Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2009

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:29, 23 November 2009 [1].

---

List of French Open Men's Singles champions

Nominator(s): BLUE_DOG^TN 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and I feel it is worthy of this honor and distinction. BLUE_DOG^TN 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have looked over everything in the toolbox and all looks okay right now, which I fixed the intro to match the other two with the exception of describing this slam in its unique ways.BLUE_DOG^TN 02:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I took and corrected some stuff in the introduction which makes the intro superb. Please, come in and give your opinion editors!BLUE_DOG^TN 03:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "before competition was moved to the newly-built Stade Roland Garros." Add "the" before "competition" and remove the hyphen later in the sentence. Fixed "Until 1924, the tournament was reserved to French tennis clubs members". Replace "to" with "for" and put an apostrophe at the end of "clubs". Fixed "Those editions are counted out of the tournament's history." "Counted out" reminds me of boxing, and it's not something I've seen used in this context before. How about a simple "Those editions are not counted in the tournament's history."? Fixed "is held by Paul Ayme (winner, 1897–1900) all titles within the clubs members only format." Is there punctuation missing by the parentheses, or was the part at the end meant to be part of them? It reads oddly as is. Fixed "which all titles came within the club members only format" is odd following Ayme's name. Perhaps "whose titles all came within the club members only format" would be better? Giants2008 (17–14) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed Again No need for multiple Henri Cochet links in the lead. Fixed "and is co-held by four tennis players". Colon after this to set up the four players. While I'm on this sentence, I think you can drop "tennis" from the sentence since it's clear what sport the players competed in. Fixed "In the French Open, most wins is held by...". Add "the" after the comma. Fixed De-capitalize Addition in the next sentence. Fixed In my numerous almanacs, the pre-1925 champions are never given. They obviously should be here since you found a source for them, but I'm curious as to whether they are considered Grand Slam winners. Still want to check the images, but I'll have to do that another time. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I agree!BLUEDOGTN 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) One note before I continue on to the image review: it's generally considered bad form to cap a reviewer's comments at FLC since they should check to see if the comments have been acted upon. Occasionally there are situations where modifications need further work, and capping makes it harder to note these, as I did above in one case. Thanks for reminding meBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It's odd that the Rod Laver photo appears besides both tables. I don't recall seeing an article with multiple uses of a single picture before. Fixed by the Rambling ManBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) The Mats Wilander photo doesn't have strong evidence that it was published at least 20 years ago (as the license requires). I would suggest removing it. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC) FixedBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I've removed the first Laver image, it was unnecessary to repeat it and it was also causing alignment issues for me. OkayBLUEDOGTN Why "Other tournament" with a caveat? Would be simpler, cleaner and less controversial to just make this a traditional "See also" section, wouldn't it? Okay FixedBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) French Championships template seems to be missing several early year events. Is there a reason for this? Yes, it is just unavailable, which I checked on it in my research.BLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) "French club members only event" shouldn't there be a hyphen between members and only? Yes, I don't see it, so will you correct itBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I would put a comma before ref [2]. Fixed "and thrice by" why not just "three times"? Fixed bothBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Cochet's caption says he's a musketeer. He wasn't was he? He was a tennis player. If this was a nickname, you should clarify it. Took awayBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Do you note anywhere that an en-dash in the score means that the score is unknown? Semi-Fixed Go look and make it linkBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed all the way.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Non-tennis experts may not understand the tie-breaker notation (e.g. 7–6(7–3) ) - this is worth explanation. Semi-Fixed Go look and make it linkBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed all the way.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Licensing seems fine and alt text is present. Goodraise 14:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sources: No concerns about the sources used. Goodraise 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) Mind WP:CURRENCY. If you would like to see the conversions Goodraise, you can by all means do them, but it meets the country specific criteria since France uses the Euro now instead of the Franc. I don't see the use, I might add.BLUEDOGTN 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC) "Generally, use the full name of a currency on its first appearance" is what I would like to see. Goodraise 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I fixed it with the Euro and the symbol before the amount like money is suppose to be written in.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The Manual of Style demands otherwise, that's what matters to me. Goodraise 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Reference 8 does not seem to support the statement preceding it. Yes it does, if you click on the more information link.BLUEDOGTN 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Pointing that out in the reference text would be beneficial. Goodraise 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I did.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I have to weakly oppose this nomination, mainly because I see room for improvement in the prose. Goodraise 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC) If this is it the other two Wimbledon and US which are feature only list the currency of origin and the prose is done fine, I might add.BLUEDOGTN 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Now do you still oppose?BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I see no significant improvements to the prose since my last comments, so yes, I still oppose. Goodraise 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving this nomination my weak support on the condition that WFCforLife's concern about the scores is addressed. Goodraise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Feel free to answer after each bullet point or at the end, whichever you find easier.

• Notes should appear in alphanumeric order. For example (and this is not an exhaustive list), the first [h] should not appear earlier in the list than the first [c].

FixedBLUE_DOG^TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are two two-line paragraphs, at least one of which could easily be merged into a larger paragraph.

Fixed BothBLUE_DOG^TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Presumably I've missed this, but what is sourcing the scorelines?

Got them Sourced!BLUE_DOG^TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a source which indicates that records of the missing scorelines do not exist? It seems somewhat strange that records exist for as early as 1891, yet were not kept for as late as 1913. If the records were destroyed, I would assume that there is a source for this.

YesBLUE_DOG^TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know that much about tennis, but consider changing "active player" to something which cannot possibly become outdated, such as "competed in the 2009 season" (which could obviously be updated to "...2010 season" in future). Seems picky, but I've seen at least three recent sports FLCs where this has come up.

I like and changed it to "Competed in 2009"BLUE_DOG^TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At a glance I have some grammatical concerns, but some of these are being covered by other reviewers so I'll concentrate on these areas for the time being. WFCforLife (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, Go and Fix it because I cannot spot them!BLUE_DOG^TN 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The men's singles was the first event contested in 1891." Not sure what this means. Was the event the first to be played in that year, or was it the first overall event to be contested, and this occured in 1891? FixedBLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "The event was not held from 1915 to 1919 because of World War I, and officially from 1940 to 1945 because of World War II." So the WWI break was unofficial? Chaged to "not officially held" FixedBLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) "Clubs members only event" Not sure what this means in the key? Can you explain here, so I can maybe clarify it in the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Members of French Tennis clubs only throughout the country of France!BLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The grammar seems to have been dealt with by Dabomb and Bluedog, but I'm afraid I can't support yet.

Then, fix it if it is not up to your standard or put your misgivings here, and I will address them! I dislike when people say grammar grammar and grammar for their oppose if they do not fix it or point out the exact things they disagree with.BLUE_DOG^TN 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I originally raised the point that it seems unusual that earlier scores were there while later ones weren't. The response was to remove the earlier scores, which was the worst possible change, and should be reversed. I was simply querying why this was the case. If the other scores don't exist, they don't exist. I simply want a satisfactory explanation, and if possible a source which seems to support this. The fact that they're not listed is an indication, but I've seen nothing which suggests that they cannot be found.

They cannont be found because the scores on the sources just have 1925 onward. I got two sources to prove that fact.BLUE_DOG^TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 5 does not source the scorelines, it sources the winners.

I put 10 and 11 their, too! This will let it be sourced.BLUE_DOG^TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• My browser security does not allow me to view source 10. Could another reviewer confirm what is in this source, (crucially, does it make any suggestion that the other scores have been lost?) and could Bluedog explain why it is a reliable source?

The grandslamhistory one is a reliable one and the Hick of sports is their to back it up!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for dragging this on, but if this results in more scores being obtained, and/or a source explaning the gaps being uncovered, then it will have been worth the effort. WFCforLife (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They cannot be obtained!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why were they there before? Surely they weren't just made up. I do accept that some scores may be missing, and that this can be a featured list without them. However, nothing has been done to convince me that the list is as complete as possible, and if anything I'm less certain now than I was when I did my initial review. I therefore have no choice but to oppose. WFCforLife (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't have the score is not reason this cannot be featured, which is because it was not recorded, which is because pre-1925 it was not considered a slam. Go look at the men's grand slam page.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, note C needs rewording, as we do have some results from the pre-slam era. The point that I am now making for a third time is that nothing reliable has suggested that the other results don't exist or have been destroyed. I'm not willing to deactivate my internet security to access ref 10, but unless it specifically addresses this point then I have to remain opposed, (and even if it does, I would suggest replacing a source which is blocked by one of the biggest internet security providers). I would be very happy to support if this were addressed, but I feel this important enough to oppose.

If you feel my judgement is wrong, perhaps we could draw attention to this discussion on the FLC talk page? It might help. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been a follower of tennis majors for the last 10 years, including building my own database of tennis results. To comment on this, indeed, for the pre-slam era, we do have the list of winners but the scores could not be obtained. That is, I'm referring to the official website. In as much as the Wikipedia policy is to not use a primary source as a citation, I don't think this will really matter for such facts as the who's and the what's (or concrete facts) of the subject. So if the official website can't really divulge these info on scoring, then likely no other websites could, since it is the father of all French Open results website. That is unless one probably undertakes personal research to search for facts in newspaper clippings or something. But wikipedia doesn't allow original research (is this applicable here?). In retrospect, I also had a hard time trying to find the scores of tie breaks (lingering death system) up to the mid-1980s in the majors and year-end championships. If the scores for these "recent" matches could not be found, what more for those that took place in the 1920s? Joey80 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The missing scores aren't a big deal per se. It just strikes me as very surprising that we have some scores from that era yet not others. Is there really no story behind the missing scores whatsoever? If there isn't there isn't, (and if there isn't we shouldn't fail this FLC as a result), but I find it difficult to believe that it's never been talked about. WFCforLife (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot do any better on this article than has been done on this list, so if you find grammar problems it is not my problem rather yours since you've got the problem with it. So, I would advise you WFCforLife and Goodraise to fix them, which I will have no problem with that at all, and if you need my help I am here to help on matters of technical questions. By the way, the scores cannot and could not be obtained for some years because it was the French National reserved for French Club Amateur Tennis players only, which means some records did not get recorded for historical fact. Most places online only have post-1925 brackets and scoring, which this is the case here as well. Have a nice day...BLUE_DOG^TN 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for goodraise, but I have already expressed that I'm happy with the work yourself and DaBomb have done on the grammar. I remain opposed for reasons I have now expressed three times. It'd be worth seeing if goodraise is willing to support, but as far as I'm concerned I'm finished here unless something substantial is provided (and if it is you'll need to notify me as I'm no longer watching this page). I wish you the very best of luck, and I appreciate Joey's input, but nothing has been provided which changes my oppose. It's up to the directors to interpret this discussion, and I respect whatever decision is made.

