Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2013

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Allan Donald

Nominator(s):ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs), —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Allan Donald is surely one of the greatest fast bowlers to emerge from South Africa. His repute as a genuine fast bowler in ODIs is evident from the fact that he captured 272 wickets in just 164 matches. Happy to have my friend ChrisTheDude as a co-nominator. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments The caption of the Donald's pic should be more informative. Not really sure what more there is to say? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC) You can add anything about Donald. Something like "Donald took 22 five-wicket hauls in international cricket." ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Overs++?? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Drawn should be linked at first usage. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Economy rate should be in the format 2.00, 3.00 and 4.00 Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC) The table says that fifer no. 17 and 18 were in the same match instead of fifer no.18 and 19. Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Row scope should rather be for the Wickets column. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Are you 100% sure on that last one? There seem to be varying ways to do this - List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Dennis Lillee has the scopes on the match dates.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC) IMO row scopes aren't necessary in the fifers list as there is no single important column. I got this idea from User:SpacemanSpiff when he was working on Anil Kumble's list. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments You wait a while before linking "bowler"... Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "only 40 bowlers have at least 15 five-wicket hauls" I think it's 41. Double-check that source. Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Link bowling figures, perhaps to Bowling analysis? Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "This career best bowling figures of him is the second best " reads weirdly to me. "These are his career-best bowling figures, and are the second best..." or something. Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) I know he made his ODI debut first, but the article reads odd when you have ODI then Test in the lead followed by Test then ODI in the tables. Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) What's the strategy on batsmen names? You have W.V. Raman and Mike Atherton for instance... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Replaced with common name. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments—

• Link runs
• You can change the caption since we already have thid information in the lede.
• I would place ref 6 at the end of the sentence.

Otherwise a very good list, Nicely written! Zia Khan 01:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• All done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support— Meets the FL standards! Zia Khan 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

Nominator(s):  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series and Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• In the lead, I'm concerned because you've quoted the award's description, but this is not in the source presented. Nor does anything in the source given support information in this quote (though it does support the award first being presented in 1979, just nothing else). WP:OR.

• I am sorry but I can not find a source to support the description since the Daytime Emmys have way low profile than the Primetime Emmys (I have searched for hours)...IMO, it should be left alone since the other Daytime Emmy categories, this issue has not been brought up. Also, the other thing I could tell you is that on the website of the daytime emmys, it says that ″The Daytime Emmy Award are honoring excellence in all fields of daytime″ but it says nothing about the description of a specific categorie.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. What you have done is acceptable. As long as you aren't making up quotes, I don't see any further issues. Arre 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fix up ref 12

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• The caption for the Billy Miller image is very awkwardly worded, try rewording.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you're writing the year pictured for the caption beneath the images (e.g. Josh Duhamel) make all of them that way.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• The captions for the images are inconsistent (in terms of wording, adding years, etc). Not a huge problem, but go through them once more.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Still noticing the same inconsistency. Arre 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• To me, there is no problem, plus the other FL in the Daytime categories, this issue has never been brought up. It should be left alone, it not a major issue.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 14:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I know the WP:OVERLINK issue has been brought up before, but is there a need to link titles multiple times on the winners/nominees table, while nothing is linked on the other tables?

• It has been decided that, it should be left alone in the previous FLC since the reviewer thought it was WP:UNDERLINK, but everyone agree it was not since everything is link in the main table. Also, I was told that only sortable, allows WP:OVERLINK and I did that but it cause way more problems so it has been decided that it was resolved.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• For me, it is inconsistent to link everything in the first table, but not in the other tables. Either things shouldn't be overlinked, or link everything..JMO. Not a major issue, though. Arre 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• What am I suppose to do?  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 14:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Arre 18:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk :) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Billy Miller caption still a little unclear, try "Billy Miller was nominated three times, winning in 2010 and 2013 for his role.."

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Series with most awards section doesn't need to link to series again. WP:Overlink
  • Never mind, it has already been fixed.
• Putting "(tie)" in 2007 and 2013 is probably unneeded since it is already explained in the lead, and is pretty self-explanatory.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure about this one, but it looks to me that the ampersand in the infobox doesn't need to be bolded. I'd check with the mos for that.

• There is nothing bolded in the infobox, the part where it is, it's because it's automatic.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Never mind, I found what was bolded, I fix it.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• The 'awarded for' in the infobox could use another word, such as "most outstanding..." to clarify. Also I don't all the words need to be capitalized in that sentence.

•  Done. Also, It looks better when everything is capatilized. I think it should be left alone since it was never brought up in the previous FLC nominations.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay that's fine.

Just those little things, and I'd be happy to support.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the above reasoning.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! This means a lot!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: The years in the "Winners and nominees" table needs to be closed though. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks for the support!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 04:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

76th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2004 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 2000, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: "woman overall to be nominated in the that category." → woman overall to be nominated in that category. "hire a new producer of the upcoming show." → hire a new producer for the upcoming show. "moving telecast a month" → moving the telecast a month "prominent film directors objected this decision" → prominent film directors objected to this decision Ref 47 → add format=PDF – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Fixed: I have fixed everything you suggested. -Birdienest81 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the winning film in each category should be in bold, because it's not really clear who the winner is in each category. It would define who the winner was. Obviously a little note would have to go at the top of the table saying winner is highlighted in bold. But apart from that, I can't really fault it. So I'll Support with the assurance that winners will be put in bold.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  I disagree, Winners don't need bold, but ideally need a symbol like {{double dagger}} for WP:ACCESS. Therefore, it should remain as it is. Plus, Support! Good job on meeting every single criteria!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think bold makes it clear, like on 2013 Grammy Awards. A symbol would be good too.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  2013 Grammy Awards isn't a FL which isn't a reliable source. However, I do understand where you are coming from.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't need to be an FL.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  Each article about awards ceremonies is different. The Grammys have been structured like this for years (and since a few years ago, it started to include winners and nominees when in the past only winners were listed (e.g. 1965 Grammy Awards). The AA and the GA are different, especially if we consider the GA have many categories and the AA a few (in comparison). Being a FL or not may be relevant to follow or compare its structure, but they shouldn't look similar if there is no reason to be similar. Excepting for Academy Award for Best Actor (and I don't know why), none of the AA articles is bolded, why this is an exception? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tbhotch

*"...since the 72nd Academy Awards in 2000". I have a problem with this phrase. LAst paragraph you used "the 62nd ceremony held in 1990 and last hosted the 72nd ceremony held in 2000." Perhaps needs rewording. Link Jell-O "On the show itself, he quipped that..." you used "quipped" once, may another verb be used? "the ceremony won one of those nominations for Outstanding Directing for a Variety or Music Program (Louis J. Horvitz)." -> It would be better ro say that Horvitz won it or received it. In ref 10, both "Entertainment Weekly (TimeWarner)" are overlinked In refs 16, 24 the same as above. "He wears a beige and white striped shirt underneath bacl and charcoal striped jacket." What does "bacl" means? "A picture of a man with wavy black-hair". Penn's hair is not black in the image. "A blonde-haired woman is seen sporting...". English is not my first language, so I don't know if "sporting" is synonym of "wearing", because I only find that it means or refers to sports, red-light districts, prostitution or gambling. Steve Johnson and Harold Wheeler go to DAB pages These are some issues I found. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed: I have fixed everything plus some other grammar/spelling errors (BTW, sporting does mean wearing, but I changed it to avoid further confusion).

-Birdienest81 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support, I found no other issues. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments - List of presenters and performers: First two words of the section heading could go. In several entries, "Segment" should be decapitalized. Liv Tyler: Capitalize "song". Critical reviews: I don't think another tape delay link is needed here, since there's one in the last section. Ratings and reception: 18-49 needs an en dash to replace the hyphen. In the reference publishers, shouldn't there be a space in TimeWarner? All caps in refs 19 and 37 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Fixed: I have fixed everything you requested. -Birdienest81 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Pirates of the Caribbean video games

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, lets say that some games based on the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise have been released. They have not sold a lot, or being critically acclaimed, but who cares? Their list will be featured :D — ΛΧΣ²¹  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by JDC808

• Support - comments addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a very minor copy-edit to the lead, but I have a couple of questions about it.

1. Why is the first game skipped in the lead? The first sentence tells us what PotC is, then the second tells us that it gained its popularity from the films, then the next sentence skips the first game and talks about the second game.
   1. EditorE fixed this and I copy-edited it. --JDC808 ♫ 01:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Why is Disney Infinity included here? There is PotC characters and a playset for it, but it's not a standalone PotC game. This also applies to the list part of this article. I don't really know much about this game, but I feel that I could make the argument that since Infinity is being included here, couldn't Kingdom Hearts II be as well? (I'm not saying to include KH2, just that the argument could be made).

   EditorE also fixed this in regards to the lead, but not the list. --JDC808 ♫ 01:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

   The premise states that they are "video games focused on the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise". Pirates is a major focus of Infinity, while Hearts is not – it's a very small part of it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

   I'm still not in agreeance that it should be included, especially when Infinity's article doesn't make much mention of Pirates other than there being a playset and 3 characters. Of course more info will come later, but at its (Infinity's) current state, it's a bit confusing why it's included here and also the fact that this is called "List of Pirates of the Caribbean video games". --JDC808 ♫ 07:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

   I still do not agree, but I think this is a good compromise.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

   Okay, sounds good. I posted at Hahc21's talk page saying if it is kept, or now readded, there should be a mention for why it's included (since Pirates is not in its name and could be confusing to someone for why it's included). --JDC808 ♫ 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

3. In regards to the list, although it was cancelled, shouldn't Armada of the Damned be before Lego? --JDC808 ♫ 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

   I'll fix the rest soon. I've been very sick this week and thus have reduced my wiki editing a bit. Sorry. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• The para in the section should be moved into the intro, and the section renamed to "List". Nergaal (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No. Not standard. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Archive all online sources with webcitation.org. You can use this page (step-by-step instructions there) to manually archive all online references which will guarantee they remain accessible even if the site goes down. After this has been resolved, I would be happy to support! SoapFan12 11:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Although nice, not a requirement for FLC. So there's nothing needing "resolving".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Support : Good job on meeting every single criteria for FLC! SoapFan12 16:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again, Soap :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco the release of a list - A list wasn't released, games were. the events of the second film. - Link the film? follows the same story explored in the sequels, and includes new characters and missions. - same story in two films or just one? Where's your "brief overview in a footnote" of Master of the Seas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I did a copy-edit which fixed your first three points. --JDC808 ♫ 20:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Omg thank you. I haven't felt like editing these days. Thank god I have help :) — ΛΧΣ21 22:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Looks good. Just comment number four which needs dealing with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Aah, I decided to remove that. I wasn't able to find anything substantial about Master of the Seas to write a short overview. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 23:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Very good job, Hahc — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  What am I, chop liver?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments You may consider linking ride attraction, particularly as this is about video games, a little bit confusing (potentially). Fixed. Can you put a date on that original ride? And maybe even say "by Walt Disney himself" so it's clear you're talking about the man. Fixed. "several adventures of Captain Jack Sparrow after" I don't see an urgent need to repeat Captain Jack here. Fixed. "At World's End followed" again, potential for confusion here, the last italicised item in the previous sentence was a movie, this a game.... Just a tweaky reword to alleviate any potential confusion. Fixed. Is this written in USEng or BritEng? If the former, I thought canceled had just one L. I prefer using the double-elled version, but changed it. One of your Windows links to Microsoft Windows, the others just to Windows. It's redirected, but while you're editing some of the above, you could just tweak that. Similarly PSP. Fixed. Ref 6, avoid SHOUTING. Done. Do you need Category:Video games about pirates as Category:Pirates of the Caribbean video games is more refined. Added the latter, but kept the former. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I will take care of this tonight. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 15:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

Characters of God of War

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This list is of the characters of one of PlayStation's biggest franchises, God of War. I'm not necessarily expecting this article to pass on the first attempt here at FLC. I would like reviewers to review this against the criteria for FL and I will do what I can to fix it during this FLC process. Who knows, maybe it will pass. --JDC808 ♫ 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Good job on meeting every single criteria for an FL! SoapFan12 ^Talk 11:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think this list needs much more images - if not with the actual characters then with the ancient gods that they are based on. Nergaal (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a couple of images. I added the logo at the top, and added an image of four of the action figures down by Merchandise. --JDC808 ♫ 00:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - Meets the criteria, high quality articles on fictional characters need to become more common, nice to see an editor making steps in this direction. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• What made you choose the images in the article? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had more at one time, but was told it was too many. I don't remember why Ares was left, I guess because he was the first antagonist and who the series was named for essentially. The Hades one is to show the developmental difference because out of all the characters in the first God of War, he had the biggest change in appearance. I'm in the process of trying to find a couple more, like Zeus since he's one of the main antagonists. I've been trying to find one with a bunch of characters in it, but have had no luck. --JDC808 ♫ 21:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I've added a couple more images. One is the logo because I can't find an image with a bunch of characters that I'd like to put there and the logo at least shows readers that these are the video game characters and not something else. The other image is of four of the action figures, which shows both their appearance and some merchandise that was produced for the series. --JDC808 ♫ 00:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Meets al criteria. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 16:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments - lovely piece of work. Could link story arc for non-experts. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "from 2010-11" en-dash. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It appears that there's a little bit of overlinking, Krakos for instance is linked in the lead, in the subsequent section and then in the list itself. I kinda did that on purpose. The lead one is for obvious reasons. The next section is because it was the first occurrence of the name, then the list was to make it easier for a reader instead of having to scroll back up to find the link. I've removed the overlinking in the "Concept and creation" section. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) " 5-10%" en-dash. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Artwork of Ares, former God of War and main antagonist in God of War." doesn't need a period. Same for the figurine image caption. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Athena – See "Major characters" section." you can "hashlink" a specific section here. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) You use IGN on its own in the lead but IGN Entertainment (which redirects back to IGN in any case) in the refs. Suggest consistency. Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, I'm confused. Because you have some refs to IGN Entertainment and some to IGN, both of which link to IGN. I had done it like that on purpose. If IGN was the work, I only used "IGN", but if it was the publisher, I put it as "IGN Entertainment". They're all IGN now though. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) External link titles need to use WP:DASH. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Source comments –

• What makes Review My Games (ref 38) a reliable source?
  • I've removed it, not because I couldn't refute it's reliability, but because the link is dead. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• What makes Cheat Code Central (ref 84) reliable?
  • Did some searching at WP:VG/RS, and most say it's unreliable so I have removed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• All caps in ref 93 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

Beyoncé Knowles discography

Nominator(s): —JennKR | ☎ 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This discography was in a good place when I began working on it, but I've tidied up the lead considerably. Some of the references and notes were in a poor state and some of the chart information was poorly included, so I've replaced the dead links and ensured that the references are fully cited. Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tomica

• Remove the see also from the top

• Done - Comparing this with the FA Kelly Rowland discography I'd agree. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• The discography of American singer and songwriter Beyoncé Knowles,; the leads in the discographies are not started like this anymore, see for example Rihanna discography or Jennifer Lopez discography

• Done Changed the style. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think the information about Destiny's Child is not needed, you should only start with Beyonce's stats since this is her discography.

