Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2006

List of Australian Football League premiers

This article contains the entire list of VFL/AFL premiers, with scores of Grand Finals, Venues and attendences. It also has a tally of the Premiers and thier last Grand Final apperence and Premiership to show readers when the team last reached the grand stage of the AFL Grand Final. AFL45 03:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support Oppose - Yes the list is complete. What would make it better is not so many red links, but they will happen over time. Jasrocks ^Talk 07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support - As above, need to clear the red links. To clear the red links we need to at least get bare bones season summaries up and running, preferably with comments on the grand finals. Blackmissionary 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - references are not to be cited as simple external links. Pictures do not have fair use rationales. The notes with * should be converted into cite.php style footnotes. "Top 4 clubs" are redundant with "Premiership Tally" and uses 4 fair use pictures. Renata 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Renata. Top 4 clubs is unneccessary really considering some clubs have been in the comp for 15 years or less. Not up to standard, but we can work on it. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Great list, but not yet featured material because of redlinks for season per above comments. Two suggestions: a) move the seasons column to the left hand side and lose existing the year column; and b) the two tables at the end should be simple class=wikitable formatiing as per the first two tables. Differently formatted tables in one article = ugly. -- I@n 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon

I'm nominating this primarily because I want to get feedback on how it (and the equivalent lists for other "Areas of Search") can be improved. But if WP gets a load of new Featured Lists out of this exercise, even better. SP-KP 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• References? Renata 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the "Note on sourcing of information"? SP-KP 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not a conventional method to cite sources. Renata 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me which of the conventional methods you think would work best here. SP-KP 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, the usual ==References== section at the bottom with properly formated references (i.e. using {{cite web}} or cite.php or something like that). Renata 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

With 86 references?? SP-KP 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? :) Well, this would cover the names of the sites. But then you need to show where area and years and reasons for designation came from. Renata 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I thought 86 would be an unreasonably large number, but if not, then that's fine. What do you would be the limit though? Cumbria has the largest number of sites, 240, I think - would a list of 240 references be acceptable? SP-KP 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction, Cumbria's count is 278! Also Devon has 210, and North Yorkshire 240. SP-KP 15:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you could show some address where you only need to click into subpage that would be fine, I think. But I went to the address above and I could not find the area of year quickly... Could you give an exact address with all info for one sample site? Renata 17:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. All the site-by-site data is taken from documents called SSSI citation sheets - as an example, Ashton Court's is here SP-KP 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Would adding an extra narrow column to the right hand side of the table & using cite web (copy & paste from the individual pages) would automatically generate the ref list at the end - I will play with this on the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset as there are currently far fewer entries than on Avon & see if this meets what people are recomending. — Rod ^talk 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Umh, I think all you really need is this link. No? Renata 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gold star for you. Brilliant - thanks. SP-KP 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So just now convert everything correctly into ==Reference== section and be done with it ;) Renata 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in editing some of the entries on this page & have raised the issue of Avon no longer being a county, but I hope the explanation at the top of the page covers this. References are included on the linked pages (at least to the English Nature citation) but I'm not sure how these could/should be included on the list itself.— Rod ^talk 09:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very nice. How about a link to this search for all SSSIs in Avon? It would also be good to add a link to the citation sheets for each site in the table. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Should this not be at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon? The current title assumes the reader already knows what the acronym refers to. Oldelpaso 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of existing featured lists use acronyms in their titles, and SSSI is explained in the first line of the lead. However, happy to go with consensus on this. What do others think? SP-KP 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go with fully spelled out name. Renata 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Spell it out. "SSSI" is not a common acronym. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll do that. SP-KP 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Could you make the link to Avon in the introduction go directly to the specific Avon rather than to a disambig page. Witty lama 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good spot! Fixed. SP-KP 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: Needs areas in square miles or acres. No explanation of checks and x's (would be less confusing if only checkmarks were used.) Rmhermen 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add a note explaining crosses & check marks. I note your comment abour areas - can you explain your reasoning? SP-KP 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While not wanting to be presumptuous by stepping in on someone else's comment, that looks like a reference to WP:MOSNUM. Oldelpaso 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you expland on that? SP-KP 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement, the convention that units should be expressed in both metric and imperial to reach as wide an audience as possible, with the converted unit in parentheses. Oldelpaso 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Which line is that on, I can't see it. SP-KP 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I paraphrased to include more than one point in one sentence, but to quote from said page:

• Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world...
• ...put the source value first and the converted value second.
• Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
• If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose SI units as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. Mostly U.S.-centric subjects will have a reason to use non-SI units with SI units in parentheses.

