Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 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: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-nom. Diff. I believe it fits all, except for a single one, Featured List criteria. The only one which it doesn't fit, for good reason, is that it has no images. The reason it has no images is because only one of the people on the list has an image on wikipedia and there's no room to put it in next to the list without it adding a horizontal scroll. I'd be willing to add the image if it's still needed, though. Bsroiaadn^Talk 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support it without images. I have helped a bit on this article. The details are accurate and it's laid out well, in my opinion. JHMM13^(Disc) 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: I find nothing missing in the article. In fact, i don't think FL pages need images. Many of the cricket FL pages lack pics. --Kalyan 07:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as has been said already. Kaiser matias 07:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think it's good, but I don't really like the fact that the stats and the Head coach name are centered vertically because of the assistant coaches. It kind of confuses me when reading the stats and doesn't look good. But maybe that's just me.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Do you mean that you think we should get rid of the assistant coaches or that we should put in valign="top" so that all the coaches go to the top of their rows? Bsroiaadn^Talk 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: There isn't really a solution to the problem, it's just that I don't like those high and thin cells. But, I don't really see a way of solving that, so, that's fine.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support as per nom. Nice job Bsroiaadn, way to clean it up & make it look great! Anthony Hit me up... 11:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Support per nom. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: Very comprehensive and well-made. Doesn't need pictures to be featured, in my opinion anyway. Sportskido8 06:28, 29 June 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: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• In-depth, accurate, fully referenced, etc etc. Follows standards of previous wrestling FLs. --MarcK 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, good. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent list (as always) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just have one problem with the list and that is WWE's current stance with the title. On its website, it doesn't recognise any reigns before Shane Douglas drops the NWA World title. [1][2] Though I haven't got a copy to confirm this, I've been told its the same in the recently released Complete History of Champions book. Is there any chance a similar system to List of WWE Champions or List of WWE United States Champions be applied as the reigns are still notable? -- Oakster  Talk  09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was considering noting that, but the official history also says "Check out the history of the ECW World Title, from Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka all the way up to Bobby Lashley". So I don't know what to think really. I wouldn't mind putting the daggers there if necessary though. --MarcK 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Y I've decided that the Snuka note was probably just a mistake, and the actual history takes precedence, so I've updated the article to reflect WWE's views. --MarcK 11:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I'll place a vote in this. Great job guys. -- Oakster  Talk  12:18, 27 June 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, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This list is being nominated because it is a good list produced by the WP:CHICOTW. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A very nicely developed list, and quite useful as a reference. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as nominator. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Why are so many of the dates missing? Explain to me what they are, exactly, and why several fields have "NA"?
  2. Redirects will take you to the wikipedia page when the names differ. That's probably the worst self-referential sentence I've ever seen. Try not to advertise a weakness of Wikipedia.
  3. Why are the thumbnails of a smaller size in the second section?
  4. Wouldn't it be beneficial to have this list as being sortable? Toodles. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I only see one Chicago designation date missing.--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand the function of the columns. I thought it was all missing information. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. I have deleted the sentence in point #2. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The second section is a secondary list of Chicago Landmarks. The first section is for official Landmarks designated by the Mayor and City Council that may or may not also by NRHP or NHL properties. The second section is for landmarks in Chicago that have not been designated by the Mayor or City Council, but rather by the Federal institutions. Thus, the first section has more prominent images. I think there may be a space issue in the second section dependin on your viewing preferences and display settings. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to make the list sortable. How do you do this? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• To make a table sortable, just use "wikitable sortable" instead of "wikitable". Y Done TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the images, the second table is in fact of a lesser width than the first, leading me to believe there shouldn't be a problem with normal sized thumbnails. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Y Done

• Support. I removed the table sort function though. This table is not optimized for sorting so it adds no useful function here (unless someone really wants to know all which were designated in April, or March). Rmhermen 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I left Phoenix2 a message that I needed some advice on the date sorting formatting. There must be an optimal way to use sortability with dating. I guess if I had YYYY-MM-DD format that would be one way. Is there another. If there is agreement that this is not needed then I will drop it. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Support, I think it's alright now, definitely more trouble than it's worth. In that case, my objections have been addressed. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but I think there are still seizably too much redlinks in this table for it to be featured. The other elements of it are fine, though. Circeus 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment When WP:CHICOTW first worked on the page there about 75% redlinks. Then we spent another week just on creating articles for the redlinks and now it is about 45%.
    • Most FLs curently have at least 70% blue links. Considering what is left is only going to be filled in very slowly, that it not enough. Circeus 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply You are free to vote how you feel, but when we were at 25% blue links we (WP:CHICOTW) were told to shoot for a majority. We were going to try to go for 60%, but there was a loss in enthusiam, especially from our hardest workers. I understand we have to uphold standards, but producing another 40 or 50 articles is not something I expet to be able to convince people to spend another week on. We will stand on what we have produced and if that is not good enough it will fail. It is, however, a complete and thorough list. Also consider that even the redlinks each have a citation to a link for all the details. Note the hundreds of citations which may lessen the importance of producing blue links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment You can tell from my user page that I have personally already created about 3 dozen landmarks for this WP:FLC push. Several others were created by other members to get us to over 50% linked. Now, some other members of the project have started adding articles in hopes of improving the usefulness of the page and thus its viability as a WP:FL. So far I count seven new Landmarks since June 25th at WP:WPChi#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages with the promise of more to come. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative support. Circeus 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment About 50 or 60 articles have been stubified in the lasst 3 days. I think we have over 70%, but I don't want to count. I have been creating Template:Chicago Landmark houses and reworking Template:Chicago Landmark districts templates. I intend to create several more including places of worship, skyscrapers and possibly schools, monuments, theatres, etc. I am wondering if you know how to minimize KB usage for color coordinating the table cells by row along with this effort. It might make sense to have each house row be one color, each district another, each place of worship yet another and so on. However, I only know how to add color by cell and the article is already long in the tooth in terms of KB measurement. Cell by cell coloring would take up a lot of space. What do you think? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support It now has enough blue links. Some suggestions:
  • The table uses "NRHP" and "NHL" without explaining them. Could those be added in parenthesis after the full name in the lead sections.
  • Move the key up to the top. Make it horizontal rather than vertical. Choose a different colour than bright green.
  • Seriously consider abbreviating your references section. I've made some suggestions on the talk page about a style of references that would be very much more compact. The article takes a very long time to load. The HTML alone is between 350 and 400KB depending on browser. Of that, about 130 to 150KB is the references section. -- Colin°^Talk 13:51, 29 June 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: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete list of official releases by British electronic music duo Goldfrapp. I am submitting this list because I think it meets all the requirements. I have no idea what to expect because I don't know if a discography has ever been nominated before. -- Underneath-it-All 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nomination -- Underneath-it-All 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Good, but oppose until a few (relatively minor) issues are taken care of:
  • Add an image or two from our Commons Goldfrapp gallery (linked at Goldfrapp).
  • Be consistent with year links: link a give year only once, and when you do it, do it to 200X in music.
  • Rm redundant links to formats.
  • Reword these "the following is" (e.g. "These songs were...")
  • Instead of a N/A placeholder, add a note saying why the single wasn't eligible (if possible).
  • Replace these "¹" and "²" notes with linked notes using either template notes (to keep them in the section) or the <ref> footnotes.
  • The lead says three albums were released, but thearticle lists 4.
  • Maybe add a total number of releases in lead? Something like the summary of the featured NFL drafts articles? (2005 NFL Draft for a random example)
• Circeus 17:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added your suggestions to the article. Hopefully I got everything. -- Underneath-it-All 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good Support. A few extra comments:
      • I'm assuming the reason there are no US or CA chart for albums is that none charted in North America?
      • I considered suggesting a sound sample, bur I'm not sure that complies with the fair-use policy.
      • If this is a list of "official releases",why does it includes "unreleased songs"? Maybe adjust lead for that.
      • Oh, and specify "as of June 2007".
    • Cheers! Circeus 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have again added your suggestions to the article. :) -- Underneath-it-All 04:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The lead needs significant expansion. Obviously it shouldn't repeat everything on the main Goldfrapp page but it needs to summarise what's in the lists (e.g. have they been more successful as a chart act in particular countries?) and provide other info relating to their discography but not perhaps appropriate to the list format (e.g. which label publishes their records? Have they worked with significant producers? Have any of their songs or albums won any awards? Etc.) --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead to include info on awards and where Goldfrapp's albums and single were most successful. -- Underneath-it-All 15:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better - switching to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! :) -- Underneath-it-All 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD#Internal links says not to use piped links to year in music, so I've undone those. --PEJL 11:19, 23 June 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: 30+ days, 7 support, 2 oppose. After a long debate, one of the opposes was ruled out, and there was the one left about the inclusion of the inductees within the list. One person opposed it while all others involved in this nomination argued the importance for the inclusion of such material. Thus I am going to Promote. Juhachi 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the second nomination, the previous one can be found here.

