Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2013

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Robbie Williams discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria following extensive development of the tables and prose. Not really a Robbie Williams fan, but lots of chart positions and certifications to work with. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments That image is hideous. Please choose another. It's blurry, out of focus, and badly coloured. Done Since opinion on the quality of images is subjective (and the current one is extremely poor, I admit), is this one better? I appreciate that you're trying to use images of Williams which aren't in the main article, but is there any other reason why something like this can't be used? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) There isn't really. That image seems reasonable, so I'll put that one in instead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC) male pop group Take That, whom - whom or which? Done "Which" seems to make more sense here. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Otherwise fairly well done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I've addressed the comments: thank you for being the first person to add some comments, a month after I originally nominated the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Solid looking discography (as we've come to expect from you). Really hope some more interest stirs up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "thirty-nine music videos" infobox says 41. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Infobox image caption doesn't need Williams' first name. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Williams is English but Michael is British? Why the distinction? Done Changed both to "English". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "before the group disbanded the following" reads funny to me, maybe "; the group disbanded the following" Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Consider linking cover version. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "led to increased sales, leading to " repetitive prose. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "only charting at number two" would lose the "only" (I'd be happy with a number two album, and I think this places undue weight) Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Check for SHOUTING in the refs. Done Removed all instances I could find (presumably all of them). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Check refs for en-dash, e.g. ref 30, ref 88, ref 89 etc... Done Removed all instances I could find (presumably all of them). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Think I've dealt with everything. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• A new thought, and a sad one at that, we have very precise sales figures, but I assume many Williams albums are still on sale, both physically and digitally. Perhaps we need to consider a date (like an {{as of}} template) for when those sales were precisely those sales.

Very rarely do you get such accurate sales figures, but even that brings its own problems. I've put this information into the notes to avoid it cluttering up the main table. There is a problem, though: the French sales figures on the all-time list (found in refs 40 and 44) don't actually have a date on them (the source simply says "depuis 1968 (since 1968)) so presumably the source is updated periodically. Therefore, do they need an "as of" as well? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A good question, but I'm not sure we can assume the site has been updated... However (although this is a little synthetic) you could check the most recent entry in the reference and use that as the "as of" date for Williams' stats? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as the reference (spread over several pages) contains 1000 entries, that may take a while. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any album after 2005 in the entire list, so I suppose that'll have to do for now until I find a better date. I'll make the changes. (There's this page on the InfoDisc website, visible above the list in the reference in the table, which mentions a list broadcast by the BBC (I wouldn't have guessed it) on 30 December 2006: however, as the page points out, their top five is in a completely different order and excludes foreign artists: I don't think their the same lists (although Google Translate is correcting the pages in such broken English it's quite hard to tell). It only includes a top five anyway, so that's no use either.) I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the sales figures for these albums in the decade end charts (which were presumably taken on December 31 2009) are lower than those in the all-time list. So the list must have been compiled by 1 January 2010 at the earliest: thus, I'll use 2010 as the date for now. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Dale Steyn

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the best bowler in the recent cricket and world no. 1 Test bowler, South African Dale Steyn has many memorable and match-winning performances to his name. He has taken the most number of fifers in Test cricket for South Africa. I've worked on the list and now I feel this fulfils the FLC criteria. Looking forward for your comments/suggestions, as always...!!! Cheers, Zia Khan 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – "Steyn remained the ICC's Test Player of the Year in 2008". Unless he had won the honor in 2007, this should be "was named" or similar. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Zia Khan 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Would be good to say in the lead what type of bowler he is (spinner/fast/etc)
  • "The fastest South African bowler to reach 100 Test wickets" - very confusing wording, makes it sound like of all the SA bowlers to get 100 wickets, he bowled the fastest. Maybe try something like "he reached 100 Test wickets in fewer matches than any other South African bowler"
  • "Steyn made his One Day International (ODI) debut for African XI ..... against the Asian XI" - either have "the" in front of both names or neither
  • For the 26 December 2008 match, you don't show the symbol for "10 wickets taken in the match" - if he took two fifers then surely he took 10 wickets in total?
• That's what I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • All done, I guess. Zia Khan 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - good work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

;Comments SuperSport Park and Centurion linked twice in the lead. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It's better to say "Fastest SAF bowler to reach 300/200 wickets" than 100 wickets. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Why are the entries inside the table aligned to the left. In most of the fifers they are centrally aligned. When we use rowscopes in plainrowheader's table the entries automatically align to left, so for consistency I preferred aligned to the left. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Not really, see Rihanna videography for instance. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) And what about Batsmen column? Is this necessary to align the columns to the center? If yes, where is this written? BTW, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7 and 8 (last 6 promoted in July 2013). Zia Khan 18:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC) No am not forcing you on this. BTW, the Botham list has many of the columns centrally aligned. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I see in most of the lists created by you * is used for symbols. Add something like {{Template:Section-sign}} which is more legible. See the comment by Harrias here. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) That's why it's listed under Category:Image insertion templates. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I think this depends on our choice!? Zia Khan 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Dude! you're not getting what I'm saying. We only use symbols in the key, but what you're adding is a special character. Symbols are used here because they will be helpful for blind readers as it contains the alt text. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Switched to {{Template:Asterisk}}. BTW, blind people cannot see, not even alt text. That rule is for color blind people and here I didn't use any color! Zia Khan 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Alt text is used mainly for blind readers. They can be read aloud using Screen readers. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC) So whats next? Zia Khan 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC) That's why we go for it and not because of WP:OSE. Now GOTO cmt #3 —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Link Test in "100 Test wickets" and runs Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Unlink the same in the following para. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC) The lead says he made his debut in 2004 and his first five wicket haul came the following year. But the table reveals that he took his first fifer in 2006. Corrected. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) five-wicket haul came the in 2006 —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Removed. Zia Khan 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) "a match which South Africa won at Nagpur": "Ground, City" / "Ground" alone to maintain consistency with the rest of the lead. Fixed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "He took 5 wickets for 50 runs in the match which is his best performance in ODIs". You've already said that this was his solitary fifer in ODIs, so the last part of the sentence is redundant. Fixed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "against the West Indies at the St George's Oval, in December 2007" too many "the". I guess the preceding West Indies is really not mandatory in this sentence. Removed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [n 1][3], the ref. is not needed in the lead text as it's used in the FN. Removed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) An explanation for "draw" is needed either as a link or in the key. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Arrange the symbols in the key according to the order in which they appear in the table. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Econ should come before batsmen. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Why is "ESPNcricinfo" linked in ref #2 alone? Switched to ref #1. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Alt text could be more descriptive like wearing a green cap/glasses. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Inn. for 13th fifer reads 21; check the column as some entries are wrong Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Link "London" in the table Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments For "figures" you could link Bowling analysis? Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "he is the highest five-wicket hauls taker" -> he has taken most five-wicket hauls for South Africa. Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "against West Indies at" normally I'd expect it to be referred to as "the West Indies". Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Cricinfo list of most five-wicket hauls implies Steyn played for Africa too, presumably no five-wicket hauls from that part of his career either exist or are notable? He didn't play Test(s) for Africa XI, so its no important to mention here. He made ODI debut for Africa XI which is mentioned in the lede. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Any reason Sreesanth isn't S. Sreesanth? Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for considering the list for review. Regards, Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorting by date in reverse order doesn't sort the No. correspondingly, i.e. I get 20, 21, 19...

• I've no idea how to do this?! Zia Khan 19:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not essential but I'll have a think about how to fix this (perhaps others could weigh in if they have a solution?) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed this, with the addition of <span style="display: none">1</span> and <span style="display: none">2</span> into the cell. There might be a more elegant solution, but this does the job as far as I can tell. Harrias ^talk 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support you've clearly worked out how to do these lists, and I can't find anything to really fault from this list. Good work. Harrias ^talk 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

List of states and territories of the United States

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked quite vigorously over the past few days to get this up to standard, and I believe it now meets the criteria. This list goes over the key aspects (name, capital, population, area, congressional districts etc.) of each state, as well as Washington, D.C. and each US territory. All area measurements are in square miles, but are also converted to square kilometers to conform with policy and aid readers who are not familiar with US/Imperial measurements. The lede itself gives an overview of the states and their role in the federal union, an overview of territories and their classifications, and a quick overview at state extremes such as the most and least populous state, and the largest and smallest territories. Overall, this list gives the topic the sort of coverage it deserves. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You really don't need the key repeated every time, and I question where it's necessary at all. People know what area is. You can include rounding and the year it was obtained in a footnote. Please remove all of the keys.
  • The 'city' column isn't needed for DC, it seems random. Not largest city, just "city". The footnote saying Washington is equivalent to DC is sufficient. Or, change it to 'largest city'.
  • The area column for the uninhabited territories is too wide.
  • Said column needs a footnote explaining that these territories apparently have no water area.
  • You could combine many footnotes into "Represented by a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives", rather than having five footnotes saying the same thing for five regions. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed all of these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The name of the country is pretty basic...you don't need to list the different names used, nor the obvious abbreviations, and definitely not "USA or U.S.A." I don't think I've seen that one before. (Periods are discouraged for acronyms anyway: WP:ABBR)
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The start of the lead should focus on what a state is, not that they each have senators and electoral votes: Talk about how they have their own laws and governors and such, not how the decennial census apportions House seats. Not that this is bad information, but these are not key characteristics of states and should be mentioned later.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Number of unorganized territories should be corrected to ten.
  • Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• There is no 2012 Census.
  • Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• What are the days Colorado, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee became states?
  • Fixed; there was an error with the template, so it has been removed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The area note needs to be removed from that column, nor do I think it's even necessary to point out that values are rounded; technically all measurements are.
  • Well, the only reason it needs to be there is, because the figures are rounded to the nearest whole number, some 'total area' measurements are off by either 1 or 2 square miles. Noting how it was rounded would be a bit helpful in explaining that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Use "Acquired" rather than "Claimed" for the territories, and that DC was established rather than approved.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Put the capital column of the territories to the left to be consistent with the state table ordering.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Washington note needs to be removed from the territory area column.
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reywas92^Talk 09:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• See also section goes before references
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, I'd also suggest a higher-quality map that may have full names, but otherwise Support. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention a map that includes the territories; the article is about them too. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A Few drive-by comments

