Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Lists in Wikipedia Here we determine which lists are featured on Wikipedia:Featured lists. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See "what is a featured list?" for criteria. If you nominate a list, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review. Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted to featured list status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Purge the cache to refresh this page	Shortcut: WP:FLC Featured content: Featured articles Featured pictures Featured lists ← Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists
Nomination procedure Check the featured list criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated article. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination. (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1 Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the article below the heading, and save the sub-page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Supporting and objecting Please review the nominated lists fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. If you approve of a list, write "Support" followed by your reasons and sign. If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s> ) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Featured list candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status, and a list must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list to the failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases an additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support. To archive a nomination Remove the transcluded discussion from this page. While removing it, mention the name of the list in the edit summary and whether it is being promoted or failed. For promoted lists: Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}. On the article's talk page, change {{FLC}} to {{FL}}. At the very bottom of the article (after the categories), add {{Featured list}}. Update Wikipedia:Featured lists, including the count at the top. Add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages. Add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on. For lists that fail to be promoted: Transclude the discussion to this month's log of failed candidacies. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}. On the article's talk page, change {{FLC}} to {{FLCfailed}}, as appropriate.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 List of National Football League stadiums 1.2 List of Kashimashi episodes 1.3 List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons 1.4 List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft choices 1.5 List of U.S. states by population 1.6 Institute Professor 1.7 List of Pokémon role playing games 1.8 Table of mathematical symbols 1.9 List of F-Zero titles 1.10 List of United States cities by population 1.11 List of capitals in the United States 1.12 List of Oregon State University alumni 1.13 List of Roman Emperors 1.14 Timeline of chemistry 1.15 List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" 1.16 Minnesota Vikings seasons 1.17 List of notable Alpha Phi Omega members 1.18 List of Deadwood episodes 1.19 List of Spider-Man (1994 animated series) episodes

[edit] Nominations

[edit] List of National Football League stadiums

Almost entirely the work of Pharos04 (talk • contribs), I just spiced it up by merging in information from two seemingly useless lists, those being the lists describing which of the 32 stadiums were indoor or outdoor. I also created a dynamic map template depciting all 32 stadiums as the lead image, I think it's good to go now. If this works, NBA and NHL lists are next. -Phoenix 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Looks good :-) However, a few minor problems:
  1. The references to Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League should indicate what the "1639" (and similar numbers) refers to (I'm guessing page number... just put "p1639" if that's the case). - - Not done just yet. All the references in question use {{Cite book}}, which, or so I thought, is formatted in a way that matches Harvard/something important style? -Phoenix
  2. There's a lot of small text, which isn't good for those with inperfect vision. The "Miscellaneous-use stadiums" seems to be ALL small text, and I think this should be changed to normal text. - - Done, text was 85% in the tables, now 100%. -Phoenix
  3. The "Former stadiums" is the same. If you want to save space, then change the city names to a Orchard Park, NY format. - - Done, were you talking about the redirect in the second section? I fixed it. -- -Phoenix
  4. Although the section is called "Former stadiums", it states "The following is a list of current and former NFL stadiums." (bolding mine). I suggest a section title like "current and former stadiums by team". - - Done -- -Phoenix

The list is of good layout and well-referenced, so it will have my support once the above has been dealt with. Tompw (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at it. -Phoenix 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Kashimashi episodes

After some work to bring the quality of this list up, I have checked the criteria and similar featured lists in WP:Anime, such as List of Planetes episodes and List of Oh My Goddess episodes and believe it satisfies the critera.--十八 08:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per excessive use of fair use images and tiny lead. Renata 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thought those two points would come up. The same could be said at List of Oh My Goddess episodes yet it is a featured list. I could incorperate History into the lead, but as far as excessive fair use goes, List of Oh My Goddess episodes and List of Planetes episodes have many more fair use images than this one.--十八 21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Tiny two line lead (criterion #3), and the images lack the "alt" text demanded by criterion #2a. (I agree with Renata over the excessive use of fair use images). Tompw (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment About the "alt" text thing, the template the episodes resides in does not allow captions or alt text to be shown, so there is no way to go about doing that. And fine then, I'll incorperate History into the lead. And again, I bring up the point that this list has much less fair use images than other lists that are already featured lists. You're double talking if you think you can just ignore those other articles.--十八 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

Nominating this list for the first time. It has been my passion for more than a year now and has just passed an A-class review with the WPMILHIST project. I believe she is ready for this process.--Looper5920 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. This is one of the most comprehensive lists I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's well-sourced, well-references, has pictures when needed, and is extremely organized. The lead-in is also fantastic. Wlmaltby3 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very strong, organized and eye pleasing. Joe I 07:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, a great list that meets all criteria. -Phoenix 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong support. Probably the best list I've seen so far on Wikipedia! No question this should be a WP:FL. RyguyMN 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The TOC is definately overwhelming (see WP:WIAFL #2c). I suggest having a table TOC like that of List of California birds. (If you want, I can do it for you... I would have done it now, but it's getting rather late for me.). Also, move the sidebar further up the page. Apart from that, this is an excellent list. :-) Tompw (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Though I agree with Tompw's suggestions Qjuad 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft choices

This is a self-nominated list that details the first-round draft choices made by the Cleveland Browns since the team entered the National Football League in 1950. It denotes players who have been enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame based on their performance with the Browns and players who have been enshrined in the Hall of Fame having spent only a portion of their career with the Browns, players who were selected with the number one overall choice in the draft, and the players' positions and their colleges. As far as I'm concerned, it is properly formatted and need only be updated at the end of a given year's NFL Draft. Any information to make the article better before being featured would be appreciated. Wlmaltby3 00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. states by population

