Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 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 11 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed 1 kept
March 13 promoted 11 failed 2 kept
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
May 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
August 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed 2 kept
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed 1 kept
April 20 promoted 17 failed 1 kept
May 23 promoted 14 failed
June 22 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
July 29 promoted 20 failed 2 kept/1 removed
August 41 promoted 15 failed 3 removed
September 42 promoted 11 failed 1 kept/1 removed
October 43 promoted 17 failed 2 kept
November 40 promoted 18 failed
December 38 promoted 15 failed 2 removed
2008
January 46 promoted 18 failed 6 removed
February 34 promoted 16 failed 10 removed/3 kept
March 65 promoted 9 failed 4 removed/2 kept
April 48 promoted 25 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 50 promoted 39 failed 1 removed
June 9 promoted 8 failed

Contents

[edit] Starfleet ranks and insignia

For more discussion, see this WP page.

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

  • Support, well referenced, great lead, nice pictures. Phoenix2 01:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have two words: image copyrights. Some are claimed as public domain as self made, others say Paramount released it to PD (proof?), others say fair use (cannot be used for decorations and in any way needs rationalles). In one word: mess. Renata 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    Not really most of the images were drawn by wikipedia editors such as myself. All you need is paint for a large number of the images. Infact most are on commons.wiki.
    I do not know if paramount released them to pd or not (not that it matters), but I do know images I and others created were released to the public domain. Some images on the page were coppied from websites as a free alternative for now is not avalible for some ranks such as the alternate universe insignias. I am not that skilled as a creator even though the designs aren't complex so if anyone willing to redraw those, I have no objections.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    It does matter if Paramount released it because, for example, Image:Star Trek The Next Generation, Alternate OF 9.gif claims that. And simply redrawing does not solve copyright issues. Imagine, I redraw Microsoft logo and use it on my own software. I will be jailed in no time. So redrawing is very much the same as simply copying. Renata 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    Actually it does matter because the Microsoft logo is a TRADEMARK and protected by an entirely different set of laws and cases. The issue is whether or not the redrawing is a derivative work or not. This is a much different issue. For example, a common shape that is used by Star Trek for their insignia's (like a circle in TNG) can be copyrighted in certain contexts, but they can not prevent all others from using circles or even circles for insignia. I think that if we can straigten out whether or not these are derivative works then we can resolve the copyvio issue. Trödel 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    Why are you pulling my leg? So if I take a picture of Jean-Luc Picard (patric Stewart) off screen in star trek uniform I am violating copyrights?
    You can buy the pins and take the photo. Or you can use paint to draw the images.
    The only issue here can be trademark, not copyright. Otherwise we will need to delete every image with a yellow circle on it as paramount owns the copyrights. This has been discussed to death and I am tried of explaining myself. have a read of m:copyright paranoia --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    My whole point is that you need to fix and clean up the copyright status. Simply saying "oh, I can redraw them" does not fix anything. Renata 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry I'll have to ignore your comment which seems to complain about copyright of images I and fellow wikipedians have created. They are released to PD and moved to commons. Nothing you say will change that.
    Now if you'd like to help with the rest of the images left on en.wiki by creating alternatives under a free license, be my guest. If not you made your point.
    --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • On a Star Trek kick today, I guess. Oppose. Fair use only extends to a point, and a reproduction, even by hand, of a copyrighted work still violates copyright. -Mask 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Copyright concerns are legitimate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nominator appears to misunderstand trademark and copyright. Suggest the nominator obtain reprint permission from Paramount, then resubmit. Durova 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for copyright, odd organizations, and a very messy reference section. Staxringold 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As the artist of some of these images in question, I mainly drew the images using Microsoft Paint based on the illustrations previously uploaded onto Wikipedia. The PD Paramount thing was not my idea, but I have seen no proof about images being released like that. Some of the images are released under PD-user|me, since I drew them. If the consensus is that the images cannot be just redrawn and retagged, then go ahead and re-tag them as such (most are at the Commons now). But, are you sure this image is for decoration, since we are showing comparisons between the different ranks from the different series. Regardless of how the situation turns out, I do not have a vested interest in this article passing FLC or nor I will step in it's way to reach that point. Any more questions can be directed