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.
AFL4503:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak SupportOppose - Yes the list is complete. What would make it better is not so many red links, but they will happen over time. JasrocksTalk07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Blackmissionary23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Renata20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. RogerthatTalk10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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@n01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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-KP23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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).
Renata16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Renata14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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-KP15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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?
Renata17:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. —
Rodtalk20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.—
Rodtalk09:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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-KP22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. Could you make the link to Avon in the introduction go directly to the specific Avon rather than to a disambig page.
Wittylama16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Needs areas in square miles or acres. No explanation of checks and x's (would be less confusing if only checkmarks were used.)
Rmhermen17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'll add a note explaining crosses & check marks. I note your comment abour areas - can you explain your reasoning?
SP-KP22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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-KP10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
American traditional units is the intention of those rules (not Imperial). We want articles to be usable by the widest audience possible.
Rmhermen16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
Rmhermen16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ13:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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) .
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: 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. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ17:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Renata01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Pharos08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Pharos09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Rmhermen15:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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).
CG14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
mervyn10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Pepsidrinka00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)reply
What does "Until 1960, and then sporadically later on, the awards for Best Film were not handed out to any one person." mean?
"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.
Oppose. Nothing great about this list. It seems as plain text. Could you change the design of the page, maybe a tabular form?
CG13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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).
Renata01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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...
Renata11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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 I18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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? --
evrik01:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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!
Dafoeberezin349404:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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).
Rmhermen21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply