Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2011: Difference between revisions
add {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Pennsylvania/archive1}} |
+1 withdrawn |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Georgia (U.S. state)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Pennsylvania/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Pennsylvania/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Santana discography/archive3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Santana discography/archive3}} |
Revision as of 23:50, 13 February 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:50, 13 February 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...it's another one of the ongoing series of United States state bird lists, several of which have passed FL. This one follows the same format as the others, but with additional citations. Stepping aside from the other stuff, it's a goodly-formatted list that is comprehensive, well-illustrated, and sourced to the official lists, therefore it's accurate and complete. (If I do say so myself.) So hopefully another US bird list will hit FL! - The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - There are no distinctions between Notes and in-line citations. Also if I'm reading the in-lines correctly there are only 3 which brings me to my next point why are there 3 in-line citations? Afro (Talk) 12:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually edit over at WP:MILHIST, where generically 'Notes' refers to the in-line citations. But I've changed it to 'Citations' to clarify that, hope it helps. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok you have 7 in-line citations its a relief, but let me demonstrate my concern with the way you're citing as you're essentially unspecific. If I google 2, 3, 7 for example Georgia Official State List Georgia Reportable Species List GOSRC hypothetical species list no specific results pop up verifying this information. Afro (Talk) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, I see. They were referring to the entries in the Biography with the links, but I've re-factored the references so that the links are directly in the in-line citations now, which should clear that up? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok you have 7 in-line citations its a relief, but let me demonstrate my concern with the way you're citing as you're essentially unspecific. If I google 2, 3, 7 for example Georgia Official State List Georgia Reportable Species List GOSRC hypothetical species list no specific results pop up verifying this information. Afro (Talk) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually edit over at WP:MILHIST, where generically 'Notes' refers to the in-line citations. But I've changed it to 'Citations' to clarify that, hope it helps. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I honestly don't see why it's necessary to cite the number of Georgian birds in each family. The source provided does not explicitly provide those numbers, and it could easily be regarded as common knowledge – all you have to do is count the birds. Focus (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure about that, based on citation requirements vs common-knowledge and the other bird lists. I'll remove them (allowing them to be re-added if it's desired) if it's desired, but I think the DYK people might get twitchy if there isn't one citation per paragraph... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've verified the hook myself at DYK, and I don't think you'll have any problems there. Birds of PA was recently a DYK and is now a FLC and doesn't have those types of refs. I have a few more comments which I'll get up later, after that I'll be happy to support. Focus (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure about that, based on citation requirements vs common-knowledge and the other bird lists. I'll remove them (allowing them to be re-added if it's desired) if it's desired, but I think the DYK people might get twitchy if there isn't one citation per paragraph... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Images should be in standard thumb size instead of forced size (per Wikipedia:Images). --Snek01 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I forced the size since they appeared oversize otherwise, but I can fix that, if it's really necessary? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Wikipedia:Images doesn't say you absolutely must use thumbs. It says, "As a rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default. If an exception to the general rule is warranted..." so if you set the images to less than 220px, there should be no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, MOS:IMAGES#Images says explicitly "The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed.", so this issue is void. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Oppose
- All of the images need alt text (see WP:ALT).
- Per WP:BOLDTITLE, the title should not be bolded unless the title appears exactly as it is in the first sentence.
- The first sentence comes off awkwardly: "The List of Georgia birds lists"... is there a better way of saying that?
- I think a good example to go off for this list is List of birds of Maryland for the lead. Either way, I'll try and add more comments in the coming days-- nice work. Nomader (Talk) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll get to working on these. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved to oppose; although you've addressed the alt images problem, the lead still most definitely needs work. Some further comments:
- Look over WP:LSC. It explains that the lead for a list should summarize any background information (which this list does not do right now-- it simply says that this is a list which lists every species in Georgia). The Georgia list should include what kind of birds are commonly found, which birds are the most prevalent, etc.
- The article still violates WP:BOLDTITLE and references itself in the lead. You can put the criteria in a key at the top of the list or something of the sort, but the lead should be written like the lead of any other article.
- Again, look at List of birds of Maryland for what I consider to be a better lead of a bird article. It's not as self-referential.
Sorry to this, but I want to make sure that if this passes FLC, the lead gets trimmed up first. Nomader (Talk) 18:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. :) It's been taking awhile for me to get around to this; my editing brain tends to skip around and takes awhile to get back to an 'editing mood' for an article once my brain has 'moved on to the next one'. It might be awhile, so I think it might be best to withdraw from FLC for now, address the issues over time, then re-submit when they're all done. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for the same reasons I opposed the Pennsylvania one (lack of refs and lack of details besides the name entries) Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lack of refs" - the entire list is referenced, to the Georgia Ornithological Society. The section-by-section refs were removed per an earlier comment, but I'll reinstate them. What details are you looking for? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal, I'm interested in whether you think the current solution is in anyway appealing, i.e. the repetitious use of ref 2 which results in it having around 60 re-uses, which looks appalling in the references. I have, in the past, recommended a caveat statement at the start of the list, i.e. "Unless otherwise noted, content is referenced by ..." and link to the ref once. On a more general note, I'm not sure what "General references" (in a number of lists) would represent in your opinion if they cite most of the list? Perhaps worth a discussion, a little bit like the one we had about general refs on the Olympic list (which I can't see right now, to link back to...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this list is that it contains a ton of sections, and IMO every section should be referenced. The fact that one a single reference is used it only emphasizes that this list relies too much on a single second-party source. If this list would be instead expanded along the lines of List of non-marine molluscs of Dominica, both the lack of sourcing (or sourcing from a single web entry), and the lack of details would be solved. Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is, every other possible source would simply be using the official GOS list as its source, making it a circluar argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks ridiculous to have that many citations to the same ref. If the whole list are using a single source, we don't need more than the General list at the bottom, and maybe a note in the beginning. I don't like when are own "rules" (like every paragraph should have a citation) are more important than getting an article as good as possible, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules! If the list uses only one source, there are no benefits at all to repeat that ref 60 times. And an official list is probably the best source to use. If there are other independent lists, they could be used too if they are reliable. (PS. I too think that every section normally should have at least one ref, but not if there are a good reason not to. Like the fact that all sections are using the same source.) 85.11.25.101 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it would ne a third party source. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon? When it comes to bird lists, there are no "third party sources". Bird lists aren't like state lists of mammals, mollusks, or even trees. Every U.S. state (with, as I recall, the exception of Idaho) has a state Ornithological Society. Each Ornithological Society has a Records Committee, whose task is to review submitted records of rare birds (defined by the Review List) and determine whether or not the bird in question is verifiable as the species it is claimed to be. If so, the record is Accepted, and, in the case of first state records, added to the Official State List. If it can't be determined for sure that the bird is what it's claimed to be (or, even if it is, that the bird isn't an escapee...), then the bird does not go on the Official State List. And if the bird isn't submitted for Records Committee review, it also does not go on the Official State List. When it comes to what birds occur on a List of Birds of (State Name Here), the (State Name Here) Ornithological Society doesn't just have the final say, it has the only say. NO other sources of "birds of (State)" are reliable sources - they either follow the state Records Commitee's decisions and state Ornithological Society's list, or their information is not verifiable. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Section "New World quail (BTW why not in plural form?): why no linking to New World and Old World?
- Section "Storm Petrels": why you linked "petrels" the second time. It was already linked in the section above.
- Section "Ospreys": [[Monotypic]] -> [[Monotypic taxon]]
- Section "Limpkins (Pumpkins :))": Why do you link "birds"?
- Section "Oystercatchers": again the link to "bird"
Other wise good list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! I'll see what I can do about those, I'm in the middle of adding alt-text to all the pics first before getting to everything else. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for the delays on this, I'll try to get all the concerns addressed this week. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm sorry but I just don't think this list is ready for FL status yet. Many of my comments here are the same as the Pennsylvania birds list though. First I don't like the non-table list format. I think its allowed and that won't keep me from voting a support if the other issues are satisfied but IMO for a featured list I think we should be using tables. Take a look at List of Medal of Honor recipients for an example of a table list if you need one. On the issue of reliable references you mentioned earlier. I agree for many the only reference would be the ones you mentioned but I would argue that a well published and widely respected periodical like National Geographic, Nature, the Smithsonian (magazine) or any number of others would be a reliable source and although they undoubtedly use the references you mentioned would IMO also do some of their own research as well. Why wouldn't these be acceptable references for at least some of the birds or information.
- There are almost no inline citations throughout the list but there are a lot of facts. IMO even the individual birds should have some kind of reference.
- I think a bit more information should be given about each group. I know its a pretty big list but I think in most cases we could give more than one general sentance. Maybe some details about a couple of the birds in the group? How to tell the difference between Male and female or does the feathers look different when they are young than when they mature? What do the eggs look like. Do they live in the mud, trees, cliffs, etc? What do they eat?
- I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too.
- Some of the named links redirect to a completely different name such as Black-bellied Plover which links to Grey Plover. I recommend clarifying which name it should be and making them match.
