Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 a 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: WP:FLC Featured content: Featured articles Featured pictures Featured lists ← Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: What is a featured list? Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists
Nomination procedure Check the featured list criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated article. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination. (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 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. 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 to the 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 Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists or log of failed candidacies, as appropriate. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}. On the article's talk page, change {{FLC}} to {{FL}} or {{FLCfailed}}, as appropriate. For promotions, update Wikipedia:Featured lists. For promotions, add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages. For promotions, add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 List of Metal Gear Solid characters 1.2 List of Newfoundland and Labrador general elections 1.3 List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II 1.4 Towns of Alberta 1.5 List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition 1.6 Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 1.7 List of Dartmouth College alumni 1.8 List of retired Pacific hurricane names 1.9 List of English Football League managers by date of appointment 1.10 List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes 1.11 List of Nunavut general elections 1.12 List of guest stars on The Simpsons

[edit] Nominations

[edit] List of Metal Gear Solid characters

Okay since the first FLC this has been greatly improved per the comments left on the old page. Also this has gone through a thorough peer review and all the suggestions there have been seen to. The main concern with the previous nom seemed to be the length of the lead, now at two paragraphs the lead complies with these suggestions (at two paragraphs long) everything is sourced and I think we have the Featured List precedent for a List of characters article here.

†he Bread 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: The previous problems seem to have been addressed. It passes the guidelines set out at WP:WIAFL - it's useful (important fictional information for Metal Gear Solid), comprehensive (contains substantial information on all characters), it has many reliable sources, passes the Manual of Style and has images where appropriate. Good work. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Support. Nicely done, but I have some minor suggestions:
  • Wikify the changes by 65.32.231.181.
  • Organize interwiki links by alphabet.
    • These were categories, not interwiki links. By interwiki links I mean links that link to the article in other languages. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • They are sorted, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Suomi. Jay32183 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rave.jpg and Mantisss.jpg have a poor fair use rationale format, please use the widely accepted format for screenshots (e.g. Children of the Gods 1.jpg).
    • All fixed up, thaks go to TheEmulatorGuy, also there is Image:Wolfey.jpg, which I fixed aswell †he Bread 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Metal Gear Solid was the first game in the Metal Gear series to feature fully voiced characters and 3D graphics.[3] Whereas Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake both showed conversation either over a voiceless radio or via text displayed on-screen, Metal Gear Solid features fully voiced characters.
    • Fixed †he Bread 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While captured Otacon develops an infatuation with FOXHOUND member Sniper Wolf,[20] who is later killed by Solid Snake. - Wrong use of while here.
    • How's this[1]
  • Change all "v.b." to "voiced by", this is an uncommon shortening.
    • It's not an uncommon shortening, in fact it's used in Metal Gear Solid 3 (featured article) and Metal Gear Solid (good article), not to mention it's explained as "voiced by" earlier on. --TheEmulatorGuy 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Shortenings are never good for the readers. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Reluctantly I have gone and changed it †he Bread 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please expand the information about Solid Snake.
    • There's little expansion that can be done without diving into the main article on Solid Snake. The system I used was that if the character was on the List of recurring Metal Gear characters or had his own article, I would stick to only the information in Metal Gear Solid. Otherwise I would add info on other games to the characters whoa re primarily here. Big Boss is the exception as you need to know what he did to undestand his role †he Bread 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...due to the fact they did not know if the project was supported by the Screen Actors Guild or not,[2] and as such the only ones who used their real names were David Hayter (Solid Snake) and Doug Stone (Psycho Mantis). - Split this to two sentences. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Split †he Bread 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment May require a copyedit. "Due to the fact..." in the lead is very clumsy, use "because" or "since" instead. Jay32183 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Newfoundland and Labrador general elections

1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Summarises information on seats won and vote shere from 17 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
   • Comprehensive: Covers every general election since Confederation
   • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Newfoundland and Labrador.
   • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

(Self-nomination) Tompw (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Looks as good as the other election lists. --Arctic Gnome 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - These are really well done. Resolute 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A very complete and well-researched list of elections, which is up to the standards of many other featured ones. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II

Someone has turned almost all of the red links blue while I was not looking! Comments and ideas welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Lead could explain what an encyclical is. Latin names should be in italics per the MoS. The reference should be properly formatted, idealy using cite web or at least show as much information as required by the template. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Nice and to the point. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towns of Alberta

