This is quite honestly the most comprehensive list I have ever seen on the subject. All full generals in the history of the United States Army are listed, with birth and death year, source of commision, date of promotion to 4 star rank, assignments held as a full general with dates, blood relation to other four star officers, relief of commands, and government service, if any, after retirement from the military. It is also extremely well sourced, and a quick look shows only one redlink for the subjects on the list.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Are there no inline citations?
I'm not completely sure, but are images required for FLCs?
Your lead is a bit short. Maybe at least an explanation of what a four-star general is would be nice.
As per the MOS, you need to use a non-breaking space ( ) for "compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space". Just for starters, I think you need one right after the first number. You also shouldn't start a sentence with a number ("193 were originally promoted...")
At the request of the page creator, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. He would prefer more time to work on it and would like to get a peer review first, which for some reason I bypassed (it was Monday morning, I wasn't thinking straight). What the process is for that, I have no idea...--Nobunaga24 (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello Julian, good work as usual, so my comments are here:
No image for the lead looks a little odd.
References (currently [23] and [38]) need to be templated.
" It started " I'd go back to "The season started..."
"These dates conventionally delimit ..." can this be cited?
" for 2 indirect " two.
"least 7 people " seven, and why "at least"?
The little Storms key/box thingy, what is it? To a non expert it's not very enlightening!
Why are "main" articles placed in bold? I think the template should be modified to not bold, there's no reason for using bold here. Is there any reason why the normal {{main}} template isn't used in these articles?
"45 mph.[6]" needs conversion.
Why the bullet points and in-line linking?
"19 foot seas (5.97 m)" shouldn't this be "19 feet (5.97 m) seas"?
"10 feet『 needs conversion.
Merge last to paras of Enersto to avoid short paras.
Yeah, I saw that you hurricane guys use your own template instead of {{main}} - any reason why? The only difference I could see is that it's bold. Which is a little odd.... 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Julian, I understand, don't shoot the messenger, right?! Yeah, things like that which are project based I will probably keep pointing out until the projects in question fall in line with the general manual of style, seems strange for all of Wikipedia bar the Hurricane project to use {{main}}... Still, not to worry. I'll check over the article again shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Tropical Cyclone Project has more than 100 pieces of featured content, so who's complaining about the guidelines?;-) Anyway, the template that we use is {{hurricane main}}. Do you think it's OK to keep them, or would you suggest just switching to {{main}}?JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:FOOTBALL have that and more!!;-) I won't withold support, but it'd be useful to understand why your project uses its own, non-MOS template. Fancy starting a discussion up? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can do most of those, but if you look at all FA and FL tropical cyclone season articles, they all have in-line links to the Tropical Cyclone Report and such. Also, I don't know what I can do about the bolding, because the majority of the WP:WPTC thinks we should maintain consistency with what we have always done. So, I'll see what I can do. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while I'm concerned over Wikiprojects using their own pseudo-templates in contravention of the general manual of style, this is not the place to get all uptight about it. My major concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to see this become a featured list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Those links worked a couple days ago when I checked. That is odd. I guess I have to find new sources, or wait for that bad website to work. Anyway, thanks for the comment. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to decide, I oppose. Overall writing is weak. On June 10, an area of disturbed weather associated with a broad low pressure area off the coast of Belize organized over the warm waters of the Caribbean Sea and became the first tropical depression of the season. Just for example, there are redundancies, unexplained terms (and un-Wikilinked), and too many words for a single thought. Either split it into two sentences, or organize it better. That said, given that the first sentence in the article is poorly worded, I have concerns for the writing of the rest of the article, and indeed the first sentence of each of the remaining sections aren't the best they can be. I notice the writing wasn't changed at all from the original season article, which heightens my oppose. When the season was active, the storm summaries were being written at the same time, leaving the sections with a jumbled feel. The sourcing is weak in the article, with several sections having inappropriate referencing (first paragraph of Alberto is all sourced to one single discussion, though all of the info in the first para is clearly not in that ref). Also, the ref you put at the end of the Alberto section is inappropriate, since the TCR does not mention any damage totals. The section for Helene seems inappropriately short, given that Debby's is just as long, despite the latter lasting much shorter time and not being nearly as strong. The article needs a lot of work, IMO. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JC, the difference is that I rewrote the sections before splitting it! This FLC is about this list, not about any other lists, so my objection remains. That first sentence I mentioned was 38 words long, with only one comma when I pointed it out. Since this list was once an article (and that it has a significant amount of prose), it needs to be well-written. A few other writing comments- a vigorous tropical wave formed off the coast of Africa - tropical waves generally don't form off the coast of Africa. At 3:15 p.m. EDT (1915 UTC) on August 24, - any reason so specific? In the Florence section, "science had prevailed" - is there any reason that quote was included? It appears it's the only quote in the article, and it doesn't seem NPOV, since it seems biased toward forecasters. As Florence moved away, a low-pressure system gradually became more organized northeast of the Lesser Antilles - this is very awkward how it opens the entire section. Outside of the writing, the sourcing is weak, as pointed out before. Double check the refs in the article, since many are to a single discussion that don't source the previous section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I gave it a copyedit and fixed all of the issues you pointed out, I made sure all of the references agreed with the information, I made sure everything is factually accurite. I'm sure you'll find more things to complain about, thought. :P JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little better, but I'm still opposed. For example, the entire section on Isaac is sourced by a single CHC statement that does not talk about the early history of the storm. The second half of the second paragraph on Gordon is sourced by a single NHC advisory; said advisory was released before the storm dissipated, so how does the ref also cover information that happened several days later when it was extratropical? The Florence section goes way too much into the early portion of its storm history. The last sentence, which is unsourced, jumbles the peak intensity and extratropical transition without going into detail of impacts. Additionally, six lines in the Florence section are referenced to a single NHC discussion that doesn't even cover those six lines. I could go on, but given all of these problems, and how many problems that were unnoticed until FLC, means I am opposed to this being considered the very best work of Wikipedia. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Says it was founded in 2000 but joined the NHL for the 1999-2000 season. The last sentence of the first para in the lead and the first sentence of the second para have significant overlap - I'd consider reworking it a bit. Oh, and "eight" goaltenders, not 8.
Fixed
Don't force image sizes per WP:MOS#Images - use upright as your size parameter. And put the images in the right section - the first goaltender overlaps a section boundary.
Don't quite understand the size issue your talking about, but removed the two images. There weren't any problems on my screen, and were in the proper spot, but are gone regardless.
References 2 and 3 need full stops.
Done
Image captions, when complete sentences, need full stops.
Done
"during 2007-08 season" all instances of this should use the en-dash as separator.
Same for 2006-07, should read as 2006–07. The whole of the Skaters table seems to need to be remedied.
All fixed
Pity you haven't got more images for such a lengthy table...
It is a problem I'll agree, but is all that are available. One of the reasons why I waited this long to nominate it was to find more images to use.
Seasons in the table are e.g. 2000-2001 while seasons in the lead are 2000-01. Be consitent.
Is consistent now
Empty cells in the Goaltender key table should be removed.
Thats there partly for uniformity, and partly because I haven't a clue how to change it.
Comment calling the team "the" Minnesota Wild seems a colloquialism, borne out by the list title. Suggest dropping all the "the"s! --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Criterion 2a and the requirement for "professional standards of writing".
Is NHL Canadian or US? I think it should inserted just before the first mention, since many readers won't remember that Minnesota is a US state.
"players that have played"— "who"; they're not robots. Players ... played is a little tedious. "participated"? "appeared in"?
In both the lead and the tables, there's inconsistent use of two- and four-digit closing year ranges. Space limitations suggest that two would be preferable, and neater to boot.
MOS breach: "from 2000–2001"—nope, when one preposition is spelt out, we need "to" in the middle.
MOS breach: hyphen used in a year range (at least three instances).
Should "References" be "External references"? Unsure. I assume there's a good reason that the three titles of the three links there are identical. Shouldn't the owner of the second sourced site be the NHOF?
"The Wild have a rotating captaincy, with a different player being named captain each month." --> "The Wild have a monthly rotating captaincy."
Just a visitor's query: why do the keys have to be in a tiny font? It's not as though there's a space crisis there.
"the first year of the season of the player's first game and the last year of the season of the player's last game" of the ... of the ... Can it be straightened out? "the year of the player's first game"? (I may be suffering from non-expert status, though.)
The lead does seem a little short and choppy—three parastubs. 2a: "a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in sections subsequent to the lead." Was the information it contains selected arbitrarily? To what extent should a brief overview of the topic be given in a list (as opposed to the related article)? I'd have thought a bit more of the big-picture; it seems to be pitched at experts alone. Is the team a notable one in the US? Capture general readers' interest? Or tell me whether FLCs do not have to be stand-alone pages with a sense of wholeness, but are always assumed to be arrived at from (and dependent on) a related article? TONY(talk)17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with two caveats:
Shouldn't use the abbreviation "Stats", use statistics
Pierre-Marc Bouchard has spent his entire NHL career with the Wild, joining the team in 2002. should be reworded, maybe something like Bouchard joined the Wild in 2002, and has spent his entire NHL career with that team.
Wikipedia often uses background colors to create contrast and enhance readability (see the top of this page, for instance), and that's what has been done with this list. -- Sethant (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Presidents of the United States makes a great use of background colors. For this list, I assumed that colors were related (i.e. one color indiciated something) but from your reply, it seems like that is not the case. I think that would decrease readability rather than increase it. At the very least, I would suggest to use a lighter color. Some off the top of my head are #eef and #fee, which I believe are light and 'warm' colors.
I would also consider adding headers to the last two columns that don't have one.
The lead title needs to be bolded and the links should be removed per WP:LEAD
The closest thing to the article title in the lead was already bolded. I see nothing in WP:LEAD that prohibits links with the lead section; in fact, most Wikipedia articles and list contain links within the lead. - Sethant (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SELF-NOM For those people who are looking at this thinking, "isn't this already nominated?", the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is in charge of the law enforcement of Unincorporated areasofLos Angeles County, and also for the many incorporated cities who have contracted the Department. They also provide Bailiffs for the courthouses in LA County, operate the county's jails, and have their own training academy, which is also contracted to train smaller police departments. In contrast, the LAPD is in charge of law enforcement in the city of Los Angeles only.
Difficult with a short lead but avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
Done. I placed it after the text, but I'm not sure about it now. What do you think? Isn't there some special code that will force the "Officers" section to be placed correctly below the image, rather than having half the line chopped off?
"recognised" - US article, run with a zee here.
Done
You have STARS but never use it, any need for the abbreviation?
Done
" This includes law enforcement officers who, while in an off-duty capacity, act in response to a law violation, or is driving to or from work.[1]" - officers (plural) versus "or is" (singular)...
Done
Put (LASD) after the second time you use the expanded version (so it's a) not in the bold and b) the last time you use the expanded version).
Done
Sacramento is linked twice in quick succession.
Done
"Whittier, CA." - avoid CA, just use California so us non-US centric types get it.
Done Is it necessary to include "California" at all, since it's obviously a California-related article?
What does 1' mean? (in Little's row)
Done
Tenure doesn't sort properly for me.
Done
Ref 10 needs work and be consistent with the use of pp or not for pages.
Oppose for many some of the same layout issues as in the other list.
Cause of deaths seem too generic, and I'd rather see short summaries of each entry to give the "story" when few will ever be notable enough to have their own article. If not in a field at the end, maybe a single merged cell under each entry (similar to how episode articles have summaries under the cells with their basic info).
The notes are confusing tacked in a column at the end, along with the codes and color-coding. It doesn't make it very easy to read or comprehend entries and causes readers to have to keep scrolling up and down to find out what each means.
The list says it is a list of "officers killed in the line of duty" so why are there entries for people who died of a heart attack? That isn't being killed, it is dying of natural causes. And one entry died during surgery on his knee. His receiving the injury to his knee on the job doesn't mean his dying during the surgery is "being killed in the line of duty." Another who died in a train crash on the way to work doesn't seem like being "killed" in the line of duty either. I realize the criteria in the list seems to be just to be on the official list, but if that's all it is, we aren't doing much but replicating the official list.
The criticism of the other list did not seem to have any effect on this there is still the use of color to emphasize the unimportant, such as the differentiation of those who died on the same day as the incident and those who died on later days. Much more important, there is still the hazy criteria. Unlike the previous commentator, I am personally willing to accept people who died during knee surgery after an accident actually on the line of duty, and someone dying of a heart attack during a chase (for example) is also OK with me--but these disagreements highlight the uncertain criteria. In particular I am not willing to accept as reasonable the department's definition of line of duty as including traveling to and from work--I regard that as a dubious publicity device, possibly to increase survivor's benefits. I see no reason why we should accept the designation as significant used by a source with an obvious COI in increasing the impressiveness of the list--that is not exercising NPOV or even common sense.
Again, the details are unsourced. We need to assume the proper research of the authority we're using, and almost all the information that might be of value to a reader is eliminated. I see, for example, someone who died of gunfire, but not a work. I'd like to know more about it--was it a domestic dispute, or was it perhaps something more distinctive for better or worse--did he get into a extra-curricular gunfight, or was he surprised by a robber, or whatever?There's a fall at work--was it actually during a chase (as frequently occurs in the movies), or did he misstep in the station house stairway, or what? Car accidents have a very different meaning if they occur during a police action or otherwise; struck by vehicle--was this a by a suspect, or an accident at a traffic stop? Note G is an example of the sort of person who does not belong on this list. But note A sounds fascinating, and is certainly worth a full article--there must be full accessible sources for this. and
Notes D and F are good examples of the type of information that's wanted. Now get similar information for all the others, and then propose as a featured list. Ity will then be a very good one! DGG (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Since Apple has been a hardware company from its founding to early 2000s, they hired other companies to build their computer parts and then assembled the parts themselves, therefore there was very little need to acquire other companies. It is only recently that they have had to acquire companies in order to quickly expand into the software industry. Gary King (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption is a fragment so lose the full stop. It's also not a good description of the image itself, just the postal address of the company (which is interesting but could be explained).
As per previous concerns, only 4 of the 13 previous company names aren't redirects to other products. It's misleading and I'd like it to be fixed before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be American or ISO, but not international in the table
Are you talking about dates? I'm using {{dts}} to sort the column correctly, and it formats the dates accordingly so I don't control that in the article. GaryKing(talk)18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to continue using {{dts}} to add sort functionality to that column. Maybe the better question should be how to make that template follow the same date standards that are used in each article? We should probably tackle that rather than this on an article-by-article basis, because the template is used in a few hundred articles. GaryKing(talk)18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Table seems incomplete with so many values missing. If its not readily available, maybe drop the column all together.