- Commons has recorded files of the vocal sounds of several of these birds and I recommend adding some of those as well.
- Which ones are extinct? You mention in the lede that 2 were extinct but I couldn't find them in the list.
- You mention that "a recent member of the avifauna family" is extinct but this family isn't listed on the list at all. Was that the only bird in the family that lived in Georgia or are there others as well?
- I thought we dropped the "this list is about X" verbiage? I recommend the lede be rephrased to lose this.
- There is 1 Disambiguous link for White Ibis. I assume it should be American White Ibis but Im not sure. --Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll respond to the rest of your concerns later, but I do want to comment now on "I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too." The birds are, currently, listed in taxonomic order by order, then by family, per the American Ornithologists' Union. I'll probably use additional refs from the Annotated Checklist as well. As for the format, I simply used the same format that's been used for the other "lists of birds of (state)" that have become FLs.... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw for now
- Considering the issues raised above, I think it might be best to withdraw this article from FLC from the time being. I assumed that since this was a direct derivative of the other "List of birds of (U.S. State)" pages that were already at FLC, it would be a cinch, but it seems there's more work needed than I thought and I want to be able to take the time to do it right rather than having the FLC/WikiCup clock ticking while my brain tries to get in gear. So, I'd like to withdraw the article from FLC for now; I'll work on it at a relaxed pace to hopefully clear up all the concerns, and once that's done I'll resubmit it. Thanks all for the comments and suggestions. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 11 February 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 23:36, 11 February 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Focus (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and is comparable in quality to other bird lists. I created and worked on this in my user space and it was a DYK earlier today. I used the template {{Bird list header}}, which is not widely used but is used in other lists (eg list of birds of California), and I believe it works well. Thanks, Focus (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RexxS (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Accessibility comments:
|
- Support – accessibility issues have been resolved. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Why is the only in-line citation a note? Afro (Talk) 12:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the header to 'footnotes', is that better? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Focus (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there's two which is good, however my point is that whole sections are unreferenced due to the lack of in-line citations though I don't doubt that the two Works consulted covers most of the article and they are fine as they are, it would make it easier for the reader for readers to associate material with more specific sources as well. Afro (Talk) 23:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the same issue that User:The Rambling Man has brought up below. The family accounts are pretty standard from list to list, and most, if not all, of the information could be considered common knowledge within the field. Thus, none of the bird lists, including many FLs, have inline citations for these sections. I hope I'm making sense here. Focus (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what you're saying is comprehensible, but you need to consider whether it meets what is required by WP:V: "This policy requires that ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Although the information is common knowledge in the field, I'm not sure that is sufficient for a general encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point; however, if this is the consensus, every other bird list will need to be reassessed. I could try to incorporate references into the template, but due to the nature of the template I'd have to use Harvard referencing. Would it be okay to use harvard refs and regular refs in the same article? Otherwise I'd have to remove the template altogether and use regular inline refs. Focus (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are free to bring any other bird lists to FLRC if they don't meet standards but can we just focus on this list. My suggestion would be to add the changes regarding references and we can always critique the changes to improve how we verify the information. Afro (Talk) 05:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but if this preventing it from achieving FL status, I will be forced to withdraw this nomination (or let it fail) and work on references at a later date. I am extremely busy with school and more urgent, real life projects to afford spending a lot of time on something like this. Hope you understand. Focus (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - quick spin through.
Will return for fuller review when time allows, hope this has been of some use! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Are you suggesting all the prose, from section to section, are referenced "generally"? E.g., "... feathers that are excellent at shedding water due to special oils. There are 131 species world wide, 61 North American species, and 42 Pennsylvania species..."
- I'm pretty sure this was brought up before in a FLC, and it was determined that the family accounts are 'common knowledge'. They're pretty much the same for all the lists, especially since this one uses that template. Focus (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not convinced. I'm not knowledgeable in birds at all so your "common knowledge" is my "completely unknown". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The text is standard among pretty much all of the bird lists, including 20 or so FL, and none of which have inline references in the family accounts. I can't see how this list should be an exception. Focus (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "They are the only birds that can fly backwards." citation?
- See above; this qualifies as common knowledge.
