insist I am happy to reconsider. Thanks for your comments, --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I agree that a dash is used to to signify that there is no information at all about a particular issue, as opposed to a blank cell for unknown info. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments The totally empty Notes Columns should be removed, like Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Cochrane.27s_squadron.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I believe that this time {{Harvnb}} would help a lot for things like "Source: James, p. 262" So I wouldn't have to scroll down the whole page check for what book this came from.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I think this list is really hard to comprehend, since it's a campaign and not a battle. Why not just split the list into the different battles or arrange the list into the different battles with a section for every battle? This would make this imho a lot easier.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I think your other points are sensible and I will address them in due course, but your final point is not possible - read Atlantic campaign of 1806 and you will see that there was only one battle and that is already presented in Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo. The rest of the campaign was, as described, a confusing series of manoeuveres without clearly defined engagements or sections and I genuinely can't think of a better way to illustrate this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I've tried the Harvard thing in the article on the citations in the first table, but all it did was make the citations blue - can you explain what I'm doing wrong?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC) It's just not working I guess...Probably because you have a multitude of volumes in your list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Casualities (Killed, wounded, total) is needed for each table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) As explained above, this is for a campaign rather than a battle, so there were few ships with casualties outside the Battle of San Domingo which is covered elsewhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) The rate of each Ship should be in the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I can do this, but why do you think it is important in this context as long as you have the number of guns? Wikilink the squadrons to their sections. For example: "On 6 February, Leissègues was surprised at anchor by a squadron under Vice-Admiral Sir John Thomas Duckworth" wikilink "squadron" to Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Duckworth.27s_squadron Do you mean in the lead?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) There are conflicts between Order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_San_Domingo#French_squadron and Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Leiss.C3.A8gues.27_squadron. It says there that the fleet left on "15 December" while here it says "13 December". And while you're at it fix the links of "Cornète" and "Diligente" Done Create an overview table at the top of the list (In a new section maybe), listing the various squadrons names, ship numbers, engadges and to which Country they belonged to. With links to their relative sections. This could replace the TOC or you could have both. I think this would really improve this list...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I'm a bit unsure how this would assist/improve the TOC - surely if people want this information all they have to do is read the tables? After reading a bit in this list I really admire Admiral Duckworth.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I have replied above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Could u please add some images to the various sections, such as Images of the ships in battle or the admirals..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Two images added - is this enough? You wikilinked London Gazette in the references three times. Its part of a template, so I can't delink it. Could u remove the notes column in "Admiral Warren's second squadron", "Admiral Strachan's first squadron" and Admiral Cochrane's squadron, or fill them with information. I've added some notes, but to be honest I prefer the tables are uniform in format rather than simply cutting notes sections because some happen to be empty. (Besides, it is possible that additional notes may come to light in the future). Replies above -regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support issues resolved, meets FL criterias.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Mostly beautifully written; I just have a couple of pointers. Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences should not have sentence-ending punctuation. "blocking the passage that Willaumez must take to attack the valuable Jamaica convoy" "must take" is in present tense, and is inconsistent with the article. "These forces served the dual purpose of containing the French warships still at anchor in the ports and restricting the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." Can excise redundancy and reduce wordiness? "These forces served the dual purpose of containing contained the French warships still at anchor in the ports and restricting restricted the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." If you really want emphasis, add "both" before "contained". There are two Gardiner books used, but the inline citations do not specify which is used. Same for the James books. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments - I've done all of the above except the first one - can you possibly provide some examples of what you consider "Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences" so I can differentiate?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed these myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - on par with previous order of battle lists. I would, however, suggest that the addition of more images would improve the list. Geraldk (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [10].

---

List of US Open Men's Singles champions

Nominator(s): Bluedogtn (talk)

Note:All TW-RF on this page is bluedogtn_BLuE^DOgTn 04:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list per the discussion on WT:FLC. Cheetah (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I read the opening intro and all is correct to my inspection of this list, and it has illustrated the diffrences in the start till 1911 in the way the tournament was won and played.TW-RF (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support (but too many exclamation points ;) Mm40 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Mm40 (talk)

Comments It does not appear that you have made any edits to the page. I would notify the three main contributers. I did not, but I worked with Don Lope in order to create these pages! I am busy trying to get other articles up to par in tennis! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) There is one disambiguation link, Richard Sears. What, Please, Explain? TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Someone has fixed this! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC) "…championships opened to international competition." I think "competitors" would be more exact. I agree with this! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Changed This! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) In the tables and key, symbols should be subscripted (<sup> </sup>). Actually go look at this navbox of featured content to see why this is not the case and is not done on these! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I know the info will be added soon, but why is a question mark linked for 2009? I assume people know what question marks are. It is about to be determined tomorrow, which means we do this a little bit in advance, but I will take it out if you want me to! I see no reason to do this because in 28 hours plus or minus a couple hours it will be filled in! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) They can click on the 2009, which would explain this to the user! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC) References are needed in the table. They can be put in the top of the table as long as they prove everything in that column. They are actually at the bottom of the page, but what do you mean about the table? TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I will go ahead and do this but it will duplicate it! TW-RF In ref 5, alphabetize the authors by last name. I will do this tommorrow! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Addressed! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Add Category:Lists of tennis players. Done! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC) After these issues and any others that are brought up are resolved, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  Someone did it already. Mm40 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural comment - If TW-RF is addressing these changes (even if it's from IP) he should be put as nominator and his support should be struck (as nominators support is presumed). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I took away my support and left my comment, which is legit. Thanks for pointing that out. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Please read by capped comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1 about how this scoring presentation for tie-breaks is ambiguous. Don Lope and TRM both agreed that we should neglect the "commonly used" format in favour of a unambigous one.

I went in addressed the tie-breaks issues in it to match Wimbledon. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back an re-review this after tomorrows final has been played and everything's been updated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

