Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2005

List of recognised political parties in India

-- Self nom. Took me almost a whole week to do this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks pretty good and interesting. Has all the info so nobody can clamour about expanding it.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Nice. Support. Phoenix2 17:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Good work, Nichalp. Support. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful list --Sophitus 06:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, of course. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - two question: all of the symbols are monochrome, apart from three national parties: do they have some sort of of dispensation? Secondly, many of the images look a bit pixelly (i.e. the resolution is not great); the ones in this pdf seem to have a much better resolution - can the existimg images be replaced with better images? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out. The coloured ones are apparently from their election manifestoes or something. They're not the standard ones. For example, the congress party symbol is depicted along with its flag, which is not as it appears on the ballot paper. Can someone take the correct images from the above linked pdf? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 17:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good find ALoan. I must be getting blind. :) I found a way to extract those images. Will upload later. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nichalp, Adobe Acrobat 7.0 lets you save all embedded images as separate files, I think. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 18:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • The snapshot tool allows you to crop a portion. That's the only thing mentioned in the help. I's not a problem, I'll manage. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • Update: all images replaced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think it would be better if the entries in the table would be located in the center of each cell. CG 21:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, it makes it look untidy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I look foward to the time when you do the same to List of political parties in India ;o) CheekyMonkey 13:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think I'll have the energy to do all 700 odd. Getting info on its chiefs and the year it was founded was strenous enough. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. pamri 12:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers

• All User:Sam Vimes work. A good, useful complete list, jguk 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, no reference, perhaps an image? Phoenix2 16:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: the "external links" were actually the references. I've clarified this. A picci has now been added too, jguk 16:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support More pictures are going to be impossible to get unless someone actually goes to Hong Kong and photographs the lads. Looks to me like it fits all the criteria Sam Vimes 16:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I support the list also, it is well done. I wasn't suggesting that the picture actually be of someone on the list, but it wouldn't hurt to have a logo, like the one that has been added. Phoenix2 00:10, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Hkca-logo 145x115.JPG is listed as being in the public domain, but there is no evidence that this is the case. --Carnildo 06:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it be acceptable to tag it as fair use, or would it be removed then? Sam Vimes 07:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've now labelled it "logo" as per Nichalp's suggestion, jguk 11:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work. -- Ian ≡ talk 06:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Comment -- there is no evidence of the image being PD. Instead, why don't you tag it as {{logo}}? (PS there is only one person in the list who is of Chinese origin. Any idea who?) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • • I've now labelled it "logo" as per your suggestion, jguk 11:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - but query whether the remaining unlinked abbreviations in the table headings need to be linked (many readers will not know what "HS" or "Mdn" mean). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it's because we don't have articles on those subjects. Maybe a note at the bottom of the page? Sam Vimes 18:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • How about a link to the entry on List of cricket terms? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

List of spacewalks and moonwalks

• Complete list, with blue links, pictures, reference. Rmhermen 14:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, maybe check the list I reformatted (International Space Station spacewalks) as this is now featured; possibly borrow some of the formatting I used there. Will assist and eventually support: more astronomy and science lists have such potential to be featured! Phoenix2 17:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Phoenix2 04:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Comment -- this is one great list, but the reference should be linked to the pdf file. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Made direct link, separated into Reference, added couple external links. Rmhermen 15:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I will support this excellent list when it has some references - is the external link the reference? Some minor points: (i) I think it could do with a few more wikilinks - EVA, moonwalk, ALSEP, Cone crater, etc. (ii) Should there be a comma betwee "x h" and "y min"? (iii) It may be worth breaking the table down, say into decades (1960s, 1970s, etc), for ease of navigation. (iv) Why are the times for the last entry in EDT not UTC? (v) You could add some visual interest by, for example, adding nationalities for the cosmo/astronauts, perhaps using little ISOflags. - -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • (i) I made more links but note that moonwalk, spacewalk and EVA are all the same article. But I have only linked the first occurences of each term/name. (ii) No opinion. The two derivative lists are formated this way including the already featured one. NASA uses the ambiguous 2:45 format. (iii) I thought about that too. Maybe I'll try it - I am not great at tables. (iv) I am even worse at converting times. The list is in UTC and EDT is 4,5,6 hours different? Someone please help! (v) I am not sure this is a good idea. First it isn't that ineresting since virtually all will be American and Soviet/Russian. More difficult, though, a number of spacewalks have astronauts of multiple nationalities and I don't know how to easily put 2 flags in one box. Someday maybe even three. Rmhermen 15:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Object reluctantly until the time issue is dealt with, and references are added for the entries listed from 29 April 1997. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. fulfills all the criteria -- Ian ≡ talk 06:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (I added year breaks BTW)
  • How are the year breaks supposed to display? Last night I saw them as thick grey lines, today they are wide blue bars. Why did they change? Rmhermen 14:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yikes! Template got changed. Ãrticle should be OK now. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Meets all FL criteria--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: There is one uncrossed out "object" here. It seems to have been a relatively minor one that has now been corrected (all the times are now in UTC and it is clear that this change has happened since ALoan made his comment). I'll therefore treat ALoan's objections as dealt with, and his vote as "neutral" (which is playing it safe as he indicated he would support if all his objections were dealt with). I'm therefore promoting the list on deemed 5-0 support, jguk 17:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • [Visiting from Wales.] I had two objections - while the UTC point is dealt with, there are still no references for the list from 1997 (i.e. entries 155 to 245). That is not really good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Oz books