• Not Done It definitely deserves a mention (as with Kelly Rowland's page); six years of a fifteen year career. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest you use the information from List of best-selling music artists for consistency and accuracy.

• Not Done I think this figure is + DC sales, but I'll check it out. —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tbh, I think you should add her own sales here, because this Beyonce Knowles discography, not Destiny's Child (+ Kelly and Michelle). It's about the credit if you know what I mean. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done - 118 million was solo sales, but there are figures from 50 million up to the ridiculous 200 million. I've changed to 75 as it's consolidated by two sources. —JennKR | ☎ 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand the sentence now, did she sell 118 million records or 75 singles + 13 albums or? I don't get it... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• 118 million claim is removed. 75 million records, of which 13 million in the US are albums. —JennKR | ☎ 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dangerously in Love would go on to sell 11 million copies worldwide; please use more simple prose here.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• and the single later topped the US Billboard Hot 100 ---> remove later

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Replace yielded with a better synonym

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• and as of October 2012, it has sold over 3.3 million copies in the US ---> remove the month and simply say how much it has sold

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• As of October 2012, million-selling singles ---> remove million-selling, it reads poorly

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• It deviated towards a more traditional 1970s R&B sound, incorporating 1990s rock 'n' roll also. ---> Remove it, it's trivial and needless here

• Not Done I felt that the lead had been geared towards sales figures throughout (and this was some relief); should it be focused this way? —JennKR | ☎ 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's trivial and non-important, it's just doesn't fit. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done (I see what you mean considering the other albums). —JennKR | ☎ 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Either add the catalog number on all the albums, or remove it

• Done (Removed)

• "Until the End of Time" (Justin Timberlake and Beyoncé Knowles song) as its title says it's a duet and not a feature; as a result of that it should be included in the Singles rather than Featured singles

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Same applies for "Amor Gitano"

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Party" (Remix) is not a promotional single (def. A promotional recording, or promo, is an audio or video recording distributed for free, usually in order to promote a recording that is or soon will be commercially available). That's not what "Party" (Remix) is; the song was released for digital download (means you can buy it) indicating it is a single. Same case as "Cockiness (Love It)" Remix.

• Done Agreed (I checked and the original version wasn't a promo either). —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another issue like this: "Why Don't You Love Me" is also a single, not a promotional single. It received digital download treatment in Germany (If I search more I am sure I can find the release in other countries too), so please adjust the original article and put it in 'As main artist' section here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 13:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove 'Album appearances', there is a separate List of songs recorded by Beyoncé Knowles article for that

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Same with 'Soundtrack appearances'

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• The references have some issues including wrong {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} used in places and wrong italicizing (Allmusic should not be for ex.)

• Done I've sorted out the templates, but I think Allmusic is automatically italicized in the "work=" parameter (unlike its publisher Rovi Corporation). —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I like it, it's a good effort and I won't oppose, but it's really too early to support. Please fix this issues first. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time out to look at this! Your improvements are much appreciated! Regards. —JennKR | ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• " who performs as Beyoncé" I'd stick with the wording of the main Beyonce article, i.e. "also known simply as Beyonce".

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 18:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remix and soundtrack albums aren't in the infobox.

*Comment - What are the soundtrack albums? —JennKR | ☎ 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• You tell me, the lead says "and twelve soundtrack and promotional singles". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done (Removed) Oh! I forgot to take that out after I removed the soundtrack singles (as they are already over at List of songs recorded by Beyoncé Knowles) —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• " Having sold 118 million records worldwide,[1] Knowles is one" just "she is one..." is fine. (Please note, I didn't say "118 million" was fine, I was referring to the rewording as I suggested).

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Should have a link to explain what "certified" means.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I thought she was in Girl's Tyme before it became Destiny's Child?

• Comment It was before they signed to Columbia Records; should I mention this? —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart. The album produced" replace the ". The album" with "and".

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Consider linking the Billboard charts in the lead.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I heard some news about DC and Beyonce getting back together, albeit temporarily, like this talks about. This, if real, will need to be included in this list.

• Comment No, I think that's speculation (after they performed together at the Super Bowl for the first time in years). —JennKR | ☎ 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, "You've Changed" is (in Rowland's words) "not a Destiny’s Child track [...] it’s me featuring Beyoncé and Michelle." —JennKR | ☎ 19:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• So you're saying Beyonce features on the single? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. Although it's not a single (as of now), just a track on Talk a Good Game. —JennKR | ☎ 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• So it should be in the featured singles section? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• As it's not a single, no. I think it should just be included in her list of songs recorded. —JennKR | ☎ 20:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• This link you use to quote 118 million also refers to Beyonce as being 28 years old. She's currently 31, a couple of months from 32. This claim of 118 million either needs to be updated or caveated.

• Done Updated 75 million claim. —JennKR | ☎ 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• " seven million copies worldwide,[15] and has sold over 3.3 million" comparable numbers should be formatted similarly, so either "7 million" or "over three million..."

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Her third album" -> "Knowles's third album" (or "Knowles' third album" if you're like me).

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• " I Am... " vs "I Am…". be consistent.

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The release date for each "release", which territory is that relevant to in each case?

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 20:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• For EPs, for instance, you have eight charts where nothing has actually charted. What's the point?

• Done (Removed) —JennKR | ☎ 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Where is "Amor Gitano" referenced?

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Same for "I Care".

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Where are the non-charting promo/charity singles referenced?

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Check all refs have all applicable fields, e.g. 112 is missing accessdate, 54 has no publisher info....

• Done Corrected mentioned instances and I'll scan for others. —JennKR | ☎ 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• "recognized Knowles as the Top Certified Artist of the 2000s" - stipulate that this is the decade, not the century

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 09:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Knowles' career began as lead vocalist of Destiny's Child; a band which sold" - semicolon should be replaced by a comma

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 17:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart and..." - this is odd linking. I would recommend "It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 and..."

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 09:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "In 2003, "Crazy in Love" peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart for eight consecutive weeks while "Baby Boy" maintained its number one position for one additional week on the same chart." - ambiguous. Did "Baby Boy" follow "Crazy in Love" for one week, or did it reach number one for nine weeks by itself?

• Done (Clarified) —JennKR | ☎ 09:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "both reached the top ten in several worldwide charts" - makes it sound as though you are referring to global charts

• Done "worldwide charts" > "charts worldwide" —JennKR | ☎ 10:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "NED" is the standard abbreviation for the Netherlands, I believe, rather than "NL". Also "SUI" rather than "SWI"

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment "NLD" is correct (not "NL" as I had) but "SWI" is the correct abbreviation. —JennKR | ☎ 17:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "IRE" for album vs "IRL" for singles

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are inconsistencies in the "Bubbling Under" positions. These notes should be placed in the column of the chart that they "bubble under", not next to the title, and next to an em dash, not next to 100+x

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 11:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The Star Spangled Banner" note states "Charity single recorded live at...". Chop the "charity single" part; it's already under such a header

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 11:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Check that all the notes have the correct syntax (D/Summertime and G/Lost Your Mind are playing up for me).

• Done (Fixed) —JennKR | ☎ 11:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Run through reference formatting a couple more times. At a first glance I see broken parameters and inconsistencies ("Apple" without any "iTunes Store")

• Done (Fixed parameters/Apple refs) —JennKR | ☎ 12:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• In "Other charted songs", why are the English and Spanish songs separated?

• Comment She released an EP Irreemplazable, which was select songs from her album B'Day sung in Spanish. It didn't impact on her usual demographics, but did quite well on the US Latin charts (so it's there to distinguish). —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with this too. I think every table should list the same charts, for consistency. Also, "Si Yo Fuera un Chico" is a Spanish single, but it doesn't have the US Latin chart listed. I would tend toward consistency and NPOV. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done I see what you mean, I suppose it tries to make the point it charted somewhere else purposefully. —JennKR | ☎ 23:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "DVD/CD" vs "CD/DVD"

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think the release dates listed should be the first release dates, not (necessarily) the US ones

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this needs clarifying; I would suggest removing the bracketed countries next to the release dates. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not Done - I was asked above to stipulate the territory. —JennKR | ☎ 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "As of February 2008, B'Day had sold over 7 million copies worldwide,[14] and has sold over 3.3 million copies in the US.[15]" - different sources, different dates (the US sales are not as of Feb 2008)

• Done' (Updated to 2012 source) —JennKR | ☎ 10:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear about this. It makes it sound as though both figures (worldwide and US sales) are valid at February 2008, but they rely on two sources, so the US figure will be valid at a different time (as of...). Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I updated the sentence so no month claim is made. Ha! I never! I think I must of done this mentally. —JennKR | ☎ 21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Adabow (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think another national chart should replace the US R&B (a bit NPOV/US-centric)

• Not Done I think she charts on it the most (as her domestic country and key genre); the FA Kelly Rowland also uses this. —JennKR | ☎ 11:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with this. With that reasoning, we could replace another (eg Swiss) chart with the UK R&B chart. The US R&B chart doesn't make a good comparison with other national charts. I'll see if other editors have an opinion on this. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

*While I understand the noting of "Bubbling Under" positions, I don't think that the statements "Although X did not chart among Knowles' usual demographic, it charted at number N on chart Q" are sensible. We can't list every chart here; readers can click through to the relevant articles.

• Done (Reworded) —JennKR | ☎ 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Amor Gitano" and "I Care" still have notes which are undue Adabow (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• What would you suggest (it needs to be said they were singles - is this enough alone?) —JennKR | ☎ 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• They are under the singles section, so that is already clear. Adabow (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• All uncharted singles must be sourced someway. —JennKR | ☎ 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Then just place a reference beside the title - no need for a note. By the way, that fact that the chartings are sourced doesn't verify a song's single-ness... so I'm not sure why the releases of uncharted singles must be referenced, but not those of charted singles. Adabow (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done (Not sure either). —JennKR | ☎ 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Those sources don't verify the fact that those songs were released as singles, which is what I thought you meant needed sourcing. There's no point providing a ref for a charting which is not included in the list. Adabow (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Updated both, they should be ok now. —JennKR | ☎ 10:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why is [7] a reliable source for single release?

