Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2006

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 1 removed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 12 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed
March 13 promoted 11 failed
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
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 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed
April 5 promoted 2 failed

Contents

[edit] List of U.S. states and their state flower, tree, and bird

I hereby withdraw my nomination due to previously undiscovered redundancy. G.He 03:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Nominator: I believe that this list is fit for Featured List because it contains useful information regarding each of the states' flower, tree, and bird. I believe that this list is quite unique (to my knowledge) and that it contains balanced information through a visually pleasing and well-formatted format. It contains good pictures as well as visual flag icons to identify the states. It is well-organized in a table format for easy navigation and comprehension. Along with the English names are the names in Latin, which may be useful in scientific studies.

    Overall, I believe this list would be pleasing for readers. I welcome any comments and constructive criticism. Please share your opinion below. Thanks. G.He 01:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose - the list lacks coherency. There is no particular reason to include flower, tree and bird together, it is not a natural triplet. Why not include State amphibians? State butterflies? State grasses? We already have individual lists for state birds, state trees and state flowers (though they aren't all as pretty as this combined list and could do with having some pictures added). We also have lists of state dances, dinosaurs, fish, fruit, mammals, reptiles and even official state soils! I don't see why we should put arbitrary triplets of these together into combined lists. I fear that this list was created because the editor didn't notice state trees, birds or lists in the "U.S. state lists" navbox... however, we have so many lists of state insignia that they are hidden away under the "insignia" part of the navbox. For this reason I am going to remove the link to this newly added combined list from the navbox. This sounds really cruel but perhaps this list should be either deleted or turned into a disambig to the three other lists? It wouldn't take too much effort to turn those into featured lists and I'm not at all sure that the maintenance of redundant lists is worth doing - it's just one more thing to keep updated, keep free from vandalism, and to check that it's being kept consistent with other articles. However, I strongly congratulate the editor for the effort that has been spent on this very pretty list - my advice would be to take as much of it as possible over to the other individual lists and work on them. One thing that would be really good would be to reference the state legislation that made these birds, flowers etc "official". If I saw that I would be incredibly impressed :) TheGrappler 01:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (edited for minor clarification by TheGrappler 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

Similar to List of Oh My Goddess episodes, I feel the article now qualifies to be a featured list.
Issues in the old nom /Archive 1 have been adressed.
--Cat out 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? I don't think either of mine have, titles still have issues (at a glance, 前編 transcribed as 'zenhen', furigana not handled consistantly and so on). No Japanese reference is given either, like say, this (which has the added bonus of listing the key staff for each ep). Oh, and notice that gives ep 51 as the rather spoily ミュンヘン1921, rather than being titleless as the note claims. --zippedmartin 23:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Addressed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Anime News Network had the japanese referances. 日本穣 added a second one practicaly verifying it. Episode 51 did not have a title when it first aired. Pointing problems is nice, but you can also correct them. ;) --Cat out 12:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not going to bother fixing things if Mistamagic keeps reverting my fixes. Episode 51 has an English title as well as a Japanese title. Any explanation about when those titles were received can be left to the page on the episode. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    I am inclined to agree. Its trivia and episode 51 aired quite some time ago... 1yr 34wks 5days 10hrs 1min 10secs to be exact as of this click. --Cat out 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Pretty much looks exactly like OMG's, don't see why it shouldn't be a FL.--SeizureDog 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- decorated with unfree images. Jkelly 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    That is not a featured list criteria. --Cat out 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Fails WP:FLC numbers 1 and 5. It's not Wikipedia's best work if it is not maximally free and reusable, and the images have an inappropriate copyright status because they fail WP:FUC. Jkelly 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
1. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
  • Unfree images are not outlawed. On occasions unfree alternative is not avalible. That is why fair use exist. Very best work can include fair use.
2. The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements.
  • Material covered is certainly encyclopedic. I do not see what the problem is. It is sourced, its acurate. Episodes did first air on those dates and the titles were as described.
Copyright status of images are fair use as they are dvd covers. Releasing them with any other license would be a violation of copyrights.
Frankly I do not see the point of your objection. --Cat out 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that image license is an utterly spurrious opposition reason, as there is no free image whatsoever that could be used to illustrate this. These DVD covers are pertinent (unless you believe the ones in the above List of The Simpsons episodes are also inappropriate?), although I'd favor screenshots myself. Circeus 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Eposide screenshots had been ruled (on Oh My Goddess! nom) to be an abuse of fair use... --Cat out 15:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not true. According to that discussion the option was given, but Cool Cat did not want to edit the image description pages to include fair use arguments. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
But List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of South Park episodes both use a large amount of screenshots...--SeizureDog 05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ya... I just feel it is more informative this way. And we are using fewer fair-use images. So I guess thats a double kill. I really have no reason to insist either way. --Cat out 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
All four featured episode lists have DVD covers somewhere in them. It's fair use. What's the debate here?--SeizureDog 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • Ugly table: it should at least collapse borders, but I'd frankly recommend outright using the class="wikitable" code.
    • Intro is weak
    • Episode summaries should be written in a proper tone, not as hooks (ep. 51's summary is utterly inappropriate for encyclopedic content.)