• Remove note A (about area being rounded) from the "Became a state" column and replace with a reference or citation listing all states if possible
  • Removed; as for the second part, a direct citation is not needed because it is cited in the 'general references' section. Any section that is not directly cited is cited there. 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Is there somewhere where you can link the terms "Unincorporated", "Incorporated", "organized" and "unorganized" used in the territory lists. The meaning and significance of these terms, to me at least, is not immediately obvious. The mention in the lead definitely helps (though I read after I asked the question), but if there does exist somewhere where more information is located, it would be handy to link to it.
  • Those have been linked in the lede now; if you think it is needed to link in the tables, I can do that as well. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• A note on the "Largest City" explicitly stating what you mean by "city" might help. For example, looking at Florida, Jacksonville may be the largest legal city, but Miami has a larger metropolitan area. I'm not suggesting you change the criteria, just clarify it in case someone wants to argue.
  • Good idea, noted with a note. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Are the areas of the inhabited areas rounded to the nearest whole number as well? If so, add the note to remain consistent.
  • Yes, they are; I have added this now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't mind having the abbreviation column sortable as well. Just for example Iowa (IA), by abbreviation, is ahead of Idaho (ID), but behind based on the full state name.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ravendrop 22:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have addressed all these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• re the "Largest City" issue - List of U.S. states used to have a footnote by 'largest city' if it was not the anchor of the state's largest area. So, Kansas City for Missouri would have a footnote explaining that St. Louis was the state's largest metro area. Note that sometimes this was not always anchored in that state; for example, New Jersey's largest metro area is New York City. This could be done here as well, but it would require adequate sourcing. --Golbez (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • None of those appear to have been sourced, and I can't find any source to confirm them. At this point, however, I don't feel any more notes are needed - we already have 12 notes, and that would probably double if metropolitan areas were added. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would strongly recommend adding another column entitled "Location" to the territories section. Most people have no idea where some of those entries are located. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think this list lacks an image like File:EU OCT and OMR map en.png to emphasize the location of these territories. Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added both; there is no more room for one in the inhabited territories table, so I have mentioned those in the lede as well. I've also added an image of all eight uninhabited Pacific territories; unfortunately, one territory, Navassa Island, is located in the Caribbean , so I did not include that. I have instead mentioned its location in the image caption itself. Toa Nidhiki05 20:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the new map. However, I would still prefer a full map also, that can be centered, either before or after the territories tables. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'full map'? Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Map showing the entire world and the location of states and territories around the globe. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would be pretty hard to do considering the US spans both sides of the globe and no globe map includes state lines. Even globe maps that include that would lack the territories, because they are not considered 'integral areas' of the United States. Toa Nidhiki05 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think a map of the US showing state lines, instead of a global map, would suffice. If people want to know the location of the United States within the world, they can go to the article on the United States. --Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 04:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added such a map; I agree with Blackhole78's sentiment here. At his point, most people probably know the US borders only Canada and Mexico. If people don't know that, they can just go to the page on the United States. It is much more important to show which state (or territory) is which on this page. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I really dislike how my comments end up being ignored. The current map shows only the states, BUT this list is ALSO about the territories, therefore they NEED to be featured too. Since the EU map ALREADY exists, I see absolutely no problem in having a similar one for the US. Nergaal (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The territories are featured. I just got a map up showing the location of all territories on a global basis. Toa Nidhiki05 21:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• The map is great! A couple of minor points

" the United States has control over a number of territories. The United States has control over fourteen territories"

it might be better to switch the order of the last two paragraphs in the intro (moving the Puerto Rico sentence to the other para).

"(4,002 2)"

you have "square kilometers" "sq mi" and "km2"; try to stick to fewer notation types

Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Observations by MONGO:

• Is it necessary to have the map at the beginning of the article be so huge? I reduced it to 500px and did a preview and it looked fine to me...but whatever works best I guess.
  • I had made it so large in hopes that most people could read it, but since it is readable at 500 I'll switch it to that. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

    Looks better now that the text is less crowded at the left margin.--MONGO 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The territories had a map right aligned and the table left aigned...so I switched the map to left align...maybe this section would be best center aligned? I don't know if there is a MOS on such things, or I'm just being nitpicky.
  • I don't believe there is a MOS rule on it, but it does look good centered so I have switched it to be centered. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Watch for Piped links...[[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|that are not delegated to the federal government]] looks odd.--MONGO 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Issues should be fixed or responded to. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I might change Became a state to simply Statehood in the first table...basing this on List of U.S. states by date of statehood.--MONGO 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support promotion to featured list. I'm not an experienced FLC participant, but comparing it to similar FL's, this one appears to be equal to or better than most.--MONGO 05:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest the replacement of the maps in use with the following standard: File:United States, administrative divisions - XY - colored.svg and File:United States (+overseas), administrative divisions - XY - colored (zoom).svg. Felipe Menegaz 21:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Those maps are not bad, but there are a few issues that make them unsuitable for this page. The first image does not include the District of Columbia, while the second image is very oddly designed; individual territory names are not given, and the initials for the mainland make no sense. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The District of Columbia can be added to the first map at request. And I don't see what is wrong with the second one. The territories are represented by ISO 3166 codes as seen here, as well as the reference AL–WY on the mainland (Alabama to Wyoming). Regards; Felipe Menegaz 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ISO codes aren't included anywhere in this article, though, so that might confuse readers. AL-WY makes sense somewhat, but I've never heard anyone refer to the mainland United States that way - typically the states are grouped by location (ie. contiguous US, Alaska, and Hawaii), not abbreviation. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the abbreviations used in all tables (except for the uninhabited territories) are equal to the ISO codes. Nevertheless, the list should make use of the ISO codes as the abbreviation standard, since it is the only one which provides abbreviation for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. As for the map, it is part of a huge effort on the standardization of maps at Wikimedia Commons. I don't think it is unsuitable just for using an atypical representation of U.S. mainland.

The primal point here is a standardization that will facilitate the creation of similar lists from other countries and, therefore, provide a better experience for readers. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 14:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither map you linked appear to be helpful to this list. The second one you link is downright confusing.--MONGO 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a suggestion after all. There are several versions of these maps here with different labels and arrangements, maybe one of them is suitable. I personally don't like the current map of territories in use, it looks amateurish, specially when there are professional-level maps available. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure...I understand but the second one in particular with the AL-WY abbreviations is very odd. I haven't been able to get the clickable boxes to open right on my two different browsers. While it's important the article has an international compatibility, a simple map with the actual names of places is better in my opinion than ISO designations most people have no idea about.--MONGO 16:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would support this if the 4 tables are merged into a table per section. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you mean by that? Merge all the tables into one big table?
    • No. A table with states + DC (with DC in gray background) and a separate table fro territories. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Why should DC be in a table for states? It misstates a common misconception (that DC has similar autonomy to states) that confuses many people who are not Americans. Aside from that, merging the territory tables is impractical because it would require adding ISO codes to the main table, increasing an already large table. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Please remind me what is the point of having a table with a single entry? Why not have a sentence instead? Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Even though it only has one entry, the table is required because DC is a distinct legal entity - it is not a state, nor is it a territory. The fact there is only one federal district does not change the fact that 'federal district' is distinct from any other group. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Using this rationale then the article name should be moved to to "... states, federal district(s) and territories of US". Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Possibly, but that is a very long title and might not be the first thing people would search for. If the name is in fact an issue, I'd like to see some other people step up and say so - I don't want to unilaterally rename a featured list candidate in the middle of the nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Tables need to be fixed up to meet MOS:DTT with regard to row and col scopes (for screen readers). What areas of the tables need to be fixed? Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Rows and columns need to be identified using a scope= parameter, per the link I've given you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Alrighty, done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC) "the 10th amendment to the Constitution" tenth. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) " federal Congress - a bicameral legislature" en-dash. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) In the table, the Congressional Districts column is far too ward considering that it hosts, at most, a double-digit number. I've tried shrinking it a bit - the main issue seems to be that the name for the column itself is forcing it be wider. I've shortened it to 'House seat(s)' to make it a bit smaller. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Where is the date of statehood referenced? The general references section; any claim that is not directly verified in the table can be found in that section. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Often, it's best to right-align columns with large numbers, so the units align accordingly. I've tried to do this, but cannot figure out how you would do that. What is the code to right-align a column? Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "align=right"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Why is the Federal District table sortable? Good point, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If all inhabited territories are "Unincorporated, organized", there's no need for a column. It's unlikely to change soon! It would be great if that were the case, but all inhabited territories aren't organized - American Samoa is unorganized, mainly to help the islands retain their traditional laws. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Why suddenly include ISO 3166 codes for the uninhabited territories? I thought they applied globally. They were for an image that was removed; I have removed them now. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) No need for bold in the notes. Bolding removed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Seems to be too many External links. Trimmed down. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Switzerland