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, to pick a featured list using units regularly, gives examples of this in practice. Oldelpaso 23:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although I still can't see any explicit mention of Imperial units in those points (it just says non-SI units, which could mean any one of many systems of measurement). Is there anything which says that Imperial units specifically need to be given. SP-KP 10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

American traditional units is the intention of those rules (not Imperial). We want articles to be usable by the widest audience possible. Rmhermen 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

American as in USA, or ? SP-KP 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rmhermen, any chance of a reply? SP-KP 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object until a proper "References" section is added. Otherwise, I am content. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Apollo astronauts

• Nominate and support. Comprehensive, referenced; I think it is up to FL standards. Rmhermen 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh... the title seems misleading since I expected to see the whole list of every person on every Apollo mission. You know, Apollo 1: john doe, peter simson, jack black, Apollo 2: ... It now seems this list is more like List of people who came close to the moon. Renata 01:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • It does list every person who was on every Apollo mission and what mission (or mission) they were on already. Rmhermen 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed - this is a good list, but it would be nice to add a section with all of the astronauts ordered by mission. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I see that there are good lists of the astronauts in Project Apollo already - perhaps some of that information should be moved across? That article also explains that there was no Apollo 2 or 3, and 4 to 6 were unmanned. Perhaps this could be added too. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think we need to mention those because this is a list of astronauts, not of missions. Do we really think that having everyone listed four times would be an improvement (alphabetical, chronological, by astronaut selection group, by accomplishment)? Tianxiaozhang asked on my talk page whether backup astronauts and the the Apollo-Soyuz Program astronauts should be added. I would say that the Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz flights were not part of Project Apollo although they used leftover equipment. I did find three backup crew who didn't fly on an Apollo flight and have added them. Rmhermen 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • A few lists introduce the content in a couple different ways (the most recent example I can think of is List of European Union member states by political system). Personally I think the listing by mission is the most intuitive way to go, with the other method you already used being a nice complement. Also, if you're not including Apollo-Soyuz astronauts you should give an explanation of why somewhere in the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There's no single mention of "Appolo" in the lead. For the readers who don't know what Appolo Project is, the lead does not establish the context and defines the title. Could you reword it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedar-Guardian (talk • contribs) .

  But the lead already says "who traveled to the Moon as part of NASA's Apollo program" ... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ups! Sorry I didn't notice it. CG 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Queen discography

Note: nomination started on July 18, 2006

• Nominate and Support - Extensive list of albums, singles, live albums, compilations, box sets, and DVDs with cover art, chart positions, release dates, and labels.
• Comment Refs needed Joe I 09:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object No references. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object, lack of references, not all tables have the same format, some redlinks remain. —Nightstallion (?) 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not to mention that pictures don't have fair use rationales... Renata 01:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

