Knowledge (XXG)

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

The list was promoted 23:58, 29 December 2007.

Support as nominator. After the last submission failed, I have taken into account everything said, and improved the article, I now feel the article is at FL standard NapHit (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello NapHit, good work, but a few comments before I can support.

• Use WP:HEAD for headings, i.e. no overcapitalisation.
• "...to the present day" in lead and "as of October 3" in stats table.
• Not vital but Tom Watson (footballer) should be used, not the redirect Tom Watson (football).
• Remove spaces between citations and punctuation (e.g. )
• "They were replaced..." implies they were sacked but then "The next manager, Don Welsh became the first Liverpool manager to be sacked..." contradicts it. Just needs ironing out.
• "...club to a double of the..." - not just a double, The Double - consider capitalisation and maybe further explanation, like "...club to the League and FA Cup double..."?
• "They won a treble..." expand what sort of treble, not a treble vodka for example!
• Consider making "Caretaker" a note - this will drastically reduce the width of that column and improve the layout.
• What happened between January 1951 and late March 1951?
• Remove hyphens for seasons without honours.
• "2 FA Cups" vs "FA Cup winner" - consistency needed, although I see what you're doing. If no-one else complains, no worries.
• Template doesn't match table e.g. Ashworth - table says 1919 to 1922, template says 1920 to 1923... there may be others, worth double checking.

Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

All comments taken care of, more welcome please NapHit (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite, what about what happened between Jan 51 and March 51...? Also, what now happened between December 1922 and February 1923? Gaps are big enough to warrant explanation, even if it's a referenced caretaker manager situation. It may be worth making a note somewhere that the dates for most changeovers don't match and if games were played it was under some kind of interim management. Good work on the other comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have done the best I can but the fact of the matter is I don't know what happened, so I hope what I have done is satisfactory. NapHit (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

According to LFChistory (Ashworth), Ashworth left Shortly after overseeing home-and-away victories over his former club Oldham Athletic on Christmas Day & Boxing Day, LFChistory (McQueen) says he left Anfield for Oldham Athletic early in 1923, and according to Liverpool F.C., in February 1923 Ashworth left the table-topping side to return to Oldham. I'd guess lfchistory's 21.12.22 date was a typo, because it doesn't match any of those articles, so there probably isn't actually a gap at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Struway I'll change it now NapHit (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments;

• I'm not a big fan of the history section. It's full of very short sentences which don't feel like they run into each other very well, not allowing the prose to flow.
• There's no reference to Liverpool's fabled bootroom.
• Possibly not essential, but there's no entry for Charity Shields in the table although they are mentioned elsewhere.
• Why change between Division One champions and Division One championships in the table? I realise the former is for those who have just one win, but why not say 1 Division One championship?

Apart from those few points I can't see anything else except for what has been mentioned above particularly regarding the gaps. From personal experience I know how hard these can be to fill. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've improved the history section any more comments are welcome NapHit (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's lots better. Nice work. Just the addition of charity shields to the honours to do in my opinion. Although is there any explanation for the gap in manager from 1915 to December 1919? Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason for that gap is because of the First World War, I will add the Charity Shields now NapHit (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I guessed so but id Liverpool not have a manager for wartime football? Plus league football resumed in September 1919. Peanut4 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Liverpool website it states there was no manager during the wartime period, so I can't addd anything there, nor does it mention a caretaker manager, so i will to leave it as it is NapHit (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Looks very good. Improvements made above look nice. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Some points at first glance;

• a reference was needed for the famous bootroom (I added the one from the main Liverpool article, and also wikilinked to the article on The Boot Room) - although I still think the most important thing about the Boot Room is that it was where they stored the gin!
• As we've recently been discussing with regards to the main article, I think it's essential that some mention is made of Phil Thompson's stint in charge while Houllier was recovering from heart surgery.

 Done NapHit (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, I would be of the opinion that the history section needs to mention Houllier's heart surgery.

 Done NapHit (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can understand why you'd say Houllier was sacked - however, this requires a source, as the current reference you give doesn't use the term sacked - and the reference used for the main article says they "parted by mutual consent" (although one could ask whether this is just another name for the same thing)

 DoneNapHit (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• You say that both Fagan and Dalglish's reigns were "tinged with sadness" as a result of Heysel and Hillsborough respectively - I think this could be better written.

 Done NapHit (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to mention that Benitez has won the Community Shield and Super Cup - those competitions are not mentioned for the other managers, so I'd say this is recentist.

 Done NapHit (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• In general, you don't get much of a sense for the managers, their personalities, approaches to management, etc. from the history section, and as a result, it does seem a little dry - "x won this competition" and "y won this competition" is all very well, but people like Shankly were the greatest personalities in football, and I can't help but feel that any article which reduces them to the trophies that were won is missing a great deal - just my personal view.

 Done NapHit (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Robotforaday (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I've given the Managerial history section a bit of a rewrite, to sort out some of the phrasing as I didn't think it was good enough quality of writing to meet the featured content criteria. Other than that, though, I couldn't see anything wrong with the article that hasn't already been mentioned. Good work guys. – PeeJay 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Were Roy Evans and Gérard Houllier joint managers in 1998? If so, there should be a note just like for Barclay and McKenna. If not, then the reason why they were together should be mentioned.--Crzycheetah 09:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done NapHit (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to support as soon as the notes are separated from the citations. Here's an example.--Crzycheetah 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, is that actually a guideline or just a personal preference? It can be hard to keep track of these things on wikipedia. Personally, I think a footnote is a footnote is a footnote, and unless you're using Harvard referencing or something similar (which wikipedia articles don't normally use), citations and other notes are usually kept together... Robotforaday (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just a trend. I've seen it in more and more articles/lists that pop up nowadays. It also makes sense to know whether a statement is cited or just explained more thoroughly before actually clicking on the footnote. Do I prefer it? Yes, I do. Is this just a personal preference? No, this is not.--Crzycheetah 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seperated the notes from the citations, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Thanks, well done!--Crzycheetah 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:58, 29 December 2007.

This list "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed," has a good lead, and a free and useful image. This list uses a very similar format to already approved US State featured bird lists and is a self nomination. Pmeleski (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose until WP:MOS issues raised in peer review (e.g. inappropriate punctuation in photo captions  Done, using numerals to start sentences  Done, not spelling out numbers less than ten  Done, etc.) are dealt with. Support MeegsC | Talk 14:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I went through the article today and addressed those three concerns. There may be others that have not yet been addressed, however. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, GaryColemanFan! That's addressed those three points. I think there are only a couple of further issues:

• Section header should be capitalized per WP:MOS (e.g. only the first word should be capitalised); this will mean updating the TOC as well  Done
• References should be in standard format (e.g. cite book, cite web, etc.)

Once those points are addressed, I'm happy to change my vote! MeegsC | Talk 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the section headers and table of contents. The list seems to be completely unreferenced, however. I know next to nothing about birds (I just picked this article at random and started addressing concerns), so I am unable to source the entire list. This (along with the previous four concerns) seems like something that should have been addressed after the Peer Review before this article was nominated for FL status. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries GCF, you fixed exactly what I was hoping would be fixed. As you say, these were all things that were mentioned on the peer review; I'm a bit surprised it came here without getting them sorted first! The overall referencing is another issue—and one we're currently working to sort out in WP:BIRD. MeegsC | Talk 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment for some reason there's no intro text for "ibises and spoonbills". THis is a flaw that has been carried down from List of North American birds. Circeus (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In the same vein, "Order" and "family" stops being bolded with Columbidae until Tyrannidae. Circeus (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I bolded those words in the sections where the bolding was missing. MeegsC | Talk 22:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• comment I just copied the text here from the birds of Kansas list. May want to bring along the image also. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive, nicely described, nicely illustrated. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not fond of having all the sentences in the first paragraph start with "This list..." Otherwise the list looks good, but the first thing one sees should be changed. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments, I'll update many of suggestions made above. Regarding references concerns, this list follows almost identical reference format to List of North American Birds and List of New Jersey Birds which are already featured lists. I'm unsure what those lists have for references which make them work vs. this list which has what those lists have, yet it doesn't work.......As an aside, I do need to do some work to further divide a few families which have been updated over the past year from Clements/ABA, when that is done, I'll try for another FL nom.......Keep any comments coming in the meantime! And thanks for the editing help and for all the information! Pmeleski (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the criteria and is easily understandable to me, a non-bird enthusiast. Nicely illustrated and fine format. Noobiemacnoss1 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Orlady.--Crzycheetah 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:56, 28 December 2007.

Support as nominator. This page follows the format of Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders that was passed yesterday six in favor and zero against.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support per above. michfan2123 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. This list is very nicely formatted, and the information is not readily available in any other place that I'm aware of, as most lists of college football records by team are limited to the actual leader. This list provide historical context and shows the development of the record over time. The sortable function is also helpful.Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good format, good lead, good prose. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:56, 28 December 2007.

Support as nominator. This follows the format of Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders which was passed on 2007-12-17 by six in favor and none against.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support per above. michfan2123 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. This list is very nicely formatted, and the information is not readily available in any other place that I'm aware of, as most lists of college football records by team are limited to the actual leader. This list provide historical context and shows the development of the record over time. The sortable function is also helpful. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good format, good lead, good prose. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak support. I question the relevance of the rivalry prose in the first paragraph in this article. Other than that, great list.↔NMajdan•talk 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:56, 28 December 2007.

This is a list of the volumes and chapters of the manga Yotsuba&!. It's modeled after equivalent FLs for manga such as List of Claymore chapters and List of Naruto chapters (Part I), and I believe it qualifies under the criteria for featured lists. The volume summaries are not of excessive length, other relevant information is covered, and it satisfies other criteria for writing about works of fiction. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose A few minor formatting issues, but mostly need better introduction of new plot points and characters:
  • Support all my concerns were addressed.