- Not convinced. Would prefer a citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As TRM has raised the hyphenation issues, I should note there are multiple other problems with inconsistent or incorrect use of hyphens that I spotted:
"Cormorants are medium-to-large aquatic birds" (inconsistent with the next excerpt; use one or the other)- "Herons and Egrets are medium to large sized wadng birds" (+ should be 'wading')
- "Rallidae is a large family of small-to medium-sized birds" (space required before "to"; i.e. "small- to medium-sized")
- "The family Charadriidae includes the plovers, dotterels, and lapwings. They are small-to medium-sized birds" (ditto)
- "The Scolopacidae are a large diverse family of small-to medium-sized" (ditto)
- "Kingfishers are medium sized birds" (hyphen)
- "Woodpeckers are small to medium sized birds" (hyphen: should be "small- to medium-sized")
- "The vireos are a group of small to medium sized passerine birds" (ditto)
- "The Thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World. They are plump, soft plumaged, small to medium sized insectivores" (ditto)
- "Starlings are small-to medium-sized Old World passerine birds" (space required before "to"; i.e. "small- to medium-sized")
"The tanagers are a large group of small-to medium-sized passerine birds" (ditto)
- Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed, to my knowledge. Focus (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but check out Barn owls – I missed that one originally. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed, to my knowledge. Focus (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As TRM has raised the hyphenation issues, I should note there are multiple other problems with inconsistent or incorrect use of hyphens that I spotted:
- Strong oppose this is nowhere near what I would expect a featured list to look like:
- it severely lacks citations: for example there is no quick way to verify the accuracy of a simple section like the ducks one.
- it is extremely unappealing/not engaging: just a list of bullets with almost nothing else than a few random pictures
- there is no context provided: yes, at 400 entries long it is pretty big already, but how about estimated populations, or weather they nest in the state all year round, or weather they nest in specific areas (i.e. urban, nigh altitude, etc.)
Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The source is the Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology, but that organization does not have an article. It seems to me that is a serious omission in granting FL status for this list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for "Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology" produces plenty of Google hits from third-parties, and 23 hits on Scholar (mostly citations of their publications). I expect that it's a perfectly reliable source for birds in Pennsylvania, and probably notable enough for an article in its own right – if someone is interested enough to write it. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure it is a reliable source, but I would want an article about it if this list is to become a Featured List. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's necessarily required. If independent evidence can prove the organisation publishes reliable information there's no problem from the featured list criteria perspective. If Dthomsen8 wishes to write the article, so much the better! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure it is a reliable source, but I would want an article about it if this list is to become a Featured List. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for "Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology" produces plenty of Google hits from third-parties, and 23 hits on Scholar (mostly citations of their publications). I expect that it's a perfectly reliable source for birds in Pennsylvania, and probably notable enough for an article in its own right – if someone is interested enough to write it. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I came here from a discussion at WT:MOS#Section headers and links. I was told that one of my comments (on the question of whether it was acceptable to include links in section headers as the list currently does) would be helpful here, so I'm reproducing it:
- I too oppose links in section headers on aesthetic grounds. Part of the justification for the MoS is to give Wikipedia a consistent style, so if consensus here is that links in section headers are unaesthetic, then that is a valid reason for forbidding them (even though it is not currently the given reason). So far I have never encountered a case where it was difficult to move a link in a section header to the body of the text, and that is true in your case as well. For example, under "Pelicans", the text begins, "Pelicans are...". Under "Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets", the text begins, "The family Ardeidae contains the herons, egrets, and bitterns." There are a few exceptions cases where the name of the linked birds does not appear in the paragraph, such as "Old World warblers and Gnatcatchers". (BTW, one of these exceptions, "Ibises and Spoonbills", has inconsistent formatting, since the order and family are not on a line of their own. Plus the description is oddly short.) By far the names of the birds do appear, usually in the first sentence and often in the first few words. I think it would be easy to adapt the article to the MoS's stated requirements, and I think that's what ought to be done.
- Besides the issues I mentioned above, I like the list. Ozob (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the template which I used in this list generates the headers (and the links), as well as the family accounts automatically. The only way to have the links in the prose would be to either edit the template itself, or to remove the template altogether and just use plain text for the headers and prose. I don't have enough time on my hands to do something like this manually, so unless I find a faster way I'm afraid the article will have to stay as it is. If this is causing you to oppose (or at least not support) this FL candidate, I will have to let it fail and address the concerns at a later date. Thank you for your comments and time however, and your input is greatly appreciated. Focus (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the template. Ozob (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks a lot!
