Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abalcar (talk | contribs) at 14:28, 24 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured Lists in Wikipedia

Here we determine which lists are featured on Wikipedia:Featured lists. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See "what is a featured list?" for criteria.

If you nominate an list, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review.

Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured list status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Check the featured list criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating.
  2. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
  3. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination.
  4. (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1
  5. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the article below the heading, and save the sub-page.
  6. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please review the nominated lists fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • If you approve of a list, write "Support" followed by your reasons and sign.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s> ) rather than removing it.

Featured list candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status, and a list must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list and failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases a short additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support.

To archive a nomination

  1. Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
  2. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists or log of failed candidacies, as appropriate.
  3. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}.
  4. On the article's talk page, change {{FLC}} to {{FL}} or {{FLCfailed}}, as appropriate.
  5. For promotions, update Wikipedia:Featured lists.
  6. For promotions, add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages.
  7. For promotions, add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.

Nominations

Respekt

Nomination removed on 19:30, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 (UTC). This is a proper article, not a list. Refer to Featured article candidates instead. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ

I believe that this article fairly covers the important facts about the topic. It is also well linked with other articles.

And it won't pass WP:FAC any time soon. Please take a look at other featured articles to find out what's generally considered "featured" here on Wikipedia. Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet ranks and insignia

For more discussion, see this WP page.