First nomination a while ago didn't end up going anywhere, looks alright now. -Phoenix 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Everything on the list looks great. The only area of improvement needed is that the map should be updated to reflect 2006 data to go along with the information in the table. RyguyMN 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done -Phoenix 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Institute Professor

Nominating this article after a brush with death after a major revamp modeled on Dartmouth College alumni. It is comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. On the count of comprehensiveness it can possibly be improved: a few citations a cells are missing, but no amount of scouring by me has been able to fill them up definitively. Madcoverboy 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest a re-nameing to something like List of Institute Professors. Also, a lot of your {{cite web}} templates have got errors (see the references section). Tompw (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done References corrected. Madcoverboy 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon role playing games

Self-nomination and support The release dates for the Pokémon RPGs were cited well. It has a good lead section and the list was divided into 2 separate tables. All of the RPGs are in there making it comprehensive. Funpika 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support It has a lot of references, a lot of things are missing, that would be on normal articles. However this is a list, so these things, (such as many sections) aren't needed. TheBlazikenMaster 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well it doesn't really have a lot of references, they're all the same source; as mentioned below, it's not really a reliable one. Oppose for that reason. -Phoenix 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • They are not all from the same source. 3 separate sources were used. Though better sources are apparently needed (probably all from the official nintendo owned websites since any other site would probably be considered "unreliable").Funpika 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A professional site with employed writers and editorial oversight would do. It need not be official. I know that WP:RS is difficult for pop-culture lists/articles. There is so much "information" out there that is user-contributed and may well be of a high standard. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, so has higher standards – especially for featured material. Colin°^Talk 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The page doesn't look like a fansite page to me. It looks like a list. How is it different from "list of Disney villains" and "List of fictional pirates"? TheBlazikenMaster 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I wasn't suggesting this list was fansite material. Merely that fansites are happy to share information that perhaps can't be reliably sourced. Wikipedia cannot. Colin°^Talk 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • That still doesn't explain how it's different from the lists I mentioned. TheBlazikenMaster 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
              • How is GameFAQs not proffesional? It isn't run by some random 16 year old who spends $20 a month on web hosting+domain. So it obviously isn't a personal site. The site is owned by CNET. Funpika 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                • And YouTube is owned by Google – don't expect Academy awards any time soon. Who generates the content, who vets it? The release and credit data on that site is clearly user-submitted, by anyone with an email address who wants to register. Colin°^Talk 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In general, source reliability is in relation to the subject at hand. However, no article should ever need to use GameFAQs, except maybe to check the game script for plot cites. If one uses self published sources, one should only use those that have a staff, with contact information, disclaimers, and sources cited (some of flareGAMER's articles fall into that "reliable for certain topics" category). Even then, one must make sure it's in relation to the subject at hand; if there is a more reliable source available, one should attempt to use that instead. — Deckiller 07:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per short & choppy lead. Also, I believe, RPGs should be spelled out in the title. Renata 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment*Instances of "RPG" have been replaced with "Role Playing Games". The lead seems to be at decent length. If you want to say how long it should be then do so. And it is "choppy"? The Wiktionary defintion says "(of the surface of water) having many small, rough waves". Is this article the surface of water? Also I bolded "oppose" since you forgot to do so. Funpika 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to prose, "choppy" means it doesn't flow well (kind of like water). This can be fixed by adding transitions, more succinct, yet complex sentences, and avoiding stubby paras. — Deckiller 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • This table of statistics, offering little content beyond statistical content, which could easily fit into, say, Pokémon (video games). Why does it need its own article?
  • This does not sufficiently explain why or how the "main" series is different from the spinoff series. Also, how are Pokémon Trading Card of the Stadium games not role-playing games? The differentiation between "main" games and spinoff games isn't justified, merely assumed.
  • You can lose the "see also" section; they're already linked in the lead. 4.245.23.121 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Which of the criteria makes a table of statistics so bad? Specify the one that says this. Funpika 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  It just seems to me that this table would fit into Pokémo (video games) neatly, so there's little reason to give it its own article, especially seeing as the criteria seem arbitrary. 71.17.29.209 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose GameFAQs.com is not a reliable source as it is user-contributed (e.g. "Information and/or credits for this game contributed by American Gamer, ph201, johnboy16, LordShinin, and Ubersuntzu."). The way the inline refs have been placed implies they only support certain release dates, but not any other info in the list. You may wish to have some general refs (bullet points) to cover the other points. If each ref supports all the info in a row for your table, then consider moving it to either after the name or in a column on its own. Colin°^Talk 13:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment How nice, now I get to translate the Japanese Nintendo.com. I did find GameFAQs reliable because they appear to check if the dates are accurate before accepting. But I am sure that you knew that already. Funpika 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment it should be enough to provide both references. If you can't translate japanese well, i know there are a few people at the project who could get you the correct links and double check the dates at the official sites. so cite the offical sites and then provide the gamefaqs as a convenience link. as for developer info, cite the games themselves and once again provide gamefaqs for convenience. Also, it seems you missed Colin's point about the ref placement. As it stands it looks like you are only citing gamefaqs for the release dates and not the developer info. You should move the english ref to the last column. Also, i would cast in my !vote, but there really isn't much to say that already hasn't been said. the lead is still choppy, with no thought given to why the next sentence says what it does (each sentence should build on the ideas before it to express the main point of the paragraph. the current lead could easily be converted into a bulletd list.). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose because of that choppy lead section. Plus Pokemon Ranger isn't included. -Amarkov moo! 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of mathematical symbols

the person nominating this list did not start this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gman124 (talk • contribs).