Regardless, I strongly urge the removal of the Hick of Sports reference. Firstly a reliable source doesn't need "backing up", and secondly a site which makes "unauthorised changes to a user's computer" should not be linked to from an example of wikipedia's best work. WFCforLife (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I took out Hick of Sports Ref per your suggestion!BLUE_DOG^TN 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked The Rambling Man to close this, and per his decision it will be promoted or declined. Thanks for commenting on this right now! I have done this the best I could have right now with the information on the scores and the grammer is the best that I can do this for the English language. I will be moving onto the Australian Open one to get it up to par. Thanks...BLUE_DOG^TN 04:10, 19 November 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [2].

---

Family Guy (season 5)

Nominator(s): Gage (talk), Pedro J. ^{the rookie} and Qst (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season five list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up. Gage (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Gage (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments I think sentence one & two can be combined. You're stating the start and end date and the starting episode in one sentence and the ending episode in another sentence. I think it would be best to put it all in one sentence. Done. Gage (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Change the Region 1 wikilink to just link the word Region and not 1. 2nd paragraph in Production section needs at least one citation. Done. Gage (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 23 needs to be moved to the end of the paragraph since it encompasses all awards. Might be worthwhile to work in a wikilink to 2006–07 United States network television schedule in the Ratings section so other editors can see what it was up against. Done. Gage (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC) The Key makes reference to a second number in the # column, but I don't see any second numbers. —NMajdan•talk 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) The licensing of the free images seems fine, but the fair-use rationals of the non-free images are inadequate. Frankly, I don't think the use of four DVD box covers can be justified, though I'd love to be proven wrong by some inspiring rationals. Goodraise 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Are the rationales sufficient now? Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Individually, yes. However, there's now three images that apparently serve the same purpose. How is that compliant with the "Minimal usage" required by Wikipedia:Non-free content? Goodraise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I've removed one of the images. The other two serve there own purpose in identifying two different volumes. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC) If they have different purposes, then the fair-use rationals need to reflect that. (I really don't see how you could justify keeping both, but I like being wrong...) Goodraise 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Removed per your request. Gage (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) What makes http://www.tv.com/family-guy/show/348/episode_guide.html?season=5&tag=season_dropdown;dropdown;4 a reliable source? To my knowledge, TV.com has not been deemed unreliable in other featured list reviews. I do not see how the information could be called into question. Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) That's not an answer to my question. Unless I know what makes a source reliable, I can't support a nomination that uses it. It's that simple. Goodraise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Replaced all TV.com references. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The Internet Movie Database really shouldn't be used as a reference. Is there an actual consensus on this? Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean with an "actual consensus"... If you think that IMDb is reliable, then please tell me what makes it so. Goodraise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) No i have seen many GAs, FAs and FLs that have imbd.--Pedro J. the rookie 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC) They should not. Goodraise Removed all IMDb references. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The references need some work in gerneral (adding publishers and the like). There is a publisher already listed for every reference in the article, unless I am misunderstanding you. Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Never mind this... Goodraise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) What does that portal link do in the external links section? It is present in every Featured List in the Simpsons series, if you do not feel it should be there, be my guest and challenge its use in those such articles as well. Gage (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The name of this page isn't Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/every Featured List in the Simpsons series/archive1. Goodraise 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I've removed it from the section per your request, and moved it to the see also section. Gage (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) What is the source of the airdates? Why they must be refrenced.--Pedro J. the rookie 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC) So the reader can verify them. Goodraise 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I now you will criticis what i will state but The simpsons articals do not have that plus why is it needed why would someone lie about the airdate.?--Pedro J. the rookie 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The shortcomings of other featured lists are irrelevant to this FLC and the reason why the airdates have to be sourced is so that the reader can verify them. Goodraise 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Added refs. Gage (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) What makes http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/episodes.php a reliable source? It's not will fix .--Pedro J. the rookie 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Replaced ref. Gage (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, I've not found the time to do a complete review of this list. The concerns I've found during my first review pass have all been addressed to my satisfaction. Image usage and alt text is within guidelines. The sources are mostly fine. (Didn't look too deep into them and there also have been several changes since I first reviewed, so I can't really say that they're OK. The general ref needs to be formated like a reference by the way.) My apologies, I've simply been too busy these past weeks. I'll have to remain neutral. Goodraise 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I may have missed it, but is the Family Guy article linked to somewhere in the lead? done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "tiring," is that comma in the right place? DVD release date in the infobox - can we use spaced en-dashes in preference to hyphens? I may not have much of a clue but I would think the alt text ought to include the fact that the family are an animation, not like the Waltons for instance... "the writing staff sought to create a character who would initiate an ongoing relationship with the character of Brian." can you prove this or is it opinion? Removed the sentence. Gage (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "comprised of " normally no "of" after "comprised".. Not sure how removing "of" would make the sentence even make sense. Would it be better just to reword the sentences? Gage (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC) No, just remove "of". Have a look at this for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Okay, removed "of." Now that I look at it, I guess it does make sense. Sorry about the confusion, and thank you for pointing it out. Gage (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "The choice to end t.." choice wasn't made, the decision was. The massive quote from IGN could be considered copyright violation. Cut down the quote significantly. "Smart House.com" - is this notable? Is someone from Smart House.com saying things that anyone cares about? Removed. Gage (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Put (PTC) after the first use. Expand FCC before abbreviating it. May 20-26 2007 - en-dash please. "Quahog becomes succumb to a.." ok, but why not just "Quahog succumbs to a..."? Who's Hartman? You don't introduce him, just use his surname expecting us to know who he is. " a radio career" - a career in radio? Not sure why that statement was called in to question, but I reworded the sentence. "Brian then begins his radio career, but is told to seek the aid of Stewie, after Stewie had made a prank call to Brian while he was on the air, much to Brian's annoyance" - one sentence, three "Brian"s and two "Stewie"s. Reword I think. "as Peter is beginning to enjoy the situation" not clear why he would enjoy this particular situation... "she demands for Peter and Lois to allow her to buy a car" - "she demands that Peter and Lois allow her..." "reverend" or "Reverend"? "how they've been" avoid contractions - they have. "Colombia not being accessible for those in wheelchairs" - I imagine this is something made up in the show, so perhaps you need to quote it... And you linked Iraq earlier, but not Colombia? Be consistent one way or the other. done "it's empty" avoid contractions. "Brian and him " - Brian and he? done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Link crack appropriately. skin "peels" not "peals". " did not get " change of tense, perhaps "does not.." Who's Mort? done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "and throws it up" - and vomits? "mentally retarded," again just check the position of that comma..? Chris's vs Lois' - be consistent. DVD release section - the two paragraphs are copy-and-paste dullness. Can we spice up the prose a little? And why are we talking about the season six DVDs in this season five article? The DVDs aren't entire seasons, the DVDs are Volumes. Five of the season 5 episodes are on the Volume 6 DVD, 13 are on the Volume 5 DVD. Gage (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) And I reworded that statement in the DVD release section. I see how you were confused now. Gage (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Set Details", "Release Dates", "Special Features", "Deleted/Extended Scenes", "Animatic/Storyboards" - all over-capitalised. Date formats within the refs should be consistent, so all human-readable or all ISO, not a mixture of both. What makes buzzsugar.com a RS? Replaced ref. Gage (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ophois (talk · contribs)

• There are no citations for the DVD release dates. Ophois (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Gage (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You just used the Region 1 citation for all regions. You need sources for all the dates. Also, the region 1 box just says "Region" instead of "Region 1".Ophois (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed. I removed the Region 2 and 4 dates because I was unable to locate any sources for any of those release dates, as I had simply taken the information from List of Family Guy DVDs, not knowing it was the only source of the information. Gage (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You can try Amazon.co.uk for region 2, and EzyDVD.com.au for region 4. Ophois (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you. I readded Region 2, as I was able to locate both DVD release dates on Amazon.co.uk, but I was unable to find a reference for the release dates for Region 4. Gage (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Weird. The Australian seasons seem to be split up different. Anyways, here is one. The release date is at the top. I guess you can search for the seasons that match up and make a note that the seasons are different. Ophois (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I do not see a date, other than a day marking the end of a sale. Gage (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
              • "Price Reduction! Pre-Order Now - Available Wednesday, 25 November 2009". The DVD has not been released yet. Ophois (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Oh, my apologies. I was under the impression it had already been released. Added to the article. Gage (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
                • The volume 6 equivalent. Ophois (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • Added. Gage (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • I made an edit to the section for clarity. Check to see if it is okay. Ophois (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
                      • Looks good to me, thank you. Gage (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Another comment: the critical review section needs to be beefed up. It currently only has two reviewers. Speaking of which, I don't think Movie Web can be used as a reliable source for the review. From what I can tell, the "critic" is just a user of the website. Ophois (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly i have not found any more receptionb of the rntire seson.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried DVD reviews for the two volumes? If it is to be a featured list, it needs more reviews. Also, where do the production codes come from? Ophois (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask Gage about that, but why would there be a review on a 2 dvd?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no Season 5 DVD set. The episodes are split up weird. Ωphois 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are, i do not now why they where taken of.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 11:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the SmartHouse review was a good addition, but again, the MovieWeb one is a user review and not one by an official person of the website. Try and find a couple more ones like SmartHouse or IGN. Ωphois 11:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Done on the movieweb thing.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Will search for reviews on DVD Talk. Phil Fry (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone addressed Ophois' comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

NO i am not sure how gage should but he has no comented--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Put some reviws on there not much but theres not much more, what other concern s you have ophios.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The reception section is my only remaining concern. As I said before, if this is to a featured list, IMO it needs to have more than just two reviews. I don't really know what is to be done in a situation like this. Ωphois 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Theres more than 3 reviews like about.com, IGN, PTC, Smart house but i do not haave DVDs but i do not think there is more.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the added reviews just say "such and such episode were great", but did not explain why. I will speak to Dabomb87 about it. Ωphois 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it apparently can't be addressed, I'll leave it up to the director. Ωphois 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:44, 21 November 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [3].