• I've replaced it with one from the Spanish publication La Nación that gives some background to the song (and the fact it's a single). —JennKR | ☎ 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't verified any chart positions

Adabow (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The Star Spangled Banner" redirects back to this page.
  • I suggest linking to The Star-Spangled Banner. Adabow (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment The text doesn't link to The Star-Spangled Banner, it links to Performances and adaptations of The Star-Spangled Banner#The Star Spangled Banner (Super Bowl XXXVIII Performance. —JennKR | ☎ 13:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Still many ref problems. Please go through each and examine each citation for reliability and formatting. For example:
  • Discogs is not a reliable source.
    • Comment The Discographies WikiProject allow its reference (see here). —JennKR | ☎ 13:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The ref for Fever (currently #91) is of a different title format to other iTunes refs. Ref for Si Yo Fuera un Chico (#89) specifies "Apple" but not "iTunes Store".
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Some iTunes refs specify the country of the store, while others do not. Be consistent. I would suggest removal of countries.
  • Inappropriate italicisation in refs 8 (MTV Rapfix), 10 (IGN)
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • RadioScope is down indefinitely. There is an archived URL listed at WP:GOODCHARTS
    • Comment How would I go about obtaining the source for the platinum certification for Dangerously in Love (2003)? The archive only goes back to 2008 for albums. —JennKR | ☎ 14:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
      • http://nztop40.co.nz/chart/albums?chart=1251 Adabow (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks! —JennKR | ☎ 21:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • NZ charts can and should be linked to individually (ie a chart that lists the relevant certification)
    • What do I do if the single (as is the case with "Crazy in Love") gains its highest certification when it isn't on the chart. I can only find "Gold" certifications for that single and also "Baby Boy" (when this page and the page of the single says they were both Platiunum)? —JennKR | ☎ 22:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I have identified a potential offline source, which I should get my hands on sometime tomorrow (7/7 NZ time). Adabow (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The only certifications that the book gives are "Crazy in Love" gold, Dangerously in Love platinum and B'Day gold. These are as of 2006/2007, so I doubt that they actually went higher, seeing as the RadioScope refs cover the time since this. Go with the highest certifications that are verifiable by RIANZ or RadioScope. Adabow (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Done I have sourced two, but three out of the five that needed sourcing could not be, and either certified after they fell off the chart or never at all (and someone has introduced factual errors here). Either way, the RIANZ is rather inaccessible at the moment, so we can only work with what we have. —JennKR | ☎ 13:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I removed the unverifiable certifications. Lastly, tidy all the RIANZ refs up so they are consistent and include the chart dates in the citation templates. Adabow (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Done I think I've got all of them. —JennKR | ☎ 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Until 1 January 2010, Billboard was owned by Nielsen Business Media, and the publisher parameters of citation templates should reflect this.
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref for Irish release of 4 (110) is dead
    • • Done Replaced —JennKR | ☎ 13:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Some publishers are given in brackets, while others are not.
    • Not Done: I'm sure this is the cite web / cite news template; with news citations the publication e.g. Billboard is italicized with the publisher in brackets "(Prometheus Global Media), however when citing using the web template, the publisher isn't bracketed. If your referring to a specific source like Billboard (where the publisher is sometimes in brackets and sometimes not) this will reflect the reference of news articles which require the news citation template, and the charts which use the web citation template. —JennKR | ☎ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Billboard - Hot Digital Tracks" (#94) uses a WebCite archive, but should also list the original URL. The title should be "Hot Digital Tracks", the date entered into the date parameter of citation template, and Billboard.biz→Billboard (Nielsen Business Media)
    • Done —JennKR | ☎ 23:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Adabow (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support I still disagree with listing the US R&B chart rather than another national singles chart, but this may just be personal preference. Adabow (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Note to directors: I am a somewhat involved editor in this list, although many of my edits have been as part of this FLC. Adabow (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The contributor seems to be really engaged with its quality, so far his doings have impressed me, the list structure, its content and source are really well formated. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS specifically states "On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. In the song's article, just indicate it as a Bubbling Under peak, so long as it is verifiable" - therefore Hot 100 positions of 105 for "Halo (live)", etc should not be shown -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 09:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

class="" style="font-weight:bold; background:transparent; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background: ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC) It is for the table however. It was an issue that was brought on that FLC and has become a standard since. Erick (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Done. —JennKR ;"| ☎ 22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Erick (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

style="font-weight:normal; background-color:transparent; text-align:left; border:1px ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC) It is for the table however. It was an issue that was brought on that FLC and has become a standard since. Erick (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Done. —JennKR solid; padding:10px;"| ☎ 21:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Sales needs as "as of" dates. See Jennifer Lopez discography Erick (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Comment Are you sure that's the rubric for discography articles? The Jennifer Lopez discography does not use this ("Lopez has sold over 12.4 million albums in the United States and between 75 to 80 million records worldwide.") —JennKR

Comments –

• Note F: "except for in South Korea were it was distributed...". "were" → "where".

Done Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• See also should come before the notes.

Done Switched. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• In ref 52, MusicWeek should be italicized as a print publication. Also, does it have the space between words like in ref 44?

Done Italicised, and it does have a space, so I've updated that also. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hyphen in ref 127's title should be an en dash instead for style reasons. Giants2008

Done Updated. Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(Talk) 20:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

List of cricketers who have played for two international teams

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Watching the ICC Champions Trophy the other day, I noticed that Luke Ronchi has a rather odd distinction, in that he's played ODI cricket for both Australia and New Zealand. I looked into it a bit more and discovered a small group of men who have played for more than one country during their international career. These are they. Thanks to any of you have the time and energy to review and comment on this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment from me at the moment, bug me for more later: could we at least make the name column sortable? Harrias ^talk 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I suspect that's possible! I'll see what I can do. Although with row spans, when sorting it'll double up on the names. Is that okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, yeah, I didn't think about that. I'll let you play with it and see whether you think it is worth it. Harrias ^talk 22:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It looks pretty grim. You can play with it yourself by simply adding "sortable" in the wikitable class, then sorting by name (or anything else)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also like to let people know that the article is also currently undergoing a DYK nomination. As reviewer of the DYK, I will reflect here what I said there that I thought that the article should have a list that includes Twenty20 matches. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • There aren't any players who have played T20I for more than one country. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes there is, Geraint Jones has played for England and Papua New Guinea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Papua New Guinea T20Is aren't considered first class, are they? Cricinfo certainly don't believe PNG's T20Is to be relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Cricinfo also lists World Cup qualifying matches, must be relevant if they do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, they list under-19s too. But see this. In any case, I've added a caveat to the list. This is about First class or ICC tournament players, not the vast array of the dozens of associates and affiliates to the ICC. Incidentally, you could work on the Geraint Jones article, it's clearly incomplete right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
          • By the way, I emailed Cricinfo, and (wow!) got a reply, Jones' appearances for PNG are not classed as internationals hence why they wouldn't be included here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Interesting. Didn't know that Cricinfo denied the existence of PNG as a cricketing nation despite playing World Cup qualifiers. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
              • You could always email them to ask why I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Wessels is listed twice, so I don't see why Ed Joyce can't be listed in a T20I list as well as the ODI list, and Dirk Nannes included in that list too? Harrias ^talk 22:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Joyce and Nannes could have their own list, true. That would just leave poor old Gavin Hamilton on his own. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Done the T20I list now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could the lead include something (a brief overview) on how it is even possible for a player to represent more than one country....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it could. I'll have a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Added some words, not brilliant, and will do some more digging, but early days it was a free-for-all, these days it's passport-based (so to speak) with a prominent case of Fawad Ahmed's re-nationalisation being fast-tracked in time for The Ashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Is there a typo in Wessels' date range in the second table.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the above-table note, the first word of "First-class cricket" probably shouldn't be capitalized.
• There's a typo in the publisher of ref 4 ("BB Sport").
• Ref 33 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Got 'em, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments Standardise your linking of teams Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Gavin Hamilton played one Test match for England before going on to make a total of 50 appearances for Scotland in ODIs and Twenty20 Internationals. - Why isn't he in any of the tables? Because the tables show players who have played in the same format but for different countries. Hamilton didn't play in comparable formats. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Images are all fine (no action required) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Another solid list, fairly easy to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• A few little comments…

• Some of the quirks of cricket could be made a little clearer. Exactly what "international cricket" is (for the purposes of the article) should probably be better defined, i.e., what distinguishes the upcoming Test matches between Australia and England from a match between Vanuatu and Nigeria or matches at West Indian domestic level, which are both "international" in a more general sense…and hence why players like Michael Di Venuto (Australia and Italy) and Frank Worrell (Barbados and Jamaica) are not included in this list. Maybe just a little ^[note] saying "For these purposes, international cricket refers only to Test, ODI, and T20I matches, blah blah blah", or maybe altering the note just above the table of contents—"tournaments accredited by the International Cricket Council" covers a lot more than just the three major formats.
• Could the title of the article be reduced in length? Something along the lines of "List of cricketers who played for multiple international teams", or even just omitting the "have"…i.e., "List of cricketers who played for more than one international team". I wouldn't really be too fussed if the current title stayed.

• Very, very pedantic points, I know :) Great list overall, definitely FL material (and sorry for the late response). IgnorantArmies 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, pedantry is not a bad thing here, so thank you for your comments. I have extended the note and linked out to "international cricket", I'd rather leave a page move to after the FLC (it's just a logistical issue) but would be happy with any community consensus on making it shorter. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the title is too bulky. Why not 'List of cricketers who have played for two international teams'? Since they've all had exactly two, 'more than one' is almost misleading, and it's unlikely someone will play for a third team any time soon. Reywas92^Talk 09:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Okeydokes, moved the lot (the page, the talkpage, this page etc) to your preference. Thanks for the interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• those players who played for more than one international team were generally those why not just lose the last "were" and "those" for "international team generally...".
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• who had been born in one of those countries and whose family had emigrated to the other "Those" is overused in this sentence, and I feel like the phrase "one of those countries" is ambiguous.
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Files are OK. Alt text looks OK. No DAB links, no dead links.
  • Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• The final two paragraphs are dry. I don't mean to make the lead too large, but if you could add in a half-sentence explaining why some of the players switched, other than their parents moved, that would be appreciated. The more recent players would be of more importance for this rule.
  • I'm afraid that information probably resides within the brains of the players who switched. Unless there are reliable sources saying why each modern-day player made the switch (I suspect "in order to get a game" which they're hardly likely to say out loud), this would be speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• What does the asterisk mean in the table (for instance "20*" for Ferris)?
  • Key added (it means not out). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• In the table what do "HS" and "BB" stand for?
  • Key added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• What purpose do the colors serve?
  • Just a visual cue to break up bowling, batting and fielding more easily. It's commonplace and doesn't, in my opinion, detriment the visual appearance or utility of the list. Quite the opposite. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Why is he "Nawab of Pataudi snr" in the table but "Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi" in the caption?
  • Fixed for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• You use "location" on reference 5 but on no other newspaper references.
  • Actually on use it three times, but I've made it consistent since all news refs are linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't support at this point. The comments above are minor and could/should be addressed, but I would really like to see this table sortable. Personally, I would remove the rowspans and the "Batting", "Bowling", and "Fielding" subheaders and just make a second row for the different country of the same player. Are the statistics for individual countries comparable in your opinion? Albacore (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I firmly believe that sorting is not required here. These players played in different generations of cricket, their side-by-side comparisons are really irrelevant. What is relevant is how they did for each country. And that's nice and clear since the stats are side-by-side on each table. Thanks for taking the time to review the list in detail, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "In the late-19th and early-20th century, players who had represented two international teams had been born in one country and whose family had emigrated to another." -- prose?

  Any suggestions? I've tried to work around this concept a couple of times, had several suggestions, perhaps you have a more satisfactory solution?! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm just not sure it's clear. It definitely reads awkwardly though. Maybe "In the late-19th and early-20th century, players who had represented two international teams had been born in one country, before emigrating with their families to another." Of course this, and the original sentence may both be interpreted to imply that they played for one nation, before emigrating with their families and playing for another. But I'm not sure this is what you mean to say. -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• " More recently, legal citizenship has become the defining attribute as to whether a player can represent another country." -- it might be good to say exactly who decides on how one qualifies, or even explicitly what the criteria is (rather than talking of the defining attribute). I understand this could be complicated for countries such as England and Scotland. I'm assuming it is the ICC that sets the crtieria, or is this decided on a nation-by-nation basis?

  There's no de facto solution for this, citizenship is defined on a country-by-country basis. If a player is a citizen then they can represent their countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the footnote [9] doesn't actually support the statement. I know citizenship is defined differently everywhere, however does each national side use citizenship to determine eligibility? Are stand-down periods decided on a case-by-case basis? -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Found ICC's regulations -- haven't read through them yet though. -- Shudde ^talk 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Three cricketers moved from representing India to Pakistan in the 1950s" did this have anything to do with when Pakistan won independence?

  Don't know, and trying to link that in may be borderline original research, unless you have a specific source backing it up? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Nah just wondering if you knew. -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is a deadlink in the caption for the image of Nawab of Pataudi snr

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do we know that File:Billy Murdoch.jpg was published in Australia? Would it be good to have a PD-tag for the UK as well (not sure how these things are handled) ?

  I'm not going there, not my speciality. I'll replace the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the Others section, is it worth noting that Scotland do not have Test status, so once he switched Gavin Hamilton could never have been included the the changing Test affiliations section?

