Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2011: Difference between revisions
create |
promote 5 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oslo Tramway and Metro operators/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of leaders of the Soviet Union/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men video games/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire/archive1}} |
Revision as of 00:09, 11 January 2011
- 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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy-related lists with FL status, including Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance and Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance. I realize second FL nominations are discouraged, but the other Grammy list is co-nominated and I am trying to squeeze in my last Grammy lists that I believe meet FL criteria before the New Year begins. Thanks to reviewers for your feedback! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is it possible to move the pictures more to the left?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? The thumbs are aligned against the right side of the page. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to this correction: To maintain consistency with all of the other Grammy-related featured lists, I think that it is best to keep to the image column along the right side of the page. For most of the lists I do not define column widths, allowing the table to become as wide as needed to accommodate the text. However, since this list contains two separate tables, I want the column widths to equal so that they align properly. If you or any other reviewers believe different column widths are in order, feel free to offer suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Unless formatting changes again, the two tables have been combined into one. This eliminates column width specifications and therefore resembles formatting used for the other Grammy-related featured lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to this correction: To maintain consistency with all of the other Grammy-related featured lists, I think that it is best to keep to the image column along the right side of the page. For most of the lists I do not define column widths, allowing the table to become as wide as needed to accommodate the text. However, since this list contains two separate tables, I want the column widths to equal so that they align properly. If you or any other reviewers believe different column widths are in order, feel free to offer suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support I can't really see anything I could beef. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment
|
- Support Courcelles 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Went through the list and found no issues to report. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list presents the 14 companies that have operated the various tramway and metro lines in Oslo. With a complicated history of the operators, I hope this list helps make it easy for readers to get an overview of the field. Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nice list, but I think the image File:Oslo tram forskningenparken.JPG is a bit overused here on enwp. In addition to illustrate the Forskningsparken (station) article, is it used as a lead photo in History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro and as illustration in the body text of the articles Sognsvann Line, Ullevål Hageby Line, SL95, List of Oslo Metro stations and List of Oslo Tramway stations. Although a very nice photo, I would suggest replacing it with File:Tram in Drammensveien 1919.jpeg, File:Holmenkolbanen entrance at Nationaltheatret.jpeg, File:Tram at Egertorget in 1907.jpeg or one of the other nice images from the articles on the list. --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the perfect picture! Or more accurate: it is the only picture we have that shows both a metro and tram in it, which, as far as I am aware, is only phototechnially possible at that one station. I'll see if I can replace the image, though. Arsenikk (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it is a very nice picture, but I think the Tram at Egertorget in 1907.jpeg pic is somewhat more "operatorish" with the ads in the upper right corner. --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was (and is, when it reopens) possible at Jar station also. Probably at Majorstuen if you take the picture from high ground which is more difficult. We/I could also take some other photos of the same object at Forskningsparken. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen a really nice photo of Majorstuen station with the trams and metro trains from above, so that's absolutely a possibility. Someone with great photographing skills, could be capable of taking a photo of Storo station with the tram and metro from Grefsen Station. Also a picture of Johanne Dybwads plass taken from Saga kino with the tram stop in the foreground and the blue-white metro sign in the background would be nice. --Eisfbnore (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was (and is, when it reopens) possible at Jar station also. Probably at Majorstuen if you take the picture from high ground which is more difficult. We/I could also take some other photos of the same object at Forskningsparken. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it is a very nice picture, but I think the Tram at Egertorget in 1907.jpeg pic is somewhat more "operatorish" with the ads in the upper right corner. --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, seeing that you both live in Norway and are interested in this stuff, couldn't just one of you take a new image and upload it to wikipedia commons? --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, maybe. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, I'm a mediocre photographer, and I've already taken som pictures of Forskningsparken. I think the pictures talk for themselves. --Eisfbnore (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added two new images, one old of a tram and one new of the metro. There aren't that many good pictures of the system—images that I'd proudly put in a featured article or list. Then again, taking good images is a challenge. I tend to reuse the good ones a bit. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, maybe. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the perfect picture! Or more accurate: it is the only picture we have that shows both a metro and tram in it, which, as far as I am aware, is only phototechnially possible at that one station. I'll see if I can replace the image, though. Arsenikk (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support after a quick re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
"The private light rail lines were gradually nationalized and transferred to Oslo Sporveier, that operated the entire network by 1975." The flow of the sentence would be improved if "that" was turned into "which" or similar."and an public transport authority". "an" → "a"."the latter which kept the Oslo Sporveier name." Add "of" before "which".The page ranges (more than 1 page) should have pp. in the citation, not p. I see the list uses a Harvard citation template, which I'm not too familiar with since I've never used it. There was a p. parameter; by chance, is there a similar pp. parameter?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- All fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Crisp text, clean design, and well-referenced. Well done. HausTalk 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Looks good, just a couple of comments/suggestions:
bamse (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support now. bamse (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Shouldn't A/S Smestadbanen be included in this list? I know it didn't operate any trains, but neither did Tryvandsbanen... --Eisfbnore talk 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Tryvandsbanen have an article now? As I seem to have included the one paper company, I should add the other as well. I'm redirecting to Røa Line for the moment, but perhaps it is also worthy of an article. Arsenikk (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status for a second time. --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (not supporting or opposing yet):
- Done You should have a sentence at the start that mentions that which office served as the "leader" changed sometimes before launching into what those offices were.