I'd rather keep it there. The information is not readily available because it is not released by Apple; for the larger acquisitions, they announce the acquisition price for their shareholders. This is not needed for smaller acquisitions. GaryKing(talk)18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is country referencing? The country the acquired company was in?
Lead prose seems stilted, confusing, and out of center. The explanation on the table formatting should be the last thing in the lead, with the rest covering the topic. Copyediting would be good.
Why a picture of the Apple headquarters? I doubt all 14 companies were moved to the building, so why use that instead of something like the Apple logo.
Oppose Have to agree with Tony (commenting elsewhere) that the prose in the lead is poor. The quality of English isn't "professional", is way too wordy and repetitive, it contradicts itself and is imprecise in places.
The first sentence and the first clause of the second sentence contradict each other. Apple has always been both a hardware and software company.
Apple no more "hired other companies to build computer parts" than I hired Tesco to put milk into cartons. In fact, the examples you give (CPUs, memory and disc drives) are very much commodity components that were almost certainly not specially made for Apple.
Saying "Apple assembled these parts into computers" places them about the same level as any number of bit-player PC computer builders. Apple designed computers.
"giving the company little reason to acquire other corporations" I couldn't find this in your sources, but didn't look hard (and couldn't read one). I don't believe this is true and suspect it is OR. Even if you can source it, it is opinion that I suspect is not in the majority.
"Beginning in the early 2000s, however, Apple has begun creating computer software" Awful English, I'm afraid. Apple always wrote its own operating systems and a fair amount of the associated software.
The circular story of Steve Jobs and Apple is not well explained.
"headquartered" !!
Looking at just one acquisition makes me doubt the list is accurate. The Raycer entry says 2nd Nov 1999 and $20 million. The source is The Register a tech tabloid that isn't always reliable. An update on 5th Nov from The Register say's it is "all but done" for $15 million and that Monday (8th) will probably be the date. You need to find a reliable source that confirms the date, the amount and rather than speculate on what Apple might gain or do with the purchase, should state what it actually did with the purchase.
Lead prose is still choppy and the final paragraph tedious. I just checked two more names: Proximity and Fingerworks. Read your sources. Those dates are wrong. It isn't even certain that Fingerworks, the company, was actually bought. It shouldn't be this easy to find mistakes. Colin°Talk18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the lead a bit more. I've removed FingerWorks and used a new reference for Proximity. In my defense, this was the first 'acquisition' list I built and Apple is also known for being secretive about its business dealings; for my other acquisition lists, the information regarding acquisitions is more transparent and is communicated through official press releases. GaryKing(talk)19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked to there as a last resort, because a press release would be many times easier to read and use. I searched SEC Info for Apple and FingerWorks before, but only came up with the lawsuit that a company put forward, with Apple Inc. and FingerWorks as defendants. Also, I think that NeXT was the only company acquired by Apple that was publicly traded. GaryKing(talk)19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination. I cleaned up the sections and made this more like a FL since the last nom. The lead has also been expanded, and I think this article is ready. STORMTRACKER94GoIrish!12:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am confused, very, very confused. Please take a look at Boston Red Sox seasons and explain to me how come we have two lists on the same subject. Also by looking at Category:Major League Baseball teams seasons, I notice that most of the MLB season lists are named just "Team seasons". I am opposing until this confusion is resolved. As a side note, I'd like to add that the table at Boston Red Sox seasons provides a lot more useful information than the table in the nominated list.--Crzycheetah21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome list! Very nicely done. I only have one small suggestions: the publisher values in the General references (IGN, Gamespot, etc), should be wikilinked. Drewcifer (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make the list sortable and remove the "alphabetically" from the lead? All columns would work really well, you could split EU and US release dates into separate columns (and thus avoid any MOS issues using those flags) and the table would become inherently more useful. Plus, it'd help fill out the width since right now it's struggling to fill the screen!
No image at all? Nothing? Seems a shame.
Not sure why 14 is bold in the lead. You could always start the lead with "This is a list of games for the Gizmondo console." and then carry on to discuss and link stuff like you already have.
When was the DS launched in the US (for comparison sake, you state when it was released in Europe)?
I think blue tooth should always be Bluetooth.
"25,000 unit sold" - units.
"GPS" - explain to non-experts.
"multilayer features" what does that mean?
"The accessibility to purchase Gizmondo games was limited. In the United States, games were only available trough a small numbers ..."
First sentence is odd - the availability of Gizmondo games was limited?
trough - I guess this is through.
No references for the claims in the lead.
General ref "Gamespot Gizmondo game datebase" - database?
"Many unreleased games were playable at E3 and at CES. Many screenshots of cancelled games were also released." does this have a reference?
So I have to oppose at the moment with so many concerns. I'm sure they can be remedied and please let me know when you'd like me to look the article again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal After re-checking the list I found out that the sources I used contradict eachother. For example IGN states that Motorcross 2005 was developed Fathammer, but Gamespot says the game was developed by Housemarque. IGN and Gamespot are both reliable sources so I don't who is right. Almost every game on the list is contradicted by different sources. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Having successfully promoted Green Wing (series 1) to featured list, I am trying to do the same with the second series. I have followed the same prinicples as I did with the previous list and I believe that this list is now of the same quality. ISD (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the stubby sentences "The second series was considered worse than the first by critics." and "The second series was considered worse than series one." be expanded?
"Amongst" sounds archaic compared to "Among"
Cathy Prior's review relates only to the first episode, not the series
Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the FAC criteria and is as complete as it needs to be to show the discography of mentioned artist. Lonelysoulq (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the examples of other discographies at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Music for the layout of albums, compilations and singles. (The singles table that is already there is the way to go)
Wow.. super huge singles table. It goes off the edge of my screen, and now I have a hoizontal scroll bar on every wikipedia page I look at
What do the acronyms in the US charts mean? Especially the one that isn't linked.
My personal opinion — I know others disagree with me — "B sides" shouldn't be included, it's a discography, not a songography. I don't see every album track listed...
Don't use small writing that is too small for poor-sighted people to read
Instruments isn't complete; it says "some of", and fails the criteria 1b
Oppose For all of the reasons above, as well as a general disregard for established discography style. Check out any of the other FL discogs to see what I mean. Drewcifer (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My next lists were going to be season articles for Degrassi Junior High, but I'm getting really annoyed with that whole thing at the moment. Instead, here's something that isn't media or sports related.
So, yeah. A list of LAPD cops killed in the line of duty. Every cop is listed, some, especially the more recent ones, have specfic references, the others can be referenced by the three general references given. If I'm forced to I suppose I can make a trip to the county library in downtown LA, which has archived the Los Angeles Herald, but I'd rather not. I've tried to keep the Lead WP:Neutral, but let me know if it needs tightening, and as always, any other comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Support as nominator -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you've completely justified your inclusion of the other four individuals who aren't classed as LAPD officers... (same old title vs content argument)
I can see the two mentioned in the lead who aren't LAPD, not 4, but actually one of them really was part of the LAPD. The 2nd City Marshal in the list was the head of the LAPD (which was founded in 1869) before his murder in 1876, upon which the title Chief was used. I included the one before him as he was also a City Marshal, which was the only law enforcement agency before the LAPD was founded, even though the title was carried over for the first 7 years of operation. Do you have any ideas on a reword? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"who isn't " - is not. Avoid these naughty contractions!
Done
Put (LAPD) after first full use of the expression.
Done
"such as that for the most recently killed officer, " avoid this - as soon as the next LAPD officer is killed you'll need significant rework. Same for the image caption, I'd just stick to absolute fact rather than timeframing it.
Done
"..Arnold Schwarzenegger.[7] and featured .." - bad full stop there.
Done
I'd avoid spaces between notes and refs in the notes column.
"James H." sorts strangely. As does "William H." and "John M." (that's in Safari by the way).
Done
Why allow the notes column to sort?
Done — forgot to add the code. Hmmm... I can't find the code to add to do this. Can someone point me in the right direction please
Pratt's six month tenure isn't sorted correctly. Ricardo Lizarraga has a similar issue. As does David Charles Schmid.
Done
Simmons age in the table is given as 31 while 27 years in the service.
Done — should have been 51
Notes C to F need references I think.
As I said above when I nominated, their deaths came either before, or while the internet was in its early years. Also, the Los Angeles Times is notable for ignoring its website readers, and has been slammed for it numerous times. I have to make an 80 mile trip into LA to the only county library that has archived an old local newspaper, alternatively, each officer has a page at the Officer Down site, which I could link to, but I gave the LAPD page at Officer Down as a general reference. It's no hassle to add those, though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed, filled with all sorts of information, and utilises innovative ways of organising it, and representing the different kinds of incident, late deaths and so on, and incorporates a useful lead section as well. --SGGHspeak!14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I dont think the entire list is encyclopedic, and I notice the FA nomination as I was about to list it for AfD. They have a web site for the purpose, referenced above. I do not think it needs a WP article. DGG (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I began creating a few articles for some officers who had been killed. They were deleted, but those deletions were reverted. They were then prodded. After five days, the prod was removed, and the articles still stand. However, as a result of the prods, deletes and reverts, it was suggested that a list would be more suitable, and would be unlikely to be deleted. I don't see why the fact that there is a website which also has the information is a reason not to have the list here. There are plenty of other lists based off of 3 main reference points which still stand. It would have more references, except that the internet dates back maybe 15 years, and the earlier deaths, while reported on in newspapers, aren't available online. If it is absolutely necessary, then I will make the trip to the library in LA which has archived the local newspapers, but I'm not looking forward to that hassle, let me tell you!
Sorry for messing up the format. Here is my view in more detail.
I am willing to accept the inclusion in an official department list as evidence of the basic facts--obviously not for notability such as would make an individual article, but certainly the basic facts of the name and the date. As for the details of how the person died, that might take the actual news story. And that brings me to the more basic point that :
These of of very different notability. There is a difference to the public between those killed in traffic accidents and those shot by criminals. One is unfortunate, worthy of commemoration within the department, worthy of a special pension, but not really of public interest, then or now. It's really just the same if a policeman is killed by in a car accident while going to work as if anyone else is. And even slightly more job related, if a policeman is struck by a truck while making a roadside car stop, it is not more noteworthy than if a member of a road repair crew is killed in a similar manner. These are misfortunes common to anyone who works on highways. The public interest and notability for an encyclopedia is the people who are killed while carrying out their duties by criminals, or in some similar manner very specifically job-related to the peculiar aspects of the profession. The drama attaching to this is why people care about the topic. (I'm aware that some of the deaths by traffic and the like may have been directly caused by criminals, such as being run over by the people being stopped for investigation--that's one reason why more exact sourcing is needed.)
I agree that being killed in a traffic accident isn't as wowish as being shot up by a gangsta, but the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial states that those deaths (and those happening while off duty) are in the line of duty. Those who have died by being knocked over by a car, or from traffic accidents, both on and off duty, are listed at the LAPD's fallen officer webpage, the California Peace Officer's Memorial etc etc. The websites also indicate how they died. That's why each officer doesn't have their own article, but a list of all of them covers all bases. To include the officers who were killed as a result of someone else's actions, but leave out those who died by some sort of accident would be POVish in my opinion. It isn't a List of murdered LAPD officers, it's those that have died in the line of duty, and the provisions of that statement have been verified in the article. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the use of the lists to indicate the basic facts about individuals, but a greater number of the more recent people where there are not specific references should be findable online. This may not be practical immediately, but it should be done relatively soon. I do not think it can be called a FA while this is incomplete. A FA is supposed to have complete sourcing, not a portion of it that still needs to be done. DGG (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the LA Times doesn't keep its articles online once they're about 3 years old, unless it's really big news such as the 94 Northridge earthquake. The LA Daily News is a little better, and that's really it. I will keep Googling though. If there was a way of Googling through newspaper articles from 1998 that have been archived by Wayback, that'd be wonderful, but I don't think there is so it's kind of impossible to search. Each cause of death is given by the three references at the start of the reference section, though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what you're opposing, however, seems to me to be more to do with the subject of the list, as in importance, rather than the quality of the list, which is what Featured status is about. FL is about presenting all the facts (which this does), verifiable (it is), well written (IMO it is!) and everything else at the Featured list criteria. Each individual death may or may not be on its own notable, but when put together like this, I believe as a whole it is notable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of color seems inappropriate--color is usually used to highlight something as being particularly distinctive or different. Here it is used merely to indicate a degree of uncertainty or particular minor point about the exact day of death, & its relationship to the event causing it. This really should be done by something like a footnote marker, and asterisk or the like, that would be less conspicuous.