The article failed its previous FLC because of one comment that real names should be added to the table. This has been discussed at WP:PW and many agree that "birth names" are not necessary or essential and thus count as trivia.

Anyway, I feel that this page is well sourced and meets FL criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, very well organized, though it'd probably be advantageous to sort the inductees in addition to the inducted where applicable. MarcK 00:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, pending the above fix. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 01:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply It's already in use. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I meant inducters, not inductees (they need to come up with some new words for these things). William Shatner, S.D Jones etc. MarcK 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too many citations, all from the same website, which is barely a WP:RS Biggspowd 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a new one. An oppose based on the fact that there are too many citations. Too many citations are not a bad thing and how is the official website not a reliable source? I agree that in some cases it is a bad source, but I think its just fine in this case. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the WWE qualifies as a reliable source on its own hall of fame. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I too think that WWE qualifies as a WP:RS on its own hall of fame. - T-75|talk|contribs 03:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, although I did not vote in the previous candidacy I did so because I thought it would pass with no problems and found its rejection odd. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. WWE Wikipedians definitely have their stuff together. Good list. Wish there were a few more pictures, though. Anthony Hit me up... 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per my original objections which can be found here. After reading the discussion at the WikiProject Professional Wrestling, I feel justified in my reasons for opposition. I have tried to clarify this in the last FLC, but I'll summarize again:
  • The role of the inductee is not clear, and the one statement about it in the lead is not referenced. I don't think it is clear, and judging by the comment here, I'm right to oppose for this reason. I don't see how it's important or relevant - other then for marketing reasons (which don't concern us).
    • What? The role of the inductee is very clear, they get inducted. I assume you mean inducters and like I said in the previous one, the role of the inducter is highly promoted by the WWE and plays a large role in the induction. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I do mean inducters. Big role? Other then as a promotional or marketing tool it has not been justified. Why do we care about how the WWE try to improve their ratings? How is this important? - Shudda ^talk 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
        • As has previously been stated, there was a discussion about the inducters awhile back and the overwhelming consensus was that they should be included. The WWE Hall of Fame induction ceremony isn't like other hall of fames - there isn't a physical hall of fame you can visit, which adds a lot of importance to the inducters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • How does not having a physical hall of fame (it's common not to have one) mean there needs to be a list of inducters (awards presenters)? The justification for there inclusion is very weak - which not good enough for a FL. The discussion on WikiProject Professional wrestling even pointed out that "plus not all the inducters are "highly promoted" nor are all of them "high profile" (such as Cody Runnells); nor is their participation always highly promoted" - plus it was not an overwhelming consensus. So even if your justification was acceptable (which it's not) it couldn't even apply in all cases! - Shudda ^talk 10:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I am the one who made the statements you quoted in the discussion you quoted. I made those statements and also made a recommendation on how to change the wording to address your concern, and the editor of the article made that change so that it now reads, "Usually inductees are officially inducted at the ceremony by a high profile wrestling personality whose participation in the ceremony is highly publicized." That statement is accurate, as usually that is the case...but the verbiage acknowledges that it is not always the case. I don't think your concern from the previous nomination is legitimate (I did think it was at the time, which is why I suggested the change). - T-75|talk|contribs 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I've tried my best to explain it to you, but I guess its the kind of thing only wrestling fans understand, because there has never been any attempt to remove them (or any objections) before the page became an FLC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
              • If it can only be understood by wrestling fans (I am not a fan of wrestling, but I have watched it quite a few times in the past) then it's not appropriate. It should be crystal clear, and it's not. The justification for it is that WWE deem it important, but thats because they want to promote their product. Our objectives are different then theres. Hence the problem. Who the inducters are is trivia, and is redundant. - Shudda ^talk 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                • You know this is the WWE Hall of Fame and if the WWE deems something important than that should be good enough for inclusion here. And as for real names (just to go back there for a second), the WWE only recognizes the character. As far as they are concerned, Terry Bollea is Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea doesn't exist. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I see this situation:

1. The inducters are as or more relevant (more, in my opinion) to the topic than the inductees' birth names, which are already included.
2. Listing the inducters certainly doesn't hurt the article, and is beneficial to some or most readers.
3. Shudda seems to be the only one opposed to listing the inducters.
4. Regardless of why anyone thinks they do it, WWE always makes a big deal about the inducters, which in itself merits their inclusion in the article.

--MarcK 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why are the inducters more relevant? Why are they relevant at all? They are a promotional tool used by the WWE so of course the WWE are going to consider them important because they help sell their product, but because we aren't trying to sell anything its trivial! As for being the only person objecting, FLCs get very little scrutiny compared to FACs - if this weren't the case then I'm sure there would be many who supported my objections. It seems that the whole argument for the inducters inclusion boils down to because WWE think it's important, and that is never going to be acceptable here. The WWE's opinion is POV, and using them is a questionable source (see Wikipedia:Attribution where it mentions questionable sources include those that are "promotional in nature"). Questionable sources can be used in an article about the subject itself, but only if it is not contentious or self-serving (which this clearly is). - Shudda ^talk 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I find it ironic that you wanted us to add trivia (birth names) to the page and yet you reject this. If the birth names stay, so do the inducters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Legal names (or birth names) are not trivial - how can someone's legal name possibly be trivial? I thought we had that issue sorted. The inducters is completely separate issue; each comment made should be treated independently otherwise a consensus will never be reached. - Shudda ^talk 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• The inducters are relevant because they play a major role in the ceremony itself (they often spend several minutes inducting the person in question), which is what this article is about. So regardless of whether anyone thinks they're a "promotional tool" or not, the fact is they are a very significant part of the ceremony and so should be included. As for the birth names, as Scorpion's been saying, I don't think it's especially notable for the topic at hand because they're inducted by a particular ring name, not their legal/birth/real/Christian names; however, I also think that it doesn't really do any harm, and if someone for some reason needs to know their real name, it's right there. Likewise, I can promise you that nearly everyone looking for information on this subject will be looking for the inducters. And anyway, I don't really see how this is a big enough concern to block it from being an FL. --MarcK 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is normal (it would be rare not to happen) for there to be several minutes, if not more, spent introducing someone getting inducted into a hall of fame (any hall of fame). I'm not disputing that this happens. However this is a list of members of the hall of fame, who inducted them is irrelevant. Does the identity of the person that introduces them, inducts them, or presents them their hall of fame membership have any influence on the notability of the inductee? No. A discussion of the induction procedure and ceremony may include information on the type of people whom induct and introduce hall of fame members, but it's completely irrelevant to a list of those members. I think more information about the inducters and the hall of fame's procedures and ceremonies should be added to WWE Hall of Fame, but not to this list. It's irrelevant here. - Shudda ^talk 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why are you so against listing the inducters here? Is it really worth failing an otherwise decent article over it? Also, what FL criteria does the page fail by having inducters? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's not relevant to the article. Like I said it's trivial (it is trivia). Trivia should not be included. This is about the Hall of Fame members, not the induction process, not the inducters, not the WWE's promotional methods. With the inducters included I don't believe this list exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. - Shudda ^talk 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• How could something that actually has something to do with the WWE Hall of Fame be trivial when birthnames, something that has nothing to do with the HoF (or even the WWE) apparantly is not? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I stated that I believed the legal (or birth names) should be listed in addition to their in-ring name. The reason is that it should be clear that the person has been inducted into the Hall of Fame - not a character the person plays. Many of the wrestlers in the list have Wikipedia articles that give their legal name - not their in-ring name. So why not include it in the list? Also, some of the people in the WikiProject Professional Wrestling discussion (which did not involve many people btw) did mention that listing their legal names does no harm to the list - so why the objection?
    • It's pointless, thats why. It would only be included for the "Oh, so thats his/her real name" value because 95% of the inductees are best known by their ring names. And because its not essential to the article, it can be counted as trivia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If these two things are addressed I'll support. - Shudda ^talk 03:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I also think that listing birthnames is unnecessary, but if it has to be done to push this to FL, I've come up with an unobtrusive method of listing it here. MarcK 05:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that looks very good MarcK and would be very happy with that format. - Shudda ^talk 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Against my better judgement, I have added birthnames to the table in the format suggested by MarcK. However, this format conflicts with the tag team members who were listed below the tag teams, but I don't think it matters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support The concerns from the original nomination have been addressed. I agreed with some of the concerns and recommended ways to address those concerns, and they have been addressed. There is no reason not to list this as an FL. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good work and I'm 100% in favor if having the inducters listed as well, it's an important part of the HOF ceremony and they're picked for their connection to the person or persons they induct MPJ-DK 07:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  Additional Comment Most of the "real names" of people aren't known to people out there in general I mean "Hulk Hogan" or "Terry Bollea" which is more known? listing the real name is irrelevant, are real names listed for the Academy Awards if the recipient uses a stagename instead of their actual name? Technically it's "Hulk Hogan" the character and that character's contributions to wrestling that's recognized MPJ-DK 08:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support and motion to close, it's been a month already.--Wizardman 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Second motion to close - I can't believe this is still being argued. 7 supports and 2 opposes over minutia shouldn't prevent this from hitting FL status already. Anthony Hit me up... 17:05, 25 June 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, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-nom. Diff. I think it meets all the requirements, it being factually accurate, uncontroversial, useful, stable, comprehensive, well-constructed and it complies with the manual of style. This is my first list nom, so I hope I did this correctly. Bsroiaadn^Talk 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose Support: there are 30 players who don't have a wikipage. It will be good if you can create atleast stub articles for these before this list is promoted. --Kalyan 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