---

List of One Piece manga volumes

Nominator(s): Goodraise 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. Goodraise 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I disagree with the grammar issue and as its in the lead, the section that'll be seen by most indivisuals first, this imo needs to be as crystal clear as possible. I'd like a neutral 3rd party to asses my concerns as Goodraise and I are at an impass - someone who hasn't worked on this article or commented already. If they agree on any, or all points with him I will drop those issues.陣内_Jinnai 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• It is mentioned that the series is translated into other languages, but no refs are given to any non-English/non-Japanese publication.
  • The article states that "One Piece ... has been translated into various languages". How many references would you have me add to support that claim? (I'll simply copy them from here.) Goodraise 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I go with the rule of 3.陣内_Jinnai 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Goodraise 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Australasia should be used instead of "Australia and New Zealand" or replace "North America" with the actual countries as otherwise its an inconsistent usage of geographic terms with country names.
  • Done. Goodraise 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Was it really July when the announcement was made for the ramp up in production? The press release says it was previously announced the week before, which could be June 30th.陣内_Jinnai 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The wording of the press release is "San Francisco, CA, JULY 6, 2009 – As first detailed this past weekend at Anime Expo® 2009". Since July 6 was a monday, it can only refer to the weekend from July 3 to July 5. Goodraise 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Some additional points on the 2nd paragraph
  • The prose could use some tightening such as As of October 6, 2009, only 22 English language volumes have been published. However, in July 2009,
    • I don't see any ways to tighten the prose aside from the example you gave. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced that your example change would improve the overall prose quality of the paragraph. However, since I've written the passage fairly recently, I doubt my objectivity and will hope for more comments on the matter. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Additionally, that sentance implies that and the following sentance imply that every place will have the same number of volumes and in Australia and New Zealand that isn't the case.
    • What can I say? I disagree. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Please explain why. When I read it in context with the rest it implies both Viz and Madman Entertainment have published the same or possibly that Madman has published more because they were kusted last in the previous sentance.陣内_Jinnai 05:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • What do you want me to explain? You read the text and think that it implies that Viz and Madman have published the same amount of volumes. I read the same text and can't help but wonder what could possibly have made you think that. Anyways, I've changed the sentences somewhat. Perhaps you like them better now. Goodraise 15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Maybe you should note that 22 volumes have been released by vis and 11 volumes have been released by Madman.陣内_Jinnai 19:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm not too thrilled about that idea. Viz Media's releases are the worldwide first in English language. Those of Madman Entertainment are just of relevance to the area they're published in. Treating them equally seems like giving undue weight to me. Goodraise 00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
              • While they are a larger publisher, they obviously aren't worldwide in English market if Madman publishes some. Right now it seems that the article is skewed too much in favor of Viz's releases as other than 1 sentance it doesn't mention Madman. FE: The isbn numbers are Viz, the whole of the article reads pretty much as if Viz was the only publisher of note and anyone else is so obscure they don't aren't worthy of the time and effort to mention beyond passing interest.陣内_Jinnai 01:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
                • That's not what I said. I said their "releases are the worldwide first in English language". I didn't say that they're selling them everywhere (and I didn't imply it either). As for the table, it contains the "worldwide first ... English language" releases, which incidentally are all by Viz Media. It's the same that's done all over Wikipedia with episode lists. We give the original airdates and the first airdates in English (if English isn't the original language of course). What we don't add are the second airdates in English, or even the third (Madman Entertainment's releases are only the third releases in English language). It also has nothing to do with how big or great the respective publisher is. I'm sure they're both awesome companies and in fact, they're covered in detail in their respective articles, but this article is not about them. Goodraise 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • You misintepret what I am saying. I'm not saying we should list every release on the list. I'm just stating that not saying that Madman has released 11 and Viz released 22 is putting undue weight on the oppisite end, on Viz.陣内_Jinnai 05:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • I understand and disagree. The original release and the first in English language are covered in moderate detail. Other English publishers are mentioned by name and with a starting date. Non-English language publishers are only mentioned summarily. In my opinion, that's giving due weight to everything. Goodraise 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
                      • And again, I haveto disagree because your wording makes it sound as though Madman and Viz are publishing at the same rate, at least until the expected increase print run by Viz. The wording gives bias to Viz's publications by not stating that at the very least that Madman's numbers.
                        At this point though it might need a second opinion as i think we're at an impass.陣内_Jinnai 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
                        • I've made my point in previous comments, so I won't repeat it here. If you need a second opinion to decide whether to support or oppose this nomination, then go ahead and call for one. Goodraise 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved Issues 陣内Jinnai

I believe there are also wideban reprints of One Piece.陣内Jinnai 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I'm unaware of such a release. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Couldn't find anything about a wideban release in the Shueisha site. ANN said something about a volume 0 but I don't know if it is okay to mention it here.Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, the "0th volume". I must admit, I hadn't even thought about including it. I guess, whether it is part of the series is a matter of interpretation. Goodraise 00:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I suppose that a mention in the lead would be enough since it doesn't seem to be part of the regular serialization.Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps. Though that may already be giving undue weight to some marketing ploy. Personally, I'm in favor of waiting until more is available than a short paragraph in a news story. Goodraise 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Okay.Tintor2 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support since it seems grammar and other things are okay.Tintor2 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved Issues 陣内Jinnai

Looks like was wrong, but i could have sworn i saw an advertizement somewhere before.陣内Jinnai 05:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Actual evidence for wideban editions[4][5] - these won't be released, but they do have isbn numbers and a tenative release date. Dunno how much should be placed on this.陣内Jinnai 05:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I'd say, planned and canceled rereleases don't need to be mentioned, but out of curiosity, how do you know they won't be released? Goodraise 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Not saying it won't; my point was to state earlier i had seen evidence that there were widebans, although those have yet to be released. I'm not saying they should be mentioned in the article. On a seperate note to OP 0, it should probably noted in the prose at it appears to be related to the series in some way.陣内Jinnai 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Is that the threshold for inclusion now? Everything that "appears to be related to the series in some way"? Goodraise 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Okay. From what I remember it was a published pilot basis for what we know today as One Piece. It's not a part of the main series and therefore shouldn't be on the list, but it is the basis for manga and should at least have passing mention as such in the prose.陣内Jinnai 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC) No, that would be Romance Dawn, which is duly covered in the production section of the main article. Goodraise 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC) EDIT (misread what the 20 years ago meant) Right. that's what volume 0 is it is also officially listen in the chronology in Shonen Jump as a One Piece title. Don't know if independant RSes consider it part of the One Piece title.陣内Jinnai 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• "...in the manga anthology Shonen Jump since the magazine's launch in November 2002 and in tankōbon format since June 2003." Shouldn't these be full dates, similar to the above, or at least the tankōbon date?

  The sources don't provide full dates. Goodraise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• "In Australia and New Zealand, the English volumes are distributed by Madman Entertainment since November 10, 2008." This sentence is structured strangely, perhaps "...volumes have been distributed by..."?

  I find nothing strange about the sentence. Goodraise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• The above conversation about the volume releases is a classic I find on Wikipedia, most only list the American releases, such as the Naruto and Dragon Ball lists, and completely (if not almost completely) ignore the European and Australian releases. So they aren't really needed due to the silent consensus that seems to have been reached.

  Okay. Goodraise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• The one big difference I noticed between this and other similar lists is the lack of mention of adaptations in the lead, as seen in the (again) above Naruto list.

  The adaptations are summarily mentioned in the first sentence and the first word of the article is linked to the franchise article. Goodraise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than that, all looks good I think. --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, it all looks good and I'm satisfied with the answers given (yes I did a small edit, but that was only because I was editing it anyway for the spelling). --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:53, 11 November 2009 [6].

---

List of Toradora! episodes

Nominator(s): Extremepro (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel this article has met the criteria for featured list. Extremepro (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The summaries still need a major copyediting, especially the latter half where the summaries are twice as long or longer than the average length of the summaries from the earlier episodes.--十八 05:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tried to expand the length of the earlier summaries. Extremepro (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The latter summaries are far too long.--十八 01:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Juhachi. For example, the final two episode summaries need to be trimmed by at least half. All other summaries must then keep to about that length. As soon as that's done, I can begin copyediting. Arsonal (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought recommended length for episode summaries were between 100-200 words with 150 words as a good average. Extremepro (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The length of episode summaries is related to the complexity of a story. Considering that Toradora! is a slice of life story, a summary of more than 4 to 5 lines (with a maximum of 6) in 1280 screen resolution should rarely occur. One good example is List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes. Regardless, episode 24 boasts an excessive 293 words. Arsonal (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reduced episode summary lengths as much as I could. Extremepro (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Deadlink fixed. Extremepro (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Are those the official translations for the theme songs? If not, you should use Nihongo3 template. Except the theme song Orange, I'm pretty sure they meant Orange. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• They are official translations. Extremepro (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I will copyedit the summaries shortly. In the meantime, there are some immediate issues. Arsonal (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible to find a web citation for the theme songs?

• Nope. The websites that do mention the theme songs are not RS. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Be careful when using Google Translate or an online romanization tool as they do a poor job in romanizing Kanji names. I would encourage you to double check the Romaji of production credits. For example, the animation director for episode 1 is Masayoshi Tanaka (田中将賀, Tanaka Masayoshi), not Masahiro Tanaka Kaya, and the screenwriter is Mari Okada (岡田麿里, Okada Mari), not Rii Okada. Double check with Anime News Network's people encyclopedia on the Romaji.

• Changed Masahiro Tanaka Kaya --> Masayoshi Tanaka and Rii Okada --> Mari Okada. Don't know of a good romanizer. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Might need to address this issue another way. As it stands, the list is giving incorrect information. I would not endorse the nomination in its current state. Arsonal (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• If all production credits come from one page, it is excessive to use a repeated inline citation for the mention of every single credited crew member. A better option would be to use the inline citation at the column header.

• Placed reference in column header. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• The section lead on DVD releases mentions that all DVDs contain three episodes, but the first volume in the table lists four episodes.

• Clarified in prose. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is misleading to merge the "Discs" column in the DVD release table. It makes the reader think all volumes are compiled into a single disc. The same goes for the "Episodes" column.

