Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2012

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 03:26, 15 December 2012 [1].

---

List of churches in Moscow

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have hidden the pictures which hindered its promotion. Regards. Tomcat (7) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Please don't take offense when I say, I don't think you fully understand the problem. I don't either. I just spent several hours of my Sunday trying to find a conclusive answer to whether media files such as this one with its File: page in its current state satisfy relevant policies. I'm not a lawyer. I'm frustrated and my head is starting to hurt. If your solution to reviewers finding possible copyright problems is going to be to simply hide the files in the article (presumably for somebody else to solve the problem), then I suggest hiding them all and hiding them now, because the lack of freedom of panorama in Russia may be a problem for all of them. Alternatively, you could do something to convince my fellow reviewers and me that there are no copyright problems, either by pointing us to a relevant policy, guideline or discussion, or by tagging the files with Template:3-D in PD. Regards, Goodraise 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• See User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_46#Freedom_of_panorama. They are all fine except the hidden one. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to follow your reasoning. But I can't. Goodraise 12:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I have asked here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Commons and copyright. Goodraise 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, will do what Aslepias recommened, though it is not really needed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." is that true? If so, that's not a good sign, as the actual featured list criteria calls for completeness, so it doesn't meet featured list criteria right now then

• According to WP:FL?. "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." There are several lists that are actually incomplete, but still FLs.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see what you are saying, these are the "notable" churches, OK. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are no "notable" churches. The lead states which buildings are excluded from the list.--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unlink "church" per WP:OVERLINK

• No, since there are two different types of churches. Also this guideline can be ignored, actually.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• We all know what a "church" is, and that is WP:OVERLINK. It can't be ignored because it is part of the featured list criteria. "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.

• No, we don't know what "a" church is. It is either the congregation or the building, so it should be linked.--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• "tallest Orthodox church" link all of that, not just "tallest" so readers understand

• Can you explain how does it improve anything? Surely if the reader sees the link, he will click on it.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but maybe there's the possible that someone may believe that the link is actually to "tallest", not the tallest buildings in this case.

• What?--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry lol. See above now. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid bold links per WP:ACCESS in table, you need to add plainrowheaders to the table's coding

• Please read the lead. Bolding is useful to highlight the patron saint or the feast day.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, avoid all bold links, as per WP:BADEMPHASIS and WP:ACCESS, and replace with a symbol, like a {{dagger}}. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• What do you want exactly? It highlights the patron saint or the feast, as stated. What symbols? Dagger for what?--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• It should not be in bold per the above guidelines. Your required to replace with something else in the tables. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not done, since it is not a requirement. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. I should not stick to rules and don't always need to follow them. The page does not explain why boldface should not be used in this case. I would reconsider if it would benefit, but it seems like it doesn't.--Tomcat (7) 16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is a requirement per the featured list criteria. If this isn't replace, then I'll have to oppose the list for not meeting the criteria of Manual of Style. I'm aware of the five pillars, and that doesn't apply in this case. TBrandley 19:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Goodraise about image concerns

• Yes? Then explain it to me, do not just agree.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• "I agree" with his input, and thus that should be addressed before I'm willing to support. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Would suggest adding an "—" em-dash to those churches that have no images
• Would remove "List of" from section headers and table captions because we already know this is a list

TBrandley 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment suggest you withdraw the list until the serious issue of misuse of images under the lack of freedom of panorama in Russia is resolved. Also, debating whether you can be bothered to meet the MOS or not is a non-starter, it's one of the criteria. By all means, IAR and quote five pillars, but that won't lead to a promotion at FLC in this case I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Note if Tomcat7 is not going to be able to address these issues or worse, not be able to spend time on Wikipedia, suggest this is closed as unsuccessful until such a time its re-nomination may be more fruitful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2012 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 03:26, 15 December 2012 [2].