    • The second header is inappropriate: the article is not and should not be a "summary of the series". Circeus 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd also consider removing the first header: that section should be merged with the into.
      Ugly table? Thats a criteria? class="wikitable" is ugly. Slightly thicker lines make the table easier to follow. wikitable lines don't stand out well on firefox browser for instance. --Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      That the article be minimally leasing aesthetically appears to be a pretty basic criterion, if it is supposed to exemplify your "best work", I'd think. And the default table border are terribly ugly, especially when we do have a standardized table styling, which looked just fine in my opinion. I tried a normal "border-collapse", but for some reason, I never managed to get it right (I think it has to do with how complex the table is). I will continue opposing as long as thes ebig borders are there. The style certainly doesn't need to be class="wikitable", but it should address this border issue in some way. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      Your taste is not a Featured List criteria. Best Work as in does it work on many (preferably all) browsers and is it easy to follow (aka no neon yellow on white). There is nothing basic about "wikitable" the current format is the wikitable only slightly altered (so we have slightly thicker borders that actualy appear on firefox. I do not see the border issue... --Cat out 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      What kind of intro are you looking for. I based the format to an existing featured list. I cannot improve it unless you are spesific.--Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      I adjusted that myself by reinserting the "history" section into it. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      That changes exactly what? it is the same amount of text... --Cat out 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      See these diffs to understand: 20:05, June 2(User:Nihonjoe removes the "summary section entirely") → 08:51, June 3: I reinserted the deleted section, but within the lead. The global amount of teaxt hasn't changed, just the number of sections ("History" and "Series summary" headers disappeared in the process.) Circeus 13:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      Ah I see. so why havent you said so. You said the lead was short, you might have said something like "how about merging history section and lead". --Cat out 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      I wrote "I'd also consider removing the first header: that section should be merged with the into." ;-) It just happened so that I saw Nihonjoe's edits when I moved in to remove the links the headers, and took the opportunity to adjust that myself, and didn't see any reason to come back over it. Circeus 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      Oh I see... nm then :) --Cat out 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      Episode summaries are in a proper tone, This article ment to be a summary of the serries on an episode per episode basis. What else is it supposed to be? --Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      Episode 51 is the climax of the series. I do not want to spoil a second of it... I dono... --Cat out 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      "I do not want to spoil a second of it" This is an encyclopedia, we are not out to protect people from spoilers beyond the use of {{spoiler}}. Beside, the entire article is one big spoiler, and is already enclosed in spoiler tags, making these reticences completely spurrious. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      The article has a section explaining that "efforts have been made to minimise spoilage". The serries should be watchable after reviewing the list, the point of the list is listing episodes, not ruining the show... In any case by clicking the link the reader gets the info he/she/it seeks. --Cat out 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      Any additional info wanted can be found at the episode's respective article. There's no reason to spoil anything in the short couple of lines of the super summary.--SeizureDog 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm running Firefox and I think the wikitable looks good. Phoenix2 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, probably because I "reverted" it back. --Cat out 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
this is what it looked like when Cool cat reverted. Getting all the borders to show up in complex tables can be tricky, right now, they only appear after after episode 48 for me. Circeus 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If it can be useful, splitting the table somewhere in the middle guarantees that all borders show properly. I don't think it's possible to remove all space between two tables on top of each otehrs, though. Circeus 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks fine to me as is. I do not understand the problem. 'My' version works fine on firefox and IE. --Cat out 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
These borders are ugly. Is it so ahrd to understand? Circeus 00:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
They look fine... Since they don't break browsers, I do not see a problem. You are just being picky. Two lists have passed into the featured realm with that identical syntax. --Cat out 04:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I have no problem with the borders at all. What's so ugly about them? Color? Spacing? I don't see anything wrong in either of the links or the screencap.--SeizureDog 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lots of episode summaries written like advertising copy for a DVD sleeve:
    • "But can they uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town?"
    • "But something is amiss at the Tucker estate..."
    • "Also, why have so many officers from Central suddenly shown up at East Headquarters?"
    • "But how can they possibly win when they are each facing a ruthless murderer in the form of an empty suit of armor, just like Al?"
    • "Who, or what, is this mysterious boy?"
    • "Can Izumi and Ed rescue him from such a powerful homunculus as Greed?"
    • "Scar is in Lior and is dragging a large stone behind him, gouging the earth - but for what purpose?"
    • "With Ed helping the Liorites escape, Scar is the only one that can save Al now - but can he do anything to help?"
    • "Lyra and Rosé descend a secret staircase in an old church, and what (and who) is at the bottom comes as a shock"
    • "But is Ed prepared for what is on the other side of the Gate?"
    • And the most useless summary of all: "All hope is lost... or is it?"
This is an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be presenting as much information as we can, not purposely withholding it—particularly not in such an unpleasantly coy manner.
Also, we have plenty of articles on the people and places mentioned; massive wikification is in order here. Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is an encyclopedia and we aren't holding any info. All info is avalible a click away (on pages for individual episodes). If you like you can inprove the sentences and massive wikify, I certainly don't mind that. The summaries have been rewriten about three times now (and as far as I care they are perfect)...
I'll give one explanation on why we are "holding back" info (we really aren't).