*Not that it matters but MoS seems to prefer U.S. to US, which would affect a few things, might be worth double checking at least. Wrong, it is not called the U.S. Open it is the US Open with out periods, so it is justified. Go look here US OpenTW-RF (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I wrote the comment then found this out, and thought I'd removed it before saving. Obviously not, and you are quite correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) "The men's singles was the first event contested in 1881." very stubby sentence. Considering you mention the year in the previous sentence I feel this can be better integrated. I agree this needs to be addressed.TW-RF (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I took this out, and left the reference since it goes with the opening sentence...Corrected:Took-out.TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "reserved to United States National Lawn Tennis Association (USNLTA) clubs members", I'm not really sure (might be a language diff.) but this sounds wrong to me. Isn't is reserved for ... club members Go look at the source it will explain for the long usage.TW-RF (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I meant shouldn't it be "for..." instead of "to..." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I corrected it. "played at the best-of-three sets" - played as the best-of-three...? Correct also, you are right. Corrected TW-RF "Best-of-three sets matches" - I think it is just set, because you have a three set match. Corrected. Should be best two out of three sets.TW-RF (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC) "five games – all took" is this the way to write it? The spaced ndash to me indicates separation. I don't get that either.TW-RF (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed this and the dash is not imperative here, and I removed the dash and left a space! FIXED...TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Reading this BBC article on tennis scoring it seems it is "five-games-all". I have changed it and struck this accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) "which were won with six games and a two games advantage" - this isn't very clear, say something like carried on until a two-game advantage was reached or something. Will doTW-RF (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC) This should be "a two or more game (not games) advantage", because the advantage is singular. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Corrected this...TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I copyedited this bit further. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Neither of the anchors to sudden and lingering death work. Lingering death did work when I checked it, but I correct the sudden death link.TW-RF (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) What I mean is link to the term, put "#lingering death" instaed of "#L" and "#sudden death" instead of "#S". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) That's a virtual impossibility it must be the heading of a section in order to do this, but that would be out of protocol for this article. Have your try at it! TW-RF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed IT.TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Even though the source says it is I struggle to see a reason why File:Rod Laver 001.jpg would be PD. It does not meet it, will be removed immediately.TW-RF (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Ref 2 has a messed up accessdate Fixed.TW-RF (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) For ref 15, see this "Using archived version" instructions to handle refs from archive.org I don't have enough experience to do this, but I will try tomorrow!TW-RF (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I tried unsuccessfully to do this someone else needs to try!TW-RF (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Don't worry, I've sorted this. Anything with a url always needs an accessdate. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. All issues resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues,BLuEDOgTN 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Oppose. There seem to be new changes to the list, that have been implemented undiscussed and affect this candidacy. The opening line now reads "The U.S. National Championships–US Open" which I think is an awful start and alot worse than before. You already have the note explaining what it used to be called. Also I don't like that the table has been split in two. That reduces the usefulness of the sortability as sorting won't group players who have won in the Amateur and Open eras. Also I gather from my talk page you are looking to change the list's title. This should be discussed here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I can explain the need for this change, go look at the grand slam sites on wikipedia, and see the way they split the records. Go look at the doubles lists on wikipedia to see the spliting up of pre and post open era. This has not alway been the same tournament like the golfing articles with the exception of the PGA. I looked at the PGA and took the ideal from matchplay to strokeplay. How come their is two navboxes for each, and is this evidence enough to split them up. I would prefer a different title to this article and to split this into two articles if we have to go down that route because it is the U.S. National Championships Pre-1968 and Post-1967 it is the US Open and one signifies Amateurs only and the other Professionals are allowed to compete. Plus, the records cannot be lumped together like Don Lope tried to do to be like golf, but tennis has eras and it matters, and I made this reflective in the last two paragraphs. So my questions are why split navboxes and the stuff on the slam pages, as well as, the doubles pages, and not have the wikitables on these to be split to signify a departure from the previous version of the tournament. Either, we combine everything which would be unjust or leave it separate! I don't care about sortability over historical significance. I think the opening can be redone since it is bulky US.NAT-US Open because of the tag. My preference would be to have two separate articles, but if not this is my second choice over how to do this. I did this for all pages that Don Lope did not go and research and see the difference of eras and the way navboxes are split up on wikipedia, and their is a reason for this. Your can't call someone who won pre an Open Champion nor post a National Champion either. Thanks.BLuEDOgTn 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Opening Sentence: Fixed.98.240.44.215 BLuEDOgTn 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Breaking of wikitable: No.98.240.44.215 BLuEDOgTn 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Separating Records, Opening: Yes, cannot compare eras another source another source 2, Open Era BLuEDOgTn 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The US Open is played during two weeks in late August, early September, and has...". For one less comma, try "is played during two weeks in late August and early September". Fixed TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) "was reserved for United States National Lawn Tennis Association clubs members, before the championships opened to international competitors." First, "clubs" is faulty; it should be either "club" or "club's". Second, what year was the tournament opened to international players? Corrected TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Remove comma after "which were won by the player". Did That TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Is it worth mentioning that the US Open was the first Grand Slam to have tie-breakers? No. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I will say that it is worth mentioning this slam is the only one to have a fifth set tie-breaker. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) If this is mentioned, make clear that a fifth-set tie-breaker has not occured yet in a final. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Did this...Fixed. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Can the lead be updated with 2009 prize money? Already has... TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The licensing tag for the Richard Norris Williams photo is incorrect. A look at the photo it was cropped from shows that it is from the Bain collection, and the tag should state as much. The uploader himself didn't release it into the public domain. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Fix this Giants2008, Please, I don't know how. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I'll go on Commons and take a look when I get a chance, although I'm not that knowledgeable about their formatting. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Done. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Any progress on these points? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I believe this one is about done. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes, though I will admit to being confused over the multiple accounts thing. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think once all the other points are addressed this will be of the required standard. Spiderone 08:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I assume all the things mentioned above are fixed. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*Note The nominator of this FLC has seemingly retired – can someone take over this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Where is that mentioned? I know the nominator has previously retired from another account. I assume 98.240.44.215 might be someone previously involved with the project. 98.240.44.215 is Bluedogtn. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The editor has since indicated that he/she will continue to keep track of the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "which were won by the player who had at least six games and at least two games more than his opponent" What does it mean to "have" a game? There is not any significance to this at all.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) You should probably clarify in the alt text that the people are tennis players. Where is this because it needs to be corrected if it is in fact in there, but Rambo's Revenge might have done this already?.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) The header "Statistical information" – could this be just "Statistics"? Changed, it could be both by title sections demand that it by Statistics. Good JOB.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think there should be a space between the symbol and the words. When the symbols are right next to the words, they are more visible. It would king of crowd the name, which is why I am guessing Don Lope left it this way.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) "Photographers shooting 2007 champion Roger Federer with the US Open trophy" Sounds violent. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, you are in fact correct, and it has been change to less violent terms.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues,BLuEDOgTN 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Temporary Oppose: I am doing this because the scoring of tie-breaks, and the authority and governing body on tennis and the tour say it must be (2) not (7-2) to score a tie-break, period! They are the authority on scores for all tournaments and they run the slams (ITF) tour events (ATP). These are the sources here ATP Federerhere ITF Federerhere ITF Nadal and here ATP Nadal.BLuEDOgTn 01:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The WTA has opposing scoring for a set with respect to winners and loser than the governing body, but they do score the tiebreaks the same way. I believe Tennis governing body go look, should be the ultimate and definative source for scoring on wikipedia to avoid debate over newspapers and magazines. They did have one typo for Federer at the US Open, go catch it if you can.BLuEDOgTn 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Support again, because we are going to deal with the tiebreaker issues later with the whole tennis project, which will include this.BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I struck my support for now because the splitting of the pre and post-Open Era champions caused me to spot something important: the list makes no mention of the multiple championships held in 1968 and 1969 (Open and Amateur). This is at least worthy of a note, and a good explanation as to why the amateur winners aren't included in the appropriate table. I'd encourage the nominator to consider fixing the tie-break issue himself; in any event, it is unusual for a nominator to oppose a list they nominated. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The only list that counts for this article is the champion on the US Open site because the other is not considered apart of this at all. The reason it was split is to show when the names changed and to show the significants of it from am to pro. Further, it was to get in line with the navboxes and the way it is listed on the wikitables for those who won before and after the switch go look at Rod Laver career statistics or Margaret Court career statistics, or Billie Jean King.BLuEDOgTN 04:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know what you are talking about show me some research because I have never heard that before.BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, the ESPN Sports Almanac and Sports Illustrated Almanac do mention the 1968 and 1969 amateur champions (Arthur Ashe and Stan Smith, respectively). Do any other reviewers have an opinion on this? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I got this fixed in the Other tournaments section, but I put disclaimers to go with it.BLuEDOgTN 23:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Should be good enough, especially if the US Open people themselves don't consider the amateur events part of the chronology. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Actually I think the nominator is right to hold off with the tie-break issue. There seemed to be a precedent for the current format set at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1 (in my capped comments) and I think the current format is much less ambiguous. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I will hold off on the tiebreaks for now with respect to this list article, but I think and go look at WP:Tennis on the talk pages, and see the conversation going on right now!BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I nominated this because the Wimbledon ones, but I don't think the Wimbledon one is justified in being the lone slam list to get to FL. I did not create these articles, which is why I have problems with the way User:Don Lope set the up. I think he neglected to see all-time only matters in the eras. I just am trying to help right now!BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be following this about every other day, which I will still keep up this but not daily about three times a week._BLuE^DOgTN 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support The list underwent massive and great fixes, definitely FL quality now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