This one I have less of a problem addressing, although I do feel it helps quickly identify certain things. It's not like different shading isn't being used to identify different causes of death, and I would say that more than one officer dying in a particular incident is distinctive or different. Those who died off duty is also distinctive IMO, especially when the term in the line of duty is used. It's not a list of every officer who died while employed by the agency, after all, which would then call for all those who died of duty, sitting at home watching TV with a beer in hand, for example. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since the LAPD & the NLEOMemorial define "in the line of duty" as including those killed in accidents going to and from work, those people are not conceivably significant in an encyclopedic sense. Whatever they think for purposes of publicity or morale, it is not publicly significant, even for article content. Agreed individuals in this sort of list do not have to be individually notable, but they have to have some encyclopedic relevance. Since the currently easily available data does not provide for sorting them out adequately, it is possible that they might have to be included temporarily as a matter of practicality--but I think that dubiousness is enough to disqualify the list for featured status. It actually would take finding true sources to justify placement on the list. The LA Times is available via Proquest back to vol. 1. It is available at UCLA and other UC campuses, & the LA public library--and probably other libraries. (It is also possible that the LAPD maintains an information center with clippings) Doing a featured article takes doing the necessary research. DGG (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the image of Randal Simmons seems unnecessary, though if it has a justifable purpose, it should be moved to the right side as it is totally messing up the menu. Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it to the right for now, if any more objections come in, then I'll remove it. It's there basically to show Simmons, as he is discussed in the paragraph along side it. Done-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also must question the inclusion of two city marshals. They died before the LAPD existed, and as such can not be considered Los Angeles Police Department officers. It would be one thing if the list were List of Los Angeles law enforcement officers, but as it specifies "Los Angeles Police Department," it should only include those who were actually LAPD officers.Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above to TRM, the city marshal was the highest ranking of the LAPD from 1869 when the force was created, to 1876, when the second marshal in the list died. They then changed the title to "Chief". The first one in the list is there because although he wasn't part of the LAPD, his position was. I can see this is contentious though, so it may be better to simply remove it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also must question the way the Cause of Death's are listed. For example, the footnote on Ian James Campbell seems to indicate he was kidnapped and murdered, but his cause of death is only listed as Gunfire. While it would make the list longer, perhaps if the notes in the notes column were put with the names, and the badge number dropped (which seems to be rather personal information, even for deceased officers, as well as somewhat superflous as their badge numbers is unrelated to their deaths), the column on cause could have room for longer comments where necessary. This would allow a more accurate reflection for cause, and some small story as most of these will never have articles and so I think some brief summary should be included here.Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the badge number column tomorrow, but I'm not sure if removing it will give that much room to add even a sentence of additional information. Doing... -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DATE#Dates says "ISO 8601 dates are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)I will change them tomorrow when I do the badge numbers though.[reply]
Not done I can't seem to make the sorting work when written out as full dates, and the MOS says it's okay for use in tables, so I'm going to leave it for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also must echo the other remarks on the last column and the color coding, particularly the numbering to indicate two officers died in the same incident. I'm not sure how to better format it though, if it should be done with a notes column under some items, or notes to the side, but the current system seems confusing. Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could make footnote links for those who died in the same incident. Do you think all the different shading should go, or just some of it? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as currently used, all the different shading should go. The one thing I can think of that would be valuable--as you in fact suggest earlier--is to distinguish those who were actually killed directly by criminals, from accidents--except that you do not actually have full information on that for many of the people. On duty/off duty is not the same thing. If you want to brighten up the table, use color for those awarded stars or medals, instead of symbols. Color should be used to mark the more significant, not the less significant. DGG (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something I noticed in the other list, before noticing here but the list is declared to be a list "officers killed in the line of duty" so why are there entries for people who died of a heart attack? That's natural causes, not being killed. As I said in the other, I realize the criteria in the list seems to be just to be on the official list, but if that's all it is, we aren't doing much but replicating the official list which would call to question, as others have, whether the list belongs at all. Collectonian (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I really don't like the use of numbers in the last column to indicate ones who died in the same incident; they look too much like footnotes, and the numbers have no actual meaning. --Golbez (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was an easy way of identifying, for when the list is sorted by anything other than date. The bolded 1s can be distinguihed from the 2s, can you think of any other identifier that would be more suitable? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting, although I'm puzzled as to which part you feel is original research. Each officer and his/her death is referenced through three different sources, and others have addtional sourcing where it's available online. If you can tell me which bits are OR, I'll attempt to make it not so. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda is an old-fashioned word for advertising. It used to be used for everything, including consumer products, but for propaganda reasons it was renamed in that context. Now it's mainly used in political contexts, and this is a political context. To quote from Propaganda: "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." That's what this list is doing, whether it is intentional or not. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article because I feel that is an exemplary example of a season page. I know that the story blurs the line between serial and season a lot, as it's a season-long serial, but given that it was produced in three different blocks, and is considered by the exec producers and most fans as four closely linked serials, I'm leaning to nominating this as a season page, and am nominating it here to follow precedent. Sceptre(talk)20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIt's been a long road, but the article's looking very nice! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Abstain Since it seems I'm in the minority (see below), I'll just withdraw my vote. For my own piece of mind, however, I'd still like to bring up the topic at WP:RS or something like that, but for now I'll let the cards fall as they may for this FLC. I'll try and keep everyone posted. Drewcifer (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reasons listed above (below). A list that is a direct transcription of information from a single source is unnecessary and largely unhelpful. As it stands, a single External link would accomplish just as much as the entire list.Drewcifer (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The # column doesn't sort. That, and I don't think a column should be named by a symbol. Drewcifer (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:It sorts for me. Plus, the column is small, so a whole word would widen the cells unnecessarily. The symbol # is widely known as a number, but that's just my humble opinion. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]]|[[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>talk</small>]] 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake about the sorting thing. But I do still think the column shouldn't be a symbol. Howabout "No."? As in Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography. Unrelated examples, I know, but similar enough. Also, I am a little concerned with the single source. Sure it's reliable, but a single source is just asking for trouble. Aren't there plenty of sources that might echo the forbes article? Such as CNN? Lastly, after taking a look at the forbes page, they have alot more types of lists and information then is provided here. I'm not saying a list of youngest billionares is required of this FLC, but it might be good to add an age column. Also, the fact that the sources of income column is sorable really isn't helpful. Whatabout a Industry column, so we could sort by people who became rich by energy, technology, retail, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, No. it is. The list is based on the Forbes list so that's why that's the primary source. If another source, like CNN, were to compile a similar list, the net worths and rankings would be different because different methods are used to calculate the lists. This article specifically states that it is based only off the Forbes list. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that begs the question: if the article is based solely on a single source, then why is this list even necessary? I'm not saying it should be deleted, or that I agree with that line of reasoning, but the list does seem to be on shaky ground here. What I would suggest (as I did above), would be to expand the list a bit with extra columns, extra info, or whatever. That way it's a) more useful to the reader, and b) not a verbatim copy of another source, rather it goes above and beyond what the reader could learn from going directly to Forbes. Drewcifer (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire, but the problem is that each one uses a different methodology to do so. Therefore, we need a single source that uses the same methodology to get the values of each billionaire instead of hashing values from different sources using different methodologies together. Gary King (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, but the list still needs to stand apart from it's source(s). If it were based on multiple sources, at least it could accrue an aggregate amount of information and centralize it all in one place. As it stands, the list is actually inferior to the single source provided, and provides nothing that the source does not, except for wikilinks. I understand that different sources calculate these things differently, but as it stands right now the list isn't a "List of billionaires in 2008", it's a "List of billionaires in 2008 according exclusively to Forbes". Which yet, again begs the question, why is this list even neccessary? Or, perhaps more relevant to this FLC, how does a direct transcription of a single source exemplify Wikipedia's best work? Drewcifer (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good start, but that doesn't really address the single-source thing. And looking at Colin's comments here and at the 2006 page, I have to agree with him on those points too. Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked around, and the only articles that mention the people on the list and their wealth use Forbes as their reference. Gary King (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The shortcomings of other articles doesn't really have anything to do with this list. Sorry to say it, but I really don't see any way to justify a single source for the entire list. Drewcifer (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I used other articles that used Forbes as a reference, would that be considered another source? That would mean they also consider Forbes to be a verifiable source. The problem is that Forbes is really the only publication that is willing to spend time to calculate the net worths of people around the world. Gary King (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←Ohh, sorry. I thought you were referring to other Wikipedia articles. My fault. Yes, that would certainly be a good start. You could use the Forbes thing as a general resource, then have specific in-lines from wherever else. However, you said up above that "There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire". Those other sources should definitely be used. Drewcifer (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said that when I saw several resources, but then afterwards noticed they were using Forbes. I'll add in some references now; let me know if it's acceptable in the next few minutes. Gary King (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, definitely a good start. Hopefully you can sustain it for the whole list. Let me know when you think it's finished. Drewcifer (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more now. The lesser known billionaires are tougher to find more sources for – these guys like to keep to themselves. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looking better. I'd say I'm satisfied citation-wise. So, I only have two more concerns with the article (which I haven't mentioned yet, so apologies for being an endless supply of complaints): first, the title of the article isn't really accurate. If it was truly a list of billionaires, it would go all the way down to people who have less than 8.9 billion. So if I had 1.6 billion in the bank, I would be up there. At least according to the title. So, either a bigger list is necessary, or (the easier option), to change the scope slightly (and I suppose title) to the "100 wealthiest people" or something like that. Second, and this is more of a meta-concern, but since the scope of the list has been changed from just 2008 to a current list of billionaires (which is a good change), what will happen to the list in February 2009? And, what will happen to the 2007 and prior lists? Drewcifer (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I would assume that the list would get updated once a year, hence making year-by-year lists unnecessary. So, I also realize that everything from this FLC is kinda messing up alot of other billionaire-related articles, so I'd recommend taking another look at all of them and considering whether they're really worth keeping, or at least how to change/improve them to reflect all the decisions made here. That said, all of that has very little to do with this particular FLC. So, I only have a few more suggestions (yes, I know I keep saying that): first, I think it's generally good form to center align columns with numbers, and left align columns with text. So, you should center align the "No," and "Age" columns, and possibly the "Net worth" column. Second, the References column is really wide for what it does: I'd recommend abbreviating References to Ref. Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, it would be good to have one more column concerning the person's industry. So we can sort by those who have earned their fortunes from technology, telecom, banking, etc. However, this last one is just a suggestion, not something I'll necessarily hold you to. Drewcifer (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of billionaire articles... I'll see when I can get around to doing them. Industry is hard since I either don't know a lot of these companies or the billionaires have very diversified interests. Industry is better suited for each company's articles. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, ignore that last point. The center align looks good, except for a couple where the code is haywire. Also, I don't think it's necessary to have the Ref column sortable. Also, I don't think 17 references requires the 3-column references section. Might not even warrant 2-columns. Drewcifer (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Millhouse Capital redirects back to Abramovich (there may be other examples) - as per the Google acquisitions, I'm not too happy with this. Either unlink or write the article.
Apart from one person, the residence is the same as the citizenship. I think it's a bit unnecessary, and I'd rather see where the business is based, I think.
I'm not sure if the residency column is correct. As far as I know, Roman Abramovich lives in the UK, and according to his Wikipedia page, lives in Rogate, West Sussex.
Per TRM's comments above, Corral Petroleum Holdings redirects to Mohammed Al Amoudi
PPF Group redirects to Petr Kellner
Unitech Group redirects to Ramesh Chandra
Grupo Bal redirects to Alberto Baillères
Quiñenco redirects to Antofagasta PLC
Votorantim Group redirects to Antônio Ermírio de Moraes
Uralskaya Gorno-Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya redirects to Iskander Makhmudov
There are other redirects which I think should be fixed, for example "MashreqBank" redirects to "Mashreq Bank",
Can August von Finck's source of wealth be more specific than simply "Investments"? All the others are businesses, and by simply reading the list one would think that "Investments" is a business name.
Also August von Finck links to a disambig page
Ronald Perelman's is also "investments", but this time with a little i
There are a couple of others which is given as "investments", but I'd like to know what they invested in
Shouldn't the Duke of Westminster be given as his real name?
Raymond Kwok links to Raymond, while Thomas and Walter link to Sun Hung Kai and Walter Kwok respectively. I think they should all be given a last name, too, or written as "Raymond, Thomas and Walter Kwok"
"Sun Hung Kai and Companies" redirects to Sun Hung Kai
The reference section doesn't need formatting like that as there's only 1 reference
According to WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS, the article needs secondary and tertiary sources. Try to include some other sources for everyone's wealth and source of wealth.
There are two dates. The Lead section says March 5, but the "Top billionaires" section says Feb 11
Roman Abramovitch I'm sure lives in the UK (see my comment above), and I think he'll get some income from Chelsea FC.
Now this list has been moved, what's going to happen in 2009 in regards to a 2008 list? Will this be moved, and then a new list compiled at List of the 100 wealthiest people, or will it be lost in time?
All of the above has been resolved. As for next year's list, it will replace this one and therefore this list will be forever lost. Gary King (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Following the recent vandalism, there still seems to be a conflicting entry at 73. Where it used to be Beau Brady and Namco, it is now Phillip Knight and Nike. (see the diff from the last known good edit on the 25th, to now). I don't want to change it though because I haven't verified it.
Unfortunately, Criteria 1c (factually correct) and 1e (stability) are the problem right now, although 1c is easily fixed (see above), but the list is being vandalised, is currently edit-protected until April 10, and so I'm currently hesitant to support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 20:18, 27 March, 2008
Number 73 is correct now. I can request to remove protection if that helps. The articld isn't that heavily vandalized; only the past two days, and by only three different IPs. Gary King (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the links in the See also section are redundant, since those links are already in the "billionaire" template. I realize that by removing this section, the ToC will disappear, but it's not needed anyway.--Crzycheetah22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOT. We don't act as a statistical repository for old data. Yes I know this is the 2008 list and I didn't see the 2007 slip through as an FL. Rename this to List of billionaires and ensure you keep it up-to-date. See List of countries by Human Development Index and Global Peace Index for examples. Apart from a few sporting lists, Wikipedia presents current data. If a featured list contains data that is updated periodically, we expect editors to keep it refreshed in a timely manner or else it is defeatured. Colin°Talk13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this just being a snapshot in time has been resolved: this list will be maintained as the current top billionaires. However, its scope and sourcing is now confused. Previously it was all according to Forbes on one day (yearly updated). If this is still the case (ie. the amount and rank come from Forbes) then Forbes should be a general reference, not a footnote (i.e, it has a bullet point and is listed at the end of the References section.) At the moment, it looks like many of the entries are unsourced since they have no entry in the ref column. If the entries now come from a mix of sources then the lead is totally misleading and you are conducting original research. It would be original research to collect people and valuations from multiple sources and then rank them in a top 100 order. In addition to being OR this would be statistically nonsense since your sources are all for different dates so the precise ranking is not possible. Finally, some of your "sources" are just news articles repeating Forbes. The Forbes list is a totally reliable source, in so far as you trust anyone to compile such a list. Why are any other sources required? At the moment I'm strongly opposed to this being featured. Sorry. Colin°Talk10:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is certainly an interesting situation. However, I don't think that my suggestions and Colin's are necessarily mutually exclusive. Colin's suggestion of making the Forbes source a general reference rather than an in-line is a very good suggestion. From what I can tell, the majority of the other sources merely echo the Forbes source, so I don't think there's a problem of ranking based on differing scales/moments in time. I suppose sourcing an article like that is a bit redundant, but I stand by the fact that a single source was a problem. The only thing left to do is to make sure that the Lead is worded very carefully, so that the scope/sourcing of the list is no longer confusing. Drewcifer (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I've just looked at nearly all your extra "references" and they all cite the Forbes list. They add nothing. Some of them aren't even citing the 2008 Forbes list, so they are one or two years out of date. I really don't see what Drewcifer's problem is with citing just Forbes. If the list is based on Forbes 11 February 2008 list then there is no getting away from it. Colin°Talk20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically because an article that is based on a single source is a) redundant, b) about as useful as a single external link, and c) goes against WP:RS, (specifically the fact that the guideline often uses the word "sources" (plural).) Here's what I think we should do: this seems to have become more of a meta-Wiki issue, so I recommend this FLC be closed (since it appears we're deadlocked anywys), and we can bring up the issue at WP:RSorWP:V or something like that. That way, we can get a broader set of opinions, and maybe the guideline can be reworded a bit to avoid confusion like this in the future. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a real shame to fail this list, because it is nearly there. I don't have any problem with only having a single source, especially when that source is the only one with any authority in the matter. The newspaper articles that repeat (possibly with errors) the Forbes list do not add anything (though they make us all aware, if we weren't already, of the importance of the Forbes list). The list serves a navigational purpose to the billionaire articles. All WP material duplicates what is out there; that doesn't stop us having our own version. I'm sure there are other FLs with one source (or lots of sources pointing to the same web site). Colin°Talk07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not shame in failing an FLC, especially when the issues raised are beyond that of the single article. The list has been "nearly there" for sometime now (the FLC is almost 4 weeks old now), but for one reason or another seems to not quite make it according to someone for some reason. I just think it would be more productive to bring this issue up elsewhere, with the intention of renominating this list once the issue is settled. Drewcifer (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I feel about this page now, since its move. I preferred it when it was "List of billionaires (2008)", as it met criteria 1a3 and 1e. As soon as February 2009 rolls around, somebody had better update this list immediately, or it will become unfeatured. Sure, we expect editors to update it, but it doesn't mean they will. I didn't see the harm in having it set to one year; season pages for TV shows do this, as do lists of hurricanes (albeit for a longer period of perhaps a decade). It's also still semi-protected, which since that's an automatic fail for a GA, it should be an automatic fail for featured status. When does the protect expire? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we should have (2006), (2007), (2008) is more the sort of discussion AfD handles. There are precedents for lists like this to be "current" and for the editors to be expected to keep it so in a timely manner. I don't think that should be a problem. Forbes have been doing this for over 20 years and it isn't WP's job to act as their archive. The semi-protection issue can be resolved by asking an admin to remove it -- and they will monitor if the trouble returns. Colin°Talk07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Colin that the list should be based completely off of the Forbes list and shouldn't mix things up by using other citations. Some of them are from last year (one is from 2006) so they are hardly up to date. As well, the lead should be expanded a bit. -- Scorpion042215:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound like a pain, but the lead needs at least one citation, perhaps for "Stock prices are defined as shares of ownership in a corporation, and exchange rates are defined as how much one currency is worth in terms of another."