• Oppose, unreferenced, no lead. -Phoenix 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, no lead or references. Renata 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I will not object (since it could probably be fixed up somewhat quickly)... just wanted to add that in the last 30 or so edits columns have been added to the table making for an extra empty column for each row. gren グレン 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on previous discussion that lists are not to be brought to this page with the intention of major changes being made, and that lists are not to be nominated without a reference section, I thought it safe to "quick-oppose" here. -Phoenix 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of F-Zero titles

Comprehensive, layout from List of Final Fantasy titles. Has a great lead. FMF|contact 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the only thing stopping me from support is the lead, which is not great. It could be longer and giving more background about F-Zero, and the last sentence (For a general overview of the series, see the article F-Zero.) is just bad. Renata 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And that sentence is not even needed as F-Zero is linked multiple times; I removed it. -Phoenix 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

?. Not sure, I used Final Fantasy as an example list, should something like the lead in F-Zero (series) be added too? FMF|contact 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Nintendo Database is not a reliable source as it is the personal web site of Fryguy64 (Mark Kelly), who has a day job. The second ref is a search on GameStats. Search results lists aren't suitable refs either. Please provide direct links to the relevant game page. The MobyGames site is user contributed, so isn't a reliable source either. Please rename your "References" as "Notes" and your "Sources" as "References" per MOS. Colin°^Talk 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. FMF|contact 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Support but your ref titles should be the title of the source (e.g. "BS F-Zero 2 Grand Prix") rather than the purpose you cited it for (e.g. "JPN Grand Prix 2 release date"). Colin°^Talk 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States cities by population

Again, I don't recall making an edit to this one, but it's a pretty important list and looks fine to me. PhoenixTwo 07:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - notes marked with * should be converted into in-line citation. There is the alternative to <ref> tags: {{ref}}. Renata 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll get that done this evening at some point...would {{Cnote}} and {{Cref}} be better than renaming the References section to Footnotes and adding them there? -Phoenix 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Done -Phoenix 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support, just when you have time add more pics of cities - there is still a lot of space. Renata 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that later today. -Phoenix 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support on fixing the sort order for the Population column. I believe there are tricks you can do to ensure the Javascript orders properly (search for "wikitable sortable"). Other comments: Your main table probably doesn't need a title (repetition). Please can you provide a short lead/explanation for the table in "Other cities". The "Other source" section is redundant since those sources are already given in your References. The layout of "States with multiple cities over 100,000" is a little confusing at first, with two different presentations (over 10/under 10). It might be better to do this as another short table with two columns. Colin°^Talk 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the trick is {{commas}}. Renata 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Alrighty, I'll give that a go. -Phoenix 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Done, looks like the numbers sort correctly now. I also removed the title on the table and the 'other sources' section. -Phoenix 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. List looks real good, but I think the "States with multiple cities over 100,000" section needs to be re-worked since it's a little confusing at first glance to understand the information presented. Once this has been looked at, I would give my support. RyguyMN 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do to rework that. -Phoenix 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Done - I tabled the values, with two columns entitled "State" and "Cities". As for the "Other cities" section, I myself am uncertain what's going on there. Would anyone prefer that it just me removed? -Phoenix 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Having "States with multiple cities over 100,000" removed did cross my mind pending how your changes came out. After looking at this section again, I'm not real sure it adds any real value to the list. It would probably be best to just get rid of it. The section below it showing the number/different sizes of cities in the U.S. is great, keep that for sure. RyguyMN 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Done, I added a few tidbits of information to the LA and NYC captions to somewhat compensate for the removal of the table. -Phoenix 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support as per Colin. --Krm500 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The map should have a caption (The ten most populous cities). In addition, try to add a small marker (a red point) to indicate the exact location of the city. CG 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. -Phoenix 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of capitals in the United States

• Looks fine to me. Though I'm not associated with the article at all I'll try to look into any objections. PhoenixTwo 07:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overall a pretty good list, but some states need sources. Electronic sources for some states are hard to find; I've looked for many of them.— Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 17:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per tiny lead. Renata 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I notice that a chunk of your objections here cite a short lead. Anything in particular you want to see added here? -Phoenix 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ya, well, this is especially big "sin" of lists: leads are usually one sentence self-reference ("this is a list of..."), so featured lists should set example for the rest, therefore the objection. Lead should give background info on the topic, introduce terms, and highlight general trends. So for the capitals some statistics could be added: the first capital, last change, biggest capital, etc. Why did capital change? How capitals are changed? etc. Renata 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per the following reasons:
  • Lead could be expanded some and rewritten some, to remove self references, and better summarize the evolution of capital cities in the U.S.
  • Formatting issues: the Leesburg Va. entry is signifcantly different than the rest, its glaring. Also, the National capitals are a bullet list, while the state capitals are a table? Why the change in format? Also, the Louisianna ref tag needs to me moved for consistency
  • References: Someone added this information while reading something, I am certain. Where are those sources for:
    • CSA
    • Rep of Texas
    • Kingdom & Rep of Hawaii
    • A whole BUNCH of states

Overall, the article looks good, but I cannot support this promotion until these problems are fixed. If they are, I will change my vote. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There were two areas that stuck to me that needed improvement. First, the lead-in to the list needs to be expanded to give a little summary about the history. Second, it was difficult to read going from bullet points to a table. This list could be done using strictly tables. I like what you've done here, but it just needs a little more work to reach the guidelines established by WP:FL. RyguyMN 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments...I reiterate, I didn't do any work on the list, just saw it and though it looked alright. I'll work on converting the bulleted section to a table. -Phoenix 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Oregon State University alumni

I believe this list satisfies all the criteria specified in WP:WIAFL, namely:

• Criteria 1(a): The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria.
• Criteria 1(b): No major components of the list have been omitted.
• Criteria 1(c): Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations - the lengthy References section satisfies this criteria easily.
• Criteria 1(d), 1(e): The contents of the list are not disputed and there are no edit wars.
• Criteria 1(f): The list is well-constructed.
• Criteria 2(a): Lead provides a good summary of the entire list.
• Criteria 2(b): There is a proper system of headings.
• Criteria 2(c): ToC is substantial, but not too long.
• Criteria 3: Appropriate images are included.

