Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    • 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.
      • Could you please (with proofs) include it in the intro? It is very interesting and shows the scope. Renata 02:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Will do. Durova 21:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Done. Durova 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • 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)
    • Yes, I'll do that. It'll take some work but I'll try to have that in while the FAC is open. Durova 21:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. Durova 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great improvements, unique list, something only WP offers. Hoping that adding links will continue :) Renata 03:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • They have. :) Durova 14:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • I've converted these images to table format, which reduces the white space. Hope that helps. Durova 15:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Very much, thanks! Staxringold 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

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)

  • Support, yeeeeeaaaaaah that's a featured list y'all. Phoenix2 20:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Huge support. Hurricanehink 00:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Support. Great job once again. The images sometimes crowd the text, though. It would be nice if that could be fixed (particularly in the "date in season" section). —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 02:19 (UTC)
  • Comment. The list shows Ethel making landfall in LA, but the article says elsewise. Rmhermen 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work. Cheers, Durova 06:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But I would like to see some images removed, because it's a little crowdy. CG 08:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Most certainly. —Nightstallion (?) 09:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me? I don't think the formatting could possibly be worse. The pictures overlap the tables. The tables squish the text into the side margins. It's a reader's nightmare. Until that's fixed, I cannot support. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure it could have been worse, but it's a lot better now. I've fixed all of the egregious text-squeezing. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:54 (UTC)
      • Now that's more like it. Other than one or two big white spaces, it looks great. I now extend my support. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The Wikiproject Tropical Cyclone produces another fine peice of work! Tarret 23:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments - generally very nice. Can you link some units (mph, metres, kilometres, etc) please. I see the table in section 2.2 overlapping the image of Hurricane Emily. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I linked some units and took out the Gilbert picture to make room for Emily. Is this better? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delightedly support another candidate from our TC Wikiproject. NSLE (T+C) at 00:55 UTC (2006-03-23)
  • Support, definitely, meets all the criteria. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for all sorts of great factors, including one of my favorite templates, {{Saffir-Simpson small}}. Tiny request: Is there any way to make a map featuring the paths of these various hurricanes (that are known), to show some kind of a general pattern? Staxringold 07:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support because it is as complete as the now featured Pacific cat 5 hurricanes list. juan andrés 03:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Florida birds[edit]

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)

  • Support, though it would be nice to have a footnote on the disputed status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (the AOU might accept its rediscovery, but the ABA has decided not to change its status from Extinct). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, great work. —Nightstallion (?) 11:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, if we're allowed to support one's own pages. ;-) - Aerobird 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The pictures make HUGE gaps in the text. This makes it very hard to read. This needs a picture reformatting for sure. Tobyk777 03:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I get no gaps at all with Firefox at 1024x768. —Nightstallion (?) 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Support - looks fine to me (just like the other bird lists). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For the third time today: please format references in reference style and not as external links :) Renata 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Support Another fine effort from the ornithologists. Durova 06:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. While it is a fine work, there is too much on that page. Perhaps it should be split into a few smaller articles. I wouldn't want to read or look at the whole thing at once. J@redtalk+ ubx  22:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

List of French monarchs[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    • Fixed. Sotakeit 20:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • He is the same person as Napolean III listed next, I would suggest combining those two entries with the presidency reduced to a footnote. Rmhermen 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Dates are not properly linked. Rmhermen 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good list, nice references and pictures. I also like the layout. Afonso Silva 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - nice references ;) Renata 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
Today's changes are a step in the right direction. Keep copyediting. Regards, Durova 02:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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@redtalk+ ubx  22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)

Test cricket hat-tricks[edit]

This is a renomination (previous nom). All of the redlinks have now disappeared (because the WikiProject Cricket people have created pages for all Test cricketers). Notes are now in the fancy <ref> style; includes Irfan Pathan's recent hat-trick in the first over of a match.

