Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:31, 25 February 2011 [1].

---

List of Cincinnati Reds first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Courcelles 08:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I haven't done one of these in many months. Forgive my rust... only five of these lists left to write in this series. Courcelles 08:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: Cincinnati, Ohio can be linked, unless there's now consensus that we're not doing that. (Maybe there is, been a while since I've done one of these) Done. Courcelles "25 have been pitchers, the most of any position; 20 of these were right-handed, while 6 were left-handed." one of the numbers is wrong. It was the six, stupid typo. Courcelles We can add a couple more pictures on the side; Bernie Carbo, Austin Kearns, and Jay Bruce are options to fill that side up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The Carbo pic is fair-use, so that's a non-starter. Added Kearns and Bruce as I finally found something interesting to say about them. --Courcelles 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support with one small comment. Why is the sentence phrased "Larkin was awarded the Roberto Clemente Award in 1993, the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award in 1994, and the National League MVP honor in 1995."? You go award...award...honor, even though the MVP is called the MVP award. I would say either leave it just National League MVP (period) or National League MVP award. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This got changed in another rewrite, though using "award" three times in a sentence sounded bad when I was writing it, so that's how it happened. Courcelles 21:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments "and won again the next year" no need for this easter egg link. And actually, the prose would improve with "and won again in 1977 with". Done. "No Reds' first-round pick has ever won the Rookie of the Year Award, nor been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame." I know this is a little odd (and bound to cause discussion) but noting a couple awards that weren't won... what's the relevance? I would guess that some/most first-round picks win ROTY and many go on to be in the BHOF, but this isn't clear to a non-expert. Removed the ROTY stuff, and changed the BHOF to a discussion of Larkin's vote, as he's the only one that could get in any time in the foreseeable future. Spell out MVP for (once again) us non-experts. Done. "the Reds 2001 choice" shouldn't this be "the Reds' 2001 choice"? Yep, done. "which they used to select Mark" -> "in which they selected..." No, as they had two picks in 2002, and the current language specifies it was with the 40th compensation pick (that is already under discussion) they selected this player. " player may have gone on" very enigmatic. "may have"? or just did? Actually, most of them will have played the position listed, but slightly rewritten. School (Location)-> School (location). Done. Oooo, the Pick column sorting is unhappy in Safari. Just sends me straight to top of the whole page... Something is funky with the site today, nothing looks like it should (I'm currently seeing "edit" links on the left side of headers. I'm getting the same thing, and there's nothing in the code that would be causing it. Same thing is happening in Firefox on List of Pittsburgh Pirates first-round draft picks which I know for certain didn't have this problem a few days ago. Might be a consequence of all the editing on MediaWiki:Common.css lately. Whatever was causing this appears to have worked itself out, at least in Firefox. Courcelles 09:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Courcelles 21:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Support – "Sowers MLB debut came in 2006 against Cincinnati." Apostrophe needed at the end of Sowers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, done. Courcelles 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:31, 25 February 2011 [2].

---

Grammy Award for Best World Music Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this list meets all FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status. I realize there are currently four lists related to the Grammy Awards at FLC, but none of them were nominated by me! So far in 2011 I have submitted lists that I worked on in 2010 (I still have more ready for FLC), but the World Music list was completed this year so I am trying to earn a few points for the WikiCup competition with this nomination. Thanks, as always, to reviewers (and thanks to other contributors for assisting with the Grammy series)! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - only major issue is that of the multiple flags. With two or more contributors having different nationalities, the flags are line-broken but the names aren't. Bit odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a recommended solution? The column width is not set, so text wraps depending on the viewer's screen dimensions. For some people, both artist names may appear on a single line, for others on two lines (hypothetically, on three or more for small screens or similar lists with multiple performing artists). The only solution I can think of is to insert line breaks to command the text to wrap ("Vishwa Mohan Bhatt<br>Ry Cooder", or something similar which includes "and"). For the sake of consensus, I have no problem with the current format, but I am happy to address your concern if you and others feel a change is necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just I saw this question on another FLC so it seems only reasonable to be consistent and bring it up here! Well then, the solution you suggest is indeed the only visual solution I can think of while still maintaing sortability. Although, having said that, I've heard (on the ACCESS grapevine) that the linebreak thing is purely visual and doesn't help screenreaders. I wonder if there's a good solution for everyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Only issue I can see is that The Chieftains need {{sortname}}. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't intend on using the sortname template for group names (only first and last names). Sortname forces the column to sort by last name, but there is no last name here to sort. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whenever things a sorted alphabetically word such as 'a' and 'the' are disregarded. Thus, please use the template. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Added sort command for The Chieftains. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- Man, I hate to bring this up again in another FLC. I have to agree that without the flags, it didn't look that great-- but I'm still a bit worried that the flags might violate WP:ACCESS per TRM's concerns, and that they overshadow the artist in the list. Instead of looking at it as Ry Cooder's award, I might look at it as an American's, which might not be a truly accurate representation of him as an artist. For example, on a film list, would we put Bruce Willis's name down with a German flag next to it because he was born in Germany? I'm really not sure how to resolve this issue though, I really do think the flags look rather nice, but I don't want to give the wrong impression to readers. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Nomader. I'm not sure what to make of the Bruce Willis example--one would display an American flag to represent Bruce Willis because he is American, not a German flag just because he was born overseas. Honestly, I don't know how to respond. I don't have a problem with the flags, and consensus here appeared to show a preference for the flags. You are certainly welcome to express concerns, but I am not really sure of a solution (if there is one). Perhaps other/different reviewers will comment on this FLC. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I hope too. I'm not going to oppose because of it, these Grammy lists are actually really well done from what I've seen and I actually feel that the flags are aesthetically pleasing even if they end up not being appropriate. Either way, I've looked through the list and I see no other issues. After the whole flag issue is discussed a bit more (or not) by other editors, I'll be more then prepared to support. Fantastic list, Another Believer. Nomader ^(Talk) 08:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The capitalization of non-English album articles should be address. Per WP:ALBUMCAPS, if an album or song article is not in English, then the rules of capital letters for that language applies. Use this for any language you need to know about. Magiciandude (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) I recant my above statement since this needs to be addressed on the talk page for the consensus. Magiciandude (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with this Wikiproject "recommendation". Please use over-riding English Wikipedia guidelines and policies, this isn't Spanish Wikipedia. For those who wish to discuss this further, I've opened a talk here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why is "Web 2.0 Conference" not linked?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Actually, I linked "Web 2.0 Conference" to "Web 2.0 Summit" (its new name). Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK then I see no more issues. Support from me.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:31, 25 February 2011 [3].

---

2010 IIHF World Championship rosters

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, same as the 2009 list, and basically the same as the 2007 and 2008, here is the 2010 list. Salavat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

*Link "International Ice Hockey Federation" in the lead. Linked. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Lead caption - (1) "Arrival of the winning..." (rather than champion) would be better (2) Avoid starting sentences with numbers, e.g. "2010 was..." Changed to winner. Removed second sentence. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) "A country that had selected fewer than the maximum allowed must have chosen the .." instead of "must have chosen" maybe "were required to choose..."? Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) "to select an additional two players to their roster" this may be an ENGVAR thing but in BritEng we don't "select ... to" we "add ... to" so it'd be "to add an additional two players to their roster" Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) "a maximum of 25 players" no need to repeat players. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) "Dimitrij Kotschnew " no j in our article. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Three Italians with "De" in their surname, actually should be "de" in the surname. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) ", the sixth time they had done so" why not just "for the sixth time."? Fixed. Salavat (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC) "the player would have had to play two " -> "the player was required to have played two..." Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Two out of four paras in the lead talk about the inclusion critieria and only one talks about the players themselves. Do you consider this a reasonable split? This format has been used on all three previous lists. Both paragraphs dont talk about inclusion criteria, won is basically how a country goes about forming the team for the tournament whereas the other is about the eligibility of a player who wants to play for a certain country. The last paragraph could be expanded if you think it is necessary for example I could mention the players who were included in the Media All-Star team and I could also put a sentence in about Dennis Endras being the first German to be awarded MVP. Salavat (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Why do we have bold links in the tables? Why aren't the table's contents unbold? I believe i fixed this or did you want the other parts unbolded? Salavat (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Johan Auvitu seems to be Yohann according to us? Fixed. Salavat (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Pierre-Edouard Bellemare is missing his acute accent on the E of Edouard. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Same for the first e in the surname of Loïc Lamperier. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Did Ferhi and Lherny really have identical save %? Well techinically no, Ferhi had 0.9014 while Lherny had 0.9013, but due to rounding being used they both end up at 0.901. Salavat (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Nicola Fantanive->Fontanive. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

*Min is really Min:sec isn't it? Yes it is. Would it be preferable to round them to the nearest minute (this is done in the 2007 and 2008 list) or change the heading to Min:sec? Salavat (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Round 'em per the other lists, consistency is good. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Rounded. Salavat (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC) And so on. There's a weird tense thing going on in the lead. The criteria are historical so should be referred to in the past. My sense of different tenses is pretty shocking so I read through it and changed a sentence but I couldnt see anything else. Sentence I changed was third paragraph, first sentence. Salavat (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I'll read through it in a few days time to check. If I forget, please nudge me! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - I don't understand why there are 3 different tables for the key. Ref 4-6 as well as all the Stats and Rosters need a format parameter. Afro (Talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• The three different tables block out different items, one for statistics, one for positions, and one for the two general items that need explaining. Format has been added to all references mentioned. Salavat (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• What's the problem with keeping it to one table? Afro (Talk) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• No problem. Hows it look now? Salavat (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why isn't the Legend included in the TOC? You mention in the lead the Czech Republic won the tournament but mention nothing of a runner-up, why?. Afro (Talk) 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Added and mentioned. Salavat (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 11:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - None of the images have alt text. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to my last FLC it had been removed as a featured list criteria back in April 2010. Has there been a change since? Salavat (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I'm so far behind that I didn't realize it had been removed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, alt text is part of the MOS, so a list that didn't have alt text for its images would be in violation of criterion #5. Powers ^T 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well whether its required or not ive gone and added it in. Salavat (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Only thing I see is that "the" should be added before "tournament's most valuable player and top goaltender...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Salavat (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Can't find anything to gripe about. Courcelles 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:31, 25 February 2011 [4].

---

2010 Asian Games medal table

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the requirements.—Chris!_c/t 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments "were a multi-sport event" was a multi-sport event... Done Key needs to have (China) so it's not just the colour that distinguishes the row. Done Possibly needs an explanation as to why "Athletes from Kuwait" is so named... Is it still necessary if that explanation is in the lead? No, sorry, I missed that. It's fine as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Spaced hyphens in the reference titles should be spaced en-dashes. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC) —Chris!c/t 03:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC) "12 November to 27 November 2010" isn't there a better way of saying this without needing to repeat November? Is it correct to simply says "from 12 to 27 November 2010"? I don't see a problem with that, or some people even write from 12–27 November... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Note that I gave a talk page review here, so most of my comments have been taken care of already.

• The lead is quite short, at two small paragraphs. Is there anything more that can be added to it?

Not really. And I don't think the lead is that short when comparing this to the one at 2008 Summer Olympics medal table—Chris!_c/t 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is there anything citing China's medal table-leading streak (eight in a row)? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am tempted to oppose until a "map" of the medal winners such as the one in 1984 Winter Olympics medal table is added. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should oppose because it lacks a map. A map would be nice but it is not required. With that said, I will try to make one, though it would take some time.—Chris!_c/t 23:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Added—Chris!_c/t 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support but please add a reamark that China won about 40% of the gold medals. I opposed because in a short medal table like this one, one could argue that it is a cfork of a medallist table. Also, since there are only 9 non-medal-winning countries, it might be appropriate to list them somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done—Chris!_c/t 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment the only thing holding me back now is the accessibility of the map. You use colours without symbols, and there doesn't seem to be any alt text? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Alt text added. Symbol added.—Chris!c/t 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "Athletes from 35 NOCs (Kuwait participated under the Olympic flag due to the suspension of its NOC)[2][3] won medals, leaving 9 without a medal, and 29 of them won at least one gold medal." – it is not particularly clear which noun is being referred to in the numerical list towards the end: 9 and 29 could refer to either the individual athletes, or the NOCs: can you clarify the sentence.
• Similarly, the last sentence in the first paragraph: "Macau and Bangladesh won their first Asian Games gold medal from wushu and cricket, respectively." – Not sure if medal should be plural or not here, and you need a comma after medal regardless.
• When I try and sort by 'Total' in the table, the page goes a bit funny, and tries to redirect me to somewhere else (undefined) on the page. (It adds a hash to the end of the address bar, as if internally navigating).
• On the map, doesn't host country really represent the host city?
• Ref 2 could do with a publication date (5 January 2010). (Check other references for possible missing information too)
• Ref 32 is in the form YYYY-MM-DD, while all other references are DD MONTH YYYY

Harrias ^talk 20:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed all except sorting issue. I don't know why it does not work for that particular column. It could be a bug or something.—Chris!_c/t 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Look like other medal table lists (e.g. 1984 Winter Olympics medal table) have the same problem. So, this is likely a site-wide bug.—Chris!_c/t 06:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is because of "colspan". It works now after I removed it. Ruslik_Zero 16:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Harrias ^talk 18:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 18:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comments "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)" I know that's the boilerplate, but where has any information here came from the IOC? I don't think that part of the sentence is helpful, so I took it out.—Chris!c/t 08:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC) The nav template in the lede is hideous. Do we really need it, and if we do, please put it somewhere else and use a real image in the lede. "the OCA stripped Qatari's Ahmed Dheeb silver" => "the OCA stripped Qatari Ahmed Dheeb's silver" The map is... hard to read. If we must have it (I still oppose including maps in medal tables) why are the numbers so small and unreadable? I also don't see how adding numbers to a map helps for a screen reader.... "gz2010.cn" has to have a publisher/body behind it, who? This needs to be given in all the inline citations, too. Courcelles 13:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 18:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Author, ref 4 Courcelles 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Done all—Chris!c/t 08:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 18:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:36, 22 February 2011 [5].

---

List of Armillaria species

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Armillaria is a genus of destructive wood-eating fungi that causes extensive losses to forestry industries around the world—but it also produces attractive mushrooms, many of which are edible, and some even glow in the dark. It seems there are no other "List of all species in a genus"-type FLs, so I'm thinking this will serve as sort of a template for future efforts of this kind (at least in the fungal realm). This is my first FLC, so go hard on me, it'll make it easier for future noms :) Sasata (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment !! Sasata, great conqueror of GAN and FAC, has come to the last untouched land of FLC! :) Two things off the bat. (1) Is this a complete list? If not it needs {{dynamic list}}. (2) What do you think about a color-indicator for the "transfer" species as opposed to those originally placed in the genus? The parentheses is a good starting point, but doesn't stand out a ton. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Stax. I have yet to wade in the waters of FS and GT/FT, so there's more virgin territory for me... 1) I'm not sure about the lingo: the list is "complete" in that it gives all the species we know of, but "incomplete" in that more species may be discovered and eventually added to the list. 2) Hadn't thought of color coding like that, I'll experiment a bit and get back to you. Is there a guideline for color usage somewhere? Sasata (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, WP:COLOR deals more with colored text. Best I can say is look at other lists that use colors, it's probably best to stick with safer pastel-y colors so there's nothing too in your face (see the key in World Series Most Valuable Player Award for most of the common list colors I've seen). As for completeness that's actually an interesting question. I'd say that so long as this is every known species that would be complete (since you couldn't possibly add anything more), though I could see the argument the other way (particularly if there's a big chance there are more unknown species out there). Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I really don't think formally separating "original" and "combined" species (the technical word) makes for a useful distinction. It would possibly be the first article to ever do that. The closest I know are some Paleontology article that describe the fate of species that USED to be in the genus being discussed. Circéus (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree; whether a species was originally in this genus or in another is merely an accident of taxonomic history that is not going to be of interest to many users of this list. Ucucha 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RexxS (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* Please have a think about presentation, conformity with MOS and accessibility: WP:BOLD gives guidance on where bold text is used. Does the use of bold for the 'key' words accord with MOS? ditto for the column titles in the main table. If the answer to the first two questions is "table headers", then those cells need to be marked up as headers. See WP:ACCESS#Data tables for the guidance. WP:MOSCOLOR advises against changing the font-size. Is there an strong need for the small text for the species authority, sufficient to be an exception to that? Is the authority a part of the name? If not, why is it placed in the same cell as the name, rather than in a cell of its own? A screen reader might announce the first image like this: "Link, Armillaria borealis - lindsey.jpg, Armillaria borealis - lindsey.jpg, Link, A. borealis". Have you considered using alt text to improve the experience for a blind user? Is there a reason for your preference of using the html tag <br /> as a separator for multiple list items, rather than {{ubl}}, the unbulleted list template, to produce a list? Otherwise, the lead is engaging, and the whole article is well referenced. I see you use the same page range style as I do (just enough digits in the second part to remove ambiguity), so don't let TRM talk you out of that. I would like to see a closer conformity with MOS, but this is an excellent candidate, and hopefully the forerunner of more to come. --RexxS (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Table-syntax stuff has been corrected/implemented. Small-size for authorities is standard practice across Wikipedia via Template:Taxobox, as well as in numerous lists where they are used (e.g. List of Symphyotrichum species), this is because, although the author citation constitute a separate element, it is indeed considered an integral part of a botanical name when used. The smaller font-size, while a benign change (use of <small> is at least as accessible as the widespread font sizes of footers and other navigation templates), more clearly delineate the authority from the name. I did not notice the lack of alt text when Sasata asked me to review the article. I usually write them in these lists. I'll get to it soon. I was intrigued by the use of line breaks to begin with myself, but I always figure minor stylistic things like that fell under [[{WP:RETAIN]] Circéus (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks Circeus for fixing these up so quickly. To RexxS, I simply have to plead ignorance, I'm not terribly familiar with the MOS rules that apply to lists, and my experience with markup comes from picking up bits and pieces I find from other lists and trying to make it look right. This will be a good learning experience for me, thanks for your suggestions! Sasata (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC) FWIW, I think just listing the elements in "distribution" as a phrase, with commas and "and" (as we were doing for the agaricales genera lists), will work fine. Circéus (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you for such a quick response. I've struck all the resolved concerns, but I would like to tease out the remaining two points please. One of the principal tenets of accessibility is that we don't use presentational attributes as the sole means of conveying information. In this case, a blind reader will not hear any delineation of the authority from the name. That is not a huge problem in itself, but visually-impaired readers have genuine difficulty with small text. Infoboxes, footers, navigational templates, reflists and other elements which are constrained for space conventionally use small text, but each has a class such as "navbox" or "references" and a visually-impaired user can override the small size of such elements and return them to 100% font size if they choose. Unfortunately, this article's use of small fonts is "hard-coded" into the text and is not amenable to being overriden by the user's style sheet. That's not a good thing, and I'd suggest you really need a good reason to disadvantage one group of readers in an effort to convey extra information to another group. For what it's worth, I'd have exactly the same criticism of List of Symphyotrichum species! WP:RETAIN is a guideline for national varieties of English, but the spirit is applicable to other situations where a tie-break between two equivalent choices is needed – in the absence of more significant deciding factors. I don't believe that is the case in deciding between {{ubl}} and text+br. I'd suggest that rendering a list of items as an html list is far superior to a single block of text with html line-breaks for two reasons: semantically the information in an html list is a group of related, but separate, block elements, while the text+br is actually a single element – accurate markup goes a long way to helping other media render the information in a sensible way; from an accessibility viewpoint, a screen reader sees the list as separate items that it can be made to announce individually, while visual indicators like <br /> may be invisible to a screen reader. Anyway, neither of these is absolutely crucial, and I'm sorry if it's been somewhat technical, but I hope you can see that decisions made for the purpose of visual presentation alone have the potential to adversely affect a small number of our readers disproportionately. I don't mind if you disagree with my conclusions, as long as you satisfy yourself that you've weighed up all the issues and are happy with the decisions you've made. I will revisit the review when others have had a chance to comment, and my intention is to formally support. --RexxS (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC) FWIW, I presume that someone that knows how to "override the small size of such elements and return them to 100% font size" of a styled span can perform the equivalent (and simpler!) operation on a <small> element. In fact, as a HTML coder familiar with HTML use guidelines, I very strongly disagree with your characterization of <small> as "hard-coded". In fact, it is arguably a more semantic usage in this case than a style element. If this is so bad an issue, {{small}} is available, but I've always been opposed to unnecessary use of templates as reducing code accessibility. Circéus (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC) No, because most folks who "know" how to override small text have asked the question and been told to put something like div.references {font-size: 100%;} in their monobook.css or vector.css. I should point out that <small> is not a semantic element here (and never could be on its own since it would then fail to convey its semantic meaning to a non-visual agent[6]). Presumably, as an HTML coder, you're familiar with h-15.2 where W3C states "The following HTML elements specify font information. Although they are not all deprecated, their use is discouraged in favor of style sheets ... SMALL ..." [7]. I note your 'very strong' disagreement and refute it by stating that any presentational HTML element we insert into wikitext is "hard-coded" because we are creating presentational effects which should be done by the site's css. If site-wide modifications are carried out, then hard-coded presentational elements may need to be painstakingly altered page-by-page to fit in, remembering that Wikipedia's content has to be delivered to other user agents than just the browser you're using now. I'm puzzled why you think templates reduce code accessibility? One of the reasons for their existence is to improve code accessibility, by removing the necessity for editors to learn HTML/CSS. They also confer the considerable advantage of providing a single point where they may be modified. Nevertheless, none of this addresses the question of why species authority should be rendered in smaller-sized text. --RexxS (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I don't have an answer to this question, it's just the way I've usually seen it done around here (it's coded in the taxobox display, for example), so I've gotten into the habit of doing it myself. I looked at the other biology FLs, and of those that do give the authorities, half do so in small font: List of cetaceans, List of Testudines families, List of lemur species. Normal size authority font lists include List of mammals of Florida, List of mammals of Canada, List of mammals of Korea. I don't really care either way, and will go along with whatever consensus is reached here (the html/css stuff is over my head). Sasata (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC) "folks who "know" how to override small text have asked the question and been told to put something like div.references {font-size: 100%;}" I'm amazed this is the approach being used, given the masses of small-size text across the encyclopedia such an approach would fail to affect. Such an approach would ail to affect every single of the 15,000+ instance of the aforementioned {{small}}. Given the Wikipedia idea of "accessibility", I can't say any of the available options can be called "accessible" by any stretch of the imagination. Circéus (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) @Circeus: No wonder you're amazed; you're confusing templates with style sheets. Cascading style sheets allow an end-user to make choices about how information is presented to them. Most people can cope with references being 90% of normal size, but anyone who is sufficiently visually impaired to find 90% difficult can render references at normal size as I indicated - and footers and navboxes can be treated in same way. Similarly, if consensus decides that references, navboxes, etc. should be a different size by default, then the default can be changed in MediaWiki:Common.css. If each reference were made smaller by hard-coding <small> or <span style="font-size:smaller; line-height:130%"> (which is what {{small}} does), then each one would need to be amended when consensus changed. Any time smaller text can be justified (e.g. because of lack of space in an infobox), then a style can be defined for that, or it may be hard-coded into a template like the taxobox as a temporary measure. If you think accessibility is so poor on Wikipedia, then I'd invite you to consider whether a proliferation of hard coding the presentation improves accessibility or makes it harder to improve? @Sasata: Fair enough, although I think that for our best articles and lists, there ought to be some consistency across similar works. This isn't something that ought to be decided by consensus here, but if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, a consensus has been reached on (for example) using italic for certain naming purposes to follow convention in the scientific literature. I'm sure you know the details better than I, and I was hoping that there would be a similar style guideline/rationale somewhere for how the authority is presented. Anyway, if WikiProject Tree of Life were to consider giving guidance on this, then I hope that they will consider the accessibility implications of small text. I'm grateful that you have been kind enough to give my concerns such thorough and detailed attention, and I'll cap this discussion if there is nothing else you want to raise.