Self-nom. List of towns in the province of Alberta, Canada, with some statistical data. List is comprehensive, stable (numbers would change every 2 years, but are easy to update), accurate, uncontroversial. It's well linked to, as part of the {{Alberta}} navbox. --Qyd 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Town population can exceed 10,000 people unless the council requests a change to city status," - this sentence isn't written correctly. Why are some towns listed with "(located in)"? Rmhermen 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; Reworded sentence; the larger towns are administratively autonomous, even if when they are surrounded by land governed by county authorities; removed "located in", as it's specified at remarks that those towns are stand-alone municipalities. --Qyd 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The list was rated B on the quality scale, which suggests it is either not comprehensive, not entirely accurate, or has other problems (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment). Could you please provide your comments on this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Reply: I tagged it as B myself, as part of the WP:CANADA article assessment. I tend to be rather conservative when rating an article, as I believe that (generally) a page should go through WP:GAC, WP:PR of WP:FAC/WP:FLC before receiving anything higher than B. This is the reason why I assessed it as B, even though I know it is complete and accurate, and I believe it is comprehensive. But I'm open to any suggestions for improvement. --Qyd 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  OK, good. I just wanted to make sure that nothing is amiss.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  Additionally, explanations of and/or links to the terms used in the Remarks column would be helpful. What's a "specialized municipality"? "Area Board"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Without knowing who actually rated this article, and what their concerns are, I, frankly, find the assessment to be worthless. To my eye, the list appears to be complete, and factually accurate. I do agree about the lack of definitions for those categories. Though "Area Board" is anagolous to County/Municipal seat, since the special areas are defined as neither It may help to include this somewhere. Resolute 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Made marked-up links to Special Areas Board, Alberta, List of Alberta municipal districts#Specialized municipalities, the definitions are provided there. The other terms mentioned at remarks, municipal district and county, are wikilinked above the table--Qyd 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

      Thanks, that helps. On an unrelated note—the article currently states that communities with populations falling below the 1,000 limit may retain town status. What do you mean by "may"? Is it interesting enough to have written more about? Also, there are links to city and town, by neither of these two articles has a section specific to Canada. Is it possible to target the links more accurately?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

      I'm not aware of any community to renounce town ststus in favour of village, although teoretically it is possible (changes from village to hamlet, city to town and even city to hamlet exist). I felt the comment was necessary because a population below 1000 would not warrant the incorporation as a town. Rephrased to Communities with shrinking populations are allowed to retain town status even if the number of residents falls below the 1,000 limit, hope that makes it clear. City and town... I could link city to List of cities in Canada, but that wouldn't explain the concept. The fact is that incorporation of communities in Canada is legislated by the provincial governments, and thus can vary from province to province. The reference provided at the end of that sentence contains the Alberta-specific definitions. --Qyd 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

      Thanks for the explanation. The way the sentence was structured before, I was under impression that communities the populations of which fell below 1,000 mark were to become a subject of some kind of review, the outcome of which would decide whether or not their town status should be retained. I thought more information on that might be of interest to readers, but I guess I read too much into it :) As for the city/town status being different in each province, do you think creating a series of articles on each province incorporation policies is possible? I have exact same problem with Russia, and am planning to do just that eventually, because I can't think of any other efficient way of dealing with it. I am not going to make this a condition for my support (that'd be cruel :)), but it is something you might want to consider eventually. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

      Linked to List of cities in Canada#Alberta, just noticed that a brief definition is given there. --Qyd 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Complete, factual, my only (minor) concerns addressed. Resolute 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Please move the sources to a new subheader under "References". Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: That was already the case, all external references use the inline citation style. De-linked "Alberta Municipal Affairs", so it doesn't create the appearance of an inline external link (also, it's already wikilinked above). The sources were initialy anchored in the table header, but I had to move them, due to incompatibility with css class "wikitable sortable". --Qyd 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I meant taking the sources, changing their format, and then moving it under notes/references. See the Stargate SG-1 episode list as an example. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You mean using {{cite web}} for the inline references? I could do that, but all that cite web does is format an external link using a template (the goal being to achieve a unifom format). The references are already consistently formated (I just changed the one that was slightly different), the only thing that I could add is the access date, but honestly, I fail to see the point in having wikilinked dates attached to an external link. A non-wikilinked date I could manulay add, but again, I don't see the relevance. I might be wrong though. Regarding moving the sources, do you mean using the {{note}} + {{ref}} system? My preference is having them inline (this way, changes don't require editing in two separate places, and I find the plain html tags easier to descipher when compared to the note-ref coordination). --Qyd 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I appologize, I guess I misread you suggestion (again). You were suggesting to have a subsection called "Notes" under "References"? That would only apply when the notes explain someting in the text (like footer notes in a book), less so when citing sources.--Qyd 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Well you can also just move the sources to the section, without adding subheaders. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That would imply using {{note}} + {{ref}} (for inline citations, which are a must). While the note+ref system has its advanages (such as customisable order), it is my opinion that it confuses new contributors, making the article harder to edit. The rendered page would, however, be identical with the currently used Cite.php style.--Qyd 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition

When this was last nominated a week ago, all the comments were dealt with within a few days of its nomination, but no one bothered voting ether for or against. According to the {{FLCfailed}} template now on the page, I can resubmit this “once the objections have been addressed”, and since all of the objections had been addressed four days into it’s last nomination, I guess I can just resubmit this automatically.

• Support as nominator. --Arctic Gnome 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest

This is a self-nomination. The page contains a brief explanation of Austria's record in the ESC (and I can add more and/or fix what's already there if that's a problem for anyone) as well as a list of links to the relevant songs. There will presumably be an addition of another song in the first few months of next year, but it's about as stable as these things can ever be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No inline sourcing. Lede is a bit POV "Austria's entries have been unusual and seemingly out-of-step with the rest of the contest." It seems rather short. Are there any other lists you can add in? Also, you only plan to have it about Austria candidates and not overall Austria in the contest, you might want to rename it as List of Austrian candidates in the Eurovision Song Contest or something like that. If you want to keep it about Austria in general in the project, you might want to expand it and ultimately go for FAC, not FLC. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Inline sourcing I'll fix (I was hoping that citations at the end of the relevant facts would be enough, but evidently not). Ditto the lead. In terms of the title, it's in line with the other articles on "X in the Eurovision Song Contest" - some have more information on the country's involvement, some have less. Certainly I've been told in the past that there's no obstacle in calling this a list, even though the title doesn't begin with "list of ____". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sourcing has been fixed and I've tweaked the sentence in the lead which was attracting attention. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dartmouth College alumni

In great shape, dynamic but I feel very comprehensive, includes some pictures for flavor, extremely well-cited. Two notes before you view:

• There's a citation for every single alumnus/na except for numerous federal legislators; those that seem to be unsourced are all covered by the this blanket list, which is the supporting citation for the statement "Over 164 Dartmouth graduates have served in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives." The list was compiled in 1999; those federal legislators who took office after then have their own supporting citations.
• I realize the intro is rather short by FLC standards, but I honestly can't think of legitimately relevant information that could be put there. It's simply a clear definition of what the list comprises; if you see this as a problem, please identify some specific information that could be included to expand it.

Thanks! Dylan 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - May want to consider putting the list in chart format, see List of Oregon State University people for an example. There are several other featured lists of people in chart format and we may want to have consistency in that regard, although I certainly don't think that should prevent it from being featured by itself. Also see what I did at list of OSU people for the lead to expand it, you may want to come up with something like that. My reasons for oppose are: What dictates the order of the TOC? You may want to make it in alphabetical order. Headers should not be wikilinked per the MOS. Image:Dartmouth Shield.png needs a fair use rationale to be used on the list. Image:WilliamJewettTucker.jpeg is untagged, it needs an appropriate tag. Image:DSouzal.jpg looks suspect. Looks like a promotional photo yet tagged as PD-self by an editor with very few contributions and who has several image deletion notices on his talk page. Image:Michael slive.jpg needs a fair use rationale. All references should use the cite web template. Biographies on IMDB are submitted by users and cannot be considered reliable sources. "Sports" section doesn't look very comprehensive. I realise Dartmouth isn't in a power conference but I am sure there are more sportspeople that could be included. There is an arbitrary white space under the "Members of the United States Congress" header, probably due to the image next to it that needs to be fixed. There should not be multiple wikilinks to the same article in the same section (i.e. linking to vermont multiple times in the members of US congress sections). VegaDark 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks -- those are a ton of really good suggestions that I can use. I'm on it. Dylan 07:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope I didn't come off too strongly. The list is still better than 99% of alumni lists on Wikipedia. Also, for not wanting to link to the same source for all the congressmen, see what I did for all the football players on the OSU list. You can just assign the source a name and add that at the end of each person without much extra work. VegaDark 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Oh, no, not at all, I was being sincere -- those are good suggestions and they're really going to help me improve the article. I'll do that for the congressmen. Dylan 07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Support - All my comments have been addressed, very good work. I'm going to have to steal the "sort by" button at the title of columns for my list, that is a very nice feature. VegaDark 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. You should find a source for Josiah Bartlet, but all in all it looks good. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of retired Pacific hurricane names