*Comment In the ALTs some times you mention the image is black and white and other times you don't. Could u either mention this every time or indicate it in some way...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Per WP:ALT, phrases about the provenance of the image (such as "black and white picture of") should be omitted. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed, support good list, meets FL criteria.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [11].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a valuable contribution to wikipedia. bamse (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to have references for every fact. This is not the case here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I added references to the lead now. Please let me know if I forgot to reference a fact. bamse (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) There should be images for the listed sculptures.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I'd love to put pictures, however I am concerned about the following: (i) Loading time of the page on slow internet connections. Please consider that there are 126 list entries where some of the entries cover more than one statue and could require more than one picture to illustrate. Loading time wouldn't be that bad it's mostly 140px or 200px image thumbs which wouldn't take that long to load. 126 is a big number but instead of describing the statues under "Image" I'd prefer having an image per statue (look at List of tallest buildings in New York City to see an example of a list which incorporates images. With one image per statue, I'd end up with much more than 126 pictures. How about one (characteristic) picture per one list entry (total of 126)? To avoid misunderstandings, "image" here is meant as in "image of a god" rather than in the photographic sense. I think the "image" column contains information which can not be replaced by pictures, so I will add a picture column. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (ii) Availability of pictures and license problems. Except for the large Buddhas in Kamakura and Nara and the Usuki Buddhas, I suspect that there are not many pictures of these statues on wikipedia. Most of the statues are located inside temples or museums. From my understanding it is not legally allowed to upload pictures of art objects inside such buildings to wikipedia (please correct me if I am mistaken). In fact many temples don't allow photography of these statues. bamse (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Statues inside temples or museums aren't copyrighted. If u took a photo you can upload it. They can tell you not to shoot photos though... Look on Flickr for photos too. If not then just add the ones that are there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) That's promising. I will see what I can find. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I added a picture column with all the pictures I found on commons and uploaded some of my own. Will start having a look at the lead secion now.bamse (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The Material, Size and every column should be referenced.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Not sure if I understand correctly. Do you mean that I should put references in each field of the table (7 x 126 = 882 references)? I referenced by line. A reference in the first (name) column is meant to reference the whole line, i.e., the reference is for one (group) of statue(s). Is it really necessary to repeat the same reference in each field of the line? bamse (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) It's not necessary and not beneficial actually. But since I don't understand Japanese I didn't know that the info is referenced at the first column.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The lead still needs considerable expansion since the list is pretty long. Compare to List of tallest buildings in New York City. The lead should be at least that big. One sentence (line) paragraphs should be expanded like the fourth paragraph in the lead. The first paragraph should also have another line. In any case, please expand the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Remove "Lists of other National Treasures of Japan can be found in List of National Treasures of Japan." If you want a link to List of National Treasures of Japan then either incorporate it into the lead or add a "See also" section with this link.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Moved it to the "See also" section. bamse (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Remove the image column but add the pictures on the side of the the table with the appropriate caption like on National Film Registry. Over time more images would be available, I hope you make more images, and they can be added along the side of the table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Very good idea. Will move the pictures out of the table. I've been looking all over the place but did not find many pictures which could be used without violating copyright; just a couple of old pictures and some of my own. In any case, the present pictures cover a good variety of different statues (different Buddhist images, different materials). bamse (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done. Is this how you imagined it? Truthkeeper88 is currently copy-editing the lead section. bamse (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Yes much better now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Image column shouldn't be sortable Why not? It took me quite some time to make sorting work. It sorts differently to the name column, because some of the names don't reflect the name of the Buddhist image, e.g., "Great Buddha" versus "Amida Nyorai". Sorting of the Image column then collects all the Amida Nyorai together which the Name column cannot.bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) It's ok...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The sorting of the age column has bugs. When sorting 711, 733 etc. are after 8th Century while 8th century is after 7th century. This is because 711 is seen as larger then 8. You need to add sorting keys.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) There are lots of sorting keys in this table. As far as I can see, sorting works as described in the "Usage" section: "sorts by year. If only a period is known, sorts by the start year of that period." So "8th century Nara period" sorts as "0710" (710 was the start year of the Nara period), "8th century Asuka period" sorts as "0700", (Asuka period was until 710). Of course I could have "8th century" always sort as "0700" independent of the period, but why not be a tiny bit more precise? There might be more such occurences where I made the sorting year more precise based on the birth date of the sculptor for instance. Let me know if you think that this way of sorting is not good. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) WOW, I didn't expect the table to be so good sortable. Really good work on that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) To make the Present location column correctly sortable you should have first the prefecture, then the city, then the place. There are sorting keys present which make just that. Let me know if you noticed any inconsistencies. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) In Image you sometimes use seated and sometimes sitting wouldn't it be better if this was standarized? "seated Chishō Daishi" why isn't "seated" capital?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Add Alt text to the images, so people with screen readers could know what the image contains.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I'll do that. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I suggest instead of "Age" - "Date", since it gives the date of the creation of the Statue.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Since "Size" is mainly about the "Height" could u change the header to that?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I really don't like "Image", it's confusing because I expect to see an image of the sculpture but only the position of the Sculpture and its pose is mention. Could it be changed to "Sculpture" or "Pose" or something saying what this column is about?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to "Pose". bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1. "Together, with the 37 entries located in Kyoto Prefecture, they make up the bulk of this list." Please don't refer to the list, reword.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Reworded to read: "...they make up the bulk of sculptural National Treasures". bamse (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

2. References that you use extensively like ""仏教索引" could be made as general references in the References section. See List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Diego#References as an example of splitting general from specific references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
3. "Kouzou Ogawa; Nobuko Seki," needs to be verifiable please add the page used for every reference. For example Ogawa 2006, p. 10. Yes use {{Harvnb}}.Then create a sources section with books used.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   I am not aware of a consensus for using one reference style over another, but ok. I won't have access to the book before October though. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   It's not about the style. Use whatever style u want. However you need to give the referenced pages so that one doesn't have to keep searching in a book to find the info.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   I see. It'll take a month or two before I can do much about it. bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   I guess till then the current reference would suffice. Please specify the references as soon as you can. Till then though I think this List still meets the Featured list criteria and should therefore be featured. Support --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment "The List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) contains all the sculptures (彫刻, chōkoku?) designated as National Treasures by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of the government of Japan. " This seems like a horribly forced beginning to the lead along the lines "This is a list of X". We don't start FLs like this anymore; see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC) There's also quite a bit of formatting work to be done. I know it's tedious, but I don't know of any scripted way to do it. First, the main table needs conversions for all its measurements. Then, sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. Finally, you need centered em dashes in blank cells. I've done a sample edit to part of the table at User:Dabomb87/Drafts. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I'll go ahead and do this tedious work. At least it'll give me a break from adding alt-texts to images... I'll also think of a new thrilling start for the lead. BTW, I copied a new lead section from Truthkeeper88's sandbox and thereby killed some of your edits. Sorry for that. I tried to fix it. bamse (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I noticed that some of the recently promoted lists start like (for "List of X"): "X is ...", not much better than saying "in the list of X there are..." in my opinion. Anyway I will probably just start the lead with the history section (presently third paragraph) and move the first two paragraphs after the history. bamse (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I added centered em dashes in blank cells and conversions for all measurements. Only thing left is to remove the periods. bamse (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I should be able to support soon after that is fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Removed periods. I hope I caught all of them. bamse (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. The lead still needs to be tweaked, though. One more thing; can you spell out JAANUS in the publisher of the reference? Also, I went through and unitalicized the names of what I believed to be names of websites and organizations, which are not italicized. If any of them were in fact newspapers, magazines, or books, please accept my apologies and feel free to re-italicized them. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. The lead is still being worked on here. It should be ready soon. bamse (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The new lead is there now. Also spelled out JAANUS. bamse (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your patience, just a couple more details: the alt text is very good (I tweaked the map's alt text); the only issue is that information about how the image was made, such as "black and white photograph", is unnecessary. One other thing—image captions that are not complete sentences should have periods at the end, such as "Nine-faced Kannon from Hōryū-ji with eight faces on her head." Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "List" - Perhaps there is a better name for the section, like "Treasures" or "Sculptures"?

    Changed to "Treasures". bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • In the "Remarks" column, some of the notes begin with a capital letter, while others begin with a small case letter. You should be consistant.

    Fixed. bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Are there any more images than the ones in the article? If so, would it be possible to embed them in the table?

    Unfortunately there are no more images available that I am aware of. Following a comment by Diaa abdelmoneim (see above under "resolved comments"), I spend quite some time looking for more images on flickr, in my own images and old books. Unlike 2D art (paintings), for which the PD-Art tag makes basically all images of old (2dimensional) art available, it is not easy to find usable pictures for 3D sculptures. There is an old version ([12]) with pictures embedded in the table. Because there are rather few images, the present version with pictures out of the table looks better in my opinion. (Also see the discussion above) bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The name column makes for some difficult reading. Could you put line breaks in between the English names and the Japanese text?

    I could, however the table will turn out even longer and long names will still be split over several lines. Not sure if it is important: I currently used the Template:Nihongo, which associates the strings with English/Kanji/Romaji. If I removed the nihongo templates and put line breaks, all text (Japanese Kanji and Romaji included) would appear the same. Shall I still put those line breaks? bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I can understand why the names have Japanese translations, but is it really necessary for there to be Japanese text in the other columns? It makes the list rather cluttered.

    In the "Present location" column, I used the Japanese reading for place names that don't have a wikipedia article yet in order to clearly identify the place and to avoid misunderstandings. In some cases both the English name and the Japanese reading (text in italics) are used in English language. In the "Material" column I used the Japanese names for some techniques because a specific Japanese technique is meant here: "Gold leaf over lacquer" might be a technique used in other countries, while "shippaku" is a specific Japanese version of this technique. I could remove the Kanji from the Material column if you think they are confusing but would like to keep them in the Location column for the reason above, unless you insist. Eventually there will be articles on all the places and the Kanji can be removed. bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'm satisfied with all of your answers. Great job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Extraordinary list, accompanied well by their images. My only suggestion for improvement would be to move the last paragraph of the lead to the beginning of the lead. Since it is a list of national treasures, I think it makes more sense to define the criteria of the list before discussing the historical development of Japanese sculpture. Geraldk (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  Glad you like it. Indeed the criteria definition used to be at the start of the article ([13]). However I moved it to the end of the lead following a suggestion by Dabomb87 (see "Resolved issues, Dabomb87" above). Other featured lists use a similar structure for the lead, so I would not want to change it back. bamse (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [14].