- I've fixed the template. Ozob (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the template which I used in this list generates the headers (and the links), as well as the family accounts automatically. The only way to have the links in the prose would be to either edit the template itself, or to remove the template altogether and just use plain text for the headers and prose. I don't have enough time on my hands to do something like this manually, so unless I find a faster way I'm afraid the article will have to stay as it is. If this is causing you to oppose (or at least not support) this FL candidate, I will have to let it fail and address the concerns at a later date. Thank you for your comments and time however, and your input is greatly appreciated. Focus (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm sorry but I just don't think this list is ready for FL status yet. First I don't like the non-table list format. I think its allowed but IMO for a featured list I think we should be using tables. Take a look at List of Medal of Honor recipients for an example of a table list.
- There are almost no inline citations throughout the list but there are a lot of facts. IMO even the individual birds should have some kind of reference.
- I think a bit more information should be given about each group. I know its a pretty big list but I think in most cases we could give more than one general sentance. Maybe some details about a couple of the birds in the group? How to tell the difference between Male and female or does the feathers look different when they are young than when they mature? What do the eggs look like. Do they live in the mud, trees, cliffs, etc? What do they eat?
- There are some broken brackets (just look for [[[.
- I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too.
- Some of the named links redirect to a completely different name such as Bereal owl which links to Tengmalm's Owl. I recommend clarifying which one it should be and making them match.
- Commons has recorded files of the vocal sounds of several of these birds and I recommend adding some of those as well.
- Which ones are extinct? You mention in the lede that 2 were extinct but I couldn't find them in the list. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to withdraw this FL candidate. It appears that the expectations for a FL bird list have considerably changed, and I lack the time (and to be honest, the motivation) to deal with these issues at the moment. Focus (talk) 22:05, 11 February 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:55, 8 February 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third and hopefully last FLC for this list. Let's hope there will be confidable reviewer. Let's try it from the second archive: ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this discography for the second time, after I took an intensive clean-up. It will be the first discography that could be a FL by a mexian artist and the first in the portal. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exasperated but non-binding oppose: Well, "hopefully last FLC" is something I can agree with. What is "confidable reviewer"? Why do you mention the second archive? Why do you follow your mention of the second archive with your sig? When you say you are "nominating this discography for the second time", don't you really mean "third"? Is "Mexian" just a typo?
- Why do you keep using "5× Multi-Platinum" when the redundancy of that expression has already been explained to you? How many times was The Very Best of Santana released? It appears that The Live Adventures of Mike Bloomfield and Al Kooper listed in Collaboration albums included only Carlos, not the band Santana, so shouldn't it be removed? Same with "Samba Pa Ti" in the Singles table. How about all the other albums and singles (which I did not check)? How did "Put Your Lights On" peak at 118 on the Hot 100? If "Soul Sacrifice", "Samba Pa Ti", "Song of the Wind", etc., aren't singles, why are they listed in the Singles table? Of what use is the note "This song/album received awards"? Why are you using the German version of the Swiss charts source (and not marking it as German), instead of the English version? Why do you keep making up titles for references in articles you nominate at FLC? You should review the order of the certs listings, and take a look at WP:DISCOGSTYLE at least once. The lead still needs corrections to dashes, hyphens, caps and italics in addition to some regular editing.
- Conclusion: Maybe it would be a more efficient use of your time if you would focus more on articles you can get to GA status rather than trying to get something featured. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hello John, nice to see you again! Ok let's start:
- I didn't know the word in english, so I pick up a random word from this dictionary. I continue the FLC, because I am of the opinion that the 2nd was too sluggish. Anyway: I removed the "Multi" before the "Platinum". I deleted the wrong row mention The Very Best of Santana the second time. I moved albums released by Carlos not by the band. Samba Pa Ti is actually released by the band. You can trust me about the charts; I made it myself not like in the other discogs.
The chart is actually Billboard 200, not Hot 100, forgot to replace the link there.All songs that are charted should be provided, not only singles. I added into the section heading "and other charted songs". The sentence "This song/album received awards" provide a link to the awards by the group to gain entry what the band has received. Changed into English version. What is "keep making up"? Certs are in alphabetically order and please don't link WP:DISCOGSTYLE here; I know it from the beginning to the end. The lead was CE, but I will look at it more deeply. Yes, in the near future I will nominate articles into GA.
Thank you for you comments!
Oppose and, again, suggest withdrawal. Apart from JohnFromPinckney's spot-on comments, there is the issue of the awful lead. Your continued insistence to pipe the RIAA as "national American certification" puzzles me, as does the relevance of Rolling Stone ranking the band's guitarist as the 15th greatest ever. Please review eachof the albums on this list, and double-check whether it instead belongs to Carlos Santana the guitarist's discography. I opened one link at random, and it certainly seemed so. Mirroring what John said, I suggest that you take on less ambitious projects (artists with 4–5 studio albums) to start with, and build your skills up from there.—indopug (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the "awful" lead was deceived a CE. "national American certification" is completely right; the user wants to know what RIAA is in the list or article and not an abbreviation. I still don't know what's your problem here. I deleted the sentence from Rolling Stones. I moved some to Carlos Santana discography and reviewed all albums and songs.