• The story date is a somewhat confusing issue. The series is not set in any one year. According to the cited interview with the author, each chapter should be considered as taking place in the year it was published. That said, about 3 months of story time have passed in the 4 years during which the seven volumes have been published. Thus, a chapter taking place a week after one seven chapters back, but published in the next year is "in" the next year as well. Any assistance in clarifying how this is worded in the the article appreciated.
• (I should thought of this before bring this to FLC, but until after Christmas, my ability to log on will be spotty because of holiday travel; I'll try to at least check here once at day.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this means that it's always set in the present day. For instance, if (hypothetically) the story date was July 20, but the chapter came out in 2004, and the story date for the next chapter was July 21, but the chapter came out in 2005, the presence of an Xbox 360 (which was released on May 12, 2005) would be justifiable. Sephiroth BCR 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• That would be correct. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I guess using the wording above about it being set in the present day with a similar exemplary explanation would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• It already does:

These dates provide a contextual basis for the series, as although the year the story is based in was believed to be 2003, coinciding with the date of the manga's serialization, Kiyohiko Azuma asserted that the manga takes place in the present day. This allows the appearance of products created after 2003, such as the Nintendo DS Mr. Ayase plays in chapter forty-two.

• Sephiroth BCR 06:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:56, 28 December 2007.

This is a list of episodes of the Gunslinger Girl anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1), List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes, and List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2). The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR 10:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support some slight inconsistencies: all dealt with
  • Will the sequel pick up the manga where this series stopped, go on a completely different, or something else? Is that even known?
  • The lead says "The episode titles of both the English and Japanese adaptations are given in Italian, with the corresponding kanji following the Italian title in the latter.", but the japanese titles listed are in the order "kanji Italian".
• Circeus (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed both. Sephiroth BCR 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support - A good intro as a whole, though I think much better references could be found for the DVD release info than Amazon. AnimeOnDVD is one good source for several regions; could also check the various company sites (some put the release dates, some don't). I also think the DVD releases should be covered in a separate section after the episode list rather than just one paragraph in the intro, with the various regional info and standard tables used for easier access and cleaner expansion later (particularly when season 2 comes out). Collectonian (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Per previous precedent with the anime episode lists, the full DVD listing is left off to the respective media page, or in this case, the primary article (Gunslinger Girl). I'm using Amazon here since the primary site does not provide dates, and it's no less reliable than AnimeOnDVD, making it a preference issue more than anything else. As for the second season, another article will probably be created for that. Sephiroth BCR 09:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, very well-written and formatted, has a good image. Good work!
  Gonzo fan2007 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:56, 28 December 2007.

This is the discography for Depeche Mode frontman David Gahan. I believe it to be complete. It includes all his albums, singles, appearances on compilations, etc. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Though I have refrained from commenting on it before, I've been iffy from the start with the inclusion of the explanation for the m-dahh inside the table: It's not tabular data as such, so IMHO it doesn't really belong. I don't reallyhave muchmoreto say. (For the record, I'm not supporting or opposing discogs anymore, just making comments or direct edits like the small fixes I just did to the article). Circeus (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support with two questions/concerns: a) {{reflist|2}} would make the References section a bit neater. b) The tables that are somewhat wide, like "Singles", "Miscellaneous", "Other appearances" - to make the page standard - would look better if you add "width='100%'" to it. Just a couple cosmetics :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(blushes) I'm not exactly sure what your asking me to do with the table sizes. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change for you :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with SatyrTN, I cannot support though until the cosmetics are finished. The info is good, but the list looks a little messy. If you can change the reflist and make the tables the same size I would be glad to support.
  Gonzo fan2007 19:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Crzycheetah 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Mainly because of the above-mentioned stylistic/cosmetic issues. Why is the font small? Why is one of the singles centered? Why is the em-dash note part of the table? Why are the cart position columns so wide? Why do all the cells have extra space to the right of the text? Why are FRA and U.S. blank in the Live albums section? etc. On a non-cosmetic level, Discogs is not considered a reliable source. Drewcifer (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tidied up the page and the font is no longer small. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking better, but there's still the issues of the wide chart columns, the em-dash note being in the table, and I also noticed that the countries are bolded in the Singles section, but not in the other sections. These are all fairly minor things, but the most important issue I still see is using discogs.com as a source. It is user-generated, and therefore not a reliable source. Drewcifer (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Since the cosmetics are fixed. The lead is good also. Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Alright, I just published this earlier today, and I believe it meets the Featured list criteria; it's useful (I'm making a series on North Carolina hurricanes, similarly to what I did for Florida), comprehensive to the best of my knowledge, everything is sourced, follows the MOS (I believe; if there are any MOS breaches I'll be glad to fix it), has good image usage, and the feedback I've heard seems positive. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support That was quick. Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I saw in another recent nomination that WP does not want/allow rolling references, as the references are at the end of this list. Please check this out. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, alright. I just wanted to experiment with that, but I'm fine with a simple reflist. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Accessibility concerns were the primary reason why the template was deleted, and recreation of the method by CS are being taken down as they show up. Circeus (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a straightforward one. Circeus (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but I'd like to suggest one improvement. On a large display screen with the browser maximized, the two columnar tables under "Deadly storms" end up at the extreme left and right sides of the screen, separated by a huge blank area. The layout in "Monthly statistics" is much nicer. Can the layout of "Deadly storms" be changed to be like "Monthly statistics"? --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there could be a setup like this, with the two tables to the left, and a picture to take up the other empty space. Juliancolton (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, after a few hours of experimenting, I got it right. Now the deaths are in a nice graphical table. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The tables seem a comfusing. Juliancolton (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • What do you find confusing about it? The death table on the left lists storms by total deaths (and breaking it up into direct and indirect), while the table on the right is a graphical representation of the data on the left. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, when you read which color for the right table is direct and indirect deaths, you understand it. But, as you read it, (I did at least) you forget which color represents what. Juliancolton (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
          • It's clarified at the top of the section, so I don't think that's a problem for most people. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I didn't have a real problem, I just wanted to make sure it was clear for other people. Juliancolton (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
              • The revised table, by itself, seems sufficient to me. The graph does not improve my understanding of the information, and because the graph is so tall, it could be hard to interpret (as Juliancolton notes). --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
                • What do you suggest to do with the table? Would you rather there be no color changes, perhaps, to represent total deaths? --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yes. :P Juliancolton (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • I was asking Orlady, since it was their objection. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
                    • I didn't know. And if I remember right, I was the one who brought up the subject to start with. Juliancolton (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
                    • No, Orlady brought it up first, and I was asking for their opinion. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
                      • Oops, I did not notice this question. I like the table, and don't see a need for an associated graph. I don't think this article is enhanced by color-coded information on deaths. --Orlady (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
                      • Added: Why not make that table sortable, so interested readers can sort it by hurricane name and date? --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
                        • Urgh, the Wikitable is now acting screwy, after I added the sortable function. Do you, by chance, no how to fix it, with the sub-columns? If not, I'll have to take away the sortable feature. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
                          • Yikes, it is definitely acting screwy. I don't know how to fix that with the subcolumns, but I'm not one of the tech experts around here. Since the sort is a "might be nice" item, I think the best solution would be to eliminate it. The sort works OK for number of deaths, which is the default order, anyway. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
                            • Alright, I removed the sortable. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough. Consider that point taken care of.

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

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

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

• Comment: White-space issues...

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a list of episodes of the Tsukihime, Lunar Legend anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Fate/stay night episodes, List of Claymore episodes, and List of Kaze no Stigma episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but please double check your episode summaries. Also, linking Tsukihime in see also is unnecessary. Circeus (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I made a copy-edit. Being sleepy while writing the summaries doesn't help I guess. Anyhow, I think having a link to Tsukihime is appropriate, given that it points to the visual novel that the episodes are based on, and not the Tsukihime, Lunar Legend article itself, which is the actual anime. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Though having Tsukihime in the See Also at all really isn't necessary. But the list looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Per above, there's a distinction between Tsukihime (the visual novel the anime is based on), and Tsukihime, Lunar Legend (the actual article on the anime). Including the former is appropriate, while including the article for the anime would be redundant. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that, but you have Tsukihime already linked in the very first paragraph, so it's not needed in the See Also section. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cut. Sephiroth BCR 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support nicely sourced, good intro, and thorough but concise summaries. Collectonian (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:50, 23 December 2007.