This was previously a Good Article, but delisted solely because GA doesn't deal with lists anymore. Resurgent insurgent 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support as creator: - For the images, I haven't been able to get many from the sportspeople at the top so the images are mostly concentrated at the bottom of the page. There are several ways we can deal with this - 1) Leave as is, and add more in as they become available 2) Disperse images around the page regardless of what section they are listed in, or 3) Remove all images except add one at the top right of the page. That aside, at the risk of seeming like a hypocrite for not supporting a nom below for too many redlinks (since changed to support, however), it looks like that one will pass nonetheless, and I feel this is the most comprehensive list of notable OSU Alumni gathered anywhere by far. The Official OSU notable alumni page pales in comparison to this, and I feel this is a valuable resource. I'm going to go work on some redlinks/improving the list right now. VegaDark 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Get rid of the sort columns. I'm not a big fan of those since I think the wiki implementation isn't anywhere close to useful. The initial order is grouped by notable profession then ordered by surname. None of the alternative orders are useful (even date attended appears useful but only changes the order within the group, which limits its usefulness, and fails when the start-date is a ?). Ordering by forename, notability or ref is a nonsense. The way the photos bunch together isn't very tidy and causes the bottom of Politics / top of Science to have about 5 [edit] links overlapping the table. Perhaps scatter the photos and include their profession after the name. Don't include the "language" parameter to the cite templates if English. The format = PDF is also a bit pointless now that there is an icon in the hyperlink. Nearly there ... Colin°^Talk 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The "edit" link doesn't overlap the table on my browser, it is just pushed over above the table. Or is that what you meant? As for getting rid of the sort feature I find the sort by year helpful, and List of Dartmouth College alumni has the feature, which is a featured list, so I am hesitant to remove it unless there is a consensus to do so. VegaDark 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - way too much attention for sport. Plus lead could be longer. Renata 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A school can't help it if most of its notable alumni are sportspeople. Are you suggesting the non-sports section isn't comprehensive? If so do you have any sources that list additional non-sportspeople as alumni that should be added? I'd be happy to see such a source as to add more. I'll see about expanding the lead. VegaDark 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I did a quick calculation: 272 people are on the list, 56 (20%) of them are not from sport. That seems aweful low when there is no specific reason for it (i.e. that's what you would expect from a sport school; likewise you would expect alumni of an engineering school be enginners, but as far as I see it's not a specialized school). So you probably had access to sources that deal with sportspeople, or inclusion criteria for sports people was much lower than for all the other. Renata 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I completely disagree with the presumption of a bias towards sportspeople. It is not uncommon for a relatively high number of sportspeople who attend a major U.S. state university to attain notability. According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special cases, it could be argued that literally hundreds of sportspeople at a school like Oregon State become notable every year. Contrast that with the "barrier to notability" for other people that might be associated with Oregon State: environmental scientists, engineers, professors, etc. - it's much, much higher. The fact is that the media covers sports far more closely than it does something like soil science; there are simply many notable sportspeople out there, and the list does a good job providing reliable sources for all of the individuals listed. I believe that throwing a percentage out there that "seems low" is not a valid reason to oppose promotion. -Big Smooth 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • How about moving all the redlink American football folk to the talk page and merge coaches. There are more red than blue links for football, which dominates the list and goes against criterion 1a. Colin°^Talk 08:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Appears to meet all featured list criteria. -Big Smooth 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. List looks good, however, I don't believe it's necessary to have a separate column for references in the table, mainly due to the fact that it serves no purpose sorted. The references can be moved to the person's name or notability column. Will give support once these issues are addressed. RyguyMN 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The inability to specify which columns should be sortable is IMO a major defect in the sorting feature, not this article. The Notability column doesn't make sense sorted either. The refs could be moved to the end of the notability column, though they would then be much harder to spot. For a long dynamic list such as this, having a refs column makes it easier to maintain (i.e. detect which names are unsourced) and is similar to lots of other featured people-lists. It would be interesting to know what others think, but I don't see why this one aspect should prevent support Colin°^Talk 07:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Roman Emperors

I have incorporated amendments in order to address the objections raised against the previous failed nomination
(see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Roman Emperors/Archive1).

--JohnArmagh 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. Section headings should not be wikilinked (see WP:MOS). Use {{main}} instead.
  2. An explantion of terms like "Pontifex Maximus" and "Pater Patriae" would be good
  3. The Eastern Empire section would benefit from having the same level of information as the rest of the list.

  Tompw (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Haven't worked out how to integrate that yet

2. Briefly introduced the main titles with wikilinks

3. I agree

--JohnArmagh 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• comments: no particular value is added by wikilinking every standalone year and year-month. Only year-monty-day should be linked for date reading preferences. Hmains 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. The term "optimus" could be better translated than "the best"
  2. As per Tompw no.2
  3. Too much dense CAPITALS in the columns with the latin names. Doesn't make it easy to read.
  4. Though consistent and comprehensive, the formatting is uninteresting/dull. The page is not aesthetically pleasing.