• Support. The issues I raised have been satisfactorily addressed. --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, RexxS. I wasn't aware of the accessibility issues before, and it is something I will certainly keep in mind for future FLC submissions. You're right there should be some consistency among lists that fall under the purview of the Tree of Life project; I may initiate a discussion there sometime about the general format I used in this article. Sasata (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Images are all legit, copyrightwise, but I note that this one is not identified to species level on the image page, nor is it used in the species article. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I added the epithet to the image page. The species article is still too short to warrant another pic... but I promise to make it grow soon! Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• I guess there's no prescribed way to do this yet, but I wonder whether a "notes" column with material like edibility (if edible, poisonous or toxic), bioluminescence and any major "human interest" (medicinal/other use, state mushroom, that sort of thing) would be useful. I guess that's a big ask, so, as much as anything, I'm just wondering why you decided to include the things you did, as opposed to anything else. What about common names?

• I guess I'm still figuring out the balance between what to include on a list like this, and what to leave to the article page. Five of the species have common names (the others just aren't well-known to have been assigned them yet), five species are bioluminescent, another couple are interesting as candidates for "world's largest organism". Having a separate column for any one of these individually would result in a lot of blank spaces, but something like a "notes" column might work. But maybe this info should be instead included in the "Notes" section? Opinions anyone? Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps split notes like "The original spelling of the species name was cepaestipes" out from the references?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mention the name "Honey fungus" somewhere?

• Now in the first sentence. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• You don't mention the type species anywhere- I'd say that'd be a great lead illustration as represenative of the whole list.

• That's a great idea, done. That also freed up room below to add an image of another species. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do we have full names for "Volk and Burdall"?

• Yes, given in full the previous paragraph. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• You also don't mention the authority/naming for the genus as a whole, which I feel would have a place here.

• Good idea, now in the second sentence of the lead. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done little reviewing at FLC, so I'm not certain what I'm looking for, but I hope these thoughts are helpful. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is well researched, sourced, displayed and illustrated. The question of what precisely to include hangs over our head, but I think we need a general discussion about fungal species lists, rather than hashing it out here- it's not fair to oppose based on guidelines which don't exist. I think a notes column would be a nice addition, but I'm certainly willing to support without it. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping out JM! Sasata (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. All issues addressed; looking good. Ucucha 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Comments:

• I think lists such as this should also include species formerly placed in the genus. That would make the list a lot longer, but also more useful to people who find some old Armillaria name and want to figure out what it refers to.

• Yikes. I'm not against doing the work, but it seems to me that that would change the list from the tidy summary of current species it is now to a bloated monstrosity with over 300 entries and a greater number of references. Does Wikipedia really need that? Can't we assume that someone who's researching an old Armillaria name has the knowledge to check Index Fungorum or MycoBank for themselves? Sasata (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I didn't think I'd make myself popular with this suggestion. I can also see why we wouldn't want to include this information, but I'd like to hear what other people think. We don't have resources like Index Fungorum for all groups; for example, there is a huge number of species formerly placed in Oryzomys, but no centralized resource where all can be found. Thanks for the fixes on the other issues. Ucucha 20:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that if such lists were to be created, they would be best kept at a separate "list of former X species" page, cross-referenced to the appropriate articles. Circéus (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable; I might try that with Oryzomys and see how it works out. Ucucha 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the last reference (Volk & Burdsall, 1995), the "(PDF)" should come after the link, not after the year.

• I just removed the format=PDF parameter; I don't know how to force the order of the template output. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The actual list is now in a section titled "Key", which doesn't make much sense—perhaps add a section "List"?

Ucucha 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Added a section header "Species". Thanks for commenting, Ucucha. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since NABS X has not been formally named, shouldn't the year be omitted? For the other species, it's the year of formal naming, not the year the species was first recognized. Ucucha 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Good point. I removed the year from the column and added it to the footnote. Sasata (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment References should be numerically ordered.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, there was a very good reason for their being "out of order", which was detailed in the Key. Circéus (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah, undone. Headcold means brain is not working at full capacity. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (yesterday I just mentioned that the references are not sorted but didn't look at the key, unfortunately :/, but now my deep review is finished) Very good list about one of my favourite mushrooms (:P), but it's a little bit strange, I thought there would be more species; are you sure they are complete? Anyway, I support this great list :D!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, and yes, I'm sure :) Sasata (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Overall, a nice piece of work. Just two small things from me: I wish the References column was shortened to Ref(s) (would save some white space), and that the Distribution column could be made sortable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I may just be being picky, but I don't like the idea of the section header being abbreviated. How about as a compromise I center the refs so the whitespace is left/right equalized? I'm not convinced the distribution column should be sortable; since most of the cells are a list of items, what use could it be to the reader to have species list sorted by the first location in the distribution list? Sasata (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"saving whitespace" is a boogeyman: at 800x600, the saving hardly changes the number of lines on the first and third column that gets broken, and it obviously makes virtually no difference at all on tiny screens. I also agree sorting the distribution cells is pointless since it only sort one element out of several within them. Circéus (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments this has had a fair bit of interest and support, and it seems I'm a little late to the party, but in any case, my comments, and forgive me if they've been discussed already.

• "First treated by" this is expert-speak for me, why would anyone "treat" a mushroom? Needs to be accessible to all. Simliar with "assigned generic rank". What do these mean to the layman?
• " with a cottony or membranous veils that typically forms " singular/plural/singular
• Name col should be Name/authority in the key.
• What if there's a name in parentheses and a name (or more) out of parentheses?
• I don't like refs out of numerical order but I appreciate the key telling me why. I'm not sure why the ref's shouldn't be numerical though.
• In the authority entries, there are a lot of "Dessur.", "Courtec." (abbreviated names), why?
• NABS X has no year. At least put an en/em-dash there in the year col.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's not the mushroom, it's the genus that's being "treated" as a subject. It might me mildly academic, but it is not jargon as far as I'm aware.
• fixed
• It should have linked to author citation (botany) from the start, but admittedly the wording was less than ideal.
• I'm not sure why Sasata decided to put the original publications in a separate columns instead of putting them in the first and third (there doesn't seem to be much space saving or aesthetic improvement to justify it), but I respected it out of WP:RETAIN, if anything else.
• This is the standard format across botanical literature and Wikipedia when giving author citations. (if it were running, as in the second sentence of the article, there would be no abbreviation, of course). Giving the full names (which is not always possible), would not be an improvement (notwithstanding the space issues).
• fixed.

Circéus (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer why I did it that way, it's because I saw that someone else had done the refs that way, so I just copied the format. Thinking about it some more, the extra column for refs seemed unnecessary, so I removed it. How does it look now? I'm thinking that the name/authority column looks a bit crowded, and and tempted to move the authorities to a separate (unsortable?) column (as suggested by RexxS). Any objections? Sasata (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me. 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

and made sortable. Circéus (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

and can be made more fully accessible by marking up row headers thus: [8] and then setting "plainrowheaders"[9] if you don't like the bold, centred row headers.

I've self reverted because I don't want to interfere, but you can see how it's done. Most folks don't see much difference, but you're enabling a screen reader to navigate up and down the columns of the table and hear which row they are on each time. It's not mandatory, but worthwhile. Cheers. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that works; in fact I would very much oppose it. I would only ever do that if the table was a "cross-reference" (e.g. comparison of Internet browsers), or an election result table. This is clearly not such a case. Circéus (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, the marking up of row headers to make a table accessible is mandated by MOS at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables, so you'd better get used to it. It is a necessary feature of our best work that they be accessible to all. I've been willing to accept that it is something that editors need to become acquainted with, and have not pressed the point where the structure is unsuitable (or even if it would require a massive overhaul of a table), but in a case such as this where the upgrade would be trivial, I don't feel that I can support promotion. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the nature of headers: they serve to identify the data in the corresponding row/column. If you need to put a header on your headers (as you would have us do), then it is not a header! By your metric the first cell in every single table in Wikipedia should be a header, that's preposterous! Circéus (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll suggest that I'm not misunderstanding the nature of headers. At present the table has column headers, but no row headers. I'm simply suggesting that it would improve the table's accessibility to have row headers as well. If you want an outside opinion, here's a book that demonstrates exactly the technique I'm recommending: Web accessibility. You could read the tutorial for how JAWS reads tables at Tables with JAWS and MAGic to get a better idea of why having both column and row headers improves accessibility. If you want the source of these, they derive from WCAG, and there is a criterion H63 for HTML 4 that you can refer to. Please have a look at some of these, and consider whether there might be more to my suggestions than you may have initially recognised. I'd be delighted if we can reach some agreement here. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[Undent] According to the page you link, we do not need header cell to have an accessible table here: scope is legitimate to use even in the absence of a header cell (and in this case, I still firmly believe full-on header, where or not they are visible, are unnecessary). I'll happily apply scope to the "name" columns. I'd like to further note that this whole arguing spans from the fact that from the point of view of basic HTML, making the data tabular is not a formal necessity (hence the arguing about the best way to apply a table to the list): a table just happen to be the only way to get sortable data on wp: (and we view sortability as particularly desirable). If sortability could somehow be obtained without the use of a table, the data would not be tabular, have no formal need to be tabular, and the entire argument would be moot. Circéus (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the points you make. You can indeed apply scope to data cells (such as those containing names) and make the table accessible, but then somebody will have to come along when we move to HTML5 and change the markup to make them header cells. There's really no reason not to mark them up now – after all, if it is semantically a row header (identifying the data in that row), then I would think marking it up as TH would be sensible.

If you consider the data structure, a table implements a list of lists in a structured way. It also possesses the advantage that we can navigate it 'vertically' i.e up and down a column – and we go to all this trouble to allow blind users the same facility. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (might as well ) Baring people noting extra ameliorations that can be implemented or errors, I don't see how we can improve it further. Circéus (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: The main table fails WP:WIAFL#5, specifically MOS:ACCESS#Data_tables, a top-priority requirement. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose we need to take WP:ACCESS seriously. I don't see a problem with what RexxS has suggested, and he has an established track record of being very open-minded and fair with this sort of thing. I suggest you work with him rather than against him. Your accusations of his suggestions being "preposterous" are just short of bad faith, and as far as I can see, there's absolutely zero visual difference in the format RexxS has suggested against the format you prefer. All you had to do was use RexxS's edits; he'd done all the hard work for you... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ultimately I consider the decision is Sasata's and I will defer to it, but I still believe that the suggestion is one of the most misguided approach to "accesibility" I've ever seen when we have so many articles that, by the same accessibility token, should never be allowed to have table at all to begin with, and the suggestion is made obsolete simply by changing the ordering of the columns (further demonstrating that no, in many, many cases there is absolutely no need for a column of header). Look at the tables in the example here, the first two are clearly similar to our examples and according to the spec, the first column does not need (I argue must not have) header cells; the second table illustrated (in the next section) has even less headers than you would expect (I would have put the dates in headers). The specs to me clearly implies that one should be conservative in the use of double sets of header. Circéus (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I may be wrong but I think you've misunderstood what's going on here. RexxS has responded above, it's worth taking this advice seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Jumping in the middle here, but Rexx helped with my nom very easily and it didn't really change the physical nature of the list at all, so why not include it? I have no reason to disbelieve what he and others have told me about this making things easier for screen-readers, I have 0 knowledge on that front. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• <technical warning> No, Circeus is quite right to point out that under the current HTML spec, it is acceptable to specify <td scope="row"> (or | scope="row" in wiki-markup). He is mistaken only in extrapolating that to forbid <th scope="row"> (or ! scope="row" in wiki-markup). In fact, HTML4 specifies scope as an attribute for both TD and TH, so either are acceptable. The problem is that the upcoming HTML5 spec will no longer allow scope on TD, so with an eye to the future, it is better guide editors into using ! scope="row" as that is valid now and will be valid in the future. I should add that "plainrowheaders" only works on ! scope="row", so if you want to mark up row headers differently, you can't use it.</technical warning> Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• You blatantly misrepresent what I said. I meant that for our purpose "scope" on a normal cell was sufficient and that a header cell was not semantically required for accessibility (not to mention a different styling is unwarranted no matter how subdued it is). Circéus (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I still agree: "scope" on a normal cell (TD) is sufficient for accessibility. The only two things we seem to disagree on is that I think the semantic markup for any table header is TH; and that I think using TD scope="row" is a bad idea because it will be disallowed in the next version of HTML. You'll find quite a few editors who will insist that the semantic difference between header cells and data cells has to be indicated by a difference in styling. But I respect your view that you don't want to see a different visual style, and I'd personally be happy to go along with it. Nevertheless, MOS:ACCESS#Data tables is the consensus guideline that requires ! scope="row" and the debate at MediaWiki Talk:Common.css/Archive 12#Bold row headers has decided the default behaviour of the "wikitable" and "plainrowheaders" classes. Neither of these are set in stone, and I'm sure that you would be able to make a reasoned argument if you wished to see them changed. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've implemented the accessibility changes as suggested by RexxS. Sasata (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The issues I raised have been satisfactorily addressed. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:36, 22 February 2011 [10].

---

List of Alabama Crimson Tide football head coaches

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it does meet the FL criteria as it has been modeled after successful college football coach lists such as List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches and List of Texas Longhorns head football coaches Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments - generally fine, but some technical issues I find with sortable tables and Safari... as "number of coaches" makes no sense. It's the order in which coaches were in charge of the team. And it's confusing when you have two Eli Abbott's - he wasn't the "second" coach in 1902, he was the 8th. This needs sorting out. Removed the # column all together as sorting by tenure yields the same result. Where no games have been played (and you use em-dash I think), this should sort as "less than zero". Right now, I sort by OT (for instance) and instead of getting Bryant with the most OT I get the six coaches who never went to overtime. It doesn't make sense at all. This is true of all columns with these dashes. Corrected, should sort properly now. NCs col, not sure why text is left-aligned while 0's are centrally aligned. Fixed. "on the field record" - this is unclear to a non-expert. What does 9-3-1 mean? Clarified both items for both notes. "to vacate 5 victories due" I've never heard of "vacating" a victory but I guess that's USEng. In any case, that should be five, not 5. Corrected and clarified "vacating" in both notes. Specific refs should have exactly the same title as the general ref they use, so 1 and 2 should say "2010 Alabama Football Media Guide, p. xxxx". Corrected. For links which are pdfs, please use the format= parameter. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! All have now been addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NThomas (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Nick Saban is already wikilinked in the first paragraph of the lead; the last mention of Saban in the lead doesn't need a wikilink. Wikilink removed. How about incorporating Southeastern Conference Coach of the Year awards. An unreferenced list can be found here: Southeastern Conference football individual awards#Coach of the Year. With some research, proper sources should be easily found. Good call. Added and cited. The # column does serve some purpose when dealing when interim coaches and coaches with multiple tenures. Although Eli Abbott served two separate tenures as head coach, Abbott was still the Crimson Tide's second head coach. Also, Nick Saban is considered the Crimson Tide's 27th head coach, not Joe Kines (see Saban's offical bio webpage via the Crimson Tide's offical website). Kines entry in the # column would have "Int." and Saban's entry would continue the numbering scheme (see FLs List of Kansas Jayhawks head football coaches, List of Kansas State Wildcats head football coaches, List of Texas A&M Aggies head football coaches, and List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches. Done. I should have caught that previously. Thanks for pointing it out. The College Football Hall of Fame references in the table are unnecessary as all four are previously referenced in the lead. Removed Kines never coached a conference game yet the entries for conference wins and losses and conference championships have 0 instead of an em dash. Done Tie games were eliminated beginning in 1996, yet DuBose, Franchione, Shula, and Saban all have 0 instead of an em dash in the post-season tie column. Done Price never coached a single game so all entires should have an em dash. Done NThomas (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC) All comments addressed. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Very quick response and corrections. Great work. NThomas (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Additional comments During Beaumont's only season as head coach, the Crimson Tide were not a member of any conference making him ineligible to win a conference championship. Done Kines' needs a overall percentage again. Done The listed years for awards, need to either all follow a four character numbering scheme or all need to begin with four and continue with two. The way it is now, some entries have both or one or the other. Example: 1961, 64 vs 1961, 1964 Done Consider adding division championships as in List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons Good call yet again! Added. NThomas (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC) All above comments addressed. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - Everything looks good. Another great CFB HC list. NThomas (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• Shouldn't the first sentence read "The Alabama Crimson Tide football program is a college football team that represents the University of Alabama"........?

• Corrected

• "the team has played more than 1,100 games in their 116 seasons" - mixing singular and plural when describing the same thing

• Corrected

• "he accumulated a 232 wins" - should that "a" be there......?

• Corrected

• "Jennings B. Whitworth has the lowest winning percentage of those who have coached more than one game with .067" - suggest adding a comma after "game"

• Corrected

• Now bear in mind here that I know nothing about college football, so I may be misunderstanding here, but if the team did not "join a conference in the traditional sense" (whatever that means) till 1922, should the coaches prior to then not all have a dash in the CCs column like Beaumont does..........?

• I have gone through the seasonal archives and added SIAA victories to the coaches' totals as Bama was part of the SIAA between 1895–1922.

Anyway, hope all that helps..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to take a look at this as the comments are greatly appreciated and now addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Add "an" in "for .824 winning percentage."

• Done

• One of the coaches won his only career start. Therefore, Bear Bryant is technically not the all-time winning percentage leader. If this causes a problem for the lead, you can qualify the stat like when the lowest winning percentage is discussed.

• Corrected

• Typo in note 6: "ineligiable". Also, I'm not crazy about the flow in "the NCAA ruled Alabama to". Maybe try "the NCAA ruled that Alabama must..."? There's a similar usage in note 8.

• Done & addressed additional comment

• Add "for" to "Thus the official NCAA record 1993 is 1–12."

• Done

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments! All have been addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Moderate support a real minor one, but I think it's a little odd to link Saban in a list of "led to postseason" teams, and then mention he's the current coach as the last sentence of the lead. Perhaps consider moving the fact he's the current coach from the end of the lead to the start of the lead, and therefore avoid repeating his first name twice in the lead (including once in the lead image). Everything else is spot on as far as I can tell on a re-visit (although I still hate #=number of coaches, it isn't, it's just chronological order of coaches). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Good call. I placed the sentence in question in the lead as it does make more sense there than at the end since he is the current head coach. As for the # column, it does serve a purpose more than just chronological as Kines served only in an interim role and the university lists Saban as the 27th head coach, not the 28th. Thanks again for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• No bother. I agree the hash column is needed but the title in the key is the odd thing for me. It's more like "Order of coach (not including repeats) in coach history" which is clearly awful, but it really isn't "number of coaches"... do you get my drift? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I hear what you're saying. I changed the word to "order" and added a more detailed description to the note. I know it's not perfect, but it is better now I think. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Saban should be linked somewhere in the lede, not just the caption. Done Why define an abbreviation you never use again? (FBS is the culprit) Removed Question I know the answer to. The SEC wasn't founded until '33, so what conference did Wade win his conference titles in? Clarified in sentence "Bryant is the leader in seasons coached and most wins, as he accumulated 232 wins during his 25 years with the program." "as he" does not strike em as the optimal connector here. Revised Mix of date formats in the refs; ref 15 vs 16. Revised Ref 26 is missing a 0 Revised Courcelles 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) One more, if possible, I think I'd prefer to see Eli Abbott's two tenures on two separate rows, to break out the statistics. Courcelles 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I agree to any consensus reached on this, but I believe having Abbott's two tenures combined is appropriate as it is a listing of overall coaches, and season records are covered in other articles. Thanks for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "that represents the University of Alabama in the West Division of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision." - this is a lot of prepositional phrases in a row. I suggest a re-word because the current first sentence looks like a run-on and should be split.

• Cleaned-up

• "27 head coaches, and one interim head coach" - these are comparable quantities, per MOS:NUM, change "one" to 1

• Done

• "Wade captured"... "Saban captured" - repetitive, change one of these to won

• Done

• "Saban all won" - should be each won

• Done

• "Bryant is the leader in ... most wins" - I know that's not what you actually wrote, but that's the way the modification ends up. Change "most wins" to games won

• Done

• "wins... wins" - change to games won, with 232 victories

• Done

• "prior to ever coaching" - besides the split infinitive, the meaning doesn't suffer by removing "ever", so it's extraneous; remove

• Done

• Keep your decimal places in the table the same; if all the winning percentages are extended to three decimal places (.750), then so should be 1.000.