  Well I thought Note: These lists include only those players who have played first-class cricket within Test matches, ODIs or T20Is accredited by the International Cricket Council. would cover that, but if you feel an explicit note for Hamilton is required, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm just wondering if the casual reader will ask why he never represented Scotland in Test matches? If you think they would – add a note. If you don't – don't add one. I'm happy either way. -- Shudde ^talk 11:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

All my comments are pretty minor. Quite a quirky and interesting list, well done. -- Shudde ^talk 05:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Shudde, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Support— Since there is no reasonable concern left, however I thought an image for the lede may be an improvement. Good work, meets the FL standards. Zia Khan 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me, I put an image in the lead which I think livens it up a bit, but this is just personal preference and doesn't affect my support. I feel this meets the FL standards, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

List of coastal defense ships of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Another in my series of lists of German warships, this is a list of the coastal defense ships built by Imperial Germany during the 1880s-90s. This list caps this Good Topic. It has just passed a MILHIST A-class review, and I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this list represents Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Well written with good citations and references. Well done! I would just add alt text for the image at the top. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

The Lonely Island discography

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after having redeveloped its prose section and tables, I believe that it now may satisfy the featured list criteria. Holiday56 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: Ref 1 → add Time Inc. as publisher Done. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 6 → add The New York Times Company as publisher Done. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 7 → Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) Don't see the point in this; readers can work out the abbreviations for certification providers through the wikilinks in the references and tables, so I don't think the suggested change is necessary. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 8 → add News Corporation as publisher Done. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Refs 8 + 22 are the same Fixed. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Refs 29 + 31 → Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) Ref 30 → Music Canada (MC) Ref 33 → International Federation of the Phonographic Industry of Denmark (IFPI) Same response for the above three as my comments for the RIAA. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 66 → add Spin Media as publisher Done. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) References → {{Reflist|2}} Dividing 68 references into two columns makes the page unnecessarily longer, in my opinion; it's more user-friendly to let browser width determine the number of columns rather than forcing two/three. Holiday56 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Add {{Use mdy dates|date=July 2013}} {{Use American English|date=July 2013}} Done. Holiday56 (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments "together in their high school years." can you give us a timeframe for this for context? Done. Holiday56 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) " became immensely popular " -> perhaps tone it down a little and "gained popularity"? Done. Holiday56 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Billboard Top Comedy Albums chart" just links to Billboard charts, is there a better (or hashed) link? Done. Holiday56 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "was the most successful of the album's eight singles" according to the rest of the lead and infobox they had eighteen. This phrase only refers to singles from that particular album. Holiday56 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Check refs, I clicked on a couple, ref 10 was "bad gateway"... Not sure if the site was down when you checked, but I've successfully accessed ref 10 right now. Holiday56 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Akiva Schaffer[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]" it's probably better to put the individual ref next to the video, rather than this hopeless string of refs! Good point. Done. Holiday56 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This is a great list. I'd link troupe though, if it can be, as I don't know what this is.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Troupe" is more or less a synonym for "group"; it's a commonly used term when referring to groups of comedians. I suppose I could link it, but that may be considered a violation of WP:OVERLINK. I'll wait for more opinions for now; if more people feel that linking to the term would be appropriate, then I can do so. Thanks for the support! Holiday56 (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Can't see any glaring issues, although you could take out the "25-song extension" bit in the notes, as the length of the Bubbling Under Hot 100 has varied over the years. (Some Swedish certifications for "I Just Had Sex" and "Jack Sparrow" that you might want to have a look at, as well.) Good job! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Performed the suggested changes. Thanks! Holiday56 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

List of municipalities in Ontario

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and is structured in a similar manner to other featured lists of municipalities including List of municipalities in British Columbia and List of cities and towns in California. Thanks. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, why have the links been removed from all of the images? 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The links seem to be working, can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Clicking on the images resulted in nothing, normally it would take you to the file page. User:Hwy43 has since linked them to the city articles. Is there a featured article guideline, that I am unaware of, which recommends links to file pages be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a little pair of boxes just to the lower right of each image which takes you to the file pages. Is that what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't previously seen or used the link parameter before. Yesterday's efforts were trial and error efforts to figure it out. Just moved a link parameter outright. Upon click, you go to the file's page, which is what I'm accustomed to. Returning the link parameter but leaving it blank prevents clicking altogether. In both scenarios however, I'm failing to see the alt parameter generate as a hot tip on the image. I suggest we remove all link parameters. No point in linking the image to an article if a wikilink in the caption does the same. Simply redundant. Still don't know how to get the alt to appear though. Hwy43 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the alt is for "situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment). I believe it is primarily for blind users. So you are not supposed to see the alt. "The alt parameter text is not normally visible to readers but may be displayed by web browsers when images are switched off". So I think it's good as is. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Strangely the alt text was appearing when the three maps were nested in the gallery template. Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: Website names shouldn't be in italics (ex: www12.statcan.gc.ca.). Also, I would just put Statistics Canada instead of www12.statcan.gc.ca. Statistics Canada. It appears the |website= parameter defaults to italics. Should we just avoid usage of the parameter? Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)  Done removal of "www12.statcan.gc.ca." in favour of just "Statistics Canada". Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I would do the same thing for the other websites as well (ex: www.amo.on.ca. Association of Municipalities of Ontario → Association of Municipalities of Ontario). – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC) For ref 3 → |format=pdf  Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC) At the top of the page, add templates: {{Use mdy dates|date=July 2013}} {{Use Canadian English|date=July 2013}}  Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Add for all images → |alt=  Done Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Put all refs in order: [9][8] → [8][9]  Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First set of resolved comments from Nergaal

;Comments To a first time reader it is weird to see upper-tier municipalities being smaller than the lower-tier municipalities Need more clarification. Are you suggesting a bottom-up approach (single and lower-tiers section first and then upper-tiers section afterwards) rather than the current top-down approach? Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC) what does geographic area mean? should it be an upper-tier one? Changed to census division. Upper-tier does not work as northern Ontario is without upper-tier and has districts instead, which aren't municipalities. Census divisions are inclusive of both upper-tier municipalities and districts. Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC) See next bullet. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC) isn't there an image with the division of Ontario into municipalities - at least for the upper tier one  Done I will add maps showing the locations of the types of upper-tier municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Moved maps to a gallery. I found that mixing them into the images of cities on the right was a little random looking. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I'll be taking you up on your offer to revert. The Toronto and Ottawa images were placed in the lead, and the maps at the start of each section, per WP:IMAGELOCATION that states "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image." Both Toronto and Ottawa are mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead, whereas the maps correspond to the text in the leads of each section. This brings to mind that all other city images are within the Upper-tier section when they would actually be more relevant in the Single and lower-tier section where the subject cities are actually listed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Yes this looks much better now. Mattximus (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The images are good, although they could probably be merged into a single image with multiple colors. The thing I am still bugged (I have not read the article carefully though) is what is the exact distinction between the upper and lower tier municipalities. Some readers like me would assume that an upper tier is divided into multiple lower tier ones. A sentence explaining how the two differ together perhaps with a map would alleviate this confusion. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC) An image like File:Russian Regions-EN.svg would be best. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) You are indeed correct. All upper tier ones (first list) are divided into multiple lower tier ones. However, there are two types of lower tier (second list): ones that are part of an upper tier and ones that are not but they both function essentially the same. This is why there are two lists, one for upper and one for lower. Is this not clear in the text and images? Certainly willing to change to make more clear. Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Disagree that there are two types of lower-tier. Another way to look at, which is different than I described below, is that single-tiers are "multi-tiers" that span both lower-tier and upper-tier responsibilities. I've created a map for the upper-tiers. Hwy43 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC) for some reason the note reads strange Should we just let sleeping dogs lie and remove the note altogether? Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC) In other words, should we just be silent on why/how the least-populated municipality has a population of 0? As an alternative to removal, I have revised the note in an effort to address. Hwy43 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC) It looks good now. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Nergaal, have all your comments since been sufficiently addressed? Not sure if your last comment above refers to all your items or just the last item. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• Not sure if I am too close to this, but IMO single and lower-tier municipalities should be split into separate sections. Each of the three types of municipal status should have its own section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I do like those two combined, as they both serve largely the same function (as opposed to upper-tier municipalities which are rather distinct and deserve their own list). Dividing the single and lower-tier municipalities will also make it impossible to sort municipalities by population (and population growth, and area, and density...), one of the purposes of having sortable columns and listing all types of municipalities in the first place. Mattximus (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you can combine all and use color-codes to differentiate among the three. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how correct these the lower tier map is, could someone perhaps correct my confusion? Something seems wrong with the "Southern Ontario's 11 single-tier municipalities" map. It does not show many single tiered municipalities, for example London, Ontario or Orillia, but does show a northern ontario single tiered municipality Greater Sudbury. Unfortunately, at this scale I don't believe the color-codes would work for the lower tier as there are far too many municipalities to display. I believe this map should be removed. However, the upper tier maps could be merged into a two colour system as they are easily visible at this resolution. Would you recommend that Nergaal? Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that the "Southern Ontario's 11 single-tier municipalities" map is wrong. It actually presented 9 single-tiers that are equivalent of census divisions, of which not all were in southern Ontario. Map has been removed. Hwy43 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Upper tier municipalities are divided into lower tier, while single-tier ones are both upper and lower tier at the same time. In that case, I would merge the upper and single tier ones together, and create a map for them only. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, but that's my fault for not being clear here or in the article. Upper tier are special in that they have lower tiered municipalities inside them, so they function rather differently than lower tier (having less municipal duties). Some are not found within an upper tier municipality, and they are called single tier, and function almost exactly like lower tier. So it makes sense to merge the top two maps, as they both show upper tier municipalities, and get rid of the bottom map since it's inaccurate (just waiting on Hwy43's opinion). Mattximus (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Single-tiers are responsible for providing all local municipal services. Lower-tiers are like singles by providing some of the same local municipal services. Upper-tiers are also like singles by providing the balance of local municipal services not provided by the upper-tiers. Upper-tiers are the sum of two or more lower-tiers.

As singles are a combination of both uppers and lowers, including them with lowers is comparing apples to oranges and alternately including them with uppers is comparing apples to peaches. Although keeping singles and lowers together have merit for population comparison purposes, there is also merit in grouping singles and uppers together for the same. Since that would be redundant, I continue to suggest that all three statuses should be separated. It is certainly the cleanest and, IMO, least confusing solution (or least confusing within the already much too confusing municipal structures established by Ontario). Hwy43 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your argument, and it makes sense. However, I believe the most useful format is the one currently provided. For example, imagine a kid doing a school project and needs to find the largest cities and towns in the GTA by population. Right now that student can sort, and find the answer. With the three tables suggestion, the student will have to sort, write them all down, then scroll down, sort again, then write those all down, then compare the two lists. This is just one example. I feel that in order for this to be useful, the list should be sortable. The division we have now makes sense, since the first table is not what people would consider a city/town, but the second list is what most people would indeed consider a city/town. I believe this division is the most pragmatic approach to this page. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Recognized and valid, but we do however have List of cities in Ontario and List of towns in Ontario that allow readers to sort all cities and all towns within the province respectively regardless if they are singles or lowers, not to mention the StatCan source that provides the same sorting functionality for census subdivisions (municipalities or municipal-equivalents), which allows comparison of all cities with all towns, villages, etc. I'm not certain we have to cater to all permutations of potential researcher needs when there are alternatives a click away to meet their needs.

Regarding your example, note that a researcher is unable to determine the largest cities and towns in the GTA on this article as there is not a column in which the GTA is an attribute. I assume that the Greater Toronto Area article already covers this in some manner. If not, it should. Regardless, your point about this being one of multiple examples that could apply here is understood. Hwy43 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Haven't receive a reply to the above. Want to say that resolution of this matter is not a must, in my opinion, for achieving FL status. Let's not let this stand in the way. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my example was not the best, but I'm glad you see merit in keeping the list format as is (counties/districts in one, and cities/towns/villages in the other). When you have a large list like this, I much prefer the ability to sort and use the information over the technical divisions which may not be as pragmatic. I want to make wikipedia a useful resource for my students and feel that this format would be optimal. I would consider it resolved as is, but perhaps we can hear what Nergaal has to say? Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Second set of resolved comments from Nergaal