I say this is an excelent ex-article. It was broken apart big time and downgraded into a list as article was getting colosal. I helped create this article and feel it would be a fine featured list. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, well referenced, great lead, nice pictures. Phoenix2 01:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two words: image copyrights. Some are claimed as public domain as self made, others say Paramount released it to PD (proof?), others say fair use (cannot be used for decorations and in any way needs rationalles). In one word: mess. Renata 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really most of the images were drawn by wikipedia editors such as myself. All you need is paint for a large number of the images. Infact most are on commons.wiki.
    I do not know if paramount released them to pd or not (not that it matters), but I do know images I and others created were released to the public domain. Some images on the page were coppied from websites as a free alternative for now is not avalible for some ranks such as the alternate universe insignias. I am not that skilled as a creator even though the designs aren't complex so if anyone willing to redraw those, I have no objections.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It does matter if Paramount released it because, for example, Image:Star Trek The Next Generation, Alternate OF 9.gif claims that. And simply redrawing does not solve copyright issues. Imagine, I redraw Microsoft logo and use it on my own software. I will be jailed in no time. So redrawing is very much the same as simply copying. Renata 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it does matter because the Microsoft logo is a TRADEMARK and protected by an entirely different set of laws and cases. The issue is whether or not the redrawing is a derivative work or not. This is a much different issue. For example, a common shape that is used by Star Trek for their insignia's (like a circle in TNG) can be copyrighted in certain contexts, but they can not prevent all others from using circles or even circles for insignia. I think that if we can straigten out whether or not these are derivative works then we can resolve the copyvio issue. Trödel 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you pulling my leg? So if I take a picture of Jean-Luc Picard (patric Stewart) off screen in star trek uniform I am violating copyrights?
    You can buy the pins and take the photo. Or you can use paint to draw the images.
    The only issue here can be trademark, not copyright. Otherwise we will need to delete every image with a yellow circle on it as paramount owns the copyrights. This has been discussed to death and I am tried of explaining myself. have a read of m:copyright paranoia --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My whole point is that you need to fix and clean up the copyright status. Simply saying "oh, I can redraw them" does not fix anything. Renata 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'll have to ignore your comment which seems to complain about copyright of images I and fellow wikipedians have created. They are released to PD and moved to commons. Nothing you say will change that.
    Now if you'd like to help with the rest of the images left on en.wiki by creating alternatives under a free license, be my guest. If not you made your point.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a Star Trek kick today, I guess. Oppose. Fair use only extends to a point, and a reproduction, even by hand, of a copyrighted work still violates copyright. -Mask 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Copyright concerns are legitimate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator appears to misunderstand trademark and copyright. Suggest the nominator obtain reprint permission from Paramount, then resubmit. Durova 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for copyright, odd organizations, and a very messy reference section. Staxringold 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the artist of some of these images in question, I mainly drew the images using Microsoft Paint based on the illustrations previously uploaded onto Wikipedia. The PD Paramount thing was not my idea, but I have seen no proof about images being released like that. Some of the images are released under PD-user|me, since I drew them. If the consensus is that the images cannot be just redrawn and retagged, then go ahead and re-tag them as such (most are at the Commons now). But, are you sure this image is for decoration, since we are showing comparisons between the different ranks from the different series. Regardless of how the situation turns out, I do not have a vested interest in this article passing FLC or nor I will step in it's way to reach that point. Any more questions can be directed to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's more then just concensus, it's copyright law. When an image is copyrighted, they are not copyrighting specifically THAT IMAGE, although that image is copyrighted, they are copyrighting any other depictions of that image. Googles copyright is not on just the jpg on their homepage, but on all depictions of the word Google with a blue G, red O... et cetera. In fact, I'd be surprised if the color order itself wasn't copyrighted. Amazon get's a lot of flax for how many things they patent/trademark/copyright. The amazon.com logo contains a non-circular period (it's oval), which they copyrighted. They have successfully sued other web sites that created logos that had ovoid periods in the logo. Also, the main part of the rank insignias is the original USS Enterprise triangular-thingymabobber. I know for a fact Paramount has that under some damn strong copyright protection. Not in any way whatsoever public domain. It may become PD slightly sooner then mickey mouse will, but it'll be by about 2 minutes, and occur several million years after humans have vanished as a species. -Mask
So if I take the photo of the earing of a monarch with my digital camera after the monarch appears on TV with, the TV station owns the copyright?
  • Amazons thing requires citation weather or not if amazon sued and weather or not if it was because of a period being drawn oval. By the way, A simple aschi charatcer can violate that copyright. So all ovals are copyrighted by Amazon.com? You may want to tag all images on Oval as a copyrigh violation then.
  • As for google, they do not and cannot copyright this text: Google, I ask you to cite a source proving otherwise. Google is a pd word and you cant copyright words in a dictionarty. [1] is the logo that appears on google. mind the tiny "TM" is not a C.
  • As for rank insignias, four circles or two arcs cannot be copyrighted and I find this to be quite ridiclous.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you create an image to look like another, yes, that is considered a derivitive work and copyrighted. The google you just printed up there is used under fair use. Also, it will not be found in any dictionary. Google is a deliberate misspelling of the math term Googol. How hard is this to understand Cool Cat? Copyrights copyright. You are the only one who seems to think otherwise. Might try thinking about that for a second. It usually means the loners wrong. -Mask 19:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting any picture taken of patrick stewart is copyrighted by paramount. Or if I take my camera go to a Star Trek set and take pictures I am violating copytrights? On screen apearance of ranks were metalic. My version is a caricature at best. Your argument is flawed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "Google" is in the public domain requires a source itself. Arguably Google is not yet at the same level as "Aspirin", for instance. I'd suggest you to read and understand the legal concept behind Genericized trademarks before making such claims. In the context of this nomination, it only shows your misunderstanding of copyright and trademarks, just as Durova above pointed out. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Open up a dictionary and look for the word... wiktionary:google... --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is the captain rank from TNG S1. I doubt NASA will ever credit paramount.
Or how about this one:
--Cool CatTalk|@ 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those images, for one, are naturally occuring things. No one can copyright the sun, but one could copyright a paticular picture of the sun. NASA images are not copyrighted either, but when they do reprint others images, they credit them. You're creating a strawman argument here. The pictures of the sun were not created specifically to look like another work. I have Jimbo's talkpage on my watchlist. He himself, in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Starfleet_ranks_and_insignia_and_copyright_status_of_images_that_appear_on_it told you they were copyvios. Drop the argument, you're just making this a mockery, and not the one you want, either. -Mask 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to your argument if I take a photo of the sun I can declare it is copyrighted. A similar argument is that if I draw the sun on a peice of paper I can claim copyright.
Paramount owns copyright of star trek images that appeared on their show images they have filmed/photographed etc. They do not own copyrights of images I have created. I thought we respected intelectual property on wikipedia. Images I created are my property and I was nice enough to release them to the PD.
Also how can US gov talk about copyrights here: Image:Stamp-ctc-star-trek.jpg