---

List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes

Nominator(s): Extremepro (talk), Kaguya-chan (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it has met the criterion for featured list. Extremepro (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's far to premature to attempt a FL run for this article. There is still a lot of information missing that should be present in the article.
  1. There is no information about DVD releases. If you look at every FL at WP:ANIME#Featured lists, you will notice that about every list contains information about the DVD releases.
     • A list has been added about the release dates. Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. If you can find information about the episode directors and screenwriters, then they should be included into the list.
     • Directors and screenwriters added. Extremepro (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
       • I think you misunderstood Farix's comment. He meant directors and screenwriters for individual episodes. You can add this into the table by including the DirectedBy and WrittenBy parameters. The information is readily available at episode pages such as this, where 脚本 indicates the screenwriter and 演出 indicates the director. Arsonal (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
         • Added director and screenwriters to the list with references. Extremepro (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Almost all sources are primary in nature. A Feature List should contain a good mix of primary and third-party sources. At present, there is only one third-party reference.
  4. If there is a list of characters, then the characters' names in the summaries should be linked to their entries on the list when first mentioned.
     • There is no list of characters. All the main characters are listed on the parent page. Extremepro (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Yū Minamoto and Rion Kujo are red links. You almost never see red links in Featured Lists.
     • Removed the red links. Extremepro (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
       • I won't tell you to revert this, but there is nothing wrong with red links, especially if the subject is notable. See WP:RED. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Many of the summaries are simply too long. Episode 7, "Sukumizu Shirosuku Sebareeto", comes in at 240 words and episode 10, "Hitō de Shitō!", at a whopping 284 words. This compared to episode 2, "Yōkoso Yokkō", which is a scant 113 words. Episode summaries should fall in between 100 to 200 words, with 150 being a good medium. But most importantly, they should be consistent in their length with few exceptions. (ex. recap episodes)
     • Reduced the episode summaries to around 180 words. Extremepro (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'll leave the grammar checks to others since that is not my strong suit. —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Grammar checked/ Copyedited by User:Arsonal. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:I'll withdraw this nomination then. Reducing episode summary length will take a while. Extremepro (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: The picture needs alt text. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Added alt text for the picture. Extremepro (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Arsonal (talk)

Comments I will take a look at the individual summaries later. For now, here are some issues: Each ref that has Japanese characters in the title needs to use the trans_title parameter. Added trans_title to other refs. Extremepro (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Echoing Farix, the list should have information on the DVD releases as well as this has been the standard in more recent FL anime episode lists. See the recently promoted List of Last Exile episodes for an example. Even if the some DVDs have yet to be released, a schedule should be included such as in List of Shangri-La episodes. Each ref should either use ISO or human readable dates, not a mix of both. Converted all dates to ISO format. Extremepro (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) On a quick check, the references mentioning premiere dates do not list the airing dates of the other episodes. Each episode airdate must cite a source. Arsonal (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed with that. Side comment, air dates are either very easy or extremely hard to fix depending of the broadcaster & anime producer. Older animes are clear disadvantaged. Things are improving thought, i guess smart persons in Japan noticed our featured episodes lists and get the point that air dates need to be sourced. --KrebMarkt 08:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) More comments I have finished copyediting the episode summaries as much as I can, but there are a few issues that need to be resolved. Please edit my changes if they rendered the parts of the summary inaccurate. Arsonal (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 3: The first mention of Angela Takatsukasa's presence is a bit awkward as it does not introduce her background as Tsubasa's subordinate. Does she transfer in with Tsubasa? Introduced Angela as Tsubasa's subordinate. She does not go to school. Episode 5: Is the name "Hinagata Yui" written in the correct order of writing family name second? Hinagata is her last name so it would be Yui Hinagata using Hepburn romanisation. Episode 6: Is Toriyaka supposed to be Torigaya? If so, use the full name as it is the first mention of his name. Mentioned Torigaya's full name. Episode 7: This one has many issues. The main article lists the clan's name as "Sakinomiya"; which is it? I feel like this summary lost some stuff when it was trimmed. I don't see the connection in the sentence "One brother releases a trained bird to attack the gang, which causes Yoichi to embarrass everyone." Why did "Yoichi dives into the water to save him" when they are in the forest? The summary goes back from the forest into the beach without any explanation. The 200 word limit is a bit limiting yeah. Correct spelling is "Saginomiya". "One brother releases a trained bird to attack the gang, which causes Yoichi to embarrass everyone." - Well the two brothers released a trained bird which aims for the girls. Yoichi crash-tackles the girls to avoid the attack. But the girls misinterpret his actions and causes them to be embarassed. The word limit is really limiting. Tweaked article to reflect that the cliff/ledge is about the sea. I usually put myself in the line of thought that clarity should be prioritized over length. In this case, I think it's fine it lengthen the summary a bit to further clarify what happens to Yoichi in the first attack and what becomes of Masashi. Arsonal (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Clarified the attack. And mentioned that Masashi regrouped with the others. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 8: Who does Yoichi beat up the gang with? Washizu or Ayame? With Washizu Episode 9: Washizu is in two groups? Who is Ukyou? Torigaya is meant to be in one of the groups. Ukyou is the head of the Saginomiya clan. Perhaps it would be good to mention Ukyō's position so that he doesn't appear to be introduced without context. Arsonal (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Mentioned and expanded summary to mention Ukyō's crush on Ibuki. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 10: Standardize the spellings of Ukyou and Ukyo. Is it supposed to be Ukyō? Done. Episode 11: I don't understand this sentence: "Ukyou and Sakon arrive at the dojo with the proposal and trial of the Ikarugas to live like a "first-class celebrity" in exchange for Ibuki." Tweaked. Episode 12: I am assuming that Yoichi's group survive the fall, but that should be mentioned. Mentioned. General: Does Masashi not appear again with the other Saginomiyas for the rest of the series? Is Ukyō the other brother in episode 7? If his name is mentioned then, it should be included. Ukyō does not appear until episode 9. The 2 brothers in episode 7 are not named. They are introduced as students of the Saginomiya clan. Who is Masashi then? I was under the impression that he was one of the two brothers since he was introduced out of context and doesn't have a full name. Arsonal (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Clarified that Masashi is one of Ibuki's students. Masashi's last name is never mentioned in the anime. The other students aren't even given a first name. Go figure. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) There is an extra empty column in the DVD releases table. Removed empty column

Support as quality of episode summaries has improved. However, other reviewers may point out that the lead paragraphs stands at just over 1300 characters. I believe general guidelines state that list leads should be 1500 characters or more. This is used in promoting lists in DYK as well. Arsonal (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded lead with directors and screenwriter info. Currently has over 1500 characters in the lead. Extremepro (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• The lead does look a little better, but I have never heard of a character-count guideline for leads. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe it was my imagination… I'm pretty sure someone has mentioned it to me before during a nomination process, but I can't remember when or where. I can't even remember what kind of nomination it was. Arsonal (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was to add User:Kaguya-chan as co-nominator because she has significantly edited and copy edited this article. Extremepro (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support The lead looks good, and spot-checks of the episode summaries reveal no problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Goodraise (talk · contribs) Could the statement that "Limited editions of all six complilations, each of which contains a bonus CD, were also released." be cited? Cited. Extremepro (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) In the episode titles, the capitalization style is inconsistent. If you capitalize Is, you should also capitalize be. Fixed. Extremepro (talk) What is that portal link doing in the references section? Where should the portal link be? Extremepro (talk) Personally, I'd remove it completely. However, I'm not objecting to the link being in the article, only to its placement. It's neither a reference, nor is it reference-related. Goodraise 02:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Portal link removed. On a side note, most of the "List of Bleach episodes" have the portal link in the reference section with general references and specific ones. Extremepro (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The tenses in the lead seem a bit messed up. Is past tense better? Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC) The lead states that "The episodes were directed by Rion Kujo", yet the table gives various names as directors. Rion Kujo directed the whole series. The directors listed in the table are the animation directors and they often vary between episodes. Clarified in the article. Extremepro (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I question the reliability of Jones, Tim. "Asu no Yoichi!". THEM Anime Reviews. Retrieved 2009-09-16. I'd suggest simply removing it. Removed. Extremepro (talk) The fair-use rational of the article's only image is not convincing. Better now? (And if not, could you please be more specific? What about the fair-use rationale is not convincing?) Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Better, but not yet good. You may want to look at this as an example of a good FUR. Goodraise 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the example. :) I added the non-free image data. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Better, but still not there. See here. Goodraise 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Use and purpose of image added. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets criteria 2 through 6. (No comment on prose quality.) Sources look good and the FUR of the article's only image is adequate. Goodraise 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [15].