---

Herbie Hancock discography

Nominator(s): Simone Jackson (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i think that it meets the FL criteria. I worked many months on this page and i think that is ready for the star. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Add alt text to the images as per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT "discography" shouldn't be bold per MOS:BOLD Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK "#" should not be used per WP:POUND, use "No." instead "Billboard 200" 200 shouldn't be in italics "Thanks" isn't a good word My biggest concern, the paragraphs are very chunky, and contain many sentences that need work and copy-editing. When I say "very chunky", I mean there are too many details and words per plot guidelines, and WP:LEDE, etc. Section headers and everything should be changed, and modeled to the headers/section stuff used in Train discography, an FL, which can be modeled for lots of my concerns Add table captions per MOS:DTT, as in the above list shown "For every year (here reported chronologically) the albums are listed alphabetically by the last name of the artist." should be the table caption. It should be a note outside of the caption Ref. 1 and 3 as well as one in ref. 6's both contain WP:DASH issues, hpythen should be an en-dash Allmusic should be AllMovie Avoid capitals in ref. text, which is in ref. 37 There are way too many external links as per WP:ELNO, there should only be three, I'd remove all "partial discography" Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order TBrandley 02:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I followed all your advice, except #6 because i don't know how to substitute the word "thanks" (i'm Italian and my English vocabulary is limited) and #7 because it is very hard summarize 50 years of successful carrer. Do you have any idea? Also Mariah Carey discograpy (both albums and singles) and Madonna discography (both albums and singles) have got a very long introduction, quite similar to Herbie Hancock discography. Simone Jackson (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments I share TBrandley's concern with the lead size. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs; this article has 7 lead paragraphs, which is almost double what it's allowed to be. *Also, per MOS:ACRO, acronyms should be written out in full on first mention. Example: American Broadcasting Company (ABC). I understood that the lead is too long, but have you got any idea to how to summarize 50 years of successful career? A proposal would be appreciated. It's very hard to summarize long successful careers, in fact in my previous post i done the examples of Mariah Carey and Madonna discographies, that have got a very long lead (quite similar to Herbie Hancock discography) and are Featured Lists. Ok for the acronym, i will correct now. About the references for releases i used AllMusic, Discogs.com and the official website. In fact, they are listed in External Links. Simone Jackson (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Cut out unnecessary information. Mariah Carey's and Madonna's discographies are fairly long, but nowhere near as long as this. MC's is 4 paragraphs, and Madonna's is 3; both within the limits of WP:LEAD. Fairly obviously, Madonna and MC have had a higher level of fame and success in their careers, and they don't need 7 paragraphs to summarize. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I cut some unnecessary info in the 1960s paragraph and i unified some paragraphs. Now we have got a lead with four paragraphs divided in introduction, Blue Note/Warner era, Columbia era and Modern era. According to Web World Index the characters are 6,222 now. Mariah Carey singles discography has got 6,214 characters. Only 8 characters of difference. It should be in the Wikipedia standard, no? I hope there are no other errors. If there are let me know. I would like to correct them before the deadline. Simone Jackson (talk) 3:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC) The lead looks much better. However, is there any way you can add more of the third paragraph into the fourth, because the hugeness of paragraph three detracts from the readability. Also, there is no deadline. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I could move the 1980s part into the fourth paragraph although I don't know whether it is correct to put together the peak of his career with the comeback after a long break. About the deadline, i was referring to this: "After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed." Having few commitments now, I would use this time. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Whatever splitting you can do would be great. As for the deadline, that's not what the sentence means. It is saying the list can only be promoted at a minimum of ten days later. If the review is ongoing, the FLC can stay open much longer. Take a look at this FLC; it's almost two months old and the review is still ongoing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Done. Simone Jackson (talk) 0:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Pending the addressing of The Rambling Man's concern. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Quick comment - lead is too long per the above commentators, but I also have issues over references for release dates, release territories and references for those releases which didn't chart anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Repeat where are the release dates referenced, what territories are the release dates relevant to, and for those releases that didn't chart, where are they referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Briefly, you ask refs for every release date (charted and not charted) and an explain if that release date is refered to a certain country. Right? No one FL discography shows this format. According to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, it's enough to post a brief list of General references. You can find an example in Ashley Tisdale discography. References are divided in General and Specific. If you agree, I will follow this example. I hope that i didn't misread your affirmations. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC) All currently running discographies have been asked to provide release dates and relevant territory information for that release date for all albums. I'm not that worried about DISCOGSTYLE, it's just a style guide, I'm more concerned with WP:V. On a number of occasions, I've asked for a reference for release dates and it turns out the dates are incorrect. That's why I'd like to see them referenced. As for releases which didn't chart anywhere, you'll find numerous FLs which reference those non-charting releases explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) It's true, it's a good idea, but having used only AllMusic, the official website and discogs.com, shouldn't be enough include only these three links? To post every album page from AllMusic would lead to having over 150 references (remember that this discography is very big. Only with studio albums and compilations, we arrive to 104 references) and i don't know if it is a good thing for a discography page. At the limit, i will post a note near the source that invites to click on the album name to have the release date, label, etc. However, on the three sources that i used there isn't nothing about the release date for a country. I presume they refer to the United States (except some albums released only in Japan and released internationally in the following years), but i'm not sure. After all, we are talking about albums from the last century and it's not very easy to find these informations, at least for the albums released prior mid-1990s. Simone Jackson (talk) 0:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid I find the lack of inline referencing a serious drawback to the list. Readers shouldn't have to go searching through external links to try to find evidence that proves the existence of these releases, nor information about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I agree with you, but the only thing holding me back is the fact that the page will have over 220 references and will be a chaos. Remember that the page shows 121 albums, 47 singles, 4 other songs, a very long list of albums where he appears as Sideman and a list of songs in Various Artists Compilations. One source for each of these releases is too much for a discography page. For this reason the WP:DISCOGSTYLE claims that is enough to post general references, such as Ashley Tisdale discography and Madonna albums discography. Repeat, i agree with you, but it will be a chaos. Are you really sure that you want this? Simone Jackson (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Well I have seen pages with over 300 references, it's not that uncommon... However, you raise a good point, you could easily split this into two discographies, something which is commonplace for an artist with so many albums and so many singles (e.g. Mariah Carey, Madonna etc). Then you'd have fewer references and two featured list candidates! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Singles are not so numerous. Compilations and sideman releases make the difference......I want to take a little time to think. One or two days. Simone Jackson (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Okay, take your time. Two lists are better than one!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I've been thinking. I think that the best choice is a split in Herbie Hancock discography (only albums and singles/songs) and Herbie Hancock other appearances. I think this for two reasons: 1) Singles/songs are not numerous and they need only of one or two sources because in the table is requested only the year and not month, day, label, etc. 2) Splitting the other appearances i can extend the list of his appearances in various artists compilations and his appearances as sideman. Simone Jackson (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I'm okay with that, would you like to withdraw this FLC until you're ready to renominate one of the two new lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC) It's not needed. In one or two days the current list will be ready. The new list will require more time. Simone Jackson (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I'm adding references for the albums, but i have some doubts about the readability. Do you think that will be good to add the small tag in the Albums details column? I did a test and it is more readable than current version. Simone Jackson (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Using "small" fonts may be a problem for WP:ACCESS. I suggest you check there. I seem to remember that as long as it doesn't go below 85% it's not a major issue, and perhaps the "small" tag takes that into account? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I decided to let it go the small tag. However, now the page should be complete and i have already cut the other appearances paragraph in a new page. In the current page, to avoid the problem of non-readability, i posted general references on the top of the table (Albums detailes for the albums and Year for the singles) for all the releases that had date, label and format published in one only page. For the others, i used the inline citation. Check it out. Simone Jackson (talk) 4:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose needs a thorough copyedit. A few quick points... "to digital download" -> downloads. "This page does..." it's an article/list, not a "page". "furthermore because of the enormous amount of material published, this discography omits less notable appearances in compilations and live albums" what is the definition of "less notable"? "of 8 selected countries" eight. "Included are also" -> "Also included are ..." "from Recording " -> "from the Recording" You don't link R&B the first time round. Why are charts shown in italics? I understand parts of the names which relate to things like Billboard should be in italics, but why anything else? "This part of his career reached its highest level" this is really not "elegant prose". "He continued to experiment..." "Hancock continued..." "commercial results, gaining immediate commercial success" repetitive use of "commercial". "mainstream" is used four times in quick succession. "of the 1980s.[20][15] It" order refs numerically. Be consistent with slash spacing, either used spaced slashes (i.e. a / b) or unspaced slashes (i.e. a/b) but not both. Check compliance in refs with WP:DASH e.g. ref 2, ref 29 year range should use an en-dash, not a hyphen. Several refs have spare full stops, e.g. ref 6, 18, 31, 36 .... Ref 58 appears to have a format issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC) For "less notable" i mean the albums that in the sources are without year, label, etc. However, Check it out now. I think that it is complete now. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from DavidCane (talk)