This is a semi-self nom, since I have put alot of work into the list. This article is quite attractive, and lists all the official Oz books, as well as others written by the original authors, and a few modern authors (Gregory Maguire's Wicked, for example). The list is definately one of the most complete I have seen online. Peer review archives can be seen at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Oz Books/archive1. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It's likely that most if not all of the book covers on the article are public domain due to age. Would it be possible to go through and tag those that are? --Carnildo 23:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure: I believe all the covers on the page are PD, I think. I can find a list of those which are not, and I will take care of that. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1). Of the 40, 17 redlinks and another 6 are unlinked. Criteria says: A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links). 2). Are the first 14 tabular and the rest in list form because of a lack of images? I feel they all need to be in the table regardless. - Sorry, Ian ≡ talk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC) All issues resolved. This is a top list: well linked, referenced, well laid out, comprehensive and useful. A credit to the author. Strong support -- Ian ≡ talk 05:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason for the redlinks is, frankly, lack of availability of many of the later Oz books (out of print), and thus they are harder to find to read to write about. As to the images, many of the later books are still copyrighted, so I'm not sure if this is ok for a FLC, since it does fall under fair use. Any opinions? [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the {{bookcover}} tag is fine for all the images. The FLC criteria only asks for "acceptable copyright status". To quote from WP:Copyrights: In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available). -- Ian ≡ talk 01:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • {{bookcover}} clearly covers the fair-use use of such images in a list like this. --Carnildo

SupportOppose -- doesn't seem to be complete. The first 21 are comprehensive, but then the others seem to be lost. I would prefer supporting a complete list, and sadly the above info is incomplete (due to unavoidable causes mentioned above). =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Its much much better, but would still like to see the titles of the book having an article of their own. I'll lend my support once those links are inked. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comments: Good stuff, and much better for the having dealt with the above comments already, but (i) section 2.2 ("Other non-canon Oz works by "Royal Historians" ") now looks the poor cousin on section 2.1 - can you make the style the same? Can you source bookcovers for these books too? (ii) Section 3 says entitled "Others (a partial list)" - why is this a partial list? Is it a selection, in which case what are the criteria, or is it just incomplete? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I put the others in a table, and changed "Others" to "Altenate Oz" because thats what all of them are. I will try and soursce the covers. I'd like to say I scanned the from my extensive Oz book collection, but that would be a lie. Most of them were borrowed from WelcomeToOz.net. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 17:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks - but now the formatting of the various tables differs - please could you make them consistent. You still haven't explained the selection criteria for section 4, "some books which deal with alternate views of Oz" - which ones are included and why? Why are the others missed out? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been on vacation the past week. I'm working on "consistency" of the tables, but as to the "alternate Oz" section, I've never really been fond of it. It was there when I began editing the article, and I feel it's never going to be on par with the other sections. The only reason it's there is probably the popularity of the "Wicked" books and their die-hard fans, and the historical notablity of Volkov's work. Most of Volkov's books aren't even available in English. Due to their apocryphal nature, I would not be against removing the whole thing. --[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I may be the one who created this list, and originally I did not wish to include apocryphal titles. But after somebody else submitted Gregory Maguire, I realised that some of the apocryphal titles are so well known in their own right - some have even been bestsellers - that they ought to be at least mentioned and put into the context of the list. It is virtually impossible to make a comprehensive list of all Oz apocrypha, and much of it is truly esoteric. I probably have about 100 such titles on my bookshelves right now. The titles currently listed under "Alternate" in this Wikipedia article, are most likely the most independently successful, comercial and well known of the Oz apocrypha, as far as that is possible to guage. By the way, if I'm allowed a vote here, I SUPPORT. --Woggly 06:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold 15:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