Witty lama 15:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Lead full of short one-sentence paragraphs. Needs to be expanded and flow. Please supply ISBN (and possibly edition) for the book references. Colin°^Talk 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of chemistry

This is a self-nomination of an article that I, along with several other editors, including principally Sadi Carnot and Itub, and others, have worked on. I propose that this article meets the criteria as a featured list based on the following:

• Based on Criteria 1:
  • (a)it is useful (per 1 (a) (2)): it is a timeline with every entry verified in a third-party source as to its significance)
  • (b)it is comprensive: it does not omit any major discovery. Chemistry is a dynamic and full field, and every novel compound or experiment cannot be included, but I feel the editors of this list (myself included) have done a good job at getting nearly every important discovery.
  • (c)it is factually accurate: every entry is verified by being attributed to a reliable source that shows not only the facts behind the entry, but the significance of the entry to the field of chemistry. In other words, I have found third-party sources that ALSO list these discoveries as highly significant.
  • (d)it is uncontroversial: I am not sure that any of these entries would qualify as controversial
  • (e)it is stable: no edit warring at all.
  • (f)it is well-constructed: It is chronologically organized, and subdivided for easy of navigation.
• Based on Criteria 2:
  • (a)it has a comprehensive but informative lead
  • (b)it has a logical system of headings
  • (c)it has a reasonable TOC
• Based on Critera 3:
  • It has appropriately tagged and captioned images that are all free or fair-use.

Please review this list and let me know if any changes are needed to bring it to Featured status, and if not, please support its promotion! Thank you and happy editing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support As Jayron32 says, I also contributed to this list, so I may be a bit biased. However, I agree with all the points above (except that I don't think any entries would qualify as controversial, maybe it was a typo?). Anyway, I think this is a great list, mostly due to Jayron32 who started it and did most of the work, and it has everything it needs to be featured IMO. --Itub 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Still has that little extra step to go. Mostly minor things, but their combinations makes the list less than ideal:
  • The entries' format is less than ideal, I'm afraid. Full sentence without the unwarranted break would be far superior.
  • Lead image is a very poor choice.
  • First paragraph should be tweaked to be less trite.
  • Images on the lleft of a list are not a good idea. Inside the item is an even worse one. Since this is not a table, they could be larger (180-200px), too.
  • History of chemistry should definitely have a link in the lead, not the "See also."
  • External links should be last, per Wikipedia:Guide to Layout
• Circeus 22:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • • request clarification Just so that I know what to fix, could you please clarify your objections so I can fix them? Specifically:
      • I assume when you say "Full Sentance" I should omit the hypens and just leave it as a sentance?
      • What do you mean by "trite"? Do you mean to short or terse? The other paragraphs in the lead section elaborate on this paragraph. Could you please elaborate on what should be added/removed/changed?
      • Lead image removed. Done.
      • Not sure what you mean by this: "Images on the lleft of a list are not a good idea. Inside the item is an even worse one". The Manual of Style specifically says, and I quote, "When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left" This article complies fully with that guideline. How do you propose the images should be organized, if they are not to follow the Manual of Style? I will, however, resize all images to a more readable size.
      • History of chemistry moved to lead from see also section
      • External links moved
    • I have made the changes I was able to understand (see above) but could you please clarify the points I don't understand so that I can make the changes you want. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • • Yes, that is what I mean. Look at e.g. Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season or Timeline of events in the Cold War. While I'll admit many events are discoveries (cf. scientific discoveries uses a similar format, but not meteorology or information theory), not all of them are.
          • Now that I look at it, almost all of them discoveries, but not all major events in science are that. Where are the Solvay Conferences, for example?
        • Admittedly, "trite" was not the best word. Maybe Avoid self-references is a beter page to link to.
        • I did not mean the image had to go! I firmly believe there should be one. THe one that was there was, however, inappropriate. I'm sure commons:category:History of chemistry has something that fits.
        • Well, maybe a more appropriate place to look at is WP:GTL#Images, which devellops a bit on some points (although these two sections would gain from a bit of harmonization... I'll have to look into it). The important word at WP:MoS is "can". List items interacts in troublesome ways with images, which is why WP:GTL says (emphasis mine):

          Some users prefer images to be all located on the right side of the screen (aligned with boxes), while others prefer them to be evenly alternated between left and right. Both options are valid, although 'in both cases care must be taken for the images not to clash with nearby contents'.
          
          In general, it is considered poor layout practice to place images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen. Not only does this unnecessarily squeeze text, but this might also cause images to overlap text due to interferences. It is usually not a good idea to place an image intended to illustrate a given section above the header for that section. Placing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is also frowned upon.

          • Images inside and at the left of an item (something I've hardly ever seen, so never had to "counter") causes the bullet point to be in an odd location. They also prevent proper wrapping around the element. see this screenshot for a more explicit exemple.
        • I meant integration within the text of the lead. Use of "see also"/"Main" links at the top of articles is strongly frowned upon.
        • Circeus 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Fixes I have made based on above:
            • rewrote lead to remove self reference
            • reformated entries to read in plain sentance format
            • Moved a new picture to the lead section
            • right justified all pictures for improved readability
            • added entry for the Solvay Conferences
          • Any other changes? If there are I will be glad to make them, and if not I would appreciate your support. Thanks again for your help in improving the list... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Support Looks okay now.Circeus 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, just why no entries since 1995? Renata 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Well, it has to do with the nature of a list like this. In order to be considered noteworthy enough to be considered one of the most important discoveries in chemistry, there is a certain perspective needed that only time can give. In order to merit inclusion, enough people outside of Wikipedia need to recognize it as noteworthy enough. Widespread acceptance as "This is important" only comes with the perspective of time. Also, there is no reason this list cannot grow, even through and beyond the featuring process. If you find something specific missing from the list, and have references to support its addition, by all means add it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • To add to what Jayron32 said, just think how many years it usually takes for an important discovery to be recognized with a Nobel Prize. ;-) --Itub 05:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support with a suggestion and a comment: Otto_Hahn#The_discovery_of_nuclear_fission deserves a place on the list and the scientific community recognized its importance immediately. His Nobel Prize followed six years later. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Added him, with references. Thanks for catching that one! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"