*Reply: Alright, I'll start doing those now and will finish them hopefully by tonight, as I don't have a lot of time to do everything tonight. Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: I've gone through all the red-links in "Goaltenders", I should have all the Skaters done by tomorrow night (but probably a lot sooner). Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reply - All the redlinks have been taken care of. Bsroiaadn^Talk 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose: It's set up like the List of Colorado Avalanche players, which is also a featured list. However, it needs some photos of Devils players put up in the side margin, as was done on the Avalanche article. Add some of those photos, and I will support it. Kaiser matias 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Support My objection was fixed. Kaiser matias 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I've added two pictures, I'll try to find more. I'm pretty sure I got all of the ones (except Jim Dowd whom I can't come up with a good reason for at the moment) of players in Devils uniforms, from here on out it'll most likely just be pictures like Brendan Shanahans where it's of the right player, but wearing another teams jersey. Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As a person who helped Bsroiaadn put this article together, it is very factually accurate. We consulted multiple sources for information and we think we got it all right after a bunch of calculating and double-checking. We had a few pictures, but we decided to keep them off as I don't believe it is a prereq for FL, and in the case of the Devils, it doesn't seem to make an enormous amount of sense. There are just not that many good pictures out there of Devils players or big players who have played for the Devils...it almost makes more sense to keep images off altogether than just have one or two players on there as Devils. This was an issue in the Avalanche FLC as well, and after consulting, Bsroiaadn decided it was best to test the waters here without any pictures. What does everyone think? JHMM13 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Nice job, I know the Colorado article spurred a lot of activity on this (including my own sandbox, but I've been so busy I haven't had an opportunity to work more on it... good to know I don't have to finish lol). Having said that, I see a few minor problems.

The lead is WAY too short. I know there's not a lot to be said, but we can add a little bit more; look at the lead of the Colorado article and work off that. Include how many players overall have played, how many have won a Stanley Cup with them, how many have played multiple stints (I think it's 13, according to the Media Guide).

The captions on the pictures could use a copyedit. Example: "Jim Dowd was traded the season after winning the 1995 Stanley Cup and had been trying to get back every year and finally did in 2006." It just doesn't flow right. Talk about how he's the only NJ native to play for the Devils, not a long convoluted sentence.

Why are the column headings seemingly randomly distributed throughout the table? I think I know why (so you don't have to scroll all the way back up top to see which column you're reading), but it's a distraction.

Could we utilize a shade of red for the SC winners, if only to go along with the team colors? If it's too much of a distraction, I understand; I just didn't want it to look EXACTLY like the Colorado one.

I don't have a major problem with the redlinks; I know they'll get filled in shortly.

Once these are addressed (and I don't see it taking long), I'll change my vote. Then once I finish up working on the draft picks, we can put that up for FLC, and then work on making the Devils a featured topic! Anthony Hit me up... 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - The lead I'll get to shortly, after I finish off the redlinks, I thought I would be done by now but a lot of stuff has come up within the past 24 hours but I should be done with them tomorrow. I changed the Jim Dowd caption and added pictures of Zach Parise and Alexander Mogilny. Yes, that's exactly why the headers were there but I just took them all out. And I would love to use a shade of red because it's a team color, but I think the blue would go along better with the other hockey-related articles, New Jersey Devils seasons for example. Bsroiaadn^Talk 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking good, now just fix the lead and I'll gladly support this. Anthony Hit me up... 03:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, fixed the lead. Hope I got everything you wanted in there. Bsroiaadn^Talk 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - All issues addressed (I made a minor fix to the lead myself). Looks good, and we're ready to roll. Good to see so many Devils fans on Wikipedia working to make it better! Anthony Hit me up... 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support it's good to go to WP:FL--Crzycheetah 07:44, 22 June 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: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Kalyan 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: Nominating the article as it has covered a lot of ground. The main concern is that some records don't have the WC year reference when the record was established. Thus, we see Lowest winning margin (runs) have two entries of "Australia v India" - 1 run, one from 1987 WC and one from 1992 WC. I shall correct the same over the next few days. Kalyan 07:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, at least there's some substances and several references for this one. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support
  • Remove the redundant table-wide headers. They merely repeat what is just said by the artice headers.
    • Done. --Kalyan 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Either use flags consistently across the list, or don't use them at all (that's the "Team Overall" table I'm referring to).
    • Done. --Kalyan 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Circeus 19:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you revisit your vote? Also, did i get your points correctly. --Kalyan 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you insist, but I don't think it would have made a difference to the reviewer. Circeus 17:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Your references are not consistent. Either use {{cite web}} for all references or do not use at all. Plus, several refs are missing access-dates, publisher.--Crzycheetah 07:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressed your comment. Please let me know if there are any other comments. --Kalyan 08:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Conditional support The article looks fine. The only problem is that there is only one source. Could you add some other sources?...other than Cricinfo. I know that most of the info in this list is about stats, but I think it would be better if this list had another source. It's possible that Cricinfo may have typos on their webssite, so it would be great to actually check that.--Crzycheetah 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can try and use cricketarchive.com but cricinfo is the most utilized site for cricket information. It is independent (or was, till it was acquired by ESPN a couple of weeks ago!) and is generally relied for most of cricket stats, articles, pics and everything. Also, i am not too familiar with cricketarchive.com and have been using cricinfo.com for more than 5 years now. --Kalyan 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend finding a couple of more cricket sources and put them in the "External links" section. Just for variety.--Crzycheetah 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have added sources of cricket world cup records from reputed sites and added under the "External links" section. --Kalyan 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Good job.--Crzycheetah 22:33, 22 June 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, more than enough supports, one oppose to which the necessary enhancements were made.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: Summarizes all the stats and records achieved in the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Nominating the article for FL status. Kalyan 06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as a fellow editor of the page. Although saying that I realise that the lead is pretty small to the point of inadequate for a Featured List, expansion of that is required; brought it up on list's talk page. AllynJ 11:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, what? I'll be glad to support once the lead is expanded, one short sentence is unacceptable. Also, under no circumstance does the reference provided account for all that information. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 15:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added contents to the lead section. I shall add references shortly. Since i am bad at copyedits, can someone review the lead section in the mean time. Kalyan 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that random statistics were just yanked to comprise the lead, but as I am entirely unfamiliar with cricket terminology someone else will need to give it a look I also removed {{Reflist}} set to two columns, as only one reference is provided. Also remember, as per WP:MOS, section headers should be sentence case. Lastly, I would think there should be a plethora of references and external links for such a recent, prominent event. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the lead, i agree to all your points. With respect to references for indiv stat, please note that they have already been provided as SOURCE in each table. The points covered in the lead is not random as it starts with World records, then World Cup records and in the end, comparison wrt to other WC tournaments. Kalyan 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The references look better now. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any other record/stat that needs reference. if so, please add a citation tag and i shall add a reference. Kalyan 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support looks good, covers all major statistics and records. should be an FA.DSachan 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I refuse to believe that one reference covers the entire article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, as of now. I'll support when refs are added to the remainding tables. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - I'm happy with the recent changes. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi., please look at my comment above. i was buying time on the references and it should be in there in the next day or so. Kalyan 14:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As an outsider to the world of cricket (who has tried to permeate its thick shell several times without success), I feel its my duty to note that I haven't really got a clue what the stats mean. This can be remedied quite easily, however, by linking the stats in the legend to pages like this one, for instance. Naturally this isn't really that objectionable (and I do like the list), so my best reccomendation to you is to skim through it and try to spot things that might not be immediately clear to a novice and link to that article. Here's a short list of things that confuse me: ODI, 100-partnership, sixes, balls (with reference to what it means in cricket), ducks, List A innings, fastest 50, wickets, overs, average, 4wickets/innings, BBI, S/R, not-outs. I'm sure lots of these have their own articles that you can link to. Another thing...the legend doesn't match up to the order of appearance in the table. Thanks, JHMM13^(Disc) 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think you have a very valid point. I have tried to address all your terms by adding a wikilink to it or where none exists, added a note. Also, in the "See also" section, i have added the wikilink to cricket terms for new visitors to understand. Please let me know if this is OK. --Kalyan 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, looks good! Thanks for addressing my concerns. I'll support this FLC now. JHMM13^(Disc) 16:57, 21 June 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, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The list is completely sourced and is modelled after the List of WWE Champions, which is an FL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment; many notes are still lacking at which event the title was won, or any details at all. For the older reigns this is necessary, but for more recent ones further information can definitely be given. I'll support if more info is added where applicable. --MarcK 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Concern addressed, support now. --MarcK 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I have added as many notes as WWE.com would allow.
  • It will be very hard for the older title reigns as the official WWE website gives very little information, but I'll add as much as I can to the new ones. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Bmg916^Speak 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Said it before, I'll say it again: WikiProject Pro Wrestling is quality; you guys aren't gonna stop until they're all featured, and then you could make it a featured topic. Anthony Hit me up... 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, this list mirrors the other WWE championship lists that are already featured lists. Nikki311 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support excellent work on this and the other WWE championship lists *thumbs up* MPJ-DK 08:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Same high quality as all the others Drwarpmind 18:19, 18 June 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, 8 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 11:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First nomination