• Done

• Replace daggers with {{dagger}}, using alt text per ACCESS concerns.

• Done

• Also in the ACCESS vein, all rows should be marked up with the coach as the row header. The data table tutorial can help you with this.

• Done

Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to comment on this. It is much appriciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

'Support, spot on: nothing from me at all. Harrias ^talk 23:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:36, 22 February 2011 [11].

---

List of New York Cosmos seasons

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have made it to the standards of my other featured soccer lists (see Luton Town F.C. and follow the links). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on "New York, New York" in the lead. Factually correct, but a little unnecessary for me. Put (NASL) after the expanded version. "team's big names." I know what you mean but this is a little too colloquial for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Maybe not directly relevant but worth noting in the lead that Cantona was made "Director of Soccer" a couple of days ago? In Safari, the bit that talks about "Top scorer and number of goals.." is in an odd location. Coloured key needs a touch of explanation (e.g. an accessible symbol like {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}}) because it's not entirely clear that 3rd, 4th, or 7th means "missing play-offs" - this fails WP:ACCESS. Per recent discussions, if you use the dagger symbol, then please try to use an accessible one per my previous comment, to help screen-readers. I think I'd recommend the scoring system explanation become a footnote and not part of the key. Don't understand the % col, e.g. 1972, G=14, W=7 so according to your explanation of % (Percentage of games won) this should be 50%, instead it's 64.2%... New York Times -> The New York Times. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Okay, all done. I wouldn't put Cantona in because that's New York Cosmos (2010), not technically the same thing. You can easily find it anyway. Everything else sorted. As for the % thing, that was a misunderstanding on my part – a tie counts for half of a win in the percentage, which brings up the anomaly you mentioned. What do you think now? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Just one quick one: the all caps in note 4 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from WFC

Nice job overall, and I like what you've done with the general references.

Resolved comments from WFC

*There should probably be a sentence or two somewhere on the differences between regular football and six-a-side. Done, in "footnotes". – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I agree with the decision to go with points over goals in the main table, but it's conceivable that some readers would want to know who the top goalscorer was. If there were any seasons where the top goalscorer was different to the top points scorer, could you add footnotes? Done, in "footnotes". – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Nowadays we generally avoid bolding to signify something specific in a table. Knowing my footballing allegiance, I'm sure you of all people can understand my living in the past... Seriously though, you're right, off it comes. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) May be worth rephrasing the stadium caption to something like "The Cosmos played at Giants Stadium, New Jersey, from 1977...". The way it's currently phrased, someone more familiar with football than the area might think that they shared with the New Jersey Giants. Fair point. Changed. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) On that note, do the regular season positions from 1976 to 1980 signify a position in the division, or conference? Division. Conference comes under the play-offs. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) For the benefit of Dabomb, this bullet point should not be taken into account when deciding whether or not to promote, because at the moment it's a hypothetical. But as something that looks very likely to affect this list when it is an FL, I think it's worth briefly discussing now. Should the Cosmos start playing in the new NASL and/or MLS, would their season details be added to this list? The way the lead is written implies that they will. It's just that MLS teams with names from the NASL era (such as Seattle Sounders FC) generally consider the teams to be distinct, so I'm curious as to whether there's something different here. —WFC— 02:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC) See the talk page at the revival page. There's a long discussion on this, and it's on-going. This list, and the other Cosmos list at FLC, will be altered accordingly depending on its outcome, but at the moment there is nothing to prove that there is any new team (Put very, very briefly, the debate is as follows: on one side, as you say, the teams are seperate; on the other, Seattle Sounders FC, for example, is a different entity to the previous teams with that name, whereas the Cosmos never formally disbanded and this "new" team is simply the "first XI" becoming active again). As I say, discussions are ongoing. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Cool. Even by Wikipedia standards, I'm sure it'll be resolved by the time it becomes an issue. Was just curious. —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Will have another look tomorrow for any final bits, but can't see myself not supporting this. —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how best to do this without unbalancing the list, so I'll leave this open-ended. But I'm wondering if there needs to be something on the league structure, particularly between 1976 and 1980. Regional divisions followed by playoffs to decide the national champion is simple enough to cotton on to. But when you throw conferences into the mix, the typical non-US football fan might not grasp it naturally.
  • I've included the Conferences under the play-offs. I think that it's clear that the "regular season" refers to division, and that anything after that is regarded as "post-season". It's a fair point, though. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think the table copes well. Like I said, it's not something I can put my finger on. Maybe it's just the fault of the NASL for making what is effectively a localised league --> regional knockout --> East vs West Championship game sound more complicated than it really is. I think we're on the same page, but I'll leave this visible in case someone else has an idea. —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Puerile banter between WFC and – Cliftonianthe orangey bit

*Sorry for having to use the word Conference ;) Once upon a time, there were two provincial football teams, and one of them won 53 of the matches, and the other won 36... ;) – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Statistically the other team have the edge when it comes to play-offs though ;) —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC) But hark, children! That edge was dull and blunt when it came to objects of gold and silver... Ah, we still toast the boys of '78 at our house, don't you know. ;) – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 05:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC) And well you might. T'was a glorious campaign. One of several. —WFC— 22:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I will wind up this puerile (albeit somewhat amusing) mud-slinging match by pointing out that the '78 Watford Fourth Division triumph is precisely what I was referring to with my last comment; after studying your table of seasons throughly, I can only say that it does not help your case that Watford's trophy cabinet is dominated by the Third Division South Cup and third-tier Second Division title. While Watford, I admit, have had some admirable near-successes, and although I obviously realise the current relative positions of the two teams, I will just finish by saying that Luton have at least gone the whole way on occasion, and that no amount of points deducted can ever take that away. I now declare this drunken pub argument of a discussion, which I fear may otherwise become endless, to be closed. Thanks for the fun. ;) – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Good call. Although for the record it wasn't totally unproductive. [12] Regards, —WFC— 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, with the proviso that if someone else raises a concern over the playoff structure, a footnote or similar is added. —WFC— 22:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments a second look, some niggles... I'd prefer to see the footnotes referenced. I'm not sure we need an image of the indoor pitch in the Footnotes section. "The NASL's scoring system" ->"NASL scoring system". Is there a more general football season category list this can be added to? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Okay, all done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support no major issues from me: though I think 'points' in the table should itself link to something explaining the points system, not just the top-scorer heading. Harrias ^talk 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:48, 18 February 2011 [13].

---

List of current sovereign monarchs

Nominator(s): Nightw 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be a concise, comprehensive list that can be a good example for other lists on Wikipedia. It is fairly simple, but in my opinion, it effectively briefs the reader on the subject, while providing well-placed links for further information. If nothing else, this nomination will be a fantastic opportunity to identify areas for improvement. Peer reviews were conducted in September and October. Nightw 16:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, as it's very definitely a list. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry... Nightw 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted, old version.
• Note I have restarted this nomination because the nomination was quite long and the consensus was unclear. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comments on accessibilty: Accessibility of the table is good. In theory a caption would be an improvement, but in this case where there is only one table and it is the only element in its section, it could be argued that a caption would be redundant. The images in the Standard column would benefit from alt text (as the filename is read out otherwise). --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Issues above now resolved. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• I still think this should be ordered by the monarchs column, not the monarchies one. Nergaal (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's sortable, so you can have it ordered by any column you like. I must admit, though, that I'd slightly prefer that the State column contained the row headers, as that piece of information uniquely identifies the row, whereas the name of the monarch does not. --RexxS (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It originally was done that way, but I wanted to highlight the actual item being listed, which is the monarch...especially since it is not allocated the leftmost column. Nightw 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support – My comments were all resolved before the restart, and I don't have any new ones. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Looks a lot better. Perhaps an image of Queen Elizabeth II would add to the page, alongside the existing Japanese Emperor and Dutch Queen? Mainly with the association with 'monarch' that she has being monarch of many English-speaking countries around the world. —JeevanJones (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Despite the length of certain paragraphs the Lead I'm pretty sure conflicts with WP:LEAD#Length. Since no work was being done regarding the use of language templates, I have taken the liberty and removed them and added the correct parameter, I've also replaced the month name with the numerical value to keep it consistent with the rest of the references. Afro (Talk) 08:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing those up. I generally prefer the language icons, and was under the impression that this was okay, but if there's a community preference to use the parameters instead, then I won't object. I've merged two of the smaller paragraphs in order to comply with length standards. Nightw 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have no issues and the issue wasn't that the pages are in a different language it was just there's no need to use the Language icons when there is a perfectly usable parameter in the template, it makes it easier for editors to edit the reference also. Afro (Talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• The only thing from my original comments that is still unresolved is the huge amount of WP:EGG links. A key should be added to explain where all of these go, as it's not immediately evident (or in some cases, even evident in passing). — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Are there any instances in particular you can give, just as an example? Nightw 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure. Just as an example, in the "Australia" row, you've linked "Queen" to List of Australian monarchs, "Constitutional" to Monarchy of Australia, and "Hereditary" to Line of succession to the British throne. It's not self-evident as to where these links actually go. At face value (without following the links or rolling over to see their destination), I would assume that "Queen" has been underlinked (because it's only linked in some of the Elizabeth II entries, not all, that "Constitutional" links to an article on constitutional monarchy, and that "hereditary" links to an article on primogeniture or some such (the "succession" links are possibly ok as is, but the "type" links are really a problem). — KV5 • Talk • 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. Thanks. So what is the best way for the linking to be explained? In simple prose above the table? Nightw 06:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Honestly, I would prefer that the links be removed, but that's probably not the optimum solution. I would use a tabular key rather than simple prose, as I think it's clearer. — KV5 • Talk • 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience! What about this kind of thing? Nightw 04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Legend

Monarch	Name of monarch, preceded by title, with link to list of predecessors.	Since	Date of assumption of throne; coronation date listed in footnotes.
House	Name of royal family, with information on bloodline.	Type	Form of monarchy, with link to information on role of the monarch within government.
Succession	Method or pattern of succession, with link to current line of succession.	Standard	Heraldry attributed to the relevant monarch or monarchy.
N/A	Denotes where specific field is not applicable.	—	Denotes where data is not available.

• • That's a good start, but keep in mind that the key has to meet ACCESS standards too. Rowheaders and the like. — KV5 • Talk • 12:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Does this work? It might be preferable to have just two columns instead of four. I don't know if this affects accessibility. Nightw 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
      • A much better bet for maximising accessibility would be two columns. And to be honest, a table with two columns can get away without row or column headers; anyone using a screen reader won't get lost navigating around such a table, but you could still put them in as an example of good practice. Optionally, the legend would fit perfectly as a list from a semantic view, but a list isn't as pretty as a table. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Just noticed all the markup in there. It's not needed:

Legend

Key	Description
Monarch	Name of monarch, preceded by title, with link to list of predecessors.
Since	Date of assumption of throne; coronation date listed in footnotes.
House	Name of royal family, with information on bloodline.
Type	Form of monarchy, with link to information on role of the monarch within government.
Succession	Method or pattern of succession, with link to current line of succession.
Standard	Heraldry attributed to the relevant monarch or monarchy.
N/A	Denotes where specific field is not applicable.
—	Denotes where data is not available.

Have a look at the wikitext. The only presentational formatting that I've removed is the italic as I don't think its use is justified per WP:ITALIC. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay! Added. Thanks for the help, RexxS. Nightw 12:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Additionally, alt text is needed for the royal standards. — KV5 • Talk • 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Nightw 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • My comments have been satisfactorily resolved. — KV5 • Talk • 12:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments - glad to see the patience of the nominator and the diligence of the reviewers in coming back. A good example of WP:DEADLINE... "For monarchs reigning over a constituent division, cultural or traditional polity, see constituent monarchs. For current claimants to abolished thrones, see pretenders." Much as I loathe "... see ..." in prose in the lead (after all, that's why we have "see also" sections), I see why this is useful. However, is there no way you can rephrase this into prose without instructing our reader to "see" something else? in my opinion, you should link the captions appropriately because they appear before the table. I know this is a bad time to bring it up but I'm curious as to the accessibility of the Standard column. Without descriptive alt text, is alt text useful at all? Ref 3 - year range in the title needs an en-dash. Retrieve dates, I assume, should all be ISO 8601 format, which means they should be yyyy-mm-dd, not dd-mm-yyyy as you currently have them. Check capitalisation of Ref 10 per this. Ref 12 needs comprehensive formatting. Ref 24 needs en-dash. Ref 74 appears dead to me. First EL has no publisher. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for coming back RM! Regarding the "inline redirection" in the lead, would replacing "... are listed in ..." (or some variation thereof) be any better? Otherwise, I may have to rephrase it as part of the actual prose. I've added the links to the captions. I'm not really familiar with alt text convetions—do you think it better to make them descriptive, or just leave the parameter blank; another reviewer stated earlier that just adding the alt parameter would be fine, as it would stop the lengthy file names being read out. Nightw 17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I would prefer you work those "see" links into prose if possible. As for the alt text, check with User:RexxS whether a blank alt text is better than just repeating the filename. I'm not sure how useful the current alt text would be to a visually impaired reader. I accept that some alt text is probably better than none...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, I'll work on this shortly and see what I come up with. Nightw 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC) The choices for alt text for the images in the Standards column are: completely omitted from the markup; This is unacceptable, since a screen reader could then announce the filename twice, something like "Link, File:BXVI CoA like gfx PioM.svg, File:BXVI CoA like gfx PioM.svg" in the worst case. alt text set to nothing; This is an improvement, and a screen reader would just announce the link to the graphic, "Link, File:BXVI CoA like gfx PioM.svg". the simple name of the standard; This is better because a screen reader would speak something like "Link, File:BXVI CoA like gfx PioM.svg, Personal Standard of Pope Benedict XVI"; although in the cases of the more descriptive filenames it may seem like a repetition. a full description of what the standard looks like; This is often the optimal alternative, but these sort of images require considerable text to do a decent job of describing them, and we can't guarantee that visually-impaired users will want to hear all that for each one. By writing long alt text, we don't give the visually-impaired user a choice. So personally, in this case, I'd prefer to see concise alt text, coupled with an improved description on the image page – so that any visually-impaired reader could find the information there if they were really interested in exactly what the standard looked like. There's no perfect solution, but I'm content with the choice that Nightw has made. HTH --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Regarding your notes on the refs (I can't help but admire your thoroughness!), I was able to fix up #'s 3 and 10. Note that the numbering has changed now (these are now #'s 3 and 6). Ref74 (now 73) is working fine for me; confirming that it is the Times obituary? Ref 12 (still 12) doesn't contain much more information than shown; there's no publisher or date shown on the website, and the same goes for Royalark in the EL. The dating format causes an issue, because the article uses (or did use) the {{Use dmy dates}} format. I had originally had the retrieve dates in yyyy-mm-dd format, as I had thought that was the standard also. But I was told in a peer review that this was not the case, and that all dates should be in the same format. Nightw 17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, Times page may have just been unfortunate timing, good. Ref 12 can have an accessdate, and if nothing else, the website used as the the publisher info. As for "dmy" that's fine in prose (e.g. 14 January 1944) but when you use the ISO date format, it has to be yyyy-mm-dd. You can have mixed formats, but only different between the main list and the refs, i.e. all refs in the main list must have the same format, all dates in the refs must have the same format, if possible they should all have the same format, but WP:MOS doesn't insist on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, so if I change the accessdates, I will also have to change the published dates, correct? Nightw 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC) You got it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, that's done. Nightw 17:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oooh, support, very neat list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • Some of the footnotes seem extraneous: Do we need all of the ones that go into detail on the royal houses? That's not immediately needed for this list, especially the historical information. The notes 5, 6, 10 (see next note), part of 12 (the first part is useful, the 'branch of' less so), the clan part of 21, 24, 31, 34, possibly 44, 45, and the bishop portion of 49. These all seem like they would be better handled in the articles on the houses, rather than crowding up the footnote section.
  • The house for Cambodia, is this correct? It would seem more accurate (to me) to say Varman, rather than Norodom, especially since Norodom does not direct to any house or dynasty. But I am not the expert. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is the surname adopted by the descendants of Norodom I. It distinguishes them from those of Sisowath, whom are also eligible for succession under the constitution. I suppose this should be further explained in the footnotes, which I suppose ties in with your first comment. I'll get to that in a moment. Nightw 04:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, so it's a weird situation. Hrm. If that's their surname, then yes, I suppose that does go in the house column, with an explaination as to what dynasty it's part of... here, let me express my questions specifically:
• Note 3: "The House of Windsor is a line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which itself is a branch of the House of Wettin. "Windsor" is the official name adopted by the royal family of the United Kingdom since 1917." I don't think we need the last sentence; renames a century ago belong in the house article, not here. I was originally going to say we didn't need the bit about "House of Wettin", either, but since another royal family is in that line, it may make sense to include it.
• Note 5: A tribe, without further elucidation, is just a tribe, without any particular royal leanings. Unless the king of Bahrain and emir of Kuwait are always from this tribe, it seems extraneous. To me, as an ignorant westerner, it almost sounds like linking two U.S. Presidents together because they were both from Ohio. Maybe Arabian tribes have more meaning than that, I don't know, which is why I bring it to you to justify the note. :)
• Note 6: After re-examining note 3 as mentioned above, I'm actually fine with this staying, to show that the two houses are linked.
• Note 10: Now that you've explained, it makes more sense, and yes, the note should explain it as you did. :)
• Note 12: Since no other monarchy presently is in the House of Oldenburg, I don't think this needs to be mentioned here... does it? I mean, how often does someone refer to Harald V as being in the House of Oldenburg? Probably as often as people mention Elizabeth II of the House of Wettin? :) Gosh, now as I'm writing these I'm starting to doubt my call for trimming them, but I think that, unless the "part of the house of ..." is relevant to the list (that is, another monarchy is also in said line), it should be relegated to the house article.
• Note 16: This is a case of clan/tribe being allowed as a house name, since the name of the kingdom actually is "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan". However, I'm not entirely sure we need it, as it falls under the "rename?" issue that maybe doesn't belong on this list? Hrm.
• Note 20: The Basotho is simply the demonym for people from Lesotho, so the first sentence redundant. As for the second half, see my points on note 16.
• Note 23: Since the House of Nassau is also that of another monarchy, this I suppose should stay.
• Note 30: See note 23
• Note 33: Another tribe, the "largest of all Arab tribes". Unless there's some rule that all Qatari emirs must be from this tribe, it seems extraneous.
• Note 38: The data seemed extraneous on first glance, but wow, that's certainly a unique way to choose a king: Choose his mother! So yeah, that's definitely useful information.
• Note 43: No other house is in this dynasty so maybe it doesn't need to be mentioned?
• Note 44: Since note 46 specifies that the ruler is always from Al Nahyan, it's relevant to explain the tribe a little bit, so this one seems okay.
• The Pope: I was wrong and you're right, it does appear his primary office is that of Bishop of Rome, and from that all other things follow. Maybe his note could be rearranged "As Sovereign of the Vatican City, by virtue of being Bishop of Rome." (even though both links go to the same place, Pope :P)
  • I apologize if I'm getting into too much detail, just wanting to make sure it's all good. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Not at all, the content has developed with very little collaboration anyway, so it's good to finally get another's ideas. I've fixed up note 3; with that extra information gone, I was thinking it could now probably be combined somehow with note 6...? I've fixed note 48, and I'll also expand the explanation on note 10 shortly.
    • You are right in saying that this information should lie in the house articles, and in most instances this is the case. In most cases, however, it is necessary to mention the main house in addition to the branch, as these are the actual houses they belong to from a purel genealogical perspective. The branches, in most cases, are just given a different name because they're not the seniormost descendants of that house. Harald is a good example. Because he descends the third son of Christian III, rather than the eldest, he represents a junior branch, but the House he belongs to is still Oldenburg (see more information). In most sources (example), his House will be identified as "Oldenburg", with the branch following in parentheses. Nightw 08:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Ahaaa. Okay, I think I see now. Yeah, my only experience with monarchies has been UK and Japan, and they haven't had to deal with such issues in recent history. So these footnotes are mostly to allay confusion an educated reader might have; "He's not part of Oldenburg, he's part of X!" or what not. I can live with that. Though most of the time I would say drop the "House of Wettin" bit from Windsor, except for the fact that another house is also in that, so they're linked. So that explains the houses; what about the tribes? :) --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
        • While tribal affiliation is very important to Arab society, you're right in saying that this probably is a bit extraneous here. The rulers would always come from these tribes, but only because the ruling clan (or "house" in this context) can only belong to one tribe. I'd probably only keep the Utub reference, as it shows the familial ties between the families of Kuwait and Bahrain, which are quite close. Regarding Lesotho, the note was added mainly for search purposes of alternate spelling ("Moshoesh", "Moshwesh"), but this probably isn't a big issue, and can be removed. Nightw 09:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Nightw 13:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And thus, support. --Golbez (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keeping this open pending resolution of Golbez's comments... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:48, 18 February 2011 [14].