Thank you for your comments!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that there's a Santana videography that contains only 24 items. That should be merged with this article.—indopug (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many more than 24 items (the article is currently a stub of some videos). I moved them from this discography to "Santana videography" some months ago, and I think it was a good idea. Also I live in Germany and I can't watch music videos from MTV or VH1; in the official website there are videos but without director and I don't know other sites that includes director. If you know some without territorial copyright please post them here.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that there's a Santana videography that contains only 24 items. That should be merged with this article.—indopug (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added language parameters and checked everything. Hopefully now it has FL status.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the "US" column in the singles table links to the Billboard 200, but that is an albums chart. Billboard's chart for singles is the Hot 100. As that name suggests, it only has 100 places, so how can songs have charted at numbers 114, 117 and 118 on a chart with 100 places......? Also, "Ya Yo Me Curé" has note [A] against it, which apparently means that it was not a single but did chart........except that there are no chart positions listed for it. So did it chart or not........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked the wikipedian who has put this songs [4].-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are single, see talk page section above.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked the wikipedian who has put this songs [4].-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversation-with-oneself-commentThe lead was once again copy-edited and I hope this list won't fail like the last time (I want win the WikiCup and I have no points D:!) I even make a monolog with myself, because the FLC is very toting and boring.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - all the sources used in the tables cover only chart positions - what is sourcing all the albums and singles that didn't chart.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what do you mean. All albums and singles were charted, but since only 10 chart columns are allowed, I added the most relevant charts. What sources you exactly want to view?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There need to be sources to confirm that all the non-charting albums/singles actually existed. If they are listed on the "complete discography" webpage currently shown as ref 1, simply change that to a General reference, that should cover it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Ref 1 only view the albums.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There need to be sources to confirm that all the non-charting albums/singles actually existed. If they are listed on the "complete discography" webpage currently shown as ref 1, simply change that to a General reference, that should cover it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what do you mean. All albums and singles were charted, but since only 10 chart columns are allowed, I added the most relevant charts. What sources you exactly want to view?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:32, 1 February 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:26, 7 February 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): Rodrigo15 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i've just solved all the problems cited during the last nomination. So, i think it's ready now. Rodrigo15 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've done a little copy editing, and I see no problems otherwise. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose per GreatOrangePumpkin. Sorry for the mistakes; this is the first time I've voted in an FLC. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you have to look at this disco more deeply; if you have "done a little copy editing" that doesn't mean that this disco meets all of the FL criteria.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambig/External Link check - There are no Dab links but there is a dead link. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)done[reply]
- Comment Please avoid multiple, useless linking, as you did in the certs column.done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- WW links to "World"done
- Why no peak chart for Once in the UK?done The informations says that Once charted as 102 in UK, but i couldn't find any reference about it, so i didn't listed it.
- What does — means, i.e. add a note at the bottom (for example
| colspan="23" style="font-size:8pt;"| "—" denotes releases that did not chart.
done - x -> ×done
- Why are the number of certs behind the "Platinum" or "Gold"?done
- Nightwish's first release ever why not just ...first release.?done
- Other Appearances: I would add an extra column for the refs.done
"Wish I Had an Angel forgot one '"' at the end.- avoid beginnings This is the done
- a symphonic metal band from Finland why not just a finnish symphonic metal band?done
- Although Nightwish has been prominent in their home country since the release of their first single delink singles.done If i understood correctly
- No you must delink it,
singles
->singles
- No you must delink it,
- one million copies,[2] no need to add refs, because you did it down under.done
- which has sold almost two million copies.[6] again.done
- A new E.P./live album, Made in Hong Kong (And in Various Other Places) a live album and EP together?done Yes, it's an Ep (as you should know, too big to be an single and too small to be an album), but with all the tracks record live during the Dark Passion Play World Tour, from 2007 to 2009.
