Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2007

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am self-nominating this article because I think it is exhaustive, good-looking, well-referenced, and contains informative explanatory paragraphs. The previous version of the article contained a list that was clustered and completely unreadable. I had been working on a completely new version of the article on my sandbox for quite a while, and copied my work onto the original article yesterday. I really checked everything, from the countries' flags to the spelling of the films' original titles. I also wrote paragraphs about the rules governing the award and the eligibility of foreign language films in other categories, since several people had inquired about this subject on the article's talk page. I tried to be as exhaustive as possible and provided the article with appropriate references and citations so that people who read it can find in it almost everything that really needs to be known about this award. BomBom 12:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Colour for the film highlighted - I have adjusted the colur to light blue I always feel this works better with film related articles rather than an off yellow that isn't really gold. What are people's views on this? It is similar to that used in Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture? I think it looks much clearer and more attractive ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: This should really be split into Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and List of Academy Award Winners for Best Foreign Language Film. Otherwise it's waay too long and is trying to be too many things at once. Ideally "Awards in other categories for foreign language films" could be split off as well. Finally, the list could be sortable - year, title, country, director, language. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I think of your objections :

• Proposal to split the article : N I disagree, for the following reasons. Firstly, the previous version of the article did not include any kind of explanatory paragraph whatsoever. Before self-nominating the article for Featured List status, I spent a lot of time writing the Rules section in order to conform the article to the Featured list criteria, which stipulate that a list must be comprehensive and not omit any major component of the subject. Therefore, I find it really ironic that a section that was initially written with the intention of reinforcing the article's FL candidacy is now being used as an argument to oppose this candidacy. Secondly, all the other film awards articles in Wikipedia include both the description of the award and the list of winners/nominees in the same page. Therefore, I do not see why the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film should be an exception. Having separate articles for the description of the post of President of the United States and for the List of Presidents of the United States is totally justified since there are a LOT of things to say about the post itself, and a LOT of things to include in the list. However, in the case of the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award, is it really worth it to have a separate article just to describe the rules governing the Award ? The Rules section is really not excessively long and takes just 6 minutes to be read. Thirdly, some of the current featured lists on Wikipedia such as the List of Portuguese monarchs contain a similar amount of text. The only difference is that the textual material there is not written as a single block but is scattered throughout the article, so people just have the impression that it is less overwhelming. Nevertheless, despite my opposition to your proposal, I am ready to split the article if it is the only way to make you and Circeus withdraw your objection to the article's FL candidacy (yes, I am just trying to get people withdraw their objection, I've lost all hope that someone might actually support this article's candidacy one day).
• Proposal to split the Awards in other categories for foreign language films section: Y I had initially created this section because several people had asked on the article's discussion page whether foreign language films were eligible for other Academy Awards. However, I agree with you that it does not deal directly with the subject of the article, and that including it gives the impression that the article "is trying to be too many things at once". Therefore, I have removed this section entirely and reinserted it in a newly created article entitled List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films.
• Proposal to make the list sortable: I think that's a good idea. However, turning such complex tables into a single sortable one is a delicate process that might take some time. I am currently working on such a table on my sandbox, and will hopefully insert it in the article once it is finished. BomBom (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: To the break out suggestion and your replies:

• First, let me say that the sheer amount of work you've put into this list is staggering. I applaud your efforts wholeheartedly and think you've done a wonderful job.
• Rules section - I agree that, in the interest of comprehensiveness, a rules section is useful and perhaps necessary. However, in a quick look at the other movie FLs, if a rules section is included, it's usually a couple sentences. Now, this one is a bit different because the Foreign Language Film is different from most of the other Oscars, but I still think 13 paragraphs in four different sections, a total of ~11.5 kBytes is either a) overkill or b) deserving of its own article - and one that will probably be of at least "B" quality without much effort at all.
• Including description of award and list of winners - see Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama (as well as Best Motion Picture - Drama and Best Original Score) and List of films that received the Golden Film; all of those have separate articles on the award itself. On the other side of the coin, BAFTA Award for Best Film doesn't do much to describe the award and has an article about the Association, but not the award.
• I didn't !vote for List of Portuguese monarchs, but the amount of text is just overwhelming - sorry. That's my biggest beef with it. Again, though, the text is great - I just don't think it belongs in the list, but could be a proper article on its own.

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to agree with SatyrN that the "List of winners and nominees" (and possibly a copy of the tallies) would be better split as a separate, full blown list given the heer amount of non-list material. Otherwise the article is really good, although there are some sections with extra whitespace at the end, links in the headers that should be removed, and the lead could be significantly lengthened. Possibly "Title Under Which Film Was Nominated" could be shortened to something like "Nominated as"? Circeus (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to really thank you for being the first user to have taken the time to write something positive about the article. Other users simply throw objections without even having the courtesy to insert the slightest positive comment (this is really important, especially when one has spent several weeks trying to improve an article). Anyway, as far as your objections are concerned, I believe that they have all been addressed :

• Proposal to split the article : N Please see my reply to SatyrTN.
• The extra whitespace at the end: Y All the extra whitespace in the article has been removed
• The links in the headers: Y All the links in the headers have been removed.
• Lengthening the lead section: Y Done.
• Shortening "Title Under Which Film Was Nominated" to "Nominated as": Y Done. BomBom (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was thinking about inserting a world map that shows countries that have been nominated for and/or won the Award. However, I'd like to think what other users think of this proposal before creating such a map, because I really don't want to spend my time working on something that people will eventually dislike, or even use as an argument to oppose the article's FL candidacy (just like what happened with the Rules section). BomBom (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Love the idea of the map - down by the "tally by country section"? That would be great and would fit with the way the Golden Globe lists are. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 2 support, 2 oppose. No consensus to promote, no active discussion. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have everything an episode list should.--SeizureDog 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - excellent work. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose: I'm confused about the dates. The right-hand column doesn't have a title, but one supposes it's the "Original air date" referred to in the other column heading. And then each episode title has a date next to it, with no explanation of what those are. Plus, the wikilinks (autoformatting) around the second dates I mentioned are unnecessary, since they aren't full dates and don't "deepen readers' understanding of a topic". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Right hand column is airdates, note the /. This is the same format used by FL List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes. The titles and airdates header are not seperated into seperate columns as that would cause an additional, redundant sortlist (at least this is my guess to the logic). Each episode has a date next to it as they are actual parts of the titles. It represents the in-universe time that the episode takes place.--SeizureDog 04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Gotcha. So I see the point of the two dates - thanks for the explanation. I'm sure that's spelled out in the article about the series, but perhaps the lede could be more explicit? Also, since wikilinks are "used when they add something to the article", wikilinking the date in the title doesn't make much sense. Nor any wikilinking of part of a title (as in "Indian" in the episode named "June 17: Another Indian"). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • • Well, the Indian link is simply there to clear up confusion between India Indians and Native American Indians.--SeizureDog (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This problem can now be sorted with class="unsortable" (all the gritty is at Help:Sorting), so you can separate the header cells. Circeus (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • The special lack any sort of plot summary and looks like a botched merge. Something about how it integrate in the series chronology would be a good idea.
  • class="unsortable" should be applied were relevant.
• Circeus (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

previous FLC

Self Re-nomination Came so close to an agreement 3 Support, 1 Oppose (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks/archive1). Still think this list is close to/has met Featured list criteria. I also believe that it is up to par with the other lists of Pro Football First Round picks (see List of Minnesota Vikings first-round draft picks and List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks). It also has references and is well set out. Thanks, Jwalte04 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies for closing it when it was so close, but an editor clearly had issues with the page and it had been there 23 days with few comments, so I figured a new nom would bring fresh comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Jwalte04 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Fantastically annotated, free of POV, complete, and referenced. -Drdisque (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks great, meats up to all the other FL articles of this same subject, amazingly referenced!
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support: At the moment, I see a couple things that would greatly enhance the list:
  1. The white-space to the right of the list is just too big. Can pictures of the stadium, players, the team's logo, something be put in that space? Or the table be widened to 100%? I know the other FLs you mentioned above have the same problem, but IMO there shouldn't be that much space.
  2. The header column "National Football League, Early Era (1936–1969)" adds nothing. There's no corresponding "Modern Era (1970-Present)", there's no indication of why that is important.
  3. If the Redskins started in '32 and since there's no "List of Boston Redskins first-round draft picks", could the table be extended back to '32? I'm assuming you included '36 because that took place for the '37 season?
  4. Year, Player, Position, and College could all be sortable.
  5. Ernie Davis' note needs to be clarified as to why it's on this list. Searching for his name showed me he was a Redskin player, but that should be explicit. Additionally, the third "Notable First" strikes me as trivial, bordering on OR.