I just wrote this yesterday, and I believe it adheres to the featured list criteria. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though to clarify I'd rename the list to List of retired Pacific hurricane names or similar. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I'll do that. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow, you're fast. Jay32183 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Wizardman 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English Football League managers by date of appointment

This article has been through peer review and the issues raised there have been resolved. I believe this list now meets the criteria required for FLC candidates. Self nomination. HornetMike 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. Thoroughly referenced and up-to-date. I think it is great that the editors (mainly HornetMike) have gone to the trouble of locating a reliable source for all the manager's appointments rather than just scraping a list off someone else's site. A list like this needs to be maintained. I hope the WikiProject Football support you in this task. Colin Harkness°^Talk 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support very, very nice. — Seadog 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support jeez, thats just, awesome †he Bread 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: You want to put the link to the Longest Serving Managers page under a new external links section. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That only applies if it wasn't used as a reference. I believe it does serve as a reference since it enables the reader to check that these managers are still the manager. (Though that ref isn't updated as quickly as this list.) Colin Harkness°^Talk 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support incredibly neat and immensely well researched and constructed. As long as it is kept up to date, it has my vote any time. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. One of the best lists on Wikipedia Kingjamie 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes

Self-nom. I just moved this list to the main namespace today, and I think that it is suitable for becoming another featured list. It meets all of the criteria. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Improper date linking. Rmhermen 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment It needs a picture at the top of the page on the right. Also, it varies between present and past tense. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It should be all past tense now. Also, it is intended that a track map be an image in the top right. When it is created it will be put there. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good. I recommend you add a bit about warnings; maybe mention the breakpoints (not necessarily all of them). In some places the wording isn't the best. For example, the pre-1929 section starts the same way for all but the first one: A tropical cyclone... It gets a little repetitive and boring. "was "clobbered"" is a bit unprofessional. I recommend you combine pre-1929 with 1930-1949, seeing as how short they are. Also, aren't the years supposed to be linked when they are first used? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It should now link each year the first time it is used in a date. Rmherman, if this is not what you were referring to please be more specific. Also, there is now a section on breakpoints, the first two subsections in the main part of the list should now be merged, and the prose in those former sections has been edited. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Good. You should finish the Cite web template indicating the year, author, and publisher. Also, some of the more notable storms should get more length (the longest sections are three lines long, so more info can't hurt). I'll support now. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Full dates (including years) have to be fully linked every time to fully enable Wikipedia's date preferences. See also MOS:DATE Rmhermen 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The appropriate parts of a specific date should all be linked now, although I'm not sure how to handle a range of dates. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no way to handle ranges of dates. Don't sweat that part. Rmhermen 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment For the track map, I suggest you contact Ajm81, as Nilfanion is unavailable due to Acts of God. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Or not. He's back, as he repaired his internet connection after a lightning strike. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Hurricanehink. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Death tolls don't match in list and deadly systems sections and also don't match totals in the storms articles. See Ishmael for instance, with numbers ranging from 0 to 116 dead. Rmhermen 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The number "116" doesn't appear anywhere in the article... Hurricane Ismael says 116, but of those, a maximum of 57 could have been from the Peninsula (as the rest were deaths within the Mexican mainland). That's what the article reflects... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair point but the text should reflect this qualification. Rmhermen 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nunavut general elections

This list is relatively short (there's only been two elections), and as Nunavut uses consensus goverment, it provides details of who got elected to each of the 18 ridings at the two elections, rather than political party totals. (So is nothing like the other Canadian provincial election lists I've nominated).

It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed; has a concise lead sections and, apropriate headings. It has no TOC due to having only three sections; and has no images as there aren't any that are suitable. (I know that a map of the ridings would be very nice, but all such maps I've come across are Crown Copyright and thus not suitable).

(Self-nomination). Tompw 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly? Resolute 07:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  That was fixed by the time I read this. Tompw (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: A list of two? Rather than "bringing together a group of related articles", this is more of a union and abbreviation of the two election articles. Colin Harkness°^Talk 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a short list... but that's the nature of the content. Give it time and will get longer (how many items does a FL need to have?).