  • "Who, or what, is this mysterious boy?" refers to Wrath who seemingly appeared from nowhere. The entier episode (and the main plot of the series) are a set of events determining the boys identity, nature, and actions. I don't want to spoil episodes in 2 lines.
  • "All hope is lost... or is it?" refers to how episode 51 appears to the viewer. Throughout the episode things appear grim (and there is random conversation here and there).
  • The point of the list is to be informative of the series (which has quite a thick and twisted plot) not spoil it in 50 lines.
--Cat out 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really agree with you there. The entire article is already in spoiler tags, so I see no real need to avoid revealing plot. In many cases, the information you've omitted is patently obvious from the summary of the next few episodes; leaving it off from the place where it's actually revealed does nothing but aggravate the reader.
In any case, regardless of the extent to which we want to include spoilers, using rhetorical questions in the summaries is a question of inappropriate tone, not inappropriate content. Kirill Lokshin 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how to fix it? --Cat out 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove all the rhetorical questions? Alternately, just go ahead and recast them as statements (e.g. "But can they uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town?" → "They then uncover the mystery of a zombie that has been terrorizing the town."). Kirill Lokshin 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
They do that at the end of the episode... Hmm... They may 'encounter' them --Cat out 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Better? --Cat out 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're this worried about spoilers then maybe it would be a good idea to make a non-spoiler version, like in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. I think such an idea is great and will probably use it myself in the future. -- Ned Scott 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I gotta agree with Circeus's comments, that table is... ugly. And to add something myself: If you're not going to bother with individual images then you probably shouldn't squeeze the DVD images beside the list. It's not the best way to present the information. (horizontal screen space real-estate, etc). Also, although not a requirement and not apart of my reason to oppose, I am also of the opinion that individual episode screenshots would look better on this list. -- Ned Scott 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Since wikipedia does not charge per square meter of its horizontal space, I fail to see the problem...
    Article is practicaly identical to the two existing featured lists, one that became a featured list weeks ago. I do not understand the point of this constant bashing about how the table looks etc...
    Individual images had been declared an abuse of fair use, there is concensus on this which prompted the dvd cover usage. Lets not redebate.
    --Cat out 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Ned Scott 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont see a waste of space, dvd covers are aligned with the episodes they are from...
Very well, then let me put it this way. Individual screen shots are very useless as it is very hard to tell whats on them most of the time.
Evolution doesn't happen in a week. List of Planetes episodes became a featured list very very recently. It is good practice to use recent featured lists as an example. And I'd hope wikipedia evolves into the "free" direction. (I actualy dislike using fair use images as they are not free, damn copyrights...)
--Cat out 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Using past featured lists as examples, that's 50/50 for DVD-based images vs individual episode screen caps. Although, again, this isn't apart of my opposition. (but to comment on their usefulness, I can look at almost every image in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and know what episode it's from without seeing any episode text). I find tables and templates all the time that are very wide and chunky, and I try to format them to use their space better. While on some screens these tables look fine, they don't always look so good in others. And if Wikipedia gets used in a different media, such as a paper version, space can become even more important. It's not always necessary, but it's a good thing to keep in mind to use space the best you can. The only reason people put images beside episode entries was because there was a screen shot there. If there's not going to be a screen shot there then you might as well make the list use the full width. Is this necessary? no. But you're asking for it to become a featured list, the best of the best. You must think very critically of your work, and ask yourself what all can be done to best present the information at hand. -- Ned Scott 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That is why I am keeping the dvd images where they are as thats what I see as 'best of the best'. I disagree, I cant tell what is going on on the tiny screenshots, let alone the epısode. Now once you watch the epısode it is possible to tell the entier episode based on one picture... I do not think it is wise to target such a sellective audiance. --Cat out 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I did some rewording in the intro and I believe its just as good as the similar Featured lists. I think it's neat, concise and useful. - Phorque (talk • contribs) 11:45, 09 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is an exemplary list. DVD covers have been used in several other features lists, and when coordinated with the included episodes, they show just as much as picking out one random screenshot would. It is well formatted, and has one feature which I feel is the most important of a good list: it is actually a useful article. Most lists I feel are pretty poor, only existing to link to real articles. This list, and the ones like it, are full, fleshed out pages in their own right. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Randomly selected screenshots would be bad in any article. I would hope people would choose eather a screenshot of an important event in the episode or a screenshot that was uniqe to the episode for identification. (I prefer the latter, myself) -- Ned Scott 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To throw out a suggestion, this is what I would consider "less chunky" [1]. Maybe not this exactly, but just to give an idea of what I've been talking about. I feel something like this just looks better, for one. I'm still not a big fan DVD images beside the episode text, but it does have it's good points that I can see. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Thinner borders are elegant and I would be more than happy to use them if it didnt break the table as a hole. --Cat out 11:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadian federal parliaments