Overall, well sourced (though is [thehogs.net TheHogs.net] a RS?), and looks complete. Nice work. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1.N Not done Okay, I will work on it.Y Done Added picture of Darrell Green.
  • Yeh, that's a picture, though I was thinking more along the lines of how this list does it :)
    • I would do that, but frankly there arent enough usable pictures of people that are on this list.
      • Yeh, that's what I thought was the case. Not a show-stopper, in my opinion, just a nice-to-have.
• 2.Y Done added Modern Era Header, its important to the history because it was 1970 was the first draft after the merger.
• 3.Y Done I have it starting in 1936 because thats when the first draft took place.
• 4.N Not done I dont know how to do this, so if there is an agreement on this, can someone tell me how? thanks.
  • I'm not sure it's worth it, but (IMO) it would make the table better. First, the "Modern Era" and "Early Era" cells spanning the whole table messes up the sorting, as does the very first cell (which is redundant anyway). The "No Draft Picks" also messes it up. So I've put together a start at Wikipedia:Sandbox/sb2 to take a look at. Your call if you want to put that much effort into it - and what do others think?
    • I personally dont really like it, but if there are others that do and think that it will improve the article, then I am on board.
      • I guess this is probably a "nice-to-have" as well. Unless others chime in that sortable is better, I won't press it :)
• 5.Y Done Clarified that Ernie Davis was a Redskins pick and lost the third notable fact.

Thanks for the help/suggestions! Jwalte04 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 23 days, 3 support, 0 oppose. No consensus to promote Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Object Support the WP:CAPTIONS are boring and redundant. They should vary. E.G. "The Fisher Building (Detroit's 13th tallest) was named a National Historic Landmark in 1989." Give us some tidbit with each caption to point out a few interesting buildings to look at more closely.
  • N Not done - That information would have nothing to do with the content of the list. The list is about building height, not about buildings which are National Historical Landmarks or other interesting tidbits. WP:CAPTION states that captions must be "relevant to the article", and all that is relevant here is height. Cheers, Rai-me 01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My point is that you have selected a few notable buildings to show pictures of on the side. The fact that a couple of buildings are interesting for reasons other than being Nth tallest is relevant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't, at least not on this page. In the past, I would have agreed with you. You can check the List of tallest buildings in Providence FLC to see why the tidbits (which I had originally added myself) were removed. Interesting facts belong on building articles, but are not relevant to list that pertains to building height. Rai-me 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I would certainly like to revive consideration of exemplary captions (captions that show examples of notable buildings describing their notability). I think you may have chosen a bad caption with the TV show example and thus been encouraged to scrap using such captions. In general, I think they are desirable and would like to entertain debate on the issue. It looks like User:Circeus may have been against the captions chosen. It is not clear that nothing but the rank is relevant to the article, IMO. CALLING CIRCEUS TO THE DISCUSSION HEREWITH. I believe it was he who helped me make List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry interesting with captioned pictures on the side. I then used a similar technique at List of Chicago Landmarks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I now agree that those notes (they actually were not captions) were and still are irrelevant. It think it is pretty clear that nothing but the rank is relevant to the article, as it is a list of tallest buildings, which is organized by height, and not simply a list of buildings, where inclusion is based on notability. However, I agree that re-opening discussion would be a good idea. See also the discussion found at the List of tallest buildings in Boston FLC, which also originally had many informative tidbits. Rai-me 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Given that the comments here relate to two rather different elements from each oters and the current case (in the Providence FLC, I commented on irrelevant, material in the "notes" column of the table, while in Dallas, I complained that it was too ambiguous for the unacquainted reader to tell, in the lead image, whichbuildings were being named), I will stay neutral here, although I can see where the "drabness" comes from, the captions as is seem fine to me. Circeus 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't think that anything discussed here relates to the lead image. It only pertains to the addition of non-height related information to individual building image captions. But yes, the issues in the Providence and Boston lists were related to the Notes column, not captions; sorry if I did make that clear. But, if a "tidbit" is not relevant in the Notes column, IMO it probably is not relevant as a caption either. Rai-me 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
            • My aforementioned list of landmarks would have to be changed so that each caption said XXX became a land mark on MMDDYYYY to be consistent with this logic, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Did you mean to place this in the above discussion? Anyway, the logic is already true for many FLs such as the hockey trophy lists (Lady Byng Memorial Trophy, Hart Memorial Trophy, Calder Memorial Trophy, Conn Smythe Trophy, et.) which only state award winners' names and their number of wins/year of win. I would consider these captions very consistent with the "relevance" logic used in the tallest building lists. Rai-me 03:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
            • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Do all those tallest building claims mean tallest in Detroit? Michigan? What?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is obvious that it is the city of Detroit, not all of Michigan, per the title of the list and the lead. The same goes for the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section. The only places that count tallest buildings in Michigan are very clearly stated: "tallest in the city and the state since 1977..." Specifically what part did you find confusing? Thank you for your review, Rai-me 01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that "Tallest building" should say "Tallest Detroit building" in each decade reference. It would be cleaner. Suppose you did this for a city with monstrous buildings like NY or Chicago where it might be the tallest for a decade in the country it would be an important distinction. It would just be cleaner if you made this slight change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • IMO, this would extremely redundant. The list clearly pertains to Detroit buildings, with no clarification needed, per the name of the list. Changing it would be very repetitive and inconsistent with other lists. If a building was the tallest in the country, then it would be clearly stated. Rai-me 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
        • WP articles should always be written from the viewpoint of the international reader. The point is that a list like this is particularly interesting to people from cities with tall buildings. I have lived in Chicago since September 2000 and lived in New York City for 5 years. When I read the statements, I was confused because a similar article for either of the cities from which I draw my perspective could have buildings that say Tallest building of YYYYs decade meaning for the United States or the world. Many people who will find this list interesting will be from similar cities. The statement as written is incorrect. At the very least the first use of the phrase should say "Tallest Detroit building". It would be preferable if they all did, but at the very least the first use of the phrase should be corrected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Y Done. I have added clarification for every entry. While I still disgree, and feel that it is unnecessary, I can see your point and can also see where some readers could get confused. Thanks, Rai-me 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Raime, I'm usually the first to complain when such material is present (although at least it's not in headers here.). Circeus 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment why does the Rank column not sort correctly? Also, Rank 3 building appears to have the feet/meters numbers reversed, resulting in incorrect sorting Hmains 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The ranking seems to work fine to me. What is incorrectly sorting on yours? Keep in mind that there are several tied buildings with equal ranks. And Y Done, I have fixed the height of the Penobscot Building. Thank you for your review, Rai-me 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If I just sort on rank (up/down), all is fine. If I sort on the height column and get lowest height first, all is fine, but if I immediately follow that sort by a new sort on the rank column, then all is not fine. This height column sorting seems to be the only column that interacts with the rank column sorting in this way. Hmains 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Y Done - I have made some adjustments, and I think that the error is now fixed. Rai-me 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Idea: Maybe give the standard ranking under the "tallest by spire" listing? That way the differences are easier to spot. Circeus 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done - good idea. Rai-me 23:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• support a well done list Hmains (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the featured list United States Secretary of Energy as the precedent in editing this article to help build it to featured list status. The list is informative, interesting, well-sourced and visually appealing.--Southern Texas 22:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as the nominator.--Southern Texas 22:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support following my edits. --Golbez (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral: It feels very redundant to have images in the table, and ten other images next to it of the same people, and downright silly to have a "no free image" icon for Harris, and next to it, and image with her...Circeus (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: The list is undeniably attractive and comprehensive in its scope, but I have concerns about the article content:
  • Like Circeus, I think it's odd to have images in the table and also have images of the same people next to the table. Keep the images in the table, but lose the others. That black-and-white photo of Harris could go in the article about her. In the table, you probably could use the postage stamp image of Patricia Roberts Harris (on this USPS web page); the webpage says "The stamp art features a photograph of Harris, taken in the late 1970s by a staff photographer for the Department of Housing and Urban Development," indicating to me that it's a work of the US government.
    • Nope; stamps are copyrighted by the USPS: "All U.S. postage stamps and other postage items that were released before 1978 are in the public domain. The postal service holds copyright to such materials released after 1978 under Title 17 of the United States Code. Written permission is required for use of copyrighted postage stamp images." from USPS. I'm sorry, but I have to delete the image and remove it from the article, as I don't see this falling under fair use. --Golbez (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The campaign button of Schweiker is a creative element, but I am offended by the caption that says "the first male Secretary of Health and Human Services". He was only the second person in the position, for crying out loud; there is no valid point in saying he was the first male.
  • Additionally, the lead section does not fulfill its purpose of "summarizing the scope of the list". The first sentence in the lead section says the DHHS is "concerned with health matters," which is an incomplete description of the scope of this department. The statement in United States Department of Health and Human Services is more comprehensive. Also, I cannot see how the last 4 sentences (beginning with "After the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks...") help to introduce or explain the list; those sentences are totally gratuitous. DHHS is a large department with a diverse range of roles; I think it should be possible to say something more meaningful about its history and the history of its leadership.