As for how to expand the lead, you could add who Warren Buffett replaced as the wealthiest man (Bill Gates?) and how long that person reigned for. You could also include things like which country has the most billionaires, who the richest woman is, and the fact that it is based entirely on the Forbes list should be mentioned in the lead. -- Scorpion042216:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deal with this if and when this list and others like it even survive. I'm mentally claiming this nomination is already closed, at least until the concerns that I can't fix with this list alone are resolved. Gary King (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - If there was at least SOMETHING added from other sources - short biographies, say - then this would be an encyclopaedic list. As it stands, however, this is not only a straight reproduction of the ranking in Forbes list, this pretty much is Forbes' list, even including the up and down arrow symbols to compare with the previous year. Something that uses one source and copies all information from it except changing the biographies (which are at least in the online version) to a list of companies mentioned in the biographies is not Wikipedia's best content. What it is is a copy violation. While it's certainly salvageable if you do some research, cut the Forbes-specific things like the moves in ranking (instead describing how their fortune has fared and changed over the last year), and make it Wikipedia's own, as it stands, it is a copyright violation. A very attractive derivative work that has had a lot of work put into it, but derivative works that are this similar to the original are still copyvios. Since information cannot be copyrighted, we can use Forbes' list as the basis for our own, but we cannot simply reproduce it while adding no new information. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This seems to be nothing more than a repackaging of the Forbes list (which is the article's only source)... the two are virtually identical... the only difference is that the Wikipedia article has a (unsourced) column for "sources of wealth", listing the various companies that the people own. Instead of being a good candidate for Featured List, it is closer to being a good candidate for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self nomination All the concerns I think have been addressed since the last FLC. It no longer looks like a Skittleopedia, and has all the relevent information, with a suitable Lead section, and is fully referenced. All concerns/comments will be addressed. Thanks -- Matthew|talk|Contribs04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spaces between the years and the en-dash in the tables for "originally aired" should be removed.
Done
Per above, what's a "prod code"?
Done
Decap Airdate in the tables.
Done
Why aren't there any episode synopses?
Purely for WP:SIZE reasons. Episode summaries for 240 episodes would be a strain on the page. I'm not opposed to doing episode summaries, I'd just rather make individual season pages. Also, the summaries that were there were direct copies of those at tv.com and had to be removed as Copyvio. -- Matthew 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
A list of episodes page usually does not use a show infobox, having only an captioned image in the upper right corner. Why use one here?
I bulleted your comments so it would be easier to respond. I hope that's OK with you. Consider this point Done.
Rather than have refs in the season table headers, why not divide the refs into a General and a Specific section as is seen with other featured episode lists?
Done Although I've seen just as many done like this
Where are the specific season articles with summaries?
I, or rather, the Wiki community haven't created them yet. I don't mind doing them, and I will if no one else gets around to it.
Individual season sections should be subsections under the first season header.
Done, if I understand this correctly
I'd go ahead and remove the template at the bottom since its pretty clear it will be deleted.
No problem. I changed the list to show you what I meant about the general episode section. Feel free to change it back if you don't like. :) Beyond that my only concern is the lack of summaries and season pages. It would be one thing to have no summaries but seasonal pages, but I'm not sure an episode list that doesn't have them yet is ready for FL until it does. ~thinking~ Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I put done when it wasn't! Thanks though. I don't mind doing the season pages but if they need to be there for this to be passed then maybe it should be closed, because as quick as I was with the Degrassi season pages it still took me an entire day to write each one. That would mean the season pages wouldn't be complete for at least another 11 days from now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it would need to take that long. You'd basically need to make an episode template hack (or use an existing one of it works for what you need). Then cutting and pasting the tables into the new articles, adding at least a basic intro and front matter, change the template name (search/replace), and then include those pages into the main list. Then the tables don't have to be repeated. If you aren't sure what I mean, take a look at List of Lassie episodes and then List of Lassie episodes (season 1) to see how this works. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More formally opposing. While its a good start, without summaries or season pages, I do not feel it meets the completion requirements to be featured at this time. Collectonian (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I would like to see seasonal pages created as well before featuring this list. Also, could you remove <br /> from production code, season #, and series #? The reason is that it forces wide headers for users with higher screen resolution. "Another" also, could you change the table widths from pixels to percentages? --Crzycheetah07:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the line breaks. Why do the table widths need changing from pixels to percentages though? It's going to be kinda difficult to calculate the changes necessary. Also, see above my reply to Collectonian about season pages. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the column widths, the only change I see is that all the headers are centered now. I'll adjust all the seasons to fit your sandbox, though. Thank you for the effort. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted you to see is that the "prod code" column of season 6, for example, looks wider than the "prod code" column of season 7 in List of 7th Heaven episodes's current version. Meanwhile, in my sandbox those two columns have the same width.--Crzycheetah00:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it already, but I looked at the old diff and I can see what you mean now. I also think it all depends what browser is being used. Firefox recognises pixels, whereas IE7 doesn't. They both recognise percentages though, so it was a good suggestion. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I keep forgetting about those differences in browsers. It looks good now. Seasons 7-11 don't have heading colors because there is no DVD available yet, I assume. But missing seasonal pages is an obstacle here, though. I am going to stay neutral because of that. I think this will set a bad precedence, i.e. passing lists of episodes without summaries.--Crzycheetah02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this list os worthy of being a Featured list. Please let me know if additional changes need to be made.--Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think linking to things in headers is generally discouraged, and it would be great if you could explain what the purpose of the "Foreign" section is. -- Scorpion042214:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent list, very comprehensive and detailed. The only thing I could say is to find a refences beside the U.S. Army Center of Military History Medal of Honor Citations Archive to further validate all of the listings. bahamut0013♠♣15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a few quick things...
**Dates should all be formatted per WP:DATE and date ranges should separate using an en-dash per WP:DASH.
**Why are there several sections which just link to other articles? If there are no medal of honor recipients for those campaigns they shouldn't be linked to here. If there are recipients for those campaigns then they should be included here otherwise this list will be incomplete.
DoneThe reason for this is because there are 3500 recipients so there are far too many to put into 1 list and I do not agree with holding up the list because there are too many and had to be broken up.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure image captions which are fragments don't end in a full stop.??I don't know what you mean here. Maybe someone can explain this to me.--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this is different, in the article you mention not all players are listed, so in my opinion it does NOT meet the criteria. In this case all of the Medal of Honor recipients are listed but for ease of use and to ensure that the page doesn't reach critical mass they are split up. They are all there, they just are not on one page. To list all 3500+ on one page would not only make the article difficult to read, navigate and edit it would far exceed the reasonable length an article should be.--Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an interesting outlook. The debate at WP:FOOTBALL is ongoing and I'm interested to see how it pans out before I can commit to supporting any article which doesn't meet similar requirements. I understand length is an issue. In fact, the Arsenal list would be around 1000 long if the debate ends in the conclusion that all players should be listed. In fact, I think this is an interesting point. Thanks, I'll take your opinion there! More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI I've added this perspective to the on-going debate. I think its valid and would be interested in the opinion of the wider community. Until it's resolved, however, I'll have to reserve my support. Sorry, nothing personal, but there's little point in promoting this list just to see it delisted under an ongoing debate. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the 3,464th will be presented April 8th, 2008)" makes the list unstable, and see WP:DATE for that date.
Done I fixed the date and the list isn't unstable its true that there will be more recipients of the Medal of Honor occasionally but they are extremely rare.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The following is a complete "... not really, it's a list of some and a lot of forks to other articles which may or may not be complete.
Done, It is a complete list if you include all the forks. Again, it is not reasonable to include all of the recipients on one page so this is the only way to do it without the article hitting critical mass. If wikipedia has a rule that says that an article cannot become GA status or higher if it has forks then we need to add an exception for extremely large articles. If an article can never be allowed to achieve greatness then it should be deleted. Otherwise it would just be a waste of time.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it's unreasonable to include all recipients on one page. That's what's being discussed at the Arsenal players list. That's why I can't support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you check out List of Medal of Honor recipients for the American Civil War: A-L you will see that list has exceeded 100kb and it has been suggested that it be split up. Also bear in mind that the American Civil war list is already 1 of 2 and that it doesn't have anywhere near the info it will need to reach GA status some day. If you add together all of the recipients and assuming the page has all the info required for GA status I suspect they will be close to a 500k article.
I see what you mean now but that list is extremely long, its knowwhere near FL status and its less than half the size of what the Medal of Honor list would be.--Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) The List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality has a similar pattern, I do believe. It's an acceptable standard for long lists with easily defined sections to have the exceedingly large parts moved into seperate lists. The list of latin phrases is not a FL, but VC is, so it has a precedent that is applicable here, especially since it is a list almost exactly like the Medal of Honor listing. Cromdog (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The Medal of Honor" = avoid The in headings per WP:HEAD.
"1916-1924." en dash required. Done and no citations in this section either.
"The immediate cause of the war was the June 28, 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Black Hand. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare." no citations.
So according to your key, none of the awards were made posthumously until 1993?
Done Again, if you look at the forks they were, its just that on this page there are none until you get to that. You seem to be stuck on the forks thing, if you insist that is the only way to pass it I will add all of the recipients to one page, but I don't recommend it.--Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I was just ensuring that none of the other recipients on this page were posthumous recipients. The thing is that in the lead you say more posthumous awards are made than not, and this table (exc. forks) tells the opposite story. That's confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list of unknown soldiers is odd, you talk about Canadians and then there's just a list of unknown soldiers.
I am going to wait on doing any more changes until the Arsenal debate stabilizes, because if they come back and say that it must contain all players/recipients then this article will never reach GA status because it will be too big to edit or read. Sorry if my attitude seems bad but for this article to be held up because we chose to split it up into digestible peaces is ridiculous to me.--Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that this has occurred while you're mid-FLC, but please don't take just my opinion into account. The consensus rules and just because I'm going to oppose until the Arsenal situation has resolved itself, it doesn't mean others will. You're perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that the entire list in one page is ridiculous, just as a lot of us have at WP:FOOTBALL. But the NHL guys are arguing the list is incomplete without everyone. Your forks may or may not contain every person but that now means that a FLC would need to check all subforks for completeness, so the whole FLC process would involve reviewing every fork from the main FL. If this is the way forward, then so be it. But in the meantime, don't be disheartened by me, please continue and resolve the other issues (which need to be sorted anyway, most are MOS issues) and other folks may overlook the ongoing strife and support anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"For years, the citations highlighting these acts resided in archives" Try to be more specific on how many years
This depends on the citation, since the Medal was created during the late 1800's it could be anywere from 80 to 100 years.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"For nearly 100 years", then? -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As the "American Civil War", "Indian Wars", "Spanish-American War" "Philippine-American War", "Boxer Rebellion", "United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914", "World War II", "Korean War", "Vietnam War", and "Peacetime" sections send the reader off to another page, some prose is needed here.
For this one I would like to request some clarification. I believe since the page that the actual list resides on will have an outline of the battle or war I shouldn't put it on this list as well, but I could put a shortened version and say something referring the reader to the corect list page. Would that be acceptable? I did the American Civil War and the Indian Wars entries as an example.--Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that is fine, although I don't think the sentence "See the link below" is necessary. Also, those main page links should go before the prose. -- Matthew 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Done Can't do because this forks off to 2 separate articles currently and it will probably be several by the time I'm done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make this work please do, I have yet to figure out how to use pipes in the name when useing the nowrap and sort name templates.--Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. TRM will probably be able to help if you ask. I've only used sortable tables once and don't know how to do it either. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
Same for Samoan War Every other section — Unbolded and link, remove {{main}} where it links to the War and not the list, and reference each presented fact
" This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously" — "This along with the *," sounds clumsy
This is the standard formatting and statement used on all the other lists that have made it to featured status which contain posthumous recipients. If I change it here it should be changed on ALL of the others and something should be documented to say what it should say. For now I am leaving this as is.--Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why『War in Afghanistan (2001–present)』when no other has the date in the header?
Are you kidding, some of this is exactly what was already there and I changed per somone elses comments. Some of this makes sense though and I will start working on it.--Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not kidding, and which parts were already there? this diff between the 17th when the nom was put forward and now would suggest otherwise. If any other clarification is needed though, let me know.
Just a quick note - it's better not to strike out, hide, or otherwise alter people's comments, per the FLC procedure "Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text." Many people will do this when they feel their comments have been addressed to their satisfaction. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
Just because there's no existing Wikipedia article, doesn't mean nothing can be added. If we looked at things that way, Wikipedia would never have gotten off the ground -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 00:19, 28 March, 2008
Thats not what I meant, there is very little information for that period, other than the fact that 2 Marines got the Medal of Honor I have not seen any other documentation that documents the 2nd Campaign. Perhaps you can find some or know someone who does have some.--Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand. If that is the case, is it definitely a second campaign? Note the wording for the first one: "[It] began on July 28, 1915 and ended in mid-August, 1934. Other occupations include ones that began in 1994 and 2004 (though under the UN banner, the US was the prime mover of the actions)." Perhaps it would be better to move these two recipients to this main section as the dates, 1919-20 coincide with the dates given for the first, 1915-1934? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 18:58, 28 March, 2008
Support though I had a thought last night. If you gave each section here their own page instead of having 5 or 6 lists and then redirects to all others, brought them all to FLC and passed them, you could use this page as the main one for a Featured Topic. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 14:24, 29 March, 2008
Thanks, My plan has been to get all the Medal of Honor lists up to featured status. Once approved this will be the 2nd, I am working on the Korean war now and should have it ready in a few more days and then I will submit the next one (Probaly either the Philippine-American War, or the Boxer rebellion but I have to create missing pages for most of the ones that are left). The only problem with this is that most of the ones that are left on this page in my opinion don't have enough (less than 10 rows) to make a good list and therefore likely would not pass on their own. I suppose it is possible to simply incorporate these small lists into the main articles but in some cases the main articles are already very long. I do like the idea of making it a featured topic though.--Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great list. One quick thing.