After the removal of the images last month, and some addition of some references (along with the newly formatted table), I believe this list is up to FL standards.--十八 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Maybe my opinion is a little biased, but I believe that if it's only reason for failure last time was the images, and the images are gone, it's good. Sbloemeke 12:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, looks alright. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 15:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, the sortability is a killer app for a MoHS episode list and it's pretty much the best it can be otherwise as well. Only two minor niggles (not deal breakers): Maybe the matter of the "standard" DVD release should be explained a bit (as far as I know, the special edition of the DVD has a second set of disks in air order?), and maybe it should be explained that said "DVD order" is the same for the Japanese and English DVDs (which I believe it is) -- grm_wnr Esc 22:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of the sentence to mention both the English and Japanese versions (it's supported by the reference). As for the first concern, I think that unless the statement states, otherwise, there's only a chronological order on the disc. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support per Sephiroth and Phoenix. Cliff smith 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, looks like an FL-quality list. Sure I'd like an image, but that's not going to happen. Doesn't really need one, the article's good as it is.--Wizardman 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support: looks good. -- Underneath-it-All 00:32, 18 June 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, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Another fully referenced and descriptive (at least as descriptive as possible for a title this young) WWE title history list. Follows standards of other previous successful noms. --MarcK 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very well constructed list, like the other ones. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - What can I say, the Pro Wrestling wikiproject knows their stuff. Anthony Hit me up... 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well put-together, but comment you should probably make a note that it's only lists tag team champions since the name change from WWF to WWE, while it may be obvious to some people (myself not included, until I thought about it) it won't be obvious to everyone, at least not right away. Bsroiaadn^Talk 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, didn't read the "intro" as well as I should have. Still support. Bsroiaadn^Talk 14:51, 13 June 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, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this list of completed St. Louis Cardinals seasons meets the criteria for a featured list. It includes links to articles for each individual season and follows the precedents set by current featured lists Chicago Bears seasons, Cleveland Browns seasons, and Minnesota Vikings seasons, while adapting that style to suit a baseball format. It has an appropriate size lead, footnotes for additional information, and references. Support as creator. Timpcrk87 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Now Support The team has won 10 WS and is over 120 years old. Surely therefore, the lead can be longer. Buc 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead does mention both of those points. But this is the lead for a list, not the team history so I'm not sure what you think should be included to make it longer. The WP:FLC criteria 2(a) states "a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections". Timpcrk87 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Records
• Stats
• Up/down eras
• Ballparks

Buc 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The table is replacing the "standard" Seasons (league season) with the Team (Team seasons) column. Also, no reason whatsoever to put all text at 90%. Circeus 00:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the seasons column with the wikilinks, I can't remember if I left that out on purpose or accident, but it's there now. I also increased the font size to 95%, but I think it just looks out of whack if you go any larger. Plus, the other FLs use 95% font. Timpcrk87 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why it should be at 95% and not full size. There certainly hasn't been any such reason for the other season FL... Also, can I suggest giving those team name separations a different background color? See the bg-foo templates in Category:Function templates for some "standardized" colors. And please don't hog me tomy talk page. I do watch nom pages I comment at, and will change my votes if I see fit. Circeus 01:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I highlighted the changes in team name with the team colors. I also increased the font size to 100%, it looks a little off to me at full size font, but maybe I'm just used to looking at the list with a smaller size and it looks normal to everyone else, I don't know. Either way, its at full size now.Timpcrk87 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - regardless of what the reasoning may or may not be for the 95% font size, it is established precedent, and it is my opinion that we should stick to that precedent in order to achieve FL status. One person all of a sudden saying "100% is the way to go" shouldn't override three featured lists; conversely, my opinion shouldn't necessarily invalidate Circeus. Having said that, I think it should go back to 95%, since all the other lists use that standard. Anthony Hit me up... 03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad if they do use 95%. I had simply assumed they were at 100% The difference is so slight forme tat I wouldn't have known if you hadn't stated it here. I personally think the colors are a wee bit too sharp, but they do a good job as dividers XD Circeus 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak opposeSupport. Buc makes some good points. For one, you could include a small footnote at each season where they change stadiums. You could also throw in a small sentence or two in the lead about long stretches of success/failure of the squad. I know these are only minor points, but they're easily fixable, and everything else is fine, so once these are addressed, I'll be glad to change my vote. Anthony Hit me up... 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)All my points were addressed. The lead is not so unbearably long (especially given the length of the list), and the added information about moving stadiums and such adds to the article (I especially like the note about longest streak out of last place... that's a LONG time). Good job! Anthony Hit me up... 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I added to the lead stuff about successful eras and down eras. I was reluctant to add much to the lead because I do not want this to become a team history article (there already is one of those), but you guys seem to be in agreement that more needed to be written.
• I also added notes when the team changed ballparks.
• A few more notes to clarify other points (third oldest, streak w/o last place finish, Auggie Busch).