--Orlady (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me the link to that image, I uploaded it. Also the images on the right are there both for aestetic purposes, and for going deeper in depth about significant "firsts" for the Secretaries. They are all different images than the ones in the list. I explained thoroughly in depth about the importance of the position since the initiation of the war on terrorism in order to show the amount of responsibility that was been placed on the position.--STX 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the position of Secretary of DHHS was plenty important before 2001. This is an historical list of everyone who ever held the position over 28 years. The introduction should not place heavy emphasis on one topic that has received attention in the last six years. As for the captions about "firsts," it seems excessive to highlight "firsts" within a list that includes only eight people. --Orlady (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to delete the image and remove it from the article, as I don't see this falling under fair use; the stamp is from 1999 and copyrighted. --Golbez (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I should be sorry, I should have been more careful, but at least this has been taken care of fast.--STX 04:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem, you were only trying to help. :) --Golbez (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being the source of misleading information. There is an official-portrait-style photo of Harris at http://hhsu.learning.hhs.gov/womenshistory07/hhs.html (a US government site). I have not found any info about the copyright status of the photos there. --Orlady (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I cropped the current photo of Harris and inserted it in the table. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have to agree with the above that having two columns of photos is distracting. Second, "first male" is downright silly. Second (a), "male" is wikilinked, but "woman" is not ?? Third, WP:UNDUE regarding the war on terror - this list has very little to do with the war on terror. Fourth, could the columns be sortable? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• I withdraw the nomination, apparantly editors don't see the importance of the War on Terrorism on this cabinet position nor did they see Secretary of Energy. I'd rather it stay in this state than be featured since this state is much much better than what the opposes want this list to be.--STX 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This list has been created as part of an experiment. I am interested in the perception of pop culture lists against a broader field of lists as it pertains to a WP:LOTD effort that will begin this week. This list is about as pop culture intensive as it gets. I am aware that due to difficulties in establishing the notability of earlier models the list has a few redlinks since their articles have not been created. Furthermore, certain nationalities seem to be difficult to obtain. However, the list is accurate and complete for the first two columns. I would be willing to revise it to a reverse chronological order, which might make the early information sparsity less troublesome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • What is the point of that second paragraph? It's like you accidentally posted it into the article from an essay justifying lists of cover people.
    • Some may not see the point of having a separate list from Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. It is important to say that being on the cover of Sports illustrated is important and in general it is noteworthy to keep account of magazine cover appearances. I would like to find such a list for one or two top fashion magazines, but did not find such a list on a cursory web scan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Has there been anyone connecting the SI Jinx to the Swimsuit Issue? If not, no need to really mention it, except maybe to say they haven't. Y In the absence of evidence of immediate loss of beauty, excessive bad hair days and inability to smile, I have added a sentence saying no association seems to exist with the swimsuit issue. However, this may have trouble passing for WP:AWW. Any thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Needs a short mention of what the swimsuit issue is and its significance. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The "facts" section is not worth one entry; note it in the table, or add a lot more facts. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You need a better way to show 'unknown nationality' than dashes, which in tables tends to imply 'none'. Y I changed the dashes to blanks. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise, I don't think the dashes are needed in the notes column when there are in fact no notes. Blank is fine, but others may disagree. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • An explanation of the letters about the cover and the cancellations for 1978 would be useful; I look at the cover and see no problems. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with you, but a weird quirk I'd like to see if others have: When I click a reference at the bottom, ref 61 disappears or moves to the other column. It's weird. --Golbez 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Re-evaluating: The justification paragraph still needs to go, and as long as nationality information is lacking for some models, I don't think the list is complete enough to be featured. --Golbez 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Definately a good start, and definately a cool idea for a list, but it just doesn't seem complete. The writing in the introduction is generally pretty questionable and unecyclopedic, the nationality column is incomplete, and some of the notes in the Notes section seem unrelated. What does an article being the 40th anniversary have to do with who was on the cover? Also, I would highly recommend making the first two columns sortable. Drewcifer 09:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply The list of cover models is complete. Due to the non-notability of some early models, when the girl next door was chosen instead of the supermodel, the birthplaces/citizenships are not readily available. The question is whether this is part of the list or not. Could the list be submitted without this column? Yes Would it be a better list if it was? no. The notes are quite related to the cover. Special anniversary cover models are special. The 25th is probably more important in some ways to the 40th. However, both are notable. This is not the anniversary of the magazine, but the swimsuit edition that is being noted. I had hoped Sports Illustrated would respond to their online query tool that they say they resond to within 2 days, but I have received no response. I think the introduction is O.K., but would accept more directed feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Updated Reply I have added sorability, but don't know how to do it for specific columns. I also had to change the date format to a less pretty format to make it sortable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 1 support, 5 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Detailed and verified information about the population of percentage of major religions in over 200 countries or territories (maybe about recognized 99% of total countries or territories in the World) has been gathered in several tables which describes the issue perfectly. I think this article meets WP:WIAFL.Angelo De La Paz 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - numerous problems need to be solved.

• Use of external links instead of inline citations is unacceptable. See WP:CITE.
• There still is a {{Original research}} tag still on the article.
• There are a ton of stub tags at the bottom.
• The multiple colors in the table look frankly atrocious. Standardize the colors. Grey is preferable.
• Adding "etc..." anywhere is not acceptable. List all of relevant items or none.
• What is the purpose of the Notes section? It's confusing how it fits into the rest of the article.
• The lead needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone and have in-line citations added. Also for the lead:

• You don't need to state the list of articles that this article is the parent of, that is for the "Lists by country" section at the bottom, which should be retitled "See also".
• There is excessive amounts of bold text. Only the main subject of the article should be in bold per Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title.
• The asides in the lead about these religions are not from a neutral point of view. The lead should summarize what the article is talking about, not your personal views on these issues.
• There's a ton of spelling errors. Copy it into a text editor or some other method.
• The lead should make note of which religions are the most prevalent, which would explain your choices in the table.
• Closely read WP:LEAD. Frankly, I think the entire lead needs to be rewritten.

• Your "Sources" section should link to those sites instead of listing them as external links. If any of them are not sources, then they should be under an "External links" section per WP:EL.
• Many of the percentages in the table are not listed or have a "n/a" placed there. Either place something or add a citation explaining why the "n/a" is there.
• The sorting function of the table appears to be broken. When I tried to sort the leftmost column, I got the Cocos Islands as the top option.
• The "Notes" part of the table needs serious copy-editing. Remove all the asterisks, and you can't use "&" instead of "and". Featured material is supposed to be immaculate in terms of grammar. I'd request the services of someone at WP:LOCE to look over this article.

• To be honest, this article needs a lot of work before reaching FL status. I'd highly recommend asking another set of eyes to look at the article to fix the above problems, as the article has to be completely revamped in order for this nomination to pass. Best of luck though. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The key introduction is atrocious, and discourages one from reading further in what is potentially an interesting list. Otherwise I'd agree that all the problems listed above need to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Please see WP:LEAD. The lead is written horribly with punctuation errors everywhere. I didn't see further down in the list. This was big enough reason for my strong oppose. DSachan 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Featured lists are not peer reviews, simply asking another editor to take a look over this would have highlighted some of the plethora of problems that plague this list. I think the colours are, frankly, atrocious. They certainly don't meet the guidelines of Accessibility. All of the problems highlighted by Sephiroth need to be worked on first before it can even be considered for WP:FL. Sorry for being so blunt, but this article needs some work. Woodym555 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per everything detailed above. Good start though. -- Drewcifer (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 1 support, 4 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Detailed and verified information about the population of Muslims has been gathered in several tables which describes the issue perfectly. I think this article meets WP:WIAFL.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Lead is poorly worded and formatted, and could probably more prose. "Note" is an inappropriate warning to put. Islam is not even linked!
  • Incomplete: Missing all countries in Micronesia and most in Polynesia
  • External links as reference in the body of the article are unacceptable.
  • Why not just link directly to "islam in"?
  • There should really be something about the state religion status of Islam in many countries.
• Circeus 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A lot of the refs are not properly formatted and I don't particularily like the colour of the table... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • Lead is too short and does not meet WP:LEAD standards. "Listing of Muslims by country" is not a complete sentence. "Important note" should be removed. There should also be general information about Islam, not just statements about how measuring can be biased. This kind of information would be more appropriate in section headings, not in the lead.
  • All external jumps in the tables need to be removed. These should be converted into references/notes.
  • Why is region listed before country? The list measures by country, not by region. There is also overlinking in the region column, each region need only be wikilinked once.
  • Per Circeus, rather than linking individual country statistics in "(details)", it might be more appropriate to directly link each country name.
  • Why do some countries have three links external links, while others have none? These percentages fall under the "statistics" category, which should be cited per WP:WHEN.
  • The titles "Islam by Country" and "Top 60", found directly above the tables, are redundant. The sections are already titled, the tables do not need to have separate titles as well.
  • The heading of the "Top 60" is poorly worded and confusing. In addition, "Top 60" is a pretty poor title choice, at least IMO.
  • Rather than stating "Note:", consider using asterisked notes or references.
  • Formatting of the four notes is inconsistent (Note 3 does not even have any text), and formatting in the references section needs to improve. Rai-me 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment Sort on "% Muslim" and "Muslim total" columns do not always work when used repeatedly to obtain ascending and descending order. Hmains 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to citations in lead section. ^[4], not [4]. Miranda 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn by nominator and support from article creator also withdrawn. No real support, agreement is this isn't ready. Per request. Daniel 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members