• I made a number of copy edit corrections that you reverted citing advice on this page as the reason. The edits were to correct missing words and poor sentence structure:
  • "United States also includes R&B / hip-hop, dance / club, jazz and bubbling under charts." is bad grammar. I suggest "Positions are also listed on United States..." The slashes would be better unspaced as well.
  • "Also included also certifications" is wrong. The second "also" should be "are".
  • "Blue Note Records noted" reads a bit awkwardly. I suggest you change "noted" to "noticed".
• Introduction
  • This is very long and becomes rather heavy going with all the numerous charts mentioned.
  • I think the definition of what is a Herbie Hancock album needs to be explained more. Jazz is a difficult area, as musicians often come together to play on a specific recording and then separate. You have excluded "less notable appearances in compilations and live albums", but you haven't mentioned or explicitly excluded recordings from this list that he made when he was not the "main name" on the cover. e.g. when part of Miles Davis's group.
  • "This article does not include re-issues, unless they are counted separately from the original works in the charts". Please explain. Are there any listed that are counted separately from the original works in the charts?
  • Is there evidence that Watermelon Man is one of the most performed jazz standards? Provide one of the refs from the jazz standards article.
  • "Autodrive" is said to have been a mainstream hit, but its best performance was 33 in the UK. That would not really be considered much of a hit here. In the 1980s, anything outside of the top 30 was pretty much ignored.
• Tables
  • A large amount of the studio albums table is filled with dashes, indicating, according to the note, "a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory". So that we can judge his popularity, I think it would be useful to know which territories albums were released in and did not chart. At the moment, I can't tell if the reason that his first and fifth albums only charted in Japan was because that is the only place they were released, or if it was because they were not bought in large numbers elsewhere.
  • I think it would be useful to have a definition of what "charting" means in each case. How big was the range of each chart? An album that did not chart because it was outside the top 30 is different from one that was outside the top 100 or top 300 (I'm guessing that was the range of the Japanese chart).
  • Is the formats section of the album details column intended to list current formats that an album is available on or formats it has once been available on? As 8-Track is given for some, I assume it is the latter. Can we be certain then that not one of his albums before Secrets has been available on tape? Some of them seem to have been available on 8-Track but are not listed as such.
  • Many of the albums only have a year or a month and year for the release date. Can we not have the full date? Given Future Shock appears to have been his biggest hit, not knowing when its was released seems to be a bit of a shortcoming.
  • Live albums - Releases that did not chart table. There are eight albums here, but nine of the entries on the studio albums table and two of the entries on the soundtrack albums table have no chart position either, so also appear not to have charted. Why are non-charting studio and soundtrack albums handled differently from non-charting live and compilation albums?
  • The singles tables really should have full release dates.
  • Again, there is the separation of charting and non-charting singles.