• Fixed. Extremepro (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Juhachi (talk · contribs) has reverted the table to its merged state saying it is "massively repetitive". I think we should set a standard for this list and other lists with DVD releases with repeated info. Extremepro (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It is in no way misleading. Saying something like "it makes them think one thing" is just your opinion. We're all humans, we can obviously understand simple table formatting. Look over featured lists that contain repetitive information; the rows are merged to reduce redundancy, and make the information flow better.--十八 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I still disagree. It is not my opinion. Merging the cells removes a certain functionality from the table. Specifically, if one were to just look at the "Discs" and "Episodes" columns, both will add up to the total number of discs and episodes that have been produced. For example, look at List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. If a box set is eventually released, the final row acts as a summation of all the previous rows. It then reads like an Excel document. Arsonal (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure which way (for want of a better word) is better so I'm requesting a third opinion. Extremepro (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • The Airbender example seems very specific, and still is skewed towards a table which separates the individual numbers for no good reason; readers do not need to be told 7 times in a row that a volume contains 3 episodes if once will suffice, especially since a concept of summing the episode numbers is not one of the points of the table. A halfway compromise I'd be willing to employ, however, is the addition of the word 'each' after the numerals.--十八 07:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I'd be happy to follow the compromise. My question is: Should this be the standard for all DVD release list that contain repeated fields? Extremepro (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this table even exists and the information incorporated into the lead section like all other anime FL? Recent examples include Bleach season 10, One Piece season 5, and Oh My Goddess!. Given how terse the information is, it seems out of place to put it into its own section with a less than helpful table. —Farix (t | c) 12:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I see no point in even having the table at all. The information can be put in the lead in a concise prose form, same as with other featured lists. There really isn't much value in listing the full list of volumes and dates just to note the disc count. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, though I don't like the idea of creating more unwritten "standards". I'd like to say it more gererally: Follow WP:LEAD and WP:LIST. If and only if adequately discussing the release history in the lead would imbalance the lead as a whole, create a release section. If the information presented in table form shows a lot of redundancy, then that suggests that the information it contains can easily be said in prose form. (A "Discs" column containing only "1"s for example translates nicely into the words "each containing one disc".) Goodraise 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Added "each" after the number in the merged columns per the compromise above. Extremepro (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from —Farix (t | c)

• Some episode summaries appear to be too long for the general simplicity of these episodes. This isn't a complicated series after all, so episodes summaries should range between 100 to 150 words or so.
• Episode summaries are inconsistent in length. There shouldn't be any summaries that are around 120 word in length and another that is over 190 words. This decreases the visual appeal of the list. The only exceptions it this are recap episodes.

• The two comments above contradict each other. "episodes summaries should range between 100 to 150 words or so" and "there shouldn't be any summaries that are around 120 word in length and another that is over 190 words." Please clarify. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The director field is far too narrow causing some names to wrap. Director names should never wrap, especially when there is more than one episode director. It make it far more difficult to distinguish who from who.

• Expanded director field. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• DVD release information should be incorporated into the lead like in other anime episode FLs. There is simply too little information to place this into its own section with a table doesn't add anything.

• Incorporated info into lead. Does this mean the whole DVD release section is to be deleted? Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• If any episodes ranked into the top 10[7], it should be noted in the lead.

• None of the episodes were ranked. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The 25-episode Toradora! animated television series was based..." This is the tense is wrong. It should be in present tense instead of past tense.

• Used present tense. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The lead does not to mention the country of origin.

• Mentioned. Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Side note here - Toradora! is an anime series and should be properly called such, not refereed to as if it were a American cartoon. Anime is a global enough word with a specific meaning that it should be used. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Used "The 25-episode Toradora! Japanese anime". Extremepro (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the word television because it is a TV series to distinguish it from OVA series.陣内_Jinnai 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

;Comments from The Rambling Man (sorry for tardiness) "a high school student whose eyes make him look like an intimidating delinquent, and how his life changes after he meets a girl in his class named Taiga Aisaka who is known for her negative attitude towards nearly everyone but her close friends." I feel that a couple of these claims (intimidating delinquent, negative attitude) could use a ref. Ref comments to what? Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Ref to either a conversation in the show itself or to a reliable source talking about the character. Arsonal (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Added quotes from the episode but Juhachi (talk · contribs) removed them saying they are not necessary. This edit Extremepro (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Ignore comment above. Juhachi reverted himself. Extremepro (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I think you're supposed to use the reference in the lead. The episode summary itself requires no reference. Arsonal (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Moved refs. Extremepro (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "at later dates" - later than the end date of that on TV Tokyo? Just checking as it's a little ambiguous now. Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "extra short," - I think it's worth linking "short" Done. Linked word to short film. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Limited editions of all eight compilations, each of which contains a bonus CD, were also released" perhaps it's just me but I feel there's a tense issue here? If just me then fine... I think its just you. Might need another person to look over since I'm not great at grammar. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Suggest changing to "Limited editions of all eight compilations, each containing a bonus CD, were also released". Arsonal (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Extremepro (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "a short girl" reads odd. Diminutive? Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) " them out the window" - out of... Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) " encouraging her to try again." try again what? try falling down or try making cookies? Done. "making cookies"Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "walk pass a" past. Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "and they both observe" "they both" is redundant. Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "to become simultaneously happy and depressed." - perhaps just "to become both happy and ..." Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "becomes tensed" - just "tense" I should think. Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "up liking him back." - no need for "back" Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Taiga later recounts this to Ryūji, over which she becomes angry about telling embarrassing things to him. " - not great. "Taiga later recounts this to Ryūji; she becomes angry about the embarrassing things she is telling him"? My version is not good but it's better, I think! Used your version. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Consider "Taiga later recounts this to Ryūji but becomes angry about the embarrassing things she is telling him". Used suggestion. Extremepro (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Taiga quickly comes to dislike Ami, and even slaps her in the restaurant. She transfers into Ryūji and Taiga's class, quickly becoming ..." - quickly used twice (ahem) quickly - reword a bit to improve prose. Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "but is made to impersonate people in strange situations" - this is odd and, at least to me, indecipherable. No idea how to make it "decipherable". Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Suggest a rewrite of the sentence to "Ami takes refuge in Taiga's apartment in order to avoid a stalker but is forced to impersonate people in strange situations". I'm not sure if "forced" would be the correct word to use since I'm not familiar with the show. Arsonal (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Used suggestion. Extremepro (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "come over to her villa over summer break" too many "over"s here. Done. "Go" instead of "come to"? Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "for a brief moment" briefly? Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "Quickly things get out of hand as..." - The situation quickly gets out of hand... Done. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) cosplay - what's this? Link text. Done. It's already wikified. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) "spaces out" fine colloquially but not great encyclopaedically. "Becomes disoriented"? Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The DVDs came with a "bonus CD"? What was on them? I have no idea. But I assume it's extras. Extremepro (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Have the reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Don't think they have been. Extremepro (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Then ask them to revisit. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 15:32, 7 November 2009 [8].

---

Ne-Yo discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because there was still a few improvements to be made and they have now been done. Mister sparky (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a reviewer, but a couple of things I noticed: In the "featured artist" section, the song "baby by me" is listed as peaking at 122. this is not sourced. also the next song, "good night good morning" needs a reference to confirm its existence as no wiki article or charting information is presently known. Also, link checker shows a couple of dead billboard links. Suede67 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

hey thanks for that, a couple of things i missed. but does anybody know where i can find the r&b bubbling under archive? Mister sparky (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No probs! If i'm right, The bubbling chart can only be viewed on the billboard.biz site, which is a paid site. Suede67 (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Dt128 (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Dt128

It seems to me that "other charted songs" shouldn't be included if they were never released officially (MOS:DISCOG#What should not be included). Dt128 let's talk 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC) as there is only one, have removed. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) In the featured artist table, why not have in brackets (with ...), for example, "Make Me Better" (with Fabolous). there seems to be no clear consensus on this because on every FLC i work on the reviewers want them set out a different way. but have changed them this time. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Ne-Yo Official Website isn't a publisher. Dt128 let's talk 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC) oops forgot about that one! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Billboard needs to be in italics always. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) The "2009" column overflows. Dt128 let's talk 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC) not sure what you mean here? Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) There is no need for a "Peak chart posistions" section in the compilation albums table, as the album was only released in Japan and therefore unable to chart on the listed charts anyway. Dt128 let's talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) the section is included because the album is going to receive full international release in november so will chart then. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Just to notify you the Single Top 100 is a component chart of the Dutch Top 40, maybe this should be made clear. Dt128 let's talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) i am aware of that. but have adjusted the column header. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) The "NZ" column of the studio albums table should link to Recording Industry Association of New Zealand rather than RIANZ. Dt128 let's talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) changed. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You have not included any of Ne-Yo's album appearances. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

the only appearances i have found are already mentioned in the "other charted songs" table. unless you mean songs that he has written for other artists? which shouldn't be included. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens at Allmusic. What says that writing credits can;t be included? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

they are just writing and producing credits. and as you mentioned with the "other charted songs" section below, they were not officially released so shouldn't be included in a discography, because it is a discography not a songography as MOS:DISCOG states. however, some discogs include them, some don't. its quite confusing :( Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But they were released, just on other artist's albums. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 09:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally, the page appears very messy, and you may want to consider make the second column widths on all of the tables equal. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

please explain what you mean by messy? and the column widths for the 2nd column are the same width... Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems very rushed.

again, please clarify why you feel that? Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The column widths are the same, but there is an overflow of information on the second table, making it wider. I would suggest increasing the size of both until they are the same. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

they all look the same width on my screen. Mister sparky (talk)

• There are redlinks in the "music videos" table.

have been advised in previous FLC's that redlinks are perfectly acceptable for music video directors. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Are the only countries in which Ne-Yo has been certified the UK and the US? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

am working on finding sources to find that out. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Has any progress been made on this? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is "Nielsen Business Media, Inc". Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

have been advised before that "Inc" isn't necessary in references? Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the some of the publishers consistently linked in every ref, whilst some aren't? See WP:OVERLINK. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

because have been told previously that refs should always have wikilinks. Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would WP:OVERLINK not apply to references? MTV and Viacom are wikilinked 18 times in a row. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 08:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "AUS", "CAN", "GER" and "NZ" columns need not be linked in the singles table per WP:OVERLINK. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK also states that tables are an exception to the rule. "in which each row should be able to stand on its own" Mister sparky (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why isn't Billboard in the "work" parameter? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 08:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

because the website is published by Billboard magazine? Mister sparky (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

• Dabs check out fine.
• The alt text should be jumper suit not just jumper

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ref # 25 leads to a dead external link.

Lead

• [The discography of Ne-Yo, an American pop and R&B singer-songwriter and record producer, consists of three studio albums, twelve singles and several other appearances.] -- A)No need to link to discography or singer-songwriter B)several other appearances is to vague, elaborate.

"discography" and "singer-songwriter" are wikilinked because have been told they have to be previously. but added to the end. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• [In 2006 Ne-Yo's debut album, In My Own Words, debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 in the United States.] -- Comma after 2006

added. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• [In the same week, his second single, "So Sick", debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100; it was also Ne-Yo's first UK number-one single.] -- Since the previous sentence used the year and not an exact week or date, saying in the same week is redundant--use year if possible or change the sentences up

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• [Other singles released were "When You're Mad" and "Sexy Love". ] -- This shouldn't even be mentioned, what makes the exempt from all his other singles--unless you state what makes the notable.

removed then. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• [The album contains the singles "Miss Independent", "Mad" and "Part of the List".] -- same with this one

removed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since you mention the RIAA for the US, mention the one for the UK--unless they are the same of course.

added. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• [Year of the Gentleman has been certified platinum in the US.] -- has been -> was

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• [In September 2009 Ne-Yo released his first greatest hits album, Ne-Yo: The Collection, in Japan.] -- Comma after 2009

added. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Other charted songs

• Why not just put this under singles?

because they weren't singles. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

have been removed now anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Other album contributions?