This along with the *, indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Any reason to have both the background and *. I believe the background color is sufficient. PGPirate15:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree however that is the format used by all the other articles with posthumous recipients that have made it to FL status. I can easily remove the * but I only want to do that if we make a consensus to do it for all of the others as well. Otherwise it will be confusing to the readers if we have some one way and other another way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Definately a good list. I only have a few comments/suggestions. First, the wdith of the columns should ideally be kept consistent. This is an aethetic issue, but it also has ramifications for the content: the notes section in some of the tables gets really really squished. Take a look at Ross L. Iams' entry and you'll see what I mean. To solve this problem, you could probably shrink the name column(s) a bit. Additionally, the Korean Expedition table should be kept consistent as well, even though there's no images to its right. Also part of the problem is that some of the notes are very wordy, and at times POV. For instance: "desperate hand-to-hand combat", "selflessly hurled himself", "remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire.", etc. Lastly, the posthumous awards is a good, but I'm not sure why you need the grey box AND the star. Just the grey background should suffice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#Invasion_and_occupation_of_Haiti — The way the lead paragraph is worded, it begs the question of whether any Medals of Honor were awarded for the later occupations. If not, then rather than distract with that detail, omit "first" and just put the year.
Lead-in paragraphs for each section — The introductory paragraphs in each section are inconsistent:
Some provide citations with regard to details of the conflict, others don't. I favor citations — especially when the phrase "the reason for..." is used, I look for a citation.
Some list the number of recipients and others don't — this applies to both the sections with or without main articles. I think each section should give the number of recepients, not just a synposis of the conflict.
In general, the language/syntax needs to be tightened up in the prose.
I'll withdraw this and come back after I fix everything below. Thanks - Milk'sfavoriteCookie 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have worked hard on this list. It is well referenced, well written, the lead looks good, and is very informative. It overall looks like a good featured list. Thanks. - MilksF'avoriteCookie22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No major issues with the tables, but the lead contains some language more suited to a magazine than an encyclopedia, and overuses the passive voice.
What does "charter member" mean? (I'm pretty sure I know, but it is unclear to the general reader)
upstart WHA - something of a colloquialism, and has a slight feel of POV. Cinderella run is another example.
known as the Alberta Oilers for their first season after their Calgary counterparts were unable to play. Who are these Calgary counterparts, and what relation does it bear to the name Alberta Oilers?
Passive voice - phrasing such as They would quickly find success and the Oilers would achieve what is generally regarded as the last dynasty is cleaner and clearer when the simple past tense is used; They found success quickly, the Oilers achieved what is generally regarded as the last dynasty.
Edmonton fell to the Winnipeg Jets. They lost. No falling was involved.
The 1990s was dominated by playoff failures "Dominated" is inappropriate here.
"This list documents the records and playoff results the Oilers 35 year history " missing some part of the sentence here?
Per Oldelpaso, the are a few phrases which need de-journalising and re-encyclopaedia-ing.
If you use WHA and NHL then at least explain them as abbreviations so the first time you say National Hockey League, put (NHL) afterwards.
Don't like the way the reference cells come and go.
You could merge both tables and then make the result sortable.
Split the Finish column. What does "5th, Canadian" mean to a non-expert?
Interesting you include the Alberta Oilers while the Carolina Hurricanes seasons is very dedicated to not include anything other than that specific franchise.
Comment Good work so far, but I have to say I agree that the table should mimic the other NHL articles for consistency. Also, I'm not sure inline citations are necessary in this list. A general references section would be sufficient, and is cleaner. Resolute02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Interesting you include the Alberta Oilers while the Carolina Hurricanes seasons is very dedicated to not include anything other than that specific franchise.
That would be because it is the same specific franchise. The "Alberta Oilers" and the "Edmonton Oilers" were the same incarnation of the same franchise, simply renamed. Akin to the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and the Anaheim Ducks. Same franchise, same incarnation, just a simple rename. Resolute02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the NHL season lists are confusing I'm afraid. To you puck happy fans this is all obvious but featured content has to be accessible and understandable to non-expert readers. Telling me that the MD of A and the AD are the same equals the Alberta Oilers = Edmonton Oilers makes no sense. The first franchise is a rename of the franchise, not a "relocation", the second is the same name of the franchise, just a different location. How confusing for non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no the second is not a different location either. Edmonton is in Alberta, and the team always played in Edmonton, and only Edmonton. As was noted above, this needed to be clarified better in the article. My argument was that this is not comparable to the Carolina Hurricanes list. Resolute14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with you that there needs to be some uniform consistency established in this regard, but there needs to be some clarification: The Albera Oilers were based in Edmonton, and after the first season renamed themselves the Edmonton Oilers. Part of the confusion is that this was done in the WHA, which in itself was a rather confusing experiment in the history of hockey. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really sure why its so difficult to understand that when a team is in a different location it is a very different situation from a team in the same city with a different name. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the team moved, did it take all the players, managers, behind-the-scenes people, or did they all lose their jobs and the team rehired new everybody. A location change coupled with a name change doesn't change the fact that the team is the same -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A location and name change certainly do add up to a legitimate place to split an article. Because the most important thing changed. The fans. And I am not saying they aren't the same team. I am just saying that it became the consensus in the past to split articles at the point where they changed locations. (ieMontreal Expos/Washington Nationals in MLB. Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes in hockey) -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that comment as in, the people who are going to look up the page are less likely to care about the history from when the team wasn't in their city etc. and if they do they can follow the well placed link to the other incarnation's page. When pages get too large you are supposed to split out parts of it at places that make sense to seperate out. The most obvious place to do so in sports franchises is when they move locations. -Djsasso (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
lead english needs to be improved
lead should specify what oilers are, e.g. professional ice hockey club
title should be 'List of Edmonton Oilers seasons' per WP:SAL
I don't really edit these articles myself. But I believe these articles aren't considered stand alone lists. Which is why Calgary Flames seasons was featured without being List of. That being said I see you just went and moved them all without checking the reasoning for the lack of List of in the title. I believe this falls under the timelines exception on WP:SAL. -Djsasso (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read further in the sentence though it says that consists of a list of links. These pages do not mearly contain a list of links. They contain prose and information as well. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are Wikipedia articles that contain primarily a list. The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events.
I think that applies to this article, which has links to articles of Oilers' seasons. As for your second point, it may pre-date the WP:SAL and is easily cleared up. Alaney2k (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SAL has been around since 2003. Not likely that it predates it. And it doesn't primarily consist of a list of links. It primarily consists of statistical information. -Djsasso (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as an equivalent as it is still just a directory of links. This is more than a directory of links. -Djsasso (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are links and info. Like the Oilers one. And why would WP:SAL not be higher precedence than sports convention? Sports is in every-day life, not a high-ranking category. Alaney2k (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again because this is closer to an article than a list. The example you showed was links with names for the links and the purpose of the page was the links. This page is about the statistics, not about the coincidental links to other pages. The purpose of this page isn't to make a directory for the season articles. These pages were split off from the main team pages to save on the size of the main team pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is –far– more info in the particular season pages. There are two purposes to Edmonton Oilers seasons. 1. Link to season articles. 2. List of seasons as a whole. The info is anecdotal. Smells like a stand-alone list to me. :-) It's not a prose article at all. It has a lead, and that is covered in WP:SAL. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike the Carolina Hurricanes season article up for FL, this one does include the WHA years and should be applauded for having it there. It is not the standard for WP:HOCKEY though why couldn't it be the standard for WP:HOCKEY?Alaney2k (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self nomination I've been working on this periodically for a while now and really got into it about a week ago. It's ready now. I left out the b-sides because they are all demos, live, and covers. There are no actual non-album tracks. If you want to see them, they can be found here. I'm welcome to any comments and suggestions. Thanks, Burningclean[speak]21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions, however:
Some of the certification cells are center aligned.
A few are still wacky.
How?
The Tributes and Live albums sections are still center aligned. Those columns could still be made less wide with a <br/>
A pound sign and an abbreviation to go along with the catalog numbers would make them clearer.
Alot of the column widths are all over the place. Try and keep similar columns consistent between tables.
I've set album widths to 250 and song widths to 200.
Looks good, except the EP table.
Done.
The "RIAA" column in the singles isn't clear enough. I assume you wanted to keep it a relatively narrow column, so you could put "cert." on the next line, keeping the column the same width.
Also, fairly minor, but some of the wider columns could be made a little less wide with a simple <br />. Such as "Top Music<br/>Video peak" and "RIAA<br/>certification". Those cells are already tall enough to allow a second line, might as well use it. Drewcifer (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, why is the Directors column so small? Alot of the rows are unnecessarily tall because the text in that column is so squished.Drewcifer (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See The Prodigy discography for a neater way to keep a certifications (from more than two Certifiers) for the Albums. The code is kinda complex for Prodigy, so you can make it just like The Strokes discography.
I think I'll go with the latter. The Prodigy discog make my brain numb :P
Just as a note, I made the code in the Prodigy discography the way it is so that the actual certification names would be aligned along a common line, as opposed to back and forth. I dunno if it was worth all the code, but that's why it's like that. Drewcifer (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Burning, I know what you mean, I wrote The Strokes discog, and attempted the Prodigy certs code...
Keep EPs after studio album. Also, the billboard peak can just be a bullet point.
US main, mod -->Main, Mod. platinum, gold -->Platinum, Gold (throughout).
"I Disappear" single entry is ugly. Remove a couple of the cites (BEL can definitely go, no need to list each and every territory. obviously there are a number of countries in the world where the band charted but its not listed here.) and expand the album column.
The Music videos column widths suck :D
Viedos: Billboard peak --> Billboard 200 peak? Be specific. Column widths suck again.
The Paradise Lost and Rock Band songs should each have their own row.
Lead needs rewriting (not just a ce), why no mention that the Black Album was their most commercial and that it brought the to the mainstream? Too much info on their next album/current status. And what does "Rick Rubin is producing the album; he is the first new producer for Metallica since 1990's Metallica, which was produced by Rock." mean?
Hmm... I'll figure one out. The lead is the part I hate when writing :P
Refs need formatting. Link first instance of publisher, article name in "quotes" blah blah.
Oh wait I was looking at the Metallica article. Fix those then :P.
I just might :D/=<
IfSound of the Beast hasn't been used as a ref, why is it listed under References? I recommend checking books for chart positions, because many online sources may be be incomplete about the 1980s; we're having such a problem with R.E.M.'s discography. It seems very odd that none of Metallica's early singles (and "Master of Puppets"!) never charted. indopug (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sound of the Beast is used in ref 5. Metallica didn't release any songs to airplay until ...And Justice for All. The only way their early singles were available were at gigs for the most part. I can't find a reliable source for that, I just know it (my dad was a gigger in the 80s and caught the 'tallica) Burningclean[speak]18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too am reasonably sure that "One" was the band's first single to chart. However just to be safe, you should look at the chart information at allmusic.com as well, which is strangely more complete than the chart info at billboard.com (going back to our work on the R.E.M. discography, I noticed that whole swaths of singles I knew had charted weren't listed for some reason). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Stone Cold Crazy is on the Garage, Inc album - I was thinking that there were some missing songs, like "The Prince", and "Killing Time", from the Black album era singles, but those are all on the Garage, Inc album, too. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you check Garage, Inc.'s liner notes, you'd discover "Stone Cold Crazy" was originally on Rubaiyat. In fact, all the songs on the second disc were previously released elsewhere on singles, comps etc. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I know it was on the Electra comp, but nearly all of the tracks from disc 2 of Garage Inc are from different releases, Breadfan, Killing Time, The Prince, even Stone Cold Crazy was the B side of a Black album-era single, IIRC.(I had all of those "cassete singles" back in the day) - should all of those tracks be listed twice on the discog? Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big glaring omission Now I'm not sure how many miscellaneous track Metallica released before the Black Album, but one that's definitely missing is "Hit the Lights", the very first Metallica recording from the Metal Massacre compilation. Additionally, didn't they re-record that song for a later version of the comp? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I missed alot of compilation appearences. I found them all here though. Thanks for mentioning it. I don't know anything about a re-recording though. Never heard about that. Burningclean[speak]22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few different versions, the original, that was done at the last second, which only appears on the first pressing of Metal Massacre, then there is a re-mix that was on all subsequent pressings. There is the No Life 'Til Leather demo version, which has Dave Mustaine and Ron McGovney, and then there is the Kill 'em All album version. Do other discogs leave out demos? Cuz No Life till Leather is a pretty popular one. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey man, looks pretty good. Here are a few things I noticed:
While they originally formed in LA, Metallica is most defenetly a San Fransisco/Bay Aream based band, they left LA in 1982 and havent lived here since.
"The position for lead guitar was originally held by Lloyd Grant, but he was replaced by Dave Mustaine,[2] with the position for bass guitar was passed on to Ron McGovney.[3]" sounds a little weird.. Lloyd Grant was never really a member, he played one solo on one demo, so I'm not sure he is notable enought to be mentioned here. And the bass sentence sounds odd, 'with the position for bass guitar was passed on to.." you could just say, "with Ron McGovney on bass." And I think the official word is that McGovney was fired.
"Ex-Flotsam and Jetsam bassist Jason Newsted replaced Burton and recorded four studio albums, two live albums, one cover album, and one EP with the band before leaving tension with other band members saw him leave." The sentence sounds jumbled, especially the last part. Do you need to list off all of the releases w/Newstead? there is already a big list of eps, releases, singles, ect above. you could just say he was with the band from 1988 to 2003 or somthing. And the last part of the sentence is confusing: "and one EP with the band before leaving tension with other band members saw him leave" Somthing like "left due to tension with Hetfield" or somthing like that.
"He was Metallica's longest standing bassist." - sounds weird, also pretty short.