When I first found this list, in was nothing but a collection of links, and I proposed to delete it. When it survived that, I decided to make it worthwhile. I changed it into a table and added exact dates, elections, the prime ministers, opposition leaders, parties, speakers, number of sessions, and graphical illustrations of the house after each election. I also re-wrote the intro and added a picture. I arranged it into straightforward horizontal rows to make it easy to read. Considering that I had to assemble this information bit by bit, I believe that it is now the most comprehensive list of Canadian parliaments on the Net. --Arctic Gnome 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I really like the list, but I have a comment about the images that represents the seats in the parliament. I know that there have been a lot of work creating all of them, but why the number of seats differs from one image to another? Is it because the number of seats varies from a parliament to another? What does the isolated cell represents? And does the position of the cells really represents the position of seats? If it isn't, I would suggest using a half pie chart to represent the proportion of political parties. CG 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Point 1: The number of seats in Parliament has been increasing. For the first hundred years, new provinces joined the country, and they needed representation. Since then, population distribution has changed, but the relatively shrinking provinces can’t loose seats (constitutionally), so the relatively growing provinces gain them. Point 2: The isolated cell is the speaker of the house, who is an elected member of parliament, but does not get a vote. Point 3: The position of cells is where the members actually sit. The goal is to have the governing party on one side (the bottom, from our point of view), the opposition party on the other side, and let the small parties not get split up. --Arctic Gnome 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - certainly featured material, however one source to "parliaments trivia"... spoils the hard work. Renata 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That one source is the Library of Parliament, which is managed by the government and is physically attached to the parliament building. You can't get much more reliable than that. --Arctic Gnome 16:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I must be dumb, but I go to the link I cannot find the info, i.e. the whole list of parliaments. Can you give an exact link? Renata 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You aren't dumb, there is no one big list as far as I can tell; I assembled this information from all over that trivia site. The closest I can find to a comprehensive list on their part is the list of the longest parliaments (click the "show all" button). [2] --Arctic Gnome 16:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I've broken down the sources into their more specific parts. I got the information about opposition leaders from the Wikipedia, but I'll change that as soon as I find another source. --Arctic Gnome 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Tank you, that's much better. Renata 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The list is very good, however, I'd like to see a column with the number of MPs in each session, otherwise readers will have to count the squares in each picture. Along with that, some of that pictures need appropriate explanations, like the MP count to each party and a colour explanation. A note saying that further info about the distribution pictures is available in its own page would be great. Afonso Silva 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I put the size of the governing party in the column with the party name. I figure if people want more detailed information than that, they can go to the specific page. --Arctic Gnome 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, it's fine to me. Thanks for the seats info, good work! I support this list as it meets the criteria. Afonso Silva 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dates need to be linked for preferences. Rmhermen 23:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now:
(a) Presently, one of the references is to Wikipedia. This has to change: can a replacement source be found?
(b) The "Party" column should presumably be "Governing party" (is there a technical term for this in Canada?). Similarly, would it not make more sense for the words "Official opposition" to wikilink to the appropriate article, rather than the following word "Party"?
(c) The graphics are lovely (my only criticism is that on some, e.g. Image:Cdn1867.PNG, I couldn't always link the key to the parties represented: in the 1867 example, who are the red MPs in the top right? In Image:Cdn1878.PNG, who is represented by the especially dark blue box in the top left?) but, as this conversation has established, their meaning, though well thought out, is impenetrable to most readers. Could the legend be expanded to include some of the key points brought up in this thread, e.g. that the speaker is in the isolated cell on the left, and the governing party is to the speaker's right)? In addition to an expansion of the legend used on the images, can a footnote be put in to the list itself?
(d) It would be helpful to see the seat count for the official opposition too. Perhaps this would be best accommodated if there was a distinct column for the total number of seats in parliament? Or alternatively if the total seat count was given in the "Parliament" column, next to the number of sessions? I am warming more to the latter idea; certainly the total number of seats seems more a characteristic of the parliament than the governing party.
(e) There are sometimes two speakers listed. I presume this is because the speaker changed mid-parliament: in that case, shouldn't the date of changeover be given? At any rate, some explanation should be given.
None of these concerns should be too hard to change. While I would really like to see (d) acted on, I would probably be content if (a)-(c) and (e) were addressed (or persuasive grounds given for (b), (c) and (e) not to be acted on). These criticisms aside, there has been a lot of excellent work on this list and I congratulate the editors involved for it, Arctic.Gnome especially. Getting these last few concerns addressed would make it a brilliant and definitely feature-worthy list. TheGrappler 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (a) Now fixed. --Arctic Gnome 04:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (b) Now fixed. --Arctic Gnome 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (c) The off-colour seats are MPs who ran under different party names, like how there were Conservatives, Nationalist Conservatives, and Liberal-Conservatives, all of which were pretty much the same party. I’ll talk to the user who made the images, because I’m not sure how to change them. --Arctic Gnome 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (d) Depending on the parliament, there are from three to seven opposition parties. I’m not sure if the exact seat counts can fit. I’ll try a few arrangements and see if any work. --Arctic Gnome 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (e) I chose not to give an extra row to show the changes in speakers or opposition leaders because they change more frequently and they don’t really affect the way the government is run when they change. --Arctic Gnome 04:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Looking even better, thank you! Still tentatively opposing until it reaches a more stable form with which people are happy. (a) and (b) are definitely fixed now - fantastic!.
