Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed
February 3 promoted 8 failed
March 13 promoted 11 failed
April 10 promoted 5 failed
May 10 promoted 7 failed
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed
August 10 promoted 7 failed
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed
November 11 promoted 8 failed
December 10 promoted 7 failed

Contents

[edit] Test cricket hat-tricks

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)

[edit] List of Mir visiting spacecrafts and crews

Self-nomination, mostly. I really like this table, but it may make sense to me only because i've been working on it for so long.. hopefully it's readily understandable.. if not, suggestions for improvement would be nice. Mlm42 22:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Just joking...have a few comments. Formatting is somewhat akward within the table. The lead will need to be substantially improved upon, as is the case with an increasing amount of FL nominees. A few references will also be needed. Perhaps, lastly, an image of Mir accompanying the lead, in which the title should be bolded. Phoenix2 02:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments - Wow - good work so far, but Phoenix2 beat me to the punch: you will need some references, and the lead section is rather thin. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • hmm.. i don't quite see what needs to be referenced further? i mean the dates, crews and missions are all easily verified from many sources (including the ones listed at the bottom of the page in external links). and i was wondering if you found the table confusing? and in what way is the formatting awkward? i mean i agree, but i'm finding it hard to pin down and fix. Mlm42 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If the external links are the refernecs, they need to be in a section entitled "references". The lead should explain what the list is about, and given any relevant background information. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It is confusing at first. That is, it takes some thought and mental organization to figure out how to interpret the list. A lead section explaining that some people leave on different ships than the one they came on would help. What do they do up there? What is the personnel capacity of the station? Perhaps colour coding or graphics matching the ships with their crew? Specifically, I'm thinking about something like a coloured stripe or ribbon or coloured top border that is the same colour as the ship cell (or border) for when the person arrives and a similar stripe on the bottom of the person's cell corresponding to the ship they leave on. This kind of scheme might give better flow to the list. I have tried fiddling with that idea but I do not know how to do it, expect for actually uploading .jpg of a coloured stripe and inserting that image. Oh, and a picture of Mir with ships docked would be nice. --maclean25 05:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Would it help to have each member of crew in a separate timeline? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • That would likely cause the table to grow too wide.. i think it's best to lump them together whenever possible. And i entirely agree it would be great if it were possibly to fiddle with the borders of the cells, but i haven't found a way to do it.. i'm not much of a computer guy, and it seems that if you want to change these things you have to be. Mlm42 15:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fairly understandable, interesting, original. I liked the flags. Good work. CG 12:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support very detailed and well organized. Few minor things mentioned above could be improved, but it looks great! Renata3 19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The layout of the table needs to be explained. User:Nichalp/sg 05:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colleges of the University of Cambridge

Nominated once before unsucessfully, mainly due to the absence of references. I have added one (well, upgraded an external link to an official source to a reference, because it is) and some other omissions are now corrected. I think this is now good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Northwest Territories general elections

This is a second nomination attempt. Please see Archive1. The original nomination failed on objections of picture copyrights on the four maps. I have tweaked and polished the article since. --Cloveious 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 06:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, subject to two points:
    1. Perhaps it is just my setup, but the three tables in section 2, Elections and Appointed Councils of the Northwest Territories, overlapped so I couldn't read them properly. This problem occurred with both the classic skin, when I was logged in, and the monobook skin, when I was logged out. I've tried to fix this using one larger table to specify a layout for the three smaller tables - is this what was intended?
    2. The dates in the tables should be wikified, to display according to user preferences. --ALoan (Talk) 16:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I had intendend to have one parralel table listing the elections on the left, and one top right table listing the relevent Councils and the other table below it on the right for the changes in Council seats, the code you added fixed over lapping I did not know you could add a table within a table like that. I will wikifi the dates. --Cloveious 23:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I appear to have found a rather aggrivating bug possibly in wikipedia or in Firefox or both, The page looks the way i want it to look in firefox until you click a wiki link and then it goes wonky and you have to click the link again. In Internet Explorer its just wonky looking. --Cloveious 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have filed a bug report here Bug 3555 I will fiddle with the tables to see if I can correct this for now.--Cloveious 00:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed the problem by getting rid of two align=right from each right table and reordering, there should be no more overlapping. --Cloveious 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It's now royally screwed up in Opera/Classic. The two right-hand tables are simply cut off after about 100 pixels. --Carnildo 05:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I fixed it, by increasing the hidden table width. It works now under my copy of Opera, thanks for pointing it out I also tried it under NetPositive and it works their too, hopefully thats the end of table troubles. --Cloveious 05:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Spinboy 03:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose 1) The tables look horrible in standard 800x600. You've set the width to 800px, that should be set to less than 600px for it to look neat. 2) The logo is a .gif file. It should be converted to a png. 3) ==...of the Northwest Territories== in the title is redundant. 4) Please don't start a paragraph with a left aligned image. The current maps are badly spaced out in 800x600. 5) Please expand this sentence: ...consensus government using the First Past the Post electoral system ---> Mention briefly, what a consensus govt is, and what the FPtP electoral system is. User:Nichalp/sg 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) User:Nichalp/sg 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at (1) (800 → 600), (3) (deleted surplussage) and (4) (added a gallery instead). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks ALoan for the changes, I will fix the rest of the objections in a couple hours when I have time. --Cloveious 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I have attempted to correct the other objections. I have added a brief section on consensus government and first past the post, as well as changed the logo to a png. --Cloveious 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Good work! User:Nichalp/sg 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good! --G Rutter 19:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of web browsers