" Robert Trujillo (ex-Ozzy Osbourne, Suicidal Tendancies) was offered one million dollars to join Metallica on bass guitar, and accepted.[9] " - Actually, he joined the band and they gave him a million as a "bonus"... the $ thing is not really needed there, you could just say he joined the band.
"Rick Rubin is producing the album; he is the first new producer for Metallica since 1990's Metallica, which was produced by Rock" - sounds a little choppy. Does this info really need to be included on the discog page?
"Metallica has sold over 100 million records worldwide, with over 57 million records in the United States alone. This makes the band the most successful thrash metal band of all time." - Second sentence sounds a little weird on its own, Combine them to say "As the most successful thrash metal band of all time, Metallica has sold over 100 million records worldwide, with over 57 million records in the United States alone."
I don't think you can have a blanket rule on the matter; isn't that first demo important in Metallica folklore? Then it would merit listing. indopug (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To set the record straight, that can only be said of the second disc. The songs on the first disc were not previously recorded or released. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom I'm am going to with draw the nom. I've been busy lately and I need to rewrite the lead. Not much time on my hands to do that. I'll work on the lead as well as any other issues listed here, and then renominate. It shouldn't be too long until it is back up here. I'd say maby a week or two. Thanks for the reviews everyone. Burningclean[speak]19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I *believe* this is a FL. I have reviewed other FLC and fixed most of the mistakes. I do believe it needs a picture, but I haven't found a free photo yet. This can be added later. PGPirate14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom
Comment You need more refs in the lead - one is nowhere near enough. You might (note the emphasis) want to include the results for the other two incarnations as well, because the list seems very short at the minute. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All sports season list I have dealt with use this form.
comments
Oops.. I expected this to be about hurricanesinThe Carolinas, sorted by winter, spring, summer and fall!
Sorry about the confusion. Some aspects of that list would be short. I can only think of one hurricane in the winter.
Is there an image to go in the lead? Perhaps a stadium photo or something?
There isn't one on wikipedia, that I have found yet. I am going to look on flickr for a free image.
Wikipedia:LEDE#Citations says that cites aren't needed if the rest of the article cites it, however, I see no further mention of them being called New England Whalers or Hartford Whalers
In the references section, there is Carolina Hurricanes Franchise Timeline which mentions it. Should there be a inline citation as well?
Finally, and this is the reason that I oppose, the title suggests it's a list of all seasons not just NHL seasons, and as this list is very short anyway I feel it would be better if it was merged with that of New England Whalers' and Hartford Whalers', which would give a complete season-by-season coverage. And also, even if they were using a different name, aren't they essentially the same franchise? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are different teams. And I would believe most Hurricanes/Whalers fans would think the same thing. Also, Calgary Flames moved from Atlanta, and has two different seasons articles (The Flamers seasons is a FL): Calgary Flames seasons and Atlanta Flames seasons. The only rebuttal with this is the Flames has about 20 more years more in Calgary.
Done Don't use the small fonts in the key, what's the point? Just makes it more difficult to read.
"35th for the Hurricanes franchise" but only nine seasons in this list? It's incomplete per Matthew's comments. You could easily split the table into the various named teams. Or you need to modify the name to state clearly what I'm going to see. Either way there's a discrepancy which non-experts will find confusing.
I change the sentence to this『The 2007–08 season represents the 10th in Raleigh.』Is that OK?
Done Don't overcapitalise - Regular Season and Post Season, just season is fine.
Comment Would it be ok if I take out most of the Whalers information in the lede to make it a Hurricanes specific list?
Support Doesn't say it is supposed to cover the Hartford seasons. It is fairly standard to split the incarnations of franchises into seperate articles. This article is well written now and more than meets the standard of other such FLs. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems odd that you'd do that while the NFL guys have it differently. And their lists are complete. Especially useful when you have fickle franchises who move every few years, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is usually that each team has its own history and is often considered its own team albeit linked to the old location. Another reason it is often brought up is that there is no reason to try and cram everything onto one page when it can quite succinctly be seperated into two pages to stay under the page size limits. Now the old incaration will obviously not grow anymore. But the new team will continue to grow and eventually the list will be too big and the two teams will be split anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the franchise moves? Sorry, not convinced. It should be on a franchise basis per the NFL seasons which are good, complete, not misleading. Featured lists which are English football club season articles exist with over 100 seasons, they're just fine. I don't think you need to worry about your list becoming too big. Especially compared to the NHL player lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it missleading? The title is Carolina Hurricanes seasons. Not Carolina Huricanes franchise seasons. Its not Hartford Whalers seasons. Its quite clear that the seasons are for the team called the Carolina Hurricanes and not its franchise. It even says it in bold in the first line. Your arguement against the FL smells pretty heavily of WP:POINT because people who edit hockey articles are objecting to one of your soccer lists. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all. I don't understand why you'd split the franchise. The NFL guys don't, the NHL guys do. Why? And you didn't respond about the length, you won't have a problem with that. As for WP:POINT, I find that accusation a little rude. Until the whole "100% complete list" is resolved, I'm not budging. I've said this at the List of Medal of Honor recipients so don't take it personally. I want to understand what is and what isn't acceptable. An attempt to make a football list acceptable it was suggested it was moved to "...who have made 100 or more appearances". Thus removing the subjectivity. It was rejected. What can we do? I don't know. But if the NHL and the NFL are doing it differently then something's wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would note, that not all of those were NHL teams. Some were professional baseball. NFL actually seems to be the exception to the rule. We never objected to the renaming of the article, we actually supported that idea. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a partial list, its a complete list of seasons that a team named the Carolina Hurricanes competed in. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which says in the lead that the "Carolina Hurricanes franchise was founded in 1971" and I believe the list should contain the seasons for the franchise. Otherwise it's the list of seasons for when the franchise was known as the Carolina Hurricanes. It should be per the NFL lists. Chicago Bears seasons deals with different leagues as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I personally think the sentence This list documents the records and playoff results for all nine seasons the Carolina Hurricanes have completed in the NHL since their relocation from Hartford, Connecticut in 1997. More than covers the ambiguity. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we will! I look forward to the day someone submits a FLC for an NHL franchise which moved to a new location for a single season. Even nine seasons here is pushing its luck as a list when both NFL and English football seasons sometimes deal with around 100 seasons... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you're happy just having the current franchise then do nothing and I'll oppose. If you decide to go the NFL route then I'll support and, I would guess, Djsasso will oppose. Hope for more interest so these minority arguments don't carry so much weight! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, just because a team/franchise in any sport has changed its name or moved to a different stadium (albeit in a different city), doesn't mean they are different. Their histories can all be traced back to the same event at the same point in time, and if it were not for the New England and Hartford Whalers, I doubt the team would exist in the same capacity as it does today. I'm still inclined to oppose, even if the response you get from WP:HOCKEY is that they're different, as they mightn't see it from an outsider's perspective.
I'm not a football fan, but as an example, Manchester City was originally known as "St. Marks (West Gorton)" and then "Ardwick A.F.C." when it moved to Ardwick. Then they joined the Football league, then changed their name to Man City. Are these three different clubs? I don't think so, and Manchester City F.C. seasons, a Featured List doesn't present it as such. Spurs is another one with name changes and location changes, and their statistics include the earlier named clubs'. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name changes in the same location we tend to keep one article. It's the change of cities that we tend to have seperate articles. When pages get larger you are supposed to split out sections into sub articles, as such a natural place to split out part of an article would be when it moves cities. I suppose this is more for the main team articles than lists associated with the team. But I don't see why the lists couldn't follow the examples of the team articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give my thoughts on this conversation. As a Hurricanes fan, I personally do not care about the Whalers seasons. I believe most fans only care about the team while they are at a specific location. I do not think many New Yorkers would/do follow the LA Dodgers or SF Giants (Both moved from NY) or Baltimore with Indianapolis Colts. Yes on the technical sense, all have lineage to previous locations, but I do not think they are the same team by any stretch. PGPirate19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an interesting debate, and one I went through on my nomination for Calgary Flames seasons. Rambling Man, I also believe this to be comparable to our debate over the FL status of List of Arsenal F.C. players. Specifically, the need for completeness of a data set. As I argued in that debate, even if the set is split over multiple articles, so long as they are clearly interlinked, and the data set is complete, then each article should be judged worthy. In this case, we have Carolina Hurricanes seasons. What we need is Hartford Whalers seasons. That would complete the set. I'll look to create that article later today. As far as the contention that we should be following the NFL wikiproject's lead, I would respectfully disagree. There is no policy or guideline that argues each project has to mime that of others. WP:HOCKEY has consistently split articles along franchise iterations, and in that vein, lists such as this should follow their parent articles. This article defines itself as being a list of Carolina Hurricanes seasons. The Carolina Hurricanes have only existed since 1997, so this list contains the complete history of seasons for the Carolina Hurricanes incarnation of the franchise. This specific incarnation is obviously closely linked to the New England/Hartford Whalers, and those links should be noted and completed. Beyond that, however, this specific article stands on its own merit. Resolute20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting reading. But your franchise view of the world is bizarre to us who have the same club for 140 years. Are you suggesting that a franchise who exists for one year is entitled to a FL? I think the NHL project needs a rethink and needs to consider the history of the franchise, not individual instances of it. You guys are pretty different, as far as I know only Wimbledon F.C. (out of around 100 English clubs) has "franchised". As such most English clubs have 100+ years of history and seasons. The seasons are played in different leagues, the leagues have different names, but the English football articles cope. Why can't the NHL articles? As I said, if a franchise lasts a year, you seriously think a FL is appropriate? If so, why? If not why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, simply because there isn't enough history. We've seen this already with other types of lists, such as Mark Messier Leadership Award and List of Nunavut general elections, both of which are part of featured topics, though neither is capable of becoming a FL. Specific to this article, I believe the ten year history of the Carolina Hurricanes is sufficient for FL status.
I'm not sure how the disposition of European football clubs is relevant to that of North American clubs. It is fairly rare for a team to switch leagues, and especially so at the major league levels. Teams operate as part of the league, and as such, are considered franchises of it. while the Whalers/Hurricanes franchise as a whole has a continuous history, even the franchise itself tends to treat each iteration as a relatively independent part of the whole. i.e.: The Hurricanes this year wore a commemorative patch on their jersies celebrating their tenth year in Carolina. That it is the franchises' 35th year has been completely ignored. This reflects the common view of such teams, as expressed above by the nominator: While someone who follows hockey will be aware that the Hurricanes existed previously as the Whalers, when they think about the Carolina Hurricanes, they are thinking of the team that has existed since 1997, not the franchise that was founded in 1972. Resolute
A minor detail about the NFL and their version of relocated franchises, more a point of personal annoyance but relevent just the same: The Cleveland Browns were relocated to Baltimore in 1996 to become the Baltimore Ravens. Popular opinion proved to be very against this in Cleveland, and so the NFL created a new team in Cleveland, but allowed it to be a reincarnation of the old Browns. This new team got to keep the original Browns history, records, etc, while the Baltimore Ravens are listed as an expansion team.
In short, it proves that the NFL is not exactly uniform when concerning its relocated teams. One team moves and acts as an expansion team, while a true expansion team gets to pretend its been around for 50 years. If anything, this helps to explain that relocated teams are in effect different than the former team it was. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An image would be ideal, but not necessary. Hopefully someone can get a picture of the Hurricanes Stanley Cup banner, as that would make an ideal image. Resolute02:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Irrespective of the points of view, it would be a better article to be like the Redskins season article (IMHO very good) and have the Whalers info. As is, it seems 'not whole', not very strong, missing info. It was a club move, not a 'reinvent', a clear succession. That said, it is what was done with Calgary Flames seasons, per WP:HOCKEY, and it seems weak for that reason too, although they've been around longer. Was that a good precedent? Hmm. Cleveland? That is a special case with negotiated legal terms to govern that special case. Alaney2k (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination. This is a list of all releases by British rock group Bloc Party. The list meets all of the criteria, is well sourced and has a comprehensive lead section, it is accurate and detailed without going overboard with useless trivia. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a good start, but the list is generally inconsistent with the vast majority of FLC discographies, in ways that I don't think benefit the list in any way. A few examples:
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
The Albums and Eps tables are a unnecessarily colorized, and strangely formatted all around. Generally speaking charts are better represented through a number of columns, not in a big list with a million citations everywhere.
These two tables are inconsistent also with the following tables. Again, the tables are colorized unneccessarily.
Song samples are generally not allowed in discographies since they are fair-use. Furthermore, there is no fair-use rationale for either.
I'm also not sure what the point is of having the Singles and Compilations albums sortable. I'd recommend making them unsortable, then merging similar cells.
Also blank cells for releases that didn't chart shouldn't use 9999 in the same font color, but should have a — instead, along with a legend below the table.
Overall its a good start, but it still needs alot of work. I'd recommend taking a look at other FL discographies for some ideas. Drewcifer (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tables with dashes need a legend. Something like "—" denotes releases that did not chart.
The dash isn't neccesary in the certifications cell of silent alarm remixed. Just leave that one blank.
The singles charts need sources.
The "reissue" dates for the two albums are unnecessary.
The B-sides section is unneccessary. If you really want to put b-side info in there, why not add another column to the singles table instead of a whole new section?
The Label/Producer column in compilations is overwikilinked. Only wikilink the first instance of it.
Also related to the sources, publisher values should use the site's/publisher's proper name whenever possible (Billboard as opposed www.billboard.com for instance).
Some of the sources are also problematic. A blog, for instance, is not a reliable source.
The EPs table isn't consistent with the others. Instead of a comments column, just add the bullet points to the Album details column.
Good work so far! Here's a few more (much minor) suggestions/concerns I have:
"Chart positions" and "Peak positions" isn't specific enough, it should be changed to "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions", to be more clear. And, obviously, the same thing for both the albums and singles tables
The width of similar rows in similar columns should be kept consistent wherever possible.
Note Please don't edit other people's comments, including putting them into hide boxes, it's rude. Also, I didn't consider all of the concerns you moved into the hide box to be fully addressed. Also, I agree with most of indopug's comments, so you can consider those more reasons for my Oppose vote (except for the B-sides thing. As mathew put it, it's a discography, not a songography). Drewcifer (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None charted. I will add a note at the bottom of the table. Done
Avoid linking in bold lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title. The above two articles were wrong, and have been fixed. Also, WP:OSE is no excuse for wrongness. Done
Union is a disambig page. Either link to the correct article, or none at all Done
"B-Sides" is an unpopulated section, and should be removed. Done
Don't populate the "B-Sides" section, as this is a discography, not a songography Done
Don't make text too small for poor-sighted people to read. Done, bigger (90% compared to 75%)
I disagree with the above reviewer; link Bloc Party in the bolded lead, it is the first mention. See ALL other discographies and you'll see the same being done. WP:OSE is certainly valid here.