The one thing it does not have, which was mentioned last time, is details of the hat-trick in the England v Rest of World series in 1970 (considered Tests at the time, but not so officially now) or the South African rebel Tests (also not officially considered Tests). I don't have details, and I am not sure that they belong in a list for "official" Test matches. If anyone else has details and can add a note, be my guest. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments. This is an excellent list, but I have a few small comments to make it even more perfect:
  1. I don't understand why most footnotes are in the first column, but some are in the second or fifth columns. The sixth column I can kind of understand, but I think I would move them all to the first column.
  2. The number of the Test within the series doesn't seem interesting. It just seems to be a way to link to the scorecard, but it's not actually obvious that this is where it links to until you hover. I wonder if there's a way to link to the scorecard more explicitly, and drop the Test number.
  3. Why not use 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th innings of the match, rather than just 1st and 2nd of the team? It contains strictly more information than you've got at the moment.
  4. Some place names link to the ground, and some to the city (sometimes even if we have a page for the ground, e.g. #11). Shouldn't they all link to grounds, even if that creates some redlinks?
  5. Miniature flags would be nice, as seen on many of the other cricket lists.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Most of the notes are in the first column because that seemed the right place, unless another column was more appropriate: note [8] is in the "Innings" column because it says "South African opening batsman Trevor Goddard carried his bat through this innings"; notes [13], [14] and [16] are about the match - both Asian Test Championships matches - and so are in the "Test" column. But I am open to suggestions.
  2. Well, having mentioned the innings (which surely is interesting) I wanted to link the match in the series too. But I agree that the hidden link is not idea; there was once a scorecard column, but it didn't really add anything and went to save a few pixels of table width. Compare Test match triple centuries. Would it be better to link through the number in the first column?
  3. Good idea. Will do when I have a moment.
  4. Yes, they should. Now fixed, I hope.
  5. Yes, they would: this one deliberately avoided them to save a few pixels (hence the abbreviated team names) but I have tried it out again. Better?-- ALoan (Talk) 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Follow up comments:
1. That still doesn't explain note [9]. I would definitely move [8] and [9] to the first column. I understand the ones referring to the matches: I would tend to move them to the first column, but I see the opposite point of view too.
2. How about after the date, maybe even in the same column as the date to save a bit of space? And then I would lose the Test column, at which point you'd have to move its footnotes. :-)
5. I see what you mean about the width. I think I still slightly prefer it with the flags, although I'm not quite so certain now. At the moment, I'm seeing some of the country names beside their flags and some below, so I suspect some &nbsp;s are needed.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, btw. I trust you will be supporting soon :)
1. Sorry - missed that one out. I see what you mean. I have moved them.
2. Same column does not really save much space, if you need an extra word like "Scorecard" to be linked - the saving is in linking something that is already there. Although the scorecard is a bit of an easter egg, I hope the colour makes it clear that there is a link there, and the tooltip shows where it goes. Perhaps a note somewhere would be a good idea: "The entry in the Test column is a link to the cricinfo scorecard"?
5. Having put the flags back by hand, I agree. I see the names and flags on the same line (using IE) - each entry has a &nbsp; between the flag and the team link, so it should work. Which ones are you seeing on different lines? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm seeing all of them split if I set my browser window thin enough, but only in Mozilla, not IE. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support? Hint hint? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Support when 3 is fixed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it would be nice to have at least a mention of the hat-tricks in "unofficial" tests, but it's not essential, and certainly not enough of a reason to oppose. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've dug out and added some information on the two hat-tricks in the RotW matches. If anyone has information on the South African matches, let me know. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will support if references will be formated in reference (and not external link) format. Renata 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support even though it does not meet my definition of a great list. Renata 02:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Will change to support if the references are formatted per Renata's comment. Also, whilst I don't regard it as sufficient reason for me to object, the first time the term ODI is used I'd prefer it to be the full term One-day International, or alternatively to be wikilinked to One-day International.
    • I have expanded out the first ODI reference (sorry, my mistake when adding the bullet point) and reformatted the references. I hope this meets with approval. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, looks good. Oldelpaso 18:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Kansas birds[edit]

This list follows the format as List of North American birds and List of Oklahoma birds, is well illustrated and complete, and is referenced. Self-nomination. Dsmdgold 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, great list. Colourful, nice lead, few red links! Phoenix2 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the conspiracy to have 50 featured bird lists :) Renata 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You are on to us, but its much larger than that. (Just wait for List of birds that play cricket). Dsmdgold 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL :) Renata 23:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What, you mean this one? (waits for slap) --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, withdrawing that temporarily pending an explanation as to why the bananaquit is on the list - neither the article for that bird nor the reference source for the Kansas list suggests its presence in Kansas. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It was a mistake. It's gone now. My method of work, when constructing a state bird list, is to copy the contents of List of North American birds into an edit page and then substract out those species that are not found in the target state. I missed the Bananaquit at this step, probably because it is the only species in its family. In subsequent editing, I didn't realize that it shouldn't be there, and even wrote a family description for it, since there wasn't one in Oklahoma, the source of the family descriptions. Mea culpa. Great catch. Dsmdgold 16:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support duly restored. Good work. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine piece of work. Durova 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Provinces of the Philippines[edit]

Here's a list of the 79 provinces of the Philippines in tabular form, with other information like provincial capital, region, population, area, etc. I think it meets the criteria. I put this list up for FLC before (see here, but unfortunately I didn't follow up when objections were raised (mostly asking for references), so the nomination failed. But it has a references section now. :) Coffee 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I like it. —Nightstallion (?) 20:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have two words: image copyrigts :) Right now thay are claimed under fair use, yes COA templates is fair use template. And you cannot use fair use for decoration. I spotted two other things, but I'll fix them myself later on. Renata 22:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the seals were uploaded by me a long time ago, when I was new and hardly familiar with image tags. I'm pretty sure they're public domain, and can all be tagged with {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. :) Coffee 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Happy re-tagging then :) And I'll support then. Renata 03:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Done! Coffee 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, good but the numbers in the region column of the table trip me up. I've got no idea where they come from and unless I use popup boxes, I've also got no idea what they're supposed to mean. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The provinces are grouped into 17 regions. Regions of the Philippines, which explains the regions in detail, is linked to in the table. Hmm... I've expanded the entries in the region column from "X" to "Region X". Is that any better? Coffee 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A bit. Perhaps you could add a few lines on how the regions are numbered in the lead where the 17 regions are mentioned. That way they don't come falling out of the sky when the reader sees the table. - Mgm|(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've rearranged the lead a bit and information about regions has its own little paragraph. Coffee 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, the changes work for me. - Mgm|(talk) 16:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support but could you please correct a minor thing - links to National Statistics Office and Department of Interior and Local Government are merely external links. If they were used as references please put EXACT page (table, database, etc.) you used in a reference format or move to external link section. Renata 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright, done. Coffee 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Clear list. Magalhães 16:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good work. Durova 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nicely done. Howard the Duck 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Great work! Afonso Silva 00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Canadian provinces and territories by area[edit]

This is the "sister article" to the population list, which is newly promoted. This list has references and is accurate. I find it extremely unlikely that these ranking will change, but in case they do this list will be updated. This is partially a self-nomination, as I seperated the old list and made the lists look like the population list. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Lovely work. Durova 17:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Clean and easy to read. Staxringold 13:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with the old unaddressed comment on the talk page. The table should include a square miles column. Rmhermen 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Added. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

English football champions[edit]

Self nom. List is comprehensive and accurate. Similar in content to featured list Swedish football champions. Oldelpaso 22:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, well referenced and clean list. No difference from the Swedish football champions list that would be reason enough to oppose this one. Although a picture would be nice. ;) -- Elisson Talk 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Picture added. I think I tagged it correctly, but somebody more familiar with image tagging ought to check it. Oldelpaso 21:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - but would it be possible to add the number of points achieved by the winner and the runner up? It would also be nice to mention League and Cup doubles, teams remaining unbeaten (if any), European competitions also won, and any other interesting snippets in footnotes. (I would have made the similar comments about the Swedes.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've put in some additional footnotes. Oldelpaso 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd put notes above references, and "see also" to the very end of the article, but that's your call. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a very good list. Carioca 04:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: With the top scorers listed, it would be a nice addition to have the number of games during the season included somewhere. It would help differentiating a 20 goal/year tally from 43 goal/year and might put some perspective on the number of games now compared to then. Poulsen 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Portugal[edit]

I'm resubmitting the article, the previous problems are solved. The list now seems to meet the criteria, it is useful, as every president has its own article, it is comprehensive, as no president is missing and the data is accurate and stable. It was based on the already featured List of Presidents of the United States and follows a similar structure. Afonso Silva 19:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Removed all the pictures, please withdraw your objection. Afonso Silva 11:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Support AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Issues solved. Gameiro 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
this last vote was made by Joaopais | Afonso Silva 12:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign. Gameiro 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Renata 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a very good list. Carioca 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's good :-) anog - 21:53 GMT, 19 March 2006

List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries[edit]