List of Canadian provincial and territorial orders

This list is mainly a condensed version of what each province awards and some of the key elements of the awards, such as the medal, ribbon bar and post-nominal letters. I also tried to include the number of people who received each honor, but some provinces do not keep a count of people with a certain honor. All of the photos of the medals are {{CanadaCopyright}} from the Canadian Forces website and the ribbon bars were drawn by me and released into the public domain. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comments - Pretty, but there are no references (other than the external links in the table). Some apppropriate categories should also be added. Are there any other systems of Commonwealth honours that should be linked? (For example, do the Australian states award their own honours?) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I need to add the categories, but I do not think it would be needed to add the Commonwealth honors, since Canadian provincial awards are a part of the Canadian honours system. I also need to add the order of presedence Canadian Forces instituted, but I ordered the table in ABC order. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC) {PS: on a side note, did you see my apology ALoan?)
    • Support - thanks for the response. I have also tweaked a little. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I like it. Phoenix2 01:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work -- Ian ≡ talk 03:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the title needs to appear bolded in the lead. --Sophitus 04:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support on the condition that the spelling errors are cleaned up.Oppose for now -- not familiar with the terms, I had to do a lot of clicking around to come to the conclusion that the awards are civilian decorations[?]. I would like to see some mention of what the awards are for: eg. "civilian medals awarded for excellent services" . =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • The provincial orders can also be presented to those who are non-Canadians (but residents of the province) and also can be presented to CF personell. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me know once you've added the above info. I'll support then. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I added it a few minutes before you posted your above message. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It doesn't read clearly. " a separate order to their residents regardless of nationality and personel of the Canadian Forces". 1) I would still prefer it to be mentioned somewhere that it is a civilian award given for excellent services rendered.... something on those lines 2) How long would a person have to reside there before it was awarded? If he was a Greek citizen, and he did something heroic on the first day he moved to the state, would he qualify?
          • Each province has their own rules, which are explained on their separate articles. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment I think the list should cross-reference with List of Canadian awards. Circeus 05:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've copyedited, but feel free to correct any other spelling mistakes. List of Canadian awards is now linked. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Archbishops of Canterbury

Looks good to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm not going to vote because there is no lead, will check back and vote (Maybe an image!). Phoenix2 16:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah - good point. Added a lead (cribbed from Archbishop of Canterbury) and made the refs into refs. I've also split the table into Roman Catholic and Church of England. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well done, support. Phoenix2 15:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - looks good to me. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very well done, although it seems odd to think of Thomas Cranmer as a Roman Catholic Archbishop. Dsmdgold 01:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – 1) I clicked at random on Adrian and I got a dab page. Are there any more people that are linked to dab pages? 2) The "Incumbent" column takes up too much width in 800x600. The other two columns should be given more width instead of this column. There are also some things I don't understand. i) What is FBA? I think it should be linked. ii) Why are some names eg. George Leonard Carey in mixed bold and normal font? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • (1) At random? As far as I am aware, having quickly scanned the list, none the others links to a disambiguation page, although there are a few redlinks. As far as I know, we don't have a page on that Adrian. (2) I have tweaked widths - better? (3) An FBA is a fellow of the British Academy. (4) The bold parts of the name are how the person is known (so Rowan Douglas Williams is known as Rowan Williams) - I guess that should be explained. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that should be explained, and Adrian correctly wikified. The width of the cols are ok now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done and done. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Support -- but why is the table of churches at the bottom all cramped? The data in it takes up only half of the box. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but why small font for tenure and notes? -- Ian ≡ talk 03:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it was a stylistic choice of the author of the list, as was the bolding of names (the author is not me, by the way!). I don't have strong feeling about the style either way. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is very good work --Sophitus 04:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological)