*I like how the list is progressing now. However, I would like a bit more info in the intro, which I think would clarify things even more. In the second paragraph, after ""a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated"." please say how much of the total population and total area does that mean. Also, at the end of the paragraph, please say how many municipalities of each three types are there, and how much population and area do each cover. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Can do on the latter. The former can't really be done as there would be double counting as lower and upper tiers have overlapping jurisdiction. Hwy43 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Then just count the total without double-counting (single+lower). Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Well duh! I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Facepalm. Hwy43 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Both now  Done, although I added the percentages of the total population and land area to the first rather than the second paragraph. I trust there is no issue with that. Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments I'd like to see the requirements for municipal corporation in Ontario, as done at List of cities and towns in Arizona. What is the general requirement to become a city there? Are there any exceptions to the rules? In order to make this list complete, I'd like to see that information. There are no similar/conventional incorporation requirements for cities, towns, villages, townships, etc. anymore. Per this reference: "The official name of your municipality may include a term such as township, village, town or city." "However, such terms usually do not determine the legal powers and responsibilities of a municipality." "The Municipal Act, 2001 allows your municipality to change its official name as it sees fit, as long as the new name is not already used by another municipality and proper notification is given. However, the change of name will not affect its status as an upper tier, lower tier or single tier municipality." Furthermore,this reference verifies that there are no similar/conventional requirements: "How to become a city Ontario: The process is simple. Once a town enacts a bylaw asking for a status change, it merely sends a copy to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It cannot change its name to one already being used. There is no other size or population requirement." So, essentially it is a name change process in which Ontario’s least populated municipality can become a city. It is unconventional. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Okay. TBrandley (T • C • B) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Does the parameter "area" refer to just land area or total area?  Done – land area. Hwy43 (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Specific featured lists also maintain the date of incorporation for statistical purposes on the table. Would you be able to add their incorporation dates if possible?  Not done – this information is not readily available on the web AFAIK like it is for Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I don’t think this should not be a barrier to attaining FL status, but this could certainly be a “to do” item added to the talk page for those with the time to research 444 dates. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Okay. TBrandley (T • C • B) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Please add scope cols and rows to the table's formatting to conform with MOS:ACCESS Is this what is sought? If so, I'll do the same for the other table. Hwy43 (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's perfect. Thanks. TBrandley (T • C • B) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Now  Done. Thanks for confirming. Hwy43 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC) How much of the province's total population and area is covered by municipalities? What is the total area for these municipalities? What is the average population of all municipalities, as stated at List of cities in Ontario? Please expand upon this. Per above, the overlapping of lower and upper-tier municipalities complicates satisfying these three questions. However, we could answer these questions for each status type on their own if that works. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)  Done first in lead, second in last row of each table, and the third in the lead of each of the two sections. Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Minor thing: density column should say that it refers to per sq km. Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Hwy43 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Most of the population is concentrated within the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor, I believe details there would be appropriate. What percent of their municipalities within Ontario cover of the province by population as well. This would be original research if the boundaries of Ontario’s portion of this region aren’t specifically defined by a reliable source and contiguous with municipal boundaries. Ultimately, this would be more appropriate at the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor article. If we include this, then I guess we’d have to do the same for the Southern Ontario, Northern Ontario, Golden Horseshoe, etc. articles. Such is more appropriate for regional articles than here IMO. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Further to this, the last paragraph at Quebec City–Windsor Corridor#Geography proclaims 67% of Ontario's population in 2006 was within the corridor, but alas its is either unreferenced or it is verifiable by the original target of the deadlinked reference at the end of the paragraph. Hwy43 (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, I understand that. TBrandley (T • C • B) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Best, TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments "908,607.67 km2" really, do we need this level of precision? Especially in the lead, I'd expect more like "a little over 900,000 km2" or similar. Apply to rest of lead and prose. Question This is the level of precision given by the Statistics Canada source, the level of precision in the tables of this page, and also the level of precision in other Featured Lists such as List of cities and towns in California. However I don't really have a strong opinion and would be willing to change if you deem it necessary. Mattximus (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Rounding to the a precision of -5 is quite troublesome. An accurate land area figure is necessary to determine the percentage of land area covered by municipalities. The total land area covered by municipalities is presented at the bottom of the second table. For rounding of census populations, I follow WP:CANSTYLE#Population, which states "do not round population figures off." I extrapolate this to other published census data such as land area, density, etc. As WP:CANSTYLE#Population isn't explicit on rounding of other census figures, perhaps there is an argument to round land area. If it were absolutely necessary however, I would only support rounding to the nearest whole number (908,608). Hwy43 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC) The lead is a summary so rounding to the nearest 100,000 is fine. Elsewhere, perhaps more accuracy, but not two decimal places of a square km, is expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC) How does "nearly 909,000 km2" sound? Hwy43 (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "approximately" is probably better than "nearly". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Mattximus (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "444 municipalities[2] covering 17% of the province's land mass." so the ref is mid-sentence implying it refs just the 444 and not the 17%. Is that referenced? Reference applies to the 444. The 17% is the sum of all referenced land areas in the second table (see 155,653.00 in bottom row) divided by the referenced total land area of Ontario (908,607.67). Perhaps use of the {{percentage|155653.00|908607.67}} is in order, with the refs from elsewhere in the article duplicated and placed at the end of the sentence. Please advise. Hwy43 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Just looks like an odd sentence with one stat ref'd, the other not at all. Deal with it as you see fit, but it looks odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC) How about this? Hwy43 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "A municipality in Ontario is "a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated".[4]" per WP:ATTRIB, according to whom?  Done Hwy43 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "the City of Toronto with" why is City capitalised here if it's not part of the official title (or wikilink)? This article is about municipalities. Here we are referring to the legally defined municipality. Toronto's official legal name is the "City of Toronto". Hwy43 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Please ensure % are all given to same level of precision. This was unintended. This is a concatenation formula issue with Excel in which I use to build these tables where it automatically trims any zero off that is at the end of a number to the right of the decimal point. I see Mattximus is hard-coding these back in. Thanks Mattximus. Hwy43 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Mattximus (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Same with other columns. See reply to above. Hwy43 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Mattximus (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC) In my Safari browser, the images down the right-hand-side of the "Single and lower-tier municipalities" section push the table down and create a huge swath of white space. Perhaps they're too large? I get the same on one of my laptops, but not the other and not at work. Depends on screen resolution. Hwy43 (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Image captions which are complete sentences (e.g. "Toronto is Ontario's most populous municipality") need a full stop.  Done Hwy43 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Don't forget in sortable tables that anything that's linkable should be linked every time. Question Really? All 21 instances of Algoma within the second table's "Census division" column need to be wikilinked? I thought this would be redundant and contrary to WP:OVERLINK. Hwy43 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Revisiting OVERLINK, I see it states "links may be repeated in ... tables", which reads as it is optional. If you continue to feel strongly, I could link the duplicate entries. Hwy43 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Most, if not all recent FLs follow that paradigm. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Ref titles need to meet WP:DASH. Comment Can you clarify this point, not sure what you mean? Mattximus (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC) I believe this is what was sought. If correct, then  Done. Hwy43 (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Odd ] in ref 5.  Done Mattximus (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Is Note 2 referenced? It is now.  Done Hwy43 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Third set of resolved comments from Nergaal

*Quick question: why are there only like 10 purple things in the image, instead of some 170-something? Am I missing something? Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC) The map is of census divisions by type. Nine of Ontario's 173 single-tier municipalities are designated as census divisions by Statistics Canada. The remaining 164 are components of census divisions. Hwy43 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC) God this is not a straightforward system at all. Then why not list these 9 also in the first table using italics or something to distinguish them? Nergaal (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I have a suggested solution that might simplify things a bit. Why not have the first map just show the municipalities listed in the first table (Upper-tier municipalities). So it would be the same as now, minus the single-tier municipalities. This would alleviate any confusion and we are not really interested in census divisions for the page anyway. Plus it makes sense for the map to show the contents of that section and only that section. Would this be hard to do? Mattximus (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Not hard to do. I'll undertake. Hwy43 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)  Done Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support the list looks much better now (and feel free to cap/hide my multiple comments left here). Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Could we still have the map showing where the municipalities are? Probably beside the 17% statement. This new one shows Toronto as unincorporated as Northern Ontario. A single-tier map might also be helpful, to offset the upper-tier one. Just some thoughts to throw out there. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't show it as unincorporated. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't show it as incorporated either. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Among the 19 other census subdivisions, differentiating the 10 unincorporated districts from the 9 incorporated single-tier municipalities would be a revert of the effort to resolve the above concern.

Separate maps showing the 17% land coverage and a single-tiers are possible. However, the land areas of some municipalities will be so small that they may be indiscernible at the scale of the upper-tiers map. Hwy43 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

These new maps are excellent and think they address the question about 17% of the land surface incorporated. I am wondering if we could do without the first as it is both a little redundant (the third map shows exactly the same thing, but with a bit more detail), and also messes up the formatting. Just a suggestion. Mattximus (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not finding the first redundant. As the lead is intended to be a generalized summary of the article's content, the generalized map in the lead is appropriate. Also, I'm not seeing any problems with formatting on my end. Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

List of colonial governors of New Jersey

Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been worked on this article for the past three months, starting on 1 March 2013, when I came across it while looking for information about an ancestor of mine, Lord Neil Campbell, who served as Deputy Governor in East Jersey. When I encountered the article that day, it looked like this, and I decided to bring it up to the standard set by List of colonial governors of Massachusetts (a featured list which includes another two of my ancestors). After contributing 278 edits (out of 389 total) to expand this article, I think the work I can bring to this article is done, and I am nominating this article for featured list status confident that the reviewer's suggestions will put the last finishing touches on the article. My only regret is that I have not been able to find any more fair-use portraits of the colonial governors (while I have been able to find several images claiming to be some of them, they are either very dubious or incorrectly labeled). I look forward to your comments, suggestions, and support. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Article seems fine to me; it's complete and full of detail. Nice work. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support This article meets all the criteria for a feature list.

1.Prose - I see no problems with the writing style. The writing is at least as good as you would see in a regional newspaper or magazine.

2.Lead - The lead clearly sums up all the information in the article, and encourages the reader to continue reading the article.

3.Comprehensiveness - The article thoroughly covers all of New Jersey's colonial governors, and is extremely well-referenced.

4.Structure. The article is divided into sections with tables that are easy to read, and the way that the sections are divided (e.g., governors of East Jersey) makes sense from a historic standpoint.

5.Style. I see no conflicts with the Manual of Style, and the article has a lot of pictures and tables.

6.Stability. No edit warring is occurring.

DavidinNJ (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose not quite as simple as DavidinNJ may think I'm afraid. A very quick scan over the list...

• WP:YEAR throughout, i.e. year ranges in the same century don't need to repeat the century.

• Done (28 June 2013). Fix format for years so that century is not repeated. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Section headings need this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Still outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• " Lord Berkeley" no need to suddenly Lord him, Berkeley is fine.

• Done (28 June 2013). Changed two instances of "Lord Berkeley" to "Berkeley." DavidinNJ (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several portraits are missing, would be better to have a centrally-aligned em-dash or similar to show it's not just "still loading" or something.

• Reply I stated above my regrets that I could not locate more fair-use portraits for several governors despite contacting several archives/museums/libraries. There are allegedly portraits for Kieft (dubious, cannot find anything substantiating it) and Coxe (actually a portrait of his son), and Reading (though other sources claimed it could be any of three other people). I will put an em-dash in those empty cells where no portrait is coming. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done emdashes added to cells without portraits. (29 June 2013).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Names usually sort by surname, the tables here seem to differ from that idea.

• Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. Chronological table with no other numeric information should not be sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• No good reason for Notes to be sortable.

• Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why are some notes referenced while many others aren't? Where are the "unreferenced" notes referenced?

• Reply: If I used one or two sources for the several notes attached one of the governors, I put the citation at the end of the bulleted list rather than have each bulletpoint statement end with the same note.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, on my next pass I'll need to check your notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done I've added additional sources, and repeated citation for several of the bulletpointed statements.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Again, avoid blank cells, so avoid blank notes.

• And what would be the solution to this? I could tell someone to avoid construction traffic on Fifth Avenue, but it's rather useless unless I advise them of a detour route.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• A simple en-/em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done - emdash added to that one empty "notes" cell. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "24 May 1626[24]" some punctuation missing.

• Done (28 June 2013). Added period after 1626. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Are you certain your map images are accessible?

• Done (28 June 2013). All maps and other photos have an alternative caption. Alt captions for maps describe color layout in detail. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• All tables should comply with MOS:DTT for accessibility for screen readers.

• Done (28 June 2013). I reviewed all the tables for column/row structure and color, and all comply with MOS:DTT. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "(c.1612-1672)" en-dash needed.

• Done (28 June 2013). Replaced all date-based or page-based EM dashes with EN dashes. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid linking common terms like "hurricane".

• Done (29 June 2013) --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "debtors prison" should be "debtors' prison".

• Done (29 June 2013) --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the "portrait" col sortable?

• Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the "Restoration of New Netherland (1673–1674)" table sortable (with just one entry)?

• Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "See notes above." - not useful in a sortable table.

• Done (28 June 2013). Made tables non-sortable. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The oak tree is said to be more than 500 years old." citation needed.

• Done (29 June 2013). Citation added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• " the oldest building at Princeton University" citation needed... common theme here, you need to make sure the captions are adequately referenced.

• Done (29 June 2013). Citation added to Nassau Hall/Princeton, the Keith line map, and Proprietary House images. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "(1686 – 1767)" be consistent with spacing around the en-dash.

• Done (28 June 2013). Removed spaces around dashes in two locations. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• See also is massively overdone. First, remove all items that already are linked to in the article. Second, try to work out how (or why) a reader could (or would) make a link between this article and, say, List of mayors of New York City.

• Done (29 June 2013) removed those mentioned in article, removed two NYC links. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Check all references for compliance with WP:DASH.

• Done (28 June 2013). Replaced all date-based or page-based EM dashes with EN dashes. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Further reading: " 1702—1738" vs "1664-1738" - please apply WP:DASH and WP:YEAR consistently across the whole list.

• Done (28 June 2013). Replaced all date-based or page-based EM dashes with EN dashes. Standardized year format not to repeat century. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass, plenty more if required I'm sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• @RamblingMan...thanks for your first pass. I'm afraid I'm not really skillful at the syntax of tables and largely have used the table format from another article, I'll have to chalk this one up to the learning curve and see what skills I can acquire in the next day or two. Could you see if there are "plenty more" so I can address them all in one fell swoop tomorrow morning and afternoon?--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'll only be on-wiki intermittently between now and Sunday, so I can't guarantee that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I fixed all the technical issues that you cited. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks to David for assisting in these repairs. Very much appreciated. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

NOMINATOR'S COMMENT: I assert that as of 6 July 2013 either I or User:DavidinNJ have rectified and addressed each of issues raised by User:The Rambling Man above. If these are his only grounds for his opposition, please take note of my effort to remedy them. I will contact him and ask for him to give a second look if there are further issues in addition to those above, or if he approves of how I addressed the issues enumerated above (See: [14]). Please take this into consideration.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Further

• "(1655)[24]Template:Rp:172-177Authorized " eh?

• Done. Fixed template format, "authorized" began next bullet point. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• "pp.287-305" en-dash please. Check others.

• Done. After a few passes, I believe I've found the stray remaining hyphens.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Space between pp. and range or not? Space between p. and page number or not? Be consistent throughout the whole list.

• Comment: Is there a policy regarding style on this one? I've generally chosen to not use a space after pp.141–143, or p.56 just to avoid wide gaps between sentences due to the rp template's format. I haven't found a dictum stating space or no space in this situation. I think, after doing several passes to check the endash thing with this issue that my omitting a space is the consistent usage, I do not see any remaining stray spaces. I would consider this one done unless your or I happen across a style/policy instructing me to put in a space.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't try to enforce a particular style, I tried to enforce consistency. E.g. ref 101 has a space.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Reference 101 did not have a space when I checked. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Sir Edmund Plowden (1590–1659)." see WP:CAPTION, this isn't a complete sentence so it shouldn't have a full stop.