(Partial self-nom) A list that is comprehensive in terms of the top-division clubs and contains links to the national club lists. Conscious 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - it looks ugly. There should be info about each club, not just a plain ugly list. Pics could be nice, but I know very well that logos are fair use and fair use does not allow to use images for decorations. Also there is a ton of red links (well, that is not the major point of my objection). Renata 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, why should there be info about each club (how much info on each entry do you get out of List of Oklahoma birds or List of mathematics lists)? And what kind of info? How does it look ugly, and what should be made to make it look not ugly? I don't think your objection "provides a specific rationale that can be addressed". -- Elisson Talk 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm with Elisson. Adding club info would make it unwieldy and unusable. And that's not the purpose of a list in any case. A well-made list should be clean and easy to use and quickly lead you to where you want to be - where the info is! Wiggy! 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, there is this very cute class=wikitable; the two mentioned lists have at least a couple of sentences about each heading, a couple of pics, and just a couple of red links. Additional info, like who's the champion? What city is it from? Founding date? Some statistics, how well they did on the championship (your reference has that). I know it's a lot of work and most likely info is not readily available, but you have to earn featured status. Also, links are not formatted in a consistent manner. Some have FC, some F.C. I know that articles are named very differently and that's none of your fault, but there is link piping for that. Also, since when Kazakhstan is in Europe? If you list UEFA clubs, indicate so in the title. Also, is there any reason why Wales & England get a separate entry? Also, just take a look at how your references are formatted... Renata 07:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Additional info is found on the club page. There is no need to clutter the list with info that can be found elsewhere. Links are formatted in the form the club and country uses the name. That is not a reason to object. Or do you want that clubs that aren't even using FC or F.C. should be listed as such? About Kazakhstan and UEFA, try reading the first paragraph, saying Countries that are not in Europe but are members of UEFA are also listed in this article.. Why should England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland not have separate entries? They have their own FA, their own league and their own national team. -- Elisson Talk 11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • What if there is no club page? Or it just says, "Abc is a soccer club in xyz country"? So the info can't be found elsewhere. My strong belief is that lists that just list thing are not really useful. Lists should have more info on each entry. This info is presented in a consistent manner througout and saves a lot of clicks to hundreds of sub-pages just to find some trivial info.
          • No, of course, I don't want FC when there is no FC. I want consistency. Some clubs seem to be named randomly. For example, Spain clubs are pipped not to show any CF, FC, etc. Why? My point, decide what to do with those FC's, CF's and follow it throughout. Renata 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The title "List of football clubs in UEFA countries" would be inaccurate, as autonomous leagues such as the Isle of Man are not affiliated to UEFA. For footballing purposes, Kazakhstan and Israel are considered part of Europe. Oldelpaso 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: My main concern is the actual the usefulness of the list. A lot of them gives the impression to be simply transclusions of the individual lists for each country (this is especially true for the smaller countries). The title of the article is also misleading: it doesn't list all football clubs in Europe, just the main league ones. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (usefulness) The list provides some kind of information that cannot be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. This is especially true for the countries where we have a few redlinks and no article on the national league. You may not know there is such and such club unless you see a redlink in this list. Moreover, the list complements subcategories of Category:Football (soccer) clubs, showing all clubs in one page. That's why I think the list is useful.
    • That's not my point. You might as well list the redlinks in the lists of individual countries and then lump all those lists in a single category. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And I think it would a lot more useful with some additional info. Renata 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (top-flight clubs) It's unreasonable to try to list all clubs in one page (the list is long as it is now). But the most significant clubs are listed, and there are links to the national sublists, so the list probably deserves to retain is current proud name.
    • The title still doesn't reflect the actual subject of the list. "List of main-league football clubs in Europe" is more accurate, since what you're actually doing here is only presenting a subset of the actual universe. "List of football clubs in Europe" presumably includes every football club in Europe that deserves an article according to Wikipedia guidelines of notability. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (choice of countries) Ellison's words seconded. It'd be incorrect to mention UEFA, because there's Isle of Man. (Not everyone will even know what UEFA is.) It's reasonable to include non-European UEFA countries because they are a part of "Football Europe". That's mentioned in the lead. And UK is four different countries in terms of football, that's historical.
    • You have to make clear which one of the several definitions of Europe you're using, as well as any other exceptions or additions and their justifications. UEFA membership and geopolitical criteria are perfectly fine, but the inclusion criteria have to be made clear to the reader. Stating the obvious also helps a lot towards reducing potential confusion: if the four nations within the UK are separate in terms of soccer, simply mention (and source!) that fact where appropriate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • So why not to explain that UK is really 4 countries in respect to soccer (I didn't know that). But what about Isle of Man and Faroes? What's the story there? They are not independent countries and are not part of UEFA. Or Faroe islands is? And why Monaco is not included? I have no idea personally and I see no comments anywhere and I got sincerely confussed. Please clearly define your inclusion criteria. And also, there are more countries that are not in Europe and are in the list than just Israel and Kazakhstan. Renata 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, there are other territories like Isle of Man, e.g. Gibraltar, Guernsey, Jan Mayen, Jersey, etc. What's up with those? Renata 20:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (ugliness) Changing bulleted lists to class=wikitable tables would be fairly trivial, the question is, would it suffice, or is more information on clubs necessary? (See also my considerations on usefulness above.) Conscious 15:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In part, ugliness was addressed by adding flag icons (nice touch). And I am a strong believer in more info = more useful (of course, there must be a balnce). Renata 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object until the inconsistent formatting (compare Ukraine and Wales) is fixed - ideally by moving all sections to the table format. The references also look thin (one website). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Now all bulleted lists have been converted to tables. For each club its city is listed. The defending champions are emphasized. The lead and corresponding sections contain explanations why particular countries are included. The article is to be moved to List of top-division clubs in UEFA countries, pending objections. Conscious 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • For all clubs abbreviations like F.C. are included in the list, where applicable. Conscious 20:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Page moved to List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries. Conscious 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Great work so far! So much better than when it was just nominated. Just one more thing: adjust the lead per title change. So is Faroe Islands member of UEFA? And why Monaco is not listed? Renata 07:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Monaco is not affiliated to either UEFA or FIFA. AS Monaco, the one club from the country, that plays in the French League, has been listed under France with an explanation. Faroe Islands is separately affiliated to UEFA, and hence separately listed. -Aabha (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And that's in the article now. Conscious 10:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support after great improvements. Way to go. Renata 16:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality[edit]