to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's more then just concensus, it's copyright law. When an image is copyrighted, they are not copyrighting specifically THAT IMAGE, although that image is copyrighted, they are copyrighting any other depictions of that image. Googles copyright is not on just the jpg on their homepage, but on all depictions of the word Google with a blue G, red O... et cetera. In fact, I'd be surprised if the color order itself wasn't copyrighted. Amazon get's a lot of flax for how many things they patent/trademark/copyright. The amazon.com logo contains a non-circular period (it's oval), which they copyrighted. They have successfully sued other web sites that created logos that had ovoid periods in the logo. Also, the main part of the rank insignias is the original USS Enterprise triangular-thingymabobber. I know for a fact Paramount has that under some damn strong copyright protection. Not in any way whatsoever public domain. It may become PD slightly sooner then mickey mouse will, but it'll be by about 2 minutes, and occur several million years after humans have vanished as a species. -Mask
So if I take the photo of the earing of a monarch with my digital camera after the monarch appears on TV with, the TV station owns the copyright?
  • Amazons thing requires citation weather or not if amazon sued and weather or not if it was because of a period being drawn oval. By the way, A simple aschi charatcer can violate that copyright. So all ovals are copyrighted by Amazon.com? You may want to tag all images on Oval as a copyrigh violation then.
  • As for google, they do not and cannot copyright this text: Google, I ask you to cite a source proving otherwise. Google is a pd word and you cant copyright words in a dictionarty. [1] is the logo that appears on google. mind the tiny "TM" is not a C.
  • As for rank insignias, four circles or two arcs cannot be copyrighted and I find this to be quite ridiclous.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
When you create an image to look like another, yes, that is considered a derivitive work and copyrighted. The google you just printed up there is used under fair use. Also, it will not be found in any dictionary. Google is a deliberate misspelling of the math term Googol. How hard is this to understand Cool Cat? Copyrights copyright. You are the only one who seems to think otherwise. Might try thinking about that for a second. It usually means the loners wrong. -Mask 19:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So you are suggesting any picture taken of patrick stewart is copyrighted by paramount. Or if I take my camera go to a Star Trek set and take pictures I am violating copytrights? On screen apearance of ranks were metalic. My version is a caricature at best. Your argument is flawed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that "Google" is in the public domain requires a source itself. Arguably Google is not yet at the same level as "Aspirin", for instance. I'd suggest you to read and understand the legal concept behind Genericized trademarks before making such claims. In the context of this nomination, it only shows your misunderstanding of copyright and trademarks, just as Durova above pointed out. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Open up a dictionary and look for the word... wiktionary:google... --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
is the captain rank from TNG S1. I doubt NASA will ever credit paramount.
Or how about this one:
--Cool CatTalk|@ 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Those images, for one, are naturally occuring things. No one can copyright the sun, but one could copyright a paticular picture of the sun. NASA images are not copyrighted either, but when they do reprint others images, they credit them. You're creating a strawman argument here. The pictures of the sun were not created specifically to look like another work. I have Jimbo's talkpage on my watchlist. He himself, in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Starfleet_ranks_and_insignia_and_copyright_status_of_images_that_appear_on_it told you they were copyvios. Drop the argument, you're just making this a mockery, and not the one you want, either. -Mask 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
According to your argument if I take a photo of the sun I can declare it is copyrighted. A similar argument is that if I draw the sun on a peice of paper I can claim copyright.
Paramount owns copyright of star trek images that appeared on their show images they have filmed/photographed etc. They do not own copyrights of images I have created. I thought we respected intelectual property on wikipedia. Images I created are my property and I was nice enough to release them to the PD.
Also how can US gov talk about copyrights here: Image:Stamp-ctc-star-trek.jpg
--Cool CatTalk|@ 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The US Government, through the library of Congress, can designate certain images, recordings and whatnot as 'culturally significant' and use it for their own purposes without limitation, as it is a 'symbol of America'. However, they generally get permission for art on stamps. If I were paramount, thats billions worth of free advertising. No way I'd say no. -Mask 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats fine.--Cool CatTalk|@ 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support, but for the copyright concerns: not in relation to the redrawn images, but the ones that are said to be "PD-Paramount". Do we have a signed release? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have fixed that. Those images now register as fair use. trying to come up with redrawn versions. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Because of the copyright issues of the images, I have decided to make things easier for myself and others and not re-draw them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] List of Minnesota state parks