• Done -- ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• " 600 years old. [82]" no spaces between punctuation and refs.

• Done -- ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment please check for correct implementation of WP:DASH, e.g. "pp.121-128" should use an en-dash, not a hyphen (there are several page ranges in the refs which fail this too). And "The relative locations of New Netherland (magenta) and New Sweden (blue) in eastern North America." is not a complete sentence so shouldn't need a full stop (per WP:CAPTION), please check others as I noted above. Also, please ensure tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Which particular references are not in compliance? I'd rather you tell me which ones instead of making me go out on a wild goose chase or spend time and still not see what you are seeing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 81 for instance. And not sure but it looks like the Mcreary book is using an em-dash in the year range, not an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Ref 81 & Mcreary to en-dashes. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• "pp.121-128" fixed. Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• full stop removed from picture caption above-mentioned, and two additional. Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Reply as for "ensuring tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes"...I don't know what that means, or what you want me to look for. If there is a problem, bring it to my attention. I'd prefer not having to fumble for a light switch in the dark only to find there are no problems needing to be addressed. Please eludicate and specify any particular problems that need to be remedied. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the instructions for row and col scopes are contained within MOS:DTT. This is to help screen reading software announce the table correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Still, I would like an example...something to chalk up to the learning curve. The tables are written so that the column is first introduced as a width parameter, none of the examples provide an indication of how to work the scope around that. I cut and pasted the table from an article where I thought their table matched what I needed here. So, if you want me to change anything (and I'm amenable to learn how), an example of what you mean would be appreciated for the benefit of this novice in the world of tables.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty much any recently-promoted FL will demonstrate the appropriate inclusion of scope="row" and scope="col". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would assuming that being the FL-delegate, you'd be able to point me to an apposite example (as I've asked for twice) instead of expecting me to go out on an aimless grail quest not knowing what to look for. So, I'll put it to you this way, please tell me how to adapt the excerpt below, or provide me an example that applies to the table format from the article, excerpted below. I'm asking you to show me, not tell me to search. With the limited time I can attend to improving articles on Wikipedia, I'd rather not waste it being told to look for something I am clueless about when it will take a few moments of your time to tell/show me what you want. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• We all have limited time I'm afraid. You can find recently promoted lists here and as an example, you could look at List of NK Maribor players:

{| class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center;" |+List of Maribor players, and displaying the types of accomplishments and statistics by the players during their time with the club{{ref label|Statistics|A|A}} |- ! scope="col" width="200"|Name ! scope="col" width="200"|Country represented ! scope="col" width="15"|First ! scope="col" width="15"|Last ! scope="col" width="15"|Seasons ! scope="col" width="15" data-sort-type="number"|Apps ! scope="col" width="15" data-sort-type="number"|Goals |- ! scope="row" align=left|{{sortname|Tomislav|Prosen}} .... .... ....

Copy and paste that into a sandbox to see the code. I'm not here as FL director to show you everything like this I'm afraid, my commitments to this project extend way beyond just this one list. One of the major issues I have is with drive-by pile-on supports by people who clearly haven't taken the time to examine the quality of a list against the criteria, most pertinently the MOS. Sorry if you find it difficult to do the research I've suggested. I guess we're all busy doing one thing or another. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• We're all on limited time, and it only took a few minutes of your time. I appreciate having an example to learn from, and will see what I can do forthwith. On the other hand, as a matter of general principle I'm of the school of thought that you don't teach a clueless kid to fish by pointing him to a bookshelf and say "have at it." --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not quite, I pointed you at the riverbank and some rods and said "have at it". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• ...after asking a few times saying "hey, the books don't cut it."--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm done here. I've tried to help make the article scrape to the minimum quality required at FLC, the driveby supporters will get you over the line I'm sure. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for being an unwittingly incompetent novice with tables, and that trying to do the example you've provided has had the effect of screwing up the tables, after bringing them into compliance with your comments above. I simply just don't know how to do this. The tables work as is, but when I try doing what you want me to do (which I fail to see any benefit), I'm taking a few undesirable steps backward. So, after a valiant and willing effort to satisfy your insistence upon MOS:DTT, I have to give up on this one...especially since you're unwilling to provide sufficient assistance/instruction despite commentat(ing) and criticis(ing) and stack(ing) up bytes of nothingness while sniping from the perimeter. Perhaps I expect too much, because usually when I review a GA from time to time, for the minor things I can fix myself (like identifying or replacing stray hyphens), or if there's something a nominator doesn't understand, I roll up my sleeves and jump in. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can't write all FLCs on behalf of editors. I've made a change to your list to show you something of what is required. If you want to "give up" then fine, my oppose stands, and I've provided you with (a) the MOS link (b) examples of tables which use the row and col scopes. Beyond that you're expecting me to do it all for you? No, that's not happening. Rest assured I'm much more inclined to assist those who are willing to listen rather than those who are prepared to copy and paste selected items of my user page here. (As for rolling up my sleeves... please. Check my edit history. I do my fair share. How rude to passively assert I don't. If you don't want to read/understand/learn how better to comply with MOS with respect to tables, that's your problem I'm afraid). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I asked you for help and for you to explain it, stating my obvious shortcomings with tables, and you gave me scraps I could not use. That was about as helpful as giving me as screwdriver to shoot a rabid dog. So apparently, instead of taking a few minutes to mentor and advise, you dictated and then get miffed because I still don't understand your less than informative explanation. Instead, I've asked for help here: [15] and will reach out to a few editors who might be able to give a few precious minutes to the greater cause instead of lecturing me on my lack of knowledge before the altar. Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, well if pointing you to a precise guideline, and pointing you to an example of it in use (as per all recently-promoted FLs) is equivalent to giving you "scraps" or a "screwdriver to shoot a rabid dog", then I may as well give up and edit all these FLCs myself. Sorry you've had this disappointing experience. Perhaps it's all the more disappointing after the drive-by supports you already have who clearly haven't compared the list against the appropriate criteria. We tend to expect editors who nominate lists here to be competent and be able to take constructive advice (such as "see the MOS article" and "see the example of the MOS instruction in action") and we don't expect to have to do all the legwork. Maybe that's a surprise to you? In any case, I'm glad you've taken the gauntlet and asked for help from others, that's what Wikipedia is all about. Once we're done there, I'll be happy to re-visit and re-review in detail. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I expressed my willingness to learn and to take constructive advice, but when I point out the MOS guideline doesn't tell me what I need (i.e. none of the examples tell me how to adapt the content of the FLC to meet that guideline), I don't expect to be told to find something else to read. So, FYI, the guideline you call "precise" wasn't "precise." I only had to ask for a helpful and useable explanation like a half-dozen times before you getting pissed off not because you offer an inadequate answer, but because I had the audacity to respond stating that I don't get your inadequate answer. I didn't ask you to do all the legwork as you presume, I asked you to explain to me how to adapt my table text to meet your comment. So much for saying "hey, what do you mean?"...I get my head cut off for not knowing some obscure, useless, and (in terms of content) meaningless code. Thanks for taking half a day to provide me the explanation I asked for this morning. It took you all of five minutes to answer my question but you wasted a few hours getting there. Perhaps I'm just a little more helpful when someone kneels before the altar and says "I don't understand" oh mighty liege lord. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I do apologise for spending the day out trying to buy clothes, a cot etc for my new baby when, of course, I should have been supplicating myself at your own altar, providing you explanations you demanded this morning. Forgive me for not realising the altar was your's not mine. Forgive me for assuming there is no deadline. In any case, you've got all the information you need from me, along with an example edit. I can't do more than that other than edit your nomination myself. And that isn't my role. Please take onboard the great advice I'm sure you'll get from others and that will supersede mine no doubt, and good luck. In your own style, and as your user page says "Find a better line to draw in the sand before you deign to waste my time or piss me off.", I'm drawing the line now, no need to piss you off further, please let's disengage and I'll be happy to never engage with you again, so job done, ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be glad to disengage from this, for an FL-director, you're rather hostile when someone has a further question about what exactly you want when your first statement is vague and uninformative. Just think, I could have said done yesterday on this point when you said "hey, bring it into compliance with MOS:DTT" and I stated after looking at MOS:DTT, "what do you mean exactly, what are you looking for" and you immediately responded the instructions for row and col scopes are contained within MOS:DTT. thanks for the vicious circle...we could have avoided the problem if you answered my question then instead of giving me the FLC equivalent of a feedback loop. I could care less if you had to buy socks, when you said "do this", you just couldn't answer a simple question..."how?"...and yet you tell me I should be "competent."...sniping from the perimeter indeed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sadly noted. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've not read all the above. In response to these edits, also this one, I've made these edits. Strictly speaking, it's unnecessary, since MOS:DTT was written when we served XHTML 1.0, where the rules were similar to HTML 4.0, kinda complicated. We now serve HTML5, where if the th element has no scope attribute, that's setting the auto state, which was not present in the HTML 4.0 spec - it makes the header cell apply to a set of cells selected based on context. That is to say, if the first row of a table contains only th elements, each one of those is implicitly scope=col - it doesn't need to be stated explicitly. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am grateful for your help, Redrose64.--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done MOS:DTT comments from User:The Rambling Man satisfied with help from User:Redrose64.--ColonelHenry (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

NOMINATOR'S COMMENT: The second round of suggestions for improvement and compliance added by User:The Rambling Man (q.v. above) have been addressed, and he has provided no further comments to be addressed in a week. As there are no currently unaddressed comments associated with his above-stated opposition, these comments should be considered resolved.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. - The article is well-written, well-researched and it appears to be quite comprehensive. Nice work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: This is a fantastic article, the only thing I would suggest is cutting down on the See also links. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Directors of New Netherland: "Settled areas of New Netherland are now constitute the states of...". "are" should be taken out. Done (02AUG13) --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) In the table, the space before ref 24 should be removed. Done (02AUG13) --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Wouter van Twiller: Space before an em dash in one of the table notes should also be removed. Done (02AUG13) --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Peter Stuyvesant: "obtained victory the Esopus Wars...". Needs "in" after "victory". Done (02AUG13) --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Governors of New York and New Jersey, Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury entry: "Historians claim his that he illustrated the worst form...". Remove "his"? Done (02AUG13) --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) See also: Minor, but the em dash in the year range should be a smaller en dash instead. Done (02AUG13) --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC) All caps in refs 15, 26, and 118 need fixing. Done with reply: the caps are from the reference themselves. I'll lower the chapters in n.26 and n.118, but Livingston in n.15 is a biographical abstract in a directory, so I'll keep it capitalised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, the titles aren't supposed to be capitalized even if they are capitalized in the reference. The MoS allows us to make formatting changes such as this in titles; we can also fix any typos that the sources have, to name another example. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Done (03AUG13) for n.15. Where in the MOS is that?--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Page ranges in refs 68, 69, 77, and 78 need en dashes. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Done: refs' page ranges converted.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from User Nergaal

• Since the topic of the article is a bit vague (New Jersey was formed much later) I strongly suggest showing an anachronistic map with all the entities discussed in this article overlaid on the current location of New Jersey. That way it is easy to understand the relevance of the entities discussed in this list to any new casual reader. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: I do think that is a good idea and I will look into that idea moving forward. I do not know enough about making map images much less one with several overlapping layers, so I will have to reach out to editors with mapmaking experience. Further, the boundaries of the failed New Albion colony were never officially set and there are several different diverging notions of those boundaries among scholars. It is worth exploring whether (given the diverging scholarly opinions on boundaries) and the technical issues in the making of such a map whether this idea is feasible--which will not be a quick decision. However, as far as the featured list criteria are concerned, I do not believe this suggestion should hold up any decision on the promotion of this article. Thank you for an intriguing suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Umh, yeah, except for #4. Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: What do you mean #4? If you mean criteria 4, discussion of tables and MOS section guidelines doesn't apply, unless you can point something out others and I have missed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

Carry On series on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Cassianto^Talk and SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Carry On series (1958–78) was a long-running, low-budget British sequence of comedy films produced between 1958 and 1992. The series relied largely on innuendo and double entendre, and consisted of 31 films, one television series including three Christmas specials, and three West End and provincial stage plays. Next to the James Bond films, the Carry Ons comprise the largest number of films of any British series and are the second-longest continually-running UK film series (with a fourteen-year hiatus between 1978 and 1992). I have spent the last few weeks compiling this list ably assisted by my glamorous assistant SchroCat, and we believe that it now meets all the relevant criteria for it to be considered a featured list. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This may be beyond the scope of this nomination, but is it possible to have the individual films/tv shows referenced in this list wiki-linked to this page? I checked the first two films and neither linked to this list. If it will become featured, it surely will benefit from the traffic from the individual pages. Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Edit On further inspection, it appears none of the pages link to this list, it's essentially an orphaned article, this needs to be fixed before being promoted. Mattximus (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean listing this article in a "See also" section in each film article? -- Cassianto^Talk 07:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean. I'll get onto it now. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Just about beat you to it Cass! Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Query - the article states that there were "numerous West End and provincial stage plays", yet only three are listed.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