--Cool CatTalk|@ 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The US Government, through the library of Congress, can designate certain images, recordings and whatnot as 'culturally significant' and use it for their own purposes without limitation, as it is a 'symbol of America'. However, they generally get permission for art on stamps. If I were paramount, thats billions worth of free advertising. No way I'd say no. -Mask 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine.--Cool CatTalk|@ 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful about "fair use". Perhaps a letter to Paramount asking how they'd like to be cited would clear everything up. Usually copyright holders are happy to get the publicity. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Are you sugesting we ask permision for "fair use" or we ask permision for a free license? --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge all arguments above that treat the images as a copyright infrigments. What you are suggesting as I see it is that anything that is seen on TV cannot be released with a free license.
  1. I can draw a painting of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and release it with any license I please fit. I can also buy the starship models used in the series from the sets and release their photos with any license I please. You can copyright a spesific picture of a Segway HT or a Ferrari car, however you can't copyright all images of Ferraris just because you manufactured it.
  2. Unless paramount owns copyrights to all images with yellow circles (Ex: ), paramount does not own the copyrights of images I and other wikipedians have created. I value the intellectual property I created.
  3. I second the comment above by Amask: No one can copyright the sun, but one could copyright a paticular picture of the sun.. No one can copyright a yellow circle or a white one, but one could copyright a particular picture of a circle.
  4. Images in question are not protected by "trademarks" which protect images such as microsoft logo, Google logo, Amazon.com's logo as they are a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by a business to uniquely identify itself and its products and services to consumers, and to distinguish the business and its products or services from those of other businesses.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 12:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can if the image is of nothing other then a ferrari. You duplicated a copyrighted work and put nothing in artisticly. It's against a red background, red being command color on ST, who we normally associate with the word rank- 'pulling rank' and what not. No one can copyright the sun because no one here made the sun. Paramount made those rank images for the purposes of copyright law. Since all they do, their express purpose, is to display the rank pips and circumvent a copyright with no artistic addition, then that image that you created belongs to Paramount. -Mask 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can recreate the image using the sun which as you point is not copyrightable. But when I compress the picture of the sun to 10px I create an image identical to the pips that appeared on star trek. Hence I am definately violating copyrights. There is an artistic addition, the red backround, the light effect, etc of which none appeared on the show. Red is the color of Command but the pips are NEVER worn on red. How would you redraw the images which would then satisfy the copyright requirements? This really is a gray area not an out right violation. --Cool CatTalk|@ 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool Cat asked for my input, so all I will say is that IMO, the images are derivative works. Remember, to be eligible for copyright in its own right, a particular work must have some creativity involved in its production. Drawing an image as closely as possible based on a copyrighted image involves little (if any) creativity. Drawing your own interpretation of that image might qualify, but certainly not where you attempt to duplicate as closely as possible a copyrighted image. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the images in the series had a red background. Also the image ratio of my images are off. The ones in the show were much smaller and further apart. It is not a screen capture.
    You can take the picture of 3 coke bottles you bought. You can also do the same with three pips. What i am doing is no different than [2] (note that the captain rank insignia is visible), its just that mine was created digitaly and not painted. Also I released my image with a free licenese.
    I can take the photos of the same rank insignias sold by Hollywood Pins. And the crop the photo to look identical to the computer generated images so that they are aligned to the table.
    I cannot get too creative as the material discussed is the rank insignias and images should be about the rank insignias. Just like this not so creative image: Image:St Pete meetup - Jimbo's ferrari.jpg. i do not think ferrari owns the copyrights.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that a picture three Coke bottles taken directly by you probably involves some element of creativity, in the position you were standing/sitting when you took the photo, how you positioned those bottles, the background of the photo, etc. When you attempt to reproduce an image as closely as possible without adding anything creative to the process, your product is a derivative work. That is exactly why the images you have made are not eligible for your copyright without permission from the copyright-owners of the original work -- you "cannot get too creative". Image:St Pete meetup - Jimbo's ferrari.jpg involves elements of creativity, such as where the photographer was standing, where the Ferrari was placed, the lighting, and so on. There was no conscious attempt to exactly duplicate an existing photo of a Ferrari. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I made no consious attempt to duplicate what appears exactly on the show (which are always angled as they are 3d pins reflecting various objects in the set). What you say would be a screenshot. The insignias I drew have a light effect if you consider that an element of creativity...
      I just drew for circles next to each other which doesnt require a lot of talent. Even a 4 year old can draw circles (really they should be ineligable for copyright). I just used a computer tool to draw the images rather than taking a photo of hollywood pin product. Are we not allowed to use computer tools to draw images? What I did is little difernt from: . The 4 images each are pd. Why cant I claim my circles are pd?
      Please understand this is being extremely frustrating for me. I do not enjoy second guessing myself so I ask you, how would you do it? Note that the focus of the images must be the rank insignia as that is the thing compared.
      I prefer to use images with a free license whenever posible. That is why I created these images.
      --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Two images showing the captain rank insignia from the show: Image:Picard1.jpg Image:Sisko8.jpg. My image: . See the diference?
      I am no expert in copyrights or trademarks, however I do not see an issue based on my udnerstanding of the articles.
      --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I do not want this page representing this project. John Reid 06:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats not a criteria of featured lists. --Cool CatTalk|@ 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to remain civil but it's a little difficult what with you going around and arguing with every oppose. I suggest that you do not want me to spend an hour or two marshalling objections. I don't like it. Why don't you just let that be enough? (By the way, criteria is plural.) John Reid 13:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a discussion, not a vote. If you refuse to be transparent about what you base your recommendation on, what is there to discuss? We're here to gather consensus through discussion, not take a vote. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to be polite here; I think you may just not understand how hostile I am to this page. Rather than bring out the full extent of my objections, I've limited myself simply to noting that I feel it is unacceptable. This is not something you can argue about or fix. You don't really want me to crank on it any more. John Reid 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats still not a featured list criteria. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is. Its the first one. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. If he doesn't like it, in his view it doesn't represent our best work. All Featured xxxxxx have their own version of that criteria. Featured Pictures have to be something you believe looks pleasing to the eye. He can't say he votes against it because he doesn't like television shows, or star trek, but he can vote against it if he doesn't like the list/doesn't think it's up to snuff. Please read the Featured List Criteria next time. -Mask 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            Thank you, AKMask, for saying politely what I was nearly tempted into expressing in much stronger language. John Reid 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People - this article has not been a featured list candidate for over 2 weeks, so this debate is going nowhere fast. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota state parks