  • New, short (but comprehensive) list. Self-nom. Rmhermen 17:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - good list, but needs a little more work. (1) lead section needs to be longer and to follow the wiki layout guidelines; (2) notes section should/could be expanded into a separate heading; (3) references need to follow reference format, it's not enough to list them as external links. When it's done I will move to support. Renata 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Re (2) Notes made separate section (although some featured lists do not). Re: (1) I maintain that this is the appropriate length (1 - 2 paragraphs) for an article of this length, according to the lead section guidelines (and note that lead sections are not required by featured list criteria). I have no idea what "wiki layout guidelines" are or why this does not follow them. Re: (3), this appears to be a standard and appropriate "reference" method in featured lists. Rmhermen 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, let me elaborate. (1) WP:LEAD says a perfect article begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This list starts with a story about satellites that have little to do with the article. And I know it is a list and not an article, the lead is too short to give enough background. (3) there are no special standards for references on featured lists. There is one good ol' WP:CITE. Renata 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I and others maintain that there is a separate standard for references for lists. Please look at the currently featured lists and their references sections. A large number have similar Reference sections. It makes little sense in a section with 54 facts to have 40+ links to the same source. Criteria for featured lists does not even absolutely require any references, in fact. The lead section starts with a short history of satellites (which is the topic of the list) yet you simultaneously want me to remove the facts and expand it. Color me puzzled. Rmhermen
          • I encourage you to look at a large sample of currently featured lists to see the wide variety of leads and the different reference styles used. There are long ones better called articles and there are one-sentence self-referential leads. Also "references need to follow reference format, it's not enough to list them as external links." - there has never been an external links section in this article. I added accessed dates to them (again although most featured lists don't) Rmhermen 05:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Since it is pretty much useless to argue here, I have done it myself. See the difference? Date of access is not the key here at all. And if someone else does something in a wrong way, it does not mean you have to repeat it. My objection over lead stil stands (or I will have to do it myself once again?) Renata 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • However your changes now result in the case where the last two references do not contain any information which tells you what part of the article they are references for. Also you have the second reference as by "Ranger Assoc." which doesn't portray the information as from a British think tank and hosted on a U.S. military website. Remember that "good ol' WP:CITE" is a fairly new procedure and still not completely mature either. Rmhermen 17:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • {{sofixit}}! I did my best without knowing a thing about the sources. And general references are not pointing to specific fact in the text that was taken from that reference. There are footnotes for that. Renata 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The main issue here isn't really adding 40 footnotes to the same source (which is different from the case of List of unusual deaths nomination below, where each fact is probably referenced by a different source, see my objections there). The fact is that web references should be properly formatted. The issue at hand here is that if you print the article, all the information about the source you could have gathered by following the link is lost, and that decreases the usefulness of the list itself. Also references are a requirement of featured lists (it's even mentioned in a html comment when you edit Wikipedia:Featured list candidates!!). What is not a standard is whether the use footnotes vs. just listing the reference at the end. Finally, if standards are getting tougher (and they do at FAC!) that can only be a good thing. There's always Featured List Removal Candidates to deal with those lists that are not to standard anymore. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No actually you are wrong. From Featured list criteria: " Includes references where appropriate (my emphasis), arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources)." This was created to deal with cases like Lists of lists of mathematical topics, and I don't claim that this article does not require references. However remember that that page is the place to try to change standards - not htis one. Rmhermen 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • References are required de facto until judged otherwise during the nomination (thus the change in language to "includes references where appropriate" resulting in the allowance made for List of lists of mathematical topics). So far that's the only case I know where references have not been required, and it is unlikely many others will come up soon. So unless the nominator makes a compeling case for references not to be included, they will remain a requirement. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Somewhat pedantically I feel the need to point out the fact that the EU is not a country. A footnote saying "included here for completeness" should be enough to address the contradiction with the title. Otherwise very good list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Added. Rmhermen 04:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It needs some work. . . all it is is a large chart, it could posibbley do with a few more words. Other than that it is OK!!!! pkazz 12:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why it is a list, not an article! Rmhermen 04:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. Would Timeline of first orbital launches by country be a better title? If so, Timeline of astronauts by nationality could also be moved to maintain matching style. Rmhermen 04:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it is a better name indeed. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think launches by country and austronauts by nationality are the best choices. Renata 14:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • They identify the same quality, why should we use two different names to refer to "people from ..." and "satellites from ..."? Rmhermen 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, launches don't have nationality. People do. Quite simple, really. Renata 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I just noticed I had not voted on this nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I have tweaked the lead to mention the title of the list -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Complete and well referenced. Oldelpaso 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Extending nomination until March 2nd. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Extending for one more day until March 3rd. Then the nomination should be closed regardless of the result. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Canadian provinces and territories by population[edit]