  It is not just a union of the election articles... the 2004 election article gives details of background, issues, and individual results,and hopefully so will the 1999 election article in time. All the list does is provide a summary of results, in the same way List of Saskatchewan general elections does.

  The dispute seems to be whether the list fulfills 1a - "useful"... as the articles definately suceeds in "bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic", I definately feel that the list is useful. Tompw (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree that a list of two cannot be featured. However, since this list has the names of all the winners, I could probably support it if it was moved to something like "List of elected members in Nunavut". --Arctic Gnome 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - After looking at the featured list criteria, I can't argue that this list doesn't meet them. --Arctic Gnome 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I don't object to the current amount of content, I don't think that this layout is scalable. While the next election may fit, the one after that probably won't. I don't think I would call this one of our best when it is facing such problems. Rmhermen 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I checked this... even if there is a new MLA with a name as long as Joe Allen Evyagotailak's at each election, there is room for another two elections (enough to get us to about 2012), and with the occasional bit of line-wrapping, there's enough room for a 3rd - which would see things fine to around 2016. Tompw (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Will there be room for people with smaller screen sizes than you? I've gotten complaints about the size of some of my tables when they fit fine on my screen. --Arctic Gnome 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I have a six year old computer, with a (15") monitor running at 1024x768, and 15" monitors were common enough then... in fact, my previous computer (dating from ?1996?) also a had a 15" monitor. In short, I think the overwhelming majority of users use at least 1024x768, and so my conclusion about there beeing expansion room for the table remain valid. Also, one can squeeze things togther quite tightly if you try... see United States Congressional Delegations from Massachusetts#1993-present: 10 seats. Tompw (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of guest stars on The Simpsons

1. Wikipedia's best work: One of the most complete lists of Simpsons guest stars on the English internet, well organized.
2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
   • Useful: Allows people to view each guest star by the episode they guest starred in.
   • Comprehensive: Has every creditted guest star in Simpsons history
   • Factually accurate: Each guest star can be confirmed by watching the episode
   • Stable: Is updated every time a new guest is announced and every time an episode is aired
3. Well-organised: Easy to understand format, Seasons > episodes > guests > individual members (if a band)
4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind
5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
6. Images: The only problem is that there are no images, and it would be no problem to add images, but I felt that since it is a general list, including just a few of certain guest stars wouldn't make much sense and could disrupt the flow of the list. -- Scorpion0422 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as Nominator -- Scorpion0422 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Great work, very informative, complete, although I agree you may need an image, maybe just having one at the top, for example Ricky Gervais. And say "Ricky Gervais as Charles, an example of a guest star." Gran2 08:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Pretty much what Gran2 said. Except more than 1 picture is needed, probably because there are so many pictures you could put on. I would say having a picture of:

1. Sideshow Bob
2. Fat Tony
3. The most notable of each seasons guest stars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy mci (talk • contribs).