Ran across this list and found a reference for it, so here's the nomination. If there's consensus to reformat it with {{prettytable}} I will, but I thought I'd wait and see. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Update – A test of a table format can be found on the talk page. Is there any more info that should be included before I do the rest? --Spangineer (háblame) 13:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another Update – The table is finished. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - this is excellent as it stands. No need for tables. Good spot. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• PS - some years (1930s, 1940s and 2004 only) have links to articles on the balloting (e.g. Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1936). It doesn't bother me too much, but are the missing ballots going to be added? There is also a complementary List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • None of the other years have articles on their balloting, at least according to the category. I won't have time to create 60 stubs for the purpose of filling the table. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder if someone else is planning to add pages for the ballots. Query whether we should add redlinks. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, probably should. If people think that that's too many red links (it will amount to about 60, out of a total of 300-350 distinct links in the article) for it to be featured, I'll work on it and renominate the list later. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Full support Comment – I would prefer a neat table. I think it looks untidy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Compare Wisden Cricketers of the Year: is that untidy? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • WCotY is much neater as all the winners are named in a single row without those ugly brackets which are present here. I did also question the layout of the WCotY at that time too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Like I said, I'm fine with turning it into a table, especially since including the information requested by Dsmdgold will make the list even messier if it remains in its current format. ALoan, are you opposed to such a change, or do you just think it unnecessary? --Spangineer (háblame) 11:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • If you want to turn it into a table, I won't stop you: I just don't think it is necessary at the moment (although it is at the edge of when I think a list will work: if much more information is added, then a table will make it clearer). -- ALoan (Talk)
  • Table is much better. I would prefer the "primary position" demystified. Add some info in the introduction as to what each letter stands for. This will help those not familiar to baseball player roles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added a sentence to the introduction describing what the primary position refers to. Personally, I think someone who doesn't understand the individual positions should just click on the links to find out more, because I think the majority of people who look at this list are going to understand what "CF" means. In my mind, it's like explaining what a cricket captain does on one of the Cricket lists – I certainly have no idea what they do (because on this side of the lake, we play baseball), but there's a link available so that I can learn. Adding info on all the different positions will probably require another section or table, since the intro is getting pretty long. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • You can add info at the bottom of the page if the lead is too long. I agree the text is hyperlinked, but having to hover over each of them is a bit of a pain for a first time reader. Besides, there is no description or link for pioneer. You can link the table from the text Primary Position using footnote styles. There's no need for an explanation of each role, just a collated expansion of what each letter states will suffice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I still think it's unnecessary, but I've added a list of the player positions to the bottom. I'm not sure if that's what you mean. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
          • Its fine now. While its unnecessary for those who are familiar with the sport, it is helpful for those who are not. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think that there should be some mention of the criteria for election and eligibility, especially as there are several years in which there was an election and no one was selected. Also I understand most of the position notations except "builder". It also would be interesting, but not crucial, to see when those selected were active, or at least how long they had been eligible before they were elected. Dsmdgold 02:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I've added a paragraph to the lead related to the criteria. Builder is probably a bad term; looking at the individual examples it seems that it refers to "pioneer" or something similar. I'll do a bit more research and then change that. It would be possible to include each player's first year of eligibility, but I think to do so would require that this be converted to a table (which is fine). I think I might also include the percentage of ballots approving the player. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I like the new paragraph, thank you. The builder/pioneer thing is still a bit cryptic, but I can live with it, I like the table on the talk page, I assume that the cross mark in the percentage column will point to a foot note that explains why no percentage is available. Support the current version or the table, but would prefer the table. Dsmdgold 22:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I checked it out -- it's "builder" in the sense that they made a large impact on the game off the field, so people like owners and league executives/visionaries are included in it. Re the missing percentages, yes, I'll put in a note on that. It turns out that players selected by the Veterans Committee don't have their vote made public, but those selected by the baseball writers do. I'll be sure to add a note on that once I finish the table and move it into the article. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• neutral for now, as the table is much easier to read and I suggest that it be made the main article. Also perhaps a definition of what a builder is. With those changes I would support. Much better now, and has my full support. say1988 21:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I also think the list would be greatly improved with a table. Will probably support after one is added. --Sophitus 07:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Question Thanks for adding the table. Regarding the following sentence: "a total of 260 individuals have been selected, including 212 players, 17 managers, 8 umpires, and 23 pioneers and executives", some members of the Hall of Fame were both players and managers or filled other dual roles. How are they accounted for in this breakdown? --Sophitus 17:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Basically, when inducted into the hall of fame, everyone was given a "primary position". So everyone is only recognized once, and what they are recognized for is determined somewhere in the process of putting the person on the ballot. It also happens for people who never managed but played more than one position, for example, Paul Molitor – he played 3rd base a lot, but is recognized by the hall for being a designated hitter. On the old list, there was some confusion about what position the player was recognized for, but in the table I only listed the player's primary position (according to the Hall). --Spangineer (háblame) 17:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, great work on this. I now Support --Sophitus 17:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I added rowspan tags to the year column. Great list -- Ian ≡ talk 05:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The "Year" numbers in the table don't line up correctly with the inductees. For example, the 1946 inductees appear to run from Tommy McCarthy to Frankie Frisch. The actual inductees are Jesse Burkett (5 players above McCarthy) through Ed Walsh (2 players above Frisch). See http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/inducted.htm Krakatoa 23:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Er - it looks fine to me - the date is centred, and there should be a horizontal line above Jesse Burkett and below Ed Walsh. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks OK to me too. Here's a screendump, using Firefox. Maybe you have a browser issue. Ian ≡ talk 09:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Test cricket records