I thought I'd get a more ordinary sort of a list featured. It presents the most recent data available, and is referenced. It will have to be updated as more data comes in, but it is accurate up to now. This is partially a self-nomination, as I rewrote it to use wikisyntax updated the values, and provided a little more background and information, but it is largely the work of others. Thank you to them. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The province/terr name should come first. The table presentation looks ugly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline
why shouldn't the ranking come first? I liked it better that way. Rmhermen 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
it can come now. There were two columns at first. The table looks bland. See some jazzy featured lists for ideas. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Rankings are now first. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: While I understand what you mean by "this is due to most of Canada being difficult to inhabit by large numbers of persons" (I guess by Canada being so large) it probably wouldn't be immediatly obvious to readers. That paragraph could use a rewrite. In general I think the article could use a bit more commentary on the statistics, and probably a mention of the oft-repeated fact that a large percentage of the Canadian population live close to the US border anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the paragraph on population density. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I dislike the redundant rankings. Couldn't we just have one column and use a footnote to show the rankings of the three territories among themselves? Rmhermen 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There is now only one ranking column. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline
Comment: Perhaps a distinguishing color should be added to the table header. Rmhermen 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I would support merging it with List of Canadian provinces and territories by area. Renata 05:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. has separate lists for population, population density, area and a number of other qualities. The UK has an even more complex set of separate lists. Why shouldn't Canada? Rmhermen 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, that's pretty dumb. But that was a comment, suggestion, something to think about and not a vote in any way. So you can feel free to ignore it. Renata 05:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice, simple list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "The three territories, which together are an appreciable percentage of Canada's area, are very empty of people". I know absolutely zilch about Canadian geography, so which are the three teritories? OK, I worked it out by clicking on the links, but it needs to be a bit more obvious to simpleton's like me. -- Iantalk 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the paragraph in question to include the names of the territories. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and Support. I added a map which might help other non-Canadians also. A nice list - -- Iantalk 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - although I see that the province and territory templates are up for deletion. I'm not sure it makes much sense to "subst" them, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Extending nomination for two more days until March 1st. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)