Timpcrk87 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support My concerns were taken care of. Circeus 03:57, 6 June 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: 15 days, 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 Comment. Issues in 'Oppose' and 'comments' have been addressed. Promote. --Kalyan 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I worked on this list the last two days using the recently featured 2003 NBA Draft list as a guide. I think this list can be featured, too. If there are any concerns, I would be glad to address them. Thank you. --Crzycheetah 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What was your criteria to say that that undrafted player was notable? At least provide some reference from the press saying that it was expected for him to be drated and ended up not being. Other than that, it looks good, I think.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 08:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  There was only one player listed there, who did not participate in the draft at all; therefore, I removed that section. --Crzycheetah 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• CONDITIONAL SUPPORT: I think there are a few things that needs to be addressed before giving a FL for this article:
  1. "The 2004 NBA Draft in which National Basketball Association (NBA) teams take turns ..." ... the term NBA is used in abbreviation even before it is explained. I think that the acronym can be avoided.
  2. "The draft was broadcast on ESPN at 7:00 PM (EDT)." - If it was broadcast at 7 PM, was it a live event or was the broadcast carried later. It is much better to club this info to the earlier sentence, if possible.
  3. Reference required - "NBA announced that 56 college and high school players and a 38 international players had filed as early-entry candidates for the draft."
  4. "won the NBA Draft Lottery on May 26" - the fact that the draft lottery is used for the no. 1 pick is not coming out. for a casual person, there is a chance he will miss this.
  5. "...The Los Angeles Clippers and the Chicago Bulls were second and third respectively." is followed later by "made forward Emeka Okafor the franchise's historical first rookie draft pick with the second overall selection" and "The Bobcats had been assigned the fourth selection in the draft and did not participate in the 2004 NBA Draft Lottery". the sentences are very confusing. Was the order magic, clippers, bears and bobcats? If so, did the bobcats move from 4 to 2? that needs to be stated. Another point. I think the addition of a new team is significant and needs to be mentioned in the first para itself (see 2002 NFL Draft)
  6.the logo doesn't need border
  7. With respect to "Notable undrafted player" - the criteria needs to be added. Did this person go undrafted, but joined the team after trying out as rookie free-agent. Was he the only one of the year? or did 2004 draft produce other rookie-free agents.
  Please resolve these. Kalyan 11:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All comments addressed. I have a couple more below. these were added on re-review. Kalyan 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I resolved all of your concerns. --Crzycheetah 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional comments:
1. First sentence incomplete - "The 2004 NBA Draft in which National Basketball Association teams take turns selecting amateur college basketball players and other first-time eligible players."
2. Can you please add Ben Gordon's dual-citizenship as note, so that there remains no confusion
Not withstanding these 2 comments, i think the article is FL material. Kalyan 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Crzycheetah 07:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Why does Ben Gordon have two nationalities? Buc 23:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he has a dual citizenship. He is a citizen of both U.S. and G.B. --Crzycheetah 04:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be explained. Buc 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is explained.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Really where? Buc 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As a note, after his second nationality (U.K.), there is a source that clearly states Ben can play for either USA national team or UK natinonal team. It is obvious that you have to be a citizen of a country in order to play for its national team. --Crzycheetah 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How and why he has citizenship to both countries needs to be explained. Buc 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• It needs to be explained on his page, not here.--Crzycheetah 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Both Buc 05:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    I disagree. In this page, I've provided a source saying that He can play for either of those countries, that's all that matters for a basketball fan. There is also a link to Ben Gordon's bio page for the further info about him, all one needs to do is to click on his name. It would be really bias and unfair to other players if we wrote Ben Gordon's biography on the nba draft page.Crzycheetah 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I never said you needed to write his biography. All that is needed is a small note saying how he is eligible to play for both. "that's all that matters for a basketball fan." What about non-basketball fans? Buc 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

      Non-basketball fans can just click on the footnote next to UK's flag and learn that he is eligible to play for those teams. If they want more info on that they would logically click on the article I provided as a source.--Crzycheetah 07:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Is is not to have the info there so they don't have to click and snac through Gordons article? Buc 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Do you want to copy and paste the external article? I believe it's going to be a copyright violation.--Crzycheetah 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • As I said before all that is needed is a small note. Buc 05:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • OK! Is "Ben Gordon was born in London, then emigrated to New York." ok? I personally don't like it.--Crzycheetah 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Historically, 1(a)1 was interpretated along the lines of "70% blue links". 7 red links in ANY long list is quite low. We have FAs that have more redlinks than that, and nobody opposed them over it.Circeus 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Chensiyuan 10:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks. Crzycheetah 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I count seven red links as well as Royal Ivey, Tim Pickett, Ricky Minard, and Romain Sato as stubs. Thats 11 poor articles. This is a good list, but I don't believe that this is not the "cream of the crop" of wikipedia lists. Warhol13 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  I can go to WP:FL and find at least 250 lists that have red links or stub articles. Does that mean there are only 20-25 "cream of the crop" wikipedia lists? --Crzycheetah 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  This list must stand on its own merits. I dont feel that it passes 1B. One or two red links might be OK but not seven. Warhol13 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  I believe that 1b for this particular list means that it should include all drafted players' names, which it does. It doesn't even imply that the players' articles have to be comprehensive as well. If I nominated the 2004 NBA Draft page to the WP:FT, then it would fail because of all those stubby articles for the players.
  Red links can be converted into stubs, but this list should not be harmed by poor quality of its members' articles.--Crzycheetah 04:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  Crzycheetah I've faced this problem too (I really don't like this rule). Just create pages for the red links, it doesn't matter if they're stubs. Buc 20:42, 4 June 2007

(UTC)

• No red links left.--Crzycheetah 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support looks fine now. Buc 09:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think it is unnecessary to have a article for every player and that 7 red links would have been ok. However, according to WP:BIO, atheletes, who competed at the highest level in amateur sports meets the requirements. And since division 1 NCAA mens basketball would be considered the highest level in America, those articles are fine. Everything looks in order here; nice job Crzycheetah. Pepsidrinka 16:10, 8 June 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, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: Nomination. A list page that captures the details of the squads of the 16 teams. FLC material. I made very few edits in the run-up to the nomination. Please leave feedback and i shall respond to the same.Kalyan 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given the lead a quick copyedit. Other than that, looks good, though I am not familiar with the Featured List criteria. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks good; some red links for the domestic teams but that isn't really important regarding the list.--THUGCHILDz 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. yeah boy. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. No problems here. Could do with some input here from some non-cricketing editors however, I feel. AllynJ 09:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned with the big clusters of redlinks for the teams columns in several countries. Makes the article look untidy. And what's up with the format for Pakistan??

Response: Cricket has a 2-tier system. 9 countries - England, Australia, India, Pakistan, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, South Africa and New Zealand form the first tier (test playing nations) and the club system in these countries are well developed. Zimbabwe was a test playing nation but lost rights to play in test matches recently as many players quit because of political upheaval. The rest of the countries that participated in the tournament are associate nations and the club system is not well developed or documented and hence the lack of wiki articles on these clubs.

With respect to Pakistan, they recently launced a seperate team system for different formats of the game. Thus the mention of both the teams that a player concurrently represents. Kalyan 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Number of ODIs played up until the start of the World Cup on March 13, 2007. Numbers only include appearances for the player's current national side.
    • Does "current" here refers to June or March 2007? See WP:DATED.

"Current" as it stands refers to the country and not the date. after reading the comment and the footnote, i believe that the word 'current' is not neccesary and removed it.

• Circeus 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Good looking list and very easy to navigate.Timpcrk87 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about cricket so I don't have any idea what an ODI is, could you add the definition to the fourth note.

Done. Kalyan 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• • There is no explanation for England's replacement player Stuart Broad like there are for New Zealand's replacements.

Done. Kalyan 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• • While the redlinks for club teams is not desirable, I don't consider it a problem. This is a list of players, not clubs.

Timpcrk87 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the list is about players, not clubs, and I wouldn't oppose on that ground (frankly, if I knew a bit more aout cricket, I would probably support, but I don't feel I can judge this accurately). It,s the fact they make these BIG red splashes on the page that I'm a bit concerned about. Circeus 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see explanation above on the red-links. Kalyan 09:50, 7 June 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: 15 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial Thoughts: Self-Nomination. Updated the entire list for all players who have captained India in Mens, Womens and Youth Cricket. Also, fixed all redlinks to ensure that ALL players who have captained the national team have a wikipage started. Please let me know if we can restore FL for this page. Kalyan 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the Where a player has a dagger... bit should probably come after the table of contents. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to make that change. Can you please help me do it? Also, the other thing i didn't know was to right align as i wanted to right-align the "updated to .." sentence. Please let me know how to do it or if you can make the mod, it will be great. Kalyan 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done the TOC. Not sure where you mean on the other bit? AllynJ 22:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, it's fine now. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Condition support Support, few things need tidying up:

• Lala Amarnath led Indian cricket team|India to its first test victory - against Pakistan in 1952/53 season. - attempted Wikilink missing brackets for Indian cricket team. DONE
• Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi led India to its first overseas test victory - against New Zealand in 1967/68 season[8] as well as series victory in the same series[9] - needs a full stop (remember to put it before the citation). DONE
• Kapil Dev has 111 Wicket (cricket)|Wickets in 34 matches as India's captain while Bedi has 106 wickets in 22 matches. Bedi has eight 5 Wicket/Inning hauls compared to Kapil Dev's four. - again, missing brackets for a wikilink around 'Wickets'. DONE
• Tendulkar has the highest average of 51.35 (25 Matches) - decapitalise matches DONE
• Kapil Dev was the captain of India's only tied-test match (against Australia in Chepauk, Chennai) - this is incorrect, recheck it. (Tied test match series, maybe? I have no idea, not familiar with Indian cricket during that period.)