THe lead is WAY too long. Absolutely no need to mention AMG ratings or charting positions of singles (unless very important in their career). For a band that has existed for three years, I'd say two medium-sized--if not one big--paragraphs is enough.
Better. There's still some stuff that can go and the lead could use a copy-edit. Eg: Mercury prize-nominated is not worthy of mention and the first sentence is a bit too long (shift the founding members to the next sentence). The Irish and Aussie chartings for "The Prayer" can go.
"It was in essence their breakthrough album" - awful POV and unencyclopedic tone too. That sentence also never seems to end, going on and on and on...
Their first single, She's Hearing Voices - MoS?
Numbers below 10 should be named (seven, not 7). I think listing eighteen would be better than 18 too.
38? --> thirty-eight; you've worded the others.
For the record label no need of Recordings, Wichita/V2 will do.
Where are the refs for chart positions for each country in the studio albums table? Make it like, say, The Prodigy discography.
Where are the B-sides? If you think it was better with the B-sides, you don't need to remove it. I prefer them there, especially if they are decent/important songs. Plenty of other discogs have a b-sides table; not including them is the stylistic choice of the above reviweer which you don't need to follow.
If you are removing the B-sides then why have such a detailed Compilation appearances; it might be enough to just list stuff not found on Studio albums/otherwise unreleased stuff. Place refs next to individual songs, not in a separate column.
Look at The Libertines discography for what I think is a neater way to have the Compilation appearances section. The current name implies that no original music is recorded for these albums at all (being their appearances on compilations), while actually quite a few soundtracks have original music. Change "O.S.T" to "soundtrack" (small case). Also, the Label column is kinda unnecessary and the Type column is kinda obvious (Just click on the album). A Comments column tells where else the song is found, i.e, which Bloc Party album or if it were an original recording. Thoughts?
Not really related but that band template right at the bottom should be updated to the way it is for other bands.
That ref with album details is odd. Remove it, as that info is kinda self-referential to the albums themselves.
Silent Alarm Remixed should be somehwere else, or at least mention that it is a remix album. It was rather puzzling to see that the 2nd album performed so poorly compared to the others.
Might be better to include it in another table called Compilations. A ref saying that its a remix album isn't the way; below Label, have a sentence that says that it is a remix. The single charting can be included that way too, *[[UK Albums Chart]] peak: 54<ref>
In the albums column make Certifications --> UK certifications, linked to British Phonographic Industry.
UK, IRE, AUS... Reduce size, again see Prodigy discog.
For the Singles table? Keep the refs consistently below the Chart name there.
Check if the refs are formatted properly.
USA -->US. Change throughout.
overlinking: after the albums section no need to link the albums/record labels once again.
Studio albums/EPs still linked in the Singles table.
Not really. There may be many more people who disagree with me. The way I see it though is as I said above. A discog lists releases. B sides appear on releases that are already mentioned. But if you're going to be super-consise and add B-sides, then why not the tracks that appear on all the albums? If someone wants to see the single's B-sides, they click on the single's release. If they want to see an album's tracks, they cick on the album. As for compilations, that for me is different as not each compilation has an article, so for thoroughness, the tracks should be mentioned. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet; haven't the band made any Music videos!? (check mvdbase.com) What about video albums/DVDs? Check for it. indopug (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The Notes located in the lead should be converted to footnotes.
The "Notes" column should be removed, since there are only three notes, which could be converted to footnotes, as well. Currently, this column can't be sorted anyway.
Combine the miles and kilometers into one column titled "Length". Write the km in parenthesis.
Round miles and km to the nearest whole number.
Why are some of the rows colored gray? Explanation is needed.
I concur with the above comments although I think the length column should be rounded to the nearest tenth, some of them are less than a mile, so the tenths digit is needed
What exactly do you mean when you say the highway was deleted?
It needs a "description" column to go into a little more detail than just where it begins and ends. In fact merge those two columns into the description column. For example, I-5 goes through Seattle, but the list doesn't tell me that.
I am confused as to what the difference is between "formed" and "became a state highway"
It appears the "formed" and "deleted" columns are unreferenced.
There's a difference between state routes, interstates and U.S. Routes. It might be better if separate articles were created for them, which would also reduce the size of this list considerably. And also a separate list for deleted highways.
The lead is too short.
That notes column is very odd, with the huge gaps. It also doesn't sort.
1893-1953 and the other date ranges should be separated by an ndash (–), not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
What do those other state routes in parentheses represent in the Formed column?
There's a lot of red links which should be turned blue by creating articles
"SR339 (ferries)" What does this mean?
What does deleted mean? The designation was removed, or the road was demolished, or something else?
Those that were proposed – were any lengths available, or were they highways that were proposed to have a length of 0?
I made the list, and I don't think it's ready. I'm not going to try to improve it to FL status, but I would like to comment on a few of the objections:
Ideally there would be more entries in the notes column.
Why should lengths be rounded? We have them all to the nearest 0.01 mile through WSDOT.
Gray means that the designation is deleted (no longer exists). This should be explained in the notes above the table.
Formed is when the designation was created (again this should be explained above); became a state highway is when the roadway itself became a state highway.
Formed and eliminated are indeed unreferenced; I don't have a full source for the state laws that designated the routes.
Separating the list into several would remove a lot of the functionality with respect to sorting.
"If a route was renumbered, the old or new number is given in the "formed" or "eliminated" column."
"Deleted" refers to the designation (and this should be explained above).
I haven't been able to find the planned lengths of proposed routes.
Complete list of medals per country for the 1928 Summer Olympics, with a comprehensive lead section to introduce the data. – Ilse@18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous comments
Wow, back then there were 1/3 of the events there are now and Canada won 15 medals, they'll be lucky if they hit that number this summer. Anyway, it's a very nice list, I'm going to make a few tweaks, but I get the sense that it missing something that would make it a truly excellent list, perhaps the table is a little narrow or maybe it needs more text. Not a lot of complaints, it would be nice if it was sortable, it would also be nice to have a couple more images. -- Scorpion042218:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — There are 45 of these lists, and to my knowledge this is the first time we've tried to make any of them a featured list, so any improvements applied here ought to be done consistently to the rest. (I'm not sure why 1928, of all Games, is the "guinea pig" here...) — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments very nice. If this is to become a precedent, let's get it perfect.
Consider making the list sortable (it'll probably work out of the box)
Not convinced over the use of US English but won't oppose on it.
Otherwise, it's a nice piece of work. I guess I'll hold off support until other people have commented because I may have missed some obvious bits and pieces. And, as we've discussed, get this one right and another 44 FLs will follow! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the medal count lists are too short (ie. Some of the early Summer ones and a large portion of the winter ones) to ever reach FL status, but it could happen. -- Scorpion042219:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I'm thinking that to make it a true FL, it really needs some meat.
It would probably make sense to have at least one section of text that puts into perspective the medals won at these games. In other words, explain the reaction to the US winning double the medals as anyone else, or perhaps find somewhere where medals were disputed. I just think in general the topic has to be looked into so that a good chunk of text can be written.
Also, maybe think about what to do with the whole "this table is ranked this way because..." section. It should probably be repeated somehow on all the pages eventually, so there must be an easier and more appealing way to show it than to repeat it on every page.
I agree with Jared's comments about the need for more prose text in the introduction.
I don't think "lavender blue" and "boldface" need wikilinks here. They are not in the context of this topic. Also, the table legend ought to be put next to the table, not left in the page introduction section.
You'll see that I added the "Events contested" section. This is something I've had in mind for a long time, and now seems the perfect time to deal with it. I've always thought that these medal count lists require proper explanation of the gold/silver/bronze totals, especially since they almost never add up the same. Feel free to improve the section I added, but I think the principle is necessary.
I still maintain it's necessary to show something that better illustrates how to add up the medal totals. These Games are "easy" to explain because the only discrepancy is a single event, but other Games are far more complex, and I would like to see a standard way of showing how the totals add up. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is relevant when understanding the Games, but I am not sure this article is the right place for this info. If there is a way to make the connection to the medal count (i.e. the main list), I think it should be added. – Ilse@01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All-time Olympic Games medal count is linked from the navbox, so is it necessary to repeat it in the "See also" section? Similarly, I think Summer Olympic Games ought to be linked from the prose text in the introduction somehow, instead of being in the "See also".
I am uncertain about the need of an external link to a Canadian broadcaster website for this list, especially since it does not support the entire list (e.g. medal count only lists 11 nations). Also, the IOC website is kept up to date, whereas many of these kinds of external links are not. I have run into discrepancies (for other years) between the IOC published totals and alternate websites (from Russia, Germany, etc.), as can happen when medal totals change. This actually happens more than you think, such as the retrospective upgrade of curling at the 1924 Winter Olympics to official status only a couple of years ago, and the changes due to drug violations etc. (e.g. Marion Jones for 2000). In any case, I just don't think the quality of that external link justifies its inclusion here.
The significant reference notably missing from this article is for the official report itself. I've just added it to the "general" section, but I'd like it to be moved to a proper inline reference when you update the introductory prose.
I have fixed most of your concerns. About the "general references" section, I added it, and I prefer to use one general ref for a table (because techinally each row should have its own cite) and also it makes it easier for users to find the ref we used for the table. -- Scorpion042222:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following referenced phrase "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee,[3]" already refers to the information on which the table is based, so I believe the "general references" can be removed. – Ilse@01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can add a section which country/countries won their first medal at that Games? And which country/countries won their first gold medal at that Games? Doma-w (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of what I was thinking could be included in the prose-section. Just stuff about the medals and the countries that won them. Jared(t)22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly not an elaborate section, but a brief mention would be nice to put into context the results of the games, which is ultimately what this is supposed to show. Jared(t)02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I'm not sure I can help much with the Olympic-related stuff as while I enjoy the games it's not something I'm knowledgeable about. I'll try to help with the Wikipedia and language-related stuff instead.
Why "De Coubertin's Paris" and not just "Paris"?
Go for "Paris, France" and "Los Angeles, United States" rather than just the cities
Are "celebrated" and "celebration" correct terminology in "were celebrated in" and "the previous celebration's financial loss"? "Hosted" and "events" seems more natural.
The Highlights bulletpoint section seems to be verging on the side of WP:TRIVIA, especially with the inclusion of things like the Tarzan guy. I'd also prefer to see it as prose. They should all be referenced, too.
The "Medals awarded" could do with being elaborated, and personally, I don't like to see "See..." as in "See the medal winners, ordered by sport".
Is "debuted" a real word in British English? Firefox spell check doesn't recognise it in British or Aus English, but does in American and Candadian
Oops, you're right. I clicked on the wrong link above. I've removed the linking so no-one else makes the same mistake and I'll get onto looking at the right page right now! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 20:33, 25 March, 2008
Sorry, but I think this is a really bad idea. The art competitions have not been official Olympic "events" for 60 years, and they do not appear in the IOC medal database, anybody's medal tables, and so on. Therefore, I would say that it is "undue weight" to include them on these medal count pages. I certainly believe that they should be properly documented, so I created Art competitions at the 1928 Summer Olympics today (including the medal table) to accomplish that. I think these competitions should be similarly to the other non-medal events at each Games, such as demonstration events, for which we have pages such as Lacrosse at the 1928 Summer Olympics, linked from the main Games page and linked from the events navbox. But I strongly believe that these totals are out of place on this article. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Andrwsc here, somewhat. I think it wouldn't be a problem to have some sort of prose describing why it is that there were art competitions and also why they aren't included, but no table should show it. The separate page works well at doing this, so a link to that would suffice. Jared(t)21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem in including them. Since the art competition have not been official Olympic event for 60 years, in the medal counts of the last 60 years no art medals will appear. In the earlier years there were an Olympic art competitions, so for this 1928 list the art medals should be included. And these medals are in a seperate table, so they are not confused or mixed with the sports medals. – Ilse@13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good, but I think Switzerland had to be ninth and Denmark tenth.
Don't we want to write the rank only once when countries tied, like it is written on all other medal tables e.g. Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics?
For a sports tournament such as the 1928 Summer Olympics the authority of the organization is decisive in recognizing medals, and therefore I believe that the medal count can be based on these sources. – Ilse@22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I oppose. I can't believe that there are no secondary sources laying around that can be used to verify. There has to be plenty of books on the Olympics, or even maybe a sports almanac and/or old newspaper articles? The above links are not guidelines, but policies, and it doesn't matter how good or complete it is, if it cannot be independently verified. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when aren't we allowed to use primary sources as our main source? Under your logic, dozens and dozens of FLs would have to be delisted. -- Scorpion042219:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my interpretation of WP:PSTS is wrong, then. To me it says care should be taken when using primary sources and the information garnered from those should be verifiable by secondary sources, which Wikipedia articles "should rely on". -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. Someone over there told me that secondary sources are inherited from the parent article (!) Sounds ridiculous to me if that's true.. Anyway, it's still not enough for me so I'll change to neutral. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretfully. I have followed these 45 pages for a couple of years, so I was intrigued at the possibility of promoting them to feature lists. However, in good faith I cannot support the nomination of this list in its current form. I think it fails criteria 1d of WP:Featured list criteria, as the inclusion of the art competitions is controversial disputed. Art competitions are given undue weight in this article, as they comprised only one of fifteen competitions at the Games yet the sub-total for them is given the same weight as the combined total for the other fourteen. Equally important, there is no contemporary source that can be used as a secondary source that includes these totals. I strongly feel that nothing more than a "see also" reference is appropriate. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the personal opinion of Andrwsc is the same thing as a controversy. During the 1928 Summer Olympics the art competition was an official event, thus intended by the founding father of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin. Let me quote the article Art competitions at the Summer Olympics:
Art competitions formed part of the modern Olympic Games during its early years, from 1912 to 1948. The competitions were part of the original intention of the Olympic Movement's founder, Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin. Medals were awarded for works of art inspired by sport, divided into five categories: architecture, literature, music, painting, and sculpture.