Nominator(s): Anthony (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it passed peer review (albeit a while ago), and it was modeled after two successful hockey FLs, List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada and List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present). Perhaps we can get the Big Seven lists done before Sochi 2014. Anthony (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Alt texts. Every image has to have one. See WP:ALT. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) All tables, including key tables, have to comply with MOS:DTT. Caption text, scope=row, scope=col, all jump out at me, although that is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Fixed (I'm pretty sure...) Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think those key tables crack the nut. They don't have any column headers and there are multiple columns stacked next to each other.Rejectwater (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Are you sure? They're set up the same as the other tables. Maybe I'm not seeing something. Please advise, thanks. Anthony (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I went ahead and updated the tables. I figured with all the page creation you have going on it would be easier this way. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Rejectwater (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Note 2 has an unknown parameter error. Fixed Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Redlinks- all these players are notable, just without Wiki articles yet? Rejectwater (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Working on creating at least stubs for most of them. Some of them are difficult to get lots of information on, though. Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Wouldn't be better to just unlink them than create countless stubs with no future of being expanded beyond "player X (1-2-19xx) was a Swiss ice hockey player who represented the national team in X year." doesn't seem to be serving the encyclopedia if all the player page is goin to say is the same as the list. Seems to me the easiest solution is probably the best even if these players do meet general notability guidelines IMO.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I would have to agree de-linking is a better option. Rejectwater (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Hold the phone, see discussion below. Rejectwater (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Additional comment from Rejectwater: What about using the {{portalbar}} template for the portals, say at the bottom of the page (for the portal links)? I think that would clean up the page, help with visual appeal. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Anthony (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I believe the redlink issue has been sufficiently addressed to pass the "minimal proportion" standard and I believe all other criteria are met as well. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose – Traditionally, FLC has looked for "a minimal proportion" of red links under FL criterion 5a. Right now, about half of the players have red links, which is far too many to say that their proportion is minimal. I don't like doing this, but I feel that the criterion doesn't leave me much choice but to oppose for now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Yep, if those red-linked players fulfil WP:N then they need an article. Also there are a number of unlinked players, why don't they meet WP:N and have an article or a red-link? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Woah, we may be working at cross purposes here. Mo Rock and I have recommended having those players unlinked- you're saying that they should be redlinked? Let me try to get us on the same page here - first off we need to establish whether or not the unlinked and redlinked names belong to notable individuals. If they're notable, they should either have an article or be redlinked (however too many redlinks sinks the nom). And if they're not notable, what then? They shouldn't be listed at all? Rejectwater (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) While all of the players technically meet WP:NHOCKEY I fail to see the benefit of creating articles that tell the reader approximately the same thing as the list and have basically no chance for expansion. For example what does this page (Arnold Martignoni) really do for the encyclopedia as a whole? it has been around since 2007 the same state except for one image. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC) I would like to know how to proceed with this. I unlinked the redlinked goalies, but I stopped before I got to the players until this issue is resolved. I will either unlink the redlinked players, or give the redlinked players stub articles. But I won't unlink some and leave others redlinked, that won't suffice. Please advise. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I see that good progress is being made with the red links. With some more articles towards the bottom of the list, I'd feel comfortable dropping my opposition. I was asked for further comments on my talk page and here they are: Less than 20% of the players names are redlinked, and I'm still working. Is this sufficient for your approval? Anthony (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The em dashes in the third paragraph should all be unspaced per the MoS, or you could make them smaller en dashes. The spaced em dashes, however, are a style no-no. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC) The IIHF should be spelled out in its lone usage. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I seemed to recall that representing one's country in the Olympics conferred sufficient notability in Wikipedia for an article. To that end, if any player on this list did play for Switzerland, then they are notable, and should be linked. If some were selected and didn't play (and this was their only notable achievement in their lifetimes) then I suppose they should be unlinked. I agree that one-line stub articles are sub-optimal, but our criteria here need there to be a "minimal proportion of red links". How you move on from here is entirely up you guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games..." from WP:NOLYMPICS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've un-delinked (relinked?) the goaltender articles. I'll work on trying to stub most of them so they don't stick out so much. Since that's an ongoing process and will get done eventually, are there any other glaring issues? If there's nothing else then I can just focus on article creation. Anthony (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the list yet, I was just trying to help you understand more fully the concerns raised above regarding the links. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review? So far there's just the one oppose vote, but I've fixed just about all the issues except for the article creation (and I'm working on it). Anthony (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, most of the second paragraph is not appropriate for this page; only the last sentence. The rest discusses Olympic history and how it affected Canada's Olympic hockey teams. 74.12.176.198 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Only 2 lines reference Canada. The paragraph is discussing the IIHF allowing NHL players to participate in the Olympics, which was (and is) a monumental shift in Olympic ice hockey history (and was instigated by Canada's boycott). Admittedly the paragraph was taken from the List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada, but it's equally applicable to Switzerland, and all Olympic lists, in my opinion. Anthony (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • How did the inability to send NHL players to the Olympics impact Switzerland? Were there any Swiss players in the NHL? Also the statement that professional players of other leagues were not able to compete is incorrect. Swiss players from the NLA were permitted at the Olympics prior to 1988. Alfio Molina and Aldo Zenhäusern are two counter examples. 74.12.176.198 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments I know it's difficult for North American articles, but WP:HASH suggests we don't use the hash symbol to replace "number". Fixed. "The NHL decided not to allow all players" -> "The NHL disallowed all its players..." Fixed. " in 1928 and 1948" just to avoid a vague Easter egg scenario, maybe "in the 1928 and 1948 Games", linking "1928" and "1948 Games"? I'm afraid I don't understand "vague Easter egg scenario", please explain. I think I clarified the sentence a little anyway. Goaltenders has a completely empty Notes column. In the future, if one of the goaltenders is named to a Hall of Fame or wins another award, it will go in the Notes column. It's there to match the Skaters table. Make sure statistics in a given column are all given to the same precision, e.g. GAA has "0" and "4" and "8.5" and "2.83"... Fixed. Min or MIN? Fixed. "Number of Olympics" Do you mean "Number of appearances at the Olympics"? Fixed. Ordinarily we don't force image sizes, besides those in the lead, other than to say either thumb or upright. I didn't see any images with forced image sizes. They all have "thumb", but no sizes. Again, see no point in completely empty columns in tables, e.g. in the Reserve goaltender table. I removed the Notes column from the Reserve goaltender table, although it is the only one without it now. "Bjorn Christen" is missing an umlaut. As is "Aldo Zenhausern" Fixed. "[10][9][78]" would be preferable in numerical order. Check others. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I fixed the concerns that needed fixing. But as I said, the Notes column is there for consistency, even if it's empty at the moment. Anthony (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* No problem from me on the current proportion of red links to blue links, I think it is at an acceptable level. "The NHL disallowed all its players to participate in 1988.." would be better re-written as "The NHL did not allow its players to participate in 1988.." Fixed. "National teams are co-ordinated by the Swiss Ice Hockey Association and players are chosen by the team's management staff." I think it is worth reiterating that this is about the Swiss team, because the paragraph is very long with no information about Switzerland until this point. Therefore, I would start it as "The Swiss national team is co-ordinated by.." Fixed. "Torriani is the only player to win multiple medals, .." I think would be better written as, "Torriani is the only player who won medals as part of both the 1928 and 1948 teams." Although this is less critical than those points above. Fixed Given that in this list the only Hall of Fame mentioned is the International Ice Hockey Hall of Fame, would it be possible to only use "HOF" as the abbreviation, rather than the rather cumbersome "IIHFHOF"? I've never seen it abbreviated as such, especially to differentiate from the HOF in Toronto. It's not that cumbersome, IMHO. No worries, it was just a thought. Harrias talk 09:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) "Number of appearances at Olympics" seems a little ambiguous to me. The first thing I though when I read it was "Well, all the appearances on the list are surely at the Olympics, as the article is all about that." It might be better explained as "Number of Olympic Games tournaments" Or something similar? Fixed. Be consistent in the date format used for the references, Ref #1 uses YYYY-MM-DD, Ref #2 Month DD, YYYY, while Ref #3 doesn't have an access date or publisher listed at all. Fixed. Refs #4 and #5 need page numbers. Harrias talk 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC) I don't have page numbers - the ref was taken from the Canada FLC page. As it's an older newspaper I don't have access to the archives. If anyone does, I welcome the addition. Anthony (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Here's an online version of the the NYT article, although after reading it I don't see why it was used as a reference. 76.70.45.246 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I agree, that article does not support seem to support anything in the sentence before it. As such, I feel that I can not assume good faith for the other offline source, particularly as I infer that you have not read these sources yourself? I would remove ref #4 altogether, as the information in the preceding sentences is provided in the online ref #3. However, for the next sentence, the articles states, "In 1986, the IOC voted to allow all athletes to compete in Olympic Games, starting in 1988." While the source says, "After the 1988 Games, the IOC voted to declare all professionals eligible for the Olympics, subject to the approval of the international federations in charge of each sport." Harrias talk 09:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I found a few new sources and put them in the appropriate places. Hopefully this can resolve the issue, because I admit I wasn't crazy about copying sources I hadn't seen. But I had assumed good faith for the offline source, as I had copied it from another FLC. It's moot now :) Anthony (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC) In general the third paragraph has the feel of a string of bullet points simply put together in a paragraph, and could use some work to make it flow a little better in my opinion. Unsure how best to do that, as all other similar lists have a similar paragraph naming most points/games/medals etc. It's a statistical list, which makes it difficult to work into prose. I'm open to suggestions though. Move the "Torriani is the only" sentence to be the second sentence and remove the 1928 and 1948 as redundant. Maybe add something like "27 players won medals in those tournaments; Bibi Torriani is the only..." at the beginning to the sentence. For the IIHHOF sentence, maybe start it off with Torriani, then mention the other three, also note the Cattini's are brothers (player pages at Sports Reference can be an online source for that). These segues, I think, will provide better flow. Some ideas to kick around if nothing else. Rejectwater (talk) Made the suggested edits. See how it works now. Anthony (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• As none of the goaltenders have any notes, it would be as well to remove that column: it can always be added back if needed.
• Similarly for the medals column for the reserve goaltenders.
  • As I said in The Rambling Man's comments above, I removed the notes column from the reserve goaltenders, thus making it the only one that doesn't have one. But for consistency's sake, I kept the medals column in all three, and the Notes column in the goaltenders. I feel it's better to have it for all of them and leave most of it blank, then to have it for skaters only. One day a goalie might make it into the IIHFHOF and then we'll have to create a whole new column just for that, which is a pain.
• Support, I've left the above comment about the columns outside the resolved comments box, because it isn't resolved! That said, it is a minor enough issue that while I still think it would be better without those columns, I can accept that you think it is better with them, and it certainly isn't enough of a problem for me not to offer my support. Nice work, and thanks for responding to my comments so quickly and politely. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - after all the comments above, it's now looking quite good. Only comment- "1928 Games and 1948 Games[6];" -> "1928 Games and 1948 Games;[6]". --PresN 23:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series

