Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit2005
June	13 promoted	10 failed
July	20 promoted	8 failed
August	14 promoted	9 failed
September	3 promoted	8 failed
October	7 promoted	2 failed
November	7 promoted	6 failed	1 removed
December	6 promoted	4 failed
2006
January	12 promoted	11 failed	1 removed
February	3 promoted	8 failed
March	13 promoted	11 failed
April	10 promoted	5 failed	1 removed
May	10 promoted	7 failed
June	9 promoted	10 failed
July	10 promoted	9 failed
August	10 promoted	7 failed
September	5 promoted	7 failed
October	8 promoted	10 failed	1 removed
November	11 promoted	8 failed
December	20 promoted	11 failed
2007
January	18 promoted	11 failed
February	11 promoted	11 failed
March	12 promoted	10 failed

Contents 1 Test cricket hat-tricks 2 List of Mir visiting spacecrafts and crews 3 Colleges of the University of Cambridge 4 List of Northwest Territories general elections 5 Comparison of web browsers 6 European Union member states 7 List of rock and roll albums 8 Prime Ministers of Canada

[edit] Test cricket hat-tricks

I have been working on this for a week or two, adding in extra details and references. It is almost there: I just need to add links to the scorecards for the first seven instances and check them. I'd be grateful for any comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The scorecard links, etc, are fixed, so please vote. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There's ten Test playing nations - at least officially. WP:NOT a soapbox for anti-Bangladeshi/Zimbabwean sentiments. ;) Maybe a few wikilinks to bowled, lbw, caught and bowled and stumped wouldn't hurt either? Apart from that, looks good! Sam Vimes 14:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Will action (pace other arguments, BAN and ZIM have one official Test hat-trick each). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed now. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, so I will support Sam Vimes 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object
  • The table creates an annoying scrollbar in 800x600. A solution to this problem is to reduce the width of the "Inn." & "Test" columns. (Set the table width to 600px while testing)I've fixed it but the style is now messed.
  • Lots of red in the centre of the table. More % of blue is needed.
  • Some of the notes are not working
  • ...recently by James Franklin... --> ..."New Zealander James"...
  • A photo perhaps? You might get an old PD photo from Australia )pre-1955)
  • Q: are all the mentioned hat-tricks been taken in the same over? (You can also mention that a HT is valid for three deliveries a bowler bowls... it neededn't be valid in an over/innings.
  • You can also mention which all dismissals count for a valid hat-trick. (eg run-outs don't count)

User:Nichalp/sg 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

• I've "subst:"ed {{prettytable}} and changed the font size - better?
• I think there is clear majority of blue links, but we need people to write stubs for some more or less obscure South African and Pakistani crickets.
• I am not a note expert, and this is the first time I have used them. Which ones are broken? Can you help?
  • I think this is now fixed (see below). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Fixed.
• Added one from Fred Spofforth, the first Test bowler to take a hat-trick
• A: No. It should be apparent from the table that the balls in a hat-trick can be in different innings (and hence in different overs) and there are footnotes for each of the hat-tricks spread over two innings - for example, Merv Hughes' hat-trick was in three different overs in two innings, over 24 hours apart. I don't have ball-by-ball details (and they are quite difficult to get for the very early matches - they may not even exist). Are you really asking for a longer explanation of what a hat-trick is?
• I'm not sure the article needs an explanation of when the bowler gets credit for a wicket - isn't that in dismissal (cricket)?

-- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OK Support. Would prefer it if those red links are taken care of. User:Nichalp/sg 05:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Refs/notes don't work (at least for me). Clicking on the ref in the body goes down to the notes OK, but clicking on the "^" doesn't go back up. I confess I don't know how to fix that. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Aha - I have found out that {{ref_num}} is not intended to provide working backlinks: you have to use {{ref}} the first time and only use{{ref_num}} if you want to have the same footnote with the same number. I think it works now. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Great work - Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment – in the venue col, you've linked some to the ground and others to the city. Could it be standardised please? User:Nichalp/sg 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Good list, but more redlinks need to be cleared. Will support when there are half a dozen or fewer. Could also do with a note of the hat-trick in the England v Rest of World series in 1970 that was original treated as a Test, and about South African rebel Tests, jguk 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "half a dozen or fewer" is a pretty extreme interpretation of a "significant majority of blue links"! I'll see what I can do about your and Nichalp's other points. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we should aim high - particularly for the cricket lists - otherwise we could end up nominating another dozen all in one fell swoop, jguk 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the more the merrier - which "other dozen" are you thinking of? If a list has less than say 1/3 red links, that would usually be good enough for me. The national lists of cricketers should help fill in many of the redlinks in due course, but historical cricketers from some countries (e.g. South Africa) seem to be poorly represented. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mir visiting spacecrafts and crews

Self-nomination, mostly. I really like this table, but it may make sense to me only because i've been working on it for so long.. hopefully it's readily understandable.. if not, suggestions for improvement would be nice. Mlm42 22:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just joking...have a few comments. Formatting is somewhat akward within the table. The lead will need to be substantially improved upon, as is the case with an increasing amount of FL nominees. A few references will also be needed. Perhaps, lastly, an image of Mir accompanying the lead, in which the title should be bolded. Phoenix2 02:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Comments - Wow - good work so far, but Phoenix2 beat me to the punch: you will need some references, and the lead section is rather thin. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • hmm.. i don't quite see what needs to be referenced further? i mean the dates, crews and missions are all easily verified from many sources (including the ones listed at the bottom of the page in external links). and i was wondering if you found the table confusing? and in what way is the formatting awkward? i mean i agree, but i'm finding it hard to pin down and fix. Mlm42 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If the external links are the refernecs, they need to be in a section entitled "references". The lead should explain what the list is about, and given any relevant background information. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It is confusing at first. That is, it takes some thought and mental organization to figure out how to interpret the list. A lead section explaining that some people leave on different ships than the one they came on would help. What do they do up there? What is the personnel capacity of the station? Perhaps colour coding or graphics matching the ships with their crew? Specifically, I'm thinking about something like a coloured stripe or ribbon or coloured top border that is the same colour as the ship cell (or border) for when the person arrives and a similar stripe on the bottom of the person's cell corresponding to the ship they leave on. This kind of scheme might give better flow to the list. I have tried fiddling with that idea but I do not know how to do it, expect for actually uploading .jpg of a coloured stripe and inserting that image. Oh, and a picture of Mir with ships docked would be nice. --maclean25 05:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it help to have each member of crew in a separate timeline? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That would likely cause the table to grow too wide.. i think it's best to lump them together whenever possible. And i entirely agree it would be great if it were possibly to fiddle with the borders of the cells, but i haven't found a way to do it.. i'm not much of a computer guy, and it seems that if you want to change these things you have to be. Mlm42 15:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Fairly understandable, interesting, original. I liked the flags. Good work. CG 12:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support very detailed and well organized. Few minor things mentioned above could be improved, but it looks great! Renata3 19:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose – The layout of the table needs to be explained. User:Nichalp/sg 05:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colleges of the University of Cambridge

Nominated once before unsucessfully, mainly due to the absence of references. I have added one (well, upgraded an external link to an official source to a reference, because it is) and some other omissions are now corrected. I think this is now good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object, same as before:
  1. The image Image:Caius shield.png has no source or copyright information
  2. The images Image:Churchill College Crest - embossed.png, Image:Downing College Crest - embossed.png, Image:Robinson College Crest - embossed.png are claimed under "fair use". Judging from the sources of the PD and GFDL images, there are at least a few wikipedians who are able to take a blazon and create an image from it, so there's no reason to use fair use images here. Also, new versions of the coats of arms would better match the style of the other free images.