        • (c) Please do get in touch with the guy - the fact that the color-coded legend and the images don't actually match left me thoroughly confused. And a footnote on the table and perhaps a legend on each image explaining the layout of the parliamentary diagrams is, I believe, essential - perhaps the way to incorporate it into the table is to actually give the column a heading (not sure quite what: "Diagram" sounds a bit bland) and put a footnote by that, which if clicked on gives an explanation of e.g. what the speaker's position is. The color-coded legend that's in each of the articles could be altered to include these details, or some text could be copied-and-pasted into the image pages - either would be fine by me. Getting the legend to match the images isn't such an important thing from the FLC point of view, since the images are distinct from the list and their legends aren't visible in the list. However, explaining the schematic diagrams in a footnote somewhere is important, given that people asked for clarification in the FLC.
        • (d) Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - at the moment, we list governing party and official opposition party but only give the seat count for the former. The seat count for the latter is relevant and could be accommodated fairly easily; and it would also make sense to also move the total number of seats available into the "Parliament" column (it's an attribute of the Parliament, just like the number of sessions, not an attribute of the governing party). I didn't intend to ask for individual seat counts for all opposition parties, just for information about the official opposition.
        • (e) Again, I didn't make myself clear and I apologise. I certainly wouldn't want to see yet another breaking up of the row just for a change of speaker. But what about, where the speaker changes, putting something like (from 12 Sep., 1932) behind the name for the new speaker? Adds information, doesn't take up much space, makes it clear to people like me who are utter ignoramuses on Canadian governmental affairs that they aren't concurrent speakers (which is what the "slash" had actually led me to believe originally, I'd assumed it was some kind of weird power-sharing arrangement... ). Just a suggestion, but I think it's a useful one.
        • (f) This is new - I'd oppose getting rid of the leader of the opposition. If this is anywhere as important in Canada as it is in the United Kingdom, where I have a bit more familiarity with the system, then dumping this would lose valuable data. I would be concerned if this was removed. I see Renata shortened two columns into one; I have tried to reduce the column heading in length so it looks more reasonable. The Leader of the Opposition is incredibly important in Commonwealth governmental systems, not only because of their power in parliamentary affairs, but because they are the Prime Ministers-in-waiting if an election makes power change hands. It's vaguely like being a cross between Minority Leader and the opposition's Presidential Candidate. Please keep this in, though not necessarily in its own column.
          • Alright, I made it small. Do you think it's ok? Renata 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Looks good to me, I have finished off one you missed, and included dates in certain cases rather than use the rather ambiguous "/" (which suggested to me some kind of power-sharing) TheGrappler 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • (g) This is also new - there are some formatting issues in the present version. At the top of the table there are no gridlines between columns, at the bottom there are, and in between there is a bit of a mess. Also, the inline citations don't seem to be working; by clicking on the arrow in the footnotes I arrive back at the correct position in the table, but clicking on the footnote link in the table body doesn't seem to work. This point probably just needs a tidy-up to solve (and I can't work out what's going wrong with the footnotes) but until it is sorted, I will continue to oppose. A featured list clearly should have its table format correct and its footnotes working! I hope this doesn't sound too negative - I really like the way this list has been coming on and greatly appreciate the effort that has been put into it. I just think the "featured" bar for a list deserves to be pretty high. I'm certainly not going to be impossible to please though! :) TheGrappler 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorted out the reference problem by converting to the new cite format. TheGrappler 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • (h) Latest and possibly most important problem - I am concerned that the list of opposition leaders doesn't match its cited source ([3]). One clear difference is that this list contains some but not all of those listed there as "acting" leaders of the opposition. However, this is not the only issue. The differences in full:
          • Richard Hanson, 1943-5, should be Conservative?
          • Gordon Graydon, 1943-5, Progressive Conservative - missing from the list
          • Should be William Earl Rowe, 1954-5 followed by George Alexander Drew, 1955-6?
          • Michael Starr, 1967
          • Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray, 1990
          • John Douglas Reynolds, 2001-2
        • There may be good reasons why the apparent "reference" list is not being followed, but they ought to be explained. TheGrappler 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • This remains my sole criticism of the list, but the fact that it doesn't agree with its supposed references is a good reason to oppose until this can be straightened out (perhaps with the use of an alternative source if the one being used is wrong). TheGrappler 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
            • The list didn't include people that were just acting for someone else, but I've now added them so that everyone who has done the job is included. I've also added a footnote about the party membership of Hanson. Arctic Gnome 06:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. —Nightstallion (?) 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with a question - the table as squeezed right now. If you noticed I myself did my best to shorten the dates and made two columns into one. But I also see the names of opposition leaders and I don't like them. Would you mind if I remove them? Renata 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean listing the opposition party but not the opposition leader? I guess if that column looks really bad on other display sizes leaders can be removed. Alternatively, I can remove all of the interim opposition leaders and MPs who were leading on someone else’s behalf. --Arctic Gnome 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, list just the party and not the leader. It's not a big deal, just I feel like the table is to overcrowded and my screen shows everything in new line which is completely annoying. Renata 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comment (f) above in relation to this, though I'm not sure how to deal with overcrowding. TheGrappler 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This article provides a comprehensive list in an organized manner. Hikingdom 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not only non-linked dates but now non-standard abbreviated months. Rmhermen 00:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Dates do not have to be linked. It's neater like this. But I have a question: what is the policy in Wikipedia about using honorifics like "Sir"? CG 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) re date linking. Rmhermen 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - to address overcrowding and squeezing info I made font size 90% and combined prime minister and speaker columns. Hope it's ok with you. Renata 06:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't