I've been working on this list for awhile now, and believe that it is now comprehensive and well-references, and meets all the criteria, in addition to being comparable to Featured Lists about similar topics. Thanks to those members of WikiProject Wisconsin who looked this list over and caught a few problems I had missed, and to all those who comment here. —Salmar 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - "Other high offices held" looks like it was added on as an afterthought. There must be a better way of doing this, although I'm not sure what. Also, under "Living former governors," the statements about the oldest, the most recent death, and the most recently-serving governor to die seem like trivia. (Could dates of birth and death be added to the table?) -- Thinking out loud here, Orlady (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Both were actually added in imitation of other featured lists about Wisconsin governors, not as afterthoughts. As for your comments, the dates of birth are already in the "Living former governors" table, the dates of death can't be added because it is, after all, a list of living governors =P ... or did you mean the table of all the governors? I suppose I could, but it'd make the table kind of overly big, in my opinion. As for the "Other high offices held" table, is there anything, in specific, that you think could be better about it? —Salmar 00:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • edit Strike out extra (not to mention wrong!) word in that reply. —Salmar 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support. The red links and "Madison, Wisconsin" links in "references" should go. Circeus (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Removed —Salmar 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comments - as someone who brought four other governor lists to featured status (AL, AR, CA, and helped with KY), good job. A few comments:
  • Are the key boxes really necessary? The table says which party they were, it just seems to double up on things.
    • I added them to a number of article. Here they admittedly do not double with the table itself as much as with the summary in the upper-right corner. 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs)
    • Y After taking a closer look, I agree, and have removed them.
  • "Terms" is a new idea, and like all new things, I hate it immediately, then slowly grow to like it. Because of that, I have no opinion. :P However, now that I take a closer look at it, it's a very novel way of getting rid of the mostly-empty "Notes" column we've had in the other featured lists. Hm.
    • I was wary at putting it in, because it wasn't in any of the other lists, but the empty notes column was driving me crazy!
  • I dislike having Doyle's expiration day in the table, I much prefer it in the ref. Like the others. :>
    • Y moved to ref
  • I like you showing the offices that the governor resigned so that he could be governor; I dunno if we've had to deal with that before, since usually it's the other way around.
  • I like the other high offices held and former living governors, but I can also see why others would see that as trivia. I think I was inspired mainly by New York's governor list (which listed the many, MANY governors that have become presidents and what not), and the List of Presidents, which obsessively mentions the living ones, how many times we've had 5 living presidents, etc. etc. Personally, I find the list of living governors as useful as the list of living presidents - which is to say, useful.
    • I found it useful too, and also felt it was best to put it in since it was in all the similar featured lists
  • One thing keeping me from a full support: the acting question. In the intro, it states that the Lt. Gov becomes governor if the governor dies or resigns; however, the references all say that the Lt. Gov acted as governor. This is an important distinction that needs clarifying.
    • Y Sorry about that; the constitution distinguishes between "becoming governor" and "acting as governor", but several of the sources use the latter in all cases, and I'm afraid I used the same terminology without thinking about it. I've fixed it now.
  • So, fix that, and you get full support. :) I think I'll take some of these ideas and put them in the Cali, Ala, and Ark lists. --Golbez (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments! —Salmar 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• and thus, Support. --Golbez (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • for reasons explained on his talk page, I have asked Golbez if he could come back to here and make sure that he still supports —Salmar 14:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • yup! --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comments
  1. I'd like to know why there isn't a "left office" column in the Governors of Wisconsin Territory section.
     • Simply because, although I assume that they left office the same day their successor took office, there is absolutely no source I can find that actually says this.
       • On the other governor pages, it was very difficult sometimes to find out when a territorial governor left office; often, it was not when the next one took office, and there were significant gaps. However, in the absence of such information, we have to simply assume it was the date. I'll add a note on this.
  2. Since there are free images of Governors of Wisconsin Territory available, why is the table not formatted like in the California's page with the images?
     • Actually, that'd be a good way to make the table the same size as the governor's table. I think I'll try that; thanks!
       • I tried it, and then reverted myself; my opinion is that the overly tall cells (in contrast to the governor's table) and the large white space to the right make it look ... odd. You can see the with-images version here, if people disagree with me, I'll have no problem changing it back. —Salmar 14:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
         • I have readded the pictures because a)The "left offices" column was added and the table got an appropriate width and b)All images make tables taller, but at the same time make it more illustratable.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. These lists about State Governors are the only pages in Knowledge (XXG) that use letters for citations and numbers for notes. It needs to be reversed! I blame this on Golbez, of course.
     • Yeah, well, you can .. do .. something bad. :P And no, not quite the only pages, but if you want it repaired, go bug the devs to fill my two-year-old feature request for a second class of reference tags! --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
     • Because it's easiest to use <ref> tags for the notes (which always produce numbers) and {{ref}} templates for the references, which must, therefore, use letters. I could change it, but it'd be difficult, I think. —Salmar 14:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
       • I can as easily say the opposite that <ref> can easily be used for references and {{ref}} for notes.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
         • You could. However, it is my opinion that: 1) changing them now would be very difficult. That, of course, is not a good reason not to do it, and, if you truly believe that this is necessary, I will change them. However: 2) the other Featured Lists about governors do it the same way this list does, and a) there doesn't seem to be a problem there and b) it seems good to me that the lists have a similar format and 3) there's no guideline that says it has to be done one way or the other, so, quite simply, I don't see why it matters. —Salmar 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
           • I understand that it will be difficult to change, especially so many FLs use it. I just think that notes have to be differentiated from citations. When I am reading an article, I want to know what I am going to read (a note or a citation) before clicking on the footnote. That's why I started advocating these "numbers for citations and letters for notes" guideline, since I believe that most of the articles use this already.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• --Crzycheetah 09:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I supported this list since it was nominated. I just want to make this clear that it doesn't matter to me whether my last concern is met or not.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and sorry if I came off as a bit rude. I certainly understand your concern, and also wish that there was some easy way to differentiate between notes and citations that is consistent across articles. But unless something like the two-classes-of-references that Golbez mentioned is ever implemented, I'm afraid that I just don't know what can be done =\ Thank you to you and everyone else who has supported thus far! —Salmar 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Support: A few questions/comments before I support fully:
  • Could you widen the almost-full-width tables to 100%? Specifically "Governors of Wisconsin Territory" and "Other high offices held".
    • YDone for the two tables mentioned; the third one is so narrow that making it that wide makes it look silly
  • I disagree with the above statement about the key/legend. If you skip down to the table, or (like I did) forget that you saw the colors up there once you've read the lede, you don't know what the colors mean. And since there's a column that indicates party affiliation, you (I) assume(d) that the color couldn't mean party. Then, of course, I scrolled back up for some reason and felt stupid. So my suggestion is to either a) have a key at the bottom of both colored lists or b) move the "Number of ..." table/key/legend down closer to the other colored tables and remove the party affiliation column. Actually, since that column is duplicated information anyway...
    • YI've added the color keys to the main governors table (and that table only) because: 1) the territorial governor table is so small that it really is unnecessary, 2) it isn't completely useless since the lieutenant governors weren't always of the same party as the governor, and their party isn't explicitly mentioned and 3) it isn't completely without precedent; the List of Presidents of the United States does it too
  • I'd love for the table to be sortable, but there are too many split-rows for that to be practical, so I'm just registering my frustration at the universe here. :)
  • Maybe one more picture along the right side to fill in the white space?
    • YThere's no whitespace when I look at it, but, sure, why not? =) I've added a picture of the current governor, since he was rather obviously missing. The only problem is that the only available picture of him is considerably smaller than the others. If you don't like it (or it isn't big enough to fill the blank space) I can take it out and use a different one.
  • -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments! —Salmar 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks well done. Rmhermen (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:50, 23 December 2007.

This time, I'm nominating the Lou Marsh Trophy which is given to Canada's top athlete. I feel the page is well-formated and well-sourced. There isn't a history section because there really isn't anything out there, and there isn't an image of the actual trophy because I couldn't find a free one. -- Scorpion 19:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support I have a feeling that the Cindy Klassen example is not appropriate in "criticism", as the source clearly does not really disagree with the choice. The specific example being criticized in the first source would probably make a better example. Circeus (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean this one, which complains about Susan Nattrass beating out Wayne Gretzky? I guess there are other sources that would better illustrate the amateur over professional philosopy, like the several that complain about Catriona LeMay Doan beating Steve Nash. I just used Cindy Klassen as an example because I know many NHL, MLB and NBA fans were really pissed off at her winning (just take a look at thhe message boards on any TSN article about it for proof). Either way, I'll fix the section tomorrow. -- Scorpion 04:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe fans of traditional American sport were pissed off, but that's certainly not what the source says ("Despite , the winner of the Lou Marsh Award today for top Canadian athlete can be none other than Cindy Klassen. Not only did her five speed skating medals in Turin far exceed anything any Canadian Olympian has ever accomplished, each one made every one of us stand a little taller and feel a little prouder..."). Circeus (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• I Support, although I'd like to know why "Marathon of Hope" is italicized in the "Winners" section, but not in the "winners by sport' section. Just wondering.--Crzycheetah 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support: With full kudos! Extremely nice - pictures, sortable, complete - I love it! The only thing I could possibly gripe about is the extra white-space in the "Winners by Sport" section, but that only drops my rating down to an A- :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:50, 23 December 2007.

Meets the criteria and is up to par with other lists that follow the same topic (List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks, List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, etc.). Self-nom
Gonzo fan2007 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets WP:FLC, and it is structured identically to a number of other first-round draft pick FLs. Good work! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support, fairly straightforward. Wonder if we'll end up with a featured topic... (with List of National Football League first overall draft choices, I'd assume...) Circeus (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment why is there no link on the 1976 draft? Buc (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Because it's linked in the lead, I'd assume. I admit it's a bit unexpected. Circeus (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah that would be the reason, no biggie though if people want it linked also in the table. The reason I didnt link it in the table was because when I look at the article on my computer screen, I can see both instances where the '76 draft is mentioned, so I thought it would be repetitive to link both.
    Gonzo fan2007 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    Dunno, in this case, quite a few people will want to skip straight to the stats. Circeus (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    I linked it, like I said, no biggie :-)
    Gonzo fan2007 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good. Would love to see some more pictures - some of the players, maybe? But looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:50, 23 December 2007.

I am nominating this for Featured List status because it is a very important topic. This title is one of the most important in professional wrestling. The list is accurate, thorough and well-sourced. If there are any concerns, please note them here, and I will address them as soon as possible. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very good job, my only suggestions would be to remove All Japan Pro Wrestling from the "See also" section, since it is already linked in the intro and delink Jumbo Tsuruta and Stan Hansen in the table since they are already mentioned in the intro. Good job!
  Gonzo fan2007 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lacking any sort of images, and this is not a topic where no images can be reasonably found. Circeus (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have looked, but I can't find any free use images. Since having an image isn't necessary for promotion to Featured List status, I can't justify adding a fair use image. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why is the "notes" column written in small letters? --Crzycheetah 08:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been standard to have the "Notes" column under small text. See here for examples). Aside from that, support. List looks good. The Chronic 04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The notes are too small to read.--Crzycheetah 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, perhaps that is a fixable oppose? I decided to be bold, and it took me less than two minutes to change the font size. Nikki311 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I mostly want to know the reason why the notes are written in such small letters. It only makes readers to zoom in the page in order to read. (depending on the monitor, of course)--Crzycheetah 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the Notes should of remained small - they are like that on other similar FL's (List of WWE Champions; List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) etc.) Cheers, Davnel03 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support: But I would love it if the first four columns were sortable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The first four columns are now sortable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Cheers, Davnel03 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 20:29, 22 December 2007.

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

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

The list was promoted 19:42, 20 December 2007.

Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Detroit There are some minor differences that result from this list not being of a city in the United States, such as the use of metres over feet, but overall the list is very similar to the previously nominated American ones. I have been working with three other editors, Hydrogen Iodide, Leitmanp and OOODDD, to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is finally there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 07:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Woah, massive... Circeus (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I'd only suggest to separate the notes from the citations. Using letters for notes and numbers for citations seems the standard thing to do nowadays.--Crzycheetah 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've adjusted the header (grr I need to check better for that when reviewing...) to account for that, though the option remains open if Raime feel it appropriate. Circeus (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support. I think that changing notes from numbers to letters is a great idea; I have changed it for this list, and will now go back and change it for all of the other building lists. I have, however, separated the "Notes" from the "References and notes" section, simply to make the list look neater, somewhat along the lines of the List of Governors of Alabama FL. Let if me know if you disagree, as I will be fine with changing it back. Cheers, Rai-me 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 19:42, 20 December 2007.