This list is now complete with no red links. It has a nice introduction and lovely photos, all free. I'd like feedback on how to make it a featured list. Jonathunder 16:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose The pics look bad and messy. They sould all be the same width. There is only 1 refrence and 1 external link. It is a very short page; too short. Tobyk777 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments - good list, a little more work and it could become a featured list. However if you just want some feedback, you should use Wikipedia:Peer review. But since you are here, it could use some additional info. Like area, founding date, what are they protecting, what county they are in, etc etc. Because now the list is not much different from a category. Also, you should provide more references. A map showing the locations would be extra nice. Renata 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments - One reference, one external link seems enough as they are authoritative. A map would be good though. The first and third pictures are very dark while the second is washed out -perhaps it could be moved towards the end of the list? Rmhermen 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - for each entry on list I recommend only linking to the park itself, not its location. This will make the list easier to read/navigate and the location links are superfluous anyway, since you can get the location link at the park article. --Commander Keane 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I like the above ideas. A map would be incredibly useful (especially if you could make a map yourself, showing how the parks are spread around the state), and either delete the locations or put the parks into a more organized table and include some other notes (like founding date). Staxringold 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Respekt

Nomination removed on 18:45, Sunday June 8, 2008 (UTC). This is a proper article, not a list. Refer to Featured article candidates instead. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ

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

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

[edit] List of largest suspension bridges

This is a resubmission. The previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest suspension bridges/Archive 1. I have tried to address the previous concerns. Almost all photos have been sourced (still working on tracking down a few, if these are a problem, I will just remove them and replace them with a link to an external photo). None of the bridges listed have red links. Several new photos have been added. All ranks now link to external references. Most are the homepages of the bridges. Bridges without homepages link to either structurae.de or bridgemeister.com. Most bridges missing photos on Wikipedia have links to external photos. Note that it is customary to call bridges with the longest main span the "largest" bridge.-- Samuel Wantman 08:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Greatly improved. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why a list of the top 105? Why not 104 or 106? Seems kind of arbitrary. Pepsidrinka 08:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Many of the original references for this list had 100 bridges listed. Several more have been added mostly because they were finished recently, and there was one or two that were found to be missing from the original sources. I just discovered another one, completed in 2000, so now there are 106. So I have accurate information for the top 109 bridges. I considered stopping at 100, but 101 is historically significant; 104 is the largest of its type; 105 had a picture; and both 105 and 106 already had small articles written about them. I will probably add the three more bridges that I have information about, eventually. I hope the list gets longer. I would like it to have every bridge larger than the Union Bridge with a central span of 137 meters. So there is no magic number. Do you think there should be? -- Samuel Wantman 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that a list of the top 100 would be best, unless the Union Bridge you mentioned is some sort of standard when it comes to bridges. Pepsidrinka 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 100 seems just as arbitrary as 106 or 109 or 200 or 500. Why not include any information that is correct and verifiable? -- Samuel Wantman 01:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to limit it to 100. Eventually the list will grow when new bridges are built, I don't think we need to drop the lowest ones off when that happens. (Do giant bridges ever get destroyed?, would they still be on the list?) Rmhermen 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are a few bridges that have collapsed or been replaced including a few that at one time were the largest spans in the world. They are not on this list, but I hope to add these to a new section. I'm also considering adding a list of notable bridges that have shorter spans, and other record holding bridges (there is some discussion about this on the talk page). -- Samuel Wantman 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - persitent :) Renata 20:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. VegaDark 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - looks excellent, very informative. Suicidalhamster 15:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Tobyk777 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of dinosaurs