--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Introduction
  • For the grammar, i don't say nothing. I'm Italian and I only follow advices.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, my advice is that they need to be corrected.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Is it good now? About the slashes, i can't post them unspaced or i should edit all the slashes in the page and it's not good for the readability for box set such as Sextant / Secrets and Head Hunters / Future Shock / Man-Child.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead is ok. It follows the Wikipedia standards. You can look the FL discographies pages of other big artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Length was not the only reason for my comment.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • What were the other reasons? I written all the essential basing the content on the other FL discographies.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sideman works are included in another page called Herbie Hancock other appearances (that is work in progress).--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Then you need to state that in this list. Just including the other list in the see also section does not do that.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • There is a paragraph in the page titled “Other appearances”. In that paragraph there is another redirect on the other page. So, at the moment there are two redirects on the Other appearances page. I think that they are enough. Also the other FL discographies splitted in two pages don't go beyond the redirect. What do you suggest?--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "This article does not include re-issues, unless they are counted separately from the original works in the charts" Some countries (such as France and Canada) separate re-issues and original works on the charts. If one re-issue will be charted separately from the original work, it will be included in the table.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • My point was a question. Are there any albums on the lists that are reissues that charted separately from the original work? If so which ones? It would be useful to identify these in some way on the table - with a note for example.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • No, in this page there aren't re-issues.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A single become a hit when enter in the top 40. http://www.everyhit.com/faqs.html--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That is one unofficial website's definition. It might be true for the UK, although, as the note states, others think a hit is something in the top 75. It does not necessarily apply to other charts in other countries.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That website was quoted by the BBC in its old website. BBC is one of the official diffuser of the OCC charts. One of the official diffuser that quoted the “top 75 theory” was The Guinness Book of Biritsh Hit Singles, now replaced by The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles. This new book reports the top 75 singles, but in the total weeks column reports only the chart appearances in the top 40. However, top 40 or top 75, we are talking about a song that peaked at No. 33. The discussion is dead at birth.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tables
  • It's impossible to know where the albums were published (today, are available worldwide), except for someone released initially only in Japan. However, the first albums charted in Japan in 2004 and 2009, not at the time. You can see it when you click on the ref.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Is it impossible to know where albums were published?--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Today they are available everywhere. If you want to know at the time of the releases, sorry, but it's impossible (except for some albums released initially only in Japan such as Herbie Hancock Trio and The Piano).--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If the basis of the chart position is the maximum that an album reached at any time since release, then I think that it is important to make it clear that the chart positions are not necessarily the position an album reached when it was first released. I think, that is what most people will expect the table to be showing.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Done--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your second point. An album is charted when enters on the charts. It does not matter the position. Read here: WP:DISCOGSTYLE--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • My point was that we do not know from the tables what "charting" means for each chart. For example, if one country's chart lists the top 100 albums and another lists the top 300 albums, to chart on the first is essentially harder to do than on the second. I think a note would be useful giving an indication of the number of places each chart has.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • This reasoning works up to a certain point. I'll explain....every country has a its perception about the foreign music. In Japan, the most of western artists find many difficulties to enter on the Oricon main charts, especially on the singles chart. For this reason Oricon established western charts and added many other positions to the main charts. So, in theory, it's easy up to a certain point.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • By the way, WP:GOODCHARTS says that the recommended source for UK charts is the Official Charts Company, not the one you have used. The one you have used, http://chartarchive.org, has posted a note saying they have been told to remove their listing by OCC, so it is probably best not to use it.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • OCC has forced Chart Archive (formely known as Chart Stats) to remove chart-run and weekly charts from its database, not the peak chart positions and the total weeks. OCC done it because their charts are very expensive and don't want to leave these informations free. However, in WP:GOODCHARTS is written that the use of this source has been challenged IN THE PAST, because it is an anonymous archive. It's not written that it is a bad source. In fact it's not appear in WP:Depreacated Charts--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I haven't checked the other sources against that list.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The formats section refers to all formats in which the album was released and all is supported by sources. If i haven't sources to affirm that the albums published before Secrets were published on Tape, i can't add nothing.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you need to do some more research in that case. I was able to find some cassette and 8-track versions of albums you haven't shown in those formats in a couple of minutes of googling.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I will do it.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If you find reliable sources that confirm years, months, etc. we can add them without problems.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not my job.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I tried until last Thursday, but nothing, sorry.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Because Live albums and compilations albums that did not charted are very numerous compared to the total.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But that does not mean that they should be treated differently than non-charting studio albums. This also goes back to my point that a reader cannot tell if a release is marked with a dash in the table because it was not released in a country or because it did not chart.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • And i already said you that it is impossible to find those informations, expecially for the albums released before the internet era.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, singles are ok. They follow the Wikipedia standards. You can look WP:DISCOGSTYLE or the other FL discographies of other artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • OK.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The separation is needed when the number of the uncharted material is too big compared to the total. If i unifie the tables, we will have many empty spaces and it's not good for the readability.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But we already have a studio albums table that is mostly empty spaces, so I don't see what difference it makes.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • To split the studio albums in charted and not charted don't change nothing. We will have always the most of the albums charted in US and empty spaces for the other countries. The only difference will be that 9 albums (low number compared to the total of 41) not charted will be splitted in another table. It's not the same thing of split compilation albums because we have 3 charted albums on a total of 62. The split must be made if needed.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Also:
      • The "live albums/Releases that charted album" table has two countries' charts, not the eight we have for the studio albums table. The US Contemporary Jazz album is missing. Is this because he did not chart on the others?
      • The "Compilations/Releases that charted album" table has three countries charts. Same question.
      • The Soundtrack albums table does not have the same set of charts as the studio albums table.
    • --DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • They miss because they didn't chart in those charts.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think it's very tempting to restart this nomination as it's been bogged down in various format/inclusion issues. Suggest nominator restarts the nomination, or else withdraws it as it's clearly stalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that restart the nomination is a good solution. It won't solve the DavidCane's concerns. It will postepone them only. In a new nomination, he can always expose the same concerns and the situation will be the same. I hope to get to a point of meeting with him. Furthermore, i think that it's a shame to restart a nomination where the most of the users' comments were resolved.--SJ (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's your call. This nomination has stalled, it's been live for over two months, I think it should now be archived unless any further comment/progress is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2012 (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 not promoted by NapHit 03:23, 7 December 2012 [3].