Though the Nation of Ulysses had a fairly limited number of releases in its short history, I believe this list is still FL-quality due to its comprehensiveness and adherence to established discography style. This discography was modeled after similar featured lists for similarly obscure bands that I've worked on (The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography). Like those, it is important that I mention that unlike many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since the Nation of Ulysses were by and large an independent band that never come close to any album/singles charts. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• IIRC, Discogs is not considered to be a reliable source. Maybe you could consider linking to the Allmusicguide page for the band instead. Circeus (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Good call, didn't notice that. Drewcifer (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but is "posthumously" the right word? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  And a comment - I'm not fond of any of those "see also" links. Dischord and The Make-Up are linked in the article (though not to their respective discographies), and Weird War isn't even mentioned in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! And yeah, posthumously is the correct word. As for the see also section, generally speaking Nation of Ulysses, The Make-Up, and Weird War are typically mentioned in the same breath, as the bands shared members, ideals, aesthetics, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I defer to your knowledge about the groups, but on the discography I don't see a need to link to the others'. Just my opinion - and thanks for the new use of the word - I had no idea! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Any pictures? If there are no free alternatives, a fair-use image should be used at least.--Crzycheetah 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no free pictures of the band. That said, I think it's been established in the past that fair-use images aren't appropriate in discographies. Which is why every discography has a free image or none at all. I brought this exact question up at WP:FUC and got this response. Drewcifer (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Could you elaborate on the zines section? Does it mean this zine? It's a confusing section. Other than that section, the list looks fine.--Crzycheetah 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the discography can stay in the artist's page. It's not long enough to be separated. I believe I have to oppose.--Crzycheetah 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll see about clarifying the zine section - though to be honest I was thinking about just removing it altogether. As for your other concern, that it is not long enough, I realize it is straddling a fine line, but generally speaking, transcribing the content placed here onto the Nation of Ulysses page would unneccessarily bloat the NoU page. (ie. diff). Based on the diff, I think the content is clearly better placed here, though I suppose it could be a matter of opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That "diff" that you showed, looked neat, in my opinion. And, removing those zines is a good idea!--Crzycheetah 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess that backfired! =) I guess my point is that it's on such a fine line that it comes down to a matter of taste, and matters of taste don't really have a whole lot to do with the FL criteria. Drewcifer (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about a matter of taste, so I have changed my mind again (I've got to stop that). Anyway, you have my support.--Crzycheetah 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for your support, and thanks for being flexible. Drewcifer (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could you make all tables the same width. Also, since the two tables have all the same column headings, could you make each column in the tables the same width too, so that they look uniform? If you can do this then I would be glad to support.
Gonzo fan2007 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting suggestion. Although I don't believe this is common practice for discographies, it's not a bad idea. That said, there's a problem with making all the tables the same width: different monitors will display them different. For instace I'm assuming you have a fairly high-resolution monitor, so the tables don't fill the width of the screen, hence they're different sizes. My monitor however is fairly small, so they extend to both edges of the frame and are thus uniform. Therefore, making the tables a certain size will make it inevitably look weird on some people's monitors, either by being way too small, or way too big (wider than the screen can support). Does that make sense? I think that's what's going on here, but I could be wrong. That said, I did conform the a few column widths to make the tables more uniform between each other, but it's hard for me to tell since my monitor squeezes the tables. I think what we're really dealing with here is a compatibility issue, and leaving it as is makes it the most compatible. I think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I made my own changes to the tables, and then reverted myself. I just defined the limit on each column so that tables will always be the same. Tell me what you think and how it looks on your screen. If it looks good, then you can just undo my undo, and if it doesnt then tell me, and I wont hold it against the nomination :)
Gonzo fan2007 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks nearly identical to me, so I'm fine with it. I undid the undo, so it should be back to how you had it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Support haha I liked your edit summary, oh and to see what it does, if you take your browser window and make it smaller by grabbing the right side and moving it left (to simulate a smaller screen), the columns and tables wills always stay uniform. Idk, it looks good to me now so thanks! and great work!
Gonzo fan2007 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.

Completed list of twenty founders, but someone is trying to delete them in order to make a point and to disrupt the encyclopedia. I have been working on this list for over two months or so, and just completed writing the last founder. Miranda 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • The section about the song is way too early in the article and way too short to warrant its own section.
    • I moved the poem down and the idea of this article is to list names, not a lot of prose.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with moving the poem, I think it should be a more national poem (i.e And God Said..) because every chapter uses it and it's on quite a bit of ParaphernaliaKnicksfan4ever (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Same with the section about presidents - that would be served best with an actual list, I think, rather than an out-of-place template.
    • there's a similar list in the APA brothers, and adding all these names to the article will just make the article more lenthy.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like some of the blacklinks to be redlinks, especially in 'politics' - these folks are notable enough for articles, they simply haven't been written yet.
    • The redlinks were objected during the FA review for the APA brothers list, so I'm cocerned that if added, they will be objected here. The fact that there is no article doesn't mean the person is not notable or that they're not a member of AKA. Can you let this slide also since it seems POV.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I refuse to comment any further unless you can explain how my objection is "POV". --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • sorry for the confusion. Redlinks were objected when I used them on the APA brothers so I had to remove them. You're requesting redlinks in this article. I'm concerned that the contributor opposed to redlinks will object and not support. I thought both views/objections were POV because I wasn't aware of the presence or non-presence of redlinks was a wikipedia. I will defer to your knowledge of wikipedia and add the redlinks. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Finally, I'd like more information on "unknown" - why is this in quotes, is the reference saying that specifically?
    • It looks like the same style is used on the APA brothers page. That doesn't mean I like it, but I can let it slide.
  • Otherwise, it looks well on its way. Please don't let the AFD get to you - if it truly is a point nom, then the community will probably see that and deal accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Support: My concern was the second paragraph of the intro, but I have rewritten.--Ccson (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - List is well done and all entries have references. Great job! -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support: In particular, excellent job on the footnotes.-RoBoTam 16:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support This list includes some very notable women who have made an impact on American Society, Culture and HistoryKnicksfan4ever (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - This is one of the best looking lists I have seen....--Cometstyles 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could you go over the citations, please? There seems to be a couple of errors. Plus, why are you sorting the references column? I don't think it's useful.--Crzycheetah 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A member recently added members without standardizing the template. We are doing that now. Miranda 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Refs column is default due to template. See List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. Miranda 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, do you mean to say that this list is not complete yet? Are you completing this list now? Sounds like this nomination is premature. As for the refs column, I still think that you should "unsort" it and preferably in the "brothers" list as well. I mean no one is going to sort that column, right? --Crzycheetah 06:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the list is completed with notable members (that I know of), but a member of the sorority is adding other members, which is good. New members get initiated all of the time. But the main parts are completed. I will work on the reference sorting, that should be minor. Sorry, but that's just part of the template syntax.Miranda 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support All right, the list looks great. I made the refs column unsortable.--Crzycheetah 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the list looks great the way it is, however, I think the article does not have to look identical to the List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. It should have it's on twist, identity, etc., let me think of some ideas. IMHO, this list can stand alone and is worthy of being featured in it's own right. Unlike Zeta Phi Beta Sigma, the two organizations beyond early influence are not directly connected, except by obvious strong support and mutual respect for one anotherKnicksfan4ever (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the point. this has nothing to do with Alphas and AKAs, Omega and Delta, Sigma and Zetas being siblings, or that Kappa has no sisters because they love all. Both Alpha and AKA articles are "coincidentally" using the same wikipedia template (Template:FratMember) and that caused a sorting issue, in fact, the List of Alpha brothers probably had the same problem, but now that Crzycheetah has fixed the template that both employ, both Alpha and AKA no longer sort the list based on the reference field. Any other group using the template to create a list will sort the same whether they love, dispise or respect other greek groups. Thanks for your support above.--Ccson (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it now, didn't realize there was a template, so it's all good. I hope it gets featuredKnicksfan4ever 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.

This list "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed," has a good lead, and a free and useful image.(No longer used) This list was created using the basis from prior lists from Category:Lists of first-round draft picks by NFL team. This list is the longest of any list created like itself, properly sourced, and very thorough. Thus I think it deserves FL status. I can and will address any concerns or comments. Thank you for your time. Please note this is a self-nom
Gonzo fan2007 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the other similar lists do this, but perhaps you could use colour coding to note which players still play for the Packers? -- Scorpion 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't but do you mean currently active players that are still on the team? If so then there are only 5 players on the list who qualify, so it would be pretty easy to implement with a color box like the ones used to show HoFs and overall #1 picks.
Gonzo fan2007 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See the articles history, I implemented what you suggested and reverted my changes. Tell me what you think (Oh and the color can be about anything if this one doesnt suit).
Gonzo fan2007 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks good. I have no further quolms. -- Scorpion 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support This nomination caught my eye when I promoted it to the main page in the DYK section. My only comment is to consider adding another color (especially a different shade of yellow like a lighter yellow) for players in the Packers Hall of Fame. Royalbroil 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done although I chose blue cause yellow just looked weird :-)

Gonzo fan2007 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. First off, great work! I too saw it on DYK. I'll likely support, but I have a question: What is n-c-systems.com, and what makes it a reliable source? --Fang Aili 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an overview of what N-C-systems does when it refers to drafts. They have worked on completing full draft histories for basketball, football, baseball, and hockey. It seems that they are a software company, and it seemed to be an experiment on completing the draft history of basketball, and the site was well-received, so they decided to expand it. When compared with the official draft history found at NFL.com, I have yet to find a mistake. The site is sourced on most if not all of the articles pertaining to the first-round picks for each team. Here is their home-page, which has a link for contacting them if you feel like confirming their respectability. So combined with the good-standing of the company, the use of the site as a source on other pages on Knowledge (XXG) (precedence), and the fact that I have yet to find a flaw in any of their info, I believe this is a very solid source to cite. Hope this answers your question, feel free to elaborate if you I haven't answered it.
Gonzo fan2007 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that satisfies WP:RS ("reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Thanks for the explanation. --Fang Aili 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Only possible improvement I can think of is adding a picture or two. --Fang Aili 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Ive been looking for one, but me being in Arizona, it is difficult to get a picture of anything in Wisconsin, I will try though, hopefully the Packers will come to AZ next year and I can grab some photos. Thanks for the comments!
Gonzo fan2007 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I got one of Nick Barnett. I'm not at home, so I can't do photo editing at this time. Give me 12 to 24 hours. If you ask a few flickr people, you are bound to quickly find a decent (but not professional) photo after trying a few people. Royalbroil 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AWESOME!! Thanks, I actually havent tried Flickr, but thanks for the work!! Thats a great addition!
Gonzo fan2007 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Barnett image has been added. Please resize/relabel as needed. The same source also relicensed an image of A. J. Hawk to a free image, so it might be added by the time your read this. Royalbroil 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets WP:FLC, and it is structured identically to a number of other FLs like List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks and List of New York Jets first-round draft picks. Good work! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.