Clearly very comprehensive, and thanks to the Dinosaurs Wikiproject, now with a healthy ratio of blue links. Useful and stable too. (Partial self-nom; I've made some minor edits.) Soo 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments - Good stuff, but
    1. Is there an authoritative list of dinosaurs known to science that can be referenced, or does no such list exist?
      Unfortunately no such list exists. This is usually considered the most comprehensive available, although it does have some omissions which we have corrected wherever possible. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      I think we should standardize on the Dinosaur Genera List, and footnote all exceptions. Olshevsky's list has 1075 genera and this list has 1087, so it shouldn't be that much work, and I think it's absolutely required for verifiability. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    2. Is this list complete (in the sense of including all known dinosaurs) or have some criteria been used to decide which ones to include and which ones to exclude? I was a bit surprised that, for example, Dimetrodon, was not mentioned.
      We've only included animals which have been classified as dinosaurs; the nature of paleobotany is that animals often get reclassified, so not everything in the list is still considered a dinosaur. Dimetrodon, however, has never been classified as a dinosaur. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      Not wanting to trepass on areas where I am not qualified, Dimetrodon says it is "not a dinosaur, despite being popularly grouped with them". Are there other animals that might popularly be thought of as dinosaurs but are now? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      Anything that's dead and vaguely reptilian is commonly considered a "dinosaur". Plesiosaurs, ichtyosaurs, pelycosaurs (like Dimetrodon), thecodonts, etc. Hopefully it's clearer now that I expanded the intro. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    3. The lead is rather short - it could explain, for example, why some animals have been but are not now considered to be dinosaurs.
      Fair point, I will try to expand it. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      Expanded a bit. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    4. I appreciate the efforts of the WikiProject, but there are still quite a few redlinks from "D" onwards (most of "J" and "K", for example). How long will it take to turn the rest blue?
      Yeah, the blues are a bit top-heavy at the moment, but still the overall portion is about 2/3 blue, and certainly improving all the time. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    5. Some images would be lovely.-- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      Agreed, I'll see what we can come up with. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I like it. Conditional support, if you get more references and use the correct style. Take care, —Nightstallion (?) 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I stumbled upon this and saw that Elvisaur is a sort of nickname for (sorry if this is spelt wrong) Cryolophosaurus, yet both are included on the list. I've got no objection to it but was thinking how many examples of this there would be on the list, and maybe a note should be placed where this occurs. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. A two-thirds ratio of blue to red isn't quite high enough for me. I'd like to see more information in the list: as an absolute minimum, which of them are no longer scientifically accepted names; ideally, when and by whom the name was first used (as on the Dinogeorge site). Also, shouldn't this be at List of dinosaur genera to make clear that it's not species? Finally, some pictures would be nice (though their absence alone wouldn't be enough for me to oppose). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • About one third or less of the articles have pictures, would you like us to stick them all on? This to me, would make it look tacky, but that's just me.... Spawn Man 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Something like one image per letter section would be nice. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I've started putting on pictures fro random articles about one page length apart. Hope it looks some better... Spawn Man 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Its now about 75% blue and continues to increase rapidly. Soo 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What I'd like to see changed is that there should be a main list, with only accepted names of genera really belonging to the dinosaurs group, and sub-lists at the end for alternate names and for animals erroneously believed to have been dinosaurs. —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The very first item on the list, Aachenosaurus turns out to not be a dinosaur but a piece of wood. Clearly more comments are needed on the list. A hate to turn this into Featured "table-form" lists but isn't there something more we could do than a simple list. The bird lists are much more impressive in appearance. Rmhermen 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You make it sound like a bad thing! Which list would be on if not the list of dinosaurs (as it was thought of as a dinosaur)? The list of dinosaurs who were thought to be fossils but really turned out to be a piece of crappy wood?
      • I think comments on the list should note facts like this. There are already comments about renaming and classification disputes. Rmhermen 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support of course!! The list has come a long long long way in the passed few weeks. I think we should cut it some slack as the list is huge! Needs some major work still. I think it was way too soon to have put this on FLC, & I do not expect this to go through & I'm usually right.... But will still support anyway. Spawn Man 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You admit it still needs work but want it promoted already? Rmhermen 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While the comprehensiveness of this list is impressive, wouldn't it be more useful as a resource if it provided more information such as which era each species belonged to, whether it was carnivorous, or where it lived? I like to think of a featured list as significantly value added over a category. Durova 05:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Shortcuts

The WP:WP shortcut also known as [[WP:]] or WP:cuts is a great tool to find relevant content in the project namespace. Actually I was looking for a "featured template" feature, but I only found "featured lists", and Wikipedia:Shortcuts is certainly a list... ;-) Omniplex  08:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a worse self-ref than the list of mathematical lists - I would say it is not eligible. Can you imagine a featured article from the Wikipedia namespace? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sure, as I said I was looking for a "featured template" section. The meta-work making the encyclopedic work possible is important, unlike obscure lists or portals. Omniplex  21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. How is this "Wikipedia's best work" in terms of encyclopedic content? How would a person who's not interested in editing Wikipedia find this useful? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's useful for sure, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this is just a bunch of technical stuff external to it. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. Its not that special either. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not exactly featured list content. Phoenix2 00:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and suggest removal per WP:SNOW and WP:UCS. This is not what WP:FL is meant for. —Nightstallion (?) 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Its purpose (only for the article namespace) was obviously unclear for me. Omniplex  21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    Mh, okay; now you know, though. Featured *REGEXP* is just for things in the article/image/portal namespace. —Nightstallion (?) 10:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    Mmm - do we actually have an article namespace, let alone a list one? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    I thought everything which is not in any other namespace was generally considered to be in the article/main namespace...? —Nightstallion (?) 12:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Help:Namespace says (main), but in shortcuts WP:FAC, WP:AFD, etc. the A stands for article. Technically most lists are ordinary articles. Omniplex  12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Consorts of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England