---

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 23:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A second visit for this list. It was featured between 2006 and 2009, but in that format it fell significantly short of our current guidelines. I've tidied it up, completely rewritten the lead and brought it back for another shot. Certainly a noteworthy topic, and if only those centuries at Taunton had been scored for Somerset...

In the featured list removal discussion, it was primarily taken down as being a 3b violation, but I think in this format it certainly stands-alone as a list. The information presented here would not be suitable in a more encompassing article on cricket records, and serves to create a more engaging article. In my opinion anyway! Harrias ^talk 23:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

;Comments I think 4 paras are too much for such a list with only 10 entries. Looks like an article. Perhaps, but it is an interesting subject with plenty to talk about. Without falling foul of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, List of Manchester City F.C. managers is plenty longer, and that is a featured list. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "...and struck one six and 64 fours during his innings, ..." → "..and struck 1 six and 64 fours during his innings,.." or "...and struck one six and sixty-four fours during his innings,..." Done. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "not out" is overlinked. Removed one link: I think a link at the start of the prose, and one in the key is appropriate. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "Their opposition, Kathiawar,..." → Whose opposition? Maharashtra. It says so five words earlier. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) A link to "deliveries". Done. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) "Ten years later, Lara became..." → From when? You didn't mention the year Lara scored 501 runs. Added the year in. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Baluchistan → Balochistan Our Wikipedia article, although location at Balochistan acknowledges in the lead that it can be spelt either way, and my source spells it "Baluchistan", so I would prefer to follow that. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) It would be better if you provide a refs to the matches in which 400s were scored. Why? Ref #1 covers all the information provided in the table: I don't see why another ten superfluous references are needed? Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) OK, this was just a suggestion. Zia Khan 19:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Zia Khan 16:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC) You may mention that players are sorted by their last name I don't think that is necessary: I would always expect a list to sort by last name. The only contention is whether it is sorting by the appropriate name for the Pakistani players, but I'm not sure on that myself. Harrias talk 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Hanif Mohammad is commonly known by his first name, I think. Zia Khan 19:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Support– Good work. Zia Khan 19:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

[dusting myself off] It has been a while, but I saw this this list was recently "expanded" by -1,382 bytes.  No doubt it needed some work, and it is good to have a longer prose introduction, but quite a lot of material that was in the old version before the "expansion" has been lost.  Perhaps some of it should be reinstated?  Most of that information can be gleaned directly from the scorecards (what the match position was, who won, who batted with whom), and no doubt sources can be found for the information that is "citation needed".  For example, for MacLaren, "This was the first quadruple century in first-class cricket, and remains the highest first-class innings by an English player.[citation needed]"   These are obvious from Cricinfo's list of highest first-class scores.