I have been working on {{Michigan Wolverines Football}} with User:Cbl62. I decided to add a leaders section. This is the first of at least three lists I hope to nominate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you go from a Top 20 list to a Top 25 list to a Top 50 list? You should pick a standard and stick to it. -- Scorpion 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Top 20 works for career because one can only have one career. However, a person with a great career can have many great seasons. Thus, we can go down to 25 and still only have elite performances. Similarly there are more great games than seasons so we use 50. The list would lose a lot of its appeal by shortening it because many interesting characters would be eliminated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't randomly deciding who to include on a list and who not to POV? Like I said, you should pick a standard, like Top 20 and stick with that. -- Scorpion 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Look below at List of tallest buildings in Detroit. One section is the top 33, another the top 10 another top 1 and so on. We are trying to make the lists interesting and including interesting things. I could list the top 200 of each but it would not improve the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that list does have a standard. One list ranks the buildings that stand at least 300 feet, the other one lists the only really tall building under construction and the other just ranks the Top 10. Sounds like standards to me. Saying you are or aren't including something solely because it is or isn't interesting is POV. Maybe somebody else thinks that Top 100 lists are interesting. -- Scorpion 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you say one lists "really tall building under construction". I will have to go to the dictionary to figure out how many that is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with anything? -- Scorpion 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that my line? Seriously, since when is there a policy that multiple list articles have to have uniform list lengths?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Including various people because you think it makes a list more interesting is extreme POV, and featured articles should be even handed. -- Scorpion 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am including people who are on the list. I am not just adding touchdowns to guys because I like them. This is no different from a building list that lists X# completed, Y# Approved and Z# Under construction. I have X# for Career records, Y# for single-season and Z# for single-game (with a minor adjustment for ties). --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am using the same number for each career list and each single-season list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I have made each list a Top 25 list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: A couple formatting issues:
  1. Under each header, repeating the same information as a "lede" (of sorts) is not very helpful.
  2. The layout bothers me - having basically one long table half the width of the page all the way down. Is it possible to double up? Perhaps:

Without doing any formatting it could look roughly like this: Talk:Lists_of_Michigan_Wolverines_football_receiving_leaders#Proposed_reformating. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am doing further testing in the section below the one mentioned above. I will clean it up tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Can the tables be sortable?
  • 1. They surely can once I understand your instruction above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Northern Illinois has a redlink (single game receptions). Surely there isn't a college football team with a redlink?

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Oddly, I believe they do. They are part of a non-major conference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• COMMMENT come look at the new reformatting and please support!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• SUPPORT What is there now I would probably not support. I like the reformatted version though. michfan2123 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• SUPPORT This is really impressive work. I'm not aware of any other resource that has lists of this type for college football teams. Other team record listings I have seen are typically limited to the actual record holders, and having a list like this really helps to give the overall picture of historical performance. cbl62 (talk) 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. -- Comprehensive, well-sourced, well written. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
• Support — This is a useful, understandable, and well-cited collection of information that doesn't lend itself to article format and works well in a list. That being said, there are several things that should be fixed:

• A FA-class article shouldn't have red wikilinks; these should have stubs or have the wikilinks removed.
• There's a lot of grey in the tables; perhaps using a shaded maize and blue color scheme in the tables would help distinguish sections and make it look better stylistically.
• I've copyedited the article, but I'd recommend taking another look through it to ensure that I didn't change something that drastically alters the article or makes something incorrect.
• When a figure is used with a qualifier, such as 20 receptions, there should be a non-breaking space in between the numeral and the label in order to ensure that the numeral isn't separated from its label when the window is resized.

These things aren't dealbreakers, but they're things I had to address when I went through the FAC process with 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, and fixing them might help you get more support from sticklers for wikigrammar. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just wanted to point out that this isnt FAC, this is FLC, so some red-links are okay so long as most of the list is blue-linked and the people that are red-linked are not notable enough to stand alone away from the list.
Gonzo fan2007 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great work, very comprehensive and great encyclopedic content.
  Gonzo fan2007 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Explaining redlinks: Most top skill position players at Michigan become professional players. I am only able to research whether a player has played in the National Football League, American Football League or Arena Football League. I do not know how to determine if any redliinks have played in the Canadian Football League, United States Football League, NFL Europe, World Football League, XFL or some other professional league. Thus, the items are redlinked to represent the possibility that an article may be possible that would withstand an WP:AFD challenge based on professional play.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.

This is a list of episodes of the Hitohira anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Planetes episodes, List of Fate/stay night episodes, and List of Kaze no Stigma episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR 08:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Great job but just like the other one, try and get rid of some of the "the statements" which will make the intro flow better.
  Gonzo fan2007 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Less concerned about the refs situation than I am for the one below, but still seems a little sparse. I won't oppose, though. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• See the below nomination for my response. Sephiroth BCR 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support I left a few notes about characters introduced suddenly without explanation and mention of previous plot points that should be explicated, otherwise, it seems okay. Circeus (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My comments were addressed. Circeus (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 03:11, 14 December 2007.

Another football team seasons list following the format of such existing FLs as Gillingham F.C. seasons and Ipswich Town F.C. seasons, please let me know what you think!

Cheers, ChrisTheDude 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support based on the fact you'll sort out whether to use hyphens or en-dashes in the key...! The Rambling Man 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done - no idea what was up there, but sorted anyway.... ChrisTheDude 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support subject to considering the two points below. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note (currently) 17 says They continued to field a team in the Kent League, and the league placed a requirement on the club to field its strongest team. I'm assuming the league refers to Kent, but could you clarify.
  • Your lead says It details the club's achievements in all competitions, and the top scorers for each season. However after 1989 it doesn't detail the club's achievements in all competitions, because source material is lacking. Perhaps you could qualify the lead sentence somehow?
    •  Done both points addressed, hopefully satisfactorily ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • This reader's instant reaction was 'what's he mean, most minor comps'. Perhaps ref it to existing footnote 39. (I know, I'm being picky now, but it's uncomfortable having nothing to criticise ;-) cheers, [[User:Struway2|
        •  Done ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support although under the 77-78 season, I wouldnt put two question marks, just place the reference tag, the "??" doesn't look that good. Other than that, great job!
  Gonzo fan2007 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done changed it there and also the other two places it was used :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good :-)
Gonzo fan2007 01:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support although have a couple of points.

I can't work out if most recent completed season or if it should be most recently completed season.

The entry for other competitions is gold or silver when the club wins one of the trophies, even though there are up to three in some of the boxes. Is there any way to correct this info.

Otherwise good work Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 03:11, 14 December 2007.

I believe this list fulfils the criteria as well as being consistent with the five other featured lists covering different areas. Self nomination. Thanks Suicidalhamster 20:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sefton Coast in currently a useless redirect, if that could be fixed, it'd be a good thing. I'd personally like something that made the intro more than a cute-and-paste job. Maybe mention where is Merseyside (not everybody is British), and possible about the relevant (if any) geographical/geological or ecological peculiarities of this Area of Search? Circeus 05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sefton Coast is now a stub. I have also added some information on Merseyside and some of its characteristics (very basic at the moment). Do you think more should be added? Suicidalhamster 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The extra context is a greater improvement than it might look. Support. Circeus 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support with a minor issue - you have capitalization issues in the header of the table. A really minor thing, but... "Site name" "Grid reference" vs "Reason for Designation" "Biological Interest". Choose one or the other? Otherwise I agree with Circeus - the expanded lede is great and the list looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Have changed the header to lower case for the second words. Thanks for spotting that. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Fixed a typo in Lead. Other than that, looks good. Woody (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very thorough, good job, I especially like the use of in the table. Overall good job!
  Gonzo fan2007 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

List of colleges and universities in New Hampshire

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work on this one, modeling it after List of colleges and universities in Vermont (already an FL). I've established comprehensivity (is that a word?) by perusing the The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the State of New Hampshire's list of Colleges & Universities Approved to Operate in New Hampshire. The images used are all free, the article has a good lead, and I think generally meets the criteria. Please let me know what can be done to improve it, if anything. Thanks! Dylan 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• SupportLooks pretty straightforward. Maybe consider separating the content notes from the references. I'm not sure the seal is necessary as a lead image either. Circeus 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply That's a good idea to separate notes from references; do you know how to do that, technically? I only really know <ref>. Regarding the seal, I know it isn't necessary, but it's a public domain image and I just thought it would be nice as a throwaway intro picture, rather than just another picture of a campus building as in the body. I'm not married to it -- feel free to change it, but I think it looks pretty good. Dylan 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Usually, what is used is a combination of {{ref label}} (so that you can use labels that are not numbers) and {{note label}}. The gritty parts are all explained at Template:Ref. Circeus 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - (1) I visited the article and was troubled by the red link pointing to North Country, New Hampshire (not a specific place), as a location where Wheelock College offers programs. I'd like that red link to go away, and was hoping that something more specific could be said. I see that http://www.wheelock.edu/off/NorthCountry_Info.pdf does not say anything about where in the "north country" they will offer their program. Would it be valid to say "northern New Hampshire" and get rid of the red link?
  

(2) Circeus also advised me to use both references and notes, and advised that both are often used in Discography lists. I found an example and implemented the separation in List of cities and towns in Tennessee. --Orlady 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) That's the thing, I'm not positive that North Country refers to the region and not a specific town; they always treat "North Country, NH" in the same way as if a town was named that, and I can't find any instance in which an alternate town name is given. I'm happy to get rid of the redlink, but I figured it was possible that North Country was the same of a village or hamlet or unincorporated area or something that thereby might not have a Knowledge (XXG) article.