  • Nominate and Support - this is a comprehensive list, inclduding pictures. In my opinion it is an excellent example of a wikipedia list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotakeit (talk • contribs)
  • Comments. Your list is lacking several things:
    • Lead. There is no lead whatsoever.
    • References
    • Categories
    • Table width is not consistent
    • Image copyright status is messy. You cannot use fair use images for decorations.
    • However, as for a list created today it is a very good list. Renata 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • 2 points are still standing. Renata 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I second Renata's comments above and also wanted to add that the name of the list sounds a bit odd to my ears. I think "List of Royal consorts [...] " would be better for a title. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The title sounds fine to me. Are there really no portraits of so many earlier consorts? Needs references. Durova 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There are no images that I can find on Wikipedia... help with this would be much appreciated though Sotakeit 11:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments - I agree that it would be nice to have portraits for the complete list. Date of birth and death do not really tell us enough. This is a list of consorts, so the dates of marriage are crucial, as are the dates of the consorts' spouses becoming and ceasing to be sovereign. For example, the list seems to be saying that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was Queen Consort from 1900 to 2002, which is plainly nonsense, given that she was not married to the future king until 1923, he did not accede until 1936, and he died in 1952 (so her period as Consort was really 1936 to 1953). The list also needs references. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hong Kong MTR stations

The list is informative and well-organized. The old names of the stations are here; the proposed stations are here. Even the "little things" do not escape the notice of the editors, just see the footnotes. A useful list for both quick reference and serious research.--K.C. Tang 05:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose The colors are so bright that it is hard to read. Also, there are huge gaps with nothing in them on the left and right which make it very messy. Tobyk777 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too. Good start, but:
    • The lead is 1 sentence.
    • You need more properly formated references and "More reference material can be found in the MTR article." does not belong there.
    • You have MTR maps, use them.
    • There are waaaay too many colors. Is there any reason for them?
    • You use waaay too many templates. The only thing that was directly put in the article is 1 sentence lead and 3 notes. Renata 07:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The colours, understandably, have raised some eyebrows :-) I venture to explain that the colours have been used because they are the "livery" of the stations. (The walls of a certain station is painted in a certain colour). So the colours were not fancifully assigned to the stations by the editors.--K.C. Tang 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In that I'd add a separate column for the colours themselves. The way they are arranged now does make the text hard to read. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I just came up with the same idea :) This way at least fonts will be in one (black) color. Renata 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • thanks a lot for the suggestions!:)Hope that the major editors of the list would soon incorporate the suggested changes in the list.--K.C. Tang 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sesame Street characters

Self nom. It's extensive, and elimiates the need for unnecessary stubs. It's far from complete, but not bad compared to any resource other than the Muppet Wikicity. -- user:zanimum

  • References? -- ALoan (Talk) 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - No references, inconsistent table widths after H, more information could be added. Also would it not make more sense to integrate the character birthdays into the main list? CheekyMonkey 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of evolution