previous FLC (06:38, 1 February 2008)

Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc

This is a companion page to the new FA Joan of Arc. The entries began about three years ago as part of the main article and gained contributions from many readers. Last November this portion branched onto its own page and underwent a major expansion. To the best of my knowledge, this is the most comprehensive list of its kind on the Internet. In particular the popular culture portions appear to be unique. Self-nom. Durova 00:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I am rather impressed that you have some references (this kind of topic is notoriously difficult to verify) but how sure are you that this list is comprehensive? The lead section says that "The entries represent portrayals that a reader has a reasonable chance of encountering rather than a complete catalog. Lesser known works, particularly from early periods, are not included" - why are they left out? The tables seem rather heavy on the 1990s and 2000s, and there are some question marks in some of the tables. I am a little surprised that Polly Perks, the heroine of Monstrous Regiment, is said to be a depiction of Joan of Arc... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are very good questions. Émile Huet once cataloged over 400 plays and musical works devoted to Joan of Arc. He did that in 1894. Despite a great deal of scholarly interest in Joan of Arc, no one has duplicated his feat. The closest attempt came in 1988 where one scholar constructed a complete list of films about Joan of Arc as a doctoral dissertation. The featured list requirements state, "Comprehensive: Covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." This is a dynamic list: completeness isn't feasible. Most of the works in Huet's catalog are derivative (based on Schiller's play) and have become so obscure that they survive in only a handful of research libraries.
    • To answer your other questions, Pratchett's references to Joan of Arc are allusive. That seems to be a trend shared by the television series Joan of Arcadia and several of the other recent entries. Frankly it was hard to verify the release dates on some of Japanese works. The IMDB doesn't list all of the anime and the English translations for the manga could be published years after the original version. Generally these are multi-part series released over several years, which creates another challenge of determining which portion contains the references. I settled for a few question marks on a topic that no other website even attempts to compile. Durova 01:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it possible to add as many links as possible to individual entries proving that specific depiction? Say, a link to lyrics or IMDB page to movie. Renata 02:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great improvements, unique list, something only WP offers. Hoping that adding links will continue :) Renata 03:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very imformative. Like the layout too and the references are good. Slgihtly heavy going, but worth the time to read it. Sotakeit 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Love the first image, and this is a very authoritative list. My only problem is that the images under the sub-headings just bump the table down in a somewhat ugly way. I can't think of any way to fix it without messing up the tables (why I'm supporting), but if you can think of a way to merge the images in better that can only improve the list. Staxringold 07:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes

This self-nom of the sister article to the Pacific list is on behalf of Wikiproject:Tropical cyclones. It has all of the known Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes up to now. It will be updated should new Category 5's form, (which hopefully won't have to be done). It has loads of pretty pictures. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest suspension bridges