====Comments from Crisco 1492==== one television series of thirteen episodes (including three Christmas specials), - Further below you say the specials were made first, even before the series was ordered. Order fixed. -- CassiantoTalk 19:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC) You duplicate "Production (for Nurse) lasted a month, starting in November and finishing shortly before Christmas 1958. The film was released in March 1959." Oh dear! I didn't see that thanks. -- CassiantoTalk 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Regardless had the highest amount of unused material omitted from the final script. - final script or cut? Reworked. -- CassiantoTalk 09:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC) an original story by Dick Hills and Sid Green called Call Me a Cab. - novel or short story? If the latter, use quotes It was a script taken from stage play which was adopted as a basis for the story, rewritten by Tolly Rothwell. Cabby was not intended to be part of the series, but things changed mid-production. I think that deserves Itals? -- CassiantoTalk 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Was the stage play entitled Call Me a Cab? You've been using quotes for scripts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Working on this... -- CassiantoTalk 09:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Dr. No, - year? Actually, a lot of these works of fiction could use years Done. What are the other ones you see? -- CassiantoTalk 08:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Basically any published work of literature or film which has been adapted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC) I have caught all of the films. The scripts are a little different as I cannot find any years for them online (none reliable anyway). I will consult the books once I am back from the gym. -- CassiantoTalk 09:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Carry On Camping was perhaps one of the best known films of the series. -according to whom? Bit of accidental POV there, sorry. -- CassiantoTalk 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC) "Anne of a Thousand Lays" - So no issues with this at the censors? ... The title was never used, and was a working title only. (although it was used as a jokey, alternative title at the beginning of the film: the censors were not happy with this, but allowed it for this use only) -- CassiantoTalk 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC) It appears to have had some impact. Unless, of course, this is a coincidence]. Not for our article here, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC) I think this would have been a coincidence. This EL seems to be completely unrelated to the Carry On's and is 28 years apart. Unless of course I'm missing something. Unfortunately, I cannot link this to the use of the alternative title used in Henry as nothing suggests that. -- CassiantoTalk 08:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC) As I said, "Not for our article here, however." (Hence the small font too, just thought it interesting) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, it was interesting. It makes me wonder on how many other things were borrowed/stolen from the Carry On's :-) -- CassiantoTalk 09:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC) What's with linking the film title twice in its respective row? Deleted link to the film in each of the "Notes" section. That's Entertainment! - Italics? No? Done. -- CassiantoTalk 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Otherwise quite interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC) And the others? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Doing...RL caused me to pause. Also, I need the books which weren't to hand yesterday -- CassiantoTalk 07:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Solid work, guys (sorry took me so long, I thought you were still on the Call Me a Cab, but it seems you've gotten that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, it was me who dragged their heels on this one Crisco. You will now find the itals restored for the scripts and the Call Me a Cab farce now corrected. Thank you for the review and the much appreciated support. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, even later to the party, having been to one of those bits of Britain where they have yet to discover mobile signals! Many thanks for your thoughts here: much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-counting comment from Soapfan12

Comment Comment: Archive all online sources with webcitation.org. You can use this page (step-by-step instructions there) to manually archive all online references which will guarantee they remain accessible even if the site goes down. After this has been resolved, I would be happy to support! SoapFan12 11:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I will not be signing up to this unless this is a required part of the criteria for FLC. Could a delegate confirm this please. I will copy my response here from my talk page: Firstly, unless the rules have changed, this is NOT obligatory. This has not come from an FL delegate, so I presume this is not an essential part of the FLC. I have sat many FA's and FL's and this is the first time I have ever been offered this as an ultimatum. As far as I can see, it is not an obligatory part of the process. Furthermore, I do not want to dish out my personal email address to people or companies who I am not familiar with (which is what the link is asking me to do). It appears you haven't reviewed the article as you have not offered any comments or views. You have given me a conditional support in exchange for my signing up for this service. A support should NOT be based on this, it should be based on the criteria needed for FLC. -- CassiantoTalk 13:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry. I have put my response on you're talk page. SoapFan12 13:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Great job on meeting every single criteria for FL, espicially on the prose! SoapFan12 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments "In 1969 a Christmas special was recorded by Thames Television, entitled "Carry On Christmas" which was watched by over eight million viewers", sorry for being technical, but nationally or regionally? It was recorded by Thames, so it may give off the impression that the eight million who saw it was from the London region. Best to include what network it was shown on. If it is ITV, then rephrase "In 1975 a 13-episode television series was commissioned by ATV and was televised on ITV." to "In 1975 a 13-episode television series was commissioned by ATV for ITV." OK, I think I got that. Sorry, your comment appears a little confusing as we start off by talking about one line then give an alt for another. Anyhow, I fixed both but they may need checking. -- CassiantoTalk 06:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Publish dates are needed for Refs 2 and 4. Added. -- CassiantoTalk 06:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Having looked at the Guardian archive, Ref 6 is titled differently – "In praise of Carrying on" Of course, added thanks. -- CassiantoTalk 06:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 20 is actually on p.15; the article is titled "Two British Film Comedies: Simple and Sophisticated." Lemonade51 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Strange, ok fixed. -- CassiantoTalk 06:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much for the review Lemonade51. I will spend the day going through each and every reference to check for their accuracy. I must admit that it leaves element of doubt when there are inconsistencies in referencing, and that the others may follow suit. I will post my responses later. -- CassiantoTalk 06:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts Lemonade: much appreciated - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – A fine list. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I gave the page a light copy-editing earlier this month, but have not contributed anything of substance. I know an unreasonable amount about this gloriously dreadful series, and I think the nominators have boiled the constituent films down very skilfully here. As an overview of the series I don't see how this could be bettered. – Tim riley (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Tim! -- Cassianto^Talk 11:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support although I suggest you change the following: "Production lasted from March to May 1958, and was released in August of that year" - production was not released in August, so you need to add something like "the film" before "was released". In a similar vein, "Rothwell wrote a script called "Carry On Courting" but was re-titled by Rogers to Carry On Loving" needs changing - Rothwell was not re-titled so you need to add in "it" or similar..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks Chris: your two suggestions both now implemented. Thanks for your comments and time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments Real pity there's not one single relevant image permissible for use for this list? I know it is gutting! The only one is this which is non-free, but I may have trouble satisfying NFCC rules with it. If I thought I could get away with it, I would add it. Virtually all the images of the Carry On's are well and truly copyrighted. Unless anybody happens to know of a ultra-rare pre-1963 American image out there? -- CassiantoTalk 19:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "31 films, three Christmas specials, one television series" beware MOSNUM, so comparable entities should use the same approach, i.e. "thirty-one films, three Chri..." or "31 films, 3 ...." consistent spelled versions. -- CassiantoTalk 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) " the 1976 entry" not keen on entry, can we not just say "film"? Changed. -- CassiantoTalk 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) For our universal friends, perhaps explain what ITV is. Done. -- CassiantoTalk 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) flu->influenza. Done. -- CassiantoTalk 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Nurse on Wheels(1963).[35]" space before the year. Fixed. -- CassiantoTalk 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Link actors name every time - the table is soratble. OK, I think I caught them all. -- CassiantoTalk 19:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your review so far. I will continue to hunt for an appropriate image in the mean time. -- CassiantoTalk 19:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [17].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series

Nominator(s):Caringtype1 and SoapFan12 23:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This article meets every one of the Featured List criteria. There are plenty of reliable sources, and the information is presented in a clear and understandable way. Many issues and problems have been addressed in the months of improvements made to the article since then. We feel this article more than qualifies for Featured List status. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. SoapFan12 23:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Looks great! Well referenced and written. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you! SoapFan12 ^Talk 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: This list is well structured, written, and easy to understand. Barring slight differences, it is consistent with your previous revisions to other Daytime Emmy acting awards lists. Great work!

-Birdienest81 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! SoapFan12 ^Talk 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Looks as it is sourced well and well written. Good work. Creativity97 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you! SoapFan12 ^Talk 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments It's actually a Daytime Emmy Award, not simply an Emmy Award but you need to be careful not to make the opening sentence too repetitive.  Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) " This award has been given" -> "It is given..." (assuming it's still active).  Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) "During the early years in which this award was presented" not great for me, a little vague and non-encyclopedic.  Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) "recipient of this award, who won for her" -> "recipient of this award for her..."  Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) "One Life to Live has the most recipients of this award" no, actresses who were in One Life to Live have received the award the most, not the show itself. I do not understand what I have to change. So, I will tell you what the sentence means, it means that there is more actresses who won for their role on One Life to Live than any other soaps in this category. It doesn't mean that every actresses in the show, has won the award more than once. For example, Erika Slezak has won six award in this category, she is a cast member in One Life to Live, therefore their is five more actresses from the show who has the award, get me now? SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) You mean "One Life to Live is the show with the most awarded actresses" or similar. Basically, the award is presented to actresses, not shows, so saying "One Life to Live has the most recipients..." is a little odd for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)  Done. SoapFan12 17:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC) " the most winning actress" yuck, maybe "has won the most awards"  Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) "holding the title with six wins" what title?  Done. SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) "Susan Lucci has the most nominations in this category, with a total of twenty-one" -> "Susan Lucci has been nominated on 21 occasions, more than any other actress."SoapFan12 21:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 The awards ceremony had not been aired on television for the prior two years, having been criticized for voting integrity. - Huh? This was out of nowhere. Your last date was 1974, the first Daytime Emmys TBH, I don't see the issue here.  Done. Caringtype1 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Soaps, the issue was that you are essentially saying "the awards ceremony had not been broadcast on television for two years prior to its inauguration because of criticism of voter integrity" (i.e. it was criticised before it had even started). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Following the introduction of a new category, Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series , - when?  Done. SoapFan12 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I don't see any changes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC) sorry Now, it's  Done. SoapFan12 12:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Considering the very basic issues I found (see my copyedit), I question the review quality of the above supports (I mean "The award first occured since the 1st Daytime Emmy Awards ceremony in 1974."? That's just torture to read) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm holding on the support until another reviewer takes a look at prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments "In 1995, Erika Slezak became the actress with the most wins in the category when she won a fourth time, surpassing Helen Gallagher's record tally of three; she went on to win in two additional years, ultimately receiving six wins." How is three a "record tally"? It appears the record is six. Do you mean "previous record"? After the semi-colon, who is "she", Slezak or Gallagher?  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC) No free picture of the award itself? I just found several on Flickr, all high resolution. Surely someone who edits Emmy award articles can manipulate images. A picture of an Emmy at the top of the infobox would look fantastic. Never mind, any likeness of the statue is copyrighted apparently. Ridiculous, but such is U.S. copyright law. Rejectwater (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Is it Underlinking to have no links at all in the "Multiple wins" and "Multiple nominations" tables? Everything in the "Series with most awards" table is linked. Maybe, but they are already mention in the main table. SoapFan12 Talk page here 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC) No, I have removed the links from "Series with Most wins", they are all linked in the table, no need to do it again after the table.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Rejectwater (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Underlinking: No, as it's already linked in the above table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I am going to leave these two open for now in the hopes others will comment on this as I am not sure about it. Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Additional comments from Rejectwater All image alt texts start with "A women". Poor grammar. Should be "A woman".  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 00:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Still seeing several with "women". Rejectwater (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, now it is  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 01:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Maura West. Rejectwater (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Cynthia Watros image has no alt text.  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 00:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC) None of the double daggers used in the table have alt text. Each should have text such as "Award winner" or something similar.  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 00:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Rejectwater (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Is it Overlinking for all names of actresses, networks, and show titles to be linked every time in the table? Rejectwater (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I beleive it is not overlinking since if a reader needs to look for a particular year, it will be difficult. Also, in the featured lists ([18], [19]), they do it the same way. SoapFan12 Talk page here 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's over linking to link in a table with separate entries for separate years. I think how we have it is fine.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Overlinking: Likely, as this table is not sortable (and thus what you see is what you get, all the time), so there is no chance that an unlinked version will be placed in front of a linked version during sorting.Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC) If I remove the overlinking for the article, IMO it would lack of visual appeal. Plus, it is extra work, for no reason. Plus, a support and oppose should be based on the featured list criteria not based on this. SoapFan12 Talk page here 23:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC) This is part of the criteria. Number 5 to be precise: "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." I do, however, concur that underlinking is not an issue. Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Okay fine. But still, it would lack of serious visual appeal. I believe it should be left alone. SoapFan12 Talk page here 00:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Removing the extra links would have no negative impact on visual appeal. Not all entries in the table are currently linked as it is: take "Maeve Ryan" for instance, plain black text, looks fine. Rejectwater (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, I believe it should be left alone. Also, I have talked to a delegate and he said that it depends on personal and reviewer preferences. Me and my co-nominator (personal) believe it should be left alone and You (reviewer) says it shouldn't. I disagree, removing the extra links would have negative impact on visual appeal. SoapFan12 Talk page here 01:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Certainly we can agree to disagree. I am going to leave the overlinking portion of this discussion open for others to consider. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Overlinking in tables is the only thing I've been concerned about these lists. I have to agree that it is definitely over linking. No need to repeat linking of the show and actress, IMO. I also don't see how it would negatively affect the visual appeal. Also just pointing out something small. If everything is linked in the "Winners and nominees", why isn't everything linked in all of the other tables? Kind of inconsistent, for me personally.Arre 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I still disagree. But if I need the remove the extra links and I would need help from all of you guys, since this is kind of work I am not ready for. SoapFan12 Talk page here 02:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, why can it just not be left alone? Let's move on, this is way too much work for me. Plus, I will go with what the delegate told me, if I prefer being overlinked, it will be overlinked. SoapFan12 Talk page here 02:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I'd like to add that it would make the visual look of the table appear inconsistent and potentially confusing to readers. A reader looking for just this year's nominees would wonder why some names were linked and others weren't.Caringtype1 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Crisco 1492 said, the only tables that are greenlit for overlinking are sortable ones. Therefore, I have made the table sortable. So this, should be left alone now. SoapFan12 Talk 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) This actually creates more problems. Overlinking is no longer an issue, true, but the sorting doesn't work very well. In my browser nothing works after one or two clicks and even then nothing sorts in any order that makes sense. Getting a large and complex table like this one to sort properly can be a huge undertaking. I did one recently and found pretty much everything (not references, the refs column should be set as unsortable) had to be held inside the {{sort}} template. I think you're better off leaving it as a regular table. I'll consider the whole thing resolved once you change it back (unless you want to make the sorting work, of course). Rejectwater (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)  Done. Thanks! I have change it back! Can you resolve now?  — SoapFan12 Talk 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments The last three tables could be made sortable.  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 02:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure what the use is for the first external link; it reads outdated. Perhaps you should remove it.  Done. SoapFan12 Talk page here 02:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Lemonade51 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have been resolved. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! SoapFan12 ^Talk 16:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Support — I can see no issues whatsoever. This is a very good list. Congratulations to all involved. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! SoapFan12 ^Talk 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