List of world's expositions

• Nominate and Support - This list is detailed, multi-faceted, nastalgic and exciting to read. A lot less cumbersome than List of world's fairs, this list only examines the largest. Joe I 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It would be nice if all the tables had the same width. You also have a saturation of images near the bottom of the article itself which makes the whole thing look ackward. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was just trying to add some images to a blank page. The main table is to wide to feature pics next it. Joe I 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bottom two tables same width. Resized one pic, not sure what else to do bout them, except take em out, which I don't want to. Joe I 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the placing of the images to some extent. However I cannot support until you sort out the copyright status of the the aereal photograph next to lead. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, I tried to give the bottom two tables the same width in terms of pixel size but they still look different. Must be an issue with Explorer. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead pic, so I don't have to worry bout it. The bottom two tables look the same to me, I'm on Firefox. As far as the main table and pics, I really don't believe it's better like that. The table looks squezed, and theres a blanck space below the pics. I could add more pics, but, I still don't like the table that narrow. The notables column - The lines are split now, so you can't even really tell what one is without dragging your mouse over it. But, I will go with what everyone feels is better. Joe I 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The table width issue was due to IE (I just checked in Firefox). Regarding the pics, maybe an alternative could be creating a gallery of notables at the bottom of the list. That way you get to keep the pictures in some sort of order (and even put a few more!) and avoid the "crunching" of the main list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, I kinda liked that idea. :) Joe I 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well done. —Nightstallion (?) 10:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I am sorry, but that picture gallery has to go... It's not commons here. If you wish that much, there is some space along the table in "list by coutry" section. Also, I would like to see references for number of visitors and costs. Otherwise, good list. Renata 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've referenced costs, visitors and area, all of which came from the BIE, but seperate pages from the frame on the left. A few(2-4) did come from [1], but I'd have to find them. Joe I 03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Addressed pics, anybetter? Joe I 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cool :) Renata 05:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant object. It's a fantastic topic, but I don't see the great distinction between this and List of world's fairs. I'm afraid we're going to have bring a much larger merged list up to featured quality.--Pharos 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A World's Fair is any of various large expositions held since the mid-19th century. The official sanctioning body is the Bureau of International Expositions (usually abbreviated BIE, from the organization's name in French, Bureau International des Expositions). BIE-approved fairs are divided into a number of types: universal, and international or specialized. They usually last for between 3 and 6 months. In addition, countries can hold their own 'fair', 'exposition', or 'exhibition', without BIE endorsement.

• First, these are only BIE santioned, second they are of the universal, international, or generalized categories, resulting in the largest, most widely attended, most expensive, most memerable in the world's eye, and most innovative. There are many country or region specific fairs, horticulture fairs, environmental fairs, etc... Few people not in the fair or immediate surroundings remember these specialized events. If you look at List of world's fairs, there are well over 100 fairs, just on that list. I found more in my researching. I see no other way of subdividing this list with any real accuracy. Joe I 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• But the Bureau of International Expositions was only founded in 1928; how can one then justify including the majority of the list, which took place before that time. There have also been quite significant world's fairs not sanctioned by the BIE since 1928– notably the 1964 New York World's Fair. Yes, it would take a major effort to feature List of world's fairs, but that's just what has to be done. We can't just fork off the easy ones into a different list.--Pharos 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• There have been few international standardizing organizations over 100 years, and almost all today assert themselves on what would have been their territory in the past. As to why the 1964 New York World's Fair wasn't sanctioned(at a time the BIE did exist) "only one exposition may be held in any given country within a 10-year period". Seattle had one in 62. If they had waited 8 years... Yes, it was a large fair, but it did not get the international support for a long lasting world veiw.
• I don't look at Regions of the United States#Texas and say, "oh there's no Texas blackland prairies" (where I live), but yet it covers a good fith of the state, well more than Galveston Bay which is on the list.
• It was hard enough to dig up dirt on these sanctioned fairs, doin so on List of world's fairs is near impossible.

BIE has a list of universal fairs on its website - which we have copied into our article on World's Fair. It should be no problem to bring this list up to a complete list of "universal" fairs (39, I beleive) and possible rename this list to something like "List of univeral world's fairs". The list is only a few short of having them all already. Rmhermen 15:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's mainly the list I used, but problem is, when you click on, say San antonio '68 from the menu on the left, it says it was a special exhibition. I took that to mean specialized. Meaning it wouldn't belong in such a list. Joe I 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And even your list on World's Fair doesn't follow what you say it does, [2]. I don't mind making additions, but like someone said, where to draw the line? Joe I 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it seems most people would like to see more in there. I'll add them all in tonight, if they haven't allready been added in. Joe I 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, the list now features all on World's Fair, plus one or two listed on BIE as international or universal. Cool? Joe I 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Good list of major fairs. Still may need a name change. Rmhermen 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't like the format used in the Visitors and Cost columns. Add "(in millions)" in the title cell and use only numbers (instead of 6m). CG 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that is a good suggestion. Rmhermen 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have made the change to the visitors column, but cost, there some in there in the billions and one even at 300,000, that change would be alittle more confusing in those instances. Joe I 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article should probably be moved to List of world expositions; see Talk:List of world's expositions#Name. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with tariqabjotu... oppose until it's sorted out. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - pending improvements which I am happy to help with --- 1. Article doesn't clearly define its scope. 2. Article accepts BIE's selected list of expositions as being valid. 3. Article clashes with List of world's fairs without adequate explanation. 4. Article title need deciding -- if it is to be List of world expositions, then this implies that the main article on the subject is "World exposition" whereas it is currently World's Fair. 5. Current intro to article is muddly, with unnecessary footnotes and side comments e.g. BIE has own article, so don't need big explanation here. --mervyn 10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