- Done The dates in "terms of office" in the table should be centered, not left-aligned.
- Done Khrushchev- reword "removed from power after a trip to Scandinavia" to something that emphasizes that going to Scandinavia wasn't the cause/reason for the removal, they just did it while he was out of the country.
- Done Gorbachev- "and resign on 24 August", "the following the day the Soviet Union" - please get someone to copyedit the text, I doubt that these are the only two examples, just the ones I happened to spot as I skimmed the table.
- --PresN 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've been asked to come back and look at this, and I must say it looks and reads a lot better now. --PresN 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the table should be sortable. To do that, you will have to get rid of all the rowspans.—Chris!c/t 01:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Were does it say that that is a must? I don't see it anywhere an there are many articles which don't use sortable tables.. In other words, I'm not changing it! --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sortability allows readers to sort the info on the table. Since all the rowspans is gone, it is quite easy to make the table sortable now. This is a simple request, so I don't understand why you refuse to do it.—Chris!c/t 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at making the table sortable, from a usability point of view. Unfortunately, it would only sort properly on the 'Name' as it stands. It could be made to sort on 'Term of office' or 'Congress' by using sort keys, but I'm not sure of what usability value any of that would add. Obviously, neither 'Portrait' nor 'Notes' will sort in a meaningful way. I've amended User:RexxS/List of leaders of the Soviet Union so that you can see what I mean. Given all that, in my humble opinion, I don't think this table would benefit from being sortable. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sortability allows readers to sort the info on the table. Since all the rowspans is gone, it is quite easy to make the table sortable now. This is a simple request, so I don't understand why you refuse to do it.—Chris!c/t 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Were does it say that that is a must? I don't see it anywhere an there are many articles which don't use sortable tables.. In other words, I'm not changing it! --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment talking accessibility, User:RexxS kindly knocked up this as an example of what that part of the project would hope to see. I rather like it, and would appreciate TIAYN and the community's comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I can't say that I'm fond of the idea, but i've added his version... Question, should i add an image of a Troika member in each bar or should i leave it empty? --TIAYN (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done The only thing I see there that I really despise is the bolding of last names. Seems to me to be nothing but extra work that makes the page ugly, and adds nothing. Courcelles 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All six of the leaders in the two troikas have PD or CC-BY-SA images, so I think it would be possible to create a collage for each troika, as the table looks like it's missing something where those portraits would be. You could perhaps just add images in each case of the two members whose image is not already in the list, if space is a problem. Please let me know if you want any help, should you decide to add such images. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Courcelles, I think the surnames were bold before the changes for accessibility were made, judging by the article history... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I deliberately preserved the original text formatting for my example (that's why the
style="font-weight:normal"
is there) in order to respect the author's intention. That's not to say I thought it was the best way of doing it. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I deliberately preserved the original text formatting for my example (that's why the
- I've solved the image problems regarding the Troikas now... I created an entirely new section for them... Are these new changes acceptable? If not, please say so ;) --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done The only thing I see there that I really despise is the bolding of last names. Seems to me to be nothing but extra work that makes the page ugly, and adds nothing. Courcelles 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Few questions - You use the dashes to signify information missing in the congress column, shouldn't it be used in the same manner for the image column? can a better section header be provided other than "list"? you seem to begin to explain the process of how the leaders were elected to this position in the lead and "list" section, I was wondering if maybe this could be elaborated on more for the benefit of the user. Afro (Talk) 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Changed the header too "List of leaders", is that better? Secondly, there was no formal line of succession; the leader did however need the support of the Politburo, Central Committee and the Secretariat to hold power. --TIAYN (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 13:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Changed the header too "List of leaders", is that better? Secondly, there was no formal line of succession; the leader did however need the support of the Politburo, Central Committee and the Secretariat to hold power. --TIAYN (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we include Gennady Yanayev into the list? I mean, he was Acting President of the Soviet Union; the most important and strongest office in the USSR at the time of the August Coup of 1991. Should we include him into the list??? --TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, I'm confused. Aren't you the nominator? The champion of the article, its shepherd? Shouldn't you have answered this question for yourself before you brought the list to FLC?