---

List of Tour de France general classification winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that after a peer review it meets the criteria necessary to become a featured list. NapHit (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose/Comments from KV5 "the tour is the most well known" - well-known "three "Grand Tours"; the others being" - I'm really not sure about the punctuation here. I don't think the semicolon is correct, but I am totally at a loss for what to suggest. "in more recent years" - more recently "The rider with the lowest aggregate time at the end of each day wears the maillot jaune (yellow jersey).[3] The yellow jersey represents the leader of the general classification," - combine into one sentence. The rider with the lowest aggregate time at the end of each day wears the maillot jaune (yellow jersey),[3] representing the leader of the general classification. "there are others jerseys" - other, plus this should begin a new sentence "King of the Mountains classification" - since the article linked here says that it's officially called the mountains classification, that's what I would change this to, instead of WP:JARGON like King of the Mountains. "The race was won by Frenchmen" - Frenchman "He won again the next year," - de-link year, it's a stretch to link this, plus it's easily accessible from the table. Also, end with semicolon. "however he was disqualified" - however, "that had ridden in or been pulled by cars, and used the railways" - awkward wording. Consider that he had been transported by car or rail. This covers everything generally. "Henri Cornet after the dispute was settled, he is the youngest person to win the tour." - eh? Sentence fragment. "with the cyclist who had the least points" - change "who had" to having "1912" - comma after, plus why is this one un-linked? "French cyclists were successful in the early tours," - comma to semicolon "Belgian riders became more successful," - remove comma "which suspended from 1915 to 1918" - which suspended the Tour from 1915 to 1918 "trade teams came to dominate" - what is a trade team? I have a vague idea, but the casual reader may not. In general, I am starting to see an overuse of the word "dominate" and its forms. Consider replacing some. "However when Alcyon cyclist" - comma after However "tour in 1929, while sick," - no comma after 1929, and consider ill instead of "sick" or replacing with the actual disease he had if a source can be found "to stop team tactics undermining the race" - I believe this should be from undermining, though this could be a Britishism. "After the Second World War, no one dominated the Tour. Louison Bobet changed that when he won three successive tours from 1953 to 1955, the first person to achieve this feat." - Consider linking these sentences differently. Perhaps After the Second World War, no one dominated the Tour until Louison Bobet; he won three successive tours from 1953 to 1955, the first person to achieve this feat. "Anquetil, was the first person to win five tours, his success in 1957, pre-dating his four successive triumphs." - re-word; consider Anquetil, who had previously won in 1957, became the first to win five Tours. "Anquetil's achievements were matched" - you need to make it clearer what achievement. Merckx didn't win five tours, and this is currently vague. "Merckx looked to be heading for a record sixth tour victory in 1975," - needs a ref "Thévenet won again in 1977, however he was eclipsed" - semicolon after 1977, and comma after however "fellow Frenchmen Bernard Hinault" - Frenchman "who won two consecutive tours" - two is extraneous, remove "only eleven cyclists (including Fausto Coppi, Anquetil, Hugo Koblet and Merckx)" - would put unlinked names before linked "In 1980, Hinault was going for a third consecutive win, but had to pull out due to tendinitis," - needs ref "Hinault returned in 1981 and won as he did the following year." - comma after won, and linking "year" is a stretch again "another Frenchmen Laurent Fignon achieved victory" - another Frenchman—Laurent Fignon—achieved victory. "beating Hinault, however Hinault recovered" - semicolon after first Hinault, comma after however "Greg LeMond became the first non-European" - where was he from? This is very notable since it took so long, so the country name should be in there somewhere. Something like American Greg LeMond or Greg LeMond, an American, became "becoming the first person to win five tours in a row." - you've used "in a row" twice in quick succession, change to five consecutive tours "1997 and 1998 respectively, however Pantani's victory" - comma after 1998, semicolon after respectively, comma after however "1999 saw the return of Lance Armstrong to cycling, after he had overcome testicular cancer." - 1999 saw the return of Lance Armstrong to cycling after overcoming testicular cancer. "Armstrong won the tour that year." - no space before ref "Armstrong won the tour that year. [18] Armstrong won a further six tours taking his total to seven, all of which were consecutively won. Armstrong retired after his 2005 triumph.[19]" - very wordy. Consider combining three wordy sentences thus: Armstrong won the tour that year,[18] followed by six more, for a total of seven consecutive victories, after which he retired. "The following year" - comma after year "Alberto Contador won the 2007 tour, which was also marred by doping scandals. He won in 2009." - very abrupt, and no mention of the 2008 winner. I appreciate the use of the colors in the key that represent the jersey colors; however, white will not fly against MediaWiki's background colors. Consider yellow or something similar. All "also"s in the key are extraneous. "king of the Mountains classification" - either King of the Mountains or king of the mountains I see at least one instance of slanted minute and second markers in the table; do a check. Country names in the table need to be written out, not abbreviated. I'm not sure about this I think there fine as they are personally, most people can distinguish what countries they are from the three letters. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC) The Manual of Style disagrees. Abbreviations should be written out in full at their first occurrence, and you can't just expect that any reader (a fourth grader, for example) will know what "LUX", etc., means. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to full names now NapHit (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC) The "#" symbol should also be superscripted in the table. "Margin" needs to be explained in the key. It needs to be delineated in the key that the "Year" links to the corresponding Tour de France, rather than "just a year". In the footnotes, "performance enhancing drugs" - performance-enhancing drugs There are extra brackets in Ref. #3. I'm not sure how to fix this, it looks fine when I go to edit it. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I'll check it out. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed it; PDFs need to be "cite book", not "cite web". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Turned out all it was the fact, that in the format parameter I didn't capitalise pdf, it's fixed now anyway. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Neither of the navboxes currently have a direct link to this article. Either link to them in a proper place or remove the navboxes. Team names featuring more than one company name should use en-dashes to show disambiguation rather than hyphens. Ex: Peugeot-Wolber, Peugeot-BP-Michelin, Gitane-Campagnolo, Renault-Elf-Gitane, etc. I understand that this had a peer review, but due to the amount of copyediting that is needed, please consider asking for a second opinion from the WikiProject as well before the next nom. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Ok I think I've dealt with most of the stuf you brought I left a few comments as well, cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Additional comments (KV5) The table says that Alberto Contador won in 2007 with Discovery Channel, but the lead says he won with Astana. Which is correct? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) The lead mentions is 2009 win which was with Astana. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, but the history section only mentions him with Astana in 2008 and 2009. Even though he is mentioned in 2007, there's no reference of him with his team, so it's ambiguous without reading the table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Hopefully cleared it up now NapHit (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC) "as his Astana team were banned" - team is singular, changed to was banned. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Done NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) "who later admitted to using EPO" - what is EPO? I have an idea, but the casual reader may not. See MOS:ABBR. Write out the full name. The abbreviation is actually unneeded, because you don't mention EPO again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Done NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments have been satisfactorily resolved. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The course changes every year, but has always finished in Paris, more recently along the Champs-Elysees." How recent, in terms of the year when the finish began being held there? "Belgian cyclists are second with 18 victories, and Spanish are third with 11 wins." A word is needed after Spanish. To avoid repetitive phrasing, try "riders". History: Change comma after "became the winner after the dispute was settled" to a semi-colon. Similar change after "trade teams came to dominate the tour". Comma after "Indurain would come to dominate the tour". Try not to have a sentence start with a year, like "1999 saw the return of Lance Armstrong". Space after "testicular cancer". Footnote A: Change to "admitted to doping" for a cleaner sentence. Footnote B: Delink date. Title isn't rendering properly in reference 3. Bic is a disambiguation link. Lance Armstrong image requires alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Done all requests. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – After the improvements suggested by everyone were made, this list has turned out well. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Lance Armstrong has the most Tour victories, winning seven in a record sequence between 1999 and 2005." It's not clear what exactly the "record" is here. Can you elaborate on the points system? How are points gained? "Belgian riders became more successful before and after the First World War (which suspended the tour from 1915 to 1918)." This doesn't make any sense; if they were successful on both sides of WWI, then when did they become successful? "Hinault won the tour at his first attempt in 1978; only 11 cyclists " 11 cyclists including Hinault, or 11 other cyclists. Philippe Thys should sort after Bernard Thévenet. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Done your requests NapHit (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• What source are you using for the data in the main table? --Jpeeling (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The main source is given below "general" in the reference section. (Jacques Augendre, Tour de France Guide Historique) All information of the table is there, maybe except the number of stage wins.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then I'm concerned as I checked race distances from that source and there's a lot (about half) of differences. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the race distances, thanks for pointing that out NapHit (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Still discrepancies between race distances for 1908, 1909 and 2002. --Jpeeling (talk | contribs) 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• There's some other discrepancies: time - 1903, 1904, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1948, 1950, 1962, 1968, 1978, 1989 and 2006. Margins - 1903, 1914, 1919, 1932, 1979.
• There's nothing on the PDF about the points system, what source is used for that data?
• Is there a source for the number of stage wins?