---

List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons

Nominator(s): Nomader ^(Talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the FL criteria. I've based it off of my work at List of Washington Capitals seasons and other FL NHL season articles such as List of New Jersey Devils seasons and List of New York Islanders seasons among others. Glad to be back at FLC and I look forward to addressing your comments and concerns. This is also a WP:WIKICUP nomination. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the most obvious thing is that "hockey" in the first sentence should be expanded to ice hockey, or at the very least piped to [[ice hockey|hockey]] because to me, and probably a substantial chunk of the world's population, the sport called "hockey" does not involve blokes in armour on ice skates...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good point, I never actually thought of that before. Changed. Nomader ^(Talk) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Would consider moving the "founding" part of the lead before the "where they play" part as it seems more relevant that way round. I moved the sentence. "been renamed as St. Pete Times Forum" no need for "as". Removed. "5 times in 18 completed" would prefer to see "five times in eighteen completed". Switched. Lots of obvious switches from singular to plural to singular again when referring to "Tampa Bay" or "the Lightning" makes the lead feel a little awkward to read. I did my best to address this-- I've changed it to the mostly plural form, but I'm not sure I like the way the lead's turned out right now. I'll try to keep fine tuning it in the next couple days. Link "expansion team". Linked. "their only Stanley Cup in their following" -> "... in the following..." Switched. Please check that symbols used in the key meet WP:ACCESS guidelines which means they can be read by screenreaders. If you have trouble with this, I suggest you ask User:RexxS to give you some advice. Hmm... if I were to use Latin-1 characters instead, would it then be acceptable? Looks like I'll need to send RexxS a note about this. Note (d) has a different year range format from that in the table. Corrected. Could add publisher info for the New York Times and Washington Times references. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I added The New York Times Company for the NY Times, but I wasn't aware that the Washington Times had a publisher other than itself. I'll check around and see if I can figure out if that's the case. Either way, thanks for the comments TRM. Nomader (Talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS:

• Accessibility of symbols: As there are numerous screen readers in use (as well as text-only browsers for those with limited bandwidth), the safest symbols to use are those you find directly on a standard keyboard, i.e. the first half of the codepage for Latin-1. As you know, that doesn't give you much choice for use as a key, although I'd suggest the '#' symbol as a replacement for the '¤' symbol. As TRM says, italic text will not be distinguished from normal text by a screen reader like JAWS, unless the user is warned beforehand to turn on announcements of presentational markup. I see you've moved away from using italics anyway for denoting Stanley Cup winners, and replaced it with a dagger. I'd agree with using a symbol in preference to italics, but the '†' symbol is read as a question mark by some screen readers. To overcome that, we've created a template {{†}} or {{dagger}} that uses an image with alt text to produce the symbol and to give a screen reader sensible text to read out. The alt text defaults to 'dagger', but you can use it to actually read out something like "Stanley Cup champions". I've made that change for you to have an example to work from on other articles. Feel free to change it if you'd prefer different alt text, or just the default. There's also a template {{‡}} or {{double-dagger}} if you ever need it. Templates for other symbols could be created on request. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, it's really appreciated; I've never really looked at lists from this accessibility point of view before. I've changed '¤' symbol to '#' per your suggestion in the key, and I'm going to go ahead and retrofit the other featured hockey lists. I'll let you know if I have any other access questions on your talk page. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Support – The key says Stanley Cup-winning seasons are denoted with italics, yet I see no italics for 2004. If you're not going to use italics due to accessibility concerns, don't advertise them in the key. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good point, I went ahead and removed them from the key. Sorry that it took me a few days to get back to you, my internet went out on my computer there. Nomader ^{(Talk</spanEastern>)} 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The lead seems awfully short. Things from the list that could be discussed: best/worst regular season records and points totals, changes in division (especially since you say they were established in one and are now a member of another - why? how?), etc. I added in notes about their worst season, their loss total, and their point totals. I'll get to working on adding a little bit more to it. To be honest, I wasn't really comfortable with how short it was either, but I didn't want to pad it too much. Nomader (Talk) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I've tweaked the lead a bit more. I haven't added in a bit about the division change, as it's linked in the notes of the graph with an explanation. If you still feel it should be included though, I'll put it in. Nomader (Talk) 19:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Remove spaces between indicators and their entries in the table; superscript daggers and carrots. Sorry, somehow I missed this one. I went ahead and superscripted the daggers and carrots and I removed the spaces between them. Nomader (Talk) 09:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC) In the lead: "25th highest victory total" - 25th-highest Switched. Nomader (Talk) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC) You say they have won "over 500" games, but neglect that they have lost nearly 700. Be neutral: don't promote the good and skate over (bad hockey pun) the bad. Added. Nomader (Talk) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! Nomader (Talk) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 14:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support perhaps you be good enough to be consistent with spaces (or without) before notes (e.g. there's a space before the dagger in the 03/04 season but no space before the * and Eastern, and ^ and Southeast), and NYT is relinked in the refs while ESPN isn't relinked, so consistency there would be good, otherwise all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and fixed the spaces. Looks like I missed the daggers when I went through it and removed them before. I also wikilinked ESPN for the second time. Thanks for the comments! Nomader ^(Talk) 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:48, 18 February 2011 [15].

---

List of songs in DJ Hero 2

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 23:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet Another (something) Hero list. Follows the same format and approach as the other Hero song lists. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check - No dab or dead links in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Think the image caption should say that the picture is that of somebody actually playing the game, it's not completely clear. The lead is unreferenced entirely. That's not normally a problem if you expand on it in the article but things like developer/publisher info and release dates aren't discussed outside the lead. "a one-to-five star rating" prefer "a star rating from one to five" " to progress the player's progress through the game." progress the progress... reads poorly. Probably worthwhile linking avatar. "83 mixes on disk composed from over 100 different songs" vs "contains 83 mashups from nearly 100 songs from about 85 different artists" (a) don't be repetitive, (b) if you are, be consistent. " in 6 venues" - six. "Reviewers found the soundtrack to provide a wider range of genres..." -> "Reviewers found that the soundtrack provided a wider range..." Table heading -> Mix Artist -> Mix artist. Not keen on abbreviated dates in the second table... Ref 2, the spaced double hyphen should be an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I've hit all the point above except the abbreviated months in the table; I know (at least, last I looked) that as long as one is consistent there's no issue with abbreviating months in a large table. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the table in the setlist section can serve some references. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Current refs 1 & 2 are the references for the set list. -MASEM (t) 14:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The list looks pretty straight forward. Here are the issues that stood out to me:
  • The lead is very heavy in the gameplay of the game. I would think that not so much is needed to get the gist of it. What about including some licensing info from the game article or brief summary of some of the song artists?
  • What makes these references reliable?
    • The Boombox
    • PALGN
    • VG247
• Other than the above, the list looks good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

• • In the past, I've been asked to explain the gameplay in some detail to give an idea what's involved without forcing the reader to go to the main game article to find out. The amount given here is consistent wiht that information. As for a summary of the artists, I have given who some of the noted mix artists are; there are no real good sourced example lists I could pull from the individual songs that would lead to editors trying to add their own personal favorites. And there's not a whole lot known on the licensing.
  • As for the sources:
    • The Boombox is a part of AOL Music, and they received the exclusive setlist reveal.
    • PALGN is well-established video game news site that is more focused on the PAL release region (Australia and UK), and the only significant reliable source that the VG project uses dedicated to that area. Note here that the source is only used to establish an opinion.
    • VG247 has recently been audited by the VG project to assure that all the primary editors of that news site are established journalists from other sources, thus bringing their reliability here. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries about the song artists.
      • I think a little licensing info would be better than none.
      • I found the VG247 discussion.
      • I tried to dig up discussion on PALGN, but most gave pretty flimsy rationales. However, I don't see much problem here because it is used solely from its opinion.
      • I'll check back later on the lead. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC))
        • Yea, for PALGN, it's opinion is one of the few we have from that region of the world. I wouldn't necessarily take their word on facts, but reviewing opinion is ideal. Still looking to see if I can find licensing. There might be something. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Support: My issues have been addressed, and I believe the lists meets the FL criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Update - As Activision just announced their shutting down Guitar Hero and DJ Hero development, they have confirmed there will be no more DLC. In terms of how this affects this features list, I've added a statement about the discontinuation of future DLC but otherwise shouldn't change how this list is approached. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - I was going to list these things as comments, but these are such minor semantics that I'm just going to go ahead and support. I have no doubt that you'll address these, and if you don't, I'll just go ahead and add them myself after the FLC.

• List of songs in DJ Hero calls the DJ Hero series a "spin-off of the Guitar Hero series", while the list for the second game calls DJ Hero "an expansion of the Guitar Hero series". I think I like the first term better-- it really is more of a spin-off than an expansion.
• At the sentence which ends with "add freestyle effects", the period comes after the reference. The reference should be after the punctuation.

That's all I've got. Nice work, Masem. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Both fixed, thanks. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• The sentence that ends "add freestyle effects." seems grammatically incorrect to me: can you read through it and try and make it clearer?
• "In certain sets that feature an article, the player will perform as that artist's avatar.." – I assume 'article' is meant to be 'artist'?
• In Setlist 'N/A' sorts at the bottom for Artist1 and Artist2, which I like: but it sorts alphabetically in Venue and Setlist: can it sort at the bottom in these too?
• In Downloadable content, 'N/A' sorts between The 900 Number and Traffic for Song 2 title, and alphabetically for Artist 2, can it sort to the bottom on these too?

Good work overall on the list! Harrias ^talk 17:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the first two sentences. The N/A thing is not working out as easily as I expected (in the table, its sorting those on the letter 'n' which is why you get what you're seeing) - I can't add the {{sort}} template around it without screwing up the table. Going to see if the n/a template can include a default sort phrase. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had plenty of arguments with {{sort}}! Not the end of the world if it can't go to the bottom, but it'd be preferable. Harrias ^talk 18:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Would replacing "N/A" with an emdash or endash fix the problem? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Most likely yes. If that's acceptable, then I will do that. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be perfectly acceptable with me; with numbers it tends to make the situation worse, but with words you should get away with it! Harrias ^talk 22:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support regardless of where N/A sorts, the list is in my opinion up to FL standards. Harrias ^talk 22:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 17 February 2011 [16].

---

List of heads of state of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel this list meets the FL criteria. And please either support or oppose the list; I don't want the list to fail because of lack of reviewer interest.

Doing Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 06:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I highly doubt that the table is correct.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? --TIAYN (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the right table so odd and so much space above, why not just merge into one table, like here, with an extra column "Vice president"-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there were no vice heads of state before 1977, that's why the header is not located at the start. Even if i did include it at the top header box, what would i do with all the none-existing posts? It's much easier this way, or at least I think it's much easier this way. --TIAYN (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to have something at the top. When I do governor lists and have a state which didn't have a lieutenant governor for a long time, at the top I still say "Lieutenant Governor" with a footnote explaining that the post didn't exist until 19xx. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done --TIAYN (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

;Comments: I, and probably many with me, find the topic of Soviet statesmanship rather confusing, with steady changes to the titles and positions. The article starts off with discussing the definition of the head of state since 1977. Perhaps a softer start would be better, such as saying eleven people have been head of state and four vice. Then discuss the various offices which were regarded as such. I also find that the lead overfocuses on the presidency (which lasted only a year) and less mention is given to the older positions. Presenting the various offices chronologically would also be appreciated. Done on it. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Done Why is Vasili Kuznetsov not numbered? This needs to be explained somehow. Fixed: he was an acting heads of state. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps my knowledge of Soviet affairs is very limited, but I must admit that I have always been under the presumption that both Lenin and Stalin were heads of state, not just heads of government. Of course, this is very naïve of me, but perhaps the lead should mention something of what the difference between the premier and the head of state. I'm working on it. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Explained Why was there no head of state the first five years? The Soviet Union came into existence in 1922, the entity before that was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) which was founded in 1917. These two entities are not the same, for heads of state of the RSFSR, see List of leaders of the Russian SFSR. Done Under convocations, you've used emdashes instead of endashes for ranges. Done Cells lacking images need an emdash. Any possibilities of cropping File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-24000-0472, Berlin, IV. SED-Parteitag.jpg? Zoom in on his face and leave the rest out. I don't know how to do that... --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC) There might be some more, but as I've basically asked you to rephrase part of the lead, I'll wait that before doing a copyedit of it. Overall, it seems like you're getting the hang of listmaking :) Arsenikk (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The lead is better, so I'll be a bit more specific: Done The first sentence is very confusing, as it would initially seem that the Soviet Union only has had heads of state after 1977. It is also a bit confusing because it only half defines the subject—it fails to say who holds the seat, it just states the obvious. Done Very early on you have "...head of state. There have been eleven heads of state. Of the individuals appointed heads of state,..." [my emphasis]. Repetitiveness gets rather weary on the reader. Done Perhaps move the second paragraph higher up, and state deaths-in-office and the like further down. Done Normally it is better to include prose outside of a parenthesis, such as "(reorganized in 1938)" and please avoid double parenthesis. Explained When speaking about soviets in plural, use lower-caps Not when its part of a name. --TIAYN (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Done Early in the third paragraph, use a semicolon in front of "however". Done All words in the following should be lower caps: "First Vice and the fifteen other Vice Chairmens" Done "1977 Soviet Constitution" is linked twice Done One "be" too much in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph Done How was the head of state appointed? Elected by the Supreme Soviet? It is already in the article! The chairman, and the rest of the Presidium, were elected by the Deputies of the Supreme Soviet. The Presidency was elected by the Congress of People's Deputies. --TIAYN (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments (and I won't !vote because you ask, I'll decide when I want) Sure. --TIAYN (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Done "There have been eleven heads ..." sounds like it's still current but I determine, from the infobox that the position no longer exists, so "There were eleven..." is more accurate. Done "Of the individuals appointed heads of state, three of them died in office of natural causes (Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko), two acting (Vasili Kuznetsov and Gennady Yanayev), and four held posts of party leader and head of state simultaneously (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev)." this doesn't make sense. "..., two acting ..."? Perhaps "..., two held the position in a temporary role" or something else. Done "Andropov spent the shortest time in office" Oddly positioned sentence in between two which discuss Kalinin. In fact, the previous sentence (the "..died of...") is also out of place. You should discuss the first appointee in detail before moving on to factoids about the others... Done " it had very little de facto ones." do you mean very "few"? Done What's a "convocation"? Link? Done Non-english references should use the language= parameter. This is already done? --TIAYN (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC) My mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment My screen view the table a little bit false. (I'll try to explain :P) in the sixth row there is a small line that goes to the "Vice heads of state" column a little bit, but not entire. The right border doesn't comprise the table completely and if I scroll down and up, the pitch between the border end and the column border is variable large. And in the last row in the second table half there is a white space between the column header "Vice President (1990–1991)" and "Vacant 15 March 1990 – 27 December 1990". Could you fix this problems, please? I don't know if all screens view this like mine. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would, but there is one problem, I don't understand what the problem is! --TIAYN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. But I question the need for a lot of the styling... why not let the browser and standard sheets do their work? :) --Golbez (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment once again this nomination appears to have stalled. TIAYN, have you notified the various relevant wikiprojects that this nomination needs input, reviews, opinions? If we don't see some movement soon I think we'll need to archive the nomination. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I'm working on it! --TIAYN (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comments - Would it be easier to split off the Vice head into its own table? the huge Rowspan just looks terribly unprofessional. Afro (Talk) 18:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• You use Rowspan with the change of the title of the office I was thinking whether it'd be better to provide a note in the term of office row in the first column this new title is given. Afro (Talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I must admit, I don't understand your point. --TIAYN (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry if my comment isn't clear enough, what I mean is you use the rowspan to designate when the name of the office was changed, I was wondering whether it'd be better to explain these in notes. Afro (Talk) 20:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still in the black here, do you mean to replace the title headers? If so no, I'm opposed to that idea. Second, I just this method on the recently List of Premiers of the Soviet Union article, which you supported, so I don't understand why you are opposed to the headers. Thirdly, have I miss intepret your comment? --TIAYN (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm just floating around the idea, I'm not opposed as such, just thought I would put out an idea if it might improve the article, but since its been shot down lets move on. WP:LEAD#Length suggests the lead should be no longer than 4 paragraphs. Afro (Talk) 14:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed/Done --TIAYN (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 18:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

some comments on the footnotes/citations:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles indicates initial caps of titles. currently, this article's various citations (books and news articles) do not follow this.
  • Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• WP:ISBN indicates "Stylistically, please:

Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007 and issued to new books.

• • Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Use dashes if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of dashes varies between books."

• • Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• some news articles are missing bylines. in the absence of a byline, one can put "staff writer" so the reader knows that the byline was not forgotten when preparing citations.
  • Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• what are credentials of "sssr.ru" and "Hrono.ru? (currently footnotes #22 and #31, respectively). are there wikipedia articles on these websites?--96.232.126.111 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

comment on accessibility:

• WP:ALT discusses the need for "alt" text for images for those using screen readers (or users on platforms that do not offer images).--96.232.126.111 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Regardless of how poorly you regard the statements, it's extremely poor form to remove someone else's civil comments, especially from your own nomination. If they're worthy of removal, certainly someone else will do it. --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I replaced them. TIAYN, it's far better to respond to the comments rather than simply delete them. And actually, they don't seem at all unreasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: After fixing a couple of errors and Russian in the article, it looks okay to go to me. Might be a good idea to split the currently rather big lead into subsections dedicated to each of the listed head of state groups, i.e. "Chairman of the CEC" (most of the second para), "Chairman of the Presidium" (last sentence of the second para and all of the third), "President" (last para). --illythr (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support... I don't really see the point in breaking the list into sections, It would over-complicate things. Of course, If you could show me a version of it in a sandbox I may reconsider. --TIAYN (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 17 February 2011 [17].

---

List of WWE Divas Champions

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've been through here. I'm nominating this list to prevent our lovely Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions FT from being delisted. It's modeled after the numerous champion list FLs and as always, I'll address any concerns brought forward. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - Per WP:ABBR state names should not be abbreviated. Ref 14 does not cover the entire Notes section of Reign 10. Ref 5 does not cover the notes section of Reign 2 and in fact Solie.org claims the championship was won on December 23. Afro (Talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • But, WP:ABBR doesn't say anything about lists. All of the ref have been fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• The MOS is for use in the English Wikipedia if you didn't read the first paragraph which happens to include lists. Specifically in WP:ABBR it says "Current and former postal codes and abbreviations—such as TX for Texas, Calif. for California, Yorks for Yorkshire—should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." Afro (Talk) 23:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but this isn't "normal text", it's a list. Most lists I've seen previously have used abbreviations to save space and make the columns narrower. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• For what it's worth all the draft pick lists I've worked on use full state names, though the CITY, STATE isn't alone in the box (so it rarely determines the size of that column). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I guess since there's no guideline against it I'll accept it as a personal peeve, I have no objections to the promotion. Afro (Talk) 12:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I did some small fixes, but based on the numerous FL's I've worked on about championships this follows the same formula and checks out in my eyes. Meets WP:WIAFL, good job Scorp nice to another list from ya.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• What does "as in the Raw brand having the WWE Women's Championship" mean in the context of that sentence? You may want to check that.
  • I've re-worded to "as a counterpart to the Raw brand's WWE Womens Championship"
• Don't need to link any of the wrestlers more than once in the lead.
  • Fixed.
• Check the sorting of Combined days in the combined reigns list. The reign with 47+ days isn't sorting correctly for me when going from lowest to highest. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I know what is wrong with it, but I have no idea how to fix it. The number in question uses wikicode, {{age in days|month1=11|day1=21|year1=2010}}+ gets "5096+". However, the other rows use {{sort|056|56}}. The formula is used because Natalya is the current champion and so that the page doesn't need to be updated every single day. So that's the issue, but I don't know how to fix it (other than just going back to manually updating the number, which I'm against). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• You should be using {{Age in days nts}}. Afro (Talk) 06:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Images are good, but that lead image is 60% blinds... Womens Championship should be Women's Championship. Fixed. "alludes to " does it "allude to" or is it simply a reference to? Fixed. "Divas Champion" vs "Diva's Champion" ... consistency. Fixed. Link names in notes as it's a sortable table so not sure which one will come first. Done. Days held =0 deserves a note I think. And why does it sort below the en-dash? Done on both. Presumably when the title wasn't held, it wasn't held for a period? You could add that into the Days held col with a note? Where is rank 6 in the Combined days table? Good question, fixed. McCool's caption doesn't need a full stop. Fixed. Refs 4, 7 and 11 link WWE but the others don't. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion0422 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Combined days doesn't sort properly (in Safari, probably because of the +) Hmm, I'm not sure what is up with that. It's because the + sign is outside the template and then Safari treats it as alphanumeric text rather than just pure numbers. I'll see if I can fiddle a horrible fix for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) No luck for me in a quick attempt I'm afraid, sorting is still broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support no flaws against the criteria as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --WillC 04:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:Comment from Wrestlinglover Well well well, beat me too it. I had always planned to do this list and kept putting it off. Well I guess I'll try to help best I can with some comments. I haven't been on here in a while, and I decided to get on just to help out here. I noticed the sorting is off, that is a simple fix. Try List of TNA Women's Knockout Champions box text and format in there. It should fix the problem. Could you be more specific? The Knockout article appears to use a broken sort template in the combined section, but I tried it in this one and it didn't work. Interesting, I'll work with it and see if I can get it to work.--WillC 06:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "by submission on July 20, 2008 at WWE's The Great American Bash" How the match was won is not significant. If it was a legit fight I would understand, but not in mock combat. Done. Fox should be sorted by Fox, not her first name. It already sorts by her last name. Hum, when I checked the other day it didn't. Weird, must have been an error on my part. "It can only be contested for in WWE's women's division." Don't really have a source for this, and we've seen from history that is not always the case. Remove. Actually, no man has ever competed for this title, so I see no reason why it should be removed. Yes, but the statement is still not sourced. "This was contested in a Fatal 4-Way match that also involved Gail Kim and Maryse." I don't see the significance, the title is contested in multi-person matches all the time, not really something important. If someone other than the champion was pinned to win it, then I guess it would be important, and as such it should be included. If that is not the case, then I'd say remove it. It is cruft in my opinion otherwise. Fair enough, but I think that any stipulations that effected the outcome of the match should be mentioned, including match types and extra opponents. Question is, did they effect the match outcome though? "owned by the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) promotion." change to "owned by the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) professional wrestling promotion. It already says " is a professional wrestling women's championship" earlier in the sentence. Further explanation of WWE is also useful. It helps explain it is a wrestling company and not just a company. I've always been against WP:PW's stance that this needs to be re-iterated in every single page. Putting that twice in one sentence is quite unnecessary and I think most people realize what the WWE is. WP:PW is the only project I've ever seen that actually advocates using clunky sentences and unnecessary explanation for pretty basic stuff. For example, using your advice, the opening statemenr for Stanley Cup should be "Stanley Cup (French: La Coupe Stanley) is an ice hockey club trophy, awarded annually to the ice hockey league National Hockey League (NHL) playoffs champion". -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 04:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Never been a problem in the countless FLs I've done. I feel it just adds more to the sentence. I say link promotion to professional wrestling promotion.--WillC 04:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I'd remove the N/A section as it is not being used. The "As of" parts, as it is pretty much common sense and is updated automatically.**Personally, I think most of the key is rather unnecessary. It seems that whoever added it was following the old stereotype that most wrestling fans are idiots.
• As for the references, there are too many WWE to third party. This is the largest wrestling company in the world, and thus the article covering one of its titles should be sourced not entirely by primary sources. I'd like to see one third party reference for each reign added. This should be very easy, as WrestleView, Slam sports, and PWTorch certainly have plenty.
  • I've never really understood that line of thinking. Yes, we are encouraged to use third party sourcing, particularily in bios, but I think in a list like this, it's perfectly acceptable. After all, it is the WWE's belt, and the history (unlike, say, the tag team titles) is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial.
    • I understand that idea, but to best cover a subject is to include a wide varity of sources.--WillC 06:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
      • If I were a casual reader, I would put a lot more stock in the official website than I would in one I'd never heard of. Besides, links to other histories and sites are also provided. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 04:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
        • It isn't just about the casual reader, it is more about providing a well sourced and documented article. WWE changes its history and stance all the time. It is best to also provide a non-partisan account of the events as well. It isn't that hard to do, certainly with a subject as this.

I hope these all help.--WillC 07:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem.

I've removed the statement about only being in the women's division. For the record, I'm not going to act on any of your other suggestions. I feel that they are either unnecessary (adding more refs) or detract from the article (making the opening sentence quite clunky). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay so you feel a hyper-link is clunky? You also feel making sure a "Featured Article" is sourced well with a wide varity of sources is unnecessary? And for some reason "As of ???" is important to the article when the article is updated automaticly and it is assumed to be up to date? Now as for the match types thing, nicely an ip included the reason the matches should be included in the article. They actually effect the history as the champion was not pinned in the match.--WillC 08:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

professional wrestling promotion is already linked to in the opening sentence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, two left to go. A simple removal of templates, which conflict with common sense and sourcing the article with third-party refs when it is mainly sourced by primary, and it is meant to be an FA.--WillC 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the status on Will's remaining concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think extra refs are needed, links to title histories from other sites are provided, I think adding more citations to the table would simply add clutter, rather than doing any real good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clutter is just an excuse, you just don't want to do the work. This is a featured article, sourced primarily with primary sources. Notice List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, has two refs per reign and is not cluttered.--WillC 05:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is a Featured List candidated, not a featured article. By the way, you can't really compare this with the TNA list, because TNA doesn't have a full title history at their website like the WWE does. Does adding a few citations to a PWT article that barely mentions the relevant change vastly improve the article? Nope. It has nothing to do with laziness, I just don't see adding clutter as an improvement. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This will become a featured article in a since. Both Lists and Articles are featured material. TNA does not add links to each reign like WWE but at times have a title history on their website. However, the WWE links add no more information than a slam or PWTorch ref usually. However, PWTorch refs can add more, with real world events, rather than storyline excuses. Seen from the TNA list, the clutter excuse is non-sense.--WillC 22:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I see no issues-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tending towards oppose The "List of combined reigns" section is completely unreferenced. I understand that the combined-reign stats could trivially be obtained by adding up the "Days held" numbers; however, without external sources, there is no justification that such a statistic (i.e. combined reigns) is notable. In other words: arguably any number of statistics can be generated from a given set of data, so what makes combined reigns particularly noteworthy? Minor: it is unclear what Location means in the first table. Could you explain it in the key?—indopug (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's basically a summary table. It tells you all of the winners, their number of reigns and their combined reigns, so all of the important information in the main table. Summary tables are done in many sports-related lists (particularily championships). I'm not sure why you would think that their combined reign length is not notable for inclusion. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also a source is not really needed, as we can determine the days with the age in days template. Plus the tables are included due to an agreement at WP:PW, so it is notable to an extent.--WillC 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - looks OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Is this a RAW-only title or a WWE-wide title? I ask because the lead says it can now be won on any brand, but the table says it became RAW-exclusive when Maryse was drafted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's true, but at the end of that paragraph it says "The title is now accessible to both WWE brands and the champion can appear on both shows." It became a WWE-wide title after the unification in the summer of 2010. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nono, I'm talking about that sentence in the lead and then the sentence in the TABLE "The championship became exclusive to the Raw brand on April 13, 2009 when Maryse was drafted.[6]" There is no corresponding sentence in the table describing when it goes WWE-wide. All I can say is it was a little confusing to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The tenth entry says "The WWE Women's Championship was also on the line, meaning the winner would unify the two championships. The title was referred to as the WWE Unified Divas Championship for weeks afterward, and became accessible on both Raw and SmackDown brands." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I can explain it. What the lead sentence refers to is the WWE Draft in 2009 where Maryse was drafted or traded from SmackDown to Raw. Because of that the Divas title became exclusive to that show. It became a World Wide title at SummerSlam (2010) last August. If your still confused contact me.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nono, it makes sense, I just didn't read that 10th entry properly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, I don't see any further issues, and I don't consider the oppose to be actionable. It's merely repeating what's been said in the earlier table. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:44, 15 February 2011 [18].

---

Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album

Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, in being based from the numerous Grammy Award lists done by AnotherBeliever, I believe this article meets featured list standards. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Great list, but I think "for her self-titled, debut album" "debut album" should be italicized. Also

• • Ref. 2: |accessdate=April 24, 2010 should be |accessdate=2010-04-24, like all the other refs.

Done

• • Ref. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12: <ref>{{cite web| should be the cite news template, newspaper -> publisher

Although published by newspaper companies, these stories were not printed in these newspapers, only via online, which is why it is cite web not cite news.

• • Ref. 5, 8, about com refs: |work=''[[Grammy Awards|Grammy.com]]'' delink this please and about com refs too (the publisher and the work), except ref 9

Done

• • How reliable is about.com?

Not sure, but I know it comes up alot in discussions, but About.com is published by The New York Times Company. Its usage was green-lit in the FLC of Fantasia Barrino discography also Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Also delink "The New York Times Company" in the refs 10, 11, 12. No need to link so much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Well, I see no issues.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I am glad to see others contributors working on Grammy Awards lists. I hope you don't mind me making several edits to the list, mostly to increase consistency with other Grammy-related lists with FL status. Suggestions: I would definitely replace the About.com sources with more reliable news sources. The Fox News source proves that Ashanti won the award, but you need to find a source that mentions other nominees, otherwise there is no way to verify the information presented in the Nominees column. Ditto for the 2005 nominees. <--------------------------- this still needs to be addressed (source does not verify nominees) Addressed own concern... --Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Alt text is needed for the images (see other FL Grammy lists for examples) --Another Believer (Talk) 19:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the promotion of this list regardless of whether or not a sentence about the compilation album (see below) is included. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments I haven't reviewed a Grammy list before, so please forgive me if I misinterpret something... "Award recipients included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists." - source? This statement is used in the several Grammy lists done by AnotherBeliever. The general source covers this. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC) In some years either the winner or other nominees do not appear in the refs Working on that. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I can't see any issues. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to reviewers – I am working on it, just letting you know I haven't abandoned the FLC. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, that was a week ago, how's it going? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Candy, please let me know if you require assistance. Although this is your expansion and nomination, I am happy to help if need be. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • On that note, please notify me when all current outstanding issues are resolved (if possible) and I'll give the list a look too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, everything has been addressed except for the Alt text, because I'm not sure how true it is, but in a past GA or FA review I was told that alt text was no longer a requirement. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a requirement but a really good thing to have. Do the alt (or get someone to help) and then I'll review the list myself. Thanks for getting back to us. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added alt text per request on my talk page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Everything looks good and in order. Nice one Candy :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - You shouldn't be using the small html tags to minimize text these should be done through automated facilities in the table. Afro (Talk) 18:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Don't see any problems =D, great job!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do any reviewers think it might be worth noting that several of the nominated and award-winning artists appear on Ultimate Grammy Collection: Contemporary R&B, a 2007 compilation album highlighting contemporary R&B music? I am on the fence, as the album is related to the award in that its the same affiliation (Grammy) and genre, but it is not specifically about the award itself. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. The single relevance of this list is the award of a Grammy, not inclusion of work in a subsequent album... (but that is just my opinion...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I don't feel inclusion is necessary--just wanted to make sure it wasn't overlooked. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:58, 14 February 2011 [19].

---

List of Pittsburgh Pirates first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm back baby! (sort of) Survived semester 1 of law school (aka boot camp) and now I have at least a little more time to return to Wiki editing. After wrapping up another article I'd left hanging I figured I should jump back into comfortable waters to restart my list work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Bonds' caption should be seven instead of "7" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "estbalishment" - !? Lulz, done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "and a third baseman though have never selected" - and a third baseman, but have never selected Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "Seven of the players" "Three of the Pirates'" Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "on the 1971 championship team while Steve Nicosia (1973)" - on the 1971 championship team, and Steve Nicosia (1973) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "seven Most Valuable Player awards, two while with Pittsburgh, more than any other player." - this is ambiguous wording. Is it the seven MVPs that's the most among players, or the two with Pittsburgh? (I know the answer, but FLC is the devil's advocate, after all.) Reworded to put the Pittsburgh bit after the record. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Perhaps link "single-season" to Progression of the single-season MLB home run record or List of Major League Baseball home run champions Went with the progression link as that's actually on the single-season record, not just individual champs. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "though they did receive a compensation pick for not signing second-round selection Tanner Scheppers in 2008 which they used to take Victor Black in 2009." - kind of run-on-y and a bit ambiguous. I might suggest the following re-word: though they did receive a compensation pick in 2008 for not signing second-round selection Tanner Scheppers; the selection was used to take Victor Black in 2009. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "(with permission from MLB)," - change comma to semicolon Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) "the Pirates' renegotiated" - remove apostrophe Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) NBSP the years used as indicators in the table Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Fix sorting of Tony Sanchez. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) J.J. should be J. J. Fix'd. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Thankee good sir. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments welcome back Stax, kinda missed you in a regular kinda way! Some stuff, you know the score... Why is Rule 4 Draft linked in the opening sentence or so? It's a redirect, but I see no other link to a draft in that opening bit... I guess it should link in "of the draft" (which probably needs explanation actually...) Did you mean why isn't it linked? I'll add it in, it does make sense. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "players picked in the first round by Pittsburgh" do you really need to re-iterate that it was in the first round (you've got the title of the list and your stuff in the first para of the lead to cover this enough, surely?) Edited, I've kept up this type of repeating to avoid any confusion. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "did not appear in the World Series" what does this mean to a non-expert? got a nice link? This is a complex issue, somewhat. Berra played for the Pirates the year they won a championship and his Wiki article (for what that's worth) lists him as a champion. I believe the rule is that anyone who appeared for the team that season gets a ring, whether or not you actually appear in the series. For example Bengie Molina appeared for both the Rangers AND the Giants last season, so Yahoo Sports noted that he would get a World Series ring no matter who won. The idea is that Berra helped the Pirates win a championship that year (by playing in the games he did play in) even though he didn't actually appear in the series that won them the ring. Think of it this way, President Bush was thanking you equally for working for his campaign in 2000 whether you were a staffer in Wyoming (which he dominantly won), Massachusetts (where he lost horribly), or Florida (effectively the "World Series" that gave him the presidency). Regardless of the specific effect of your actions you generally contributed to the success. Similarly though Berra did not participate in the World Series they won (which directly got them the championship) he participated in the season overall. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I suspect, given the complexity of the explanation (!) it needs rephrasing.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Yeah, that was a bad explanation. What I mean is that when I hear "So and so won a championship" your initial thought is that they actually participated in the series/game/whatever that awarded the championship, but that's not the rule in MLB. Hence the current phrasing about winning, but with a note that he didn't play in the series. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "including two while with Pittsburgh" not sure of the point of "while" here? Removed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) " after-deadline" perhaps an Americanism but I'd prefer post-deadline? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "and ultimately the Pirates renegotiated a final deal" a lot of finality here. Just one would do. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Per WP:ACCESS (we've been working a lot with User:RexxS lately) can you check that § is accessible, i.e. read out by a screen-reader? Not a major point, but one which if we can pervade the FLC process with, eventually it'll be second nature to us all and no trauma to use in future. Where can I check that? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Best bet is to ask User:RexxS directly. He's been very generous with his time with us ACCESS luddites/philistines, so if you're willing to ask him, no doubt he'll be willing to help out! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I left him a message on his talk page. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The § is accessible for JAWS users (I checked with Graham87), and shows up as º in Lynx, so I doubt there is any accessibility problem with it. --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Are you using the upright parameter for the images? Maholm shows narrow vs Walker. Perhaps it's a resolution thing? Everything but Walker has upright. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Now that you've attracted my attention, I ought to say that the tables' accessibility would benefit from marking up the column and row headers. MOS:ACCESS#Data tables is the guideline, and I'd be happy to help if needed. By the way, is everything in the main table centred just because that's a preference, or would it be just as good if everything were left-aligned? --RexxS (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's purely style for the center-alignment, but I really do feel it looks better that way. As for "marking up the column/row headers", what do you mean? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Row headers are probably something new since you were last here, Stax; the primary element in each row (here, the players' names) should be marked up as headers. Good baseball example is Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A). — KV5 • Talk • 03:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for being cryptic, Stax. If we make the player's name into a row header, we can ensure that a screen reader is able to announce that for each data cell, if required. Imagine going down the Position column blindly. If all you heard was "Position, Outfielder", "Position Shortstop", then you'd not get much information, whereas if you heard "Doug Dickerson, Position, Outfielder", "Richie Hebner '71, Position, Shortstop", that would be much more informative. We want to allow visually-impaired viewers to navigate tables in any way they want – as sighted viewers can. The markup you need is e.g. ! scope="row" | Doug Dickerson, for each player's name cell. The complication here is that headers are bold & centred by default, so we normally force them back to left-aligned and normal weight with the "plainrowheaders" class. If you're still uncertain and you'd like me to mark-up this list as an example for you, I'd be happy to do that for you. --RexxS (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be totally fine with left aligned text, so if you can do up this list that'd be great. I'm just worried from the sound of what you're saying that it'll change the outward look of the list (beyond the text alignment). Will the names still be in their own column? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the names still have their own column; the only change you'll see, if you're using "plainrowheaders", is that the names will have a slightly darker background, the same color of the column headers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Despite my failure to make row headers into row headers (as opposed to column headers) first time, I've now managed to mark up the table correctly. I hope that looking at the current wiki-code, you can see the general principle. The plainrowheaders has no effect on accessibility, but obviously creates a visual effect that you may prefer. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Coolio, thanks! Why is it, though, that you can't center align with this additional screen-reader-friendliness? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, mainly because it was a real struggle to get "plainrowheaders" incorporated into common.css (see MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12#some wikitable ideas and MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12#Bold row headers for a blow-by-blow). It is only a minority proportion of tables (such as yours) which would benefit from the "non-bold, but centred" styling, so it is much harder to go to the keepers of common.css and argue for yet another style class. That's not to say it can't be done, but I'm going to have to take more ammunition to the debate than "it looks better centred", as you can see from those discussions I linked above. In the meantime, if you feel strongly about the visual effect (and there's no reason why you shouldn't), then applying style="text-align: center;" to each row header will produce the desired effect, but it's very messy - and don't let Jack Merridew know I told you! --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• All done, thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in reference 12 needs italics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • In the second paragraph, you could add a sentence on any players from Pennsylvania. The lead is plenty long as is so it's not necessary.

• Only one guy, so I didn't add it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Having the compensatory draft picks start near the end of the third paragraph threw me off, that stuff seems to fit much better in the fourth; I'd move the last couple sentences down.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• • On a note unrelated to the FLC, have we ever had a first-round draft pick reach the Hall of Fame? We have that sentence in probably every article and I can't remember a single one. (There will probably be one in the last of the 30 lists we write up..)

• Jim Rice from the Red Sox, and Dave Winfield from the Padres. Also should be (but won't be) Clemens from the Sox and of course Bonds. Plus Biggio for the Astros will get in eventually. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Griffey and Jeter also, and probably Mauer and Longoria down the road. Manny for the Indians, ARod for the Ms, and Palmeiro for the Cubs are more PED should-be-but-might-nots. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yount and Molitor for the Brewers are in, Larkin will get in for the Reds next couple years. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Makes sense when you think about it. Draft started in 1965, probably at least 1-2 years of minors, and a HoF career is 20ish years, then 5 years before HoF ballot #1. So you're talking 1990-92 for the absolute earliest possible draftee elections. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Easy fixes, do those and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Support, issues fixed. Yeah, it seems like there are a lot on the horizon at least for the Hall. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I don't see any problems other than Wizardman's paragraph balancing concern. I know you'll sort that out, so... Courcelles 08:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [20].

---

Grammy Award for Best Rock Song

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 00:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy-related lists with FL status. Just a couple more rock lists to go and all of the rock music categories will have FL status!

One comment for this list: the award honors songwriters, so in the Nominees column I went ahead and included the songwriter(s) following the performing artist(s) and works. However, due to space limitations, I did not do the same for the Songwriter(s) column if the recipients were a band with multiple members. I think it's safe to say that if one sees "U2" is designated as the songwriter then members of that band wrote the song (and they can click on the link to the article for that band if they are not familiar with the members). If reviewers think this is an instance of inconsistency, feel free to offer suggestions. One possibility is to present the information the same way in the Nominees column (band name instead of individual band members). Thanks, as always, to reviews to taking the time to offer suggestions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support The only issue I found was that the image of Sting needs a full stop/period per WP:CAPTION as it is a full sentence. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Another great list in this series. Couldn't find anything to comment on. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Two-time recipients.." rather assumes there were no 3-time winners? Perhaps "Other winners of multiple awards include.. with two." (or something far more elegant...!) Works for me! Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) What does the stuff in parentheses mean in the nominees column? Songwriter credits. See my starting comment above. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Jon Buckland, according to Wikipedia, is best known as Jonny Buckland. Is he called Jon here because that's his credit on the nomination? Presumably, yes. However, I think "Jonny Buckland" is best for consistency. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Not sure if you should link all members of a band when most/all members link back to the band (e.g. Nickelback, Train, Mumford & Sons etc) Ah! I thought I was on top of linking only band members with their own article. I will go through the list again and remove re-directs. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Your caption names the Kings of Leon members but not U2 members, is that because you're assuming we all know who The Edge is?! Certainly not! :p I am not familiar with most of these bands--I just created captions based on the image descriptions provided or the caption that appeared on the article I took the image from (with edits to relate to the list, of course). Let me know if any caption requires additional specificity. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Just think U2 seems to stand out for not naming the members, Bono, The Edge, Clayton and Mullen all have their own articles... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC) No prob. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support kapow. Great work, once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
*Comment In addition to TRM's comments, make sure every nominee has those parenthesis if you're going to use them- see 1996. Courcelles 20:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Done. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [21].

---

Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles (and provides even more detail than) the MusiCares Person of the Year list, which has FL status. Thanks, reviewers, for your assistance! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment b.1942 -> b. 1942-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year" (per the title) or "Latin Recording Academy's Person of the Year" per the lead and infobox? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I think most organisations refer to the week of Latin Grammy week with a capital W. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) You say Gloria is Cuban American after mentioning her (also) Cuban American husband without referring to his nationality. Seems an odd way round. Better? Must have been an odd lead construction process. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) "Gloria received the.." I think you could safely say "She (had previously) received.."? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) "The .. award was presented to ..." starts two paras, a tiny bit repetitive. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Uber picky but I don't like the use of {{cite news}} for online references, especially as (for whatever stupid reason) it formats differently from the {{cite web}} parameters (e.g. publication date in parentheses...) I, too, am bothered by the formatting differences sometimes, but I think those discrepancies should be discussed at the template talk pages. I have been asked several times to use "cite news" templates for news sources regardless of whether they are online or printed. For the sake of using the template one is probably supposed to use, I would prefer to leave the ref formatting as is for now. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I understand. This wasn't intended to be a criticism of the list, more a despair over the inconsistent template formats. I wouldn't argue if you use {{cite web}} for all web-based resources, but if you've been told otherwise... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I have been told otherwise. Also, I have noticed that the references display differently depending on the parameters entered. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Yeah, still not keen but not going to be opinionated about it! Good work on the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks, TRM! Please let me know if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the "recipient" column, on my screen at least, is enormously wide, about twice the width of any of the names. Is there any reason for this? Otherwise, all looks OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reduced column width by 100px. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - all looks alright now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - got no issues with this list, good quick response (as ever) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comment My one concern is that the birth years aren't in the references, at least for the three I checked. Courcelles 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm, true. I got lifetime details from the Wikipedia articles about the subjects. Let me know if you feel citing birth years is necessary. I included years so readers could get a general idea of age and whether or not the artist is still alive. Keep in mind, none of the Grammy lists have a reference specifically citing which nation the performing artists are from. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Ouch, I think that may created another problem...!! If you take WP:REF to its letter, anything challenged (or challengeable) should be referenced, and here, Courcelles has challenged the birth years... Just putting it out there.. ! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I'd be happy to add references for birth years. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I think that's the best approach. Alternatively decide if birth years are really relevant to the list and skip the column altogether? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I don't really doubt they're right, but I also know how often vandals have "fun" by changing folks DOB in their biographies, so trusting ourselves to be internally correct does concern me a bit. Courcelles 19:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, good work as usual. Courcelles 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [22].