(2) Thanks - I've separated them. Dylan

I don't know who you are referring to when you say "they" who always treat "North Country" as if a town were named that. A quick Google excursion turned up TeachNorth, the North Country initiative for teacher recruitment, covering the whole north half of the state, and very possibly related to Wheelock's graduate program in "North Country." Then there's North Country Chamber of Commerce, covering 8 NH towns and villages plus several more in Vermont; North Country News, a bi-weekly newspaper serving northern New Hampshire and Vermont; Frommer's Complete Guide to New Hampshire's North Country (mentioning Errol, Gorham, Berlin, the Androscoggin River, and Lake Umbagog); and this weather forecast for North Country/Mt. Washington Valley, "including Plymouth, Littleton, Franconia, Jackson, North Conway, Gorham, Berlin, Colebrook, Errol." Among news headlines, I found "Bill Clinton Campaigns For Wife In North Country" (he went to Gorham and Whitefield) and "Giuliani Takes Bid to N.H. North Country" (he went to Berlin and Dixville Notch). I think "North Country" is a region. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"They" refers to Wheelock itself, which only refers to it in the same pairing as one would expect for a town name: "North Country, NH" (i.e. never rearranged as "the North Country of New Hampshire" or another permutation which I think would be more likely if it was indeed a region). More tellingly, they never present an alternate location, which if North Country was a region would be the specific town name. Indeed, North Country is listed alongside other "Town, NH"-formatted place names:

Portland, ME | Concord, NH | North Country, NH

It seems very odd to me that they would keep a consistent format for the first two entries of a list and then break it in the third one, particularly without noting the actual town location. I agree that in the links you've just cited it's always treated as a region, but if this program exists, it must be located or at least headquartered in a specific town, and there's no reason for Wheelock to consistently omit that information. Dylan (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My guess would that the program is NOT headquartered in a specific town. These are weekend programs for working professionals. It is very likely that they operate in rented space (such as a hotel conference center) somewhere in the North Country, and they may not know where they will be from one year to the next. Furthermore, most of these towns are pretty small (not like Portland or Concord); if they gave the name of a specific town, people might not know where it is. Note that the http://www.wheelock.edu/off/index.asp page also lists a location in "Cape Cod, MA", which also is not a discrete place (but the PDF for that one is identified as Hyannis). --Orlady (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, you're probably right. I've changed it. Dylan (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good now. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - The list is comprehensive, thoroughly documented, and appropriately formatted. I'd feel better about it if Magdalen College weren't a red link. It's understandable that defunct colleges might not have articles, but the active ones ought to have articles. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I made some changes to the notes, labeling them appropriately. Why are you "disrespecting" Magdalen College? Seriously, that red link needs to be gone. --Crzycheetah 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Devil May Cry episodes

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of episodes of the Devil May Cry anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Fate/stay night episodes, List of Claymore episodes, and List of Kaze no Stigma episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Support: There are a few uncited fan assumptions that have slipped in and need to be dealt with, such as Patty living at the DMC office. Nowhere in the episodes does it show her living there, and in eps 10 and 11 (I believe) she mentions living at the orphanage. As an english-only speaker I can only go by the fansub translations, but that seemed evident to me. My point? Drop any mention of where she lives. Another point, in the summary of "Once Upon a Time," my interpretation was that Dante had not been the man's friend Tony after all. Also, there's some wording awkwardness. For one thing, the episodes don't "adapt" the plots of DMC1 and 3, they are original stories that are just based in that continuity. I'll fix some of these issues myself. --Boradis 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. --Boradis 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose missing original Japanese titles (if the titles were in English to begin, that almost certainly warrants a mention in the lead). Circeus 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support That issue has been explained. Circeus 04:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, but opposing seems a bit hard since this doesn't really seems like a significant issue, its just a matter of doing some search. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles are in English, per here. I'll make a mention in the lead though. Sephiroth BCR 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support A simple list that has everything it needs.--Crzycheetah 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

List of cast members of The Simpsons

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 21 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Been working on this for a while, its complete with the specifications mentioned in the lead etc. Anyway, I'll try and adress any concerns that are raised. Gran 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why do some characters have references and others do not? IMDb is often not considered to be a reliable source. Is a "notable character" a character who makes more than one or two appearances? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The characters without references are covered by the two book references cited at the bottom of the page. IMDb is excepted for filmography type uses, when you using it to say that someone has been in a certain thing. A notable character is a character that doesn't just have one line in one episode, or a character that has just appeared once or twice. Gran 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the massive table format for the main cast, which does not really enhance legibility (you see the actors' names far below the first character they voice) and causes issues on Firefox (large cell merges cause borders to go wonky), is necessary. Maybe something like this would be enough:

Actor

• Character McCaracter
• John Doe
• Hank Foobar

Circeus (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well its was like that, but I thought it looked terrible, and that's why I changed it. And on my browser, it looks fine, otherwise I wouldn't have used this design. Gran 08:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's not to say that if I had known other browser's would screw it up, I would have changed it. So I'll think about it. Gran 11:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Just a few things I'm unsure about.
  • Just pointing out that some of the character links are broken, eg. the Llewellyn Sinclair and Mrs. Sinclair link is broken as it points to a subheading of those characters' names on the List of one-time characters from The Simpsons page, however on that page it seems the subheadings have been modified to season numbers only.
  • Also, with citing "various" as the characters voiced by an actor, I'm not exactly sure what the issue is with citing specific roles - Maurice LaMarche ("various") is credited with "several" roles, but Jon Lovitz is credited with six specific roles; how big is the difference?
  • And did Christopher Collins only provide the voices of Mr. Burns and Moe in season one, as suggested in his notes? - if not, why not cited as specific characters in the appropriate column?
• That's about it. Otherwise, great list, meets all criteria. Oh, and I'd have to agree with Circeus on the above point - Firefox does screw up the borders in that huge table, the middle column divider is missing most of the way down - but I don't think that's likely to be fixed, or of highest priority. •97198 talk 11:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix up the other two things, but to explain the LaMarche point: There's a difference, all of LaMarche's parts have been a background character that often doesn't have a name and has had only a couple of lines, and so isn't really central to the episode's plot. Whereas all of Lovitz's characters have been. Gran 11:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, cool. •97198 talk 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well-sourced, nice organization. The only little thing I would change is to use {{reflist|2}} for the references section, to double it up. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Done. Gran 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Would it make sense to alphabetize the actor and character columns? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. I put them in the order of importance laid out by the book sources. Gran 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Strike that - what I meant was "Would it make sense to have the actor & character columns sortable. :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah I see! Well I'm not the greatest supporter of sortable tables, but I know their benefits, so I'll try something out later and see how it looks. Gran 08:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but I just don't feel that a table is the best way to represent the data here. Heck, there are enough characters in most cases one could argue that the major cast should each have their own sections! THe section is also illustrated with a mix of people from it and otehr sections, which is confusing. Circeus (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well as I said, it was like that, but it looked terrible. Anyway, I take your concerns on board, but unless there is multiple opposition about the tables, I'm not going to change it. Gran 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me. I just felt very uncomfortable with not properly voicing my concerns. An alternate formatting might be the use of CSS columns (as are used for the reference sections) or the addition of a few extra bits of info to mitigate the list (as in List of North American birds). Circeus (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of YuYu Hakusho episodes

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of episodes of the YuYu Hakusho anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is the central list for the recently featured List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1), List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2), List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3), and List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4). If this list does become featured, then I will likely nominate all five at WP:FTC. Regards, Sephiroth BCR 05:13, November 29, 2007 (UTC)

• Support, fairly straightforward. Circeus 05:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. -- Scorpion 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Vanier Cup

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

Well, I'm back, this time with something completely different. the Vanier Cup is the top prize in Canadian university football, and I feel the page is up to par with the List of Super Bowl champions and other trophy pages like the Hart Memorial Trophy. The one negative of the page (in my opinion) is the poor quality of the image of the trophy. I'll admit that I took it myself (in 2005) and while I have several versions of it (Another can be found in the image history), sadly, that one is the best. There also isn't much of a history section, but there isn't a lot out there. Either way, all concerns will be addressed. -- Scorpion 19:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Maybe add a note about the date being around November 20? I'd suggest de-linking teams in the Championship table where appropriate, but I haven't had much success in these lists. Circeus 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I was going to do that, but I figured that these teams aren't as well known as the ones in pro leagues, plus the full name isn't displayed every time, so I thought linking every one was okay. -- Scorpion 03:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Question What are the note-like (2) through (6) in the "Winning Team" column? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It indicates the number of times that team has won the championship... I guess perhaps I should add something clarifying that. -- Scorpion 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - I wouldn't make them small, though - that makes them look too much like notes, IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - appears to fulfill all the criteria quite well. Sephiroth BCR 02:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks

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

previous FLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IWGP World Tag Team Championship

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Sephiroth BCR 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List status because I think it fits all of the criteria. I believe it to be an important, comprehensive, and well-sourced list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The box is overlapping with the table. Can you fix this? Miranda 05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've fixed it. --MarcK 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Good enough sources and format. The Chronic 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well sourced. -- LAX 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support - but one thing is unreferenced: "There have been a total of 44 recognized individual champions and 37 recognized teams, who have had a combined 50 official reigns." You really need to find a source for that statement. Davnel03 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. The list itself is the source, and the list is sourced. -- Scorpion 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support: There are a couple of issues that, IMO, would make this a better list:
  1. Because of the Infobox, the table is pushed down and there's a *ton* of white-space following the TOC. I think the Infobox should go and/or be shortened quite a bit.
  2. The first four columns (Wrestlers, Times, Date and Location) could all be sortable.
  3. IMO, the Notes column doesn't have to be small-font. Since there's a lot of text there, it should be readable :)
  4. References *could* be done in two columns, but not necessary.