--Jpeeling (talk | contribs) 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• About the discrepancies: The table in the reference apparently has some mistakes. There is also an official Tour archive. I checked the values with this table, and the status is now:

• 1903: Corrected value in article.
• 1904: The general reference table differs by one second. A description on the letour-archive[16] gives the winning time as 96 h 5' 55" 3/5, so this probably has something to do with rounding.
• 1914: The general reference table is off by 10 seconds, probably a typo.
• 1919: The general reference table is off by 10 minutes, also for the number three. I find no other source that agrees to the general reference table.
• 1929: The general reference table is off (by one second).
• 1932: The general reference table is off, both with time and margin.
• 1935: Corrected value in article.
• 1948: Corrected value in article.
• 1950: The general reference table is wrong. Off by 10 seconds, probably a typo.
• 1962: The general reference table is wrong. They typed 45 where they meant 54.
• 1968: The general reference table is wrong. Don't know why. See also this newspaper article from 1968 that gives the results.
• 1978: Corrected value in article.
• 1979: The general reference table is wrong: The time for the winner is 103h 6' 50", and probably this confused them to make the margin 6' 50".
• 1989: Corrected value in article.
• 2006: The general reference table has the wrong value for total time: it shows the time of Floyd Landis, the original winner who was disqualified.

For all values from 1929 I can give multiple independent sources that show that the current article has the right values. They all agree to the official Tour archive. Unfortunately, they were not really good in condensing this into one table, so Wikipedia can do better. All sources (except the general reference table) for the values from before 1929 agree to the current article, but I am not sure if these sources are independent sources.

• The official Tour archive does not give the point system results (1905–1912). This is where memoire du cyclisme does better. I checked the values there, they all agree to the ones currently in the article.
• The number of stage wins of the winner in that Tour could be compiled from the sources above. But I don't know why this information should be included in this article, maybe the nominator can tell. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed response, I would request that if other sources are used for verification of the data then those sites are added to the references section. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course. I just did it, is this format acceptable? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fine by me. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Armstrong also has the fastest Tour victory, completing the 2005 Tour de France with an average speed of 41.654 kilometres per hour (25.883 mph)." Source? I calculate, using data from the table, that the 1999 victory was faster.

The 1999 tour had an average speed of 40.315 km/h, which is slower.[17] See also page 115 of the general reference. Are you sure your calculation is correct? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The calculation is correct: 3870/91.58 = 42.26, 3593/86.25 = 41.66. However the data looks wrong, the source above has a distance of 3686.8 km. That distance is on the memoire site but the TDF archive like the PDF has 3870. Could you take a look at this please. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By adding up the stage distances, I end up around 3690 km. I checked a newspaper announcing the 1999 Tour, and that also says 3690 km (a rounded number). I am sure the 3870 value is wrong, but I don't see how they made that mistake of 180 km. In their communications in 1999, the Tour de France gave the 3690 number, but somewhere between 1999 and now they changed this to 3870 and the error stuck.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Spanish riders are third with 11 wins" according to the nationality table it's 12.

• The source was written down before the 2009 Tour de France was over, so back then it was 11. I updated it to 12, but now it is unsourced does no longer completely agree to the source given.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The 1999 tour saw the return of Lance Armstrong to cycling after overcoming testicular cancer." Needs tweaking, Armstrong's return to cycling was in 1998.

• You are right, but I think it is even too trivial for this article, so I removed it. Together with the fact that Armstrong retired after his seventh victory. For other cyclists, this career information is also not given.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The 'dated' Italian flag is used in the multiple winners table but Italian pre-1946 victories in the main table use a modern flag. Consistency one way or the other would be better.

• Corrected it. The pre-1946 victories were supposed to have the old flag, but the coding was wrong.

• Should Bartali's 1938 victory also have the old flag? Also I believe Spain had a slightly different flag when Bahamontes and Ocaña won. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct. The information was in the article source, but coded wrong. I missed it. Thanks. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• AutoMoto for 1923 and 1924, Automoto for 1925 and 1926. Should these be consistent?

--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and I corrected it to Automoto, the way the general reference gives it. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, I've fixed the footnotes link to the table, it's now working. Anyway it's a nice list, great job! — Martin tamb (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the list is missing media files. Why not add images of some of the winning cyclists to the side of the tables?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [18].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 10)

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as part of the feature topic Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Bleach which is needing season 10 and season 11 to be FL. The list has been copyedited and its issues have addressed in the peer review. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment why is it called "list of bleach episodes" and not just "Bleach (season 10)" ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP: Anime uses "list of" for episodes list per Template:Japanese episode list#Sublists.Tintor2 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the theme songs be in Nihongo3 template with the term "lit." in it somewhere? DragonZero (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The singer does not need Nihongo I'm pretty sure. Hitohira no Hanabira needs Nihongo. DragonZero (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment 2. DragonZero (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The nineteen-episode season is based on Tite Kubo's Bleach manga series, and adaptation from the 32nd through 36th volumes", I'm not sure what other editors would say but this could be called original research.

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 191, "Tesla threatens to destroy the source of her power". Maybe something to explain her power?

Done (though it is never specified what would Orihime do in such situation).Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 205. "The soccer game officially kicks off," sounds kind of funny to me.

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything seems great to me and I support this, though I'm just a newbie editor. DragonZero (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Arsonal (talk)

Comment A few things. Use the trans_title parameter for references whose titles don't use Roman characters. Done (though there are some terms I'm pretty sure). I'm pretty sure "Sky Chord" is included in the Kanji title of the song. Done. Is there a need to romanize the Kanji for "Arrancar vs. Shinigami arc"? Done. Lead: "…from Season 9 centered…" Lower case "s". Done. Arsonal (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Spot checks on episode summaries did not reveal any errors. Arsonal (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Episodes 204 and 205 bring back the Kasumiōji Soul Reapers from season 9 centered on soccer." This sentence is unclear. What is centered on soccer? "When Ichigo asks why he knows Nel" Why does he know, or how does he know? The second sounds more logical, but I'm not the expert. Overall, I think the summaries could use a little more copy-editing, which I'm working on. More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) "after learning about the ability from bacteria he implanted in Uryū" Which ability? The ability to destroy his organs, or the ability to replace them with dummies? "piercing through his hand and heart for what he discerns as centuries before he dies" Not sure what "centuries" means here? Did he think that he was pierced for a time period of a century? "This leads to an outburst between Lurichiyo and Kenryu, and the latter intends to end his life to make Lurichiyo "happy"." Does he actually say he will end his life or is he just thinking about this? "The action culminates in Ikkaku Madarame's joining in the game, while actually sparring with Ichigo instead" This phrase doesn't make sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC) "he made a scene when he was trying to load his things into his new room" "he ... he ... his", very ambiguous. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "Karakura Town during the previous arc" Link for "previous arc"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Could you tell me where is that? I don't find it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 213. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Done.Tintor2 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, though I didn't evaluate the foreign-lanuage ones for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Issues raised by others were addressed; list is consistent with previous seasons' list.--Remurmur (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) The romaji titles need to be title-cased. Found and fixed the only one I found.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Most of them still need to be title-cased. As an example: The first title should be "Weko Mundo Hen, Saikai!" Goodraise 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) So everything needs to be with capitals?Tintor2 (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC) The fair-use rational of the article's only image is not convincing. Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) No, not fixed. Here is an example of an acceptable FUR. Goodraise 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Done (I'm not pretty sure if the romaji no has to use capitals).Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets criteria 2 through 6. (No comment on prose quality.) Sources look good and the FUR of the article's only image is adequate. Goodraise 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comment Shouldn't there be production and reception sections? It just seems that this is unfair to other FLCs that had to find more info like Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1 and so on...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC) That should be something to discuss at WT:Anime (although I think that was already discussed).Tintor2 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Comment where did u get the Romaji and Kanji titles?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The kanji is from the TV Tokyo sites shown in the article. The romaji is derivative.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "The season first aired from October 14, 2008 though April 7, 2009 on TV Tokyo in Japan." though?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "The first DVD compilation was released on May 27, 2009, and as of August 26, 2009, four DVDs have been published." you mean four DVD compilations or four compilations. Cause there have been probably more than four DVDs published.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "known as the Arrancar vs. Shinigami arc" known by who?? You mean released on DVD as .... Cause that's what the ref gives.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The lead is very misleading cause as I understand it there are no seasons in Japanese Anime...or are there?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The previews say it is another season.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "Aniplex is selling the season in four-episode DVD compilations" What will happen to the last 3 episodes?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The release date of every DVD should be mentioned and if there will be a 5th DVD.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) That is mentioned in the main list List of Bleach episodes.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This info should also be in this list since it is relevant to this season. You should also explain in the lead the change to the title "The Past" in the upcoming Volume sets. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The English translation should be referenced or it would be OR.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) There is no official English translation for the episodes' names (and it seems Viz doesn't publishes the names from the episodes). Leaving only the kanji and the romaji would make this article confusing. The translation shown is the most exact derivation that could be made from the kanji.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) You could use TV.com eventhough this is seen as Season 9. I though that TV.com wasn't reliable since it is user-edited.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) TV.com has a totally different Seasons division. Is this because it's based on the US release or what exactly?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This season has yet to be released in North America. Still, the English division seems to be identical to the Japanese ones as you can see in the first seasons lists.Tintor2 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "The 19-episode " aren't they 25?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Isn't there any info regarding the screen writers?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't that be overdetailed?Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think so. The anime is different from the manga and the various screen writers should be indicated.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Do you mean all the script, storyboard staff seen here?Tintor2 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC) If you have info about which episodes are written by which member of the staff then this should be in the article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The TV Tokyo site does not show that.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Are there any new characters introduced?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Not that I remember.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Please add the DVD section as explained...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Although it's incomplete it is shown in List of Bleach episodes, should it be repeated?Tintor2 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Yes either repeat it or remove it from the other list and add it here. This is directly related to this list. I don't see why it's more related to the other one.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Please look for the following info about the seasons to expand the list:--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Awards received for episodes in this season Reviews of episodes DVD sales production notes Viewers numbers, dominant age... All that information is cover in Bleach and it should be discussed in WT:Anime not here in order to change the manual of style for anime episode lists so I don't think I should do that now.Tintor2 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC) None of that information is required for an anime episode season list, and most is not even remotely available. Nor is it called for by the relevant MoS. Anime episode lists are not the same as television episode lists, only vaguely similar. The DVD section recommended above is also unnecessary and should be removed. The releases can and should be covered in prose in the lead rather than the small tables, which it already is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I concur, the information is not readily available, and lacking it is not a failure of the article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Any information related to the season should be covered in a season list. If you don't like the DVD table then add the info in the lead. Try to find out why the change of title happened or why they restarted the Volume numbers. If the info isn't available then this wouldn't result in the failure of the list, as it is comprehensive as far as it can be. Now please comprehensively cover the DVD releases in the lead. The absense of it is a failure of comprehensiveness.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC) The DVD is already covered in the lead in the second paragraph. Excessive detail is not necessary nor is it a failure of comprehensiveness. The title didn't "change" - Bleach, like many long running anime series has story arcs that the set of episodes covers. In Bleach's case, they released the DVDs with the subtitles and the restart volume numbers, versus having them be volumes 52-56 (which makes total marketing sense). All of the available information that is available is there. Again, please do not compare an anime episode list to a television episode list. These lists are split purely because of size reasons (250+ episodes just can not be covered in one list) and not because there are tons of seasonal information available for any season. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Support good list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, my only question is which source confirms that these are the episodes of season 10? There seems to be some question about the seasonal divisions being brought up on the main episode list talk page about possible confusion on this? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's something that recently appeared; It seems the past episodes will have to be divided in another season, but it will be better to wait since it is still unknown what will happen to the last two episodes from this list since they are not from The Past.Tintor2 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about this on and off since replying to that discussion this morning. My view, is that we've been lucky with publishers recently, they've made it easy for us by breaking their releases into handy arcs. Being official arcs, we were able to use them to determine the seasons - especially as they correspond with changes to the theme songs. Which leads to my next point, IIRC the "past" episodes use the same theme song as te rest of the arc correct? And as Tintor2 says, the final two eps of the season as it stands now, are canonically placed after the eps before the "past" eps. Or in other words, the "past" eps (I'm assuming something has been lost in the translation for the name here) aired partway through a story arc. The "traditional" way to determine seasons with anime was from theme song - we still do this now before the dvd releases are announced.