- Explain how you know that a few singles are promo singles?done I can't, erased information
- well, then "erase" promo, or find a reliable sourcedone
- Demo albums section: avoid multiple linking: Members: Tarja Turunen, Tuomas Holopainen and Emppu Vuorinen.done
- HOL means "Holland" and is a region in the Netherlands. So write "NLD" or "NED".done
- Why did you add a track length column in the Music videos section? done Only an extra information, necessary in my opinion
- Sami Käyhkö citation needed.done
- Chart columns: You didn't add the "work", the publisher are wrong (AUT: Hung Medien, FIN: Hung Medien, FRA: Hung Medien, GER: Phononet, GRE: Hung Medien, SWE: Hung Medien, NOR: Hung Medien, UK: everyhit.com and I suggest you to replace HUN with another chart, for example SWI), and I don't understand why you added an external link in the publisher parameter? done
- The titles are false in the references. done
I will add more comments, if I find any. Please have a look at discogs like Miles Davis discography or Santana discography. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Studio albums and Extended Plays section: you can use the {{Ref label}} template instead of normal bulleted list.
- Mege the year column in the row Bestwishes and Highest Hopes: The Best of Nightwish, the same in the Soundtrack section, between "Nemo" and "I Wish I Hhad an Angel"done
- "Kuolema tekee taiteilijan" should be capitalicizeddone.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't write {{done}} if you haven't do that. And you must write, let's say 4×Platinum, an not 4 times Platinum.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Avoid adding certs that aren't in the chart column, for example Poland, there are no Poland chart.
- Yes, cause only Dark Passion Play charted in Poland, and we only can add ten charts.
- That's right, so delete this certs, that are not charts, for example Poland or Switzerland.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments tomorrow. Goodbye.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now: For some reason I was contacted on my talk page about this article, but looking through it now, it really doesn't blow me away.
- The way you refer to the official website in references is inconsistent. I don't mind, apart from the fact it does not need to be capitalised (other than "Nightwish"), and nor does it need to be in italics.
- Are we certain all of these sources are reliable? Few of them are the usual kinds of sources (newspapers, industry magazines).
- TheTableWorld.com?
- Spinefarm.fi?
- SoundTrack.net?
Hung Medien?PhonoNet?Mahasz?- Everyhit.com?
Ifpi.fi?Ifpi.se?- Hung Medien, PhonoNet, Mahasz and all IFPIs are reliable, per WP:GOODCHARTS.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go on... http://www.metalfromfinland.com/news/2007-08-10_15:37/nightwish_end_of_an_era_dvd_certified_gold_in_switzerland is probably the most suspicious one, but it is in turn sourced to Blabbermouth. Could we just cut out the middle man?
- Roadrunner is referred to inconsistently in the references, and a wikilink would be good. Also, the stuff on Blabbermouth.net should be, y'know, attributed to BM.
- First line- "finnish".
- Title of "Erämaan Viimeinen" does not match the article
Needs tidying up in places, but, until I'm shown otherwise, too many of those sources look questionable... J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article currently claims that "Nemo" got to number 15 on the UK Singles Chart, this is completely untrue. If you check the source, you will see that it says it got to number 15 on the British Top 40 Rock Singles chart, a completely different (and incredibly minor) chart. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rodrigo15, I think it would be wise to withdraw the nomination and deal with these comments outside the FLC process. I'm sure the editors who have contributed comments would be happy to help you en route to a renomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from J Milburn-
- The way the official website is referred to is inconsistent, should not be italicised and should not feature random capitals.
- Allmusic should not be italicised (and wikilinks wouldn't hurt). Allmusic is referred to inconsistently in the refs.
- Random caps in the ext link section.
- Don't like the ""*" director is unknown or can't be found." thing. There is no director, as you note in your footnote.
- "Made in Hong Kong is also listed here because it's an EP with live tracks; so it's an EP and a live album" ?! I'd go with listing it as a "live album", but if you're going to include it in both places, that note is hardly the best way to explain it.
- Studio album table there are no sales thresholds listed, and the worldwide sales are not a certification.