BAFTA Award for Best Film

Article that I restructured, and practically re-built, covers every winner and nominee. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Needs a compact TOC. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Smurryinchester. Also, why do some of the movies have a country next to them, while others don't? Are those unlabled British films? If so, please say so in the lead. Pepsidrinka 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Done ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Confused.

1. What does "Until 1960, and then sporadically later on, the awards for Best Film were not handed out to any one person." mean?
2. "Films in the Best Film from any Source category without a country next to them are British (pre 1960)." wouldn't be more consistent to just label them? Are there any years that a film won the any source but not the British film category. That would be worth mentioning.
3. Why is there only one award listed each year after 1968 and why doesn't the lead explain this? Rmhermen 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed and answered within article. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, I forgot. Support, as self-nom ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing great about this list. It seems as plain text. Could you change the design of the page, maybe a tabular form? CG 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I converted the first section of the page to a table. Is this really better? Rmhermen 00:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it's any better. It's a list for christ sakes, what are you expecting? Hanging Gardens of Babylon? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object - it looks really ugly (the started table format looks better, but I don't think it solves all the problems). It has inconsistent formatting (i.e. some list people (directors? producers? actors?), some don't) and a bunch of red links. References are not sufficient (i.e. both of your references list only winners and not other candidates). Renata 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well, the people thing is actually explained. And I never listed the actors! What are you talking about? And how does the table look now?...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course table looks way better than a plain list. And imentioned actors just because it was unclear who they are and why they are listed... Renata 11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Some of the candidates for 1949 and 1950 are the same films is this correct? Rmhermen 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was halfway through converting 1950 to tabular form. Don't worry, I'll fix it. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Saint symbology

I am putting this up for comments, and suggestions. --evrik 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comments - Seems like a long list for just the two columns. Intro seems alittle short, and if you can find a way to add some more pics. Joe I 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll work on the suggestions. First, I'll add some pictures, and resize the boxes. --evrik 18:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comments - references? How do we know that this is complete? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For now, it's complete. I have not been able to find any other sources. Having said that, it may grow incrementally. --20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case, oppose - I have concerns about its referencing and its completeness. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, lack of references. —Nightstallion (?) 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The references are problematic. Many of the articles reference the symbols themselves - and a lot of the symbols were gleaned from the articles. I added a reference section, though in truth, it is the same as the external links. I don't think that referencing each line is feasible either. Any suggestions on how to better reference the list? --evrik 01:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I don't know, but just copying from other articles on Wikipedia is *not* something featured *** should do. Either use inline citations (been done before, compare list of European Union member states by political system), or add some (preferably many) reference works containing all the information at the end of the list. —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is there any evidence that this list is reasonably complete? Didn't the Catholic Church have a few hundred Saints? Do all of them have symbols? If not, why? All that needs to be addressed somewhere in the lead. Also, the very first sentence of the lead needs a source, and using other Wikipedia articles as references is definitely a no-no. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Romantic composers

I noticed that Wikipedia did not have a music-related featured list yet. I made several improvements to this page, since all it basically needed was a few images and a few more blue links. Covers the major composers of the Romantic era. Therefore I nominate and support this article! Dafoeberezin3494 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No lead section and no explanation of why some name are in bold. CG 05:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - No lead and no references. Along with that, how can we know the list is complete? Mário 10:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some of these are not Romantic composers! Also who decided which are "most important"? No source is listed for that determination and the only source doesn't make any determination of its listed composers by style (and does not include all on this list). Rmhermen 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - No ref's and no pictuer in the lead. Joe I 10:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe I, not having a picture is not a reason to oppose a FL candidate, read §5 of Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. Cheers!