Therefore, my suggestion is that as the relevant dvds won't be out before this FLC closes, we aren't in a position to have reliable sources contradicting the current list. If the list passes, and we find the episodes need moving, we can simply move them - the list won't degrade in quality, and if they are moved to another season, then that part of the list won't need copyediting etc. Given that the list is "Season 10" and not "Arrancar vs Shinigami", theres no reason to exclude the "past" eps based on what we know now. If the theme songs are indeed the same for example, we can still list two arcs in the same article as they are technically the same season - we just note that 6-8eps were released as a different title. Does this make sense? Essentially we keep the list as it is until the episodes in question are released - it won't affect the article quality and shouldn't affect the pass criteria as I understand them. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing though is that nothing in any source seems to refer to any of the arcs/theme changes as seasons? Or are the English releases using "season" for its sets? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Viz releases (that are licensed and released by Manga Ent in the uk) follow the japanese pattern, but labelled as "season 1" etc. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is, in my opinion, how do you determine where a season starts and where it ends? Do you divide by theme song or do you follow the DVD releases? Because if you use the first method then the list should remain as it is, but if you follow the DVDs then the "Past Arc" should be a season on its own and the next season should start at Episode 213.--Geodefender (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Read above. We can't split it yet since it is unknown what will happend with the two last episodes from the list. By the way, this has to be discussed in Talk:List of Bleach episodes, not here.Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Collectonian asked "how can we confirm that these are the episodes of season 10?" it seemed appropriate to bring it up here. The issue seems to revolve around episodes 213 and 214, but the question is: why were they placed in the 10th season in the first place? Isn't the list supposed to follow the DVDs divisions like for every previous split? -- Geodefender (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion originally started at Talk:List of Bleach episodes, so please comment there.Tintor2 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [19].

---

List of Minnesota North Stars head coaches

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much to count how many head coach articles I've nominated for FL. Grammar, copy-edits, etc. can go directly to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Cleveland Barons is a disambiguation link. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think the first paragraph doesn't flow very well because it doesn't quite follow chronological order. You should talk about the North Stars joining NHL before talking about the relocation and championships.—Chris! _ct 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed paragraph. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem still remains: the sentence "but lost in both Finals; the franchise did win a Stanley Cup after the relocation" comes before you mention the Stars' relocation. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1980-81 and 1990-91 are before 1993 though... If it still bothers you, just be bold and move it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I ended up deleting the phrase; I could not think of a way to rearrange it without disrupting the flow or confusing the reader. It's not vital information anyway; after all, this is an article about the coaches of the Stars team of Minnesota. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets the criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Made one quick pass through the lead already, but have found a few more things I want to bring up before this is promoted. "Minneapolis – St. Paul – Bloomington, Minnesota–Wisconsin." Weird to have different dash styles in the same sentence like this. Per WP:DASHES, it has to be like this, because St. Paul is one city, but has two words. If the dashes aren't spaced, it will look like Minneapolis–St., then Paul–Bloomington. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "as part of the Prince of Wales Conference championship in the 1980–81 season, and in the 1990–91 season after receiving the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl after winning the Western Conference playoffs." First part of this reads poorly; do you mean "as the Prince of Wales Conference champions"? Also repetition with the two "after -ings". Human error. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I would also drop "part of" from this sentence. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The head coach link looks like it has more to do with football than hockey. There is a Coach (ice hockey) article; it's a terrible page at the moment, but maybe someone reading one of these lists will see it and want to improve it. Where do you want me to link that? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I was trying to say that you could replace the head coach link with it. Up to personal preference, though. I decided not to add the link into the article, since I couldn't put it anywhere besides replacing it with the head coach link. The head coach link IMO is better off staying there. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) "were also the general manager of the North Stars during their tenure as head coach." Make "tenure" plural. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "Glen Sonmor has served three terms as North Stars head coach." Drop "has". The North Stars aren't coming back to Minnesota, so this should be past tense. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "'Miracle on Ice' coach Herb Brooks". While all American sports fans know what the Miracle on Ice is, this will come off as jargon to a non-sports fan. Try starting the sentence with "1980 U.S. Olympic", and pipe the Miracle link. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "Sonmor and Gainey are the only head coaches to have been to the Stanley Cup Finals with the North Stars, in the 1981 and 1991 Stanley Cup Finals respectively." Instead of a somewhat awkward to read "to have been to", try shortening it with "to reach the". Also, there is needless repetition with "Stanley Cup Finals". Thought I changed this one, but it's still here. At least shorten the second one to just Finals. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17–14) 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for giving the only review. :D Just a small minor detail, but could you replace the "–" with "–" on your username? Thanks in advance! NFL season already started. o.O -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – Good one. Nice to see a couple of coach/manager lists at FLC again. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, meets the criteria. Goodraise 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppport Clearly a great list, one comment. Why is the key formatted that way, broken apart into three tables? Yes it makes it shorter vertically, but it's far more distracting to me. Also, are there really no other applicable images? Perhaps at least a better shot of Herb Brooks, perhaps from his time with the 02 Olympic team under governmental PD? It's worth hunting for, that table can be slimmed down to allow for images. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The key is broken into three tables since the key will be too long if it only has one table. I tried searching Herb Brooks on usa.gov, but found two images of what I think is him that are just too small. It would be nice if you could take some time to do so! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The list is a bit confusing:

1. Wren Blair and Charlie Burns are listed both as head coaches of the 1969–70 NHL season

Because Blair resigned as head coach during mid-season, and was replaced with Burns. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why don't you merge the em dashes with coach numbers? Ie. Wren Blair should have Games coached as 84 + 63 = 147.

Wahh...? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Everything seems fine. support--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [20].