---

Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist

Nominator(s): PresN 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Back once more with the 11th of 14 lists. We're definitely winding down this cruise of the Hugo awards; we're done with all the written works, the magazines, editors, and movies, so we now move on to Best Professional Artist. Unlike other Hugo awards, there's no mention of what works the artists in question worked on in the eligibility year; the award is simply noted as going to such-and-such. This makes the table narrower than previous nominations, though I kept the same format. I've tried to incorporate suggestions and changes from previous nominations into this list, as usual. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Wow, I just had a terrible thought. Any chance that any of these (or other Hugo Award recipients) have images? It would be nice to see something to "bling up" the list if possible (but I accept that means heading back to the other 10 lists for consistency)... That is a terrible thought! I'll look and see if I can find enough free-use images for this article. I don't think I want them for most of the other articles, such as novels, as I'd need pictures of the winning novels, not who wrote them, but for these "people" awards it makes sense to have pictures of the winners. No promises on this one- despite winning this award, these guys are famous only in a small niche, so free-use photos might be difficult. Is that the best link you could find for artist? If so, it's probably not even worth linking... Delinked. "These five works on the ballot are the five most-nominated ..." perhaps just "These five works on the ballot are those most-nominated.." to reduce repetitive use of "five".... Done. "The 1953 through 1958 awards did ..." reads very awkwardly to me (as a Brit), perhaps "Awards from 1953 to 1958 did not..."? Reworded. "and are held in a different city around " don't need to repeat "are held" (in my opinion). Removed. Note 1 probably needs citation. Got one that states that no awards at all had to be given in a year for it to be eligible to be a retro year. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Commented inline. --PresN 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Went through the list and found nothing that concerned me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support went back through the list after my niggles, no problemo for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Standard fare, you know what you're doing, no issues to my eye. Courcelles 19:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [23].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Jacques Kallis

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 12:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another cricket centuries list, from perhaps one of the most underrated cricketers currently plying his trade on the international circuit. This one follows the format of those that have come before it, but as usual I expect a few things will crop up! Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Harrias ^talk 12:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments "the greatest cricketer ever" - one source says this, so I'm not entirely convinced. Although it's factually accurate, it's just POV, albeit of a single published journalist... you know what I mean? I know exactly what you mean: I deliberated long and hard over whether to put this in. I'll probably take it out, but for the moment I will leave it there to consider how to rephrase the opening. Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) "best all-rounders of all time" unfortunate repeat of "all..." reads a little awkwardly for me. Assuming the above quote is taken out, 'off all time' could be replaced by 'ever'?Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) "a run he continued in his ..." I think he "extended" the run... Done, changed as suggested. Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) "Kallis reached his 22nd century during the 2004–05 tour of the West Indies, and passed Gary Kirsten as South Africa's leading run-scorer in Test cricket." I think the facts are the wrong way round. Becoming top SA scorer is much more relevant than it being his 22nd century. Done: Absolutely: changed order of the sentence. Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) You have "Sir Donald Bradman" and also "Don Bradman" - perhaps the second could just be "Bradman"? Done, changed as suggested. Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) You link both not out and unbeaten to the same thing. Perhaps, for the sake of non-experts, stick to the same phrasing? I linked them both so that I could use them both; I didn't like to repeat the one phrase twice. Can change it, but will wait for further opinion unless you feel strongly about this. Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) "a run-a-ball" not sure this should be hyphenated. I've never seen it written that way. Perhaps "one run per delivery" or something for accessibility to non-experts? Done, changed as suggested. Yeah, I just couldn't think of the best way to write it!Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) "behind only the 21 scored" no need for "only". Done, changed as suggested. Sensationalism creeps in! Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Please note the discussion over the accessibility of the "suit symbols", e.g. the spade symbol, here. Hopefully we can replace the existing symbols with those that can be interpreted by screen readers in due course. Done, changed to {{dagger}}. Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Now changed to {{double-dagger}} to avoid confusion with the standard use of the single dagger / cross to represent a wicket-keeper.Harrias talk 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I was just this second going to suggest you did that. You read my mind. And thanks for taking the time to do the ACCESS thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) That's fine: we want as many people as possible to be able to use this information. I've gone through all my other featured lists and made the changes too. Harrias talk 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC) In the table, is "Date" the date of the start of the match or the start of the innings or something else? Done, added to key. Harrias talk 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Maybe (just maybe) consider a "South African cricket..." category... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Full disclosure: I made a cleanup edit right after the article was created, when it was up for DYK. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support made one minor edit regarding which "South Africa" needed linking first in the key, but otherwise an excellent addition, stable, factually correct, well referenced and a good addition to our numerous cricket FLs. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Just noticed that we never point out that a century has to be 100 runs in a single innings. Given he scored two centuries in one match, worth doing. Surely we have a link for "strike-rate" for the uninitiated? Not out is linked three times in the lede. Any reason why? Is there a reason not to give the strike rate for the test matches? There is, and it's rather assumptive to be fair. Test cricket is not about how quickly a player scores, so strike rate is rarely, if ever, even mentioned in a Test cricket scenario. I accept it's cricket-centric, a little like some of those many baseball stats we Brits find utterly inaccessible! Finding a ref to say what I've just said may be difficult though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Courcelles 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments: I have expanded the definition of century to include "in a single innings", and have linked strike-rate (I hadn't got it in before as I'd linked to strike-rate from "runs per hundred balls" just beforehand). Have unlinked not out in one place in the lead, think the other occasions are suitably linked. And I refer to TRMs comment regarding strike-rate in Test matches: it's not the most relevant statistic. Harrias talk 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for the explanation, gents. Courcelles 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [24].

---

List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)

Nominator(s): 03md 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it could be ready to become a featured list. 03md 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: It looks as though the bulk of this page (i.e., the entire table, over 420 entries) depends entirely on one Web site. I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate copyright-wise to keep the text at the top and the photos at the right, lop off the entire table at the bottom, and add www.stretfordend.co.uk to the External Links section. Same for the List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances), which takes some 214 more entries from www.stretfordend.co.uk. I know they wouldn't be lists then, but it'd save us the embarrassment of ripping off what I think is an entire Web site. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I actually took my information for the majority of the entries from the general reference by Ivan Ponting (listed at the bottom of the article). The list follows the format of List of Manchester United F.C. players and exists as a seperate article due to size constraints. Would it be appropriate to just reference from the website for post-2008 players (as the book only goes up to this point). 03md 00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• The hyphen after 1908 in the first paragraph should be an en dash.
  • Now there's nothing there at all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Add "and", replacing the comma in "along with 11 FA Cups, four Football League Cups."
• Decapitalize Champions.
• The Reference column can be shortened to Ref or similar. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• All done. 03md 12:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - I dislike the idea of two separate formats for the key can't the Table header key and position key be formatted in the same way?. The fair-use for the Frank Buckley image prohibits use in the article. Afro (Talk) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why does this list exit? Is an under 25 caps at Manchester notable enough to create a list out of it? Do all players that played for Manchester deserve a list? Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Even then, the intro should mention the highest goalscorer in this category, and possibly how many played only once. Nergaal (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd assume that, as a list of all players who've ever played for the club (well over 1000, I would estimate) would be unfeasibly enromous, it has been broken down into subsections per WP:SIZE. You could eqaully ask why Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A), which is already at FL status, exists when there is nothing specifically notable about the combination of having played for the Phillies and having a surname beginning with A....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I did not say don't include the players playing at the club, just not all of them. Those playing one game, and not even having their full name are just too not notable. I think part of this list should be merged into the 100-25 one and about 90% of it just discarded. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
        • ......which would presumably leave us with List of some, but not all, Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 100 appearances) - how would that work exactly.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• On the Phillies list which was brought up earlier people of note in A are 3 hall of famers one of which has a retired number, just to clear that up. Maybe if we're discussing a content move it'd be easier to have it as List of notable people Manchester United F.C. players with fewer than 25 appearances. Afro (Talk) 03:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Phillies B list (also an existing FL) contains 179 players of which 4 are in the HoF (2.2%) but it also contains such total non-entities as Dan Boitano (only 1 inning pitched for the team), Art Bramhall (1 career at-bat) and Joe Bennett (1 game played in his entire career with no at-bats). The Man U list also contains some former football greats (Henrik Larsson, Peter Beardsley) alongside comparative nobodies. If it is acceptable for the Phillies to have multiple such FLs, why not Man U......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose wp:CFORK of the sub 100 caps one. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• The two sub-100 lists can be merged if it is a problem. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not convinced the list is going to be particularly stable, it's going to be prone to {{update}} after every match or so. Agree with Chris that the existence is probably as arbitrarily acceptable as Phillies (A) etc. An example of the potential instability is what you have in the lead : "As of December 2010, a total of 424 players have played fewer than 25 competitive matches..." this could change on a regular basis. This is the case for all team articles. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, and oddly, I'd make it into the list because I've made fewer than 25 appearances for MUFC... This is the title of similar articles for other clubs and I can't think of an alternative. The fact that it is "Man United players" should remove that ambiguity. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) What makes mufcinfo.com reliable? The whole list is referenced by the general reference so these links can be removed if necessary. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Some spaced hyphens in those reference titles, should be en-dashes. Done. 03md 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC) This list seems to be sorted initially by the career years. Seems a little odd to me, why not just by name? In any case, there's a problem because if you sort by years, the list changes (slightly) so something's out of order. I followed the layout of List of Manchester United F.C. players. I'm not sure what is causing an error in the article. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Well, try sorting it yourself, you'll see that Owen/Doughty reverse order when sorting initially by span. I guess it should be alphabetical when the starting year is the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC) "If a player played international football, the country/countries he played for are shown. Otherwise, the player's nationality is given as their country of birth." - how do I tell the difference? Should I add in a column for international caps while at the club? 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) You should distinguish between the two categories of players you've mentioned here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Technically, List of Manchester United F.C. players should list all the players to have made an appearance for the club as anyone to have played professional football is considered notable under WP:Notability. However it is unfeasible to have a list of 1000 players so for size reasons it has been split. I took a similar approach as for the Birmingham, Huddersfield etc. in terms of splitting up the players.

Comments If this list is failed primarily on the grounds that it is an excessive split, I will nominate the A, B and C (and if applicable, D) Phillies lists for FLRC. Although my personal opinion is that the Manchester United lists could easily be consolidated into two, United make a far stronger case for three lists than the Phillies do for twenty-one. —WFC— 15:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

*To say Larsson "inspired" United to the title is arguably true, but a pretty strong claim. —WFC— Changed the wording slightly. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) While I think Jimmy Davis does merit a special mention in the lead, Geoff Bent should receive the same treatment. Same goes if any players on this list had their Manchester United careers ended by being killed in wartime. Added Geoff Bent to lede but will have to find out about wartime deaths. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) I have concerns over whether the 424 statistic could/would be accurately updated if you were to stop editing the list. I have inserted similar phrases into similar lists in the past. But while it is possible to verify the total number of players for a club, or the total number of drivers in a racing category, it would be far harder to do so for the number of players below an arbitrary appearance threshold. —WFC— I don't think this is really too much of an issue, as only a handful of new players are added to or removed from the list each year, with Fabio and Smalling are the only two members of the current playing staff who may reach 25 appearances by the end of this season, for example. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) I feel this is a valid list, as expressed above. My personal preference would be for two lists, but 1-100 and >100 would be a lopsided split, so in the absence of consensus on the issue I think consolidation would be an unreasonable demand to make. —WFC— 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Unless a player literally played everywhere (like Steve Palmer, for instance), I'm not too keen on the "utility player" designation. As an example, Roger Doughty is listed on his page as an outside left and right back. Surely it would be more informative to communicate both positions? —WFC— The policy adopted by the main Manchester United players article was that players were designated as "GK", "DF", "MF" or "FW" regardless of their exact defensive or attacking position, with "HB" and "FB" for pre-1960s players. I could make list both positions for Doughty though if you feel this would be better rather than "Utility". 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) I think that would be a good approach. Given how messy Andrei Kanchelskis's nationality is on the main list, I don't really get why the authors there decided that two positions was too much. —WFC— 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Done. 03md 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Cool. One last thing on this subject- the row in the key and corresponding note are now redundant. —WFC— 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, no further problems. Well done! —WFC— 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback. 03md 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comments In a paper encyclopaedia, this list would not exist. Not because listing everyone who has played for MUFC is not notable, but rather because on paper you can just keep going and going. Here, we have WP:SIZE for a reason, and a breakup that contains 400 names is in no way a fork. (I think the alphabetical split of the Phillies lists, while creating more articles, is slightly more user-friendly, but that's likely just me. (And editor friendly, as noone ever needs to be moved between lists using that format)) See my comment about updating the list above. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) "A further 22 players made more than 20 appearances in their Manchester United career." Uh... everyone on the other lists has made more than 20 appearances, too... Removed this sentence. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) File:Major Frank Buckley.jpg is a non-free image without hint of a fair-use rationale for this use. One will not be able to be written for this article anyway, so remove it. Removed. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Who publishes StretfordEnd.co.uk? Courcelles 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Suggestion: add StretfordEnd.co.uk as a general ref (keep the specific ones too though). This would enable you to add every minute bit of information there is about the ref, without the need to repeat anything more than is necessary the other 420-odd times. In answer to Courcelles' question, it's published by Barn End Media [25] —WFC— 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks mate. I've added this as a general reference. 03md 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 09:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks mate. 03md 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm rather interested in Courcelles' first point. Would it be better from a stability and usability point of view to list these players by surname, rather than appearances, like the Phillies? I think the notability stems from them actually playing for MUFC, not how many times they've played for MUFC, but that is my opinion.... It may be that we need a wider discussion on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think a broad discussion would be needed on the issue of appearances vs surnames, as the majority of clubs have a list of players who have reached a certain appearance threshold. I had the idea for the lists after seeing List of Manchester United F.C. players, which imho is a very good list and allows for discussion about the most successful players to appear for the club. In multiple alphabetical lists, this would be much more difficult to achieve. 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. But I'm confused by the difference between this list and the Phillies one. Are you arguing against a Phillies alphabetical list? And what do you mean by "most successful players"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• By most successful players, I meant the players featured on List of Manchester United F.C. players who have reached a certain appearance threshold. Alphabetical lists would limit the sorting functionality to the number of appearances by players beginning with a particular letter. Other sports may take different approaches but, in football, the most significant statistics are the appearances and goals. 03md 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know enough on the topic to properly review the list, but I see nothing wrong with the split style. The Phillies' list went with the alphabetical style laid out in the Medal of Honor lists because (I assume, I chatted with KV5 on these lists but not about this particular reason) baseball "appearances" are less clear (how do you weigh pitchers vs. hitters? Or pinch hitters/runners? Or even defensive replacements?). So long as the overall roster is notable, which it clearly is, then it simply becomes a WP:ACCESS issue of how to best present the information in a manageable and readable way. I see nothing wrong with either approach, appearances or alphabet, so long as the field/topic allows it (hence the alphabetical styling for baseball). Note that, for example, List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage has a "appearances" style cut-off (though not in the title) requiring at least 3,000 plate appearances both because that's what the excellent B-Ref uses but also because it draws a nice WP:ACCESS balance of not including the quickies who don't really belong amongst the long term .400-ers. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I see no problems here, and I don't have any issues with the splitting. You just need to switch round refs 2 and 3 after "....winning the European Cup" so that they're in numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for your feedback Chris. 03md 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support no major traumas. I still think, if the initial sort is by span, then when I force the table to sort by span, Doughty shouldn't move, but no biggie. Probably blame lack of support for Safari on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [26].

---

List of demolished places of worship in Brighton and Hove

Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a companion list to the longer established List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove. Having reviewed the sources on several occasions, I am confident that I have found every former, now-demolished place of worship in the city (even the really obscure ones, and there are a few of those). Each is given a comprehensive summary "blurb". None have separate articles, but in my view there is not really enough material to produce a standalone article about any of them – and in any case I would argue that the notability threshold would have to be higher for a building that is no longer is existence. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion: I don't like the table very much. My suggestions:
  1. Replace the table with mine in my sandbox or
  2. Keep the tables but place the pics besides the table to the right.

I prefer suggestion number one. Remember it is just a suggestion :). Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately #1 doesn't like my screen resolution or something: it has made the table about six times wider than the screen, so I have to scroll across a very long way to get to the end. On #2: since there are few relevant pictures for this list, I deliberately placed them throughout the first three paragraphs to break up the walls of text. Hope that sounds reasonable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to note the width in the table in his sandbox is 550%. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mh, my screen shows it normally. If it is so, then it shouldn't be replaced. But I don't like the space right beside of the table. Has anyone a suggestion how to delete this space? The list is very good, but triffles like this space might be improved, if it is possible. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll need help/advice with this from others who have different screen settings, as everything looks completely "correct" on my home and work computers (I use IE8 and IE6 respectively). Hopefully there might be a solution that accommodates all variants. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments nice list. "The city was granted that status in 2000 " slightly confusing reading. I had to click the link to understand the sentence... →Now reworded, hopefully a bit clearer. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) " the fashionable" is that a fact? Is it referenced? →Refs now added, also for Hove's mostly Victorian residential status. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) "Both places ... had..." reads quite colloquially to me. Could we "elegantise" this? →I've rewritten the whole sentence. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Not 100% convinced you need to link all of "More than 150 of these survive" - perhaps just link "survive"? Although it's not a big deal by any means. →I've cut down the link to just "survive". Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) "one in particular survived" always interested in the "in particular" thing. What does that add? →Removed. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps link pew for non-experts. →Linked. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Not keen on whole sentences in parentheses, not sure I see the point...! If it's a footnote, make it so.. →Probably pertinent enough to stay in the body of the text rather than be put in a note, so I have removed the parentheses. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) "Six of the 11 Wagner" just say eleven here for MOS consistency. →Done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) "a former Urban District " just "urban district" would be fine. →Done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Do you really need to relink Hove in the displaced congregations section? →Unlinked. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) "and (because of the Congregational–Presbyterian merger) surplus to" replace parentheses with commas here. →Done, but I have replaced a comma earlier in the sentence with a semicolon in case there is comma overload. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Consider linking Mass for non-experts. →First instance linked. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments and observations; changes are highlighted in this diff. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) On my browser the images squash the main list up a bit. →In reference to my note above, I'll see if anybody can suggest anything to improve the layout. Is it happening just in the Displaced Congregations paragraph, or in all three paragraphs where there are images? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I'm using horizontal resolution of around 1050 pixels, it's probably because of the Christ the King church image which ends up leaking over and squishing the table up. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I;ve taken out the Circus Street Market pic from above it, which should give more room in that paragraph. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support happy now, very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Is it really necessary to link the c. (circa) so much? Anyway, I support this. It is really sad that there are no pics with licenses :/. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 20:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

*Comments How confident are we that this is a complete list? Is there a source for the 38 number, or is that arrived at by counting the items on the list? "knocked down" is rather informal language for an encyclopaedia. I think all of these are places of Christian worship. Is that worth pointing out? Courcelles 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your comments Courcelles; →There is no single definitive source for the total number of demolished churches; the 38 is reached by counting, so I could replace with e.g. "more than 30" if preferred (I have done this for now). →All examples changed (although difficult to find varied wording!). →All were indeed Christian churches; B&H's places of worship have always been almost exclusively Christian (today, of about 160 places of worship, the only exceptions are two mosques); I have altered a sentence in the lead anyway, though. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support AS to the "more than 30", it's ugly, but until a number can be sourced, better not to assume everything that could be listed is listed. Courcelles 20:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011 [27].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1943)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the third of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently a featured list), 1942 (currently a featured list), 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Why is "court martial" in quotes, and why isn't it hyphenated, like our own article? done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC) "therefore denoted in brackets" - you mean parentheses. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Generalleutnant and Generalmajor link to the same page, this is confusing. Generalleutnant#World War II explains the difference. Please advise on how you want me to handle this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Okay, well it's a shame it couldn't linked more directly for each term, but no major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Consider using {{cite web}} for the external links and use the language parameter if these are (as they look) German language. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Recipients of 1943: In the parenthetical Army, there's a bracket that shouldn't be there.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• If possible, make it so that note 15 doesn't have the contraction ("hadn't").
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Minor again, but reference 126 has a stray quotation mark. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment:
  • in Note # 15: "Stadler himself claimed that Dietrich proposed him on 22 March 1945..." I don't believe that "proposed him" is grammatically correct. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by it, so I haven't tweaked it. Are you using it to say "presented the medal to him"? If so, I think it should be changed to that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It better reads as "claimed that Dietrich had nominated him on 22 March 1945". Does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, a well-written list that I see no problems with. Only concern I may have is the number of redlinks, since I'm sure they could all be blue, but that's not an FLC issue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support next up, 1944/45? Good, patient work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Nice work!Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support As I would expect, you have this down by now. Courcelles 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:47, 7 February 2011 [28].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (D)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been around much lately, but I just saw that the C list passed, and the D one has been sitting around waiting to go, so other than the fact that I haven't done the alt text yet, have at it. All comments addressed as expediently as possible. — KV5 • Talk • 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on accessibility: Apart from the missing alt text, the article has a high standard of accessibility. I'll be happy to support on those grounds once alt text is added. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Alt text done. — KV5 • Talk • 13:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - all the accessibility issues have been resolved. --RexxS (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments " (plaque thereon pictured)." a little anachronistic for me, maybe "(plaque pictured)". Question: when the next season starts and more players play for the team, 26 articles (or so) will need updating just because they say how many players (1,881 so far) have played for the Phillies. You need to make sure these will all be updated as and when or have you considered (or do you already use) a template? "Hit" is linked to two different articles which is confusing to a non-expert. Ed Delahanty is the only one you mention in the lead, so you don't need to repeat his first name. ERA is not linked or explained. I think we've established that just italics aren't good enough for WP:ACCESS unless you write in the key "Italics indicate that ...", but for clarity, talk to User:RexxS. He's an ACCESS diamond. "Phillies bullpen" should that be "Phillies' bullpen"? Okay, note S says stats are cool up to the end of the 2010 season. Do you intend to update this list just once per year? It would be worth noting that from the start perhaps. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Few replies: Template for multi-use numbers is already in use. Either "Phillies bullpen" or "Phillies' bullpen" are acceptable use; one uses the team name as an adjective and the other as a possessive. And yes, stats will only be updated at the end of a season; players who join the team in-season are noted with the year and a note in the final column saying that they joined the team during the season. The rest I'll address probably... Saturday morning Eastern Time at best estimate. — KV5 • Talk • 02:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Or I could just do them now. Plaque done, hit done, Delahanty done. ERA was linked (earned run average) but I forgot to write in the abbreviation after first use. I'm sure RexxS will check back in here after I do alt text (which I can't do right now) and then maybe he can weigh in on the italics. Adding the statement to the key is easy if necessary, as it's also a template. — KV5 • Talk • 02:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC) I checked in anyway :D. I'd just amend Template:Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster/Key in the Year row to say something like "Italic text indicates that the player is a member of the Phillies' active (25-man) roster" – that would warn JAWS users like Graham87 to turn on presentational announcements, and they would then hear where you italicised the year in the main table. The other option (of abandoning italics in favour of yet another symbol) may be accessible to a slightly larger audience, but as italics are already used for this in 21 of your articles, it would be churlish of me to suggest that amount of change for a minor gain. --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Easy enough. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 12:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Change "an" to "a" in "He amassed an 42–36 pitching record".
• Jose DeJesus isn't sorting in the proper order in the table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done both. — KV5 • Talk • 22:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support With one question/request. Could you add the general Phillies template to the bottom of each roster sub-article? They look naked with no nav-box down there, IMO, and it makes sense (at least to me) to have access to general Phillies' articles from these. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• One of the previous FLCs brought this up. I agree with the need for a navbox, but neither this article nor the other sublists are linked from the main Phillies template, so its inclusion wouldn't be appropriate here. — KV5 • Talk • 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Only issue I have is in one of the images, it reads "Ed Daily won 42 games and hit 6 home runs." The six can be written out. If numbers under ten are in that form near a larger number, than a couple different images need to be tweaked so it's consistent. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I consider those to be "comparable quantities", a listed exception in MOS:NUM. — KV5 • Talk • 21:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:40, 3 February 2011 [29].