This list I stumbled upon is cited for every move, sorted, and has good pictures to support it. Therefore, I nominate it and will help improve it if need be. The Placebo Effect 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead is inadequate and too self referential. Put guidelines for editors in the talk page. It isn't acceptable to use bare URL hyperlinks for featured material. A full citation is required (Title, Publisher, Author (if one), Date (if given), Access Date, etc). "The Documentary Blog" isn't a reliable source, which gives a problem with the number 1 film, which only opened to a handful of screens (according to IMDB). Screen It are a "husband and wife team", only one of whom is full-time. Don't think that counts as a reliable source even if the site has been around a long time – there isn't the editorial control and fact checking you'd expect from proper publisher. Many of their reviews seem very vague (at least nnn times; hard to hear; difficult accents; etc). The two big negatives are the US bias and failure to specify which edition of the film is being counted (would appear to be mostly US DVD's). Editions for Europe or screened in theatres may well be different. Would different US states have different rules? The term "commercially released film" is inadequate as it would include the sort of films that "Family Media Guide" and "Screen It" wouldn't lower themselves to watch. You seem to include some TV-movies/straight-to-video/dvd? This makes me doubt the list is comprehensive. The "Other movies" section is weak. A lot of the links are redirects or just wrong (Rounders). Colin°^Talk 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota Vikings seasons

This is a self-nominated list that details records for all professional seasons played by the Minnesota Vikings in their franchise history. The list displays regular season win-loss-tie records for each year, including playoff results, and any player/coach awards. It is properly formatted and no additional research is required other than updating the list at the conclusion of a completed season. It follows a similar format to Chicago Bears seasons, which is a WP:FL. Thank you! RyguyMN 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Support as creator. RyguyMN 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The number of redlinks is an issue, but they are all for team articles, and this is a list of seasons. So, I can't see any problems with it. Certainly as good as Chicago Bears seasons. Tompw (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • All red links have been eliminated. RyguyMN 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support looks as good as Chicago Bears seasons. The only difference I see is the color legend at the top is centered, which should probably be moved to the left as is in the Chicago Bears page. VegaDark 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved legend back to the left. Thanks for the input! RyguyMN 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Renata 00:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. List is comprehensive yet finite, and easily attributable to its references. Its organzation is dense yet readable, and it follows the format of the precedent set by FL Chicago Bears seasons. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Excellent, very good job. --Krm500 11:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support As the main creator of the Chicago Bears seasons article, this article is great and no question in my mind that it should not be a featured list. Now hopeful other Wikipedia NFL fans will create a list of team seasons for the other franchises. --Happyman22 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all the reasons listed above. This is a great list. I plan to do the same for the Browns. All teams need lists like this. Great job. Wlmaltby3 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable Alpha Phi Omega members

This list of notable members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity has undergone extensive research and updating in the past couple of months, and I believe it meets the featured list criteria and exemplifies an ideal structure and format of a list on wikipedia. It is also well-referenced with numerous web & non-web inline citations. Dr. Cash 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: (for now)
  1. Comepleteness - clear this is a list that can never be complete, so it should be indicated as such using {{Dynamic list}}.

     The template has been added. Dr. Cash 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  2. "Notable" - the crtieria for a person to be notable enough to be included in this list should be clearly given. The current definition is rather vague.

     A sentence has been added in the description at the beginning further clarifying the definition of 'notable'. Dr. Cash 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  3. You have a *huge* number of wikilinks to the Alpha Phi Omega article in the references. Limit to the first instance of any word/phrase only (see WP:MOS).

     I've removed all but one or two of the wikilinks to Alpha Phi Omega. I also went through and removed wikilinks to 'month, year' as well. Dr. Cash 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  Otherwise, the list is generally good, and I'll support when the above issues have been sorted out. Tompw (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I've removed my opposition now that the issues I've raised have been dealt with. However, I have to agree that tabulating and/or sorting by area is a must. This would make the list more useful (1a), and make it well-constructed (1f). Tompw (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose on criterion 1f (see below). An alphabetical listing of what could potentially be a long list is IMO as interesting to read as a phone book. The layout doesn't please the eye and makes it hard to spot the names. I think a table format could improve things. Columns: Name, Chapter, Notability, Reference. See List of Dartmouth College alumni, List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, List of Oregon State University alumni, List of notable brain tumor patients. The photos are all (apart from one astronaut) US politicians, which is a bit dull. Colin°^Talk 22:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with the user's assessment of criterion 1f, suggesting that the list should be organized in table format. Most of the list entries are written with a brief description of the person's notability, in prose, which would not lend itself easily to table format. I think this user's desire for table format should be noted as personal preference, and that it should not count against this list for criterion 1f. It is also worth pointing out other lists that are not organized as tables which are featured lists, such as List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), List of snow events in Florida, List of major opera composers, just to name a few. Dr. Cash 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to disagree. Some of the criteria require a subjective judgement. Rather than dismissing my opinion because it is just an opinion, can I request that other reviewer's respond with their views on Sorting, Grouping and table/bullet-list formatting.