- Also, regardless of you marking my comments up above as done, you haven't gotten a copyedit. Please get someone else to look over the entire list, not just the few points I mentioned. The third sentence in the lead has a huge comma splice- I will leave it to the editor to figure what it is but it's not hard to see. Also! "tried out" is unencyclopedic, and the last sentence of the lead is uncited and, more importantly, just kind of dangling there, unconnected to anything.
- I also don't like how the troikas are divided out into a different section. I know its a pain to slot them into the table, but given that its unsortable and arranged by chronological order, I feel that the troikas should be in the same table. --PresN 07:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But we will get the image problem again, which some other editors pointed out... When it comes to the inclusion of Gennady Yanayev into the list I am really, really unsure. On the other hand, I will try to find another editor to copyedit the article! --TIAYN (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User Tuscumbia has copyedited the article; is the list well-enough written now? --TIAYN (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comment - I would like to see term "Gerontocracy" mentioned somewhere in the article because it was a real problem in the seventies and early eighties. Article already mentions the ridiculous age of some of the latter leaders so why not make this article bit more academical. In addition I fixed a typo. Utinsh (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for the support. --TIAYN (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose lots of things, mostly very simple to fix though!
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment Have The Rambling Man and Chrishmt0423 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Top line of the infobox says "leaders of the Soviet Union" and the 2nd line says "Former Communist State" - this is very confusing since the Soviet Union was always a Communist state, and now Russia is a former Communist state. Smallbones (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Soviet Union is a former communist state, it doesn't exist anymore! This makes the USSR a former entity --TIAYN (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments –
|
- Comment: The First Troika tenure ended on 26 June 1953 in one column yet in the next it lasted until Beria's death (23 December 1953), clarification is needed. --88.111.49.180 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --TIAYN (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the article should probably be without "List of". Nergaal (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --TIAYN (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After looking deeply into the article, I didn't find anything I could beef.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 talk, Nomader, and -5-
Not sure what else to say other than that I believe that the list meets the Featured list criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Also, for tracking purposes, I am co-nominating this article with User:Nomader and User:-5- who helped improve the list to its current form. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
; Comment from RexxS: The template {{VGtitle}} creates a separate table for each entry. I count 38 tables in the list. None of the tables have either column or row headers, so the "list" would not be easy for a visually-impaired reader to navigate using a screen reader, other than entry-by-entry. Although I would wish that our best lists were more fully accessible, I don't think it would make sense at present to object to this candidate, simply on the grounds of accessibility. There really needs to be a wholescale review of templates such as {{VGtitle}}, and (in my humble opinion) this is properly a task for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RexxS, if you leave me a note on my talk page outlining your concerns, I'll bring them up at the VG project. Standardizing the format of our lists has been a point of contention for a while now and some guidelines to adhere to could get the ball rolling in the proper direction.