A well referenced, linked and comprehensive list. Is it a list? Well we have this and this -- Ian ≡ talk 08:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - excellent in many ways. Well-referenced, well-linked, and (crucially) well-written. My concern with it would be that it's veering too much, in places, towards being a "Timeline of anthropology". Most of the last 20 or so entries on the list have little to do with evolution. This has the knock-on effect of suggesting an old-fashioned "ladder" view of evolution, where everything has been leading up to humans at the "top". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. I removed a few but am reluctant to go too far. In evolutionary terms, obviously not much has happened in the last 5-10000 years, however landmark events relating to the expanding human population and exploration milestones are to some degree relevant and IMO worthy of keeping. Whether we like it or not, we are at the "top" (after dolphins of course) and its reasonable for at least some readers to be interested in evolution from the point of view of how did we (ie. humans) get here. -- Ian ≡ talk 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I love the timeline. However I also see the point above. So my suggestion would be not to delete, but expand: climate warming? melting ice? animal extintion rates? carbon dioside levels? and such. Renata 13:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately the items you suggest have hardly anything to do with evolution. I think OpenToppedBus' concerns could be fixed somehow with a link to Sociocultural evolution (a Featured Article!). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I also added some comments in the article's talk page. Other than that I can only second OpenToppedBus praise for this list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I looked at it again. Hm, very interesting mix. Most are about humans. But here I find "250 kYA The Polar Bear evolves from an isolated high latitude population of Brown Bears." Ok, that's evolution. Right above it "300 kYA Creation of 900 m wide Wolfe Creek Crater in Western Australia's Wolfe Creek Crater National Park." That's goeology. "900 MYA There are 481 18-hour days in a year. Spin of the Earth slows down ever since." That's astronomy. "25 kYA Throwing sticks for hunting animals made from mammoth tusk (Poland)." That's archeology and history of civilisation. Renata 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Most non-evolution events now removed. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I never said to remove anything (sorry for confussion). I just pointed out that it is not strictly about evolution so melting ice or deforestation could also fit in. Another topics to think about is cloning & gene engineering when people are creating new species. I like what you did at the end mentioning new mass extintion (with proper sources!) However, revisiting it again, it might need a clearer focus. Anyways, I love this timeline. Renata 04:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's OK. I much prefer the new, more focussed version. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the more focused version. Good work. I might have been tempted to leave in the formation of the moon, given its impact on tides and therefore tidal lifeforms, but that's maybe a bit tenuous and certainly hard to write succinctly. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's time for me to Support. :) Renata 12:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A model featured list. Excellent work! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: no illustrative images, even though it would be remarkably easy to provide some in a table like this. Compare to Timeline of human evolution, which seems to be in much better shape than this timeline due to doing a great job of selecting occasional images to ground the text better and make the whole page more aesthetically appealing and compelling, not to mention informative. A good start, but there's too much more to expand. -Silence 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wikipedia:What is a featured list?: a list does not have to have a picture to be featured. They are certainly desirable though. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • And a Featured Article doesn't need to have a picture either. Just because it's not a requirement for all articles/lists to be Featured doesn't mean it's not a requirement for this specific article/list to be Featured, if this specific article/list would benefit significantly from illustrative images and it would be perfectly possible to get such images. -Silence 10:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • To put it bluntly, I'd promote this list without an image if there are no objections over content. So far the objections over content have been addressed to the satisfaction of many editors here, myself included. Your objection is highly subjective and therefore not easily actionable, while objections over content tend to be objective. In any case, now that I've said this I will not promote the list myself in case it reaches featured status. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative support - but I want to review in more detail. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Abstain The quality of writing is somewhat patchy. For example, There are 481 18-hour days in a year. Spin of the Earth slows down ever since. and Cnidaria and Ctenophora are some of the earliest creatures to have neurons, in the form a simple net - no brain or nervous system. and so it's referred to as a living fossil. and It was a stark and hostile place.. The use of AD 2006 in a time line seems a little dodgy - will it need to be updated to AD2007 next year? Andjam 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've given it a major copyedit, sorting out those and numerous other issues. I've also removed two dubious entries that I spotted with a close reading. AD 2006 won't need updating, as it uses the {{CURRENTYEAR}} tag. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Andjam 07:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a definite rationale can be provided for why everything after 10ya belongs on this list and not on Timeline of human evolution and whether the focus on primates and Homo is appropriate. Much of the first issue has been dealt with but I still think this page focuses too much on us and not enough on evolution as such.
  • Also, I'm concerned about the "if this, why not that?" problem with some of the over-specified entries. Marskell 12:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Firstly, I agree that the focus could be clarified, but find the current list quite elegant. No list of this nature can be complete. Secondly, why does Talk:Timeline of evolution carry a FLCfailed notice? -- Ec5618 13:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australians in international prisons