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero 5

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Guitar Hero game, another song list. This one reasonably should have its own article as there's a large # of songs and downloadable content which will continue to fill in the last table. All the usual aspects of previous GH lists have been kept consistent here. MASEM (t) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know much about this whole FLC business, but are constantly updated lists in line with 1e? That list of downloadable content will probably be updated very regularly. If this has been discussed and decided already, I apologize for bringing it up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't know there was a 1e for FL, but assuming you meant the stability, I have had other GH lists pass before FL with the noted fact that the downloadable content will continue to expand, but assumed that they were judged on the basis that the setup for the DLC was in a format that would be able to meet the continued expansion. So in this case, I'm presenting how the first month of DLC has been given (following the same formats from other GH lists), with the anticipation it will grow. Also, this is not like speculative content: Activision announces what this is usually at the start of the month, and its added and it stays (give or take an odd delay on a song). It's stable in the sense there's no guesswork once the announcement is given - and nothing is added until that announcement. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay. If that's how it works, then sorry for bothering you. Guess I should stay out of FLC until I fully understand it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Never a stupid question. And someone else may see it as an issue so it's completely fair to consider. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I performed moderately intensive copy-editing in places; hope I didn't screw anything up. "the project director of the game" Do you mean the director in charge of development? It wasn't clear. "Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers"-->Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers "Make It Wit Chu"-->"Make It wit Chu" "Plug in Baby"-->"Plug In Baby" "Gamespot"--GameSpot Since the downloadable content table is sortable, the song pack refs need to be added to every song. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I think there was one small style html element syntax that was removed but I caught and fixed that. All the above have been taken care of (Bright is the game's director). --MASEM (t) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, fails criterion 2. The lead cannot "stand alone as a concise overview of the article." It states details about the game's gameplay, which are neither mentioned in the rest of the article, nor necessary to understand it. On the other hand, it says essentially nothing about the article's actual topic, the songs in Guitar Hero 5. Goodraise 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC) In previous noms of GH lists for FLC, I have been asked to include a brief snippet about what the game is about before going actually into the songs. I agree that technically, no gameplay info is needed to understand the article, but as been pointed out in previous reviews, helps to establish enough context to allow this to be standalone. However, I will edit the lede a bit to summarize a bit more of the actual songlist details. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I agree that the lead could summarize the list more, but generally, FL leads are given a bit of leeway in having content not mentioned in the body of the article to provide context for the reader. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Yes. I didn't mean to say it should all be removed. However, even after recent edits, I find the lead puts too much weight on the gameplay and too little on the article's actual topic. I'll strike my opposition, but I am not yet willing to support. Goodraise 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I've tried to add a bit more to summarize the other parts of the list (about the songs, and critics reaction to the songs) in the lede to balance more. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Some reference have repeated wikilinks of publishers, which should be restricted to the first mention of the publisher in the reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Why is the year column given for the main setlist but not downloadable content. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
3. What does Band Gig mean?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I've added a year column for the songs that are out. I will note in the past that the only way to have gotten the true year (not just by guessing based on song name) was to actually buy the song to see the details in the game, but in GH5, they are presented in the store, so this can be added easily. The first table final column shold be "Career Venue" which I've fixed. On repeating wikilinks to publishers in the sources, my understanding is that these should actually be kept if there is rearrangement of the sources within the article as to avoid the issue of a latter ref from a repeat publisher appearing first yet not being wikilinked. (Much as the same reason each line in the table needs to standalone with both respect to references and to wikilinks). --MASEM (t) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why aren't the Year of the downloadable content added?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Presently (early Oct) we know what songs will be added through the month, but these announcements do not tell us what year the song was recorded; that information is learned when the song is added to the download list within the game. While 90% of the time we can guess right based on knowing the original release date of the song, if they throw live versions or remasters, that will be a different date. Thus, the songs missing years are those not yet released and that we cannot confirm what version they will be using. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Expand the Downloadable content lead a bit. How many songs in total are new to GH5 download and give an explanation Sentence regarding what the downloadable content list contains.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well, we have no idea how many songs will be downloadable content - this list continues to grow each month, likely until the next major title is released next year. So there's really no way to expand this without speculation. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Aren't the downloaded songs hosted in Venues? How do they work?

   No; only the on-disc songs are arranged in career mode in venues, but in all other gameplay modes, any song can be played in any venue. The use of the venues in the on-disk list is to provide an idea of the difficulty of the game (earlier venues are easier than latter ones). --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Why not create an Album column? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   The album source for the songs is not listed in-game or not. Thus, there's no way to associate the songs with an album. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

5. When was Guitar Hero 5 released?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   This year, but I'll add that. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

6. The 152 of the 158 songs, where they all initially released online or where they made available over time?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Those were the songs released over the last year for World Tour, but all were immediately available at launch for GH5. I'll clear that up. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

7. I don't get section importable content. Isn't this the same as downloadable content? These are downloadable songs or packs right? Or does the user have to buy the world tour CD to download the songs from the internet?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   You would have to buy the original games to be able to access the content, which does need to be downloaded but is not treated as regular downloaded content that any player of GH5 can access. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

8. "As of the date of the game's release" maybe "On the game's release day" ?
9. The empty Year cells should have either em-dashes, TBD or TBA ...-Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Reference "Downloaded songs can be used in all game modes, provided all players have the song, including in the game's Career mode when players are given the option to select any song to play." --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • First two are fixed. I'm having a hard time coming with a ref for the statement asked, but I may find that in the manual. It is stated as one plays the game (it warns you right there all players must have the DLC songs, so it's not really a controversal fact). --MASEM (t) 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I was wondering why some DLC didn't have years attached, but you explained that fine above. Couple comments though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The note about the DLC inaccessible in PAL regions for Wii needs a source.
• How the heck does Woman from Tokyo not have an article?

• • Having trouble sourcing the Wii DLC in PAL regions; no good source that say that's the case nor am I in a position to check. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Shoemaker's Holiday 00:37, 9 October 2009 [21].

---

Rumford Prize

Nominator(s): ResMar 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because all of the issues from the last FLC have been adressed (most notably, all of the citations have been changed so they do not violate any copyrights) and it seems ready for another nomination. ResMar 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will be the first to support. I can't see any problem.—Chris! _ct 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• My only quibble is that in the lead you refer to Thompson as "also known as "Count Rumford"", which to me reads as if it was a mere nickname. From his own article I think it was actually an aristocractic title, although the article isn't very clear. If that's the case then maybe change to "....Thompson, who held the title Count Rumford" or similar -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case I will be the second to support :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• "who held the title "count rumford" in.." might be wise to change it to "Count Rumford in the peerage of the X (replace with Ireland, Scotland, United Kingdom, whatever), since 1) Americans don't have titles and 2) it currently reads as "he held that title in 1796. Not 1796, not 1797, 1796." Might just be me being quibbly, but.. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I won't let alt text hold up the nomination, but please try to folllow up with Eubulides. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) All in all, much better. The images need alt text. Doing that, but its real annoying because A) I understand alt text only vaugely and B) This article has a bunch of potraits arranged at the side, and I see not how to make each description "unique." ResMar 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I see you contacted Eubulides; he should be able to help you out. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) "and the Academy was allowed to award the prize as it saw fit" So when was the Academy allowed to award the prize before the rules changed? Clarified (annually). ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC) "has won both the Rumford Prize and the related Rumford Medal, both in 1886." If possible, can you briefly explain the difference between the Rumford Prize and the Rumford Name? Done. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC) "Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American," I still don't like that first phrase, which is based on conjecture. Why not just state the facts and let readers draw conclusions? No can do. This was changed from what you are suggesting in the first FLC when it was not seen as "clear enough" why. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC) But this could be considered original research. We don't know that the Academy specifically looks for American candidates. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) One of the papers you sent me mentioned that the original cluase was as an award for American candidates. ResMar 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I'm glad the rationales are briefer and paraphrased, but now some are brief to the point where I don't know what they mean. For example, "Light and heat" doesn't tell me anything about Henry Augustus or his achievements.Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC) No response on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Done. Still waiting on Eub for help with the alts though, he's real overloaded with people like me right now so give it some time. ResMar 23:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC) No rush; I intend to support after that is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Foonote D ("This is an affiliation.") is a bit obscure. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Done. ResMar 02:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• For ref 4, use {{cite press release}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• I commented on this in the past and I'm pleased to be able to support it this time.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  16:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks great! Reywas92^Talk 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This list shouldn't be featured before there is alt text for every image. Try to do the alt text yourself then the other user can check it and improve it. Till then though the absence of alt texts violates 5b.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Support the alt text was added.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support pending alt text. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please have a go at the alt text. It may seem difficult but there are plenty of people who can help, and it is part of the criteria. The list is so close that it'd be a shame for to fail on this criterion alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the alt text, it's not that good but it's better than nothing.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Great now! Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The 1971 prize members should be listed in the article (in a footnote) rather than via an external link in body text. (Wikipedia should be self-sufficient for information). Colin°^Talk 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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