---

List of Oxford United F.C. records and statistics

Nominator(s): Eddie6705 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i spent quite a while working on this list in my sandbox, refering to List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics and List of Gillingham F.C. records and statistics as i did. I feel it passes the FL criteria, but am more than happy to correct anything which you feel isn't quite right. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Somewhat troubling I get the feeling this is based on the first of these lists to be promoted, namely the Ipswich one, so I'd better be careful! Would be best to say "association football" (because so many of our readers don't understand that football is football, it could be played by massive blokes in body armour..) Done. "before changing its name in " (presumably to OUFC) this is not clear. Done. "Oxford spent three years in the First Division between 1985 and 1988." that's four years.... Made Clearer. "2010–11 season" vs "2005–2006 season" consistent year format. Done. "first major-trophy" not sure that needs a hyphen. Removed. Also not sure what a "major" trophy is. Added note. "Football Conference They returned" missing some punctuation here, and probably the references for the previous sentence. Added full stop. "Conference National Play-off Final in 2010." ref? Added ref. Queen's Park.. should be Queens Park... Changed. Could link directly to 1986 Football League Cup Final for the cup win. Changed Link. "League cup" ->Cup. Corrected. "The Third Division, Second Division and League cup victories all occurred within the space of two years" not true - you said they won the third division twice, so they couldn't do this, and the second division within two years. Clarified. "Pre-advent"/"Post-advent" - let's talk straight - "Before the .." and "Following the..."? Differently worded. Appearances "other" column doesn't sort correctly in Safari. Notes, in that table, don't need to be sortable. Done, also for top goalscorers. "Most goals in a Football League match: 4, 6 players.[29]" I don't understand this at all. 4 goals, 6 players? Oh, hang on. Four goals have been scored by an individual on six different occasions? Not clear... Changed. Top goalscorers, Total doesn't sort correctly in Safari. "Appearances are included in brackets. " I guess you mean "substitute appearances are included in parentheses"? It's getting confusing what italics mean in this table as well. Changed and Removed the italics which were emphasing the sub apps. Total Caps -> Total caps. Done. Transfer fee tables suddenly become unsortable, why? Don't know. have made record fees recieved and spent sortable, although im not sure how to properly sort the date. Leworthy, first table July 1985 #200k, second table missing, should be between Slatter and Houghton if this is correct. Or perhaps the December 1985 date is incorrect in the second table... Date was wrong in first table, corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Have made the suggested changes apart from the two sortable issues (is actually three as the league cup column doesnt sort either) as i will try and fix these later. Also im not sure what you mean from your first sentance. I had never looked at the Ipswich article until you pointed it out. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I meant nothing to worry about, just that this list appeared to be heavily based on the first one of its type to become featured, namely the Ipswich one, which I helped get there. Nothing more! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I have tried a few things with the tables but can't the three trouble columns to sort properly. It must be something to do with the columns having either mostly single digits then one or two double digit values, or mostly double digit values and one three digit value. Do you know anyone who could help fix them, my table knowledge is fairly poor. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Tables now sort. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support lots of feedback, good reaction from the nominator in dealing with it all, no major flaws. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Firstly, sorry I didn't get to the peer review. When I used to review regularly here I frequently used to suggest that people got their lists peer-reviewed first, rather than bringing them here nowhere near ready expecting FLC to be a glorified peer review, so it's not really very impressive me failing to get to yours when it was open for ages. So some of this will be nit-picking PR-ish, for which again I apologise. Struway2 (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Lead. Might read better as "first winner of a major trophy ...". The fact needs citing, and ideally, them having won something major needs mentioning before the fact depending on it. Can't find a ref for it so i have reworded and moved the major trophy mention higher up. Honours and achievements. Remove sponsored name from image caption Done. Don't like them winning "over York City"; could turn it round to make it simply "when they beat York City 3-1 in the Conf..." Reworded. Could mention best top-flight finish in the prose; staying up is almost as much of an achievement as getting up :-) Very true, have added. Not sure you need two consecutive headings both saying (The) Football League Done. If it was me, I'd use the layout as at the Gillingham list i.e using (level x), which can be linked to English football league system, to show that Third Division and Division Two are the same thing Added levels. Be consistent with your formatting: in the Football League section, you have a colon between Division and Champions, where in the Southern League, you have it between Champions and years Fixed. FA Cup season should be 1963–64, not 1963–1964, and link to that season's FA Cup article, not the generic ... in English football Changed both. Player records. Table sorting. You need to use the {{sort}} template to force the sorting order. What doesn't help, probably, is that you were copying the Gillingham list which also doesn't sort properly. Have a look at the code at Ipswich or Birmingham, both work, but they do it differently (at Birmingham, every entry uses the sort template, at Ipswich, only those entries that actually need the extra formatting have it). If you still can't sort it out yourself, I'll do it. I have added the sort template in both tables but the three problem columns still aren't sorting properly. I'd put notes a-c as explanatory notes below the table, rather than in a Notes section miles away Moved. Top goalscorers. Do something with the column widths so that the Total column, which logically should be at least as wide as the others if not wider, isn't all squashed up. Done. Contents of footnote D would be more helpfully placed in with the other explanatory notes above the table. The word "appearances" above that table is missing its initial "a" Added the a and Moved the footnote to under the table. Magilton image caption isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop Removed. Transfer fees. MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names says we can't stick flags next to player's names without the name of the country as well. Either add a column for the flag/country name or lose the flags. Removed flags. If you're keeping the flag/countries, be careful what you're choosing. Flags should reflect the player's sporting nationality, so e.g. the Scottish flag is totally wrong for Ray Houghton, a Ireland international. And be historically accurate, e.g the modern Indian flag is inappropriate for Bud Houghton, who was born in pre-independent India to an Anglo-Indian family who came to the UK as soon as India gained independence; if he's anything, he's British. N/A. Record transfer fees paid. Left-align player and club columns as per other tables. To sort the dates, use the {{dts}} template: format each date like {{dts|format=dmy|1998|July|}}. Works with full dates or parts thereof. Done. Progressive transfer fees paid. I might right-align the fees column The article for your redlinked Mick Bullock is at Mickey Bullock; there's a redirect from the other spelling of Mick(e)y but if he was known as Mick when he was with your lot, suggest you create another redirect at that name Done. Saunders image caption: hyphenate "first million-pound signing" Done. Managerial records. Link caretaker manager Done. Club records. If you're having full stops at the end of each entry, check that you have them at the end of every entry Done. In the Honours bit, you used the format Second Division for "old" Div 2, and Division Two for "new", yet in this section you're using Division Two for both without distinction. The reader would think that Most FL goals and Fewest FL goals records were set at the same level, and they weren't. What I did was used the Second Division format throughout, and put (level 3) in brackets where 2nd Div didn't actually mean 2nd tier. Done. Points. Clicking on notes G and H doesn't do anything. Again, I'd include the content of the notes in the section they apply to. Moved. References. #5 and others. <code>|work=Football Club History Database |publisher=Richard Rundle</code> :'''Done'''. * #6. Should be <code>|work=The Guardian</code> or <code>|newspaper=The Guardian</code>, not <code>|publisher=Guardian</code>. Similarly #46 Oxford Mail. See [[Template:Cite news#Essential parameters]] :'''Done'''. * #7. <code>|work=Carling Cup official website |publisher=Coors Brewers</code> Done. #37. Is there nothing better than RageOnline for Mr Constable's recent stats? Not that i am aware of. Soccerbase doesn't include all of his appearances. Progressive transfer fees paid. I might right-align the fees column. Left this comment open, as I wasn't sure if you hadn't seen it or just chosen not to do it. Also, whether you change the alignment or not, suggest moving note B to above the table as an explanation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Ahh i must have missed that somehow! I have aligned the column (also in Progressive transfer fees recieved) and moved the note. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I have made the above changes, and i will add the country name and check flags for the transfer fee tables later today. I have added the sort temp into the two tables, but the columns still don't sort properly. Would you be able to have a look? And don't worry about missing the peer review, its bound to happen where the timing is unfortunate for some people. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Now removed flags. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Meets FL criteria, and echo what TRM says above about the nominator. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "John Shuker holds the record for the most appearances for the club since the club joined the Football League." Redundant use of "club" here. It would be easy to switch the second usage to "since they joined" or similar. There's a strange mix of italics and non-italics in the citations' page numbers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Have removed the use of club for Shuker and removed italics from the page numbers. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry that I missed this earlier, but I have one more concern: reference 46 needs a publisher. Also, you might want to double-check the title to see if "Mangers" is a typo. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Have fixed typo and added publisher. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:40, 3 February 2011 [30].

---

List of Premiers of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This time, can someone actually review the list before it fails? Last time it wasn't promoted because of lack of reviewer interest. --TIAYN (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 19:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Would be nice if you move {{Soviet Union sidebar}} to the reference section beside the refs to the right (if this is possible). If not then let it. But I give you a support.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment perhaps, instead of being rude, you could be pleasant about asking others to review the list. People spend a lot of time here at FLC, and I don't think your tone encourages anyone to come and review this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for being impolite, but when my nomination fails because of lack of reviewer interest it is rather enoying. But again sorry, I didn't mean to offend. --TIAYN (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand how frustrating it can be. Let's hope we can gain sufficient support and interest this time! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

;Comments Overall good, just a few oddities: Done A ccording to the MOS, the term "premier" (and other titles) is only capitalized when used uniquely. So "The office of Premier of the Soviet Union..." is correct, while in "Thirteen individuals have been Premier.", "premier" should be uncapitalized. "Soviet Premier" is also okay, as it is a unique title. Done "RSFSR" needs explaining. I have no idea what that is. Done The "RSFSR government" should have government capitalized, as it is a proper noun. Done The sentence "There was no method of automatic succession to the Premier's office." is unreferenced. Done Under Rykov, "would later, in 1930 lose" sounds awkward; either remove "later" or stick a comma after 1930 (later is strictly speaking redundant here). Emdashes should be center-aligned. What does that mean? --TIAYN (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Where there are emdashes (—), center them within the cell using align=center | — Arsenikk (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Done "Eastern Bloc" is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Similarly, while not directly related to the list, individual government articles are also proper nouns (and thus capitalized). What do you mean? --TIAYN (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) "Rykov's Government" instead of "Rykov's government", etc. But this is just the link, so it is irrelevant to this review, really. Arsenikk (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Done To me it seems redundant with "in the USSR" in "Oversaw the period of de-Stalinization in the USSR." Done The second sentence under Pavlov is very long; could you for instance add a comma before "which attempted". Done File:Tihonov.jpg and File:Valentin Pavlov.JPG are non-free. While it is most probably alright to use it on the article about them, it is not in accordance with our fair use rules to use it in a list of people. Done See also links should only be included if not in the navigational boxes. Done The article should not be in Category:Lists of office-holders by country. It should either be moved one step down, or a category for Soviet office-holders be created. In general the list looks very good. It is also appreciated that you are working on an important field (one of the most important countries to ever have existed) which is generally poorly covered on Wikipedia. Arsenikk (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much Arsenikk, and thanks for taking your time to actually review this article! :) --TIAYN (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support neat and informative list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments – Here are a few things I must have missed the first time I reviewed this list.

• Done "Thirteen individuals have been premier. Two of the twelve premiers...". One of these figures can't be right. Upon inspection, I think it's the first one, which appears to be counting Stalin twice.
• Done Vyacheslav Molotov: "the implementation of the first First Five-Year Plan". If there was only one First Five-Year Plan, this is a glaring prose redundancy.
• Done Nikolai Buganin: "accused of being a member of a Anti-Party Group". Change the second "a" to " the", assuming there was one Anti-Party Group, which our article on it indicates. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:40, 3 February 2011 [31].

---

Linkin Park discography

Nominator(s): Neo139 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I don't know what else I can do with it xD I think I meets criteria to be featured. --Neo139 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral Support - I don't find this list to reach FL criteria. Additionally, you are repeating similar things that were mentioned in the previous FLs. This list still needs a lot of work. I suggest you retract the nomination. CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from >--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

**Firstly, the lead is littered with song titles. Instead, you should list some of the more popular ones and list their accomplishments. Done I changed completely the lead. Deleted the list of song titles. Check it.--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The lead is not very-well written and is missing sources. Done. Added sources to the lead--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You violate MoS issues quite frequently. Where?--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) If it was the albums linked on the single tables, I just unlinked them.2--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) To reduce bulk, we do not include certifications that are not in the table, like most of the ones you entered. This has been told to you in the previous FLs Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The list of countries in the table should be consistent throughout the article, not changing after every table. Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The EPs are unsourced. How are we to know they exist if they never charted anywhere? Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) How are the other songs from different albums "as a featured artist"? I don't understand what you mean--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Videos that have not charted anywhere need to be referenced. How do we know they exist? Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You have fixed up some stuff, I still have some concerns. The lead is unimpressive. This needs fixing. YOu have it littered with song titles. Make it read from one sentence to another, like a history book. Look at other fellow FLs to see. Also, you should put a * before every countries certification. Work on this and I will take a look at the references.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Changed lead. Check it^^--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I see you have fixed up some things, and it is looking better. The lead is still a big issue. Aside from the aforementioned problems with it, you have quite a few grammar issues. To sample, you refer to the band as "it" this is weird, they should be referred to by name or they, it is an album, song or object. Next, these are the sourcing issues. They are quite frankly missing a lot. Almost every ref has issues, here are a few samples.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)ç Changed Its-->Their --Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Ref 1 - Askmen.com is not a reliable source. Done Replaced--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Ref 2 - is missing a work and/or publisher - Now that I look its unreliable, popstarplus.com Done Replaced--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 - is missing a publisher - Prometheus Global Media Done Added Prometheus Global Media as publisher in all the billboard sources--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Ref 4 - allmusic is the work, All Media Guide (its owner) is the publisher. allmusic.com does not work here. There are many more, as I said, lots to do. Done Fixed all allmusic sources.--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Also, I have added publisher and work to all the refs I could found that information.3--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Getting there. Still to do. The lead is looking much better. You should include info on their US sales and certifications, as well as some of their higher European or Asian certs. Also, it would be beneficial if you included another column for sales in the US (soundScan sales which can be found anywhere). Next, you should align the tables to be the same length. Ref problems still present. To reference the Grammy awards, use this the Grammy official website (rockonthenet isn't reliable). Now for refs. Done I added a bit about US certifications and Europe cert in the lead. I added a column to albums for Sales in the US. Now the tables have the same width (1000). Deleted rockonthenet source and added grammy website. --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Ref 1 - Still missing publisher - News Corporation Done --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Ref 8 - Missing date - People is the work and Time Warner is the publisher. There still so many refs with issues. Take the tips I gave you and apply them everywhere.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Done Added Time Warner as publisher. Sometimes I'm not sure who is the work and who the publisher :\ --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I changed it to neutral for now, as you have definitely improved it a lot. There are still issues, which you will have to fix to earn my complete support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC) have been certified as Platinum -> they have been certified at least platinum Done. --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Their hit single "In the End" -> This is not neutral Done. Deleted the word hit --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Still issues with the refs. REF 1 - The Times is the work, News Corporation is the publisher. Done. The Times was work, and News Corp the publisher. The problem was The times had semicolons --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) REF 4 - is not properly formatted. Plus, Allmusic is the work and All Media Guide is the publisher. Done. Some as above. Also, changed author= for first= and last= --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) REF 6 - Billboard doesn't come up as italicized. When you put the work=, you don't have to place italics on each side of the work, it does it automatically. Placing them has the opposite effect. Done Fixed all billboard refs--Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) REF 8 - not properly formatted. Done author-> first= and last= changed --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) REF 9 - ifpi.org doesn't belong here. Just IFPI like you have Done--Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) REF 11 - not reliable to source this Done. TIAYN fixed it =P --Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) REF 15 - Missing date, author and link MTV and the publisher is MTV Networks. Same with REF 18 Done Added date, link and author. Also removed the link to the next MTV ref to avoid WP:OVERLINK, added publisher to both ref 15 and 18. Also, I not sure if I have to add the MTV Networks publisher to all the MTV references or just the one that are MTV News. (Most MTV Ref are links to videos)--Neo139 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Many more issues continue.

• Oppose per Nathan.
• Support – All issues were fixed. The table is okay now. Novice7 | Talk 04:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Novice7

Comments Use of "#" is discouraged. Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Why are the certifications put in <small> format? Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Also, the first paragraph is filled with singles and not albums. Done Added content about first album and most notable album in the first paragraph--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) One of the music videos is unsourced too. Done--Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Again, "—" denotes releases that did not chart. → What if it was not released in that territory? Done. I will fix the remain issues tomorrow. Its almost 5am here xD--Neo139 (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC) In featured artist table, I'm Serious appearance is unsourced. Done--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) How much reliable is Lprevolution.org? Not sure. I added three more refs I found just in case.--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Some references are missing a Language parameter. These are not much of issues. Done1--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The singles still fill up the first paragraph. You might want to arrange them chronologically. Done I removed most singles on the first paragraph, instead, I add more information about charting/sales records.--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You might want to ask for a copy-edit on the lead. Maybe I'll support then. I just asked for a copy-edit. I hope he will help me soon. --Neo139 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Lead copy-edited4--Neo139 (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Okay, now the tables look too wide and out of screen. "The album was (number) best selling album of (year)" – its repetitive. Include that only for important albums. It's good other than this. Changed tables width to 890px. Its currently the minimum number without getting the each Certification in two lines, in studio albums table, with Firefox and font size 16. Also I removed that the first album was the best selling album of 2001, since I already said it was one of the best selling albums of the decade.--Neo139 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the tables are still out of screen and too wide. mmmm, What resolution, browser and font size are you using?Neo139 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Okay, it works in HD resolution. But, for lower resolutions, it does not. Try it yourself. I use Firefox and 16 size font. HD, FF, and 16 size is good, but lower resolutions have the problem. Changed it to 820 width. Try it now. Horizontal should bar should disappear. --Neo139 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm sorry, but I agree per above comments; I would say the same. If every item was done, I'll change my oppose to a support (possibly).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support now-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - Comments i had have been addressed, i unfortunately don't have the time to read check for any new errors so i cannot support it, but i no longer oppose this article being promoted. Nice work. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Neo139 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -

Comments *Oppose - - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Im not happy with the lead, its choppy, i dont feel that it accurately represents the body of the article. With choppy are you referring to the length or the content of the lead? or something else?--Neo139 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC) There is something wrong with the "As lead artist" section which i cant quite put my finger on, one issue is the length of the song field, please see Kesha discography for how it should be formatted. Done: copy/pasted the table class of Kesha discography.--Neo139 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC) References still need work, italics where there should not be italics all over the place. Done: Fixed all the things that should not be in italics (linkinpark.com, australian-charts.com, austriancharts.at, ultraop.be, musicline.de, italiancharts.com, irish-charts.com charts.org.nz chartstats.com , hitparade.ch, mikeshinoda.com). Now only some refs are in italics (allmusic, people, billboard) --Neo139 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Questionable references used throughout. Eg: cyclefly.com and linkinparkru.com and linkin-park.it and mikeshinoda.com. They are blogs and fansites. Not allowed. Done. Content from cyclefly.com, linkinparkru.com and linkin-park.it has been removed. mikeshinoda.com is the official website from Mike Shinoda, guitarist from Linkin Park so its useful as a source for releases.--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) The references are not formatted correctly and are extremely inconsistent. EG: mtv.com. and MTV. Choose one or the other, further, 99% of the references are in italics this is a MOS violation, remove the italics only Magazines and online newspapers should be in italics. Done. All the italics from websites that are not magazines or online newspapers have been removed. I deleted mtv.com and just left MTV in publisher. --Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) WP:CHARTSCHART acharts is extremely frowned upon for a GA let alone and FL. "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives" Done. No more acharts charts.--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Some references contain accessdates, some don't. All must. Done: four refs without accessdate have been fixed. --Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Inconsistent work and publisher fields in the references. Done. per above--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Infobox field is poor. "Remix/Collaboration albums" doesnt link anywhere in the article. Done. Fixed--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Red link of "AUT" is incorrect, there should be no red link as there is an actual page. Done. Fixed--Neo139 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Im sorry but this article needs much much work. I havnt even gone through in detail, this is what ive noticed in a 5 minute glance. Sorry but this needs a peer review not an FL nomination. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I just copyedited the lead; seeing that grammer is not my strong suit, I'd recommend that someone else takes a look at it. --TIAYN (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks. It looks better ^^--Neo139 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Don't use the small tags for the headers Peak chart header. Use either JPN or JAP don't use both. Since its an extended discography I would suggest adding style="text-align:center" to the start of the coding for the tables, to remove the excessive use of align="center". Error in Ref 40. Ref 56 and 63 needs a format parameter. Afro (Talk) 21:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Small tags removed. JAP-->JPN. Added style="text-align:center" in albums/eps/singles table and removed the excessive use of align="center". Fixed Ref 40. And Ref 56 and 63, I don't know what you mean. If you can explain it I will appreciate it.^^ --Neo139 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That means that you need to add format= to the refs. ref 56.2 and 63.2 are both pdf, so you should write format=PDF.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done thanks--Neo139 (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"and was certified Diamond in United States[8][5]" "...number one on the US Billboard 200 and sold over 240,000 in its first week.[22][16]" Refs should be in numerical order. Can better sources not be found for the Soundtracks? example for Dracula 2000 couldn't Play.com or Amazon not be used? Afro (Talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ref in numerical order. More sources added to soundtracks.--Neo139 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making was that IMDB is generally not deemed reliable due to most of the content being user submitted. Afro (Talk) 03:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Its ok. I didn't knew imdb content was user submitted. Anyway, all the soundtracks songs were previously released under albums or singles. Do I deleted the soundtrack section.--Neo139 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Lead needs to be rewritten, there's a lot of choppy prose ("The band is noted for its blend of rap rock and alternative metal" has nothing to do with sentences before and after it). For some reason, Hybrid Theory is discussed twice: I suggest dealing with the band's releases in a strictly chronological order to eliminate such redundancies. Remove information that is not vital to the LP discography; for example, the band-name change and mentions of RHCP and Green Day. Further, I think their LP Underground series of EPs and deserves a mention in the lead. In the compilation appearances (below), only list those songs which have not appeared in another album before. Finally, per WP:LEAD, information that is sourced in the body of the article needn't be cited with references in the lead (chart positions, certifications etc), so I suggest removing the cites to improve readability. Use one of the existing FLs at WP:DISCOG as a template for the lead.—indopug (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done: Deleted "The band is noted for its blend of rap rock and alternative metal. Merged Hybrid Theory info. Added some info about LPU EPs. Now only listing songs which have not appeared in other album before in compilation. Deleted ref in the lead that were already sourced in the body. --Neo139 (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll revisit in a couple of days (you can ping me if I don't). Meanwhile, per WP:DISCOGSTYLE, the soundtracks and compilations sub-sections should only mention songs that the band hadn't already released before, so entries like "One Step Closer" and "Points of Authority" shouldn't be there.—indopug (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Done: deleted soundtracks that the band already released. Thanks

• Comment Have all reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Should I poke them in their talk? --Neo139 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done 1, 2, 3, 4 :P --Neo139 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Is "full-length" really needed in front of "studio albums"? Done removed full-lenght --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Image caption in infobox doesn't need a full stop. Done removed . --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) "The band has ... and have ..." mix up of singular/plural in one sentence... Done changed has for have --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Linkin Park is overlinked in the lead. Done removed second linking --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Hahn/Farrell and Bennington sentences should be merged to stop it reading so choppy. Done merged --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) "Three of their studio albums..." you should be clear -> "Three of the band's studio albums..." Done changed --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Link certified appropriately. Done added link to certified to list of music recording certifications --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) "Linkin Park rose..." start a new para with this. Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) "Meteora was ..." italics. Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) "The band's fourth studio album, A Thousand Suns, was released on September 8, 2010.[16] A Thousand Suns debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 and sold over 240,000 in its first week.[11][17]" merge these to avoid repeating "A Thousand Suns" so quickly. Done merged --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) This may have been discussed before, but I see no merit at all in including LPU. It's not Linkin Park, it's a fan club. If it was for me, I would delete the whole EP section xD. The the band consider this type of releases official and sells them at the official website, even if they don't compile the tracks. --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) I think we normally say "Download" (or similar) rather than "DI" (at least, I've never seen DI as an abbreviation of download...) Done changed DI for Download --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) How is s15.zetaboards.com a WP:RS? Done removed that source and content that were sourced from there --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) In the EPs table, Ref. should be Ref(s). And in other similar tables. Done changed --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Note A is not referenced. Done Added ref --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) X-Ecutioners -> The X-Ecutioners. Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) DJ Q-bert -> DJ Qbert. Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Grand Wizard -> Grand Wizzard... Done --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Why does Patton need three refs for ""P5hng Me A*wy""? Done Commented last ref --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) IMDB is not normally considered a WP:RS. Done No more IMDB refs --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Some ref titles have spaced hyphens, they should be en-dashes per WP:DASH. Done Fixed --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for all the comments. If you have more, they are welcomed. --Neo139 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Minor point, but a period is needed after the sentence "The band has produced ten number-one singles on the US Alternative Songs chart". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done: thanks --Neo139 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:*The opening sentence should have all numbers written in words. Done--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) The opening paragraph has songs without quote marks Done--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Overlinking in lead – eg rock and Europe in the lead Done rock and Europe unlinked--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Try to find some more US sales figures for albums – Yahoo.com can be good I searched all over the Internet and I found the sales but they were in forums because last year lots of SoundScan sales got leaked. I couldn't find reliable sources like yahoo music news or billboard about them.--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Amazon should be Amazon.com Done--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Music videos table has a cite error Done Someone fixed it already--Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC) File:LinkinParkBerlin2010.jpg Looks suspicious. I don't know much about researching copyvio possibilities, so can someone else take a look? (It may be an honest upload, but it doesn't list camera details, which a user upload generally does.) Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I reverse image search with TinEye and couldn't find any results. So its possible that the image is from the user who upload it.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Why not use separate refs for each song for RIAA and RIANZ certs. RIANZ certs definitely should be, as they are done individually, but lumped into one inline citation That was the way it was before but I was asked to put refs together (because it looked messy). Now it has less usability but looks better when looking at the refs as a whole. --Neo139 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC) OK, I don't mind the RIAA certs lumped together, but I still think that RIANZ certs should be in separate citations. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Done. RIANZ certs are now in seperate citations.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Come to think of it, it makes sense for the ARIA certs to be separated as well. Refs should be formatted so that they can be accessed as quickly and easily as possible. Done--Neo139 (talk) 03 35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Media Sauce Limited has nothing to do with RIANZ, as far as I know In the rianz links at the footer appears "Compiled b Media Sauce Limited"--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Allmusic should not be italicised Done--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Ireland should come before Italy in the tables, and Italy should link to Federation of the Italian Music Industry Done--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) You do not always need to give the website. Sources such as ARIA should have the "aria.com.au" removed. Same with iTunes. iTunes should be formatted, '"blahblah". iTunes Store. Apple Inc. Retrieved blahblah.' Done--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• How reliable is mikeshinoda.com?

Mike Shinoda is the dude of Linkin Park.--Neo139 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a good source for certs. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thats true. I removed it.--Neo139 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• I rewrote the lead (mostly rearranging stuff); let me know if I introduced any inaccuracies/deleted any important information.

Thanks ^^--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Most tables don't have the ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that region thing.

Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Most of those featured-artist singles seem to be credited to individual members of the band, as opposed to the band as a whole. I'm not sure they need to be listed (this is a discog of the band, not its individual members). Further, are all these singles, as opposed to just album tracks?

Done. Removed all except the ones that were from the hole band and not just one or two members.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Considering how notable their efforts on the Billboard Alt. songs charts have been, I'm surprised that the chart isn't included in the singles table. Maybe replace the Japan chart (with only two, low-placed entries) with this?

Some months ago US Alt chart was on the article, but was a discussion about this (because of having two US charts). So I got removed, added a new country and talk about Us Alt Chart in the Lead.--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I see a huge amount of hidden text, which the article size very large, and difficult to work on slower connections. Please remove it.

Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• According to the lead, HT was cert, 4x platinum in Europe. Why isn't this in the table, it seems a much bigger deal than the Austrian certs.

I think the same. Some time ago the article had all the certs. That was ok per DISCOG. Then I add a Diamond cert to a FL, and got it reverted. I asked about the revert with no reply. Some weeks later someone changed DISCOGSTLYE (without any discussion) and added that we should only add certs of the countries of the chart table. That was at the same time that I started with this FLC, and users here ask to remove the certs. So I removed. (Didn't had time to discuss in discogstyle talk while running FLC). Now we have less information in favor of looks, but it seems that is what most users want. --Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I see a number of "Records" and "Recordings" under label; these should be removed.

Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Is a separate column required for references? Couldn't you just stick them next to the album/track/EP name? (although this is just a stylistic issue, so it's up to you)

Most article don't use seperate column for refs, but I think it looks better for tables. Its a new trend =P --Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Video albums: since only two albums were certified, I think you can remove that column, and instead add a note below Format for that album—"US certification: platinum". Make the labels as "Warner Bros., Machine Shop".

Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Certifications for Linkin Park albums in Japon", "Peak chart positions for albums of Linkin Park in [the] United Kingdom". In fact, I suggest rewriting these to "Peak chart positions of Linkin Park albums in the <place>".

Done--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Soundtracks and Compilations: why does one have a release date, but the other not? I think a "Year" column for both should be sufficient. In fact, why not the two small tables? Mention "soundtrack" against those that are, in the Title column. Eg: Queen of the Damned soundtrack. Again, these aren't singles—maybe this table and the feat. artist songs table should go under an "Other appearances" section?—indopug (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Added year, and now they are under other appearances section--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments^^--Neo139 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support with final comments:

• Not including the US Alt Songs in the charts is RLY dumb. I suggest you restart the discussion about this after this FLC. If the consensus stands to not include these, listing "Runaway" in the table is strange. Instead, remove it and make a note: "Although 'Runaway' was never released as a single, it charted at ## on the US Alt Songs chart."

Done: Added US Alt Chart. Someone and the talk page asked for it, so the result of the future discussion would be to include.--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think you can merge that featured artist song to the main table, I don't think it is a big deal. But do make another note, clearly stating that LP were only featured artist.

Done--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since "New Divide" is in the Singles table, is it necessary to include in the Soundtracks too? Looking at the songs in Other appearances again, I see that most are only by Chester Bennington, not Linkin Park. Remove these?

Done--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why does Italy come before Ireland in all the tables?—indopug (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Done lol (alphabet fail xd)--Neo139 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question Have you asked the user with the odd name to revisit?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but not since his last revisit. Although the lead has changed in content since his comment, the size is more or less the same and if by choppy he meant the size, I don't know what else I could add that is much important to be in the lead. So I'm not sure if ask for a second revisit or not.--Neo139 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If I were you, I would ask him one more time. That won't hurt.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Done link--Neo139 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:40, 3 February 2011 [32].

---

List of selected stars for navigation

Nominator(s): Haus^Talk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A previous version of this list received some support as a FLC in May 2008. Some ideas came up during the candidacy and have been implemented. The list has recently been peer-reviewed. Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Is there a reason or purpose for the blank row in the large list? Also, the many uses of "Strasbourg Astronomical Data Center (CDS)" in the References section seems redundant--consider using just "CDS" for subsequent uses. Also, I believe "–" is the proper dash for displaying a page range (see Citations section). --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've addressed your points:

• Changed "—" to "–" for page ranges after double-checking WP:DASH.
• Changed "Strasbourg Astronomical Data Center (CDS)" to CDS 56 times.
• Regarding the blank row , I see two options. Either remove it and disable sorting by declination or leave it as it is. If anyone sees another way around this, I'm all ears. I think it was resolved by adding style="display:none;" to the row's formatting. Haus^Talk 10:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Haus^Talk 10:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments I think it would be legit to link star here, in the lead. Could also link Polaris in the lead. Almanac caption doesn't need a full stop. I would link magnitude to Magnitude (astronomy) rather than have "(an indication of brightness)". I think it would be acceptable to move Note 1 to the end of the sentence. As long as it's within the same sentence, no problem. "Key to the Table" -> "Key to the table". "The star's magnitude, an indication of its luminosity is then presented" You've explained what magnitude is twice already so I see no need to repeat this. Distance appears to be missing from the key. I would say it was distance in light years from Earth, but I'm not sure. Overuse of referencing, in my opinion. For instance, you use ref 1 six times to reference the information in the first para about star charts. I think it's unnecessary. No need to use spaced en-dashes in ref 2 & 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. I think I've made most of the suggested changes: Star and Polaris are now linked in the lede. Full stop removed in almanac caption. "magnitude (an indication of brightness)" changed to "magnitude" "Note 1" is now at the end of the sentence. "Key to the Table" changed to "Key to the table" "sidereal hour angle. The star's magnitude, an indication of its luminosity is then presented." changed to "sidereal hour angle, followed by the star's magnitude." Changed 6 refs in first para of star charts section to one at end of para. Changed spaced en-dashes in ref 2 & 3 to unspaced "-". Removed distance column from table, its not germane to the subject. ( HausTalk 11:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC) ) Acrux has a more common name (according to the redirect) of Alpha Crucis. Is that true? Gacrux, Denebola and Rigil Kentaurus similar. "four stars of the easily identified constellation" - beginning to read like a HOWTO guide. Not sure how accessible the charts are, a lot of very very small graphics. The following items may need revisiting: Regarding common names: Acrux, Gacrux, Denebola and Rigil Kentaurus are supported by Bowditch and the Almanac. I'm very hesitant to replace these names with WP's article names. No worries, I was just asking because the redirects stood out to me. I'm no expert, so I'll leave it to your discretion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Regarding size of charts and the HOWTO concern, I'm hesitant to start removing big chunks of content without further elaboration. Per the HOWTO issue, just felt like you needed to make the language more encyclopedic rather than instructive. I wasn't looking to remove chunks of content. Chart sizes, well that's a different matter as I'm not sure how they fare in WP:ACCESS terms. I suggest you ask User:RexxS for a second opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks again for the feedback. HausTalk 11:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have a couple of personal outstanding niggles, but nothing so serious as to stop me supporting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RexxS (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

;Comments from RexxS: First of all, the four star charts are obviously a labour of love, and contain a lot of information, and you deserve commendation for producing them. When considering how WP:ACCESS impacts images, you have to try to figure out how (1) a visually-impaired viewer would see them; and (2) how a blind viewer, using a screen reader such as JAWS, would hear them. The images contain a lot of text, and the key point is to try to ensure that the text is readable by the visually impaired. Good guidance would be to try to keep the displayed text size above 85% of normal displayed text, as anything less will cause problems for some viewers. Nevertheless, modern browsers can be zoomed to make text more readable, and the four images enlarge well, so this is not a problem with them. For images with so much information, I'd normally suggest forcing a larger size, but the two equatorial maps at 600px wide just fit into an 800x600 screen, which is the minimum resolution recommended at WP:ACCESS#Resolution; similarly the two polar maps at 400px wide are at the limit of the guidance at WP:IMGSIZE for floated images. I think you've achieved as good a balance as possible. A screen reader isn't able to access most of the information these images convey, and sometimes we have to accept that we can't provide an equivalent presentation within the image for screen readers. However, the article itself does not suffer as a result, since the information is actually already present in the large table above, and that is usable by a screen reader (but see the next point). The main table really should have 'scope="col" attributes on the column headers; and it would benefit from having row headers for both accessibility and markup reasons. It's early days for these techniques on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't object to promotion on these grounds alone, but it's still best practice. There's guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial. It's a lot to take in, but several editors would be willing to assist if you wanted help in incorporating these. To avoid the nuisance of having the file name read out in a screen reader, every image should have alt text, which a screen reader would hear. The links in the box at the top of this review include a link to altviewer, and you can see that the following images require alt text: File:Nav-icon-sel-mag-1.5.svg - I'd suggest something like alt=magnitude 1.5 File:Nav-icon-sel-mag-1.6.svg File:Nav-icon-tab-mag-2.5.svg File:Nav-icon-tab-mag-2.6.svg File:Nav-icon-untab.svg - I'd suggest something like alt=untabulated File:Bowditch-equatorial-stars-180-360.svg - I'd suggest something like alt=Bowditch equatorial stars, eastern - the alt parameter goes on the first line of the imagemap (see mw:Extension:ImageMap for an example) File:Bowditch-equatorial-stars-0-180.svg File:Navigational-stars-above-30-degrees-north.svg File:Navigational-stars-below-30-degrees-south.svg Summary: Needs alt text; Image size is already optimised; Table would benefit from tweaks. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks RexxS for the very constructive feedback. I think I've addressed most of the suggestions you made, but have a lingering question wrt row headers. scope="col" Added to all column headers of main table. Alt text: according to altviewer, I think I hit all of these. Row-headers: In this diff, I tried using row headers. There were 3 side-effects: the text in the cell was centered and made bold, and the color of the cell was changed. This seems undesirable to me. Am I missing something? If someone could provide a sample edit on one row, I'd be happy to go through and do the remaining rows. Cheers. HausTalk 12:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks Haus, I'm happy to support this FLC. Row headers are desirable because they allow a screen reader to navigate in a non-linear way. For example, a reader could navigate down the Magnitude column and hear "Magnitude" "Alpheratz" "2.06", then "Magnitude" "Ankaa" "2.37", etc. (if Common name contained row headers). Without row headers, they may only hear "Magnitude" "2.06", and so on, which is much less useful. However, as you found, wikimedia software marks up all wikitable headers as bold and centred with a darker background. We are accustomed to that for the column headers, but it is not what we are used to when we start using row headers. Although this is only an aesthetic consideration, many editors don't like it. A partial solution is to set the class of the wikitable to "plainrowheaders", which forces row headers to be left-aligned and normal weight (but leaves the darker background to indicate that they are headers). You can see examples of the comparison between row headers and plainrowheaders at Talk:List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders (which is at FLC) as I'm currently searching for consensus on what is best practice to meet the 'visually appeal' FL criterion 5a. I usually arrange tables so that the row headers are placed as the first column to keep the darker background as a kind of border to the rest of the data in a table. As you can see, incorporating row headers (although desirable for accessibility), entails extra markup and sometimes a restructuring of tables. I don't want this to be seen as a hurdle to FLC, so I'm content to support without them; but if you feel able, then it does add value for a small but significant number of viewers. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support – The issues I raised have all been addressed. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments :This is a list of selected stars, so the obvious question is "selected by whom?" I'm sort of feeling let down by the list not including why these stars are considered the important ones. I shouldn't have to follow a link to realise you're discussing apparent, and not absolute magnitude. (though it is obvious from the description if you're familiar with the concept) Endashes, not hyphens, in page ranges. (ETA: I see you had spaced endashes. The correct fix was to remove the spaces, not go to hyphens) File:Sekstant.jpg needs a source File:Bowditch-equatorial-stars-0-180.svg and the rest. Your retouchings are not under the US Navy's PD license. The exception is File:Navigational-stars-below-30-degrees-south.svg, where your work is more unique. The other three need a plain {{PD-USGov}} to remove the language about "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:". A separate tag for your modifications should then be added, a PD one, though, as you have not created a separate copyright from the Navy in these three. The fourth one needs a naval tag and then a tag of your choice, as the derivative work is enough to create a distinct copyright. Courcelles 05:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC) [33] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the input, and sorry for my delay in response. As we discussed elsewhere, I had scheduling issues. With the exception of the image tags, on which I have a question, I think I've addressed the issues you brought up: Who selects them & why: added some info and one ref. (diff) Endashes: fixed. (diff) Apparent magnitude: I emphasized this at the first mention, in the table key, and the table header. I think that should cover it? (diff) File:Sekstant.jpg: replaced with File:DN-SD-03-08769.JPEG which is thoroughly sourced & PD. (diff) I'm still trying to absorb the issue(s) with the image tags. All 4 went through the same process: they started out as public domain bitmaps in a book, and I created SVG versions. On the two "round" ones, I chopped off the outer portion to make the inner portion easier to read. I guess my initial response is that you're right that the tags should be changed, but shouldn't they all be consistent? Cheers. HausTalk 23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Did you take File:Navigational-stars-above-30-degrees-north.svg and transform it into File:Navigational-stars-below-30-degrees-south.svg, or is the source of File:Navigational-stars-below-30-degrees-south.svg perhaps mistyped? If it's just a typo, you're right, they all do need to be consistent, but as tagged, the above became the below image by your work alone, which would create a new copyright. (If there is a separate starting point for the below image, it's just like the others, a little cropping doesn't create a separate copyright.) Courcelles 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Er, yes and no. I started with File:Navigational-stars-above-30-degrees-north.svg, moved all the "data" off the drawing, pasted in the bitmap, and then proceeded as before. I think I see your point now, and will change all four to {{PD-USGov}}. Cheers. HausTalk 23:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC) All 4 star charts are now {{PD-USGov}} (link). Cheers. HausTalk 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 21:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question could a Google Sky image be used in this article? A casual reader will have a really hard time reading any of the maps provided here, but if something more realistic is used, like a view from GS, it would be much more easier. Nergaal (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If possible I think this is a really nice idea... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Google Sky is out, as they compile data from NASA (which is free) and the ESA (which can only be used under fair-use) without differentiating what comes from where. You won't be able to justify anything fair-use here, since the free images are adequate. (They are also actual navigational charts, which is sort of the point...) Courcelles 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Static photographs of these areas would be much, much more cluttered and hard to make any sense of than the charts. They would show 6,000-ish bodies instead of 58-ish. On the other hand, I suggested long ago adding external links for individual stars to an interactive system like wikisky or google sky so that the reader could explore the area of a star. I never followed up on this because I was sure it would cause a WP:NOTDIRWP:ELPOINTS ruckus. If consensus could be attained here to add a column for google sky links, I'd enthusiastically add it. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Item #3 of WP:ELYES might support adding links to google sky entries for each star. Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Has this concern been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Reminder on this thread left on 1 Feb. Haus^Talk 04:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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