Self-nom. Yet another cricket list but I think it looks good and presents useful data in a package that's not available anywhere else I've seen. Topical also, as table #5 got updated only a couple of days ago. - Ian ≡ talk 13:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support jguk 14:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comments - good work, but some niggles. (i) I wonder how much effort it is going to be to keep parts up to date, for example, "Matches played", or the individual records for active players. (ii) There are no references (presumably the external links are references, plus Wisden?). (iii) I still dislike {{TOCright}}. (iv) The images disrupt the consistency of column widths; on the other hand, some more images would be welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There's lots of articles which need to be kept up to date - all the national team pages now have infoboxes with the number of Tests played for example. I don't see this as any different and if it falls 1 or 2 matches behind - so what? The next person along will update. I just went through and updated it and other than the 1st table, only Shane Warne needed updating. I'm not sure I understand your 2nd point - yes, the external links to the corresponding Cricinfo page is the reference. I also didn't like TOCright, and it's now gone. - Ian ≡ talk 15:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • (i) Fair enough; I was just testing the water. I just worry that we are setting ourselves up for a fall. I suppose the best way to deal with this is with an explicit "As of ...". (ii) There needs to be a section entitled "References" which list all of the sources that were used to compile, and can be used to check, the contents of the article. I think all of the external links are indeed references, and I'm sure Wisden would be too. (iii) Thanks. (iv) Images? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • (i) There is a "Records current to" section already there. As most of the tables will rarely change, I've put it in once only to assist editing. (ii) Every table has a "Source:" at the bottom. Is this not sufficient? (iv) all images are now removed -- Ian ≡ talk 01:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Ian, the records rarely change, and when they change its big news. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • I will support when a References section is added - it is an explicit requirement of the criteria. It is good that each entry has a link to Cricinfo - is that the only source? Was nothing checked at cricketarchive or in Wisden?-- ALoan (Talk) 20:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • 1). ==References== added 2). All the tables have been rechecked against Cricketarchive. I suppose it's a matter of personal preference which one you use, but they all report the same data. I happen to prefer Cricinfo. 3). Wisden operates Cricinfo. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Support. Excellent. Query whether the external links need to have dates added ("Downloaded ...") but I perhaps the "Records current to" section deals with that adequately. Also query whether it would be worth adding links to the Cricketarchive pages that confirm the information from Cricinfo? (I know Wisden owns Cricinfo, but do they always agree in all particulars?) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Full support: amazing list! Comments: 1) Some of the images used have a dubious licence. I suggest you not use them. 2) Shouldn't The Oval and Lord's be rendered as London? All other cricket grounds have the city name displayed. Seems inconsistant to me. Great info BTW. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• 2). I've added ", London" to both to differentiate.