Nominator(s): Caringtype1 and  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 20:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This article meets every one of the Featured List criteria. The article is thoroughly sourced, and well written. Issues and problems have been addressed according to the FL criteria, this is why we feel this article more than qualifies for Featured List status. We believe this list is worthy, considering we worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series and Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 20:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: The table in "Multiple Wins" needs to be closed  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 2: June 8, 1985 → June 9, 1985  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 14: date May 20, 1981 → May 22, 1981  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Many of the works and/or publishers are over wikilinked (see WP:OVERLINK) Please be more precise on which ones (which ref) that needs to be fix. I would really appreciate it! :)  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Soap Opera Digest. New York City: American Media, Inc. → It is wikilinked a lot in the refs. Same with New York: emmyonline.org and National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)  Done. Thanks!  — SoapFan12 Talk 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Other than these small issues the list looks good :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 23:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The only comment I have is I don't think it is necessary to have the Michael Muhney image caption say "After 4 years on the series". I don't think it needs to say that. Otherwise it looks good. Support. Creativity97 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 00:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tbhotch

*"The award is presented in honor of an actor ... the daytime drama industry." is unsourced  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Doug Davidson is the 2013 recipient of this award, for his portrayal of Paul Williams on The Young and the Restless" - why not something like "The last recipient of this award is Doug Davidson, for his portrayal of..."  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Multiple Nominations" -> "Multiple nominations"  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) In my view, "Series with most awards" should be the last section, as the article is for the Lead actor category. Also, if possible, merge the most wins/nominations in the same section but divided in with a column  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 53 "Sonora" -> Sonora, California. One is a Mexican state, the other is a county seat  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) In Ref 62 National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is overlinked. Ref 62, does not have National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, in it. I think you meant Ref 61, in that case I fixed it.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) In Ref 69 the NATAS does not go in italic text.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) These are some issues I found. References not checked. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! I am very grateful!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Outstanding Performance by a Lead Actor in a Drama Series" normally this is written as regular prose in the info box without all the caps.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Daytime Emmy Award" avoid bold links.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) " having been criticized for voting integrity" presumably lack of integrity?  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "the criteria for this category was altered" criteria were altered.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "The last recipient of this award..." -> The most recent recipient of the award ....  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Link soap opera.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "he won a sixth " -> "he won for a sixth "  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Indicates the winning actor." no need for the full stop.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Macdonald Carey " has no capital D.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Image captions which are complete sentences do need a full stop.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "on General Hospital.." one too many. I do not see the issue. Please specify. Thanks  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It has a spare full stop.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Douglass Watson has received two consecutive ..." just "received", not "has received".  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Avoid the use of the hash to represent "Number".  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Where is "May 21" in the infobox referenced? I remove it since I have no reference to proove it.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "delivered an outstanding performance" is this a quote from the organizers? If so, quote it and attribute it, if not it's a little promotional sounding. This is not a quote from the organizers and IMO it sound proffesional plus there is lots of FLs using a kind of sentence like this. Maybe so, and they should be checked. So where do you get "delivered an outstanding performance" from? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC) You know what, if you do not like how it is worded, please tell me another sentence to replace it. Thanks.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It just sounds promotional to me. I'll leave it to you and other reviewers to decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Also, if I change ″who has delivered an outstanding performance″ --> ″who has brought an outstanding performance″ will that be fine? Furthermore, on the website of the daytime emmys, it says that ″The Daytime Emmy Award are honoring excellence in all fields of daytime″ but it says nothing about the description of a specific award (Lead Actor), what should I do?  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Never mind, I have put it in quotes and add a source, therefore  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Comments Any reason why Benedict is the only nominee not linked? Is he truly non-notable? Yes he is truly non-notable. He had no special record and was only nominated once.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) The table isn't sortable, I'm wondering why we link every linkable item every time. In my previous FLC, this issue was brought up and I made it sortable however, it created more problems. Therefore, it was decided to resolve. Furthermore, there is tones of FLs that every linkable item every time. Also, I'd like to add that it would make the visual look of the table appear inconsistent and potentially confusing to readers. A reader looking for just this year's nominees would wonder why some names were linked and others weren't. Also, I was wondering, why now? I have 4 featured lists that are Daytime Emmys Awards ctaegories and you have given comments in each and one of them and you bring this up now. Just curious...  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "MacDonald Carey won" -> "Macdonald Carey won"  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) " to it's current title" its.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) " one criterion for this category were altered" _was_ altered.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "The 2013 recipient of this award" -> the award.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "with a total of eight wins" you mean "with eight wins each" I assume?  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "in the category when he won for a sixth time, surpassing David Canary's previous record of five." I don't think you need "of five", it's pretty obvious.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "ultimately receiving seven wins" -> "thus far winning on seven occasions."  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "was nominated eight times and won 1998" confusing, do you mean "was nominated eight times, winning once in 1998"?  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "surpassing David Canary previous record of five." The name should be plural.

•  Done.

• Typo in the first photo's alt text: "suite" instead of "suit".

•  Done.

• Same in the third and fourth photos' alt text.

•  Done.

Giants2008 (Talk) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*The recipient of the most awards is Doug Davidson, for his portrayal of Paul Williams on The Young and the Restless. ... In 2008, Anthony Geary became the actor with the most wins in the category when he won for a sixth time, surpassing David Canary's previous record of five. - When did Davidson surpass Geary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Davidson never pass Geary. It cleary says: In 2008 Geary becacame the actor with the most wins when he won a sixth time surpassing David Canary. The fist sentence of the second paragraph was supposse to say: ′The 2013 recipient of this award is Doug Davidson, for his portrayal of Paul Williams on The Young and the Restless.″  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC) That would mean "The recipient of the most recent award is...", not most awards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) No, IMO it would mean ″The 2013 recipient of this award is....″. Also last I did that another reviewer said to change into The 2013 reciepient... because it clears up any confusion and I happen to agree with that user.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) So do it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Not bad writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I think it looks well written just like all the other lists.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Rock Album by a Duo or Group with Vocal

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹, Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Latin Grammy Award for Best Rock Album by a Duo or Group with Vocal is an honor presented annually by the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences at the Latin Grammy Awards. The award is given to vocal rock, hard rock or metal albums albums containing at least 51 percent of newly recorded material. It is awarded to duos or groups. — ΛΧΣ²¹, Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

...and we're back with another Latin Grammy category!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Support

• Looks really good I just noticed 2 things in the lead:

"or metal albums albums containing" → word used twice

"Colombia group" → Colombian?

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps add images of winning artists beside the awards table?

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I'm sure Hahc21 (talk · contribs) will add some images in due time (he's in charge of that stuff). — Status (talk · contribs) 02:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments *Shouldn't it be was an award? If they have ceased giving this award, it should be in past tense. Erick (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC) True. Fixed and thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 00:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Support No major issues from me. Erick (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments by DivaKnockouts Why is Bengala (singer) linked and other artists without articles such as Volumen Cero and Elefante not? Delink, perhaps? — DivaKnockouts 06:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Maybe her article was deleted, no idea. Delinked and thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 16:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Support I don't see any other issues. Great job! — DivaKnockouts 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Can we split that first mega-sentence up a little? Done. "that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions" is this a quote from the organisation, if so, it should be a quote and attributed as such. If not, it's a little promo. Not sure, let me check. " in the United States and internationally" well, the United States is covered by "internationally" isn't it? Changed to overseas, which is the correct word to use there. "nominated... nominations." repetitive. Cganged to "attempts" xD Is it Bersuit Vergarabat or just Bersuit? You use them both. Fixed. I added a "disestablished award" cat for you. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC) All done but one. — ΛΧΣ21 02:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492
  • This is sticking out like a sore thumb: in the lede, you don't mention when the award was discontinued.
    • Added with a note. It really pisses me off how the Latin Academy does never release any statement when they discontinue awards. They just remove them from the grid. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No images to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Crisco. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