I think this is a very nice list, very detailed. Paul August ☎ 04:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support – very nice. A browser screenshot would be a good addition. Comment what does "dropped" mean? version no longer available for download? User:Nichalp/sg 08:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object – Many values are not filled in yet. The newly added language/locale comparison is also incorrect. e.g. Internet Explorer supports more than English (US). The current locale comparison is a mess as well: e.g. it is hard to find why if the browser support a particular locale. The languages should go to the columns, and use Yes/No to indicate if it is supported or not. --minghong 18:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object – Good list but incomplete and with an inaccurate language/locale comparison as minghong says. --Cedars 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Its great, but its missing NetPositive web browser. --Cloveious 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have found the auto-refresh feature in Opera - which is absent in Firefox, IE and Moz - very useful. Wonder whether it is worth a mention. Tintin 09:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] European Union member states

This is along the lines of the other country lists. One shortfall is refernces, which I will correct in the next few days, but please let me have other comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, looks like featured material, pending references. Phoenix2 18:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments Dates of joining could be precise to the day, rather than just by year; it's not too big a page, some info on the special member state territories could usefully be added here - eg noting that the French DOMs are in the EU, Greenland is the only territory to have left the EU, jguk 07:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well done --Sophitus 19:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment – the European Union page has a better map. User:Nichalp/sg 08:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Only 3 supports (so 1 below the required level for promotion). Let's leave this to 22:01 UTC on 6 September (ie so that it has a fortnight on FLC) to allow for further comments, jguk 09:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it a little strange that you list the Maghreb countries but not other Eastern European countries. Even Serbia and Montenegro, for example, is "regarded as a future EU member". Mwalcoff 01:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess this nomination should be withdrawn - I've not had the chance to do the work that I wanted to this article to address the comments above. I'll renominate when I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of rock and roll albums

I think this is an interesting and useful list, but would be interested in any comments. I didn't feel a list of just any rock and roll albums would be very useful, so I decided to combine various critics' best-of lists to produce a sort of meta-list. Tuf-Kat 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose No images, plenty of redlinks. Also, I don't think there can be any definitive or complete list of what is a notable rock and roll album. --Sophitus 18:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I added some album covers (every album with at least six references). I think there's pretty clearly a majority of blue links (a "large majority" is certainly debateable, though it's worth noting that virtually every performer has an article, even if all the albums don't). Your last objection is not actionable; it includes every member of its defined set (the lists given) and does not miss any major component of its set (the lists are varied, and, taken together, include all the major rock albums). Tuf-Kat 23:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment By my count there are 307 red links out of a total of 1282 for a blue link percentage of 76.05%, which meets my definition of a "large majority". I'm undecided at this point on the merits of this list otherwise, although I would note that the criteria that objections must be "actionable" is rule for Featured Articles cadidates. Lists have failed before because they, by their nature, cannot be complete. Dsmdgold 15:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • That seems kind of silly. I thought the whole point of featuring lists was to encourage the improvement of every Wikipedia page instead of just articles. Tuf-Kat 16:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose – agree with Sophitus. Have you also included groups in India, Pakistan and the many other countries that do have rock groups (in English that too)? User:Nichalp/sg 18:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • The methods I used to create the list are explained at the top of the page. I'm sorry that there are not more critics who make lists of albums with Indian and Pakistani bands on them. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of rock albums; it is a list that combines best-of lists from various sources. I can't help that those sources don't include any Indian rock bands -- there are at least eleven countries represented on this list, from Iceland and Mexico to Jamaica and Germany. Would moving it to rock albums that have been considered among the greatest ever please anyone? Tuf-Kat 23:19, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Considered might be a POV. How about groups that have won international awards, or by platinum sales? User:Nichalp/sg 06:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Inclusion criteria are too arbitrary and fuzzy. Jonathunder 16:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Ministers of Canada

Added images, adjusted column widths. Phoenix2 04:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment -- I'd be a little more comfortable supporting if the state acronyms are defined somewhere in the page. User:Nichalp/sg 06:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Has been addressed. Phoenix2 04:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Would also like to see jguk's colour coding issue resolved. User:Nichalp/sg 06:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Kim Campbell.jpg is used under "fair use", but no source or fair use rationale is supplied. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what needs to be included.
    2. The image Image:Paulmartin1.jpg is used under "fair use" and "Canadian crown copyright", but neither set of rules has been followed. There is no source information, and no fair use rationale.
    --Carnildo 07:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - subject to the image concerns being addressed. But I agree with User:Nichalp about explaining or linking the abbreviations (although the {{Canadian First Ministers}} helps). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments I agree with Nichalp about expanding the acronyms for the provinces, which aren't familiar to people outside North America. Also some explanation of the red and blue colours on the left hand side of the table would be useful. A brief description in the introduction about the significance of the prime ministership of Canada would also help: I think they are heads of government and have the most senior political post in Canada (with the GG being obliged by constitutional practice to accept any advice given by the PM). Is this right? Is the Time almanack the best reference, rather than say an official website of the Canadian PM? A link to the latter would be useful regardless, jguk 19:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Additional link and reference have been provided. Phoenix2 04:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • as to the red a blue on the left side designating the party, is it neccessary with the seperate party column? User:Say1988
    • I think it's OK as is, if you want to change it go ahead, welcome to Wikipedia. Phoenix2 18:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_list_candidates_Failed_log_September_2005_2841.html"