Neranei (talk · contribs) did most of the work on this - she just asked me to take a look at it, help a bit, and FLC it. So I did while she was away :P Here goes... Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Agree with below. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support as major contributor. Regards, Neranei (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing this. It needs much more work. Neranei (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Could have pictures: The lead could have this awesome pic, there are also free images of the current members individually (go to their respective articles) and even for some former ones like Navarro etc... These individual pics could be placed next to the time period where they first joined the RHCP. Isn't Discogs a user-added website; hence unreliable? Tommy Stardust (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Uneasy Comment It seems pretty much as complete as an article such as this could be, I suppose, but I'm weary to support since it's so basic. I know that's not much of a criticism, but bear with me here. I think what would help this article immensly is some sort of graph outlining the members. Mainly since some members have been in the band throughout, though Frusciante has come and gone. Unfortunately, for the life of me I can't fine a good example of one of these graphs. I know there's some out there on wikipedia somewhere, but I just can't find any good examples yet. The only one I can find is at Oasis (band), but it looks terrible: like the artist just discovered Correl Paint or something. If the article is so finely tuned to be as to-the-point as it is, I would expect multiple ways of expressing the same very limited data set. I'm not being very articulate, but hopefully you can understand my point. Drewcifer (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A-ha! Found a good one: Wilco. Drewcifer (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I find the lead irrelevant to the list. the current one would best suit Red Hot Chili Peppers discography. Instead what would be relevant is information about why some members leaft or returned, which one stayed the longer, which one had the most impact... In addition, I don't see a need to parantesise the years, they are on a column of there own. CG (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree the lead is irrelevant. How about adding why members left? Where new members came from? Peanut4 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Being a significant contributor to everything Red Hot Chili Peppers, I really question the substantiality of this list. Not many people would look to this for scholarly view; much of the information here does not even need a source. It is common knowledge that Frusciante re-joined in 1998 and that Navarro let in 97. Furthermore, the only reason this list exists is because there's simply not enough room at the Chili Peppers article, otherwise all this information would be there. A small enough graph could, ideally, be put on the band's main article perfectly but the existing table is not appropriate and far too big. NSR77 ^T_C 01:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 03:41, 26 December 2007.

[edit] 50 Cent discography

All the objections from the previous nominations have been addressed .--Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I know this is a bit overdue, but I believe the issues in the last nomination have been addressed. The objections were only minor formatting tweaks. Spellcast (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments Looks pretty good! I only have a few minor suggestions:

• Ideally the title of all releases 2 (within tables) should be in bold and italicized (this doesn't include singles or music videos). I'm not sure if the way I said that made sense, so just take a look at other discogs.

I could be wrong but doesn't that go against MOS:BOLD? It says to not bold things for emphasis unless it's table headers (in this case, things like "Chart positions" and "Sales and certifications"). Spellcast (talk) 15:51, 21 December007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what MOS says, I'm just going off what pretty much every other FL discog looks like. I guess it's because the release titles are the most important bit of information for every row, and since every row is defined by the release.

• Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture Get Rich or Die Tryin' is the actual title of Get Rich or Die Tryin' (soundtrack), right?

It says that on the cover, but judging by the many soundtracks in Category:Film soundtracks, many simply use the shorter form. Spellcast (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I think it would be a good idea to either change it to Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture Get Rich or Die Tryin or Get Rich or Die Tryin soundtrack or Get Rich or Die Tryin original soundtrack or something like that. The word "soundtrack" in parenthesis just bothers me for some reason, since it's technically not part of the title.

• "An asterisk (*) indicates that the album is active on the charts." seems unnecessary at the moment since no album is active.

Done. I've removed them until they become active. Spellcast (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Along the same lines, both the asterisk and em dash note should ideally match the other discogs which say " "—" denotes releases that did not chart." Furthermore, for the sake of consistency, it should be — and not –. So it shouldn't be an m-dash in the first place (and I'm not sure what you call the long dash)

I think it should be alright now. Spellcast (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the mixtapes should be given their own section, since he's somewhat known for his mixtapes.

The mixtapes were redirected to the main biography because they were just track lists with no potential to expand. Besides, all the relevant info on the mixtapes is already mentioned in 50 Cent. If anyone (re)creates them in a better form, I'll be sure to link to it. Spellcast (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Consider that point taken care of.

• I also checked the reference for the greatest hits album, and it doesn't actually say that the title of the album is "Greatest Hits". So I think it should be changed to something less official and un-italicized, such as "Greatest Hits album" or "Untitled Greatest Hits album" or something like that. Drewcifer (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I changed it to "Greatest hits album". Spellcast (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, fairly minor stuff. If you can take care of the above, I'd be happy to give my support. Drewcifer (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: White-space issues...

• Could you make the "Studio albums", "Compilations", "Solo", "As featured performer", "Guest appearances" tables 100% width?
  • "Guest appearances" is 100%. For the others, the code has this: width="40". 100 makes it too wide (try it yourself). It seems anything between 35 to 45 is good. I changed it from 35 to 40. If you think it should be wider, just say so. Spellcast (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the 100% width on the studio albums cause a lot of unnecessary widening, especially on the year, title, and sales column? Spellcast (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have no clue what to do about all the space to the right of "Unreleased" and "Mixtapes".
  • Not much that can be done there. Spellcast (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Any way to add more pictures? Just a thought, not a show-stopper.
  • If anyone provides extra free pics, I'll add it. Spellcast (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please {{reflist|2}} to tighten that section up.
  • Just did the reflist|2 issue. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A clean and useful list that is taken care of, very well. Flesh-n-Bone 15:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very well sourced and comprehensive list. Hpfan9374 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 5 support, 5 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

previous FLC

Self-nom. Renominating the list because it appeared to have consensus in its previous FLC discussion, but was mysteriously closed as failed by one of the only two objectors (versus 5 supporters), even though a request was posted for it to be closed by someone other than a participant in the discussion (I refrained from closing it myself due to conflict of interest, but if that is not an issue here as it is at XfD, then I'll be glad to close this discussion). The points at issue, which were the basis of the objections were:

1. whether or not lists like this should be included in FLC or another department created for them called "Featured Navigation"
2. whether or not sources are needed and what exactly needs to be sourced
3. whether or not geography features should be included on the list, with the alternative to including them being the providing of links to comprehensive lists instead.
4. whether or not geographers should be included on the list, or just have a link leading to a comprehensive list of geographers instead
5. whether or not the article should include a see also section
6. whether or not there should be an external links section

The Transhumanist    22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no opposition, then self-closures is not an issue. However, in cases where there is opposition, you should not. I am going to refrain from voting, but I still dislike the lack of sourcing. Without sources, it means that the topic may never be complete, I have been able to pick out several things that were missing, as well as some things that need sources. Featured lists should be as complete as possible, and with such a loose and expansive definition as "basic topics", this list never will be complete. As well the nations that are on one continent but are considered part of another need sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They aren't "votes" exactly, but opinions. And you've just expressed one. Thank you for your participation.  ;-) These are discussions, and therefore somewhat informal. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if the list is incomplete, by all means point out the missing topics, so that they can be added. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are admitting that the list is incomplete and could easily have more added doesn't sit well with me. Featured lists are supposed to be as complete as possible, and if an IP could come along and easily add a dozen important things to the page, it's not very complete, is it? The way I see it is that this list is basically a category, that isn't (and likely never will be) complete, and has no sources whatsoever. I can easily pick out several things that need sourcing: the "Branches of geography" section, what the definition of a "basic topic" is, why are countries that are clearly in Asia listed as a part of Europe?, why are awards part of list of Geography topcs?, what makes a person a "Influential geographers"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of missing items. Which is why I requested that you point them out. Your objections concerning sources are noted, and I'll do my best to track down sources for each of those, when I have the time. I agree that inclusion criteria for "basic" need to be specified. Any ideas? And lists and categories overlap in subject matter almost entirely; the purpose of lists is to present information in ways that can't be done on categories, such as with structure, etc. The Transhumanist 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing items can be uncovered by spending a few minutes with the categories and searches. You shouldn't expect FL reviewers to do the work for you. As Scorpion says, if, by the time you come to FLC, it is still easy to find missing entries, then that is a big clue that the list isn't ready. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this the right department for lists like this?