The 1928 Summer Olympics medal count should include all medals awarded during the 1928 Summer Olympics. The quotation leaves beyond any doubt that this includes the medals for the events in the arts competition, because the art competitions were part of the Olympics from 1912 until 1948. Andrwsc would be right if the article was named 1928 Summer Olympics sports competition medal count instead. Thus, the argument that the nominated article fails criterion #1(d) does not hold. – Ilse@18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about disputed instead of controversial. It's not just my own opinion; it's the opinion of other members of WP:WikiProject Olympics who have contributed to this discussion, and it's the consensus for these lists for the past few years. Never in the history of these lists have art competitions been added until now. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the art competitions were officially part of the Olympics, but not included in the article, it would then fail on criteria 1b and 1c. Wikipedia should present true facts, not people's idea of facts, especially when those facts can be verified. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing the "officialness" (at the time) of the art competitions; in fact, I spent considerable time last week creating seven new articles in Category:Art competitions at the Olympic Games as I felt those events were under-documented on Wikipedia. What I'm objecting to is the "elevation" of those events so that the medal totals are presented in the same context as the totals officially endorsed by the IOC. Even putting a disclaimer on this page is insufficient, in my mind; if a screenful of table data exists in this article, it is undue weight. With respect to your request for secondary sources higher up in this discussion thread; none of those such sources (like the partial lists found here, here, and here) include the art competition events. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these sources do not mention the art competition it does not mean that a featured list on Wikipedia should be incomplete. – Ilse@09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we need a section which explains the specialities of this medal count. In my opinion stats are really more interesting when they are described. Maybe:
The host Nederlands finished "only" eighth - the weakest finish of a host at that time (Belgium finished fifth 1920)
Let me clarify the scope of the article 1928 Summer Olympics medal count. Information about the number of medals or the ranking of countries should be in this article. Nevertheless, there should be made a clear difference between 1928 Summer Olympics medal count and an atricle about Medals at the 1928 Summer Olympics. Details about individual medals and about the events contested should be in the article 1928 Summer Olympics or in ... at the 1928 Summer Olympics instead. This being said, I think your first three bullets should be dealt with, the last three fall outside the scope of this article. Information about which countries are new on the list (medal count) is fairly easy to add. But it is not always possible to give reasons why a certain country is ranked on a certain position, other than: they won X medals. Do you know why "The host Nederlands finished "only" eighth"? I will add information about 'new countries' soon, but feel free to be first. – Ilse@09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I haven't read much of the above, but just looking at the list another time, I feel as though its quality has just gotten worse. There are hardly any citations, there is a separate medal table (which, as mentioned above, should not be there, in my opinion), and the information written out in prose is generic information not particularly about these games. Sometimes information in pages has to overlap, and I think that it is crucial for a medal count to explain the medals won at these games. I'm not seeing any explanations here. I am still not going to oppose this nomination, but as much as I would want WP:OLYMPICS to have another FL, I don't feel as though this is quality work, and accurately represents the depth that this page should theoretically have. I am certain there is information out there. Perhaps starting with a more recent medal page would make for an easier time getting the page to FL status. It would then serve as a good model. Jared(t)20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
An extensive list of sales, EVERY claim is sourced. There are no tags requiring citations although there is one dubious tag. Despite this one dubious tag there doesnt seem to bee too much controversy surrounding it as it hasnt sparked too much debate on the talk page. The article is stable as a result of the semi protection i requested. Realist2 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a good start, but there's a couple somewhat major issues I see:
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Even though it's mentioned in the lead that the numbers are in the millions, that should still be mentioned in the Sales column, perhaps in the header with something like "Sales (mil.)" or something like that. (DONE)
Multiple artists are typically written with a "/" in between, except Elton John and Hans Zimmer. (DONE)
I don't think the long section headers are necessary. I'm sure there some way to reword them so they aren't so long. (DONE)
The sound of music entry says "Julie Andrews ao". (DONE)
I'm also not sure why its necessary to flag double albums. It's double the music, but it's still sold as one package. (DONE)
The order of the last three sections should go See also, References, External links. (DONE)
I'd also recommend centering the Year columns. (DONE)
The lead doesn't summarize the article (as per WP:Lead). Instead, it goes right into talking about how unreliable and incomplete the list is. Mentioning why the list might not be complete/official is fine, but I don't think you should do so right off the bat. Introduce the list, summarize the main points, then talk about how it might be incomplete/inaccurate. (DONE)
All 82 of the citations have numerous formatting/MOS problems. Mainly they don't give proper attribution, only the title of the page. I would recommend using WP:Citation templates, since they do all the work for you. Also, I would recommend putting all of the citations into their own column at the far right.
The column widths should ideally be kept consistent throughout the article. (DONE)
Many of the tables are inconsistent with each other. 40-50 and 15-20 say "Year of release" while the others say "Released". (DONE)
Good work so far. I've hidden the comments you've addressed, but some of the ones you've labeled as done still need some work. The lead still doesn't sumamarize the list. It's longer, but it doesn't say which album is the best-selling, how many albums there are total, etc. As for the citations, I'd usually offer to do them myself, but 82 references is alot. Again, I'd recommend using WP:Citation templates, since it's just a mtter of plugging in the information: the template does all the formatting for you. Also, the column widths still appear inconcistent to me. Also, the Year columns are still inconsistent. Some say "Release" some say "Released". Drewcifer (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Col widths still not consistent on my browser (Safari).
Ref 8 is "dubious" - must be fixed for FL.
Remove spaces between citations and text per WP:CITE, or even consider a references column.
Every claim is cited, so what about "Additionally fans, record companies and the media are prone to exaggerating sales figures to boost the image of the relevant act."? sounds like WP:OR to me...
Talk about Thriller in the lead as it's miles ahead of anyone else. Plus presumably its recent re-release will have boosted sales further?
Is there a GOOD list candidates page , maybe i applied at the wrong place, i only wanted to get it up to the equivalent of GA. I was redirected to you guys by a fellow wiki.... lol....Realist2 (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove this article if you dont think it comes close to reaching FA, I cant resolve the issue of formatting citations.Realist2 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here, see this diff which shows me converting one of the references into a Cite web. Once you get the hang of it, it's really straight forward. You need to fill in, as a minimum, the url, title and accessdate parameters (although there are many other parameters you can use as well). Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the sources are inadequate.
Drop "based solely on claims made by reliable sources such as newspapers, record companies and documented sales certifications". It is up to you as editor to use reliable sources. The reader should take that for granted.
"Groupings are based on different sales benchmarks." Not sure what you mean by "benchmarks" but the section grouping is so obvious (if arbitrary) that you don't need to mention it.
You need to state your inclusion criteria. For example, "every album with more than 15 million sales worldwide". You don't need to say "irrelevant of language, age or genre".
"Claims of " Drop the "claims" from the section headings. If you don't think the claims are reliable, don't include them. If there are albums in the list with unreliable claims or unreliable sources, move them to the talk page so that you and other editors can collaborate on finding reliable sources for them.
A featured list is expected to be comprehensive. Therefore if some of your entries are removed from the list due to inadequate sourcing, you need to fix that. Similarly, if someone is able to find an album you have not included, then its comprehensiveness is in doubt. Clearly, if you can find one or two good sources that list all these bestsellers then that would help.
Don't know why Michael Jackson needs five citations. Just pick one good one.
Quite a number of your references are personal home pages, amateur fan sites, amateur music sites, forums and blogs. (e.g., this is a forum and totally unreliable.) For such best selling albums, you should be able to find the info on quality news sites (in the UK, the bbc news site and the guardian newspaper are good for searching), official band sites and quality music sites. Have a look on the Wikipedia article for each album/band and see if you can find a better source from one on that page. Colin°Talk11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol the michael Jackson one has so many sources because the 104 figure keeps getting deleted by haters of michael jackson. Realist2 (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentsSupport Thanks. PPR links to a dab page. I'd write TWA in full. Ray Ban should be hyphenated. The only thing I would suggest is making it clear that people made their money through investments, because when I first went through it I thought it was a company! There was one (Schaeffler Group) that linked to the founder, which I don't mind too much, but presumably if it made them billions then the actual group would warrant an article of its own. Anyway, great effort.PeterSymonds | talk22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 2008 list, there is no need for a General reference in this list either
More secondary and tertiary sources should be included. The Forbes one is good for the list itself, but try to find others for the source of wealth especially, as the Forbes page doesn't give that and is currently OR.
Is it OR when a reputable magazine like Forbes did the research? Also, the article is written to reflect the list from Forbes; it's not a statement of the actual richest persons in the world, because I'm sure the 'real' list would be different. It all depends on the metrics you use to measure this - in the case of these articles, they are explicitly based on the lists that Forbes releases. Gary King (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the Forbes article doesn't give the source of wealth (unless I missed it). Including this without sources is OR. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@ 23:34, 25 March, 2008
Oppose per WP:NOT. We don't act as a statistical repository for old data. See List of countries by Human Development Index and Global Peace Index for examples. Apart from a few sporting lists, Wikipedia presents current data. If a featured list contains data that is updated periodically, we expect editors to keep it refreshed in a timely manner or else it is defeatured. Similar lists have been deleted. See also 2008 below. Colin°Talk13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful dump of random statistics. It isn't a FLC is it? Not what WP is for at all. Of course, the actual presidential election polling results could be a FL and would be for an instance in time. Wikipedia's purpose isn't to provide raw data for trend analysis of billionaires over time. The reader is generally interested in the current list, whether updated daily, quarterly or yearly is somewhat irrelevant. The reason these 2005/2006/2007/2008 lists exist is because Forbes update their list annually. They've been doing this for over 20 years -- surely you don't intent to bore us with 20 years of billionaires? As I said, there is a precedent for such out-of-date lists to be AfDed (can't find an example just now) and I'd certainly suggest you focus on creating a great current list and move onto another topic. Colin°Talk17:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Links are provided to seasonal pages for expanded information, and individual episode pages where necessary. Information that needs to be cited is. The lead paragraph may need some work which can be adressed her if needed. Despite season five still airing having future episodes symbolizes the incompleteness of the show rather than the list itself and episodes are only added once they appear on the shows official site, one week before broadcast. The list is also simular to List of Smallville episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes Russell[ Talk ]18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! That intro looks word-for-word very much like the one I wrote for the DVD releases page of One Tree Hill. So I can't find fault with it at all! :P -- Matthew|talk|Contribs19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Season three's light blue colour is too white. You can hardly tell it's there
Comment First, I want to say that I am in favor of the Matthew's design; season and series #'s should be in diferent columns. If you want to leave it as is, then I'd like to see season # first with the series # in brackets(). The reason is that "The Same Deep Water as You", for example, is more popular as the first episode of season 4, then 68th overall episode. Also, I don't prefer coloring every other row in the tables, it looks like a list from a fan site, rather than an encyclopedia. I'd suggest to use shades closer to white if you want to keep coloring every other row. For example, for season one, it may be better if a light grey be used instead of orange. --Crzycheetah00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but that only explains why he did that. It doesn't change my view that coloring every other row with bright colors looks childish and unprofessional.--Crzycheetah06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that all LoE@Wiki should have similar design/format and be consistent with each other. After a quick glance, only Simpson's lists, Smallville's, and this one use this coloring. Lost's LoE uses gray and white which doesn't hurt my eyes as much as those bright colors used here.--Crzycheetah19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note about the colouring used on the Simpsons list, the colours are based on the colour of the DVD set for that season. -- Scorpion042203:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it does look like a page from Skittleopedia though. Perhaps it might work with simply the table headers coloured in, and remove the alternate shading for each episode. (And I mean One Tree Hill here, although I don't thnk it would be detremental to the functionality of the Simpsons one either.) -- Matthew|talk|Contribs05:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the colors were meant to represent the DVD colours. would you suggest alternitive grey like Lost, if so which gery would you suggest?Russell[ Talk ]22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the Cardiff comment in the Lead, but I'm not sure everyone else would, as it's not explicit that you've included them despite them not being "in England". --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I completely chanced upon this article when it was in its infancy and carried on editing away at it. I simply took over with the current trophies as listed. I will do my best to find some sources.
Obviously of those trophies open to essentially every club in the country, it doesn't include Charity Shield, European Super Cup and any World Club Cup / World Club Championship. And also the defunct Simod Cup. Any suggestions would be most welcome. Peanut4 (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd agree with your choices, but I'm sure someone else might not, so there is a problem. Ideally, you want a reliable football source that defines the term "major trophy". I'll have a look if I have a mo'. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this source. What do you think? It backs up the selection, which is probably one reason why I like it (!) though the selection was already there when I took over anyway and I agree with them. Peanut4 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"when it founded the League Cup invitiation to which is restricted to the 92 members of the league." reads abit uneasily I would reword it slightly. Also invitation is spelt incorrectly
I'm not a football buff, but isn't there a Milk Cup? And what's that one match that happens before the season starts, between the winner of one cup and the winner of the other? (Or something like that)
Are you sure? Otherwise the reader is wondering what all those initials mean, and then figure out that the key is at the bottom, read through it, scroll back to the top of the list, try to remember the key, then read the list again. And I know it's not football, but the hockey lists that have been featured have the key first IIRC. -- Matthew|talk|Contribs06:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply followed previous football lists which have the key at the bottom. I can change it if there is a huge demand for it. Peanut4 (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template table for the bottom of the page?
Comments I participated at the peer review. One or two more bits.
Lead. Not sure "League football followed the subsequent decade" works, maybe in the subsequent decade.
"It remained the highest division..." what did?
Key. With all the abbreviations in the headings, it might be better to have the key at the top as well. I've taken the liberty of adding one in, please have a look and see if you think it works, and please revert or change the format if you don't like it.
Further comment Please would you explain why you've removed the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup from the table. Perhaps this has been discussed somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
It's not entirely accurate to say it's not "recognised" by UEFA. It never was a UEFA competition; they took over the running of it in 1971, so it's not surprising that they don't consider it as part of clubs' European record, which they presumably define as "record in our competitions". In your reference #14, they do list the results of all the ICFC finals, so they recognise that when people look up all-time UEFA Cup finals, they'll expect to find the Fairs Cup ones as well. Their UEFA Cup history page devotes the first three paragraphs (of seven) to it, and says In 1968 Leeds United AFC became the first northern European club to win the trophy, heralding a run of six successive wins by English clubs. The fifth of these was in 1971/72, won by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup. The change of name was recognition of the fact the competition was now run by UEFA. I don't see any evidence there of the ICFC being any less "major" a trophy than its successor. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove the Fairs Cup after asking TRM and Dweller, prompted by the UEFA Cup page. However, I think your query backs up my worries that the title, particularly the word major, is misleading. My only concern is once you take out major, you're left having to add every trophy, including Football League Group Cup, Texaco Cup, Anglo-Italian, etc. I think this list needs a bit more work / thinking about to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not wishing to be too controversial but there appears to be a miniature witch-hunt going on for vaguely ambiguous list titles (see the List of Arsenal F.C. players delist debate going on) - while there may be a generally agreed WP:FOOTBALL version of "major honours", it won't stop a non-WP:FOOTBALLer popping up to tell you it doesn't cut the mustard (although probably not in such an Imperialist tone!). I'd think long and hard over the title of this if you wish it to succeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done. I placed it after the text, but I'm not sure about it now. What do you think? Isn't there some special code that will force the "Officers" section to be placed correctly below the image, rather than having half the line chopped off?
Doing... -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done I can't seem to make the sorting work when written out as full dates, and the MOS says it's okay for use in tables, so I'm going to leave it for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