mind the smaller font size, but the Prime Minister is too important a role to have to share a box with someone else; so I’ll have to revert that. Much of the squeezing problem on my display is caused by the fact that the image of the house extends below the text so the table can't use the rightmost couple centimetres of the page. I add line breaks to the end of the text to fix it, but they keep getting removed. --Arctic Gnome 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I quite agree: Prime Minister is an important political and governmental position, Speaker is a relatively unimportant bit of information primarily useful for parliamentary buffs. It would be odd to mix the two up, especially since they change at different times. In an effort to ease the squeeze, I merged the elections column into the parliament one. The information this loses is the exact date of polls closing - I didn't believe this was of critical importance to the list, especially as there is a distinct list of elections where it seems more suitable. I even dared to raise the font size to 100% after that, but wouldn't object too strongly if it went down again. However, if font size is reduced, I don't think we should use "small" text too, as it will become very hard to read. I'm still opposing the nomination on the basis that there are several discrepancies with its sources, but that aside I think the quality of this list is good. TheGrappler 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Lost episodes

This is about as good as you can expect from a list. Sarge Baldy 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support: As said above --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 02:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Images lack Fair Use rationales. Please read the Fair Use Policy. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I would disagree, as the images are simply used to give a sense of each episode. They're not strewn around for decoration. The screenshots are very small and it would be hard to claim that they could possibly have a negative effect on the "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". Sarge Baldy 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - see list of South Park episodes for the discussion about fair use pics. Renata 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So you're just asking for information on what each screenshot is about in the description of each image? I guess that's fair enough. Sarge Baldy 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I am asking for fair use rationales. Actually, I just saw that Fair use images without rationales can be speedily deleted... See WP:CSD, Images rule #6. Renata 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I would say that about %65-%75 of the images are discriptive of the episode, for example "Whatever the Case May Be", I belive that the image does explain the tension between Sawyer and Kate in which Kate tries to get the case --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 18:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I am replacing the Images that you guys say is not disctiptive with ones that apply with the episode's discription, so if you please be kind enough to list me those episodes that you think are violating this rule and I'll upload ones that are discriptive, thank you --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair use rationale is not replacing "undescriptive" images with more decriptive ones. It's adding a detailed reasoning to each image saying why you believe it qualifies as fair use. Please read the image copyright policy. Renata 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Image:Lost102.jpg has a valid fair-use rationale attached to it (see Image:Lost102.jpg#Fair use for List of Lost episodes). However, Image:Whiterabbit LOST.jpg has no such description as to why it qualifies as fair use. Specify in the introduction why the episodes are listed like this (are they one-shot stories that can be viewed in any order? or are they chronological with an evolving storyline?) Specify in the references which source was used to establish this order of episodes (is there an official source? abc.com?). Peer Review 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: over the last couple of days I updated the images by replacing them or by uploading a new version of the image in a way so the image is discriptive (Such as Jack helping the marshal in Tabula Rasa) and not just decorative (such as Clair sitting nicely on the beach), so if you would be kind enough to see the List of Lost episodes and look at the images (PS. don't forget to refresh and clear your cache), thanks --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - very well organized, constantly updated to be highly accurate, and the images are small summaries in themselves, I almost don't have to look at the description for any of the episodes. It would be wise to make this a featured list, it has a very professional layout and exemplifies a greater quality and standard than one would find in any list in any other encyclopedia. ArgentiumOutlaw 02:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support The pics are very small Tobyk777 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well they can are just to show an idea of the episode, and also to make the page load faster, a larger picture can be displayed when clicking on the episode link, I think those who opposed because of the pictures should changed their minds because that factor is no longer a problem since all of the pictures that didn't draw a picture of the episode where replaced with ones that did. --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • HEY! so now the pictues are removed by force... are you gonna add it to the list? ha i don't think so, this list is crappy now, even I who made this list what it today I strongly oppose this list --mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Anuran families

This was nominated last week, and didn't get through because of lack of votes. You can see the nomination here. All the problems brought up in the last nomination have been resolved. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. This list is very informative.--Tnarg 12345 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with above. Nice layout too. Sotakeit 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. G.He 01:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Froggydarb 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments - this is looking very good. Will it be possible to find images of example species for the few unillustrated families? There also seem to be quite a few redlinked species, given that most of them are illustrated... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Given time, I am sure we will be able to fill it up (except for the purple frog). The remaining families are either rare, or are in a country which does not have much Wikipedia activity. I have been trying very hard to get photos. --liquidGhoul 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I just got rid of some red links by changing the example species for some families without photos, and changed one photo to do the same. Thanks --liquidGhoul 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Support - I will definatly support this nomination, it is very east to find a species etc and creative too. Enlil Ninlil 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - would it be possible to include the details of who described each family, and when? TheGrappler 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Great. Query: do these scientists' names work like they do for botanists? "Goin and Goin" seems odd, since I know that for botanists (with IPNI) the author abbreviation is unique. TheGrappler 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Pepsidrinka 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support. I really don't like the thought of a featured list missing so many pictures and having so many red links. The red links are the main problem, as it means that it fails the "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." requirement. Create stubs for the red links and perhaps ask around on some other sites if they'll let you use some images. If you can get all of the links to blue status, then I'll change to support.