The list is well sourced, accurate, and meets the criteria for featured status. Consider this request a self-nom as I both began the article and have tweaked it a lot of late. Many other editors are contributing to the list regularly. -- Longhair 04:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Opening line "This is a list of Australians whose detention in prisons outside of Australia or execution is noteworthy." is odd. "whose detention or execution" perhaps? Also what is noteworthy. Australians may be pretty law-abiding but this list seems incredibly short. A number of entries fall to list reason for incarceration (in some cases even when it is mentioned in the comments section). Name change proposed in talk section seems like a good idea which had support (so why wasn't it done?) Rmhermen 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The introduction has been reworked to provide a more definite criteria. Renaming the article was suggested some months back, however nothing was ever agreed upon. I've again raised the issue on the articles talk page to see if others still think the proposal to rename is a good idea. -- Longhair 03:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - third sentence reads: This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and additions are welcome. Renata 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The sentence you refer is automatically inserted due to using the {{dynamic list}} tag within the article, to signify a dynamic list. The list is dynamic, as content won't always remain the same as it would with a list such as List of London Underground stations for example. -- Longhair 06:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, can you at least move it down somewhere along the notes, references & categories? Also the lead is way too short. By the way, great job on referencing. Renata 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- Done. How's the intro looking now? -- Longhair 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- how have you sourced the content? Is there a specific reference that lists all the prisoners mentioned in the list? Is the list up to date will all known convicts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- The list is sourced from news reports, support web sites, books authored by those imprisoned and written about them and the like. Every person referenced has their source listed in the notes column where possible and a full list of references is at the document footer. As for completeness, it's possible a few are missing from the list, though I suspect not very many. - Longhair 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Object --- I don't think that this article can vouch for *all* incarcerated Australians around the world. (i.e. as of Feb-2006) This list consists of only documented cases which contradicts the article title. Since there is not a single source that lists all known Aus prisoners, I don't think that it is comprehensive enough. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a very nice list. I was wondering, for the benefit of those at lower resolutions, if you could align="left" the elements on the table so that they don't look odd when spilling into a second line. I also changed the license tag of the image: it was labeled as being a movie screenshot, which I doubt was the case, so I changed it to fair use instead. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vague inclusion criteria. --Carnildo 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: -- This isn't an AFD discussion. I've edited the introductory text, how's it fare now? -- Longhair 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Serious crimes" is still pretty vague. The other three criteria are reasonably noteworthy, but this one doesn't seem to be. --Carnildo 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Marginal Support -- A great list which AFAIK doesn't exist anywhere else in published form, hence it's hard to know if it's near complete or not. My gut feeling though is it's nowhere near complete - I cannot imagine that there's only 45 or so Australians currently in international prisons, but I have no hard evidence for this view though. Conversely, I'm sure that there's people in prisons around the world that for reasons of privacy for them and their families wish to stay anonymous. WP is not in the business of censorship but we should be sympathetic to that (or at least aware) given the seriousness of their positions. As Longhair said above, the names and details listed are generally taken from news reports and published materials. If only we could get an official list or at least a head count from someone. Presumably DFAT does this. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Agree it doesn't need to be complete - only notable prisoners listed. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the intro looks much better, and it does not seek to list every prisoner, just the most notable ones. I like it because it's unique to WP. Renata 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support upon fixing the "serious crimes" criterion. I know some legal systems do differentiate serious crimes from others, so a note could be made to that effect. An example (I think, but you'd have to do some research on that) would be drug trafficking in Thailand. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: -- Thanks for your support. I'm still researching the correct syntax for the alignment issue you refer to above. No luck yet. I've tried, and failed, but I prefer to use your alignment idea. I'll put in some time tomorrow looking more into the answer. - Longhair 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
See the article's history for an example of how to fix the alignment in an edit of mine. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I've made your suggested left alignment changes. Thanks for your assistance Rune. As I run a high resolution most times, I guess my changes weren't as visible to myself as others. I dropped back to 800 x 600 after my most recent edit and didn't notice anything untoward. Please let me know if an alignment problem still exists thanks. - Longhair 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: - The introduction criteria now reads "convicted of notable crimes whilst abroad". How's that sound? -- Longhair 10:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - The criterion of "noteworthiness" needs to be objective, otherwise how do you decide whether or not someone appears on this list? In any event, I suspect it is not comprehensive - the list itself says "This is an incomplete list...", and there are no entries before 1969 and few before the late 1990s. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If we're incapable of judging the noteworthiness of crimes, then wouldn't the logical action be to ban wikipedia from writing about crime due to the risk that un-noteworthy stuff may be written about? Andjam 11:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)