Of course, a list doesn't need to be table-formatted to be featured. The threshold, IMO, is whether there are enough columns for the vertical order imposed by a table to be useful. The chapter, honorary, and the Philippines aspects could all be usefully placed in columns. The amount of prose you devote to each person is not dissimilar to other such lists, though I do think some of the prose could be usefully shortened. People who attain high positions tend to have lots of responsibilities – establishing which are truly notable would do your readers a service.

While we're on notability – there are far, far too many unlinked names, which I didn't spot before. If these people are notable, they should have Wikipedia articles. For example "National Director of Relationships, BSA" is really not a notable person. And what's this War Eagle stuff doing here? I suspect if you group by notable area (as Renata also suggest) we will spot the list is dominated by politics and business leaders, but far fewer sports, science or arts. That to me indicates the list isn't comprehensive and might be a consequence of bias in the Torch & Trefoil source.

So I'm changing my position to strong oppose on 1a and weak oppose on 1f. BTW: I do appreciate how much work goes into a list like this, so I don't want you to get any impression that I think it is rubbish. Colin°^Talk 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - suggest sorting by area (sport, politics, science, etc.) Renata 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Deadwood episodes

After expanding the lead, summaries and fair use rationale for each episode I believe this article is a potential featured list. In line with critera it is useful, well laid out in accordance with other featured lists and complete. Qjuad 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, yeah. Self nom and support Qjuad 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I like it. I like being able to randomly pick any image and find a fair use rationale for it. I haven't gone through every image, but I've clicked about 10 of them and they had fair use rationales, so I was pleased (it's something that's easily overlooked). But, I didn't find any for the DVD covers. They need them just like the screenshots do. Since those are copyrighted I like all the plot summaries kept to a decent size. The individual episodes seem nothing more than expanded plots, but that doesn't matter here. Also, the last paragraph, that talks about Paramount having ownership of Region 2 DVDs and that being the reason why the extra information from Region 1 isn't on them, that needs a source. It comes across as original research because it appears to be drawing conclusions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending paragraph (outside of a forum post from a cast member, there is no reliable source for it) and updated the fair use rationale for the DVD covers. Qjuad 03:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - I give the article my support. The lead is pretty much straight forward and to the point. I think the only thing that I might tweak would be the line about its pilot. Every show's pilot is called "pilot"; I think it would be fine to just say "The show first aired on ..... in the US". Unless it first aired as a movie, like The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series) where the pilot was really a 2 hour made-for-TV movie originally, then i don't think it needs mentioning. Other than that, great job.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose excessive fair use images. It is entirely possible to have a Featured List without images for very single episode (e.g. List of Dad's Army episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes). Tompw (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to object, because it's also possible to have one that has an image for every episode. See List of South Park episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also object; many other featured articles, including the aformentioned List of South Park episodes and List of The Sopranos episodes have images. Qjuad 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Qjuad is right. Also, your comparison of this to The Simpsons is inappropriate—it has a separate article for each season, and those have screenshots like this and many other lists of episodes. Cliff smith 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support just as with the List of The Sopranos episodes page which is now Featured Article status, Qjuad has done an excellent job in shaping up and improving the article to FA standards. I give my support fully. Sfufan2005 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support per Sfufan; just like back at the LOE for The Sopranos, yet another job well done. Cliff smith 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article already does all the things I usually request when I object. Jay32183 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Great job! -- Underneath-it-All 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Simpsons and South Park are featured lists just because they came way before WP got serious about fair use. There is no need to have more such "offenders". Renata 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are proceeding with a one person vendetta of opposing any lists of television shows, especially those that have images or colors. But I don't see you bringing the fight to the very small list of featured television shows that are in opposition of your opinion. But that is neither here nor there, as this is a discussion about this list. Every image has a fair use rationale, and there isn't even a remote opportunity to get "free images" for such things as they are screencaptures of episodes. Since this particular list has little synopses of each episode it can be nice to have an image to illustrate the show. If someone has never seen the show (like myself) then it is beneficial to know what it looks like. Since you cannot get "free images" for such a thing, then saying "oppose on the grounds of too many fair use images" should really read "oppose because it has images".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please refrain from personal attacks. Tompw (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The objection is based on a gross misinterpretation of FUC#3. The limiting of fair use images does not mean there cannot be more than a certain number, it's there can't be multiple unfree images serving the same purpose. Each episode is unique, therefore each image serves a different purpose. Renata has made this objection before, and it has been ignored before. Jay32183 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one's objections ever get "ignored", and excessive use of fair use images hasbeen a reason to fail a candidate for FL. Further, please refrain from personal attacks. Tompw

Such use of fair use images not only violates WP:FUC #3 & #8, but also Wikimedia Foundation resolution that says: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to ... complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works.[1] Having 50 fair use images on a page is nowhere near "narrow limits." Renata 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(#8) is a subjective call. If many editors believe that the use of these "50 fair use" do contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, then there is nothing wrong. Wikipedia does not provide a set limit to fair use images in an article, especially when dealing with a list of episodes article. Since Wiki doesn't say, "oh you can have 3 FU images, but not 5, maybe you can have 4", then (#3) is also a subjective call. It's based on what the article is illustrating, and how easily one could come across free images for that article. Free images for a television article are probably 100% impossible, unless the owners decide they dont' want the show anymore and released it into the public domain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My sentiments echo both Jay and Bignole. Qjuad 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). Yes, each episode is unique, and each image's inclusion is definately be justified in an article on the relevant episode. However, we are dealinf with the *list* of episodes. WP:FUC #8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article". As there are thirty-six such images, none of them can be held to contribute significantly to the list. Further, #3 states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". It is possible to have a list of television episodes without screenshots, and still be a featured list. Tompw (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Once you recognize the case as unique you can't base your argument on a different case. Just because one list doesn't need image does not mean this is the same case. If you have a problem with any particular image though, please bring it up. There is no absolute number that cannot be exceeded though. Jay32183