- This particular template could be possibly retooled to a different format, or retired if need be. But I've sure a solution can be worked out down the road. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I created new templates that emulate the table format:
{{Video game titles}}
and{{Video game titles/item}}
. The first is a basic table frame and the second is the syntax for the table rows, resulting in a single table rather a stack of multiple ones. Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]- Apologies for not revisiting sooner, but I'm pleased that my concerns about multiple tables has now been resolved with the creation of the new templates. I can see it's taken some work, but it will allow future articles from the project to more accessible, and the effort is commendable. In other cases I'd recommend the incorporation of column and row headers to further improve accessibility, but where there are only two columns as in this case, I don't think there's much to be gained. I've struck my original comments to indicate they are resolved, and I can see nothing from an accessibility point of view that should prevent promotion. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created new templates that emulate the table format:
- Comment Have TRM and RexxS been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dropped a note just now at TRM's page-- sorry, I haven't been around Wikipedia lately, college has been getting the best of me. I haven't left one at RexxS's page though, I felt like his comment was more aimed at redoing the entire table format for the video game lists than any objections to this particular one. I might drop a line at WT:VG myself if I get the chance about changing up the table format though. Nomader (Talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I have concerns over the template used, it seems to violate MOS:BOLD. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I first thought it was because the font size was larger, but after looking at the template code I realize that I misinformed The Rambling Man above. I removed the bold from the title. Sorry about the confusion. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- You reference some system releases (examples "X-Men: Wolverine's Rage" and "X2: Wolverine's Revenge") but you don't reference other systems releases (such as "X-Men vs. Street Fighter" and "X-Men: The Ravages of Apocalypse"), any specific reasons why these aren't referenced? Also another question about the notes, you reference some notes regarding the genre of video games (example all of the Wolverine games) but you don't reference most of the genres for the X-Men games and Related games why is this? Afro (Talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do that to cut down on the number of citations. Everything in the list should be in the references provided, but if one citation can cover multiple bullet points then I try to cut down on redundancy. For example, the genre info for X-Men vs. Street Fighter is in the same reference as the heroes and villains content. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Quick comments –
There's a typo in the developer of X-Men II: The Fall of the Mutants. It should be Paragon Software, not Paragron.In the see also note, "a recreational animation software" doesn't feel complete to me. I know it's an afterthought, but standards should be maintained throughout. Should it be "a piece of recreational animation software", or perhaps "a recreation animation software package" (what's it's called in the linked article)?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I changed the list per your concerns. Nomader (Talk) 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would like to see a more developed and informative lead. The current one is lacking--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm loathe to padding the lead just to make it longer when it doesn't need it-- do you have any details in particular that you think need to be added? Nomader (Talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Nomader, mainly because I can't think of what else to add. If you have a specific suggestion, we can look into it. But as it stands, the lead summarizes the list and goes into some notable details. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm loathe to padding the lead just to make it longer when it doesn't need it-- do you have any details in particular that you think need to be added? Nomader (Talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The template
{{VGtitle}}
now supports a parameter for future games, per The Rambling Man's comments. Plans are also in motion to address the accessibility issue brought up by RexxS. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comments:
- 2000 – Game Boy Color, PlayStation[26][5] ref "5" ahead of "26"
- Why is gamestop so much linked (in the reference section)?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched the ref order per your comment. GameSpot's considered a reliable source by WP:VG, so we use it often to source release dates. They have a pretty comprehensible database-- it's one of the better ones out there and it has a lot of games listed there which may not be listed on other websites. I prefer consistency in my lists, and I feel that using the same site to verify the release dates of all of the items is usually preferable. Nomader (Talk) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no. I meant why there are so much internal links to gamespot? I think one is ok. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally add internal links to every ref because I can't predict which citation a reader might look into. If you think it's a bad idea, I can remove them. But I think it's useful. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Only the gamespot as publisher in the first in-line citation should be interwiki-linked. All others not. That will be ''<ref name="GS-Uncanny">{{cite web| url = http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/xmen/similar.html?mode=versions| title = The Uncanny X-Men Release Summary| publisher = GameSpot| accessdate = 2010-06-29}}</ref>
|release= 1989 – [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]'' this one. This must be wikilinked, all others not.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Only the gamespot as publisher in the first in-line citation should be interwiki-linked. All others not. That will be ''<ref name="GS-Uncanny">{{cite web| url = http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/xmen/similar.html?mode=versions| title = The Uncanny X-Men Release Summary| publisher = GameSpot| accessdate = 2010-06-29}}</ref>