• Comment. There are no sources for most the list. Episodes should be in quotes and the headings should follow MoS (e.g. "Season one" instead of "Season One"). --Maitch 14:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What should be sourced? All of the statements and future guests have sources. Do you want each and every guest star to have a source, because there's no general source for the episodes list... -- Scorpion0422 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Season one" etc. titles look terrible. Surely a better route would just be to change them all to numbers "Season 1", like List of The Simpsons episodes? Which is also a featured list. Gran2 17:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - An excellent, comprehensive and well organised list. Nebuchanezzar 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support; however, the title within the lead needs to be bolded. That aside, this obviously meets FL criteria. —Cliff smith 03:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as the list has no sources. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You tell me what needs to be sourced and where I can find these sources and I will add them. The guests from each episode can easily be confirmed by watching the episode plus I have links to several lists of guest stars at the bottom. -- Scorpion0422 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Finding what guests have been on the show by watching the epiodes yourself is original research. Although plot does not require references by default, this is a more complicated situation. Sure there is some official episode guide somewhere on the internet, so it wouldn't be too difficult to reference. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm the one who made the list and the bulk of the guest stars I got from the two lists that are linked at the bottom. THere is no official FOX list of guest stars on the Internet. And most of the existing lists are incomplete or full of mistakes so I had to use several lists, plus some Wikipedia pages. In can throw on a few more lists at the bottom if thats what you want. -- Scorpion0422 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh please. Every single guests star is already sourced, didn't you notice the episode names and production codes next to each guest star?Nebuchanezzar 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Please mind WP:CIVIL. As Michaelas10 said, that is original research. If there is no reliable source (as Scorpion0422 himself said above) for this list the nomination will fail regardless of how many support votes it gathers. Additionally, the episode screenshots are being used for decoration and not for discussion of the guest stars. These must be removed too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I never said it was original research. I got all of my information from the three lists that are sourced at the bottom of the page, who got their information from the episodes. Therefore, I have a source and it is not original research (on my part anyway). And what I said was that there is no OFFICIAL source, but the lists from those pages listed are relatively accurate and the information has been confirmed. -- Scorpion0422 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Nebuchanezzar and Gran2. --Rubber cat 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really have any objection to this list.. but I'm not sure if it's a featured list. It's good and all, but.. I wouldn't call it great. I think the trivial nature of the information might have a part of this. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: There are already some pretty trivial lists out there that are featured. For example, how important are lists of general elections in Canadian provinces? Guest stars are an important aspect of The Simpsons - more than 75% of the episodes feature guest stars and the show has been recognized by the Guiness Book of Records as having more guest stars than any other Primetime TV series. -- Scorpion0422 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I was impressed by the amount of guest starts. I have some ideas for the formatting that might make it stand out a bit more.. I'll leave a note on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose due to serious problems with the sources and lack of fair-use rationales for the images.

• On the one hand is the claim that the list is effectively self-referencing (each episode is named and coded). This might just be acceptable (I'm not sure) if the episode titles clearly stated "Guest: XXX as YYY". If it didn't identify who the artist was playing (including themselves), then it is OR to identify the artist's character. On the other hand, the main author admitted lifting "the bulk of the guest stars" .. "from the two lists that are linked at the bottom", which are apparently "relatively accurate". The first is IMDB, which is not regarded as a reliable source due to its user-contributed / v. lightly edited nature. The second is Simpson Crazy, who's About page says it was started by three guys, but mostly run by one in his spare time. Bedroom-operated web sites don't count as reliable sources either. Another reference given is The Simpson Archive, which is also fan-maintained. The author claims there is no official guest list (and that most unofficial ones are "incomplete or full of mistakes"). But the first reference is the offical The Simpsons.com site, which does count as a reliable source. This site gives all the info required, but for a vastly reduced subset of the names in this list. Therefore, I could support the list if restricted to just the facts from the (one) reliable source.
• The includsion criteria are ill-defined (and tweaked again at the start of Season one). This would be solved if list were based on the offical source.
• The unaired episodes section should be removed, perhaps to the talk page.
• The ING top 25 is a copyright list (ING's opinions of the best) and as such is a copyvio to reproduce I'm afraid. It needs to go.
• The Note1/2 lines use a deprecated template and don't seem to be tied back to anywhere in the list?
• There are no fair-use rationales for this list for any of the pictures. Not all editors think such rationales can be supported for lists so you may choose to play safe by removing them. If you feel it must have them, then I would think the only supportable rationale would be for a guest star playing themselves.

Colin Harkness°^Talk 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Reply: I don't see why such a big deal is being made over sources. There is a link to the official sites episode guide, and each episode page there includes guest stars. Do you want each episode here linked to each episode there? As well, this list is accurate because I used a combination of those lists, plus they can all be confirmed on the official site. The images can be removed no problem, they are mainly there for decoration. But what are you talking about inclusion criteria being ill-defined? Every actor creditted as a guest star is included (except Marcia Wallace because eh's been in a LOT of episodes), and every non-main cast member from the first season is there because they didn't have credited guest stars at that point. As for copyvio, that can also be removed no problem. -- Scorpion0422 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is a core policy. Listing one good ref amongst the dodgy ones doesn't make it all right. I think over 75% of the names on this list can't be reliably sourced without further research. Linking each episode to the official page using inline-citations/WP:Footnotes and {{cite web}} would be a big and essential improvement. It will really help to show that each episode is well sourced and discourage further unsourced additions (which are always a problem with such lists). I accept that such heavy pruning will seem like a big loss, but this is an encyclopedia that has higher standards than a fan site (esp. for Featured material). You could try to locate other reliable sources. Perhaps there are news articles that discuss a celebrity appearance in an episode? Try a Google search for the episode name and the star name.