As a general point, I think we should be aiming for consistency of content and presentation between the various lists, including in particular List of Test cricket triple centuries, but also List of Test cricket hat-tricks and List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks (all featured).  The {{cricket records}} template also links to List of Test cricket centuries scored on debut which is not featured but is also similar in format to these lists.

For example:

• Would it not be helpful for the article to include a link to a scorecard for each match, like the old version did and all of those other lists mentioned above do?  External links in tables may be deprecated - although all but one of the lists mentioned above do it that way - but I would assert that it is much more useful for a reader to have the links where they can be picked out easily and followed, rather than buried down in the footnotes.
• Might it be helpful to mention which innings in the match the batsman was batting in when he scored the quadruple century?  For the record, that is four in the first innings of the match, five in the second, but only Bradman in the third (that is, his team's second innings, and NSW still won the match!).
• What competition was each match a part of? (Obviously this is a factor that is not relevant for the Test and ODI lists, but most of these matches are part of domestic championships.)
• Seven of the entries in the "balls faced" column are apparently unknown (I have not checked, but CricketArchive gives a figure of 465 balls for Bradman[4]).  Is it useful to give the three that are recorded to the reader, in preference to the other facts mentioned above?
• Why is the start date of the match relevant?  The old version of the list noted the days when the batsman was actually on the pitch, scoring the runs.  For example, Lara's 501 is all the more remarkable for starting on the second day of a four-day match (Friday 3 June 1994), missing the third day due to bad weather, then a rest day on the Sunday, and completing his innings towards the end of the last day (Monday 6 June).[5]
• The list includes the highest first-class scores by batsmen from the West Indies (Lara), Pakistan (Mohammad), Australia (Bradman), India (Nimbalkar), and England (MacLaren).  What are the highest scores for the other Test nations?
• Perhaps it might be worth mentioning that Naved Latif scored 394 in 2000, and Stephen Cook scored 390 in 2009 (I think that is the South African record).  I think the records for a batsman from New Zealand and Sri Lanka are Bert Sutcliffe's 284 in 1952, and Mahela Jayawardene's 374 in 2006.  Zimbabwe's might be David Houghton's 266 in 1994?  Bangladesh?

Hope some of this helps. -- Testing times (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Sorry, but I'm going to need a little more convincing that this is not a 3b issue. I took a look at List of first-class cricket records, which came up when this was demoted at FLRC, and that article has a list of the top seven entries. Is having a 10-item list there really a stretch? And could the content here reasonably be included in a potential List of first-class cricket triple centuries? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will respond in more depth later, but as a quick comment: there are currently over 175 triple centuries in first-class cricket, so I don't foresee that such an article would be a feasible creation. My rationale for the continued existence of this list is that to include the level of detailed information presented in the lead of this article for each record on List of first-class cricket records would very quickly make that page unwieldy and extremely difficult to utilise. Harrias ^talk 07:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the issues raised by User:Testing times and User:Giants2008, I'd like to withdraw this list as a featured list candidate for the time being to give myself some time to analyse the comments made and improve it through a peer review, and possibly return. Any changes I make now are going to be "fixes" rather than solutions, so I think this is the best way of resolving the potential issues. Harrias ^talk 22:31, 4 December 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 21:06, 2 December 2012 [6].