The Office (U.S. season 8)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Drovethrughosts 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC) NoD'ohnuts 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements that have been laid out by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria (I submitted it awhile back, but it got shot down because one editor said it wasn't a list. I'd like to point out that seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the series were promoted to Featured Lists, and many television series' season pages have been promoted to FLs before). The prose is of Good Article quality (which is passed last summer), it features alt text, images, pristine references, and MOS-complying tables. While any critiques would inevitably make this better, I feel it is ready for the next step.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• this was never submitted? Nergaal (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Oh dang it... I'll change the dates and "resubmit" it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Maybe inevitable but you have "the" five times in the opening sentence. Shouldn't "Comedy Night Done Right" be in quotes as it is in the article to which it links? "new Sabre CEO" who or what is Sabre? Why isn't the region 4 home media release mentioned in the home media release section? "this season marked" ... "the season marked" repetitive. Image captions which aren't complete sentences don't need a period. "of Salon.com " -> "of Salon" Don't think you need to link "pregnant". "he has an emergency appendicitis" do you mean an emergency appendectomy? "Producer's Cuts of:"-> cuts. AOLTV->AOL TV. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks great to me. Although you might want to consider in the second paragraph of the lead, right before the sentence that begins "Dwight Schrute...", adding something like "Halfway through the season, " or something. Right now the sentence seems like an unneeded plot summary, but it won't affect my support.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for the support and comment!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support list looks great and is comprehensive. I am sure other people will have better comment than me when it comes to copyediting. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - though it looks like you introduced a copyedit error when fixing an earlier one- "antics of Robert California (James Spader), the new CEO Sabre". --PresN 21:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for catching that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is comprehensive within the specified scope, and streamlines the information in sortable columns. And, I believe it meets FLC criteria. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Godot13 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nergaal

Comments I kinda like the list, but rename the article from "aircraft accidents" to "commercial aircraft accidents" (not done) The list includes non-commercial accidents as well so the title change wouldn’t be appropriate. Then how about non-military accidents? But there are military (non-combat) aircraft included in the list... *Do you have any objection to List of high fatality aircraft accidents, incidents, and attacks?--Godot13 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC) See below--Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) what is the difference between an incident and an accident? Based on the definitions in the notes section, an accident would cover issues like pilot error, mechanical error, severe weather, whereas an incident could involve a collision caused by an accident in one aircraft effecting a second aircraft. Incident could also be used to describe any hostile or deliberate action (non-accidental in nature) effecting the aircraft. I would remove the first American and English fatality, and instead include the first double fatality, and perhaps the first 5+, 10+, 50+, 100+, 500+ accident. (done & question) Removed as requested. First mid-air collision added. The incremental increases for higher numbers beginning with 14 is in the table. Are you suggesting that I make the table shorter? no, the table is fine, and I would be fine with an even more detailed table remove: At present, the highest capacity passenger aircraft is the Airbus A380 (standard three-class seating configuration 525, economy only 853). The Airbus A380-900 has been designed but is not yet in production. It could accommodate 650 passengers in a three-class configuration (or 900 in an economy-only configuration). (done) This was included only to demonstrate the potential loss in a 100% fatal accident. Removed. I would put back that info as a footnote Done--Godot13 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) the last paragraph is kind of hard to digest; too much jargon :*(question) I’m not sure I see too much jargon, could you please elaborate? Done (I think...) The paragraph has been greatly reduced and partially placed in a note.--Godot13 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC) the intro should also discuss the change in the ratio of accidents (per decade) to the number of total fights, and perhaps also the fatalities per total number of passengers (I think this info would be much easier to comprehend than most of what is currently in the last para) (in progress) (question) While I would like to analyze the data in an number of ways, I am concerned that anything beyond basic computation would violate Wikipedia:No original research. What do you think? --Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC) change the intro table to a single set of columns Done - I had originally done that, but to me it was long and visually unappealing. why does this list not include terrorist attacks (these are incidents no?); when you include them you can add a note/color to differentiate them (in progress) I can work on this, but it will not be immediately ready until closer to the end of the nomination process Done - 38 additional attack occurrences have been added, along with a description and categories of types. --Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I am not in love with the current format of the pre-table section; I would move the note subsection to the end and wikilink the titles in the table to the key below; after that, the criteria section could be massaged a bit. (done & question) Does it look okay now? yep, I like it! it is fatality rate not percent Done I would change the sole survivor to something like "1*" superscripted Done perhaps add a distance of 0 to the accidents happening on an airport; maybe add m-dash to the empty fields in airport and distance fields? Two parts: (first not changed, second has a question) 1) I’ve tried to add “0” distance where I reasonably could (when information was permitting). Source information is better in some cases versus others. Sometimes it is impossible to determine whether the accident occurred on the runway itself (a true “0”) versus a few hundred meters short or to the side. Technically these all occur at the airport, but I try to use the runway as the reference point. (in progress) 2) My concern adding dashes to the empty cells is that it could be misinterpreted. In the Deaths columns, dashes are used for information that was/is not available and/or unknown. The cells in the airport column which are empty are not unknown, there is no value to be assigned. I can understand putting dashes in the distance column when there is an airport listed (thus indicating the exact distance is indeed unknown). Would that work? It is not that essential. I just thought it looked weird to have that much space the intro should also discuss how many of the 470 accidents happened during taxi/takeoff/ENR/etc, how many involved Boeings/Airbus/etc, what is the most common location for such accidents (continent, country, city, airport), what is the most common plane type, how many of these accidents involved a mortality rate of over 95%, how many below 50%, etc. (in progress) Most of this is in the collapsible tables in the summary section. Would you suggest putting a descriptive statistics section/paragraph in the intro? I'm trying to accommodate as many of the suggestions as possible for additional information in the intro. I'm concerned that it may get too bogged down. Could you please look at the changes and let me know what you think. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC) is there such a thing as "deadliest year" or day? As of right now, the deadliest period for number of occurrences was 1964-73 with 109 (23.1%) and for number of fatalities 1974-83 with 9.577 (20.4%). I can calculate worst year/day, but I would rather wait until I can get the non-accident related data entered Done See intro--Godot13 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I know this seem like a lot of comments but I do really congratulate you for the work put in to get to this nice state. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review the list and please let me know about the questions I had so I can work to resolve the rest of the issues you raised. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) I don't think you need to hide the statistics table at the bottom. I would keep the unhidden, and use the {{multicol}} thing to put the tables in two columns (the big one on one side and all the smaller ones on the other) Nergaal (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Done. I think both file:ACRO fatalities 1918-2009.svg and File:ACRO incidents 1918-2009.svg can serve as nice pictures for the article. also, I am a bit surprised that there are no pictures around wikipedia of the crash site areas. Nergaal (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I like the idea of using a graph, but I don't have the raw data for either of these images and can't verify them. Also, these graphs cover all aircraft accidents and fatalities, while this list only covers the 50+ occurrences.--Godot13 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I have a question (for you and Reywas92 as current reviewers): I had much of the non-accident data prepared (there are only 40 incidents of 50+ fatalities on the aggressive incidents side) and plan to add a column after deaths to differentiate between (for lack of a better term right now) aggressive (i.e., bombing, hijacking, shooting down, and suicide attack) and non-aggressive types (i.e., commercial, military), and have the column sort in a hierarchy of overarching category (aggressive vs. non-aggressive), then specific (commercial vs. military and within the aggressive). Do you have any ideas/concerns I should think about before I manually enter it for every occurrence?--Godot13 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Done/incorporated.--Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I've added a few minor things to the intro. The article looks really good. The only issue I have is wether it would be better to split this list into two: 1) highest fatalities accidents (100+) and 2) accidents with 50-100 fatalities. The first would have 200 entries, and it seems a bit of a natural, round limit. What do you think? Nergaal (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) First of all, THANK YOU (yes, I know I'm shouting) for the great edits you made to the list. They are much appreciated and help the flow. As for splitting the list, I'd prefer to keep it the way it is for a few reasons. A next possible step is to do a list of 20-50 fatalities and based on my experience with this list, there will probably be well over 200 (perhaps 300+) occurrences for that list. Also, that list will probably (unfortunately) have fairly frequent additions and will grow very fast. I did a lot of research to try and find if anyone had defined/quantified "high fatality" with respect to aviation and while it may exist, I couldn't find it. I like that this list has a somewhat broader scope (50+ versus 100+) as a reference and resource list. Again, thanks for your help/input and I'll tie up the remaining loose ends tomorrow (er... later today) --Godot13 (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Aircraft manufacturer and type information added. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything outstanding. Thanks again.--Godot13 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I wasn't very keen on splitting this list, but then i noticed that this list is getting close to 500k. Is that common for a FL? Also, somebody removed the table with the aircraft manufacturers, and I am not sure why. Nergaal (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC) The aircraft manufacturer table was removed by one of the editors involved in Talk Page discussions. Consultation might have been nice, but I do however agree with their rationale. I think this is long for a FL, but not prohibitive (there have been longer). But that's probably best answered by TRM. Thanks for your efforts regarding this list in general.--Godot13 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) There has been some significant revision since your initial review. Could you please let me know if you have any additional concerns? Thank you.--Godot13 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support there might be a few things I might still find, but I am very happy with the list. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and your helpful comments and edits.--Godot13 (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reywas92