|release= 1989 – [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]'' this one. This must be wikilinked, all others not.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally add internal links to every ref because I can't predict which citation a reader might look into. If you think it's a bad idea, I can remove them. But I think it's useful. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- No, no. I meant why there are so much internal links to gamespot? I think one is ok. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched the ref order per your comment. GameSpot's considered a reliable source by WP:VG, so we use it often to source release dates. They have a pretty comprehensible database-- it's one of the better ones out there and it has a lot of games listed there which may not be listed on other websites. I prefer consistency in my lists, and I feel that using the same site to verify the release dates of all of the items is usually preferable. Nomader (Talk) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNearly Support:I see no issues.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Sorry to change my opinion, but a few publishers are wrong. The publisher of all refs with the publisher "GameSpot" are not correct. It is a work, not a publisher; the publisher is "CBS Interactive Inc.", seen at the bottom of the site. The publisher of GameFAQs is "CBS Interactive Inc.", GameFAQs is the work. The publisher of Gamasutra is "UBM TechWeb", this is the work. Allmusic's publisher is "Rovi Corporation", this is the work. The publisher of gamedaily is "AOL Inc.", this is the work. The publisher of marvelultimatealliance is "Marvel", the work is the page. The publisher for wii.gamespy is "IGN" not "THQ". uk.ps3.ign.com is "IGN" not "THQ".publisher=[[1UP.com]]
->work=[[1UP.com]]
. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The VG Wikiproject has debated this before but did not reach any consensus. Our magazine citations are treated as you described, but the documentation for Template:Cite web previously left room for debate as to which parameter should be used. And it looks like the discussion at Template talk:Cite web didn't find a definite resolution.
Dabomb87- I posted a note at VG project talk page. May I have some time for input from project members? Or is there another discussion that demonstrates a more definitive consensus? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]- To chime in on the above, GreatOrange, I've generally used "publisher" for the website itself. As Guy mentions {{cite web}} has never been good at clarifying, and in the case of almost every website the owner isn't that germane to the degree of, say, a book publisher. As long as they're all consistently formatted thus, I don't see an issue with WP:WIAFA (especially as the templates don't actually explicitly output "publisher" when you render it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The VG Wikiproject has debated this before but did not reach any consensus. Our magazine citations are treated as you described, but the documentation for Template:Cite web previously left room for debate as to which parameter should be used. And it looks like the discussion at Template talk:Cite web didn't find a definite resolution.
- Support now-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Why does the canceled "Questprobe featuring The X-Men" get its own section, but the canceled "X-Women" get a brief mention?I think the list would look better if you broke up the Notes sections into better labels such as "Genre", "Publisher", etc. The naming of characters and plotlines also seems arbitrary, and needs to be consistent throughout the list.Ωphois 18:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I addressed the X-Women game by making a section for the two canceled games.
- The content in the notes is somewhat arbitrary because it is based on the most notable information that turned up during research. Also, the template uses a generic notes section because it was designed for series of games that share information like genre, developer, publisher, etc. (For example, List of Space Invaders video games and List of Wario video games) However, this group of games seems to break that rationale, so I will try to include consistent information like the genre and developer/publisher. Character and plot info might be another story as reliable sources don't always go into such game details. I will add what I can though.
FYI- Because of the holidays, I have inconsistent access to the internet, and I will try to get to this in a timely manner. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]- I tweaked the notes. I hope it is to your satisfaction. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments: I have to admit that I have concerns about how the table is currently. Are most VG Featured lists like that and I've just never noticed, or is this the preferred version? It's hard to get used to, but I can look past it. Will do a full review once this is answered. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list because this list has just recently passed a ACR under Wikiproject Military History and follows the established pattern for battleship related lists. (see List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, another FL of mine for a comparison.) Questions and comments are welcome. Thanks :) White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List looks good but I have some comments:
The lead says that the German gift significantly contributed to the Ottoman decision to join Germany, but later in the article this is not expanded upno. Meanwhile, the text says that the two ships seized by the Brits had a major role in the decision. Which one is it? And if the former, then please expand in the text.
- They were both major factors to the Ottomans joining the Central Powers. I'll add that later today :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this issue has been fixed now. Please check back to make sure that you like it :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These ship articles always lead me wonder why were their name chosen that way, but rarely say it. Here it is obvious that is the origin for Sultan Osman I but I would still like a note here on when did this person rule, or what sort of role he had. As for the likes of Reshadieh I have absolutely no idea for the origin of the name. Since it is the name of a class, some indication should be given.