There have only been 2 tied test matches in Test Cricket. Click here for details. Kapil was the captain of the Indian side.

Oh I see you mean tied as opposed to drawn - you might want to clarify that.

• Dravid and Kapil Dev have the highest percentage win rate (56%), for Indians who have captained more than 20 matches. - remove the comma. DONE
• Ganguly has the best bowling figures returned by an Indian captain in ODI cricket against Zimbabwe. Kapil Dev is the only other Indian captain to have taken a five wicket haul (12-2-43-5 against Australia) - seems odd that you state the bowling figures by Dev but not those by Ganguly, which you state are better?

Response: I had originally included it but had accidentally removed it during copyedits.

• Only Ricky Ponting (15) has more centuries in ODI cricket than Ganguly when skippering his team. - 'his team' should be changed to 'their respective team'. The second sentence after that is just a list, could do with being put in to a sentence.

Response: completed sentence.

• With respect to world women's cricket, - this actually means something other than what I think you mean (providing I'm reading it correctly) - you could simply shorten it to "Raj is listed at #3 on most matches as captain after Belinda Clark (101) and Clare Connor (66).[19]" DONE
• Maben's bowling figures is the current world record in women's cricket for the best bowling figures of a player when captaining the side. - change 'is' to 'are'. (Perhaps 'when' to 'while' too, I'm not sure on the tense there - anyone else know for certain?) DONE

Addressed all comments. Kalyan 11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see a note on the most successful ODI captain added to the lead (in terms of games won, as with Ganguly for Tests), and at least a sentence or two about the women's cricket team (whilst staying in context to the captain's achievements). Thanks. AllynJ 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought about the ODI success and since there is no bigger than the WC victory, did not want to add stats on victories etc. However, you made a very valid point on women's cricket and i have added a couple of sentences in the lead para on women's cricket. Kalyan 14:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Continuing AllynJ's review

• Lala Amarnath led Indian cricket team|India to its first test victory - against Pakistan in 1952/53 season - It was Hazare in 1951-2 DONE
• Mansoor Ali Khan: 4 (New Zealand - 4) - check again. Should be three.DONE
• Tendulkar's score of 186* against New Zealand in 1999/00 season bettered Kapil Dev's record (175*) for the highest score by the captain in ODI cricket. Tendulkar's record was broken by Sanath Jayasuriya who scored 189 against India in 2000/01 season. Kapil Dev had earlier broken Glenn Turner's record (171*) for the highest score by the captain. - There was at least one between Kapil Dev and Tendulkar - Richards' 181 in the 1987 World Cup DONE
• anguly has the best bowling figures returned by an Indian captain in ODI cricket against Zimbabwe. Kapil Dev is the only other Indian captain to have taken a five wicket haul (12-2-43-5 against Australia) - Include the figures for Ganguly DONE Tintin 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Addressed all comments. Kalyan 11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a note to one of the comments, other than that I change my vote to a support. Thanks! AllynJ 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment The picture doesn't have fair use rationale for this list and I don't think it can have a reasonable one for a list, should just be removed.--THUGCHILDz 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Kalyan 11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to promoter: This is a former featured list, so if this is promoted be sure to also edit the former featured lists article to reflect that this has been repromoted. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think it would be a bit more user friendly if the "Number Name Year Opposition Location Played Won Lost Drawn" row was inserted every 10 captains or so. Buc 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. However, this is in line with the standard practice adopted to list national cricket captains - Australia, England, New Zealand. I cannot take a decision on this but will present in Cricket talk. Kalyan 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Based on the agreement in the talk, i have repeated header rows at frequent intervals - decades for test matches and after every 15 captains for ODI matches. Kalyan 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I really think these tables should use proper table captions.Circeus 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Good work. It would be interested if you added some info about which youth captains have gone on to represent India at senior level to make it even better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have added '*' mark after the name of captains who went on to play international cricket. Kalyan 09:57, 8 June 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, 4 support (+1 anon), 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another WWE championship list which follows the same vein as the WWE and Intercontinental lists for example. The list is in-depth, well-referenced and has a descriptive lead. -- Oakster  Talk   14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, though I again think Reflist 3 should only used sparingly. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support as major contributor. MarcK 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced, well formated list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Has all that is required. 203.200.95.130 05:55, 6 June 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, 5 support, 0 oppose. No outstanding issues Promote. Buc 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I (lovingly) ripped off the featured list List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks, right down to the paragraph about the NFL Draft. It's not that long, but then again the Panthers have only been around not even 15 years. Hopefully that will not preclude it from being featured simply because it's not as long as some of the other lists.

• Support, nominator. Anthony Hit me up... 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, I'm not a big fan of all these articles having the same lead. It's redundant, uncreative, and lazy in my opinion. It's bad enough we have 1,000 NFL season articles starting "The [year] [team] season began with the team trying to improve on their [#-#] record from [year]...." Try to be a little creative with it, use your own words. Quadzilla99 13:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to support. I still think the prose in lead could be a little better though. Quadzilla99 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - reworded the lead to make it a little shorter; removed redundant information and now it doesn't copy the Bucs' article. Anthony Hit me up... 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• No Opinion at Present: I think the article needs some work.
• 1. the first sentence of the lead para sounds odd - "This is a list of first-round draft picks made by the Carolina Panthers of the National Football League". needs re-wording
  • Both the Tampa Bay and Cleveland lists, which I am basing this on, have the same first sentence; there's really no other way to say it. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• 2. need reference - "The Panthers joined the NFL in 1995 with the Jacksonville Jaguars." Question. In terms of expansion, where does panthers rank? add the #
  • YDone. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• 3. "The team's most-recent first-round selection was " - this would mean that you got to update the sentence every year. instead use the year as it is easier for someone to spot and replace
  • Again, both Tampa Bay and Cleveland have this exact sentence; since the page will have to be updated every year anyway, it's not much more work to do one more sentence. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• 4. Please avoid the use of single sentence para - "The Panthers have never had the first overall selection; the ...".
  • YDone.Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• 5. The para "This list concerns the first round ...." sounds very strange because of its positioning. if there is a place for the para - it is right after the first sentence or else it doesn't add value
  • See TB & Cleveland. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a good reason. Either have the para right after the first sentence or remove it. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• • YDone - I removed all but one sentence and placed it in the lead paragraph.Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• 6. "Note that due to their status as an expansion team, ....." - i have no idea why this statement was present
  • YI put it in there to distinguish the Expansion Draft (which oddly doesn't have its own article); Rod Smith was technically the first draft pick the Panthers ever made, but he's not on this list. I reworded the sentence & added a reference to draw a distinction. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• 7. The lead para can include some analysis on the performance on the first round pick. for eg: Julius Peppers won the ROY (isn't it?)
  • YWith all due respect, I don't think the lead paragraph should include any information on annual awards; the lead would become bloated with every Pro Bowl/All-Pro/ROY/MVP selected. HOFers are rare enough to draw their own distinction. However, I have included notes about awards under the "Notes" column. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, i am not asking you to list every award won by their players. i am asking for a summary of how the first-round draft picks performed. Any perennial All-pro? Any busts (I know it is difficult to label recent picks as all-pros/busts, but i am sure we can analyze the picks from a few years back. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a small paragraph about some of the picks and the struggles they've had... for a short-lived franchise, the Panthers have had a lot of problems (I know, I've been following them since Day 1, and it hasn't been easy lol). Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• 8. Since the article has less years to deal with - i think it needs more info. for eg: for each of the trades, please enter the player selected. for eg. "The Panthers obtained this pick from San Francisco in exchange for first- and fourth-round picks" would read better if it was "The Panthers obtained 28th overall selection (used to select Chris Gamble) from San Francisco in exchange for first round pick (xth overall pick, used to select y) and fourth round pick (xth overall pick, used to select y)
  • YDone. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• 9. I was a reviewed for the tampabay article and i think there should be an improvement in quality as we get more FLs. I am sure that we will go back to the TB FL article at a later time and bring it to the same level as this
  Please let me know if you have any questions. apologies if i have put too much out there. Kalyan 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't too much... at least not so much that I couldn't handle. I think I addressed most of the major concerns. As for the others, I was following the two lists that are featured, and they're minor wording issues at best; I hope you look at the article as a whole and realize that this is (now) in fact better than the other two featured lists (it contains much more details about the trades, along with pictures). Please let me know if there's more to be done. Anthony Hit me up... 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Support: A couple of minor points remain, but does not prevent FL for the article. Kalyan 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for your support; I have addressed your remaining concerns. Anthony Hit me up... 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think the notes should be centred. Buc 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