*Comments Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the definitions given, wouldn't all of these be accidents, not incidents? I agree it seems like a fine distinction. Based on the definitions (Notes 2 and 3) the vast majority are accidents. However, in my interpretation, occurrences involving more than one aircraft may begin with an accident (mechanical malfunction, weather conditions, pilot error) in one aircraft but when that aircraft destroys another one in the process, the second aircraft becomes an incident, not an accident. Also, if non-accidental data is imported into this list (my intention), they are all incidents. The title is a bit bulky; would it be better to say something like 'List of the most fatal airline accidents', and then define the minimum of 50 in the article? Compare to List of tallest buildings in the United States, which sets the arbitrary cutoff of 700 feet in the table section, rather than being 'List of buildings taller than 700 feet'. I can see it either way, but no one's going to be searching for this title. Agreed & question. My sandbox working title was “List of high fatality aviation accidents and incidents” does that sound better? Yes, I like that. Reywas92Talk 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC) See title-related comment below.--Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Aren't accidents a type of incidents? If yes, perhaps “List of highest fatality aviation incidents” ? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I believe they basically are, but since the FAA and other Aviation authorities seem to distinguish between them, it seems like a good idea to follow their definitions. Also, the word "highest" could be problematic.--Godot13 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC) on reflection I think it's fineGodot13 (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC) As Nergaal said, the first American and British fatalities are straying off topic Removed as per both of your comments. The A380 info could be limited to the current highest seating (do any actually use the economy only?). The -900 part isn't relevant until it comes into use. A380 removed. A380 info moved to a note per Nergaal's request--Godot13 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I haven't been able (yet) to find an example of the A380 actually using an all-economy configuration.--Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Since you've got all the references, I'm not sure that the process used to make the list is necessary (nor fitting under the criteria header). I removed the first sentence from the criteria section. Based on the editnotice template installed on the edit page, I think the vetting process may be important to inform potential contributors, particularly if/when the list is opened up to non-accidental incidents. If you feel strongly about this, I will remove I don't mind it, but the phrasing seems sort of self-referential, though I'm not sure of the best way to put it. The key "Ground (P)" needs to be corrected to (G). Oops, done Uncapitalize oceans in the summary. Done This is a huge improvement over List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation; it has only 391 entries but goes all the way to 1 fatality. I'd recommend checking over that list, and then delete all but the top few and link to this list. Thank you. (question) Are you suggesting that I drastically edit the other list? I should probably propose that on the list talk page first… I don't think there should be such a redundancy, especially when this is of much higher quality than the other. Also problematic is that list's inaccurate rankings, though yes, it's off-topic of the FLC. Reywas92Talk 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC) And speaking of that, not many articles link here yet; if you want, try to put in links in more articles to expand access. Good suggestion, I will start with involved airlines and airports, and appropriate disaster-related articles. Very nice work on the list, great job. Reywas92Talk 07:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review.--Godot13 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC) With the exception of renaming the list (see reasons below), I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks again for reviewing-Godot13 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The key should definitely go above the table as it was before; I didn't know what the N stood for (I liked your previous fatality ratio) and had to scroll all the way down to find out. The section links, which I didn't notice until later, are not at all obvious (e.g. 'Deaths' linked, but not C, P, G, N). Otherwise Support Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strangely, I responded to your comment, but it didn't seem to save... Individual death columns have been linked. The fatality ratio was questioned as a figure (by a few people) and therefore removed. The key was moved as part of the FLC comments/reviews. I hope to address both of them (by consensus) after the FLC is closed. I hope that will not effect your support. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to rename the list List of high fatality aircraft accidents, incidents, and attacks (as soon as the attack data is incorporated). I think this is more concise, has better search words in the title, and represents the three different (yet at times overlapping) types of occurrences. Would this work? --Godot13 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen, we have sports lists which say "with at least 100 appearances" for instance, so this list should be similarly (and precisely) titled. "high fatality" is purely subjective in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• That was my initial concern/question about the possible new title. Thanks for weighing in TRM - Godot13 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved comments from Nick-D

*Oppose no citation is provided for the eye-catching claim that "There have been 508 aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities" - how do we know that this article is actually comprehensive? The inclusion criteria seem somewhat unclear as well: why are the various disasters which overcame aircraft fleets in World War II not included? (leaving aside the operations which suffered heavy casualties from enemy action, there were several incidents in which multiple heavy bombers collided in-flight while trying to land in bad weather over the UK). Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC) There is a note following the figures stating that it is based on a statistical summery (i.e., addition) of the data in the article's main table. If you can provide details of other occurrences which meet the criteria in the article, I would be happy to add them. I did not come across WWII records indicating aircraft accidents or incidents with 50 or more fatalities in a single occurrence. I have never said that this list represents the absolute universe of all 50+ fatality accidents and incidents, but it does reflect a detailed search of multiple comprehensive resources. It seems like you have already made up your mind, but I would ask you to reconsider your opposition. Thank you.--Godot13 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC) If a WWII heavy bomber, usually a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, holds a crew of about 10, unless there were mass ground fatalities, at least 4 or 5 aircraft would need to collide to produce 50+ deaths.--Godot13 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC) From memory, there were incidents where multiple mid-air collisions took place. The crash of a B-24 at Port Morseby which killed about 60 American airmen and Australian soldiers on 7 September 1943 is also missing (see Landing at Nadzab#Follow up). 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I read the account of the B-24 crash. It is a contender for the list but one technical point needs to be satisfied to meet the definitional criteria: when did the 44 survivors who later died of their wounds actually die? Unless it happened within 30 days of the accident, it is not considered an aviation-related fatality per the operational definition. Do you happen to know if this information is contained within the cited references? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Trying to follow up on the crash you pointed out led me to this source (PDF page 60) which I think clearly indicates that 16 were immediately killed and another 45 died from related injuries (mostly burns) within 24 hours, therefore the total number of accident fatalities would be 61. I feel confident that the source is reliable. Do you agree regarding the source and the tally? I will add it shortly. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, that should be fine. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Late comment on this one - going by the Federal definitions the 30-day rule is only for the purposes of statistical reporting. And there's no guarantee that the sources used on the various articles are sticking to that usage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) At least 95% of the occurrences can be found in the in the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) database. The ASN definition of fatal occurrences is also consistent with US Federal Code and the ICAO. I think I do understand your point (i.e., that information in the ASN database, or compiled by different investigative agencies, is in turn coming from multiple sources which could abide by slight variations in defining a fatality). I have seen examples (I can’t cite them off hand) where the ASN record did explicitly mention deaths occurring days after an accident; these were always included in the overall fatality count. Also, I think having this data available is the benefit of definition-based statistical reporting. I guess there will always be some margin of error, but I have done everything possible to minimize it.Godot13 (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Given that this statement is still unreferenced, I'm afraid that I'm going to maintain the oppose. I'm not confident that this list is in fact comprehensive. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC) There is no existing reference to cover this routine calculation which, though lengthy, is basic addition of the list's main table. I did note that the figures represent a summary of the main table. While I do think the list is comprehensive, I do not believe it is (or could be) exhaustive (but this can easily become a discussion splitting hairs as some sources define these words as synonyms, while others do not). If it would gain your support, I would be happy to add a note in the first paragraph as a caveat regarding the coverage (comprehensive vs. exhaustive) of the list. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC) User:Nick-D, can you find any entries that are missing? Many lists in Wikipedia have no single source which demonstrate overall completeness. We also have a number of featured lists with the {{incomplete list}} template. Would tightening the phrasing of the inclusion criteria help you remove your opposition? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I pointed out a missing entry I was aware of above. I image that there are similar incidents missing from the list which people with knowledge of (for example) British, United States, Soviet and German military air transport operations would be aware of. I don't think that criterion 3a is met here. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, in that case it will clearly be absolutely impossible to ever satisfy you that the list is complete if you "image there are similar incidents missing". Understood. We'll have to take that into account when we close this. As I noted, this will be the case for many lists, that there will be no single source containing all the items, just good faith that the editor has done a good job of doing his/her best with the sources available to them. We can't wait forever for mythical experts to pop up and say, hmm, I seem to recall an accident .... And if they do, we can add them! In other words, what measures could be taken to address your currently in-actionable opposition (an opposition based on "I think other things may be missing but I can't say for sure...")? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "Okay, in that case it will clearly be absolutely impossible to ever satisfy you that the list is complete": not true. If the article were to be actually based on sources which provide a comprehensive listing, or on a survey of a wide range of sources, I would be satisfied that the article is complete. That isn't the case. That kind of comment, as well as you teasing me for a typo, is pretty poor form for a featured content director - do you actually want to encourage participation in this forum? I presume that you won't be closing this nomination? Given that I, as a non-expert, was able to immediately spot an omission from this list when I reviewed it it seems safe to say that there are other obvious omissions, especially in light of the very narrow sourcing used here. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Regarding tone, I've commented at WT:FLC. For this list, wouldn't {{Dynamic list}} be worth using? At the very least it would indicate that content can change as new incidents occur. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Crisco, I've already suggested that template, see my comment above. Also, suddenly we have a request for a wide range of sources. Prior to this, the oppose was because the opposer believed people with knowledge of military operations would be aware of omissions. This is clearly non-actionable. But let's look at sources... The first twelve are all from different sources. I see sources from the transport departments of Japan, Canada, US, UK etc... I see the BBC, CNN, Boeing, CBS, The New York Times, Flight International, Flight Global.... if the opposer could suggest other sources, I'm sure the nominator will do their best to use them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Nick-I think we should define a few terms. For example, non-expert. Forgive me if my count is slightly off, but according to your user page, you have authored or significantly contributed to 20 Featured articles, 8 A-Class articles, and 15 Good articles, all on some aspect of military history, with 19 specifically regarding military aviation. I would say that you are selling yourself short with the reference non-expert. With your vast knowledge, you were able to point out a single missing aviation accident. When asked to clarify the details (i.e., how many fatalities occurred immediately after the accident), you never responded so I found the relevant entry from the squadron's field diary. You are welcome to contribute constructively but (as mentioned above) your critique of the list, as it currently stands, is in-actionable.--Godot13 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Something like 90% of the references are to the Aviation Safety Network website: to present the first twelve sources as being typical of the list's sourcing is rather silly. For an article on this kind of topic I would have expected to see references to works on large aircraft (which typically provide exhausting coverage of accidents), histories of aviation in major flying countries (including possibly histories of major airports and airlines) and histories of military operations. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Are you suggesting the sources used aren't reliable? I simply stated that many different sources have been used, from a variety of countries and publications. Can you be specific in which resources would alleviate your concerns? The "histories" you suggest are somewhat nebulous, I don't really know what you mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC) The range of literature on aviation topics is very large, and often quite specialised. For example, there are detailed reference works on most aircraft types (eg, see searches on DC-3, Antanov and Boeing on Amazon.com), and similar works exist for most other segments of the aviation industry (for instance, see Soviet aviation and aviation disaster for a flavour of what's available. There are also similar kinds of works on most major airlines. While these kind of books are very daggy, they're goldmines of information, and should provide information on other accidents which are not in the ASN database, or where there are differing accounts/details. I'm not suggesting that there needs to be an exhaustive search through this vast literature (which would be an insanely huge task), but that at least the 'high level' works, and works on particularly accident-prone regions and aircraft can be expected to add to the list. I hope that's helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC) As a somewhat belated response to Godot13's comment above, I'm knowledgeable about Australian military aviation and some other much more specific topics in other countries, but wouldn't know the first thing about, for example, Soviet tactical air transport operations, most US and UK World War II-era military air transport, Chinese and African airlines, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC) I appreciate what you are getting at with respect to sources. The Aviation Safety Network (connected with the Flight Safety Foundation has proven to be fairly comprehensive and widely used as a reference in academic peer-reviewed journal publications. I think the list in its present sourced form far exceeds what has been deemed acceptable by many of the other aviation lists. This being said, I am working on a 25-49 fatality list (which will be at least 500-600 incidents) and will incorporate some of the suggestions you’ve made into that list while also doing additional fact checking and, if necessary, updating this present list. I am on vacation and cannot order reference books right now. I imagine it will take me at least two months to complete the second list. As such a review will likely yield, at best, very few additional cases, I would hope to proceed with the current FLC process and simply add any additional material as it comes to light. I don’t know if that is good enough to garner your support. Godot13 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I have looked at the Amazon search pages above and see the types of books you are referring to. The descriptions of the books do not indicate whether they contain specific tables/lists of crash or accident data, in many cases an entire book covers a single model of a given aircraft (necessitating mass purchasing to be truly comprehensive), and the cost of assembling such a library is not insignificant. If this list had a more narrow scope, it would be simple to purchase 7-10 well reviewed reference books for background research. But given the scope, I do not think I will be able to satisfy your conditions for support at the present time.-Godot13 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC) In the 6+ weeks since this list was published the Port Moresby crash is the only accident/incident to surface that was not included. Please see the reference section of the list (books and further reading) to see the five books which have been reviewed in the past two weeks. Very educational reading, but no additional incidents. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Funny, it would seem that the sixth book reviewed today was something of a charm: two additional incidents (both somehow overlooked on the ASN website) have been entered...-Godot13 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• This user is opposed to promotion. (Discussion capped as unresolved by Godot13 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC))