• Yes - they're topical, and though they serve as tables of contents, they are still lists. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you want to have a discussion about whether or not this type of list should be an FL, you've picked the wrong place. Perhaps you should finish this discussion at a more appropriate place, THEN renominate it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If the list doesn't belong here, then this is precisely the place to determine that, but it wasn't my objection. It would be unfair of me to repost this FLC without covering each of the objections from the previous discussion. I nominated the list for featured list status, and this is where lists are covered, so here it is.  :-) The Transhumanist 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Are sources needed and if so, what needs to be sourced

• No - As with categories, only obvious items are included, and since sources should be included in the articles listed, no sources are needed here. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Possibly if one wishes to use a source in order to better define the scope. Without it, the list is open to the charge that the selection is a personal choice and WP:OR. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the lists of geography features be replaced by links to comprehensive lists instead?

• No - This list isn't intended to be comprehensive, except in the context of "basic". The Transhumanist 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Possibly If this is meant to be a list of all "basic" geography features, then it should be comprehensive wrt its scope. It may be that a comprehensive list of such fine detail would unbalance this list and be better off elsewhere. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Should geographers be replaced by a link to a comprehensive list of geographers?

• No - This list isn't intended to be comprehensive. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Except in the context of "basic". The Transhumanist 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the FL criteria specifically says that FLs should be comprehensive
    • In this case that means "comprehensively basic". So all "basic" topics should be included. The Transhumanist 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What would be your distinction between a geographer that appears on a basic list and one that appears on a full list? FWIW, we didn't discuss any geographers in my school geography course. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the see also section be removed?

• No - it's a standard article feature. Especially useful in a beginner's-level page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. The purpose of the "See also" section is to note some wikilinks that couldn't be incorporated into the body text. This list has no body text and it has multiple tables/lists where related topics could be mentioned. So the list is really one big, organised, see-also section.

Should the external links section be removed?

• No - it's a standard article feature. Especially useful in a beginner's-level page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes It is not a standard article feature in the sense that one is mandatory. See WP:EL. The external links, if at all appropriate, belong on the article pages. The only sort of external link I would consider appropriate here would be one that details/discusses a "List of basic geography topics" (which is distinct from the topics themselves). Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What is an acceptable definition for the term "basic geography"?

• Define "basic topic". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for prompting thought on this. How about "topics appearing in introductory-level textbooks on Geography. Topics covered through primary school to 100-level 'Introduction to Geography' courses in college." How's that? The Transhumanist 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Scorpio0433 Scorpio0422, A basic topic is a major branch of a subject. All the core topics (Mathematics, Science, History, Geography, Philosophy, Arts, Technology and Society) have both a list of basic topics (Major branches, science would have chemistry, biology, physics etc. and their subranches) and a list of topics (A list of all parts of that field). See List of basic history topics and List of history topics for an example. You also had concerns that this list was incomplete. By their nature, lists of topics are dynamic lists, meaning that they may never be able to fulfill certain standards for completeness. I support this becoming a featured list--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Phoenix-wiki's history examples don't help since the non-basic list is far less comprehensive than the basic one. Really, I'm struggling to see how an encyclopaedia for the "general reader" could possibly contain "advanced geography" topic articles (as distinct from advanced sections within an article). No, these lists are not dynamic (except perhaps for the people list bits). Geography isn't developing new topics at a rate that would be considered rapid for an internet encyclopaedia. The only reason that new topics might keep appearing on this list is because either they were overlooked to begin with or someone has written a new article (probably by spawning off text from an existing article). Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but the comprehensive history one is incomplete. If it was complete they would be perfect examples. Better examples: List of philosophical topics and List of basic philosophical topics. The basic topics contain highly notable stuff while the normal topics list contains all major topics--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This is the official definition--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "fundamental concepts and key subtopics of a subject" would not include a list of every minor land/sea/urban formation. I see the need for a hierarchy of lists, not one trying to achieve everything a beginner might want to lookup. If external sources are not used to craft such a list, then its formation is Original Research. As part of the "table of contents subsystem" (per your definition), I'm not uneasy about that since such pages are Wikipedia-specific and are of course going to be the product of Wikipedia editors making the best presentation of Wikipedia content. That doesn't make it Featured List-material any more than this nicely presented list. Colin°^Talk 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Support and further objections

• Support - as nom. The Transhumanist    23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support It is comprehensive, and satisfies all criteria. Twenty Years 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Not comprehensive and does not have a well-defined scope. The detail-level varies from the sub-fields at the top to all the little geographical features at the bottom. There is no attempt to refer to an independent source for either a definition of "basic geographical topics" or to use such a source to validate each entry. It therefore appears to be a subjective and incomplete list. [Note: such a list might still be useful and worthwhile, it just isn't Feature quality] Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Detail level? What do you mean by that? The branches section is complete, and thus fully detailed, as far as I can tell. How do the other sections differ in this regard, in the context of the list's title? The number of members in each section differs -- that appears to be an inescapable feature of the subject itself. How can it be the basis for an objection? The Transhumanist 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Within one list, I'd expect the brush strokes to be either broad or fine. This is a collection of lists, all at different levels of detail. That might serve the "cheat sheet" purpose but doesn't make for a tidy article. We have a hyperlinked encyclopedia, with a summary-style guideline, and so we should have a hierarchy of articles/lists where each level is at a similar level of detail. Colin°^Talk 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • By "detail", you mean the number of items in a subsection? A subsection with 20 items is "more detailed" than a subsection with 10 items in it? The Transhumanist 06:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, very interesting. Here is my take on it.

Fails 1a because it does not bring together a group of existing articles that are related by a well defined entry criteria. Also fails 1c as there are too many red links and no well defined criteria of entry, it is too basic (no pun intended). References are required for a list to be featured or it is not factually accurate.

fails 2a because the lead does not summarise the scope of the list and doesn’t prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the article…because there isn’t any.

In any case, this probably does represent Wikipedia’s best work, but I cannot compare it to say Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori or FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives because this is not what Wikipedia has defined as a featured list. Perhaps we should create a new namespace and move this article to Pist:Basic geography topics. .....Todd^#661 08:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - By not citing sources or exactly defining criteria for inclusion, the list basically fails WP:NPOV. If there were some sort of source which also listed basic geography topics, and that source were cited, that would help immeasurably. John Carter 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose with the greatest of respect to TT and with kudos for a humungous amount of work put in so far, I have left detailed comments at his talk page. The essence of the problem is, as Warlordjohncarter says, that this list is currently inherently POV. Crack that and all the other problems will fall into line. --Dweller 10:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I can't really see why it's failing WP:NPOV. Auroranorth 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is a typo and should be WP:NOR. Colin°^Talk 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think they assert that choosing a list of topics without having a source for which ones to include is inherently POV. (I don't share that view.) —Nightstallion 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. In this special case, I think not having explicit sources is not an issue. —Nightstallion 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment for clarity, since people seem puzzled by my objection and I think the talk page I referred to has been archived, my concern is "who says so" over various aspects of this list. Who says that these are the basic topics? Who says others, unlisted, aren't basic topics. Who says that some listed should be listed? With the geographers particularly easy to see this. Who says those geographers should be listed and others excluded? Thus, the list must fail NPOV and, arguably, the comprehensiveness criteria. The fact that the comprehensiveness criterion is arguable is because we can argue depending on our own POV. This for me is fundamentally cause for objection as it undermines everything Featured status is about. Sorry. :-( --Dweller 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This isn't a simple list. It is a compound list with multiple sections. There's nothing in the FLC instructions that states that a structured list can't have a section that presents examples. Examples abound on Wikipedia, and even featured articles have them. If featured articles can, why can't featured lists have them? See the list of examples of notable temples in Hoysala architecture. The Transhumanist    14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please explain how the selection of images as illustrative examples, as used in many featured lists (and a great many featured articles), is not POV. In this list, for example, nobody complained about the selection of an image of China's divisions. Why shouldn't that be an image of Great Britain, or the United States, or some other country? How was it selected and not one of the others? The inclusion of such pics fits your definition of "inherently POV". But it is common practice on Wikipedia to use images as examples, including on featured lists, and the same thing should apply to links when those links are provided as examples. It is common practice to do so in articles, and I pointed out a feature article above that does so. How can FLC set a double standard on Wikipedia? For an example of images presented as examples, see List of Florida birds. I look forward to your response. The Transhumanist   