YDone - although to be honest, I think it looks worse with the notes centered than before. Anthony Hit me up... 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a couple of things that are still bugging me:
  • "The Panthers joined the NFL in 1995, as the league's 29th franchise, with the Jacksonville Jaguars." This sentence reads awkwardly, it also says they were both the 29th franchise.
  • "The Panthers have had a hit-or-miss history of first-round picks." This needs a source, it reads like a personal observation.
  • "Rae Carruth had a promising career as a wide receiver," Same deal as the previous one. I also don't think this is true regardless if you get a source his numbers were pretty mediocre even when he did get on the field. Quadzilla99 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • YDone - removed the "hit or miss" statement, provided a source for Carruth's promising career, and slightly altered the 29th franchise sentence. The article has to mention that the Jags came into the league at the same time; there's really not too many ways you can phrase it differently, it is what it is (to quote John Fox, haha).Anthony Hit me up... 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive and well referenced. Looks very much like FL-quality. Sportskido8 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Note: I copyedited the lead section and are thus, a minor contributor.
  • I disagree with Buc and think the notes should be left aligned.
    • YDone
  • The notes all need to be more concise, for instance you don't need to repeat the player's name every time. Example: "Brockermeyer made several All-Rookie teams." could more simply be "All-Rookie Team selection".
    • YDone

This can still be better, don't start the notes with made or won; include the years of Peppers' Pro Bowls like under Morgan; I personally don't think the publication names are necessary, and All Rookie Team selection should be enough for Brockermeyer, Carruth, Peter, Gross, and Gamble but I'm not confident in that point.Timpcrk87 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)¶

Shored up a little bit more: Added Pro Bowl years for Collins & Peppers, and made some of the All-Rookie references shorter. I left the publication name in for Gross & Gamble because a: it's the only one and b: there's a wikilink to the publication, so it doesn't make it terrible. Other than that, fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure the header "Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks" needs to be on the table, after all that is the name of the article.
    • YDone
  • Why is every school except UNC spelled out in the table, it should be consistent.
    • YDone
  • I'm also not sure it is necessary to spell out the positions the first time they appear as long as the first appearance is wikilinked, it really clutters that column.
    • YDone

Timpcrk87 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All concerns addressed & fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Now Support my concerns were addressed and the article looks very nice.Timpcrk87 05:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

¶

• Support lead looks fine now. Buc 18:08, 7 June 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, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. MarcK 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of all the known extant cetaceans including images and distribution data. It is based mainly on several of the other animal featured lists that exist. Chris_huh^talk 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like ref 35 needs {{cite web}}. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • YDone. Cite web added. Chris_huh^talk 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Support, good. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nominating this one has been on my "to do list" for a while. Great work. Rmhermen 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks excellent. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I really like those size comparison diagrams.--Pharos 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent list. yup those size comparisons are very useful and great. DSachan 18:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support: I really don't think it necessary to link to List of whale species and List of dolphin species so many times. Just once in See also should be enough. After all, Everything in these lists will already be in this article... Circeus 04:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It was originally like that but in a peer review it had a while ago i was asked to change it. I think your way is better though. Like i said in the peer review since 'whale' is a monophyletic term it makes it more confusing having them linked like this. I will change it back. Chris_huh^talk 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • YDone. I have now done that.Chris_huh^talk 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I suspectit's the sort of things about an article that tend to go back and forth... Circeus 16:55, 31 May 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, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. MarcK 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Based off the layouts of the other featured lists at Wikiproject Football, but with some additional sections that I thought are relevant. I believe it meets the featured list criteria, but that's up to you to decide :) See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Central Coast Mariners FC players for some relevant details, as that list was very similar to this; similarily, this may also be useful. Cheers, Daniel 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, the image suck at the moment. I'm working on it. Daniel 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: When Danny Tiatto finally plays a match for QR (in the 2007-08 season, later this calendar year), I'll have a (very appropriate) image to add to the "Notable players" section, which Tiatto will feature in.

• Support as nominator. Daniel 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support – though I'd like to see the "Appear'ces" column title written out in full, since table width doesn't seem to be an issue in this case. - Mark 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done, that was a thing that I was meaning to change but forgot all about. Thanks! Daniel 06:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Quality Article. .....Todd^#661 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• A simple flag icon before the name wouldn't be more efficient than an entire column? I see that it's an issue with several of these lists and I think it is very, very unnecessary. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would look better having, say, Ante Milicic, however this breaks the sort table for the "name" field, for some reason. Unless you can think of doing this another way, the only other option is to not list the nationality of the players, which I feel would be a considerable loss to the list, given this is a rapidly-diversifying club team. Daniel 07:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I suppose. Support for the time being, I'll ponder on this and see if there's a better solution. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I really hope you can find one, because I agree with your comments that the current way the flags are listed isn't particularily effective. Daniel 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - would DoB be relevant? Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably not, in my opinion, as I can't see what it'd add to the list in terms of making it more 'comprehensive'. Daniel 06:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I fully support this article becoming featured. It's well-referenced and the list itself is incredibly interactive and easily sortable. I actually plan on using the format of the list on an article that I'm working on. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:53, 1 June 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, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Juhachi 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an episode list for a specific arc of the Bleach anime, created because the main list was far too long for reading, pushing up on 200kb. I believe it conforms to all of the featured list criteria, as well as project-specific guidelines and WP:FICT, and meets or surpasses the standards set by similar television and anime list articles such as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes and List of Planetes episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, while the lead gives about every piece of information there is to know about the arc itself. --tjstrf talk 08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, looks alright to me. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, is fine. -- Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. ヒッピー 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Phoenix and Sephiroth. Cliff smith 16:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I keep misreading the title and expect a list of agents... Circeus 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Reply I agree that the title is weird, but that was the best I could come up with and it's explained in the first sentence. (The best that didn't violate the convention against naming things in a hierarchical manner, that is.) Unless you have a better option, I don't think this is really addressable. --tjstrf talk 06:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, I wasn't objecting, I just felt compelled to comment. As a completely unrelated aside, thought, List of Bleach episodes will have to be revised because it looks like it'llend not being a list at all lol. Circeus 06:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• To avoid a potentially unrelated thread, I'll reply on your talk page. --tjstrf talk 06:40, 31 May 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: 17 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. The objections against the list were dealt with, and consensus has been reached in order to Promote. Juhachi 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This list is a well archived record of all the professional seasons. It is modeled on Chicago Bears seasons which already a FL. Covers awards and has footnotes where needed. Buc 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support; I probably need not point out the team season articles that aren't yet created. Hopefully no one sees that as a major issue. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That was per PR feedback. Personally I diddn't see the piont but if users are inspired to create the entries, so be it. Buc 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • To pass this FLC, the articles will probably have to be created. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Why?
        • I personally don't feel so, but a number of such lists have recently failed for not having the articles created, as it creates a plethora of red links. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So articles needs to be created just for the seak of turning the links in another article blue? Does this mean it doesn't even matter if the article says nothing more than "the Tampa Bay Buccaneers x season was there xth season. They finshed x-x" Buc 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Such creation has been going on since the conception of featured lists. Most articles remain as stubs, but I don't think it hurts to create them. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There really should be more to an article than just that one sentence over and over again. The 1976 season was far more notable than that, and so was 1979. DarkAudit 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried but I think it's inevitable they'll be removed. Buc 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• oppose for the exact reason Phoenix point out. We have opposed three out of four similar lists for that exact reason in the past (In the case of the vikings, the season had been created beforeheand). That's criterion 1. a) 1. "The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." (my emphasis). Circeus 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Articles exists for just 3/31 seasons. That is less than 10% and hence oppose. I think articles for all seasons, atleast at stub level is required before bringing this back. For eg. FL status of Indian national cricket captains was reverted because there was 40% redlink items in the article.
  • Tried it today but they got deleted. Buc 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is not with the request, it's with the articles you created, which DID fall within the "no context" criterion for speedy.Circeus 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion - when marking a year for SB, Conf champ, Div champ - please color the entire row instead of just one cell. makes it easy to identify the message.
  Kalyan 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If you are interested in creating stubs for all seasons, I did so when I was working on getting New England Patriots seasons listed. If you want a model to follow, consider looking at any Pats season article between 1962-2004 or so. The minimum stub should probably have the infobox and a short prose section giving a rundown of the season. REAL short is OK, but infobox and text are needed. It only took me two or three days to complete that Pats stubbing; it goes quickly once you create the model and simply cut-and-paste the basic model, while changing each seasons data to correct. It really shouldn't be that hard.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done (at last) Buc 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (as of now!): Some comments -
  1. Lead para is too small. needs more data.
  2. Pls avoid using single/two sentence paras. Paragraph should have atleast 4 lines.
  3. As requested earlier, i think the entire row should have uniform color so that we can easily identify the result of the season.
  4. Instead of the column "Awards", can we have a column termed - "Achievements" so that some entry can be made for each year. request feedback from others before implementing this (corollary to the statement - unless we have agreement, not fulfilling this comment won't stop a support vote)
  Kalyan 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1.Keep in mind this is a list not an article. Also the team has a very short histor so there isn't really much to say.