Resolved comments from MilborneOne

Comments – Comments Large parts of the lead do not relate to the contents of the list in the table, the image does not relate to the contents of the list, and the table "Fatality records for incidents involving a single aircraft" does not relate to the list in the table. Actually, I will continue working on this despite the AfD as it was here in FLC to begin with… Finding an appropriate image has been difficult. There is one rather dramatic image used in the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 article, the sequence showing the ditching of the aircraft which is a fair use image. Can this image be used? Could it replace both the Wright crash image and the table of fatalities underneath it? The Ethiopian image is not free enough to use, I will have a look around to see if we have anything on commons. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Some suggestions above MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I would definitely opt for #3 for two reasons: first, it's on the list; second it is the most visually interesting of the three suggestions. I will add it and put a comment on the talk page.--Godot13 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC) We can close this observation as OK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Some of the descriptive statics are not very encyclopedic and are not really relevant and are unreferenced. Could you please: a) point me to examples of encyclopedic use of descriptive statistics. I will be happy to format them in such a manner and b) tell me which figures are not relevant (and preferably why). Lastly, as I have said before, every single occurrence is referenced and the descriptive statistics are derived from routine calculations of the table data. Understood, I am sorry I will respond to this soon. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC) The brief review of descriptive statistics doesnt match the Descriptive statistics further down the page some of the stats although calculated are clearly not notable and a bit tabloid MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Type seems reasonable but it would be better shown as a table at the end Fatality Rate - as a made up term in my opinion we just compound the made-up-ness, a simple statement that "In 68.9% of accidents all passengers and crew on board died" would be a lot clearer. Phase of flight - believe it or not this is OK Amazing ;-) Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Decade - is clearer on a table rather than trying to explain it I'll either improve this or delete and rely only on the table-Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Month/Date - I would suggest is not encyclopedic and doesnt add much to the article Agreed on date (it is too random), possibly month as well...-Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Location - OK Aircraft manufacturer - stats dont really help here without some idea of the fleet size, as they are far more Boeing 737 then anything else for example but that is not clear, I would suggest that this sort of think should be left to the aircraft article I understand your point as manufacturer data could be misinterpreted out of context. Would it be better to simply move all remaining descriptive stats to just after the table?-Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Seems a reasonable suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Some of the table columns are not really needed(like FR) and are unlikely search or sortable candidates (like Distance). FR is the only statistic/number that allows for any kind of comparison between occurrences with respect to degree of fatality. The FR is intended to provide information that a comparison of raw fatality numbers cannot. Reading that crash #1 had 100 fatalities versus crash #2 with 50, one understands that twice as many people died in #1 versus #2. But if #1 had 400 passengers (FR 25%) and #2 had 50 (FR 100%), one realizes that #2 resulted in complete devastation, where #1 did not. While this may be a new way of looking at the data, it is a simple ratio. If you wish, I will remove distance. I had thought it would be an interesting indication of when (during the beginning or end of flight) the occurrence took place. OK I had another look at this. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Airport, not sure we need airport when this should be clear from the location column, just duplication. Airport is not clear from the location as, in many cases, there is more than one airport for a larger (or even mid-sized) metropolitan area. If an aircraft crashes during APR and they are 20km+ out from the intended airport it may be impossible to determine the destination based on the crash location itself. In addition, one of the secondary benefits of having the airports listed is that it provides an alternative function for the list: it also becomes a de-facto comprehensive list of airports with 50 or more fatal aviation accidents, incidents, or other occurrences. -Godot13 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) If this is a list of accident with more than 50 fatalities we should not be trying to make it function as something else. The destination and departure airports are pretty clearly mentioned in the related article so I am not sure that being 20km away from an airport is anymore significant then 30km or 40km it is the phase of flight that is important. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not trying to make it function as something else, this only dawned on me after-the-fact. Sort of an unintentional bonus.--Godot13 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Distance, again as above not needed we already have the phase of flight. Distance (I am realizing) is important primarily because of the wild variation during the approach phase from less than 1km to to distances of 50-80km (with two outliers at over 100km). Thus, APR alone is not a good indication of aircraft position from the intended airfield. Initial climb distances also range from about 1km to 11km, providing considerable overlap with APR.-Godot13 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Again we are just trying to squeeze to much into what is a simple list, if accidents on approach are that notable then perhaps we should consider a different list or article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) FR - as you appreciate I really dont like FR as it is not a common thing you see in accident reports or summaries, perhaps you would consider removing it and colour coding the background rows of the 100% accidents. Our favorite topic, FR. I do understand that this statistic does not make you happy. I had initially considered making the total number of deaths a fraction- crash fatalities/total # onboard. Aside from adding more syntax to make fractions sort properly, it would not allow readers to quickly compare (as I mentioned previously) two or more accidents side by side much less allow for sorting by that value. While putting the list together I was interested in being able to compare the level of devastation/destruction (in a statistical/clinical manner) between different occurrences. I have seen other table present #killed to #total as fractions, or ratios. Converting the fraction to a percent eliminates the need to mess with the numerator and denominator and creates a single number which can easily be compared across occurrences. I agree with you that the name (Fatality ratio) is made up, but the value or number itself is a sound and proven way of reducing more complex information to be used for comparison. If renaming the FR would help mitigate some of your concerns, I am open to any descriptively appropriate suggestion. I am not trying to introduce this as a standard for aviation, simply a means, with respect to this list, of making easier and simplified comparisons.--Godot13 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) OK perhaps we should just agree to not agree on this although I did like my idea of coloring the background of the 100%ers. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Can I make a counter-proposal? We keep airport and distance... and remove FR. The FR column is renamed and becomes ultra-thin with room enough for a single dagger indicating 100% fatal crashes (I suggest this because, while I very much like the idea of adding color, it will add a lot of extra syntax since there are so many FR100 and make the file size even larger), and the superscript "1*" indicating the presence of a sole survivor is moved to the total deaths column. Would you first and foremost be content (and secondarily support the FLC) with these changes?--Godot13 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Seems like a reasonable compromise, I would support the FLC with the changes as discussed here and in other sections but I do have a fear of leaving any discussion to later due to the possible "this is a feature list you cant change it" argument. So if it is made clear that changes or improvements can be made later by consensus we are not that far away, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC) I have made the main changes (e.g., removed FR, added a dagger for 100% fatal occurrences. In light of the addition of the two airship accidents and the 1943 Port Morseby accident I will recalculate the summary tables later today. Regarding your concern above- I have never understood that a featured list or article is above editing. Granted, if it is featured changes should not be haphazard and there may be a more rigorous consensus process, but nothing is written in stone. I suppose a complete revamp of a featured anything could possibly cost it featured status, but that would be a question for The Rambling Man. I'll get back to you when the finishing touches have been added.--Godot13 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC) The designations of aircraft in the table are to precise and should use the more common terminology and names. Happy to change this to the generic series and model. Perhaps User:YSSYguy and User:GraemeLeggett would like to weigh in here as they have expressed some opinions? As this is being discussed on the talk page and others have made changes I dont think it is a bar to FL status. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Notes 1, 2 and 3 should relate to international standards and not just one country. Do you mean notes 2, 3, and 4? The CFR did such a fine job of operationalizing these terms that it seemed best to cite their definition. The list needs to governed by specific criteria so these were adopted. (As an aside, the largest number of occurrences in the list were in the US or under US jurisdiction). I am sure they are similar ICAO references somewhere, let me have a look and come back. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I added a note to the intro to this basic effect: The definitions of accident, incident, and fatality in the Code of Federal Regulations, and used by the FAA and NTSB are generally consistent with those found in the ICAO Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13. Let me know if that is satisfactory. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Yes no problem with that Godot13, we can close this one. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC) It is clear from the talk page the the article is not stable and is subject to a lot of discussion (including an AfD) and until a clear consensus is reached on the talk page on the issues raised then the feature list process should not pass and I oppose it being made a Featured List. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC) As you noted on the talk page about surviving AfD- If or when this list survives AfD, I will be more than happy to address your points one at a time. Thank you.--Godot13 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I’ll pass on a discussion of the stability of the article/list… Please let me know I should proceed. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Comment - Now that the AfD has been resolved (Keep), I hope to move forward with the FLC process. Thank you-Godot13 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I have just got a couple of points above to expand on and discuss, I will try to come back as soon as I can so the process can move on. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I believe I have addressed all of your immediate concerns. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the effort Godot13 I think we can consider by comments here clear and I support the list being a featured list. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your input and support are both appreciated. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Rejectwater - I am flummoxed by this table. There are cells with no data, and cells with en-dash, sometimes both in the same column. Cells in the Airport column are often left blank; apparently this means "n/a". Distance is apparently associated with Airport, however many incidents which list an airport have no data in the Distance cell. There is also one cell in the distance column with an en-dash rather than being left blank. So is there a difference between a blank cell and an en-dash? It seems like sometimes blank cell means n/a, sometimes n/a means n/a, sometimes UNK means unknown, sometimes en-dash means unknown. Also, why are some airports denoted with "***" rather than an abbreviation? Rejectwater (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I have corrected the inconsistencies you pointed out. There is a brief explanation of each column linked to the column header, which also explains when distance is and is not included in the table. I have changed three cases of crashes during approach from blank or en-dash to "unknown". "UNK" in the phase of flight refers to a recognized (default) phase labeled Unknown where it was not possible to determine the specific phase during which the accident occurred. The "***" notation (clarified in a note) is reserved for airports which have closed and had their civil aviation codes reassigned to another facility (and reporting them would indicate an incorrect location), or military airfields without any civil aviation codes. If I have missed anything or you would like further clarification, please let me know.-Godot13 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC) What's the deal with the notes column? The only information is number of survivors with a seemingly bizarre numbering system whereby the dagger symbol = 0, 1* = 1, and a blank cell = >1. Am I missing something here? Why not just call it the Survivors column and list the number of survivors? Rejectwater (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Ah, yes... the column notes. Not my original idea. Initially the column had been a Fatality Ratio (FR) expressed as a percentage. A single, sortable number, expressing the number of fatalities/total passenger and crew manifest (therefore standardized and comparable across all incidents). There were a few editors who expressed concern/dislike for the statistic (see resolved comments above). I would like to attempt to bring it back (via talk page discussion/consensus) after the FLC is closed. What you see now was the resulting compromise (versus only indicating those incidents with 100% fatality).-Godot13 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Fascinating. I see that the key used to be above the table and was moved below also due to discussion here, resulting in a situation where non-experts are forced to constantly scroll up and down, up and down, up and down, all the way over this HUGE table, in order to understand the terms (placing the key as close as possible to the column headers alleviates this). My concern is no longer anything with the article itself but the possibility the FLC process, in this case, is resulting in a lower quality list. Can you help me out and find a link to an old version of the page with the key on top and the FR column as you described it ("A single, sortable number... standardized and comparable across all incidents")? I would like to compare that to the current page, side by side. Rejectwater (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I think I have found one: [9] Rejectwater (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC) As I understand one reviewer expressed a lack of love for having the key section above the table and it was moved below. Since then at least two different reviewers (myself and another) have expressed concern and recommended the key be placed above the table. As for Fatality Rate (FR), a reviewer expressed scepticism and it was heavily modified. Now I have come along and basically said I liked it better the way it was before. Is this an accurate summary? Rejectwater (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Almost… Between the list talk page, AfD, and the FLC review there are at least three editors who are critical of the FR statistic. I agree that the key should be placed above the table. Given the level of discussion on this list (i.e., talk page and AfD), and accusations of WP:OWN, I do not want to make significant changes to the list format/layout without a talk page consensus.--Godot13 (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC) The article was put up for deletion four days after being nominated for Featured List status? An interesting situation. Ownership is a funny thing too. When people take "ownership" of a thing they don't actually own, they generally take much better care of it versus feeling like "who cares it isn't mine". But I digress. The key, as far as I can tell, is adequate, and there is no requirement as to whether or not it should be above or below the table. So I can consider the key issue to be resolved for the purposes of this discussion. The notes column, however, in my opinion, is a travesty. A single, sortable number, standardized and comparable across all incidents would be far superior. I find it hard to believe we can't come to an agreement on something way better than what is there right now. Rejectwater (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC) I have reached out to one of the 2-3 editors critical of the FR statistic (who also reviewed the list for FLC) asking if they would reconsider the compromise, made with them, leading to its removal. If that is not successful, I will propose it on the talk page for discussion.--Godot13 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at WP:CALC, this is either an "Added" or a "Synthetic" calculation. Added calcs are typically valid and synthetic calcs typically are not. What you had was synthetic calculation, the reason being it required knowledge of how many survivors which is not listed in the table (ie, "lost information"). For FR to be a probably valid "Added" calculation you would have to add a whole new column for total occupants. Then you could do a simple added calculation of (crew deaths + passenger deaths / total occupants). I am not seeing in the discussions that took place previously where it was established that FR violated a policy, but I do think it did, and I think CALC is the policy in question. The objection to the formula I have proposed may be that there is actually two calculations going on, however (crew deaths + passenger deaths = total deaths) where total deaths is also in the sources. So another, possibly better option, would be to add two new columns, one for total deaths and one for total occupants, where the percentage column would be calculated as (total deaths/total occupants). I imagine also that the name of what is now the Notes column would probably have to be something simple like "Percentage of total deaths". The flipside of this, obviously, is that it is a huge undertaking. There are over 500 entries, so adding two new columns and overhauling a third is no small matter. And consensus needs to be reached prior to making the change. A totally different option would be to get rid of the notes column all together. As it is now we're only showing a dagger for zero survivors and a 1* for sole survivor, that could be done with symbols and possibly even color in the incident cell. To go this route I urge use of templates such a {{dagger}}, {{double dagger}}, {{hash-tag}}, {{up-arrow}}, etc, such that alt-text can be added for accessibility. The use of color may be too macabre, however. Rejectwater (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Most of that is not from WP:CALC, it's from Wikipedia:About Valid Routine Calculations, which is a guidance essay and not a policy. All CALC has to say about the topic is that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." But my proposals remain unchanged. Rejectwater (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Proposal to move key section has been made on the talk page.-Godot13 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for explaining CALC, I was not fully aware of that. I thought about simply adding symbols (dagger, etc) to the total deaths figures but I lose the ability to sort by 100% fatality and sole survivor. Adding additional columns make an already large table even larger and yes, the additional calculations are not something I look forward to doing. Or we could just leave the notes column in its present state, as an indication of survivors versus no survivors (or sole survivor). I'm not sure there is any immediate solution for this.-Godot13 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I will consider the Notes column to be not a deal breaker as how it is now is the compromise position, however I believe my objections to it are valid. For now I am waiting to see if there is an agreed upon resolution to the status of the key. Rejectwater (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you-Godot13 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Suppport I believe this one is ready to go. Rejectwater (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "the Wright Brothers on" no need for the capital B. "1909, and the first fatal " my taste would suggest this should be "while the first..." "Barnegat Light, New Jersey, US," not sure you need "US" here. "England, UK, " similarly UK. "The highest number of fatalities in" -> "The most fatalities"? "Brief table key" any need for "Brief"? Ref. -> Ref(s). I'm not keen on blank cells, an en-dash would be a good resolution to those cells which aren't relevant. Maybe a note saying the initial sort order is from most to fewest deaths? This may have been discussed above, but I'm not sure you need the http://aviation-safety.net for every single ref which uses it. Might save several KB.... Especially as we have an article for it which would provide the same link just once, rather than hundreds of times here...? Let's start with those minor issues, and I'll see if I can nit-pick anything more out of it on a re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, all have been fixed.-Godot13 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Comments II With the addition of the two new incidents, do you need to update the lead etc? I was planning to update the numbers every few months (quarterly) given that one or two accidents may trickle in over time. I thought that change in the lead wording to "at least 512" and "over 53,500" gave me the room to do this. If not let me know. It looks like *** is missing from the key. Added to the key, and moved from a note to the body of the key details after the table. Not convinced we need a link to "ocean". Almost all have been un-linked. Those remaining (4-5) are when the Ocean is the sole geographical location for the incident. Shouldn't works, like The New York Times be in italics in the refs? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the additional comments.--Godot13 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support despite a false start, with the AFD, some of the Aviation project have come good and helped with a couple of the FLC regulars to create a really nice and well referenced list. Any enduring concerns over lack of comprehensiveness can be addressed if and when any holes are discovered, rather than the vague "it must be incomplete" arguments. Good work Godot13. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your support of (and during) this FLC! There may be future collaborative submissions with the Aviation Project...-Godot13 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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