• Object
  1. The image Image:Melb-MCG.JPG is claimed under fair use. I don't think fair use can be claimed here, as the image is not essential to the article.
  2. The images Image:Bradman 2.jpg, Image:Markwaugh.jpg, Image:Steve Waugh.jpg do not have source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 20:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I've edited the intro a bit. I think it reads a little better now. I will support if the two "Progression of Records" tables are in chronological rather than reverse chronological order. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Changing the order would be a bit odd I think. All the tables that report positive results show the leading record at the top and the current record is the one you want the readers eye drawn to. I'd be interested in others opinions though. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with OpenToppedBus. A "progression of the record" should start with the earliest record score and move on towards the present day, jguk 06:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Update - progression tables order reversed -- Ian ≡ talk 15:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Fully support now. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

List of Indian state and union territory capitals

UPDATE: Name changed A nicely detailed list of the capitals of India's states and Union territories. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• This will definitely have to be renamed. "UT" has very little meaning in this context to non-Indians.--Pharos 20:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to rename it if there is a consensus. The acronym UT is popularly used, and it's well explained in the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I think I'd prefer a name change as well, because for me UT is Utah. Could it be "List of Indian territory capitals" or "List of Indian state and territory capitals" or would it have to be "List of Indian state and united territory captials"? Also, the "various authors" thing on the first reference is a bit shaky -- who is the book's primary author? --Spangineer (háblame) 22:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • • The book is a factbook (like say the Guiness Book of World records) where there's no single author. I've added the chief editor's name instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, looks good. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with spangineer above, change the title --Sophitus 22:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Meets all the criteria for featured lists. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Dsmdgold 13:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Sophitus 17:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of sex positions

This list has been in the top 100 for pages viewed on Wikipedia for at least a year. It contains references, drawings and is at least as comprehensive as the average human sexuality book. It is the currently the number one list on Wikipedia by number of page views (not just looking at en, but overall) and is the first link returned from a Google search of list of sex positions. I consider it featured list quality or very close. Jrincayc 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it is very good, but I think this has too much content to be a list! Perhaps it should be nominated on WP:FAC - if they shoot it down then we may take it. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support seems quite comprehensive. I love the pictures (its funny how generic sex position picture always have a guy with a huge beard and long hair). Where can you see the top 100 most viewed pages on wikipedia?--The_stuart 14:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Current Statistics and old statistics on usage. Jrincayc 12:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks alot, intresting stuff!--The_stuart 13:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support Rama 12:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I don't like how image heavy this is. Images should complement the list (i.e. go alongside the text that is there), not lengthen it (some sections would be much much shorter if the images weren't there). Most of the images are on the subpages, so I'd suggest removing some of them from this list. I'm also a bit displeased with the inconsistent linking on the page (some entries just redirect to another entry's article and there the two are said to be synonymous). --Spangineer (háblame) 17:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't get any comments on it, so I just went in and made the changes myself. The page still seems to be rather messy, but now I'm neutral. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Jrincayc 12:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support well that was educational. --Sophitus 22:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: Let's give this to 13:52 on 9 August (ie a whole fortnight) to allow for Spangineer's concerns to be addressed and/or for further comments, jguk 08:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  sex positions 2A05:1A00:208:1D00:A9DD:B8CA:F4F5:4D5A (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

List of countries with nuclear weapons

Comprehensive, useful and well organised. Most of the comments in the talk pages seem to have been addressed. - Ian ≡ talk 15:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This is really a pretty remarkable article in general; I've never seen any other resource (on the internet or elsewhere) with such a comprehensive international coverage (I say this as an academic researcher in the history of nuclear weapons). What it lacks in a few spots (some typos, some entries not filled out very well, etc.), it makes up for with its breadth and large amount of external links as references. --Fastfission 16:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is excellent - I will support it when it has some references. It could also do with some more images - e.g. the first atomic bomb tests of each nation. An easy win is to use the ISO country code templates (e.g. United States) which automatically introduces dinky flag images.-- ALoan (Talk) 20:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I count 26 references plus 4 URL's under external links. That's more than almost any other FL. I'll add the flag's as you suggest and see what it looks like. - Ian ≡ talk 01:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Flags added - Ian ≡ talk 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Great - I hope everyone agrees that this looks better. Re references, I meant (as User:Nichalp indicates) that there needs to be a references section where the references are all drawn together. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support Object – Its really informative and well done BUT the references are not correctly formatted. Please refer to the Australia article for the correct rendering of the inline references. Will support only after that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of the obj. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

References now moved into new section. I also merged the two Japan paras into one but in hindsight am unsure if that was correct. Feel free to split them again. It's a top article and kudos to those who wrote it. I just hope I haven't mashed it up too much. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. If it weren't for the title, I think you'd have a good chance with this on the main FA. -- user:zanimum
• Support amazingly comprehensive - well done --Sophitus 22:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great list. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support One of the best lists I've seen come through here. Dsmdgold 15:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. No objection. -- Darwinek 08:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined

Just to complete the set, this is much the same as the other two featured lists of members of the Commonwealth of Nations (by continent and by name). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Sophitus 03:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Phoenix2 17:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

United Nations member states

Just found this, like a pearl lying on the beach. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I really like it so far. Is there any chance an image of the UN building or the UN logo could be added somewhere? --Sophitus 21:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Added the UN flag and the {{United Nations}} template. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support Very well done --Sophitus 16:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, though I wonder if this would this look better with {{prettytable}}. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is just a list of countries and dates, a bit like the featured Commonwealth of Nations lists: I doubt that {{prettytable}} would add much, unless the table included the notes too (but that would be rather duplicative).