2. There must be a rule of thumb regarding this. Anyone know what it is?

3. What like "Player x had a good season"? Sounds a bit POV Buc 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • SUPPORT: I think the article is in line with other FLs. However, i think the lead should also mention of the 1976 season (no-win season) along with the superbowls and the like. As much as the undefeated season is hard to achieve, a zero-win season is equally difficult to achieve.Kalyan 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Redlinks taken care of, article matches almost exactly other FLs of this type, including New England Patriots seasons, Chicago Bears seasons etc. etc. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Please don't strike other people's votes. Circeus 13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• One more Support vote is still needed. Buc 09:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support The objections above have been dealt with, and consensus seems to have been finally found.--十八 10:33, 3 June 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, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. MarcK 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-nom. I overhauled this page, added citations & pictures, and a History section. I think the page is incredibly well-cited (perhaps TOO well-cited, as it's quite long and huge as it relates to file size). Overall, I'm proud of the work I did on this page, and since it went through a peer review with almost no comments (aside from automated bot comments), I think it's ready for FL status.

• Support, nominator. Anthony Hit me up... 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Object for the following reasons:
  • The pictures aren't placed well. On my monitor (1024x768) the pictures are grouped together before each section and bump the table down making HUGE white space. It is possible, using "rowspan" to place pictures IN the table along the right edge in such a way that this doesn't happen. Please try to fix this for readability.
    • Fixed the pictures by changing the format of the table; now it will work regardless of resolution.
  • The statistical rundown at the top seems incongruous with the incomplete list tag at the top. If the list is incomplete, how can you make definitive statements about the numbers of relations? Also, the stats probably need a source from somewhere? Did you research this on your own or did these stats come from somewhere?
    • The list is dynamic by nature; there are constantly new players coming into the NHL, and there will thus be a good chance some of them will be related to each other or previous players. As for the "history" section, is it original research to simply add up the numbers? All relations are cited, so I just made a list of the numbers; there doesn't seem to be a specific source for the number of familial connections, but if we add up all the ones we have here, we can arrive at a fairly accurate number regardless. I didn't think one was necessary since everything else is sourced.
      • Maybe it should make it clear by saying "this list shows XXXX brothers, etc. etc." rather than saying "there have been..." The former makes a definitive statement that is directly contradicted by the disclaimer at the top. The later lets you know that the analysis is done on the list in its current state RATHER than making some definitive statement the list itself says that it can't back up.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Added the qualifier "According to this list...". Valid concern that has (hopefully) been addressed. Anthony Hit me up... 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The list makes no distinctions between players, coaches, and executives. Shouldn't it?
    • Since 99% of the connections are players, non-players are only mentioned where pertinent (see: Keith Gretzky, the Hewitts, etc.)
  • Use of some images is problematic. The Henrik Sedin image page has a tag questioning its license. As such, it probably should be removed or resolved. The Philip Suave (raw like sushi? Sorry, couldn't help myself) image page does not list an author, so the "I grant permission.." licensing tag doesn't have any reference as to WHO is granting permission.
    • Replaced with free license John Grahame picture.
  • Red-linked players need stubs if they ARE notable, and should be un-linked if they were NOT notable. If it is likely that reliable sources exist to write an encyclopedia article about a player, go ahead and start a stub. If there are likely NO sources in existence to base an article on, then the player shouldn't be linked. A mere list of a players stats is NOT sufficient to base an article on, by the way.
    • It's going to happen that not EVERY single player who ever played in the NHL is going to have an article right away; I'll try to create some pages for as many of them as I can, along with the help of WikiProject:Ice Hockey. Over time, this will hopefully be fixed; however, I hope you will reconsider your objection on this point.
      • Actually, my point was that EVERY single player who has ever played in the NHL will never get an article. Many will not, simply because source material DOES NOT EXIST for them. Redlinking to a potential article which by rights should never exist seems pointless.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • To respond to your post, source material does in fact exist for these players; that's how we know they played in the NHL and had relatives who did as well. Otherwise, we'd be making stuff up. All players who are on this page will get articles (I just created two stubs in about 20 minutes); it's just not going to happen within the time span of this article's candidacy. All I'm asking is to look past the number of redlinks and look at potential other problems with the page. I don't want to get into a heated argument about this, I understand your point and ask that you understand mine, that's all. You've made some very helpful suggestions to this FLC, and aside from this one, I think I've addressed them all where appropriate (and possible). With the help of Wikiproject Ice Hockey, this will get done eventually, I promise. Anthony Hit me up... 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's about it. Fix these problems and I can change my vote.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response - I've flat-out addressed three of the concerns so far. As to the other two, I don't believe the "History" section falls under WP:OR (and it shouldn't). In addition, most of the players are bluelinked, with only a small minority being redlinked, and as I stated above, I will try to create at least stubs for as many as I can given my time restrictions (two jobs, among others). I hope you will change your vote after my response. Anthony Hit me up... 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Section headers should be sentence case. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Anthony Hit me up... 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't strike anyone's comments but your own. I always check back to see if the suggestions I made were addressed. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • My apologies; I had seen it done on other FAC/FLC pages and was unaware of the

protocol. I have undone the striking. Anthony Hit me up... 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Thanks, I struck it. It's the concept of the thing; see the top of this page. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The red links do not bother me at all - there are editors working to create articles for all NHL players, so this will take time. I do not believe that the red links detract from the quality of this article, and there is nothing in WP:FLC that suggests this is a showstopper. The history section bugs me though. Aside from the already mentioned problem of giving difinitive numbers in an article stated to be dynamic, it reads as a trivia section. Given most of the little facts are already incorporated in the chart, is this history section even necessary? Resolute 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - I included the History section because I thought perhaps a summation of all of the relations was notable enough to warrant its own subsection. If it will preclude the list from reaching featured status, then it should be removed (namely, if more people object). I'm an inclusionist by nature, though, maybe that's why I had it in there. Anthony Hit me up... 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Support Looks cleaner without the history section. Very, very well done list. Resolute 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Really, Really, Minor Oppose Very well written, and very well sourced article. However I really think that the history section is unnecessary. I think that it should be turned into prose, and form part of the lead. .....Todd^#661 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Support .....Todd^#661 00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - I have removed the History section and moved the information into the lead. It was apparent that it would not pass FLC with the section intact, so I did what everyone wanted and got rid of it. Hopefully this will eliminate further concern over this point, and I hope you can all change your oppose to support now. Anthony Hit me up... 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I really think that twins should be seperated from siblings since they are so unique. --Krm500 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very clean, thorough and well-referenced list. Sportskido8 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Struck through my prior vote. All fixes that this list needed have been made. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, looks like the majority of outstanding issues have been addressed. Quite a unique compilation here. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)