--SeizureDog 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The list is about the Anuran families, and all the families are blue links. That rule is for the components of the list, and the examples are not part of it. I will try and begin some of those articles, but I cannot do it now as I won't be near a computer for the next couple days. If you would notice, I actually expanded every family in this list so that it was no longer a stub (if it wasn't already large enough). I believe that is more important use of my time than making the list look better by making useless stub length articles about the example species. --liquidGhoul 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • While I agree that expanding the families is more important, I still feel the use of red links detracts from the article. A simple line or two along with an infobox for the five example species you have left isn't much to ask (I'll ignore the discoverer names as they're small not as noteable).--SeizureDog 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to go ahead and change to support. I'm sure those red links will be filled soon enough.--SeizureDog 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could we rethink this policy about red-links? I think it should not be strictly enforced. A list can be useful and comprehensive while having red links. Red links say that there is a missing article and that often inspires someone to write the article. A quickly written stub turns the link to blue, but it probably slows down the process of having a real article written. I went through the same concerns when I nominated List of largest suspension bridges, which failed until I created dozens of useless stubs which had no more information than what could be found in the list. Now, anyone who sees the list thinks all the articles have been written. What has been gained? Red links have value. -- Samuel Wantman 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, that is why I expanded all the family articles, and none of the species articles I have created for this list are stub sized. Stubs are useless, if you create an article, at least put some work into it. Forcing people to create stubs does not make a better encyclopaedia. --liquidGhoul 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If there was such a thing as a "Good List" then I would say the red link policy would be unneeded. However, since it is a Featured List, I think the requirements should be tough. Also, this perticular list is rather short. It's not as if we're asking for hundreds of red links to be filled as in the case of List of North American birds. There's no rush to get the list to Featured status, it should wait until it looks nice. And to me, red links aren't nice. Also, I rather pefer stubs to nothing at all. --SeizureDog 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Imagine List of North American birds with EVERY link in red. It would still be a great list and worthy of featured status. All the information would be exactly the same. I can also imagine a featured article that is brilliantly written, yet every link in red. "Red links aren't nice"? Why? Red links inspire people to write articles. Stubs delude readers into complacency. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that not allowing red links is also a deterent for people wishing to make lists. If I put a lot of work into something, I would like a little appreciation. I was considering writing a List of Australian amphibians (or frogs, same thing) article, but the idea of creating such a large list, putting hours of work into it, and making it comprehensive in the information it provides (as I was planning on doing) would be useless if it is lost in the millions of articles in Wikipedia. It could be an incredibly useful list, but it wouldn't gain featured status because it is impossible to create more than 200 articles when only three people on Wikipedia are dedicated to Australian frogs. Forget that someone spent hours working to help make Wikipedia more useful, they need to spend the next few weeks in front of the computer creating useless stubs. I am sure there are tonnes of subjects out there which would greatly benefit from a list (even if it is full of red links), but people aren't willing to create them because there is no chance of it ever becoming featured. Look at all the biology related featured lists, they are all American bird subjects, because birds are one of the most popular animals, and Americans are the majority of English editors. Wikipedia is not about favouring the majority... --liquidGhoul 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you get rid of the rule for links to not be red then you make it too easy to become a featured list. I'm sure there's probably somewhere where you can just copy and paste a list of a certain grouping of animals, and because its just names, it would not be a copyright violation. Making lists is easy. Making lists useful is hard. Alos, quite frankly, I would want to expand more on a stub than a red link. A stub shows that is someone other than yourself is at least interested enough on the subject to work on it, and that you're not the only person you're writing information for. And any time I actually make an article for a red link, it's hardly more than a stub. To me, red links just say "no one cares", and its hard to be inspirited to write much of anything on them.--SeizureDog 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename Shouldn't this page be moved to Anura? Even if it includes a list, the page is actually an article for the order. Lists are generally sub-pages for a main article, but in this case the list is the main article. Therefore I move to rename it to reflect the order. --SeizureDog 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to renaming The article for the order Anura is frog. This is a sub-article of the frog article, as a much poorer version of this list was once within the article. I really don't see where you got that from. --liquidGhoul 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But I will prefer that the example of species should be links to existing articles. As the case here is very much flexible (any example would do), this should be possible. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The problem with this is that existing articles may not have photos therefore there would be no image in the box next to the example species link. Froggydarb 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I a few cases, there are not even any species articles to link to. Circeus 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • support Circeus 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There are very few red-links now. Rmhermen 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna

A self-nom. The list is comprehensive; None of the entries in the list is a red link and thus the list and its links serve as a good resource. I believe it adheres to the FLC criteria, hence the nom. --Gurubrahma 10:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments - the text needs a copyedit, years should be unwikified, the template on the right needs a margin. Also why was the award not given in '94. Those red links in the template look untidy too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I have copyedited the page and amended the template to list awards as per hierarchy. I am unable to add a margin to the template, please do so. Now, I find on the official GoI website a listing slightly at variance with what obtains in the page; here it is, note that as per this website, the RGKR has been conferred every year. The current list on the page appears to be sourced from webindia123.com. Can I change the list? Regards, ImpuMozhi 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. And also references need to be cited properly, i.e. not as an external link, but using {{cite web}}. Renata 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain, but references are fixed now. Good job! Renata 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. A minor issue with consistancy of style. In 2002-03, Anjali Bhagwat's full name is given while for Beenamol only surname is used. The template on the right should have more margin per Nichalp. Red link issue also needs to be fixed. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I have been bold and updated the reference style. Now I feel that the list is worth being featured if the issue of whether the award was given in 1993-1994 be resolved. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    It may be possible that the award was given in 1993-94 and that Kunjarani and Leander Paes may have been awarded it in different years. However, I'm not very sure about the veracity of the link provided by ImpuMozhi because it doesn't mention Anjali Ved Pathak in that list. --Gurubrahma 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    Here is a possible explanation. I do remember that there was a major controversy on the matter. AFAI remember, Beenamol alone was first recommended, which led to protests from Anjali's friends. The committee then revised its decision and nominated both. It is possible that the episode was deemed unseemly and finally only Beenamol was given the award, but we need something definitive. I don't see what we can do apart from use the official website. Any official publicatons at hand? ImpuMozhi 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    However good the article/list may be written, it cannot be given FL status till its comprehensive and complete. Please resolve the issue fast as otherwise it is unlikely this FLC will succeed. It is a very good list and it would be unfortunate if it fails. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think the most acceptable source to resolve this issue would be the official government list - [4] Rama's Arrow 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Full Support I feel the issues have been addressed. Regarding the non-conferral of the award in 93-94, I don't think an explicit reason is available, and since there is information that the award is considered non-mandatory, its acceptable to give that as a reason. Rama's Arrow 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a good article but I am not sure if it qualifies to be an FA. Hikingdom 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean Featured List, right. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds that the list of recipients is not the central part of the article. Eventually, if more information is added, the article should go through FAC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Welsh—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedar-Guardian (talk • contribs).
  • Oppose. Per Welsh. Also no explanation is given for 1993 non-event. Anwar 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose RuneWelsh is right. I visited the article in the day this candidacy was submitted and I didn't knew what the article was about. If it is a list of recipients of the award, it should have that name. If it isn't, it should go to FAC. This last option seems better, as the list is a bit short and it makes more sense inside a broader article on the subject. But anyway, it is a good work. Afonso Silva 20:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian national women's ice hockey team 2006 Olympic roster

This is one of the few articles that can ever be considered "finished"; the event was months ago and thus the list is stable; the list has everyone who participated and thus is complete. I recently split this off from the article about the national team because the 2007 IIHF WWC roster may be different. I added references, a flag of Canada (there is no logo of Hockey Canada for fair use reasons), and see alsos (these exist because it is bad to have links in section titles, and adding text about the position has nothing to do with the players who play that position). and a brief explanation in each section. This list does not simply regurgitate what the reference says because the reference provides information in French as well, and I don't want to simply regurgitate what others have said (doing so would violate copyright IMO). This list meets all of the criteria, and should be featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - it's good as far as it goes, but I do think it would benefit from more information about the players in that tournament - goals scored, for example. I also think that it needs to make more explicit that it is talking about ice hockey. I would prefer the article to be moved to Canadian national women's ice hockey team 2006 Olympic roster, rather than relying on remembering that 2006 was a Winter Olympics year to know that it's not field hockey (which is what most Brits will assume is meant by the word "hockey"). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the article lacks information about the performance of the athletes in the games and the clubs they play for. I also find the title confusing, if the sport is ice hockey, that should be present on the title. Afonso Silva 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I added tournament statistics. Information about the players stats outside of this tournament should presumably be in their articles. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There also needs to be a mention of how the players made the team, did they try out? Did they roll over from the previous national team? Surely the team had a coach or a manager? Tell us more about the team. Pepsidrinka 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Added. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Saskflag-thb.png needs to have a more appropriate template on its page concerning the liscensing of the image. Pepsidrinka 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page to include ice hockey in the title as per your suggestions. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it makes sense to have a sepearate page, could, perhaps, all of the players be listed in one table, with additional columns for "position" and "games" (that way, you could list the alternates with the main team, with a "zero" for games). The pages would look a bit neater with one table (all columns the same width, for example). It would also be good to expand the lead a little - "the team won all 5 of its matches, heading Group A, beating Finland in the semi-final and Sweden in the final, to win the gold medal". "SA" and "GA" don't link anywhere helpful, as far as I can see, and both Plus-minus and PIM link somewhat confusingly to disambiguation pages. See also Canadian national men's ice hockey team 2006 Olympic roster, Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics match stats (women), and the two pages mentioned? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the dablink problems and incorporated your suggestions. By the way, this list is more accurate and complete than the two lists you say it overlaps. For example, the rosters page you mentioned only included the Big 4 in women's hockey. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Extending nomination until 23:16 (UTC), May 5 -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of DanceSport dances

Self-nom: recently created, but effectively serves as an overview of the dances falling in the category of "DanceSport" around the world. Also gives competition-related details for each of the dances. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_list_candidates_Failed_log_May_2006_9b87.html"