Yes, its true that a list of television episodes can be featured without images; but it is not necessary. Each image highlights an episode and a key moment therein (I honestly don't see how "none of them can be held to contribute"). Until the foundation decrees that television images should not be used, I don't see why they should be removed at all. Qjuad 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I was hardly personally attacking Renata, I was making a personal observation based on their recent edits to other lists of articles and their comments on another users page. I didn't call them a name, nor did I attack their conviction or character. It's about subjectiveness. Saying it doesn't "significantly contribute to an article", is the same as saying it just violates this guideline, or it's unencyclopedic, or not notable. The arguments don't even make sense. Citing FUC, and then saying there are too many FU images, is not the same thing. FUC is the criteria for an image to be classified as fair use, not the criteria for how many images you can have. Almost all of the images are used on both the list page and the individual episode pages. Those that aren't on both are not because the individual episode pages do not exist (here's to praying that never do, most indy ep pages don't support themselves as articles). What constitutes "significant contribution to the article"? According to the bullet, it must "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". I don't see too many images that don't illustrate what the little synopses are saying. But I haven't seen the show so I can't verify every single image with the plot, but some are rather obvious. It's a subjective call on whether to include the images or not. If there is a summary of the plots, it may be good to provide an illustration of that, for better clarification. Again, it's my contention that the number of fair use images is a subjective call based on the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. Well done! Everything looks terrific! RyguyMN 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spider-Man (1994 animated series) episodes

I think that this list is worthy of featured status. In accordance with the criteria, it is useful, has all the fair use rationals, and info about show and I think it's complete now. Self-nom by Gman124 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - You need to go through and trim the wiki links, you should link in the first instance, not every instance. Also, I think there should be some consistancy in the plots; some of them are just a single sentence while others are a paragraph long. A good copy edit to the plots is necessary also. You need fair use rationales for those DVD covers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added fair use rational for dvd releasesGman124 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Now for the wikilinks. I know it's a pain, but someone needs to go through and delink any repeated links. I think his name is "John Semper", well the last name is Semper..anyway, he's linked 12 times in Season 1, and there are only 13 episodes in that season. You should link the first instance of a name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the repeated links. Gman124 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that sucked, I've had to do it for a series with over 100 episodes before. The only other things I see are 2 lines in the lead paragraph that may need a citation, and the plots. There is a line that reads, " the only series that in-house studio produced." It seems like you may need to prove that. The other line is the "second longest running Marvel show". The plots don't need the "part 1" or "part 3 of 3", the titles of the episodes kind of take care of that. Also, the plots need some major copyediting for flow. I was trying to read a couple and they sentences didn't make that much sense (I'll try and help out with this later part).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the summaries and I think the summaries for the episodes are about the same size for each episode now, and I thinks it's ok now. Gman124 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks good now, visually. Someone will need to go in an copyedit the summaries for better wording. There are some things that need a bit better wording, for flow purposes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment — I changed just a few things per WP:LOE, but this is coming along nicely. Cliff smith 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no Season section here, and because of this the color coding is employed incorrectly. See List of The Sopranos episodes or List of The Unit episodes for a proper example. Cliff smith 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

why do we even need a season section, those two episode lists have their DVD releases listed at the top, and Spider-Man series don't have the seasons out on DVD Yet, there's only a couple of episodes on DVD. And the airdates and episode numbers are already in listed in the list, so I think having a season section is really unnecessary. Gman124 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for LOEs state that they should follow the example of other FLs. I could list you a great many of them, all of which have a Season list. Also, the whole color-coding system is designed to be employed with a Season list—you could say that the two are existential. In addition, the Season lists are not redundant: they state the years of broadcasting and the episode totals for each season, so saying that airdates and episode numbers are "already" there doesn't really hold much weight (they are similar but different). P.S. Those other lists have separate articles for their DVD releases; such info in the Season section is just basic stuff. Cliff smith 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have romoved the colored lines, so i don't think it needs season section now, and there a some featured episode lists that don't have season section like List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. Gman124 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the colored lines are gone I agree that it doesn't really need a Season section now. Also, the majority of FLs have one, not necessarily all, but the majority. Cliff smith 22:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have moved the DVD releases to different page. Gman124 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Full dates are supposed to be wikilinked to allow user preferences to work. Jay32183 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have fixed the dates Gman124 13:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• the pictures make it easier to read the article and other Featured Lists have alot of them. I don't see why they can have it and this page can't.Gman124 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for providing an argument that the list violates WP:FUC #8 (decorative use): images cannot be used so that the list could be "easier to read." Renata 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• The images serve to identify the episodes in question, so there is no reason to remove them and removing them only makes the list less informative, and becomes difficult to identify an episode, because you can only rely on the summaries.Gman124 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If you are going to oppose this list on a "too many fair use images" base (considering they are only screencaptures and "free images" cannot be attained for them), then you'd have to call into question several Featured Lists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(#8) is a subjective call. If many editors believe that the use of these "50 fair use" do contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, then there is nothing wrong. Wikipedia does not provide a set limit to fair use images in an article, especially when dealing with a list of episodes article. Since Wiki doesn't say, "oh you can have 3 FU images, but not 5, maybe you can have 4", then (#3) is also a subjective call. It's based on what the article is illustrating, and how easily one could come across free images for that article. Free images for a television article are probably 100% impossible, unless the owners decide they dont' want the show anymore and released it into the public domain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)