List of Florida birds

This follows the format of previous lists, is well illustrated and referenced. Although I added a few images, this is mostly the work of Aerobird . Dsmdgold 02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This interesting, because there are no gaps when I look at the article. What browser and operating system are you using? Do you see the same type of gaps when you look at List of North American birds and List of Oklahoma birds? On the Florida list, do all of the images cause gaps? If not, which ones do and which ones don't? I am starting my "work week" so I may have limited time to address this problem until Monday, but if you can be more specific about these gaps, I will try to see what I can do about them. Dsmdgold 11:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, on IE6, 800x600, Monobook skin, I get smallish gaps with the Great Cormorant, Black Vulture and Loggerhead Shrike. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get no gaps at all with Firefox at 1024x768. —Nightstallion (?) 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What browser are you guys using? More than half this article is blank space. Every signle pic makes at least 7-8 lines of blank. Tobyk777 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the north America list is fine. the oklahoma one has gaps too, but they're not even close to as bad as here. Tobyk777 05:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At home I use Firefox and get no gaps. At work, I use Explorer and get the gaps mentioned by OpenTopped Bus. It seems to the problem described by OpenTopped Bus comes when a vertically oriented image is attached to a "short" family and is followed by closely by another image in the next family. I've tweaked some of those images by making them smaller and, when possible, moving the images in the next family farther down. Does this help. Again, if I knew what browser, OS, and skin you are using, then I might be able to replicate your problem and address it. Dsmdgold 14:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my Win95/IE5.0 Jurassic Puter, the pics are too deep on some of the shorter families, and cause "gaps" on the family below; the "150px" picture setting doesn't help. (This is why originally I left some families "unillustrated".) - Aerobird 02:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moving left. At this point, I'm not sure what should be done. I think that Aerobird is correct in that including pictures with short families will cause gaps for some users. The only two possibilites it seems to me are either live with the gaps, as is being done on the Oklahoma list, or not illustrate every family. Right now, it is my goal to have at least one picture for every family, except those that are only represented by extinct, extirpated, accidental, casual or hypothetical species. (I'm not meeting that goal because some familes lack good photographs anywhere on wikimedia.) However if it is community consensus that gaps are a big enough problem, then I can live with that also. Either way, I'd like it settled, as I have a few more of these lists planned. Dsmdgold 19:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the references some, if this isn't what you have in mind can you please point me at the style sheet that shows how you want online references formatted? Dsmdgold 14:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's good now. Reference style is just giving the full title, author/organization who created the page and any other info that is available on the page. Thanks, and good luck on your conspiracy ;) Renata 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of French monarchs

This is a great example of a list. An, as far as I can see, meets all the criteria... Sotakeit 17:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I find it interesting that Hugh Capet was king of France from 987 until 986, while John I and Louis X were both king from 1314 to 1316. Also, there are two entries for a "Philip V". Is this correct? --Carnildo 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Napoleon was President of the Republic, why is he listed? I know nearly nothing about the topic, but that's seems strange, I just want to understand. Along with that, the list is very good. Afonso Silva 13:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Dates are not properly linked. Rmhermen 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very good list, nice references and pictures. I also like the layout. Afonso Silva 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice references ;) Renata 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support This earns my support now. - The list itself is quite good. Most of this page is FL quality and I think this problem can be addressed, but it's serious: the introductory essay needs work. I'm uneasy with its tone: it comes across as breezy and hasty - "most historians..." - name one, please? There's not a line citation to be found in this essay of several paragraphs. The mention of Charlemagne carries a strong POV. This page should at least footnote that he was also the founder of the Holy Roman Empire which gives Germany a fair claim to count him as their own king - which they do - and his capital city Aachen is in their country. Where the text mentions English claims to the French throne it would be a good idea to link to the article on the subject. The introduction uses one and two line paragraphs and leaves me, even after three readings, uncertain why the treaty of Verdun was selected over other possibilities as the starting point for this list. Durova 06:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today's changes are a step in the right direction. Keep copyediting. Regards, Durova 02:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The adjustments so far are positive. I can't support it yet because the introduction still has one and two sentence paragraphs. The long lead still has only one citation. This part of the page is very much like an article and it should observe the same high standards as an FA. If Wikipedia had at "good list" designation I'd give it to this page myself, but it needs more attention to merit an FL. Please don't let this lapse: I want to support it.Durova 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great list. I'm interested in monarchy etc., and this is the best list of monarchs of a perticular country I've seen. Liek the layout too, especially the picture. Jani123 12:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Excellent layout, but I'm not fond of the idea of having 2 columns showing their kingship dates, as the second column data is redundant to the data in the first column, one row down. Is this worth fixing? I think it is because the data looks no good when it is redundant. Possibly rename the first column Kingship began: or Emperorship began:... Comments? → J@red talk+ ubx  22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not entirely redundant. There are several instances where one king did not immediately follow another, or where there were two kings at the same time. --Carnildo 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dinosaurs

Preivously denied featured status, but the team has put together some great work on this article to make it look special. Now all links are blue, & thanks to me, it now have roughly 1 or 2 pictures per letter, except for ones with no pictures, like x etc. Basically nothing really starts with x, but that's beside the point. I hope you find it in your hearts to support this list make from the blood & sweat of so many html programmers. Thanks, Spawn Man 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=45266492"