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will address your concerns tomorrow when I have a few minutes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed - looks much better! Thanks for all your work! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I thought is was standard to keep the notes section under small text (based on the other WP:PW lists). The Chronic 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 6 supports, only 1 oppose. Promote. Spebi 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous FLC

I have cleaned up the page since its last nom and I think it is consistant with the quality of the List of The Simpsons episodes. The plot summaries are a tad short, but consider that the shorts are only a minute long, so it would be difficult to make them an longer. Anyways, any concerns will be addressed. -- Scorpion 03:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why did you change your mind about the list having to bring together an existing group of articles? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a strange person. -- Scorpion 03:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but, Is this really a list? I mean, I can obviously see the list of shorts, but to me, it's more of an article about the shorts, with a list tacked on the end. Not that it isn't good... it is. It's just not as much a "list" as an article with a list. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's about the shorts and it includes a list about the shorts. I think that makes it a list. Several other season pages that contain substantial amounts of text are FLs, like Lost (season 1). -- Scorpion 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the article is a list, and defines itself as such. Sephiroth BCR 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but I think that the title should be "List of Simpsons Shorts". There's no page for "The Simpsons episodes", so renaming it would be consistent with pre-existing pages. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think that the title should go in the centre with the airdate on the right for consistency with other lists. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Organized very well and good use of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
• Oppose - I wouldn't really say that this is a list. Greeves 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? It's quite obviously a list. -- Scorpion 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support with two questions: a) Sortable columns? b) Per thedemonhog, I think the episode title is more important, so should be the second column, rather than the airdate. Otherwise very nicely done! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Detroit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, z oppose. Promote. Scorpion 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

previous FLC

Self re-nomination. List was failed because it only received 3 supports after 23 days. But there was no remaining opposition, and I believe it meets the criteria, so I am re-nominating it. The list is modelled after existing FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia. As always, all concerns brought up here will be addressed. Rai-me 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Weird, I never noticed before those street addresses in the timeline section... Having the churches created would be a nice capping, but otherwise it looks fairly featurable. Circeus 02:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks just as great as other similar lists. Yes, creating articles for those churches would be a welcome addition.--Crzycheetah 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks FL material to me. Can't see anything to change/add. Good work. Woody (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support per above. -Drdisque (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Manchester City F.C. managers

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-nom. Yet another football manager list, though to be fair this was created before the others, its just that its taken me two years to get this far :) Anyway, I digress. The list recently had a productive peer review, and now I humbly submit it for your consideration. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why is the alignment different for two dates in the from to column? Does the to column need to be sortable given it will always follow on from the to column? Does th Honours column need to be sortable? Also I am not particularly enamoured with indicating the caretakers in italics, is there no other way of doing it? It just seems unsightly to me. Woodym555 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a bit too Ctrl-V happy when centreing the numbers, now fixed. I don't see what harm is done by having all columns sortable. I think the caretakers ought to be denoted in some way, as they aren't "proper" managers. Italics was the best I could think of. I think footnotes or asterisks would be less clear. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will, of course, defer to you on sorting, I just don't see what is gained from having the Honours sortable. Will it not just sort the numbers? I have been thinking about it and I don't really see a viable alternative, if I'm honest. You could use both italics and asterisks, it is just that I don't see that much of a distinction when I first look at the table. Anyway, these are minor aesthetics issues, and as such are entirely subjective. So I Support. Well done. Woodym555 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The only outstanding thing from my comments at PR is the sentence Over time Mercer's assistant Malcolm Allison gained influence, and in October 1971 he took sole control of the first team. I still don't know what this means, and what influence Malcolm Allison gained.

Whoops, somehow overlooked that one at PR. Should now be clearer. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All of my other comments were addressed at PR so I'll give it another full look at later. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• More comments

Tom Maley became the first Manchester City manager to win a major trophy, the 1904 FA Cup. I'd link this to the 1904 FA Cup Final rather than FA Cup itself.

More references to cup finals lower down could also be linked. Peanut4 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Not sure about "Known for his tactical awareness..." - uncited, potential WP:OR problems, and the honours column seems to switch from central alignment to left and back again. Otherwise I'm satisfied my comments at PR have been dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now cited. Not sure why I missed citing it in the first place. Alignment should be fixed. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - nice work. The Rambling Man 12:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Do you need to link every occurrence of the nationality? I know the table's sortable, so if you only linked the first, it wouldn't always be at the top, but I'm not sure that readers are so likely to want to navigate to England from here that they need repeated links.
  • Would you consider using normal size print in the Honours column rather than small?

As I said at PR, the balance in this page between introductory prose and tabular list is excellent. cheers, Struway2 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference as to whether nationality links should be repeated or not, though they are linked on existing FLs. On my screen removing the small tags makes Joe Mercer's entry twice as high as any other, but I guess that varies with screen resolution and monitor size. I'd be interested in what others think is the best option is on either of these points. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Support anyway. FYI, on my smallish screen at 1024x768, Mercer's entry with small tags wraps to 3 lines; without the small tags it's still 3 lines but much more readable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for sorting :) The intro text is *very* long, but I guess I can live with that, since others seem to think it's okay. The italics for caretakers didn't even make itself known to me, and I don't really like it. I had to search for the word "caretaker" to find out where the key was. It's not a show-stopper for me, but it is annoying. And I, personally, wouldn't wikilink all the nationalities. Overall, though, nicely done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of work has gone into this list and I believe it meets the FLC.

It is useful and comprehensive in that it is a clear-defined set of topics (all aired episodes and Shada), and is factually accurate, having contained no uncited information for quite some time. While it does have the current TV template, it is stable; DWM is only released monthly, and barring that, there is little that can change "day-to-day", and even with a DWM release during the months where they're teasing the new season, little makes it to the list (guest stars and episode titles). Will 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I have three major issues that need resolving before any detail can be hammered out: All my concerns addressed now.

• I agree that redlinks in the other columns are not a disqualification factor, especially as there aren't that many and they seem reasonably well-linked outside this list.
• Maybe instead of {{Edit-top-section}}, you should consider installing the existing user script. Trust me, you rapidly find it essential.
  •  Done Will 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to butt in here... This has nothing to do with FLC requirements. I'm putting that one back in, as it works for any editor, not only those that have some user script installed. That link is there only for everyone's convenience. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• An image, if any appropriate enough can be located, would be nice, but given the media nature, it's unlikely.
  • You're right. I doubt there's a scene, other than the diary in Human Nature, that can accurately sum up all 44 years.  Won't fix. Will 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• The only reason I still oppose. Those template notes should be labeled with letters (otherwise you have 2 different notes #1...) and have a proper target: you have notes marker, but no notes for them anywhere! Circeus 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done Will 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can't have red links. Buc (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - says who? All the individual titles have articles. There are very few red links compared with wiki-links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not the pages fault that the articles don't exist - and it's not in the required criteria anyway. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment And also take in note that red link can also be caused be grammar error. for example Looney Tunes vs Loonay Tunes.The Tramp 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support A well-structured, well-referenced list. Made me quite nostalgic to read it, too! Bencherlite 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support with minor concerns: a) Is "Fire on the Set really necessary on this list? b) The lettered note "c" doesn't work, though all the other lettered notes do. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Manchester United F.C. managers

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am submitting this list for featured status as I believe it meets all the required criteria. The list has been through the Peer Review process, the results of which can be found here. All comments will be dealt with as promptly as possible. Thanks. – PeeJay 01:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Having seen this at PR, I will immediately Support on one minor proviso, which I can't believe wasn't picked up a PR

Everything now fully in order, this was already excellent at PR stage. So fully Support. Peanut4 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I presume the spells for Matt Busby, 1945-1969 and 1970-1971 in the lead ought to have endashes. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed they should. Cheers for pointing those out. – PeeJay 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - consider making sure that you don't wikilink the same subject twice in a short space e.g. Manchester United F.C. linked in both paras 1 & 2 of the lead-in. And I always find it unnecessary to double-link external links, in fact it borders on promotional - if they want to access the homepage of the external site, they can do it from the link itself, e.g.

• Managers at ManUtd.com

Otherwise, very good article/list. Ref (do) 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorted those things out. Cheers for the support, bud. – PeeJay 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The footnote for Wallworth states that his record is unknown, but exact dates are given in his entry. Presumably the record of matches played between these dates is known, so which is it? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done – PeeJay 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support subject to considering two matters arising.

Can you say in 1945–1969? would from 1945 to 1969 be more grammatical?

Yes, perhaps it would.  Done – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This page of your general reference MUFCInfo seems to imply that Albut was in charge of the team for the 1892-93 season. Assuming that's a reliable source, which presumably it is or you wouldn't be referencing it, then you could add in his stats as well (FCHD gives league finishes, Test match scores and FA Cup results). If you're uncomfortable with there being no official confirmation of his exact start date, cite the page I've mentioned, remember that the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth, and spare a thought for those of us whose club's entire official records were burnt down along with their main stand in 1942.

Like you say, I'm not that comfortable with extrapolating Albut's record, as he may have taken charge before the end of the 1891-92 season, and we don't even know when in 1900 he was replaced. I mean, I could work backwards from James West's record, going back 113 games from his final match in charge to find when Albut was replaced, but wouldn't that count as WP:OR? – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, if the end date is doubtful as well, it probably would be an extrapolation too far. Thanks for clarifying the matter. Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Good work. Mattythewhite 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article, no issues that I can see ChrisTheDude 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Tennessee

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination (list was originally created and previously expanded by others, including Kaldari, but was recently expanded by me).

This list meets all of the criteria at Knowledge (XXG):Featured list criteria. It is a comprehensive list of incorporated municipalities in the U.S. state of Tennessee, with several well-sourced items of information about each municipality. It is formatted as a sortable list, so list elements can be ordered by name, county, population, date of incorporation, and type of charter. The article includes a lead section; encyclopedic text discussing and explaining some of the list items; one interesting and relevant image; and a table of contents. Although the information is available from other sources in a list format, this particular compilation is unique in combining all of these elements in a single list.

Active discussion of this list has occurred recently at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Tennessee#List of cities and towns in Tennessee.
--Orlady (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• weak oppose I have a few things I'd like to see straightened out or at least justified.