• Like Dt128 stated, this is vital information missing.

see above. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

References

• billboard.com is not the publisher, Billboard is the publisher.

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ref # 20 needs to be properly formatted.

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Licensing looks good and alt text is present. Goodraise 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• What makes chartstats.com a reliable source and who publishes the site?

chartstats is recommended as a UK source at WP:GOODCHARTS and is used as UK source in recently promoted FL's Pink discography, George Michael discography, Lily Allen discography as examples. and it takes its information from the Official UK Charts Company archive, which isn't searchable, and makes it searchable. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. Goodraise 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

i did. if it wasnt reliable then it would'nt be recommended at [GOODCHARTS], its reliable enough for the 3 example discogs and takes its data from the OCC which is most definitely reliable. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Chartstats.com is clearly an amateur site, and is used as a convenience link. The problem is that the official site, www.theofficialcharts.com, doesn't provide reasonable archiving: it has slightly less than two years of data available, and, since it provides no search facility by artist, has no method of sourcing a discography column: each and every peak needs an independent link to substantiate it, and all of those links go dead in 100 weeks or less. In fact, it doesn't source peaks at all: a link to a song with a given number on a given week doesn't source the concept that it wasn't higher on a different week.

Because of that, I can't describe the use of chartstats.com as ideal, but it seems to be the best of a group of bad choices. None of the other archives are better in terms of having a recognized publisher, and the only archive that is published by a recognizable publisher isn't usable. In terms of being reliable in the traditional sense of "can be trusted to provide accurate information", I'm not aware of any problems with chartstats.com.—Kww(talk) 22:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is way out of my normal area of editing, so please excuse if this is a stupid question, but are there no print sources listing this kind of information? In any case, I will not oppose soley because of the use of chartstats.com, but as long as it is used, I won't support either. Sorry. Goodraise 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

that last sentence just contradicts itself... you wont oppose because of its use, but you won't support because its used?! but you still havent said why? Mister sparky (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself if you take into account my option to neither oppose nor support. I will not support a nomination that uses what I perceive to be sub-standard sources, but I will not stand in the way of a promotion if this particular source is accepted by other reviewers. Goodraise 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

and the only non-web uk charts source is the Guiness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums, which hasn't been published since 2006 so is useless for this article. Mister sparky (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to Goodraise's question: yes, there are printed copies of the individual charts. With some additional research, it would be possible to determine an issue of Music Week that published the physical copy, find someone with the physical copy, and from that find the page number, article titles, etc. required for a physical citation. That process would need to be repeated for each song, as no summaries are available in print form. Ironically, the best way to find that would be to start with the data from chartstats.com to determine the week of the peak occurring. Technically, that information would still not truly source a "peak", because the physical list can't predict what will happen the following week, while chartstats has the luxury of being continuously updated. As Mister sparky points out, the publishing of paper anthologies is infrequent, and, with the advent of the internet, it wouldn't surprise me if no further editions were published.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional point: One other thing to consider is that while none of the online chart sources for the UK is ideal, they can be checked. Acharts, everyhit, chartstats, and zobbel all independently claim to archive the Official Charts Company. Within the top 40 positions for the last 100 weeks, that can be directly verified. Outside of that, the data can be crosschecked between the different archives. I've done random spot-checking in the past, and always came back satisfied. Would specifically cross-checking the data on Ne-Yo alleviate your concern?—Kww(talk) 10:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

After going over the current versions of WP:V and WP:RS, I find myself back at my original position. The website does not seem to fit the definition of reliable sources as given by said pages. To quote policy, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Using decent sources is the least I expect of "our very best work". Goodraise 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

well its decent enough for every other reviewer of featured list discographies. including the examples above which were only promoted in the last couple of weeks. i don't want to appear rude, but its just really frustrating when reviewers constantly contradict each other :( Mister sparky (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration. However, my vote is based on community wide consensus as documented by policy and guidelines. If you can change WP:RS in such a way that chartstats and co. can be considered reliable, then I will no longer oppose because of their usage. If you can't, then it's your failure to consult WP:RS in the first place. Goodraise 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Raised at WP:RSN#www.chartstats.com.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Add PhonoNet as publisher of ref. 8, 14, 18, 21, and 31.

added. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Add Nielsen Business Media as publisher of ref. 13, 25, 33, 34, and 36.

added. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Use ' instead of " for quotations within quotations (reference titles).

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's more. Goodraise 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

so there were. i forgot about the video's lol. Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is too US/UK centered.
• Ref. 13 gives the website's name as billboard.com. Some other references call it Billboard. Which one is it?

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reference titles aren't free-style. Give the title of the page, not a description.

could you clarify what you mean? Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of reference 1, for example, is given as "Ne-Yo Billboard albums discography". That is a description of the contents of the linked page, not its title. Goodraise 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

made some changes. Mister sparky (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Non-English references should be marked as such.

marked German, Dutch and French. Mister sparky (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At present, I have to oppose this nomination. Goodraise 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At present, I have to weakly oppose this nomination. Goodraise 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

At present, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Goodraise 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

have removed the position. cannot be sourced via billboard or allmusic. Mister sparky (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Think the alt text could be expanded - you don't mention that he's black and that he's wearing a flat cap for instance.
• "debut album, In My Own Words, debuted at number one" - debut overdose for me.
• "certified platinum" I think we can find a link to sales certification or similar here?
• Also possible to link greatest hits I believe.
• Lead is a little, well, uninteresting. Any interesting nuggets other than just repeating the "album x, number y in UK, number z in US"?
• You have a section 2.1 but no 2.2? Always find that odd. If it were me, I would have 2.1 - singles as a solo artist 2.2 - singles as a featured artist.
• The Compilation albums table is pretty odd - you said in the lead it was only released in Japan and then don't list Japan as one of the charts it could have featured in. It's a rather uninformative table!
• As ""Finer Things" (with DJ Felli Fel, Kanye West, Jermaine Dupri, & Fabolous)" didn't chart anywhere, we have no direct reference that it actually exists...
• Hyphens in the references (e.g. BPI - certified awards search) should be spaced en-dashes.
• Also, for those generic search engine links, you should provide instructions on how I can reference your statements.
• Do we need to link Billboard, MTV and Viacom so many times in the refs?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (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 not promoted by Chrishomingtang 20:17, 6 November 2009 [9].

---

List of Pittsburgh Penguins first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹ 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this list meets all of the featured list criteria. It has substantial and quality lead (#1) and prose (#2). It is comprehensive, covering all of the individuals, as well as further methods of categorizing them (#3). The table is usable and sortable (#4). It is consistent with the Manual of Style and uses color (#5). It is and will remain stable, with the list only needing updating once a year (#6). Grsz¹¹ 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment You need to explain what 'Selections by country' documents. There is only one US player selected, but it lists two in the table. Alaney2k (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are two. Brooks Orpik 2000, Ryan Whitney 2002. Grsz¹¹ 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although I am pro-table, I feel the "Selections by country"-, and to a lesser extent, the "Selections by position"-table are redundant here. The main table is sortable, so it's easy get an overview of the different nationalities.

The tables could instead be converted into prose, something like;

"...of the 38 players drafted in the first round by the Penguins, there are 13 centres, 12 wingers (7 right and 5 left), 8 defenders, and 5 goaltenders. The majority of the players come from Canada, 27 in the number. Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden and the United States all have two drafted players, while Belarus and the two now constituent states of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, each have a single player drafted."

Another issue regardless of the one above, is to consider whether or not the two players from Czechoslovakia, should be listed by their nationality, or by the name of the country as when they were drafted? In the first scenario, since both players grew up in the Czech part of the union, and consider themselves Czech, they should be added to the total of the Czech Republic, making it three Czechs. The other scenario would result in leaving it as it is. lil2mas (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We always list such things by the name of the country at birth or for a page like this the country at the time they were drafted. To avoid the arguements of what people actually are. Its pretty standard for sports articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it's country when drafted ie Czechoslovakia until post-1993. I've wavered between country and nationality, I'm not sure what the preferred use is. Grsz¹¹ 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Posted before DJSasso amended, the point is still the same.

• Some comments to start with:

• The lead could use some merging, lots of short paragraphs right now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• All those notes on traded picks need references. The Hockey DB list shows they didn't pick in the 1st round, but doesn't say why. Actually, looking at the Press Guide I see that that lists the trades, but more specific refs sure would be nice nonetheless.
• Is Hockey DB considered a Reliable Source? I've never done hockey lists, so I could use a more experienced hockey editor's voice.
• I like the style of List of Calgary Flames draft picks a lot, I really think career statistics would add to this (and give additional information for the lead, first-round draft pick with the most goals, saves, etc, etc). Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment

If each trade note needs an inline citation, I will add it, but it is covered under the general reference list. Yes, hockeydb is generally considered reliable. Pretty much every hockey featured article uses it. As for adding career statistics, I'm not on either side. It could be useful, but this is a list of drafted players and there future performance is largely irrelevant to this list. Grsz¹¹ 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's required, but forcing someone to dig through a 20+ megabyte press packet (and I always worry about PDF refs that they'll get renamed or rehosted or deleted and just lost) for some info that has to be available elsewhere. As for the stats, I definitely think it's worth including. Why mark Lemieux's HoF status if their future performance has no bearing on this list? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The only problem is that besides 2008, they're 25+ years ago. Finding a different reference for thos would likely be impossible. Grsz¹¹ 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Am I missing something, or was this article created only the day before it is nominated as a featured list? That doesn't mean the list is "stable" per FL criteria. Also, why do we even need this content fork of List of Pittsburgh Penguins draft picks? Why not work on that article for featured list status instead? I think this list should be listed at AfD instead of FLC, to be honest. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have to admit, if this is the only 1st-pick list that's a little less good. MLB has them because the draft is so insanely long the lists would be unbearable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 3b - I am not convinced that it meets the requirements to be a stand-alone list; this is a content fork and could reasonably be included as part of a related article (List of Pittsburgh Penguins draft picks)—Chris!_c/t 01:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • First-round picks are always considered another level of notability. See also the 18 featured lists of NFL first rounds. The NFL and NHL drafts are nearly the same size. Grsz¹¹ 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a difference, in that the NFL has choosen not to do full draft pick pages. So these lists are their draft pick pages. They don't do both. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • And that's probably a much better idea. Entire lists of picks aren't particularly notable, and why they exist for hockey I don't know. If anything this list is more appropriate than a larger one, especially considering drafted football players are much more likely to play in the NFL than drafted hockey players are in the NHL. Grsz¹¹ 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Disagree there. Far too many second, third, fourth, etc. round players who end up as all-stars, HOF, etc. These lists would lose too much information if they were limited to first round only. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Then why have a number of NFL lists been promoted with that same reasoning. Grsz¹¹ 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I would prefer that those lists were also more comprehensive. But I suppose that was a WP:NFL project decision to impose a first round cutoff, whereas WP:HOCKEY has gone a different direction. What is your motivation in trying to trump our project consensus here? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Perhaps to create a relevant list of notable individuals. Project consensus doesn't dictate what can and cannot become a featured artile or list. Grsz¹¹ 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                • But project consensus ought to be respected to determine how articles in a series (team articles, season articles, draft articles, etc.) are consistently presented. And your "relevant list of notable individuals" already exists on another page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • And that consensus is discussed and achieved where exactly? Grsz¹¹ 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • I think a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey in advance would have been more constructive than creating this content fork, self-nominating it as a featured list only 9 hours after you moved it into main article space, and then initiating this kind of discussion on the FLC comment page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • Perhaps you might make a section on the project page for "Current Consensus" so everybody isn't expected to know everything ever discussed there. Grsz¹¹ 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                      • Or you could spend a few minutes asking fellow project editors about their opinions (you know, in a cooperative, collaborative way) before you spend a lot of time on something like this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per 3b. Being "another level of notability" does not require a fork. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 18:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Grsz¹¹ 19:17, 6 November 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [10].