If this were a list of images, then the selection of examples of images might be a problem. But it isn't, so it isn't. This is a list of "basic topics". Who says these are the basic topics, or the examples chosen are the "basic" examples? I could Google geography topics not included here and you could only defend their absence by them not being "basic" according to your POV. Or, you could add them. In which case, there's a problem with the list not being comprehensive now. And there's still the problem of who says that the ones that you have got already are "basic". And sorry, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never the best argument. I know we disagree and I wasn't posting here a second time to try to convince you... only because it seems others misunderstood my objection. --Dweller 15:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Re Hoysala architecture - the article includes a footnote showing that the notable temples have been selected by a RS. That's exactly my point. --Dweller 16:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I did disagree. But in view of apparent inconsistencies, I simply didn't understand your position, which is why I kept asking questions. Thank you for the explanations, you have been a great help. The Transhumanist    20:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons presented by Dweller. The list clearly needs reliable sources to justify its inclusion, some which I question. In the "Geography awards" section is the Geography Cup and the National Geographic World Championship really basic and reference competitions in geography? they seems to be some local recent competition in the US solely. And second, I might be wrong, but doesn't the list emphasises too much on Physical geography and not enough on Human geography? Thank you -- CG (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - this list still fails to clearly define its topical scope, thus it cannot meet the comprehensiveness requirement. It must cover all aspects of the topic it defines its scope as. However, with no reliable sources being placed to define what precisely those topics are, this list is fundamentally incomplete, and thus subject to the author's opinion concerning what constitutes a "basic topic." Until source(s) can be provided to show the topical scope, then it is ultimately subject to the author's point of view, failing WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Not to disparage the author, who indeed has put forth herculean efforts in making the list, but a clear defining of the topical scope using such sources would settle these issues. Is there perhaps major geography organizations that publish such a scope? Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 1 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination. It seems to be consistent with List of New Jersey Devils players. I trimmed the player number down to those who played 150+ games to be consistent with some of the soccer FLs. Teemu08 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • There are two bits in the lede that talk about the blue background. IMHO, those should somehow be combined and moved down to the "Key" section.
  • "Name" column needs a header :)
  • Could the "Name", "Nationality", and "Seasons" columns be sortable?
  • Wikilink the positions?

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • I put up "Name" headers and moved the blue background notice to the key section. The positions are all wikilinked in the key—I haven't seen any other sports lists that link in the chart itself. As for the sortable chart, "no" is probably an appropriate answer. The reason why is that: 1. I would need to re-do pretty much the entire chart, 2. Nationalities wouldn't sort anyway, and 3. I would like the appearance to be somewhat consistent with the other ice hockey player FLs. Thanks for the comments, however. Teemu08 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose for lack of comprehensiveness WP:WIAFL 1a3. I believe the all-time roster (like the aforementioned Devils' list) would be comprehensive. The 150 games seems arbitrary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The New Jersey Devils players page lists all of their players because the franchise has only been around for 25 years. The Blackhawks have been around for almost 80 years, so a complete list of players would be absurdly long. Featured lists for aged teams in other sports have addressed this concern in the same way I have (see List of Arsenal F.C. players, List of Aston Villa F.C. players, List of Gillingham F.C. players, List of Ipswich Town F.C. players, List of Liverpool F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players, and List of York City F.C. players). I'm breaking no new ground here. Teemu08 03:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdrawn. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is a discography of Courtney Love including her releases with Hole. I believe that it meets all the featured list criteria. This list differs from the similar list John Frusciante discography in that it contains chart information. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody's Daughter is missing charting information, release dates, sales and other information. Why is "Mono" bolded and "Hold On To Me" is not? "Hold On To Me" has date formatting inconsistencies as well. Some of the columns could do with widening, as well. ~ Sebi 08:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody's Daughter is an upcoming release and only its title has been announced. I bolded the single title you mentioned and fixed its date formatting. I notice that you widened the column for the Hole videos table yourself; are there any others columns specifically that you think should be widened? --Brandt Luke Zorn 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, none in particular. After looking at the columns again when I'm not just about to fall asleep, none of them require widening. As for the unreleased album, perhaps a note along the lines of "To be released", or something, but perhaps not the acronym, or that attracts users from Amazon.com to add supposed release dates that Amazon.com claim are correct ;) ~ Sebi 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Got it. I put "To be released" underneath the title. Anything else? --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, nothing more, looks better now. Good job on this one, you seem to always do a fairly good job on the discographies you work on :) Support. ~ Sebi 04:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Idiosyncratic use of chart names instead of the country (or the more usual "U.S. mod. rock" or similar for specialized charts), also, the Hole material belongs in Hole discography, not here, although a "see also" should be included. Compare Trent Reznor discography and Nine Inch Nails discography. Circeus 17:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I shortened some of the chart names. I removed the section on Hole's singles, but I felt uncomfortable removing all mention of Hole so I simplified the "Albums and EPs" section. --Brandt Luke Zorn 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Look at Gwen Stefani discography, it explicitly excludes material she made with No Doubt. Unless she was associated (as opposed as being a full member) with Hole, that material has no matter there as anything but note that she was a member of that band before carrying a solo carreer. While I understand the issues have more to do with how removing that material makes the list very much on the edge of "too short", it is my definite feeling that the scope issue should trump the goal of pushing this to FL status. Circeus 20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I removed all Hole-related releases and created a "See also" section linked to Hole discography. --Brandt Luke Zorn 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Without the Hole stuff, it seems too short to be an FL and I see no reason why the information couldn't just be included in the Courtney Love page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ... So it's clear that I can't please both you and Circeus. Can some compromise be reached? This version of the page includes Hole's albums and EPs, but not their singles. It's similar to how the RHCP's albums are presented on John Frusciante discography. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not so much a catch-22 as a not very ideal choice fro a FL for the time being (that is, until she release some more material), I'm afraid. I'm actually of the same opinion as Scorpion (that it is at best a dubious length). Circeus 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm... Alright then. I suppose this would be better suited as a FL in 2008 or 09. Can I withdraw my nomination now? --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a well-formatted list, it just needs a little more length. One more album and a few singles ought to do that. Are you sure you want to withdraw it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm sure. I'll wait until Nobody's Daughter and the next slew of singles comes out. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 3 support, 2 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Raime 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because it is informative, neat, and important. Few people know about vice-presidents and if they look at this list not only will they learn all the vice-presidents but they will have a pictoral representation of that individual in their brain.--Southern Texas 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as the nominator--Southern Texas 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose Support: I'm not sure about the break-out by century. For one thing, the breaks add very little to the list. For another, I'd like to see the list as sortable, which it can't be when broken up. Anyone else feel that way? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the splits, I don't know why that was done since many of the vice-presidencies spanned two different centuries.--Southern Texas 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • A sortable list would definitely be helpful here. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now sortable.--Southern Texas 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that looks great! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Footnote 7 somehow needs more explanation. I understand they could have been President for just a few hours--many readers might not know this. Maybe separate footnotes for each VP are needed, providing the dates/times they were President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs)
  • You could just create a "References" section at the bottom and add a link that contains a complete list of vice presidents, and includes their dates in office, etc. Also I agree with Hmains. The footnotes need to be explained/clarified. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you explain what you mean by a separate "references" section? Also I don't think that every single time the 25th Amendment was invoked that I should explain since there is a separate page about that Acting President of the United States#Invocations of 25th Amendment, I will link this article in the footnote but I think this page should strictly be about the office of Vice President.--Southern Texas 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • One section for Notes, one section for References. See List of New York Jets first-round draft picks for example. Also, it would be best to explain the circumstances of the 25th amendment. Lists should be comprehensive, so I think it would be appropriate to explain the situation in detail (a few lines will suffice). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Good so far, but who invoked the 25th? The VP as implied by the footnote language or the President? Hmains 01:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • Lead is too short
  • Sorting breaks in several instances: try sorting by "took office", all the vacancies are bunching, and ordering is wrong; or by Home state, some vacancies are after "Maine" other near "California".
  • Formatting is far too fancy, making the vacancies almost invisible
  • Parties are overlinked (besides, they're linked at the top of the list.)
  • References need proper formatting. Right now they're just a list of external links.
• Circeus 03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The sorting is a mess. Try hitting any sorting button, and then try and get it back to the default positions (1-46). It's impossible. Half the buttons don't even work. Also the lead is far too short (howabout explaining the vacancies, as well as a quick summary of what the VP actually does. Drewcifer 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdraw. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just published the article, and I believe it meets the FL criteria. It's useful in listing the most intense tropical cyclones worldwide, the criteria being the strongest cyclones listed by pressure. It is comprehensive, as I listed every tropical cyclone below a certain pressure (920 mbar was used for every basin but one, which used 900 mbar due to how many intense storms it has). It's factually accurate, as it uses data from the official agencies. It also has images, so I think it's ready for an FLC round. One thing I wanted to add was a table on the top of the article to list the most intense storms by basin, but I can't seem to figure it out. I'll be happy to address any comments. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the opposition, I withdraw, primarily due to lack of time from RL. In time when I can, I'll address these comments. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, a few issues:

• The phrase "no best track is available online" is being used as a cop-out for potentially bad sourcing. I know that the statement is true, but more of an effort should be made to obtain it: email to the relevant RSMCs or to the NCDC (who supposedly archive it for the WMO). The online part should be irrelevant: either the source exists and we have it, or there is no such source.
• Why central pressure is being used and not windspeed should be explained in some detail in prose, not glibly mentioned in the tables. This is particularly an issue as it is the opposite of how the NHC uses intensity to refer to winds in TCRs and discussions; other organisations use the term similarly.
• Furthermore, it would be good to see peak winds listed for comparison.
• The dates that the data covers should be made clear in the text, not the source info, as it is important information.
• The units used inconsistently. If inHg is important enough to mention in the introduction sections, it should be included. Likewise if hPa is worthy of mentioning in the body of the tables, why not the prose?
• Wikilinking the units isn't consistent.
• Factual errors: The boundary of the SW Indian is 90 degrees, but the Reunion best track includes data outside that. For example Helinda is listed in the SW Indian list at 915 in 1996. Helinda was Pancho at the time, was in the SE Indian and it was in 1997! I'd suggest thorough cross checking of the southern Hemisphere data.

That should keep you going for a bit.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be addressing that in the coming days (been busy in RL). Thanks for commenting, though I wish you would've commented before I put it for FLC :) --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nilfanion. FLC was very premature for this list since you only just published it; it needs Nilfanion's concerns and more addressed. As for best track data for the South Pacific, try contacting RSMC Nadi. IMD does have best track data available. The list itself needs more lede and more prose in the sections, perhaps addressing why pressure is used and not winds (again per Nilfanion). --Coredesat 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nilfanion, and to add my own concerns:
  • Almost no prose at all.
  • For example, almost no planes are flown in to Pacific storms, so pressures tend to be estimated. This needs mentioning.
  • Put 'mbar (hPa)' in the header, we don't need it repeated 500 times.
  • Also, put in a cliffs-notes explanation of why low pressure = intensity. --Golbez 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 21 days, 2 support, 1 oppose. No consensus to promote Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

self-nomination - I found this article looking like this, with all content removed, and tagged for speedy delete for copyright violations.

I've created tables like those used in FLs List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Smallville episodes. The colours for seasons 1 through 5 match those used in DVD covers, which as I understand is the consensus. Seasons 6 to 11 have not been released on DVD, and those season tables are in a greyish colour, similar to the Simpsons episode list being in yellow for seasons yet to be released on DVD. When the seasons are released, the colours should be changed accordingly. List includes episode titles, writers, directors, original airdates, and episode numbers.

As such I think the article fits the requirements for a featured list. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Support It could have more references, i.e. for writers, titles, airdates. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting, Demonhog. I would agree with you, but the only sites with that information are tv.com and imdb.com. The CW has removed the 7th Heaven minisite and accessing www.thewb.com at the Internet Archive doesn't provide the information either. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • I'm sorry, but for a show with 11 seasons, that lead seems entirely inadequate to me (compare the Degrassi list, though that one also has excellent season intro text too).
  • Could the text for the headers of season 3-5 be made white? At least season 3, which is practicaly illegible.
• Circeus 02:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Circeus for again commenting on my nom again.
  • I appreciate what you say, but if you look at FL List of The Simpsons episodes which has 19 seasons, there is not really much more information in that lead than in this (except commenting on the Tracy Ullman show and the movie). I did add a short series overview - I've done that twice before already but there's one bloody User who likes to revert all my work . I'm expecting it to be removed...
  • Fixed season three's to white. I did wonder if that would be a problem. I like the season colours to be the same as those used on DVD boxes. As far as I'm aware, that's the in-thing to do! I just couldn't find a lighter colour. I did think about changing the text to white, but I couldn't figure out how to do that! Personally, I think that seasons 4 and 5 are fine as they are, but if more people don't like them, I certainally shall change them.
• -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Having season colors is fine, as long as the text color is adjusted where needed for legibility. Circeus 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I just don't know how to change text colour... -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - sources for all the airdates? I see one for the premiere and the finale in the lead, but not for the others. What is up with the "season number"? Is that an official number? Is that number coming from something, or is that something editor made? Since this is an episode list, the title of the episode should probably come before most of that other information. Speaking of titles, pilots are generally just "Pilot" and not "Pilot episode"...unless it was officially called "Pilot episode".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have sources for all episode dates. The old thewb.com site and the cw.com 7th Heaven sites aren't there any more, and the Internet archive don't show airdates. The only thing to go on is the fact that I watched the show and so I know it!, a fansite, imdb and tv.com, links of which are at the bottom of the page. TV Guide doesn't have them either. Anyway, I appreciate your comments. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that there aren't sources available, and that the only ones that list that info are the ones that aren't considered reliable.---Goes searching real quick (not being sarcastic, I was in mid type when I decided to try and help)--...wait a minute. TV Guide has dates and titles. See this page. Interestingly enough, it also says "Pilot episode" instead of simply "Pilot". Don't use it for episode counts, as TV Guide will count TV special that may not actually be episodes. They have Smallville at like 144 episodes, when it's only 136--weird. Anyway, their dates and such should be good. But, I see nothing to suggest those season numbers are used, at least not by a reliable source. That the structure of the table can and probably should be adjusted though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the TV Guide link, I don't know how I missed it when I looked. You're right about the "season numbers", I did put those there to identify the episode number in the season, so that 305 would be the fifth of the third season. TV.com's 7th Heaven episode listing do have production numbers. The information is repeated on fansites and such; searching for the episode "Anything You Want" and the production code "01496003" on Yahoo here gives results at fansites.hollywood.com, epguides.com, 360.yahoo.com, episodeworld.com and two 7th Heaven fansites at freewebs.com, but I would think these would be considered as unreliable as tv.com and imdb.com, no? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. I was going to leave it a few more days, but the nominator asked for a decision to be made. Yes, there is more support than opposition, but there is clearly no conensus to promote the list at this time. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a general overview of geography. A lot of work went into it, and I believe it is ready for wider input. Of all of the Lists of basic topics, it is one of the best. The Transhumanist    00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I like it! very good list, which is something that is seldom said--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose There are no sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Tables of contents aren't sourced. And this is a table of contents on Geography. Therefore an exception should be made on sourcing for this list. Sources shouldn't be required to verify that an article belongs to a core subject, because it's fundamental. Geography is well known. It is common knowledge that continents and other landforms are geography topics. Providing a source for each landform that states it is a geography topic seems ludicrous. The Transhumanist    03:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Even if it is obvious, it needs some kind of source, otherwise it's OR. For example, wouldn't Pingos count as being a basic geography topic? And yet it's not included here. Y Done As well, a source is needed to confirm that countries like Armenia are considered part of Europe despite being entirely in Asia. I'm uncomfortable about supporting an FLC with no sources whatsoever. As well, there should be a longer lead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • What kind of sources would you be satisfied with? And what should be included in the lead? The Transhumanist    08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Few minor issues:
  • The table in external links has alot of white space to its left (under all the links) possibly it needs to be moved up to get rid of all the white space (or atleast some of it). Y Done
    • White space eliminated, section filled with useful links. The Transhumanist    02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont like having the portal tag so far up in the article. Id prefer it to be in external links or atleast futher down the page. This prob isnt nescessary. Y Done
    • That's the standard location for it on basic topic lists. If we change it on this list, then it would need to be changed on the over a hundred other pages in the collection. It was placed at the top since portals are also a type of introduction, and so it is covered in the introductory areas of the basic lists. The Transhumanist    08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• I dont think the references is an issue, as it should be dealt with on all of the sub-pages, so possibly making sure it is dealth with on those pages might be important? (i presume it is). Twenty Years 16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Seeing that there are hundreds of articles contributing to this subject, sourcing them all is a collosal undertaking, but it is happening in due course (as is the case with all of Wikipedia). In time, most if not all of Wikipedia will be sourced. Keep in mind that this list is primarily a navigation aid. The Transhumanist    —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is what Portals are for. Colin°^Talk 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the format and content of the two are so different that their purposes are just as distinct. Portals are glitzy pages modeled after the main page, and like the main page they provide a sampling of material with similar feature names and in a similar format. Lists of basic topics serve as a particular type of reference tool (the table of contents) and they adhere much more closely to the structure of their subjects. Portals can't portray a subject in the same way and with the same utility as a subject outline (list of basic topics) can, but after all, that is not the intent of portals. Portals are samplers, like a small box of chocolates. The Transhumanist    02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, not portals. But (as you say on the newborn WikiProject Lists of basic topics), "Lists of basic topics … are part of the Wikipedia:Contents navigation system". By their nature, they are largely exempt from WP:V (no refs as no information that might be challenged is presented), WP:NPOV (as they don't offer any opinion, other than a hopefully neutral classification), WP:NOR (as they contain no non-obvious information). The entry criteria are much larger than we expect at FLC. They make heavy use of navigation templates and link to other more detailed lists. Both FL and FA have content that can be judged against WP's content policies and guidelines. The FLs tend to serve a navigational purpose too, but an FL that was merely a raw list of article titles wouldn't pass. Wrt assessment, I don't think the FL criteria are useful here. I suggest you open a debate on whether Featured Lists or Featured Portals are best suited to assessing such "Lists of basic topics". I accept these are not portals, but I think they are closer to portals than articles/lists. Colin°^Talk 08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm impressed with your assessment of the situation. Though I believe that the exceptions can be thought through right here, and a determination made as to whether or not the quality level of the list is worthy of featured list status. Is it easy to understand? Does it represent the topic well? Is there anything missing? Is there anything non-obvious that needs to be referenced (as per Scorpion's observation above)? Is the formatting appealing to the eye? Is the material presented in the best logical order? And so on. That is, How is the topic coverage?! The Transhumanist    09:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There are a lot of red links - they are just hidden in colapsable tables. Rmhermen 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • They're topics. They're just not articles yet. They'll turn blue as people create them. We could delink them, turning them black, but they'd just have to relinked again later. 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. I've no objection to a meta-list like this being featured, and indeed supported Lists of mathematics topics when it came up, but this is not up to scratch. I agree with Circeus's comments - in particular:
  • It needs more introductory prose for some of the subjects. Y Done
  • Too many links go to the wrong topics or to disambig pages. Y Done
  • There's some very random things in the "Basic geography topics" section. Minimum bounding rectangle Y Done, Hubbard medal Y Done and Park Y Done in one list? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Featured Lists got a lot of reviewers in those days! I wish we had that level of participation now. Don't let my "oppose" be a block if consensus goes the other way, but I still think this sort of contents-page isn't what FLs are about. A brief look at that Lists of mathematics topics discussion shows I'm not the only one. I guess we haven't had many such nominations for this issue to have been decided. Colin°^Talk 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That one was particularly controversial, and also benefited (if you want to call it a benefit) from a message on a number of people's talk pages encouraging them to vote on it. If you have a look at the featured log for October 2005 you'll see that most nominations back then got a similar number of reviewers to now. You're right that it's not an issue that I think has come up much - though I believe, if my memory serves me, that it was the rejection of a portal as a Featured List that led to the Featured Portal process being set up. (In a similar way, Featured Lists only came about after a few lists were rejected as Featured Articles). I doubt we're ready to spin off Featured Navigation as a separate process, but that might be one way round this.--OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, this is FL stuff, no doubt. I send Transhumanists a few pointers for references on his talk page. We're not exactly talking about anything overly complicated, mostly some good, generalist works that can be used to check the organization against. Circeus 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Query - OpenToppedBus, in your opinion, which sections need intros? The Transhumanist    02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's massively improved from where it was. One issue is that there's a major lack of consistency around the naming of "Demographics" articles. For example Demographics of Lithuania is a proper article; Demographics of Brazil is a redirect to a proper article at Demography of Brazil; Demographics of Zanzibar is a redirect to Zanzibar; Demographics of the Falkland Islands is a redirect to Falkland Islanders. However, I'm prepared to accept that this is a problem with the "Demographics" templates rather than with this list specifically, and am switching to Support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Round two

Everything has been done above except sources and pics. Is there anything else that needs to be improved? The Transhumanist    07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates#Other "content navigation" pages wrt to whether this (and similar lists) belongs here. Please comment over there. Colin°^Talk 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Why are you trying to bring FL issues to FP? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Because of the similarity with portals. This list isn't part of the encyclopaedia body, it is a contents page. Colin°^Talk 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Lists are lists, as are lists of lists. Portals are modeled after the main page and have WikiProject elements. We covered this above. The difference between lists and portals is like night and day. To remove lists from the main namespace would be like ripping the table of contents out of a book. To do that makes no sense. The Transhumanist    01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't understand your argument. I have suggested none of what you appear to be disagreeing with. Let's take the discussion here. Colin°^Talk 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
          • All lists, indeed all pages, with links in them are defacto navigation aids. This list doesn't differ much in this regard from other lists. Lists are also topical treatments of a subject, which is why they are in the encyclopedia body. Each can theoretically contain topics that are not linked. The primary criteria for being included in a list is not that an entry is an article, but that it is a member topic. A table of contents is restricted to what is in the work it tables. Topic lists are not. The topics exist in the world, and not necessarily in the encyclopedia. Expansion lists are an exception, of course, since they are simply multipaged lists (and each page needs a title, thus the root list links to other lists rather than the end subjects). So this list is not primarily a table of contents, but a topical breakdown of a subject. As such, it belongs in and is part of the encyclopedia body. The Transhumanist    04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've have added pics to the article. If there are any more sections which you feel must have an image, please let me know here, or forever hold your peace!  :-) The Transhumanist    02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support if the "essence of geography" section can be revise completely. By currently giving only topical interest to a now outdated American teaching standard, it displays an obviously improper (what is the "essence" according to actual geographers?) and a national (U.S.) bias. Circeus 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't add marks directly to my comments. It looks as If I had done it. Circeus 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that the lead should be a little expanded, instead of a one-sentence intro, you could make a very general overview of the differents topics and divisions of geography. Y Done And could you replace the animated US state map Y Done, with a non-animated one just showing the different states, it's not a history-related section but a section about subdivisions, plus it is heavy to load. And finally the list could benefit a lot if images were diversified, that is they represent different part of the world (currently there are 4 Europe-related pictures and 4 US ones), the world is much larger than the Western world :) Y Done CG 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Swapped out the animated U.S. map with a static map of China instead, to help diversify the world scope of the article. The Transhumanist    11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as nom. The Transhumanist    04:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've been asked to have another look, so I'll leave aside the issues I raised above. This is a huge topic and I don't envy anyone trying to encapsulate it in one list. The main problem I see with this list is that it doesn't define what is "basic" about the topics included. The "Geographical features" section includes lists that are far from comprehensive wrt basic geography. Where are Moorland, Bog, Mudflat, Highland, Lowland, Cirque/Corrie, to list just a few? All were basic subjects where I grew up. The categories do a better job for such raw lists; at least they are fairly comprehensive. For an introduction to geography and WP's geography articles, I'd rather read Geography than this list, I'm afraid. IMO, the list would be improved by cutting back on links to minor articles (the landforms, bodies of water, man-made features, geographers). Find articles and categories that list those well and link to them instead. The "See also" section should be eliminated and I can't see any reason for including an "External links" section in this list. Colin°^Talk 10:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing out the missing topics. I've added them in. Y Done With respect to categories, lists do a better job presenting this type of material because of consolidation, structuring, formatting, image support, scrollability, and ease of maintenance supported by edit-tracking, watchability, and centralization. If a link is removed from a category, it can't be spotted as easily from a category page, because the edit histories of those pages don't include edits to the category itself (which is autogenerated). The basic topic lists are also more useful for Related changes tracking, due to the range of topics covered; to get the same coverage from categories, you would have to execute Related changes from several category pages. The see also section, and external links sections are very useful in an introduction to a subject, especially a reference aid and "cheat sheet" like this one. The Transhumanist    04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now what?

I've worked on the list as much as I have time for right now. Somebody not involved with the above discussion please close it out. The supports outweigh the opposes, but I don't know if it is enough to tip the balance to be considered approved. I look forward to your decision. Thank you. The Transhumanist    04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)