  --Carnildo 03:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Northwest Territories general elections

This is a second nomination attempt. Please see Archive1. The original nomination failed on objections of picture copyrights on the four maps. I have tweaked and polished the article since. --Cloveious 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 06:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, subject to two points:
  1. Perhaps it is just my setup, but the three tables in section 2, Elections and Appointed Councils of the Northwest Territories, overlapped so I couldn't read them properly. This problem occurred with both the classic skin, when I was logged in, and the monobook skin, when I was logged out. I've tried to fix this using one larger table to specify a layout for the three smaller tables - is this what was intended?
  2. The dates in the tables should be wikified, to display according to user preferences. --ALoan (Talk) 16:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I had intendend to have one parralel table listing the elections on the left, and one top right table listing the relevent Councils and the other table below it on the right for the changes in Council seats, the code you added fixed over lapping I did not know you could add a table within a table like that. I will wikifi the dates. --Cloveious 23:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I appear to have found a rather aggrivating bug possibly in wikipedia or in Firefox or both, The page looks the way i want it to look in firefox until you click a wiki link and then it goes wonky and you have to click the link again. In Internet Explorer its just wonky looking. --Cloveious 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have filed a bug report here Bug 3555 I will fiddle with the tables to see if I can correct this for now.--Cloveious 00:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem by getting rid of two align=right from each right table and reordering, there should be no more overlapping. --Cloveious 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's now royally screwed up in Opera/Classic. The two right-hand tables are simply cut off after about 100 pixels. --Carnildo 05:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it, by increasing the hidden table width. It works now under my copy of Opera, thanks for pointing it out I also tried it under NetPositive and it works their too, hopefully thats the end of table troubles. --Cloveious 05:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- Spinboy 03:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Oppose 1) The tables look horrible in standard 800x600. You've set the width to 800px, that should be set to less than 600px for it to look neat. 2) The logo is a .gif file. It should be converted to a png. 3) ==...of the Northwest Territories== in the title is redundant. 4) Please don't start a paragraph with a left aligned image. The current maps are badly spaced out in 800x600. 5) Please expand this sentence: ...consensus government using the First Past the Post electoral system ---> Mention briefly, what a consensus govt is, and what the FPtP electoral system is. User:Nichalp/sg 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) User:Nichalp/sg 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at (1) (800 → 600), (3) (deleted surplussage) and (4) (added a gallery instead). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks ALoan for the changes, I will fix the rest of the objections in a couple hours when I have time. --Cloveious 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have attempted to correct the other objections. I have added a brief section on consensus government and first past the post, as well as changed the logo to a png. --Cloveious 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Good work! User:Nichalp/sg 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support - looks good! --G Rutter 19:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of web browsers

I think this is a very nice list, very detailed. Paul August ☎ 04:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support – very nice. A browser screenshot would be a good addition. Comment what does "dropped" mean? version no longer available for download? User:Nichalp/sg 08:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object – Many values are not filled in yet. The newly added language/locale comparison is also incorrect. e.g. Internet Explorer supports more than English (US). The current locale comparison is a mess as well: e.g. it is hard to find why if the browser support a particular locale. The languages should go to the columns, and use Yes/No to indicate if it is supported or not. --minghong 18:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – Good list but incomplete and with an inaccurate language/locale comparison as minghong says. --Cedars 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Its great, but its missing NetPositive web browser. --Cloveious 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have found the auto-refresh feature in Opera - which is absent in Firefox, IE and Moz - very useful. Wonder whether it is worth a mention. Tintin 09:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support – wonderful, very detailed article, even if not complete.