- "American tour.[1][1]"
This is still feeling a way off featured quality, but at least the sourcing is looking a little better. The overreliance on the official site is less than ideal... J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest closure - article has not been edited for over a week, many outstanding points which clearly aren't being addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 5 February 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:11, 7 February 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is being nominated for feature list. The article is a detailed list of all the individuals that were members of the Chicago Bears that became enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I believe the article meets the FL criteria, is well cited, and prose is good. Let me know what everyone thinks. Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please have support or fail votes please. I fear this list might fail as others have on this forum because of the lacking of yea/nay votes among the members. Thanks Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you format the picture under inducties so that the table is not so far down the page? KnowIG (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain better? I just edited it where the table is now closer to the top of the inductees header. Is that what you were asking about? Happyman22 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to primarily be a problem with the users screen, as I do not have this problem. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or how about the user has fixed the issue by the time you've looked at it. Thanks Happyman! KnowIG (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to primarily be a problem with the users screen, as I do not have this problem. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain better? I just edited it where the table is now closer to the top of the inductees header. Is that what you were asking about? Happyman22 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - the number column sorts incorrectly. Ref 6 is dead. Footnote c needs a citation. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment Ref 6 has been fixed. Note c has a reference and the number column sorted correctly for me..is it possible there might be a glitch because I just did it and all the numbers sorted correctly. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't get the Walter Payton followed by Bronko Nagurski or, Bill Hewitt followed by George McAfee and, Stan Jones followed by George Halas. Afro (Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It did just do that. However, once I reset the list again by hitting the sorter it sorted them out again. I don't know if that is a glitch of some kind because it did not do that the first time, but it did yesterday when I tried it again. Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't get the Walter Payton followed by Bronko Nagurski or, Bill Hewitt followed by George McAfee and, Stan Jones followed by George Halas. Afro (Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment Ref 6 has been fixed. Note c has a reference and the number column sorted correctly for me..is it possible there might be a glitch because I just did it and all the numbers sorted correctly. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I figured out the problem looking at the coding the column lacks any kind of sorting code. Afro (Talk) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you describe what you mean by minor. You have written 'while the other three contributed only a minor portion of their career to the Bears.' What does minor mean 1 season? 2 seasons? Or perhaps remove the sentence and list the three people and say that they are in the hall of fame for exploits at other clubs, having come to Chicago when already legends (as in Page's case) or were at the club before they were notable (as in the case with the other two). KnowIG (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment: I defined minor as 3 seasons or less...but I don't know if that is good enough of a definition. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with that, but I'm no expert of whether that's good enough on here (I'm still learning). If other users do have issue with it then just remove minor from the article and it would still be OK. KnowIG (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment: I defined minor as 3 seasons or less...but I don't know if that is good enough of a definition. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Criterion 3b. The contents of the list are substantially similar to what can be found in List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, with only the players' numbers added. I fail to see why a separate list is needed for this team. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a nice list, but these days we're trying not to create unnecessary forks, and I think Giants2008 hits this on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees lists all of the members of the Hall of Fame, which has hundred of inductees, while this list devotes a separate space for the franchise with the most members, the Chicago Bears. This list details only Chicago Bears members and allows people to access their favorite team if they wanted to see who is in the HOF instead of having to look through a huge list of all members. Also, the franchise with the second most members is a FA list so if this list is an "unnecessary fork" would that not apply for the other list as well? Happyman22 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That list was passed in 2008, when reviewers weren't paying close attention to forky lists. It probably wouldn't pass today, which is what matters. Also, the main Hall of Fame inductees list isn't overly long to me, and it does allow the option of sorting by team. It's not perfect because many players were on multiple teams, but that information is present in the main list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually kind of surprised that TRM promoted the Green Bay list judging by the Nomination page it only had 2 supports one of which was weak, Not to mention 3 of the reviewers didn't comment regarding their disposition one of which was TRM, it might be down to a change in standards but by today's it might not be promoted due to lack of interest. Afro (Talk)
- My ears burning...? Yes, things have changed since July 2008, and if I was closing the nomination today, well, it wouldn't be being closed, it would need more reviews and more support. Ho hum, live and learn. I don't often comment per my disposition, I usually review and leave it to others, but in the current climate, whereby we're lacking reviewers, I feel more inclined to offer more of an opinion than just "comments". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually kind of surprised that TRM promoted the Green Bay list judging by the Nomination page it only had 2 supports one of which was weak, Not to mention 3 of the reviewers didn't comment regarding their disposition one of which was TRM, it might be down to a change in standards but by today's it might not be promoted due to lack of interest. Afro (Talk)
- That list was passed in 2008, when reviewers weren't paying close attention to forky lists. It probably wouldn't pass today, which is what matters. Also, the main Hall of Fame inductees list isn't overly long to me, and it does allow the option of sorting by team. It's not perfect because many players were on multiple teams, but that information is present in the main list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees lists all of the members of the Hall of Fame, which has hundred of inductees, while this list devotes a separate space for the franchise with the most members, the Chicago Bears. This list details only Chicago Bears members and allows people to access their favorite team if they wanted to see who is in the HOF instead of having to look through a huge list of all members. Also, the franchise with the second most members is a FA list so if this list is an "unnecessary fork" would that not apply for the other list as well? Happyman22 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and suggest FLRC on the Packers list. Given that the general inductees page gets along fine (like the MLB HoF list) it doesn't really need subdivisions. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:14, 2 February 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.