---

List of current members of the Iowa Senate

Nominator(s): Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a good list and I may make some more like it (I've got the House one waiting in the wings). And because I've been around for a while without making any featured content. Figured it was just about time I tried. As an FYI, there's a companion gallery at Commons. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• The article's name may even violate WP:RELTIME. It says that words like "current" shouldn't be used, I see this used lots of places in the list, including the name even
  • WP:RELTIME doesn't apply to titles; I've removed it elsewhere and added appropriate {{as of}} templates to make the date clear.
• "U.S. State" State shouldn't be in capitals, per MOS:CAPS
  • Fixed I've removed a wikilink and shifted another. The full name of Iowa is "State of Iowa" so caps are appropriate here. (Alternatively, I could just remove "the U.S. State of".)
    • Sounds like the best idea. Please remove "the U.S. state of", as you alternatively suggested already. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "2011 – 2013" should be changed to "2011–13", without that space, per WP:YEAR
  • Fixed
• "84th General Assembly" should be in bold per MOS:BOLD
  • You mean "shouldn't"? Fixed
    • Yep. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• "four-year" no hypten needed
  • Notdone It is needed, as a compound modifier, see MOS:HYPHEN and http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/hyphen on "lengths of time".
• "vacant" in image captions should be capitals
  • Fixed
• Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does
  • Notsure I tried to do this, but wasn't sure how to add scop cols and rows to a sortable table. Can you point me to an example?
    • Take a peak throughout the whole WP:ACCESS, it explains fully there. But, here's what I can tell you. To the main headers, you add ! scope="col" through all of them, then for the main parameter of the inside table, add ! scope="row". It is then showed in gray for that. It is actually used for screen readers and some text-only browsers. If you would like to know an example, please see ‎School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen's table for an example, it correctly use the scope cols and rows. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Done. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• The tables formatting and use of color, doesn't also meet WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR, as well, these colors, particularity
  • Notsure I wonder if you are unfamiliar with the best practices for color in political articles and lists?
    • Notdone If you're referring to coloring the template rows, this schema has been used on other FLs, is widely used on political lists in general, and there is no information being conveyed by the color that isn't also conveyed by text.
    • Wontfix With regard to the particular colors, these are the standard {{Party shading}} colors; as such they 1) have been reviewed (and changed) for ACCESS concerns in the past and 2) can't be further changed without developing consensus, as {{Party shading/Democratic}} alone has 8,311 transclusions.
      • I don't need to be familiar with political articles and lists, I need to be familar with the Manual of Style (MoS), and I am. The colors are very bright, don't pass WP:ACCESS or WP:COLOR for blind peoples, screen readers and such. Also, it doesn't matter if the schema has been used on other FLs, there were most likely promoted before this new guideline rule when into effect. It is very new. As said further below, you can replace the colors with template such as {{dagger}} and see WP:BADEMPTHASIS. Colors shouldn't even be used, but replaced. The MoS is very clear on this for access. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
        • See reply to Albacore below. The remaining points about color, daggers, etc. are not well taken, as they ignore the fact that there is no information offered by the color that isn't also offered by the text (the use of such colors is explicitly allowed by the MoS.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• The first table shouldn't use unneeded bolding, see WP:BADEMPHASIS, remove or replace, though I don't even think needed
  • Notsure I don't know what you're getting at - the three headers: "affiliation", "members", and "total" are the only bolded words in the table.
    • Yes, exactly. It shouldn't be in bold, per WP:BADEMPHASIS also. What's the reasoning for the bolding? Even if there is reasoning, it needs to be replaced by {{dagger}} or something, as already said for other concerns also. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The reasoning is compliance with WP:MOSBOLD, which says that headers should be in bold. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does
  • Done
• The alt text of the images are not correct. "Alt text is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's purpose, and should not duplicate its caption, if it were to have one, or does." All images do duciplate a possible caption, or actual caption used.
  • I've Fixed the map, per WP:ALT#Maps and diagrams. Notsure For the official photos, I couldn't think what else to put - should I just blank the alt text?
    • No, not a good idea; it is part of the featured list criteria, "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." If you don't know, see WP:ALT or request help at the help desk even. For example, just an example, instead of "David Beckham" say "a football player", that's just an example, but it would be something like that, just for different pictures. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • My text was properly descriptive, noting that the images were official images (the reason the images were chosen). Text such as "a football player" (here "a politician") would be inappropriate as such is blatantly obvious from the context of the page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• There should be an actual legend section, explaining what the colors are for, rather than it being in a caption. A caption should say "This is the stuff that is in stuff" like that. Colors shouldn't even be used per WP:BADEMPHASIS, replace with dagger using {{dagger}} template or something also for WP:ACCESS
  • Notsure I don't follow. The instuctions for {{legend}} indicate that it is supposed to be used in a caption. This is, in fact, an extremely common use of the template - and some images actually have the legend built into the image itself. I can't hardly remove the colors from the map and the widespread acceptance of colors in the rows has been described above. I don't see how a dagger would meet any of these purposes in any case.
    • As said above, colors don't meet WP:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, all said above. See List of Grey's Anatomy cast members, a recently promoted featured list, its legend is fine, how about something like that for this? Cheers, TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I could add a second legend, reflecting the colors used in the table, above the table if absolutely necessary - having two legends for essentially similar colors seems like overkill, though. As for the map's legend, its usage is correct per {{legend}}. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• After the colors are removed and replaced, "N/A" should now use the {{n/a}} template
  • Notsure I didn't put the other fields in a templated box, so why would I put "N/A" in a templated box? It's inconsistent.
    • No, not really. It says "N/A", so it is okay. It is used in plenty of recently promoted featured lists, as well as others. There is a point for this one, but not for the others. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• In see also, why is the first link in italics?
  • Because it's the sister list. I can remove the italics if it bothers you.
    • It's not needed, so please do, if that's okay. TBrandley 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Don't use ; semi-colons as it is an WP:ACCESS concern. Replace with actual headers, like === General ===
  • Fixed
• Per WP:DASH, as seen in many reference titles, hyptens should be en-dashes
  • Fixed
• Can you add portals related to this subject using {{portal box}} or {{portal bar}}
  • Done

TBrandley 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done several of your suggestions. I'll admit to being perplexed about several others, though, as they seem to fly in the face of political style consensus. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• What benefit does the list gain from the presence of colors? Since you have the party affiliation, I would be in favor of removing the colors to use !scope row tags per WP:ACCESS. I am not aware of any preexisting consensus, however.