• Support my concerns were either dealt with or made irrelevant by consensus. Circeus 00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support - I'd love a map, but I can see that effort being better spent on "list of communities in X county", like the recently-featured Lycoming County, PA, list. I would also like a page that lists the unincorporated areas, I suppose that would be done by CDP? But that would probably belong in a separate list... --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To have all the unincorporated areas in the list would be perfect. I do not think that is managable or even possible. There are unincorporated places in TN that just slip through the net. Some too small to be a Census designated area, just boiled down to a current voting district, still, they have a name or had a name. Too many old and current unincorporated places (That would include Ghost towns as well, wouldn't it?). A list of unincorporated places can never be really complete, unlike the List of cities and towns. For a featured list I'd prefer something that can be complete, that has all known elements of the list in it. A link to a list of unincorporated places in the List of cities and towns would be nice, so who wants to can look that up. As you said, the unincorporated places would probably be better represented in a separate list. Take care, doxTxob \  07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating a comprehensive listing of unincorporated communities would be a mindboggling challenge. For every incorporated municipality in Tennessee (a total of about 350), I estimate that there are probably at least 25 unofficial towns, villages, hamlets, communities, inhabited hollows, ghost towns, large farms, neighborhoods defined by the name of the road they are on or the church they are near, and wide places on the highway that could make a case for being "unincorporated communities." There is no standard for identifying an unincorporated community, and it is in fact sometimes difficult to distinguish between real communities and "things made up one day." There are relatively few Census-defined places in Tennessee (and the Census Bureau's definitions is not always very clear; for example, I believe I've driven through Eagleton Village, Tennessee CDP on many occasions, but I have never seen a sign identifying Eagleton Village and I have not figured out what "place" the Census is referring to), so a statewide listing of them would not be exceptionally useful. A list of named post office locations could be another fruitful basis for crafting a useful list of unincorporated places, although that also has limitations (many "real" places do not have post offices or zip codes, including many of the incorporated municipalities and many significant unincorporated places such as Tellico Village, Tennessee). Regardless, it would not be possible for a list to present the same attributes for unincorporated places that are listed for incorporated municipalities (except for CDPs there are no official population data; there is no municipal charter; there is no incorporation date; and except for CDPs there is not even a basis for defining a community's boundaries, so there can be contention over which counties a community is in). Thus, the list of unincorporated places needs to be kept separate from the incorporated list. It would be nice to work towards more comprehensive coverage of Tennessee's "places," but first I chose to concentrate on the achievable goal of a comprehensive and useful list of officially constituted municipalities. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't demand a listing of unincorporated areas (though a compromise would be to list the non-incorporated CDPs), though such information would be very good on a per-county list, like the aforementioned Lycoming County FL. --Golbez (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support for the featured list status. It is a comprehensive compilation of TN cities and towns and it delivers a lot of information. The list is well referenced and structured. The introductory content explains the scope of the list and introduces key facts and words to the casual reader. An image, representing the topic very well, accompanies the introduction. Expert advice can make the product even better but featured list status is deserved in my opinion. Take care, doxTxob \  07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, this list has come a long way since I built the initial table back in 2005! Orlady has done a magnificent job making this list more "article-like" and giving it the polish it needs to be a featured list. I whole-heartedly support it being promoted to a featured list. Kaldari (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've started an "area" column to make the list even more comprehensive. Obviously this is going to take a day or two to fill in, so please be patient. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It was pretty tedious, but I added the areas for all 351 municipalities. And it sorts correctly by area (thanks to the nts template)! Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per doxTxob. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not knowledgeable about this subject, but I found this list very similar to the recent FL List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, since they both list US incorporated municipalities. Could someone explain why the titles are different? Thank you. CG 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the name simple is a matter that was discussed on the talkpage of the list Talk:List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Tennessee#Title_of_article. doxTxob \  19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that nomenclature differs from state to state. Under Tennessee law, incorporated places are officially called either "city" or "town"; they are seldom referred to as "incorporated municipalities" (although that's a more straightforward description of what they are, IMHO). In contrast, Pennsylvania provides for three distinct kinds of incorporated municipalities (city, borough and township) and apparently often uses the word "municipalities" as a collective term for most or all kinds (see, for example, Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities, pamunicipalitiesinfo.com, and Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association). Thus, what makes sense in PA might not make sense in TN (or vice versa). --Orlady 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Kanye West awards

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this meets the criteria. The most difficult thing I find with award lists is writing a good lead-in. But nevertheless I think it's at least close to a featured list. Spellcast (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Spellcast 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Can you add links to individual ceremony articles in the year column where possible? Namely AMAs, MTV Europe and video, and the Grammies. Circeus (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Spellcast (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, well written and comprehensive. Spebi 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Made a few extra tweaks, but can't really fault it for anything. So It'll be a Support. Circeus 01:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Seems comprehsive. It is well presented, well cited, well done. Woodym555 22:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Everton F.C. managers

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another list in the tradition of WP:FOOTBALL's continual push for excellence in all things list-like. I took an already relatively comprehensive list and turned it into something slightly better, with a lead, plenty of citations from the best sources possible for each manager and even a nice little photo of David Moyes. I'd be delighted to hear from the community, and, as always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support All issues I raised at the PR were addressed, another excellent contribution form TRM, one of our very best Wikipedians ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"one of"? Lol I refer you to WP:WEASEL :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support My fiddly concerns already dealt with. Good stuff. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Support Not too keen on the footnote stating Theo Kelly was the first true manager of the club. A little explanation of the difference between the roles of secretary and manager would be useful. If included, it would make matters clearer and render this footnote unnecessary. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  Ok. I'll do my best to re-English and expand the point. Tomorrow! The Rambling Man (talk)

   Done Footnote removed, really was already redundant as there was a note in the text. I have expanded the text a bit and added another citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

*Comment just a few (very) minor points, otherwise I will undoubtedly support this.Everyone tip-top now. Support Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• •  Done Everton's first season in the newly founded Football League. Would this be better with a season attached to those unaware of when the league was founded? Though Football League is wikilinked so that may prove good enough.
  •  Done with the league success punctuated by another FA Cup triumph Perhaps successes rather than success.
  •  Done March, 1997 ought to be March 1997 without the comma.
  •  Done Howard Kendall initially proved to be unpopular. Do you have a reference for this? Peanut4 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  You.... you.... okay, all good points. As above with Senor El Paso's issues, I'll deal with tomorrow. Pffuff. But by then I'm hoping to be England Coach... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Cuff and Catterick, who form relative clauses like this one, require commas after before the who. Catterick might need re-phrasing slightly. English isn't my strongest subject, so if I'm wrong on this then I apologise! --Jameboy (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  Not sure. If you mean a comma before the who, as you have in your comment, then I can see why, but not after... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  I know it's not fullproof but running the Word grammar checker across the sentences doesn't throw up any problems either, so I think I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  I thought that was what you meant! Anyway, as I said, the grammar checks out fine as far as I can see so I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment now Support
  •  Done Despite relegation to the... sentence, take out win (you can't win two successful appearances in the Charity Shield).
  •  Done The club returned to the top tier... They finished 2nd, not 3rd; and it'd say what you mean if you turned it round After finishing second ..., the club returned to the top tier of English football, the level at which ....
  •  Done Kendall, reckoned by some... Who? your reference only says many within the game, which is just as weaselly.
  •  Done proved unpopular with the Goodison crowd... Reference? and needs a comma, or the sentence split into two.
  •  Done He would return is conditional, not past. Just he returned is fine.
  •  Done Split Walter Smith sentence ...his first three seasons. Facing relegation... (or with a semicolon)
  •  Done Lose comma before David Moyes (or put another one after him).
  • You reference manager stats to Soccerbase, as there are well-recognised problems with Soccerbase figures, have you cross-checked against any other source? I ask specifically because several managers' stats differ from those on the Everton website. Why choose Soccerbase ahead of Everton FC, where there is a choice? And why Everton FC for Carey?
    • I selected Soccerbase for the early management as they are the only source available on-line, even the club doesn't seem to have those records available. Everton FC stats were selected in every case where the records exceeded those on Soccerbase. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • My apologies on that one, for some reason I had misread the footnotes and thought there were some more recent ones where you'd gone with Soccerbase. Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Did Everton play between Carey and Catterick?
    • Yes, three matches, but I can find no record of who was caretaker if indeed there was one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done I have a smallish screen at 1024x768, any greater resolution on this screen and I can't see the small writing, let alone read it :-) For me, McIntosh's Honours column entry occupies ten lines and Howard Kendall's twelve, with no more than 3 words on each. Do you need to write in full Caretaker (and, particularly, Player-manager/caretaker) in the notes column, rather than either having a footnote or writing Caretaker in small under the manager's name? Or if you must, at least put a space after the slash in Player-manager/caretaker, so it can wrap.
  •  Done Do you need the almost-invisible dashes to denote no honours won? If you're sure you do, then Gordon Lee deserves one as well.

Sorry I missed the very brief peer review or this lot could have been sorted before ever reaching this stage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you missed it too. No big deal, I appreciate the comments wherever they're placed. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That really is a tremendous improvement, thanks. Have changed to Support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any problems with it. All the fiddly things seem to have been dealt with. If Struway can't find a problem then there probably isn't one. The only thing I could find was that the managers template was missing a link to the list. I have added it now. Looks good. Well done (again). Oh and Support Woodym555 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Can't find anything wrong with this article at all, but I have a notoriously poor eye for items that need referencing, etc. Seriously, though, great article. KUTGW. – PeeJay 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The dates for Royle and Watson overlap. For the early managers where Soccerbase is the source, it might be better to just put the month with no day - Soccerbase uses the first of the month when the exact day is not known, which barring an extreme coincidence looks to be the case here. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, that's weird isn't it? But both dates are sourced from Everton's official website, so this looks like a case of verifiability over truth. Unless we can find another source...? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not always reliable but soccerbase has Joe Royle leaving March 27 here. Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This from the Independent confirms he resigned on soccerbase's date. Watson's start date per Everton would appear to be the date of the next match they played, and Royle's end date per Everton would appear to be a typo for the date of the last match they played while he was manager, 22 March (not April) 1997. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Carey's end date per Everton is 15 April, not 1 April (so the answer to my question above as to whether anyone played between Carey and Catterick should have been no ;-) You may want to give the rest a quick proofread. EFChistory's managers page is quite helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed both Royle and Carey, added a new ref for Royle. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Following on from this, you may want to explain somewhere that the from/to dates as taken from Everton F.C. are all dates of first/last games played under that manager rather than dates of appointment.

Also, there seems to be a 12-month gap between McIntosh and Kelly. cheers, Struway2 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

God bless Soccerbase. Not sure why any of us use it! Oh well, fixed again and in the main text. And a note added re use of Everton's own website. Despite even that being problematic it appears! The Rambling Man 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)