- I'll try to add some notes about the names if I can find them.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For example Barbaros Hayreddin came surely from Hayreddin Barbarossa. If you can't find a reference for it, try to add a footnote at least with the Pasha. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These things are generally addressed in the individual articles. I could still add them in but one or two names may not be known...--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try to improve the caption for the lead image. It is really dry right now. Also, the date in the image page is listed as 1911.Nergaal (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Added the date. Is there anything else that you want added?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to expand the lead caption a bit. I don't know if it is really better, so feel free to change/revert it. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all of my major concerns have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support no problems after a brief re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
Same table issues that were at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1. To save a repeat conversation, a discussion can be found in my resolved comments there with detailed info on what the problem is (see also the list's talk page) and how to fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching the abbr to mos does not work for the displacement and armament....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Displacement should now work following my request here.Main guns seems flawed as is "6 × 28 centimetres" is a bit ambiguous and could be a main gun 28cm long and 6 cm wide. Note the other list resorted to a manual "6 × 28-centimetre" style as it was deemed better (not by me). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed the displacement.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the main guns? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still does not work....It comes up as a red link thing...--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the main guns? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the displacement.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the inclusion criteria for the list should be mentioned on the page since it excluded the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye. While I understand your reasoning for excluding her, several notable naval publications such as Brassey's Naval Annual list her as a battleship. It would be extremely helpful to the reader to mention why she is not included on the page (because she was a coversion), despite the fact that several sources list her as a battleship. For example Lawrence Sondhaus's Naval warfare, 1815-1914 specifically states that she was converted into a pre-dreadnaught from a casemate type ship.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have Rambo's Revenge and XavierGreen been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Exactly what i was looking for has been added, article is now complete in its scope.XavierGreen (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments –
|
Support Comments
- Clarify exactly ships are meant here. The three Reshadieh-class ships were ordered, not purchased. In order to update the fleet, the Ottoman Navy Foundation purchased larger battleships such as Sultan Osman I, three of the planned Reshadieh-class battleships, and one that had already been built. What ship is meant by this last bit?
- Clarify these two sentences so that the reader knows these were the only two ships nearly complete when war broke out: The United Kingdom confiscated the ships at the outbreak of World War I. Sultan Osman I was renamed HMS Agincourt while Reshadieh was renamed HMS Erin
- Fix this: Out of all the battleships legally owned by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the war, half were either scrapped or ondhausewere seized by the British in the early days of the conflict.
- You're mixing Brit and American English with centimetres.
- One too many ands in this sentence: This act outraged the Ottoman people and was a major factor in turning public opinion against Britain and helped to drive the Ottoman Empire into an alliance with the Central Powers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed all of these issues except for the centimetres one... What do you want me to do about it? make the article solely British or American English?--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pick one or the other; just be consistent throughout the article. If you want American measurements add |sp=us to the conversion templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still in the middle of working on it. This is the last issue.--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added them into the article but I'm not sure if I did it right....--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still in the middle of working on it. This is the last issue.--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pick one or the other; just be consistent throughout the article. If you want American measurements add |sp=us to the conversion templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed all of these issues except for the centimetres one... What do you want me to do about it? make the article solely British or American English?--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Overall, the list is in good shape. I think you could have easily gotten away with a short table, but this list provides good list-like information as well as historical. I think the key is very helpful. Below are the issues that stood out to me.
- I think a year in the lead would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the time frame of the First Balkan War.
- Similarly, wikilinking Royal Navy would help those unfamiliar with military history.
- Any reason why the table widths are 98% instead of 100%?
- I think I changed it to that so the table will not look messed up....--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Warship International from the Naval Records Club a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- It's a published magazine; it's as reliable as any other published, non-controversial source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checking. I inferred something less professional from the word "Club". (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Understandable, they later changed their name to the International Naval Research Organization, probably for that very reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: 98% table width seems odd to me, but I don't think that warrants opposition or withholding support. Everything else looks good. I hope you consider 100% width because I believe most other lists use that formatting. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Understandable, they later changed their name to the International Naval Research Organization, probably for that very reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checking. I inferred something less professional from the word "Club". (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- It's a published magazine; it's as reliable as any other published, non-controversial source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support C'mon, close it. It's time to go and get the star.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.