• The purpose is to provide a visual/graphical representation of the legislative chamber, providing an at-a-glance feel for how the partisan divisions work out. This works especially well in sortable tables, since you can re-arrange the organization of the legislators. This is not an ACCESS violation, because the "Party" column provides that information in the text.
• That the colors are less than perfect is because there are a great many current and historic parties (see Category:Political party colour templates and its subpages). In order that there be a clear distinction where any two colors which may be placed next to each other are placed to each other, while being encyclopedically accurate as to color-affiliation of the parties, some unfortunate colors have had to be used (see, for example, Template:United States political party shading). As noted above, they have been reviewed for compliance with WP:ACCESS in the past and attempts to change/remove them since then have not gained consensus (a recent attempt, Template talk:United States political party shading#Accessibility, was actually advertised at the accessibility talk page and still didn't result in a change). Additionally, the fact that the colors are so widely used (transclusion example above) and that they are fully protected indicates their widespread community acceptance. Frankly, it is beyond FL's purview (and a violation of WP:CONSENSUS) to attempt to change that consensus here.
• Finally, you can use both scope=row and the color templates, so no issue there. (Scopes added now.)
• TLDR: No ACCESS violation, consensus including input from the folks at the accessability page, and scope=row is compatible with them. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 1, 5, and 6 need the format parameter indicative of a PDF file, like reference 2 has. Albacore (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note "Graphics are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." Per the instruction above. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Non-graphically done. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:14, 15 November 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 21:06, 2 December 2012 [7].

---

List of universities in Venezuela

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Venezuela holds a wide array of universities around its national territory, covering studies on a broad variety of scientific and humanistic careers, spread between a total 23 public and 24 private universities located across several states. As a result of a Royal Decree signed by Philip V of Spain, the Central University of Venezuela—the oldest in the country—was founded in 1721 under the name "Universidad Real y Pontificia de Caracas". The campus was originally located at the now-known "Palacio de las Academias" but, in 1944, president Isaías Medina Angarita relocated the university to its actual headquarters at the University City of Caracas. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments Add alt text to the images per MOS:IMAGES Why hasn't this concern been addressed? TBrandley 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC) I have been having difficulties writing the alts :S I don't know how to write them :( I am good writing alts for pictures where people appear but for thins like those, it's hard for me (i am not native english speaker). — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Well, as they most seem to be "purely decorative images", you many do |alt=|link= instead. See WP:ALT#Links and attribution, and more. TBrandley 04:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I'll give it a try, thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Done. Thanks again. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does Fixed. Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does Fixed. TBrandley 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Early comments, currently oppose (sorry, have other things to do) Not keen on a country which "holds" universities. Rephrase. "on a broad variety of scientific and humanistic careers" why not just "offering courses in a broad variety of subjects"? "As a result of a Royal Decree signed by Philip V of Spain," could link Philip as a minimum here. Why isn't the Central University linked in the lead? "under the name "Universidad" just "as "Universidad..."" "origins remount back" remove "remount" and replace with "date". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure you need "(pictured)" in each image caption, I think that's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose until enrollment figures are added. Nergaal (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, enrollment figures are not available; if so, I would have added them a long time ago. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable estimates? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that i have found, but I will make another scan to see what I can read from news and stuff. I am pretty sure that only 5 to 6 universities may have such info out there (outdated, ofc) but not all :( — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made a search and only found a accurate enrollment for the Simón Bolívar University for 2008. I have found other three enrollment estimates from scarce news by the venezuelan government and other news sources, but not very accurate [some of them contradict themselves]. I don't know what should I do. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadness. Sounds like you'll just have to leave them out, then. I don't know what the norm at FL is, but I wouldn't consider the legitimate unavailability of enrollment figures to be enough to sink the list's nomination, though. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Out fo the first five entries I saw references for numbers in two of them. Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Look. I searched for the vast majority of them and only found the ones there plus a couple of others. I am venezuelan and I know how difficult is to find accurate statistics of such things here. There is no easy way to find accurate of realistic numbers when it is handled privately by private universities and oftemtimes publicly by the rest. This is frustrating [not finding references] and I understand that you may ask for them but, sadly, 50% of the universities there just doesn't show their enrollment figures. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is fine if you put a N/A where there is no reference, but those that do have should have it in the list. As an outsider I have no idea which university is more notable, and enrollment figures are one of the simplest ways to convey this. Nergaal (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well; I will keep searching as thoroughly as possible to add as much as possible. I will do some off-line search to see what I can find XD — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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