[edit] European Union member states

This is along the lines of the other country lists. One shortfall is refernces, which I will correct in the next few days, but please let me have other comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, looks like featured material, pending references. Phoenix2 18:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments Dates of joining could be precise to the day, rather than just by year; it's not too big a page, some info on the special member state territories could usefully be added here - eg noting that the French DOMs are in the EU, Greenland is the only territory to have left the EU, jguk 07:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Well done --Sophitus 19:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – the European Union page has a better map. User:Nichalp/sg 08:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: Only 3 supports (so 1 below the required level for promotion). Let's leave this to 22:01 UTC on 6 September (ie so that it has a fortnight on FLC) to allow for further comments, jguk 09:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I find it a little strange that you list the Maghreb countries but not other Eastern European countries. Even Serbia and Montenegro, for example, is "regarded as a future EU member". Mwalcoff 01:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• I guess this nomination should be withdrawn - I've not had the chance to do the work that I wanted to this article to address the comments above. I'll renominate when I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of rock and roll albums

I think this is an interesting and useful list, but would be interested in any comments. I didn't feel a list of just any rock and roll albums would be very useful, so I decided to combine various critics' best-of lists to produce a sort of meta-list. Tuf-Kat 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose No images, plenty of redlinks. Also, I don't think there can be any definitive or complete list of what is a notable rock and roll album. --Sophitus 18:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added some album covers (every album with at least six references). I think there's pretty clearly a majority of blue links (a "large majority" is certainly debateable, though it's worth noting that virtually every performer has an article, even if all the albums don't). Your last objection is not actionable; it includes every member of its defined set (the lists given) and does not miss any major component of its set (the lists are varied, and, taken together, include all the major rock albums). Tuf-Kat 23:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment By my count there are 307 red links out of a total of 1282 for a blue link percentage of 76.05%, which meets my definition of a "large majority". I'm undecided at this point on the merits of this list otherwise, although I would note that the criteria that objections must be "actionable" is rule for Featured Articles cadidates. Lists have failed before because they, by their nature, cannot be complete. Dsmdgold 15:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That seems kind of silly. I thought the whole point of featuring lists was to encourage the improvement of every Wikipedia page instead of just articles. Tuf-Kat 16:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose – agree with Sophitus. Have you also included groups in India, Pakistan and the many other countries that do have rock groups (in English that too)? User:Nichalp/sg 18:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • The methods I used to create the list are explained at the top of the page. I'm sorry that there are not more critics who make lists of albums with Indian and Pakistani bands on them. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of rock albums; it is a list that combines best-of lists from various sources. I can't help that those sources don't include any Indian rock bands -- there are at least eleven countries represented on this list, from Iceland and Mexico to Jamaica and Germany. Would moving it to rock albums that have been considered among the greatest ever please anyone? Tuf-Kat 23:19, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Considered might be a POV. How about groups that have won international awards, or by platinum sales? User:Nichalp/sg 06:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inclusion criteria are too arbitrary and fuzzy. Jonathunder 16:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Ministers of Canada

Added images, adjusted column widths. Phoenix2 04:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'd be a little more comfortable supporting if the state acronyms are defined somewhere in the page. User:Nichalp/sg 06:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Has been addressed. Phoenix2 04:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Would also like to see jguk's colour coding issue resolved. User:Nichalp/sg 06:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Kim Campbell.jpg is used under "fair use", but no source or fair use rationale is supplied. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what needs to be included.
  2. The image Image:Paulmartin1.jpg is used under "fair use" and "Canadian crown copyright", but neither set of rules has been followed. There is no source information, and no fair use rationale.

  --Carnildo 07:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - subject to the image concerns being addressed. But I agree with User:Nichalp about explaining or linking the abbreviations (although the {{Canadian First Ministers}} helps). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comments I agree with Nichalp about expanding the acronyms for the provinces, which aren't familiar to people outside North America. Also some explanation of the red and blue colours on the left hand side of the table would be useful. A brief description in the introduction about the significance of the prime ministership of Canada would also help: I think they are heads of government and have the most senior political post in Canada (with the GG being obliged by constitutional practice to accept any advice given by the PM). Is this right? Is the Time almanack the best reference, rather than say an official website of the Canadian PM? A link to the latter would be useful regardless, jguk 19:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Additional link and reference have been provided. Phoenix2 04:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• as to the red a blue on the left side designating the party, is it neccessary with the seperate party column? User:Say1988
  • I think it's OK as is, if you want to change it go ahead, welcome to Wikipedia. Phoenix2 18:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)