• Support as per comments below. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Everything looks good. I have one comment about the lead. There's a slight bit of repetition in the very first sentence (Daytime Emmy Award is used twice when it could be used once).
  • "The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series is a Daytime Emmy Award presented annually by..." This can be fixed by doing this "The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series is an award presented annually by..."
    •  Done. SoapFan12 ^Talk 20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Alright, looks good and I don't have an issue with the overlinking that was brought up, particularly because it's a table, not prose. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks! SoapFan12 ^Talk 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I am a bit worried over the fact that all the supports this has received come from the nominator canvassing asking other users to comment. See [20], [21], [22], [23]. I was also asked to comment here and Hahc21 (talk · contribs) was also and was later even asked to promote this.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine since the purpose of those comments were to get more reviews comments, not necessarily support. I don't believe my co-nominator, SoapFan12 was trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine." It was all in the interest of getting more feedback to improve the article.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Caringtype1. It's not canvassing if you keep the request perfectly neutral. I believe I kept it neutral. Furthermore, why? I would of love if you send me on my e-mail. Are you deliberately trying to embarass me? I could lose a lot of user friends because of this. I really do not appreciate this, please respect me. Also, I asked them if they are willing and if they said ″no″. I would respect that decision. I don't see asking people for reviews, a problem. I was not asking for a support. But thank you for warning me, I will stop asking. I never thought I was doing something wrong. SoapFan12 ^Talk 21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not exactly wrong, however, I feel as if the amount is a bit over-the-top (also considering the fact that many people you asked to comment just supported and didn't leave any comments). I personally don't believe in requesting comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them; this FLC has been open for not even two weeks. I'm not trying to embarrass you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  It's okay. Thanks again for warning me and sharing you're opinion! You know what, I happen to agree with you ( only request comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them). It's sometimes, you feel that you want you're list to pass for featured status ASAP. Like Caringtype1 said, I was not trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine". Thanks again! SoapFan12 ^Talk 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think 6 days is "dead". 20 days, maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Crisco, but I believe I know what Status meant by "dead".  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 23:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [24].

---

Nerina Pallot discography

Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. I look forward to your comments and feedback. I'll try to respond ask quickly as possible. Thanks in advance. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SoapFan12

Comment Archive other online sources with webcitation.org. You can use this page (step-by-step instructions there) to manually archive all online references which will guarantee they remain accessible even if the site goes down. After this has been resolved, I would be happy to support! SoapFan12 22:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC) All done and thank you very much for the review :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Great job on meetiing every single criteria for an FL! SoapFan12 11:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chihciboy

Comments In the lead's second paragraph, remove the initials (BPI) after the British Phonographic Industry since it's not mentioned elsewhere anymore. The lead only mentions that only one single from her managed to chart aside from the UK. It would be great if you put some info about some her singles that managed to chart internationally, e.g. "Sophia" also charted in Sweden. In the Dear Frustrated Superstar album details, Released 20 August 2001 (UK) --> Released: 20 August 2001. You forgot to put a colon (:) in the release date. And since its the earliest release date already, there's no much need to put (UK) in it. Didn't "Everybody's Gone to War" also charted in the two Belgian regions even though in the tip charts? It would also be nice if you include them in the peak chart positions since the 10-territory limit hasn't been reached yet. (It's important to remember that the Ultratop and the Ultratip charts are different from each other, so you need to add 50 positions + its Flemish position [e.g. 50 + 10, so 60] and 40 positions + its Walloon position [e.g. 40 + 17, so 57] and put a footnote that "Everybody's Gone to War" peaked at number 10 and 17 on the Ultratip Flemish and Walloon charts, which acts as an extension to the Ultratop 50 and Ultratop 40.) FN9, FN10, FN13, FN14, FN15, FN20, FN21, FN22, FN23, FN24, FN37, FN42: You only need to link the first time, per WP:OVERLINK. So you need to unlink Itunes and Apple since the two are already linked in FN8. FN11, FN18, FN19: Unlink AllMusic and Rovi Corporation. FN38, FN39: Unlink MTV Base and Viacom Media Networks. Unlink UK in peak positions in the "As a featured artist" table. "Everybody's Gone to War" also charted on the Dutch Top 40 Tipparade. You could also include that. (Reminder: the Dutch Top 40 Tipparade is also different from the Dutch Top 40, so you need to add 40 positions + its Tipparade position and put a footnote that "Everybody's Gone to War" peaked at number 10 on the Dutch Top 40 Tipparade, which acts as an extension to the the main Dutch Top 40 chart.) Chihciboy (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I have added the Belgian charts, removed the many wikilinks, added extra chart info to the lead and removed (BPI). I however did leave the (UK) for Dear Frustrated Superstar for uniformity. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC) It's a great list with well-archived references... but I'm kind of having some issues (especially on the lead). There is this Guardian article about her disowning Dear Frustrated Superstar when the album sold two copies in its first week and about her setting up Idaho Records to release Fires and reissue Dear Frustrated Superstar with Warner Music. It's kind of a big deal because its her own label which is part of a discography. The words "reached" and "peaked" are written more than once. Try other words for variety (e.g. charted, debuted [if it entered the chart in its peak position]) Does she have total sales figures, at least in the UK? You could add that in the lead. Music Week has sales of Dear Frustrated Superstar, and The Guardian has worldwide and UK sales of Fires. You could put it in the albums table next to certifications (see WP:DISCOGSTYLE) In singles section, you can remove "as a main artist" since she's not a member of a musical duo/group, right? People might think she is. Also in the lead, while it isn't required, you could change United Kingdom ---> UK Albums Chart/UK Singles Chart so it wont appear that the country itself is linked. (e.g. It reached number 98 in the United Kingdom --> It charted at number 98 in the UK Albums Chart, which reached number 54 in the UK --> which reached number 54 in the UK Singles Chart) Chihciboy (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I have made some further changes and used your suggestions in the lead. I have left the "as a main artist" in the singles section because it has been used in previous discography FL's that I have written and by others (see Cœur de pirate discography + Rihanna discography). Also, I can't find a reliable ref. for "Everybody's Gone to War" charting on the Dutch Top 40 Tipparade. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Here's "Everbody's Gone to War"'s chart data from the Dutch Top 40 site, you can use this. Another note, I kind of noticed that the words "the album" were repeated loads of times in every album cycle. Try restructuring it (e.g. The album peaked at number 31 in the UK and and produced three singles... ---> It entered the UK Albums Chart at number 31 and issued three singles.) Chihciboy (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Added the Dutch chart (thank you for the link) and mixed the wording up a bit in the lead. Hopefully now it doesn't sound so repetitive. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - I made slight edits here and here, its just mainly about the corrections the chart entries. Also, here's the official chart statistics of Nerina from the Official Charts Company. You could use this as a ref in the future. Other than that, I think the list looks better now. Well done! Chihciboy (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments "14 singles" fourteen to keep all comparable items in a single sentence in a similar format, per MOSNUM? "and 11 music" -> eleven. "number 54 in the UK and number two " -> 2. " her second studio..." "Pallot's second..." Put (BPI) after British Phonographic Industry. Shouldn't "Album details" be "EP details" in the EP table? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Done and thank you – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: Looks very informative, yet easy to ready.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [25].

---

Mayor of Pichilemu

Nominator(s): Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Last nomination failed because it lacked comments. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it complies with the criteria; furthermore I have based it from two other featured lists (Mayor of Jersey City, and Mayor of San Francisco). The article makes extensive use of authoritative local sources (Pichilemu News, maintained by a former city councilor, and El Expreso de la Costa, a monthly local newspaper). It deserves to be a FL, please consider this nomination and comment! Thanks! Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with this nomination? To date it is the only "current nomination" that has not received a single comment. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, I think there's a tradition of avoidance in some relisted nominations. Sorry you haven't had any feedback, I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think it's more of an issue of people are hesitant to review nominations on topics that are unfamiliar to them. I've had the same issue with List of Sega 32X games still here almost a month later with only two commenters. That being said, I'll do my part here and see if I can help generate some comments. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments Shouldn't you use formal terms such as "Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins Region" for the region?" "The mayor presides the" maybe because I'm BritEng, I'd say "presides over". "Forty individuals, including acting mayors, have held the office of mayor" not consistent with table. clarified by saying that forty different individuals have held office as mayor "Córdova was re-elected to a full term on 28 October 2012. His current term will end on 6 December 2016." merge these two short sentences to avoid repeating term. Background section has no references. "at most in April;" do you mean "usually in April"?< Per WP:COLLAPSE should avoid auto-hiding information. Avoid the unnecessary bold text in the Council column. I dislike immensely the rowspan "None" between 30 and the one before 37 for "Council". Don't unnecessarily merge cells like this, it makes navigating it, both visually and screen-reader, difficult. I'm not so sure, uncollapsing the council lists would make the table too large, maybe I should simply remove it? Where do the colours for the political parties come from? Chilean politican parties are almost never associated or connected with colors; however, some representative colors were added for the style's sake. Blue color seems to be representative for the Conservative Party and the Independent Democratic Union [26], the Christian Democrat Party has the yellow color (but I can't think why; it was added by someone else), I chose the yellow color for the Party for Democracy (it's the central color of their logo [27]), the Socialist Party uses the color of its logo too [28], while the Progr. Union of the Centrist Center uses red in its logo [29]. Ensure all tables comply with WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes, per MOS:DTT. Doing now. done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the comments! Lester Foster (talk | talk) 18:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

*Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... Red link in background paragraph for the word "subdelegations"... what's it intended to link to? I think you have too many subsections, and it shows in how short the list's paragraphs and sections are. Consider merging together your first four sections; perhaps starting with the one paragraph about historical background, then elections, duties and powers, and finally succession. Duties and powers paragraphs need to be merged together. There's not enough individual info in each paragraph to warrant its own, especially with only two or three sentences per paragraph in this section. Sentence fluency issues: In the lead section, "The mayor..." is the start of three straight sentences. The lead should be reworded to avoid this. Likewise, three straight paragraphs start with "The" in the duties and powers paragraphs, but if merged together per the above note, this should be rectified. I just noticed Mayors of Pichilemu timeline in the See also section. Could this information be merged over into the list, and placed in its own subsection? I believe it would aid the comprehensiveness of the list, and I don't think the timeline itself warrants its own article when the list serves that purpose adequately. Is there anything notable that can be said about the mayor position in the lead? Perhaps something of interest about a particular mayor or two, or something else that might be notable. This would help to expand the lead and make it catch the reader onto the list. That ought to get you started. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Hi, thanks for your comments. I have (apparently) addressed all of them, if there is something else that needs to be done, just yell! :) Lester Foster (talk | talk) 04:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns have been addressed, and I think this comes out as a strong list. Very nicely done! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work on a list that, in my estimation, meets the six critera for inclusion a featured list. The prose quality is informative and professional. The Lede meets the requirements of the MOS and draws the reader into the article. It is comprehensive and a thorough examination of the topic (especially with both the list and timeline), and very well-organized. I do not see any issues of disagreement with the expectations of MOS and other guidelines, nor do I see any issues concerning stability. I applaud the work of the list's editors, and thank the nominator for presenting a well-prepared article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments – List: The title of this section is plain and not descriptive at all. How about Mayors, which is informative without having too much wording? Comma after Iniguez should be removed. Bolding in the Council column shouldn't be there per the Manual of Style. You could italicize the text if it's really that important. There's nasty red text where note 2 should be. Might want to check the formatting there. Note 21: The em dashes shouldn't be half-spaced and half-unspaced; they should be fully unspaced, if you want to use them. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Hi there, thanks for your comments! I seem to have fixed everything up! (and actually found a way to remove the bold text from the collapsible list!) Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 21:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good. I would just add format=PDF to ref 61 – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi there, thanks for supporting my nomination! I have just added that to that ref, and spotted a couple of other PDFs/Excel spreadsheets/text files that were missing that. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.