The inclusion criteria would be shorter if you just said that the program must have credited the person as a "Guest star". The bit on Marcia Wallace is overlong and the definition of a "signficant role" isn't as objective as ideal. Perhaps just briefly say that although she is credited as a "Guest star", she has appeared in over a hundred episodes and so is not listed here. Series One would seem to be a problem, but the current list includes voice actors who aren't special just because their character didn't become a regular.

See Wikipedia:Fair use and Help:Image page#Fair use rationale for how to add a rationale to your picture. To answer WarBaCoN's point in the talk page: no you can't add them back later ;-).

Colin Harkness°^Talk 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit, the one source is a bit dodgy, but it is complete, thats why its listed. But IMDB and the Simpsons Archive are both accepted sources and the official site is official. Those are what I used to make this list, so adding more sources would just be overkill. I don't see why this list needs to have a link to the official page beside each episode. The List of episodes of The Simpsons doesn't have a link to the official site next to each page. As for the books, I have 2 of them, so I'll source them. -- Scorpion0422 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This book and the various sequels contain all the listed guest stars. If anyone has it (I did, but gave it to my sister) then you could reference from there.HornetMike 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be a great source. The inline-citations recommendation still applies. There's no reason why this list couldn't become featured, but it needs a bit of work yet. Colin Harkness°^Talk 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment For the referencing issue, there really is no issue. Just because we don't format a template for each and every part of the article does not make it unreferenced. There is a certain level of common sense one should use. If we say "X stared in episode Y" then episode Y can be used as a reference, and no further note is really needed. To say this info is unreferenced is just silly. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The episodes are a primary source. If the article is relying on them as references, it should be explict about it (so we can distinguish when it is relying on something else as a references, such as a fan site or an official site). Leaving the reader to guess which facts are supported by the episode and which come from elsewhere isn't satisfactory. Secondly, the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources policy makes it quite clear that such sources should be the exception and can only be used with great care. It appears to be well documented that the Simpsons episodes do not list the full details of the guest stars and their characters in the credits. Therefore speculation (or unreferenced insider knowlege) that a particular yellow cartoon character was voiced by Dustin Hoffman is not allowed just because you can watch the episode and it sounds a bit like him. Colin Harkness°^Talk 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In regards to Dustin Hoffman, it's been confirmed that it was him, and I'll dig up a source for that. And you seem to be forgetting that there is an official source at the bottom of the article. The way you say it, we have no sources whatsoever. Anyway, it's been 15 days since this article was nominated, and the nomination page says a maximum of 10. Is there a particular reason why the article hasn't been promoted or denied FL status? -- Scorpion 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Scorpion, you may not promote your own nomination. There are some serious issues being raised here, and without them being fixed, this will most-likely fail. Michaelas10 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked several admins and they said there was nothing that said I couldn't promote it. Besides, it seems to me that I have addressed all of the concerns. The List of Simpsons and South Park episodes do not have a seperate source after every episode, so why shoould this one? -- Scorpion 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, they link to episode lists, which provide exactly the same information as written in the list. There are no official "star guest" lists, but you could still use the book provides by HornetMike. Until then, it is original research. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Both imdb and snpp are accepted sources. Yes, the official link links to episodes, but those episode pages have guest stars. And if I DID add sources for the books, I would have to look the information on a website, and I've been told only to source books if you actually use them, which I did not. And also, the books are basically extended synopsises of the episodes and only have brief information on guest stars, and some are not even included (ie. Phil Hartman, Frank Welker). I linked every source I used. Those sources are accurate. The list is accurate. Stop creating issues where there are none. -- Scorpion 08:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't as cut-and-dry as episode lists. I'm a bit worried about using IMDB as the only source on some of the entries. The more complex the list is the more we should be sure about these things before making it featured. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I know that this doesn't count, but I can guarantee that the list is extremely accurate. There are a bunch of fan websites with good (but incomplete) lists that I unfortunately can't source because they aren't official, such as the one included. And yes, imdb does list some guest stars (ie. Catherine O'Hara, Freddy Krieger) who never guest starred, but that's why the SNPP list is included. SNPP has been accepted as an accurate source on The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, both of which are GA or higher. And The Fox link is an official source, and yes, page viewers will have to visit individual pages, but at least there is an official source. -- Scorpion 08:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's also important to note that the official source is incomplete and is missing several guest stars who played a minor role in the episode they appeared in. -- Scorpion 08:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)