However, it has come to my attention that the notes need some work (some of the cross-references are wrong, which seems to be due to Korea and The Gambia being deleted at some point, and the Yemen notes are currebtly out of alphabetical order: it would help if the current system was replaced by one of the automatic note/footnote/reference systems). I will look at it in the next few days if no-one beats me to it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support: some suggestions: 1) Is it possible to bold the countries that were the founding members? 2) A note about India: India joined the UN in 1945 as a colony, not as an independent country. Similarly Pakistan and Bangladesh also joined on that day as part of undivided India but formally joined much later. 3) In the section mentioning the countries never to have joined, Sikkim could be mentioned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • The founder members are now in bold; similar issues with Ukraine, for example: perhaps I should add a note re India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sikkim isn't even an observer, as far as I can see. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah a note about the countries would be informative. Your hyperlinked notes do not work BTW. Sikkim was an independent country till 1975. From 1945 to 1975 Sikkim had no contact with the UN. [1]. From what I understand, it is the only country never to be a part of any of the UN organs. The UN though, has a country code for Sikkim: 698 [2] =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand national cricket captains

I nominated this before. As you can see it failed because there were too many redlinks (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/New Zealand national cricket captains/Archive1). Others and I have now written articles so there are no longer redlinks, so I'd like to renominate it, SmokeDog 13:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object, needs a few more pictures. Phoenix2 17:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Phoenix2. A picture of a match in progress or something of that nature would make the top much more visually appealing. Meelar (talk) 19:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • The featured list criteria do not require a picture, and many featured lists and other candidates (eg look at the ones on elements) do not have a picture. It seems unfair to single this one out. I'm not sure what a match in progress would do - it's unlikely to give an indication of what any New Zealand captain looks like, SmokeDog 07:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The criteria are only minimum requirements. While a list could be promoted without images, they are strongly preferred. How 'bout pictures of some of the captains? Another suggestion, could the lead be expanded to give more context to the list and better explain its subjects. For instance: what is a national cricket captain? (I honestly don't know. Do they hold a certain position, or just some kind of authority or what?). --Dmcdevit·t 08:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The title should appear bolded somewhere in the first paragrah. And I agree with the others that a couple of more pictures would really improve the article. --Sophitus 02:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• I've added another picci and put the title in bold in the introduction. There's a real difficulty in getting non-copyright pics though - no doubt they will be added as and when pics become available, jguk 20:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making those changes. I'm almost ready to support, but I have one more concern. Since I know very little about cricket, I was wondering how important captains are considered in the sport. Are they mostly ceremonial like in baseball or do they have a very important leadership role as in ice hockey? Are there any other aspects of captainship that should be mentioned in the article? --Sophitus 20:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support since most of my concerns have been addressed --Sophitus 17:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is an important role - the captain selects the bowling order and fielding positions during a match, among other things. There's already a full article at captain (cricket). sjorford →•← 08:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a very important role. I'm speculating but I think its the only sport where the captain's acumen can win the game. When he's playing on the field he cannot directly consult the coach for ideas. Add to that the country's media baying for the captain's head each time a series is lost. I think you should read the article on cricket, its well explained there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Suport =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 01:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: I'll give this one four more days. One photo has been added after Phoenix's comments. Currently the featured list criteria are explicit in not requiring any photos whatsoever. Comments on what should happen here would be welcome, jguk 19:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support I know how hard it is to get cricket pictures - basically the only way is to be at the actual ground to get them under proper licenses - two should be plenty. Sam Vimes 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support as it stands: more pictures would be nice, but it is not a sufficient reason to prevent it being featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant to add, I decided to be bold this morning and promote this: it has some images, and I can't see why this should languish on WP:FLC or in the failed log when the other cricket capitans lists have been promoted. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)