---

List of Romanian counties by foreign trade

Nominator(s): Mario1987 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it meets all the requirements needed for FL status. Mario1987 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Why is the total column separated from the main table?
  • It doesn't sort properly. Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It could be sorted properly, actually. I'll help you with this if you don't know how.—Chris!_c/t 23:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Mario1987 08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the article name be List of Romanian counties by imports and exports?
  • I don't know. What do the other editors think? Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• I see that almost all sources are in Romanian. Are there any English source available? Also in one ref, r in Romanian should be capitalized.
  • The majority of sources are from the National Statistic Institute that are in Romanian. And i fixed the r. Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

—Chris!_c/t 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose/Comments from KV5

• "This is a list of..." - featured lists no longer begin this way. See recently promoted lists for examples of better prose.
  • Fixed. Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• An awfully long list to have absolutely no images. Looks very dry.
  • What images should i add? Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • What I might do is add the maps that show the location of each county within Romania (one for each table row, add an image column after the "County" column). Then, perhaps this image of Bucharest in the lead, with a caption explaining that Bucharest is the capital and is part of the county that accounts for xx percent of the total foreign trade, etc., etc. Don't forget that all images will need alt text. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Mario1987 08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Dryness is exacerbated by the fact that the lead is pretty much a solid mass of blue. There's got to be a better way to break that up, perhaps by including major companies in the table with their counties (that's the only function they are currently serving in the lead) or by having a distinct section of prose with its own heading after the lead and before the list.
  • I added a new column in the table named Important companies which includes the largest companies in the respective counties. Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Year" column is unneeded if all are the same. A note that numbers are based on 2008 figures is sufficient.
  • Removed the column from the table and added in the first paragraph. Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• All figures should have the same significant digits (4.0 instead of 4, etc.). I would also like to see $ and % signs in the table proper, rather than just the headers.
  • Done. Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Why isn't the "County" column sortable?
  • Should it be? Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Alphabetical sorting can be helpful if someone knows the name of a county and wants to find it quickly, so yes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • How can i sort alphabetical? I only made numerical sorting. Mario1987 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorting for County is done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• What does the "Rank" column mean? A key is needed to explain it.
  • How can i explain this? Mario1987 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well... what does the rank column mean? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The ordering of counties depending on exports and imports. Mario1987 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • So #1 has the highest combined total of imports and exports, #2 has the second-highest combined total, and so forth? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I just realised that the Rank column sorts properly only for exports but not for imports. What should i do? Mario1987 08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
            • That was sort of my point. If the "rank" is by exports only, then you don't need to have the rank column at all. If it's ranking the counties by total combined imports and exports, then you need to note that in a key or, preferably, add a column with the total imports and exports by county, and remove the rank column altogether. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
              • As of right now, this issue is the only thing holding back my support. Please clarify the rank column in the list; is it by imports, exports, combination of both, a net value of some sort?—NMajdan•talk 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
                • Removed the rank column to avoid further issues. Mario1987 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with all of Chrishomingtang's comments above as well.
• No spaces between numbers and percent signs.
  • Fixed. Mario1987 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This list isn't ready for promotion yet, but with some work, it could get there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment while really neat, the "Important companies" requires a citation or otherwise it will look like original research. Nergaal (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Mario1987 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The list looks okay as far as the references used go, but there are a couple of more or less subtle issues that shine through the cracks. Let me list them one by one:

• I am concerned about the ephemeral quality of the list itself. I'm sure there are many FLs out there which provide info that needs to be updated periodically, but how many face the risk of being updated from top to bottom within, say, five years? This one does, particularly since it includes several variables for each entry.
• There is the concern of WP:SYNTH. An entire column, for "major companies", appears to have been gathered through an editorial process: "the statistical source says so much foreign trade, the newspaper source says these forms did this and that in that county, so let's put them together". The same appears to be the case for the entire introductory paragraphs, where we are told in detail how counties x and y got to where they are, without this being spelled out in the sources (just guessed by the editor).
• There is a copyedit issue with the sources: the publishers for the sources are indicated chaotically or cryptically, when they could be spelled out. Some of the publishers cited we have articles on. In all cases where diacritics are part of the publishers' names, the editor left them out. (The same goes for the titles of the articles, but here I admit that, in case the articles were published without diacritics, it's more of a matter of choice.) Dahn (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I believe the idea pf having this list is a very good one. But there are a number of small problems with the list as of now, which underline the complexity of the issue, and why there are entire bodies doing statistics:

• Bucharest is not part of the Ilfov County. The simple fact that data in the sources given so far is available only for the sum of the too, doesn't mean they have to be together.
  • Ok. You fixed that. Mario1987 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• I added a second list grouping counties by development region. I believe this is compulsory.
  • I agree but we need references for that. Mario1987 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Please use English way of representing numbers with , and .
• The numbers don't add up. For exports the sum I get is 41,668.9, but the table says 41,453.4. It's difference of 215.5 million USD, or 0.6%. For imports, I get 64,380.4 by adding up, but the table says 66,610, which is 2,229.6 million USD short (3.3%). Give me only 1/1,000,000 of that money, and I'll do a lot of wiki work for you. :-) I guess the problem is sources. Possibly the sources for each county are different from the source for the entire country, hence the difference. Also, I would be careful that 2008 means January to December 2008, not July 2008-June 2009, as the source file for Bucharest apparently says (correct me if I am wrong). As I said, it's a lot of work in real life to get this data exactly.
  • Yes i admit the slight miscalculation for exports but the imports add up to 66,780.4 so i don't know how you calculated (did the total five times :)). The problem is that the sources are in euro and i listed them in US$ to be more easy to understand for the majority of users. When i wrote the article the INSS site used Jan-Dec 2008 but i guess they updated the facts. Mario1987 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• I would like however to welcome the idea of listing the major companies. Are these major exporters or major importers? Maybe the table could also indicate how much they mean in the import/export. Are these just the first 1-2 with 4-5% of the share each, or so they account for 30-40%? I would also definitively list many more companies for Bucharest. Dc76\^talk 15:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The companies listed are the most important companies (hypothetical) from the respective county in terms of exports and imports. Feel free to add (or replace) companies anywhere in the table where you think i didn't indicate the proper company but please provide a reference. Mario1987 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This "hypothetical" confirms my WP:SYNTH concern above. Whose hypothesis? - The editor's. Dahn (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I said hypothetical because you never know what company pops up as beeing the most important in foreign trade in our country. You should know this because you live in Romania. From now on please leave your "irony tone" aside when you talk to me. Mario1987 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
        • "because you never know what company pops up as beeing the most important in foreign trade in our country" - first of all, hypothetical is hypothetical; you set your article on the path of original research, by guessing as to what contributed to economic growth in x and y counties (whether it's a decent guess or an educated guess, or even an obvious guess, it don't matter for wikipedia). And please see again my earlier comment where I tell you that this list would require regular reviews for relevancy from top to bottom, precisely because (emphasis:) 60 to 90% of the info is subject to change, and will likely do so soon, only to change yet again a little later. You created yourself a list that you will keep busy on until the day you die, always trying to catch up with reality. More of a stock market panel than an item of encyclopedic relevancy. This goes for the entire article, not just for the companies column, but it is especially true for the companies column. (As for my supposed irony, I frankly applaud you ability of identifying a tone in texts, but let's not get hung up on that, shall we?) Dahn (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I think that you didn't even read the article. If you had done so you would have seen that the county economic information is based upon facts from 2008 issued by INSS. The company column is even more simple because major exporting or importing companies don't magically appear over night do they? I know you have a problem with myself but don't let this matter affect the article thru unsupported problems that you think it has. Mario1987 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have read it, and I did note that it is based on the INSS info - my only comment on that issue is that the way in which you had chosen to organize the references gives no real clue as to the source and nature of the sources, not meaning to say that the sources are unreliable. Now, the rest of your reply addresses nothing in the point I made: regardless of the supposed likelihood and your "promise" that things won't change (magically or not), they are subject to change. The INSS will likely present new regular reports, which may indeed change the entire hierarchy, over and over again - the problem I see in that is the entire list is ephemeral (as opposed to it having some ephemeral info); you dig?
As for the company column, it has two, distinct but not unrelated, glaring problems. One (which you persistently ignore in your replies) is the WP:SYNTH issue - an editorial judgment which has it that "revenues are due to x and y company", when the sources don't say that. The sources used are mere disparate news items which state that the companies exist in x county, and maybe that they have a major contribution to some area or another, but don't necessarily back any of the claims you make about their relative importance, which you correlated with the bare INSS facts (which, incidentally, makes it not just original research, but also superfluous). Is this clear? The other problem is that it, in addition to the likely changes for the INSS data, is another variable likely to rot, and neither I or this project you contribute to can reasonably be placated by your assurance that this won't happen. And it doesn't even matter if that info changes "over night" or not; what matters is that they will likely change throughout. Now, I'm hoping other reviewers will understand the points I'm making, as you manifestly won't. Dahn (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you would have any idea what you're talking about you should know that the INSS Buletin statistic judetean ONLY changes twice a year but what can i expect from a guy like you whose only purpose is to demean a fellow editor. "you dig?" Mario1987 09:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  We manifestly have a communication problem here, though I don't know how I could be more explicit. First of all, it "only" changing twice a year means precisely what I said: that this list you've created is likely to change in large part (perhaps entirely) if not in half a year, then conceivably in two years, or five years. We are here taking a vote on how to provide featured status to something that, by definition, by the very way in which it is conceived, will not feature the same facts in the near future. Sure, a lot of FLs will also be updated, probably; but not entirely, and not with regularity. And then what? Do we take a new vote on this every six months or so? That said (and I've said from the beginning, way before this was an FL candidate), serious thought needs to be put into whether this should be a list at all, not into whether it should be an FL. Same goes for other such "something and foreign trade" lists, but I don't see them going through the same motions, nor do I have the patience to try and state this point to every opinionated guy out there. Dahn (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes i do think we have a communication problem because you just won't understand. In the prose of the article it is stated that the facts are for the year 2008, when data for the full year 2009 will be available i will update the entire article and so on. And the part you don't understand is that major changes in foreign trade don't just appear in the manner you say it will. The only things that are supposed to change are the actual numbers but nothing on the dramatic side that could affect the current of future ranking. Is this so hard to understand? If so just ask for help or guidance and you will see that things aren't that difficult as you say they are. And again i please urge you to reconsider your thoughts and oppinions regarding me. Mario1987 11:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sigh. The info contained in the list, the very subject of this list, entry by entry, from top to bottom, will change at least once every year. The numbers will change, the hierarchy is also likely to change (sure, the top five or so are unlikely to change as much, but the rest is bound to fluctuate wildly). You basically create a list that you submit for review with info that will no longer be relevant, accurate, whatnot after x period. This not only makes it impossible to maintain the at least on principle guarantee the FL standard (just what are we voting on, if it will change entirely?), but it means that the list is quite possibly in breach of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIR. And please stop trying to divert this discussion by making it look like I have something against you personally: you are virtually indifferent to me, and I'm commenting on the flaws as I see them in the article; the issues we've had in the past related to content, your loose interpretation of norms, and the irresponsible "devil may care" editing style. The only one who's making this personal is you, Mario, and I think you remember that the way in which you chose to phrase that hostility toward me is what got you blocked the last time around. So please turn off the drama and focus on what I'm telling you, before you discredit yourself some more with this kind of comments. Dahn (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  I see that this discussion isn't going to end any time soon. So i propose to rename the list to List of Romanian counties by foreign trade in 2008 so that you can rest easy. Fair enough? Mario1987 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'd be very interested to know what encyclopedic value that kind of detail will have. Catch 22 if you will, but that's because the whole initiative was questionable to begin with. Dahn (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the above editor that the WP:SYNTH issue for the Major companies column is problematic. If no reliable sources exist that say x and y companies contributed to that county's import/export, then we cannot say that relationship exists. I say remove the column to avoid such problem.—Chris!_c/t 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed the column. Mario1987 09:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't fully reviewed the list, so I can't support or oppose. But I don't believe that the likelihood of change over time in the list is a big concern. We have other featured lists that vary on at least an annual or bi-annual basis, and they've continued to be kept up in fairly good shape. And if the list is not kept up to date, then, well, that's why we have FLR. So, if it meets the criteria, I think this should be listed. As a side note to Mario, and I mean no disrespect here, but the quickest way to sink your nomination and chase off potential reviewers is to take a critique personally and react angrily. Geraldk (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes i know and i am sorry for that and hope i didn't offend anyone but the user just won't understand exactly what you wrote just above^ regarding the variation of the list. Mario1987 18:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Gerald, I only raised this concern for other editors to assess (which is why I did not even actually vote). Now, having repeatedly searched through Category:Featured lists, I have so far only seen Global Peace Index, promoted back in 2007, as one where the info would have to be reviewed and is likely to change entirely - yet even here there is another temporal benchmark which will not change. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Every US county list should have its population figures updated annually as new census estimates come in, the tall building lists could change rapidly as new construction is completed, etc. I understand you were just raising the point for other editors to comment on, I just think it's not an issue. We'll see what others have to say. Geraldk (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree w/ Geraldk again. All FLs need to be updated from time to time. So, this is not an issue.—Chris!_c/t 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Gerald, are you referring to lists such as List of counties in New Jersey? Because, if we are, your analogy is flawed: the topic of such lists is not the perishable data, that data is just a detail in the article; here, it is the basis for the article. Also, this article we're discussing, unlike such lists, ranks the entries on the list by that perishable data, and everything on the list is dependent on that ranking. Same for the list of all tall buildings (and without commenting on why such lists too are poorly conceived, cause they are). Sure, new taller buildings are likely to pop up, but the exiting ones are unlikely to shrink. Here, all data is subject to change, and any correlation between terms on the list is likely to fluctuate, particularly in times of crisis - open up one factory, shut down another, and, at some tens of thousands in urban population per county, you've got yourself a new economic reality on this level of detail. It's an essential nuance I've tried to emphasize in my earlier posts.
• Chris, in addition to urging you to read my above reply to Gerald, please allow me to insist on contradicting your statement that "All FLs need to be updated from time to time." The more correct way to phrase that is "Some things on most FLs will probably need updating from time to time." In this case, however, it's "The data on which the list depends, and according to which it ranks the entries, the very way in which the list is arranged and every information about everything on the list is likely to become irrelevant in the near future." Who is going to spend time every six months revisiting the INSSE data and reviewing all parts of the list?
• In other news, the creator of this list has since been banned. I don't know how it reflects on this discussion, but in case it does. Dahn (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid we just disagree, Dahn. Wikipedia is both encyclopedia and almanac, and these almanac-style lists have nothing in the featured list criteria which bar them from being recognized. Nor should they, IMO, as long as they are kept up to date. I'm afraid I don't see much difference between all or some data on a table changing, because in either case change has occurred and some of the data and ordering will need to be updated. That's just as true for a single column in List of counties in New Jersey, for the entire table in Most populous counties in the United States, or for lists which simply add new entries annually like List of winners of the Mathcounts competition. Geraldk (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let's agree to disagree. Dahn (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Who is going to spend time every six months revisiting the INSSE data and reviewing all parts of the list?" - well, that is the job of the nominator or anyone else interest in doing so. After all, this is a wiki, so potentially anyone can come along to review or update.—Chris!_c/t 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all know everyone can, but it's looking like no one will - this was a pet project (and his fringe interest), so chances are it will end up edited by Mario's sockpuppets. In any case, no one other than Mario's sockpuppets can be expected to. And the core issue is not addressed: the principle of creating a list on that rationale is what's really the problem, IMO. Why wait six-seven months for this list to rot and prove my point, instead of thinking in advance? Dahn (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note you shouldn't have deleted the "Important companies column. I would suggest to put it back with the names that are featured here. It should work as a good enough reference for important companies (if they are rated in the top 500 in Eastern Europe). Nergaal (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Except doing that would have still been WP:SYNTH, not to mention that the page you link to appears to be someone's personal project (fails WP:RS). Dahn (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Whatever. 30 more seconds of googling gave this: http://top100.seenews.com/. This should work well enough although it has only 44 Ro entries. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Still SYNTH. Dahn (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [11].

---

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes

Nominator(s): AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this article has gone through an extraordinary transformation over the years to reach the criteria required for such an article. Advice has been taken from three peer reviews and contributors have made efforts to look at existing featured episode list articles, and follow those formats to make this article look like a featured list article. It is time for this article to be a featured list. AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Co-Nominator:Will help with what i can to please your wishes.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I'm finding myself getting more and more confused with each reading of this page.

• American cable network --> American cable network. Why is American linked here?
• Why does "animated television series" link to List of animated television series? It makes more sense to link to cartoon series or pipelink animated television series
• It says each season consists of 20 episodes, but it appears season 8 will have just 13
• None of the second paragraph is cited, and is therefore unverifiable.
• What are "sister episodes"? Assuming you mean each individual short, which is what they've been referred to previously, why are they now episodes?
• Marathons aren't particularly notable. Many networks do them. At any rate, any reference for Karate Island being most popular?
• What is an "official" airdate? Do Nickelodeon not recognize that they aired the pilot in May? No matter what spin they've put on it, its actually just a re-run, and doesn't need mentioning
• Please check with the MOS or User:Tony1, I think using "#" to mean "number" isn't allowed any more
• Why aren't directors listed?
• If "Gary Takes a Bath" aired during season 3, why is it listed as part of season 2?
• How have the writers of this list decided what episodes are part of season 2 and what are part of season 3? Often times, it is the broadcast date that decides this, regardless of how the DVDs are packaged, but it seems to me like you're going by how the DVDs have been put together. This I can't fathom, because there are now episodes broadcast during season 3 included in season 2's table, episodes 34 and 36 seem to be out of place, etc.
• In season 4's table, there are episodes where you've got certain shorts together, as if they form an episode, with different broadcast dates... how has that happened?
• I'm also confused by episode 83. Two of the three shorts aired in February, but the third aired in September.. again, how did this happen?
• Things get even more interesting with episode 133. One half of the episode has aired, but the other hasn't? How is this an episode? I think the contributors need to go back and think about what makes up an episode. Is it how they are packaged on DVD? How the production team packaged them for the network, or how the network aired them.
• The US Copyright Office reference points to their homepage. Not very helpful here.
• Refs 6, 21, 29, and 32 need formatting correctly
• Ref 8 is a footnote, not a reference
• Viacom.com and Nick.com are websites, and don't need italicising. Also, you can remove the ".com" parts, and stay with "Viacom" and "Nickelodeon"
• What makes http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=57074 a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.animationmagazine.net/article.php?article_id=6241 a reliable source?
• What makes http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Egoodwins/bob/you_wish.html a Reliable source?
• What makes http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?p=3393203 a reliable source?
• Poor use of colour means it fails WP:FL?#5(c)

At the moment I oppose. I think a lot more work and thought should be put into it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. It is appreciated. I have taken your advice on some of your comments, but others I have not found a solution:

• I looked around and found nothing on the use of "#" for number. I've looked at several episode list articles and found they are using "#."

• See WP:POUND. Goodraise 02:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would include directors, but I'm not sure what directors to put down. Animated directors? Storyboard? Creative? Technical?
• Gary Takes a Bath is listed in season two only in this list. It is also on Season 2's DVD.
• The episodes do not air in order. Based on the news articles, sources, behind the seens, and just about everything else regarding season, Seasons are not in broadcast order. If so, SpongeBob would be in season 12, which it's not.
• Sometimes, Nickelodeon has aired an 11 minute episode without its pair and its pair would air at a different date. After both have aired whether on the same date or different dates, they are paired in future airings. And when I say paired, it could also mean in the rare case that there are three shorts given the same number and an a, b, and c, just like episode 83.
• What is wrong with http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=57074 and http://www.animationmagazine.net/article.php?article_id=6241?

-AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 03:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. -AMK152^{(t • c)} 21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead is too short, the image has an insufficient fair-use rational, and most airdates appear to be unreferenced. Goodraise 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• helped the lead, will find a new image or improve this one and air dates do not nesseserly need refrences check List of The Simpsons episodes.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't check other articles. As long as the airdates aren't referenced, I'll oppose this nomination. Goodraise 02:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

will you be satisfied if i find at least 75 to 80 % of the dates dout i can find them all.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I can support an article that's just 80% referenced just much as I can support an article that's just 80% correct or 80% complete. Goodraise 03:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

dout we will be able to agree so lets leave it like that i will try to improve and you can give your opinion.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The references are there, at the bottom of the page in the "References" section. Should we add footnotes? I think the addition of multiple footnotes for each section would clog up the table. That is why there is a reference section with multiple references. -AMK152^{(t • c)} 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The MSN TV reference seems fine. Though epguides.com, TV.com, and Internet Movie Database shouldn't be used as references. As for footnotes, while not absolutely necessary, they wouldn't hurt. (You can link in the column header, if a source covers large portions of a column.) Anyway, why was the image removed? All I was asking for was a proper fair-use rational. The lead is more than long enough now. It includes information that seems out of place on an episode list. The prose is also less than brilliant. Then there's the issues brought up by Matthewedwards. I'm afraid I still have to oppose, even though my main concern is out of the way. Goodraise 01:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Further comments I still do not understand how a season of Spongebob works: The second season of SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on October 26, 2000, with the episodes "Something Smells" and "Bossy Boots". The season ended on July 26, 2003 with "Gary Takes a Bath", yet The third season of SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on October 5, 2001, with the episodes "Just One Bite" and "The Bully". The season ended on October 11, 2004.

How does one season of television episodes span three years and overlap with another season? Has the list been created from the episode names and production numbers given to the US Copyright Office? Has it been created from how the DVDs have been compiled? Episodes get produced for one season but get aired by networks in a different season quite a lot (cf. Star Trek: Voyager and The Simpsons) Episodes get boxed differently from the order of production and broadcast (cf. The Family Guy)

Also, I still don't get what makes two shorts form an episode when they aired at completely different times. So what that they were packaged on a DVD in a certain way? You say that Nick don't broadcast episodes in order, and that they air some shorts packaged with others before airing them a second time with a different short. Where are you getting the official order from? I need to see information other than those two sources that prove what the article says is a season, is actually a season, before I believe this list to be correct

I still have major issues with the prose. Some sentences are written terribly, there are four parastubs, and one huge paragraph that looks out of place, and much of it is unsourced.

• An additional 26 episodes have yet to air. is unsourced
• SpongeBob's signature voice, provided by Tom Kenny, and humorous style was enjoyable to both younger and older audiences. is WP:OR
• SpongeBob SquarePants was the first "low budget" Nickelodeon cartoon, according to the network, to become extremely popular. Don't say "according to the network"; instead, cite where it said that
• Almost all of paragraph 4 is unsourced. Why is "low budget" in quotes?
• WP:AVOID "although"
• Why is "older" in quotes?
• Why is the contents table on the other side of the page?
• In season five, the series' first television film, Atlantis SquarePantis, premiered on November 12, 2007 after a marathon. What's a marathon? It sounds like the film ran for 26 miles
• Five of the seasons are available on DVD.
• The first season of SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on May 1, 1999, but officially first aired on July 17, 1999. How is the first premiere date not official? Do Nickelodeon not recognize that they aired the pilot in May? Do they wish to brush it under the table? No matter what spin they've put on it, its actually just a re-run, and doesn't need mentioning
• The pilot episode, "Help Wanted" was not included on the season one DVD. -- isn't "Help Wanted" just one short that makes up an episode? Does this mean that the "Help Wanted" short wasn't on the season 1 DVD, or that the entire episode wasn't?
• Just like in season four is really poor and not encyclopedic in WP:TONE
• You said before that you couldn't find in the MOS where # shouldn't be used to indicate "Number". It's at MOS:POUND, a section of WP:MOS titled "Number signs". Easy to find, I shouldn't have to do this. void using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No.".
• Your References are in the yyyy-mm-dd date format, but the notes are in the mmmm dd, yyyy format. They should all be the same
• What makes epguides.com, TV.com, and imdb.com WP:RSes?
• Ref 3 is to "The Origin of SpongeBob SquarePants [DVD Special Feature]". You need to state which DVD this can be found on, its release date, and other stuff as at {{cite dvd}}
• TVShowsonDVD.com is a website name, and shouldn't be italicized in the reference name
• Viacom is a company name, and shouldn't be italicized in the reference name
• New York Post is a newspaper name, and should be italicized.....
• I shall ask again, what makes http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=1402&document=3 a WP:Reliable source?
• Why does "Pest of the West" need three sources?
• What makes http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=57074 a Reliable source?
• Your Us Magazine source, is actually People
• Your use of WP:COLOR is unnecessary, and violates WP:ACCESS as it fails a number of colourblindness tests: [12], [13]

Still oppose Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Goodraise: I put a footnote on the airdates part of the tables. I also removed information in the head that is out of place in this article.
• Matthewedwards:

• I removed parts of the head that don't fit in an episode list article.
• The contents table is on the right because otherwise it would push the contents down, decreasing the quality of the article
• Does "television marathon" sound better?
• You are correct. There is no "offical" air date.
• I changed "Just like in" to "As in"
• Thanks for pointing out WP:POUND. It's fixed.
• References fixes and improved.
• I don't understand why http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=57074 is unreliable.

• To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Pest of the West has three sources. Is it bad to have too many sources?
• I will take a look at the colors and fix it.
• The episodes are grouped by season as per the production numbers and the season DVDs. Season one aired from 1999 to 2000. Season 2 began in 2000, but an episode from season two never aired until 2003, after which season 3 began. Seasons of SpongeBob don't tend to air like other shows. BUT, they are still called seasons. If we were to go by years to mark the seasons, it would be original research:

• 1st Season 1999-2000
• 2nd Season 2000-2001
• 3rd Season 2001-2002
• 4th Season 2002-2003
• 5th Season 2003-2004
• 6th Season 2004-2005
• 7th Season 2005-2006
• 8th Season 2006-2007
• 9th Season 2007-2008
• 10th Season 2008-2009
• 11th Season 2009-2010
• SpongeBob is not in its eleventh season.

• -AMK152^{(t • c)} 03:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Hopefully I fixed the article so that the concept of an "episode" is more understandable. -AMK152^{(t • c)} 03:43, 30 October 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [14].

---

List of St. Louis Cardinals managers

Nominator(s): LAAFan 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel this article meets criteria, following the format of List of Kansas City Royals managers, a FL. Thanks for comments in advance.LAAFan 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• First four sentences are clunky and make the prose a bit dull.
• Is there a link for National League?
• "the then St. Louis Browns " hyphen missing somewhere here?
• "... different managers for the Cardinals. Ned Cuthbert became the first manager of the then St. Louis Browns in 1882, serving for one season. Charles Comiskey became the first manager who held the title of manager ..." manager is used four times in three sentences. I know it's about managers but can we think of a better rewording?
• You mean 19th, not 18th century.
• I think you may wish to pipe link "Ted Sullivan (baseball)"
• "The lowest percentage was Arlie Latham in " Arlie Latham is not a %.
• And "3" should be three there.
• Pre 1900 ought to be Pre-1900
• But having said that, I don't know why we've split the list at all.

  Split the list because the playoff appearances pre 1900 are not recognized by Major League Baseball as official, so combining would make the total list inaccurate.--LAAFan 14:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  I missed your response here to a similar comment when I posted a similar comment below, but:

  1. The pre-1900 "unofficial" playoff information is already listed in the same columns as the official post-1900 playoff information, which seems just as misleading as any combination
  2. All the pre-1900 playoff appearances are from the team's time in the AA. Which argues perhaps for a split at the point where the team joined the NL.

  But I think better than splitting the list would be to just footnote the pre-1900 playoff appearances to note the difference, as in other manager lists. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why doesn't Jimmy Williams have an article or redlink?
• " led the then St. Louis Browns to a championship in 1886" hyphen somewhere here again and which championship?
• In second table, check sorting of columns like PL.
• Could probably use an "Statistics correct as of..." date somewhere here.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments - 2 quick ones, I may have more later:

• What is the purpose of splitting at 1900, especially since it breaks up Patsy Tebeau's tenure and since a more significant breakpoint (if one is needed) would seem to be the team's joining the National League in 1892?
  • I missed your response above to a similar comment when I posted this, and I've responded to that comment above. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• The article mentions that the team is currently a National League team but does not mention that the team used to be member of the American Association during the period covered by the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I went through the pre-1900 list and had a few more comments:

• I think a "Games Managed" column is essential. I realize that the KC Royals list doesn't have one but I think this is more important for older teams, when more games ended without a win or loss. For example, Charles Comiskey managed about 20 more games than would be inferred by just adding up wins and losses.
• Tommy McCarthy's 2nd term in 1890 (4 wins, 1 loss) seems to be missing.
• I would recommend cross checking the Baseball-Reference stats against another source, such as Retrosheet. For 1891, B-R shows Cominskey's managerial record as 86-52 but the team's record as 85-51.[15] Retrosheet shows Comiskey's managerial record as 85-51 for that season,[16] which seems more accurate.
• A optional item, but I would prefer to see a section where the complete St. Louis records for managers with multiple terms is shown. As it stands now, there is no way to easily see the full managerial records for Comiskey, Schoendienst, Southworth, etc, which I personally think is important. But most of the managerial FLs lack this item, so I would view this as optional.
• Another optional item, but I would delete the totals from the tables. I realize that some FLs have them and some don't. Personally, I think they are unlikely to updated regularly once the attention of FLC ends, and it will be difficult to tell whether or not they are up to date. So the information is likely to become incorrect over time, and I am not sure it adds much even if it is correct. It would be great if Wikipedia had an autosum function. But again, that is an optional item in my view. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – These are on top of the many issues raised above, some of which are still unresolved. For example, the Ted Sullivan link is still not piped.

• What is citing the postseason records?
• TRM mentioned issues with sorting in the second table already, but I want to clarify that all of the playoff-related columns are affected by them.
• "with Southworth winning two." This is an awkward sentence structure; a better option would be "; Southworth won two."
• "the manager in the 1898 season with a percentage of .260." Comma after "season". Giants2008 (17–14) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – I will most likely add more later: --Torsodog^Talk 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I know a few Cards managers have won Manager of the Year. These managers should be noted in the list. (See: List of Chicago Cubs managers for example)
• I think the lead could be bulked up a bit. Almost all of the managerial history after 1900 is summed up with one sentence ("Since then the management has become more stable, and the Cardinals have won 10 World Series championships"). Not only is this not enough prose to describe more than a century of history, but it doesn't seem to be true. For example, the team had 6 different managers from 1977 to 1980. That doesn't seem all that "stable", IMO.
• What is the status of the team's current manager? What kind of contract does he have with the team? When does it expire?

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