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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i have been working on improving the article, its formatting, sourcing, prose etc and i believe that it is of good quality. have also had the article peer reviewed and actioned any suggestions Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks solid. I made a few super-minor edits of my own, but other than that, this looks great. No complaints; happy to immediately support its nom. Nice work! Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question I'm looking at "Promotional singles", all of which is sourced to ref [3]. I looked at ref [3]. I can't see any of this section referenced by this. Can you explain? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] forgot about those! positions couldn't be sourced by allmusic or billboard so removed and added notes. Mister sparky (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comments "Debut single.." reads a little odd to me starting the sentence this way. Their debut single? changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] "...number one in a number of countries..." I always dislike "in a number of" because to me it's totally redundant... changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] "The album peaked at number five on the US Billboard 200[4] and within the top ten of the majority of countries in which it was released and it was certified..." x and y and z... too many clauses for me. changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Your 3x in the lead uses a different x from the rest of the list. missed that one! Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'd prefer to see references in numerical order (you have, for instance, a [4][1][2] and an [8][7]). changed, it does look better. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Snoop is overlinked in the lead. removed the second. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just me, but the alt text seems a little weak, you could describe, for instance, what they're wearing. added a brief description Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Exclusive release - where is this cited? added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Should that be "featuring Missy Elliot" rather than "with"? all of the say "with" for consistency. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Promotional singles now completely unreferenced? added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Same for Video album. added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] What makes Kloss and Lee more significant than Kahn (i.e. redlink vs no link)? joseph kahn is linked two cells above. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those dab links came from a section that a very annoying ip added without me noticing, been removed so dab links no longer exist. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Thus far, all attempts at convincing me that Chart Stats holds up to our standards for sources have failed. I suggest you look for another source. Goodraise 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replaced with everyhit.com and chartsplus. Mister sparky (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose stricken. Switching to neutral. Goodraise 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again. After researching everyHit.com, I fail to see how it meets the criteria. Goodraise 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it would fail WP:RS by the about section. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the BBC regularly uses everyhit.com as a source for its music articles one eg here, the BBC would not use a source which is unreliable. Mister sparky (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also, everyhit.com has been cited by British MPs during policy discussions: [2]. Mister sparky (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also by Reuters and even in Norway. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that we should be using everyHit.com, especially since better sources do exist. Sadly the reliable sources noticeboard thread on the source has not produced any feedback that could persuade me. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh well. if its use in various undoubtedly reliable sources will not alter your opinion then i fail to see how anything will. nevermind. Mister sparky (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have no outstanding issues with this, looks solid. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [3].

---

Nominator(s): ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards of other featured lists, as well as the criteria neccessary to be featured. So here goes. ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments A few things catch my eye right off the bat: 23 chart positions? Really? MOS:DISCOG recommends a limit of 10. 23 is not only an indiscriminate amount of information, it's also bordering on fandom, in my opinion. Done - Dropped to ten chart positions. Some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography. Done - Added general references. "Download only single" is neither a title nor a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized nor italicized. Removed capitals, italics. Why are the live eps seperated from the other eps? Since they have more than one live ep, I thought to separate them, but I've since joined the two groups. Not sure if the recording for Mammoth qualifies as a music video per se. It's listed on the band's official website in their "Video" section, and it was used on various music channels as the promotional video. Further comments by Drewcifer3000 (This is just a straight copy+paste of a message from my talk page left at 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)):[reply] Try to keep the column widths consistent between tables (mainly the second column, which usually holds the album/ep/song title). Done - I've made the widths consistent for eps/albums/singles, should i be doing the same for music videos/other appearances (which have slightly different column headings)? The second table only has one chart column, so I don't think you need the header and sub-header thing going on there. I've retitled the section simply "French Albums Chart". The single table re-wikilink the album titles, which are already wikilinked before that. Yeah i was thinking about this one actually, I've delinked the repeat links. Replies by SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Discographies should only include previously unreleased material. It appears that many of the track listed in compilations were released previously (on the albums), so I'd recommend taking those out. There's no need to list every compilation/commercial/movie trailer a song of their's has shown up in if that song had already been released. I realised it would be unneccessary to include every time any song was included on some sort of compilation, so included songs which were not stand-alone singles, but which were included in third-party formats. A similar style is used in Bloc Party's discography, another featured list, and the section's lead mentions this. See below. This still bugs me. The see blow link isn't work for me.... But also, I don't think the argument that "the Bloc party discog did it, and it's FL" is much of an argument (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Those songs have already been released, so their inclusion in another table is redundant, as it's basically a recycling of old material. And the fact that they've been re-released by a third party in my opinion only means that they've less of a place in a discography, not more, since we're concerned with releases from the band, not by releases they have no control over.. Drewcifer (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC Whoops, forgot about that. I had put in a lev3 header but it was removed because of FLC rules. It was linking to the bit below about "In response to issues with "Compilations"". Numerous FLs include it and i think this is with good measure (i know I'm all sorts of WAXy right now), it shows where else their music has been included, such as film soundtracks (if applicable), and compilations by websites and magazines. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 08:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] This discussion is continued below, under the section mentioned above. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 10:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] In response to issues with "Compilations" After looking through various discographies found in FL-Class Discography articles, I noticed that a similar manner of displaying songs found on other releases is used in Nirvana discography, here titled "Other appearances". I have retitled the section in this discography accordingly. Please see there for the rationale for its inclusion. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Again, just because another FL has it, doesn't mean it's right. Also, the Nirvana discog was promoted a very long time ago, way before we had MOS:DISCOG, at least. Standards have improved dramatically since then. So I believe there still hasn't really been a non-WP:WAX argument for their inclusion. Drewcifer (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I understand where you are coming from, but I am not simply saying ignorantly that this section should exist in this article purely because other articles have it. That is exactly what WAX talks about. I am trying to say that i think the reason that it should be kept in this article, and in all other articles, is because I feel this section is relevant. It shows where songs have been included in areas of notability, for example, a CD released by a magazine detailing the best songs of the year. Its not just another "article x", almost every article in the FL-class discography category contains this section with different wording. AIC, Death Cab, and Bloc Party are just a few of the examples, while David Bowie seems to have an extensive list on his page. Reading through each FL review, it is never mentioned that this is an issue, including by yourself on a number of occasions. I know your retort would be to say that these were a long time ago, but a number were fairly recent, including Bowie. Surely your work still acted on the guidelines of MOS:DISCOG, regardless of whether or not the guideline itself was written? And surely it is not black and white what is in the MOS or not, considering it itself is still only a proposed guideline? If I am wrong, I am more than happy to admit that and will remove the table (it probably wouldn't be the first time!) So, may i propose that before the conclusion of this debate, a discussion is opened at WP:DISCOG to fully decide this for all discographies? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 10:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's not the section that I have a problem with; you're absolutely right, most discogs do contain some sort of "Other appearances" type of section. Where this section differs from many is that this one includes previously-released material. You're right, the Nirvana and Bloc Party do include them, but WAX says that doesn't matter. The reason MOS:DISCOG includes this caveat is because songs tend to be used all over the place (commercials, tv shows, trailers, "Best of the Year" comps, etc). If we say one type of re-release is worth noting (in this case a CD compilation), then the others must follow. It is a very slippery slope, so it's far simpler and more focused (and this goes for the discog as a whole) to keep it to original material, and not re-released material, regardless of how it's packaged. Drewcifer (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I'll back down on this if it means that the article looks better as a whole. A lot of the foundations of this article were based on what was written on Bloc Party's, which is probably the reason I included it here. I think we should probably sort some of the FL's out though, as they were all let in to the club with this section whereas it has to be removed here. As a comprimise, I propose leaving "Direction", as this was not previously released? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Direction should definitely stay, as should the first two, since these compilations were the first time they were released, correct? If you feel this is worth a larger discussion at MOS:DISCOG I'd he happy to participate, but I think the examples you've given are in the minority, not the majority. However, I'd be happy to bring this type of thing up to the larger community, if you think that would help. Drewcifer (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] ←Its quite good to hear you say that, considering I was going to mention something about the releases pre-dating the EP in my next comment. I will downsize the table to include these three songs. Should the releases be mentioned in the article's lead? As well as this, I think we could act on what has been finalised in this review, as i previously mentioned I based most of the table on what was written in Bloc Party's discography - meaning a lot of the data is the section there should probably be removed too. If we comb the articles in FL-class Discography articles - or possibly all articles included in the project - we could swiftly remove unnecessary information and bring the project to a better status as a whole. The topic could be discussed outside of this review, on WP:DISCOG, perhaps? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. Happy to finally support. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, If you feel like bringing up the Other appearances thing at WP:DISCOG, let me know and I'd be happy to contribute to the conversation. Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cannibaloki 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs) Add alternative text and caption for the image on the infobox. Done. "Interlude" is not a song from Turn On the Bright Lights? Done - "Interlude" was released as a bonus track to the above album in Japan and Mexico only, yes, but prior to this it had not been available in the UK. I've added a note to clarify that. "Doug Aitken/Adam Levite" Add a comma instead of a slash. Done - this formatting was used in the source, but I have changed regardless. "Recorded live at London's Astoria, February 7, 2007" is the director of "Mammoth"? Also, why the sentence is in italics? It was explained above that the video is a live performance which was used as a promotional video. The sentence is in italics to show it is not a director, what formatting do you think is a better idea? "Listed are songs that were not released by Interpol as stand-alone singles, but which were included in third-party formats." What? It would be more useful to the candidacy review as a whole if you could explain your point more in future. If you mean an explanation. the sentence simply means that "This is a list of songs which the band have not released as singles (see single (music)), but have been released by a third-party (ie, on a compilation release, in a manner not controlled by the band). This line is used in Bloc Party discography, a fellow featured list. Cannibaloki 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Replies by SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per MOS:DISCOG#What should not be included (Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases.).--Cannibaloki 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for your opposition considering you believe the comments above to be resolved, and that the below comments are not to do with "What should not be included". If the directors consider my comments invalid, you will have no problem seeing this discography as a featured list.--Cannibaloki 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] It is not that I think your comments are invalid, I was just puzzled by them. As you will see below, an agreement has been reached regarding the section which you have an issue with. If you are in favour of this agreement, would it be possible for you to reconsider your opinion? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] "—" denotes albums that did not chart, or were ineligible to chart. How ineligible? (Are you trying to invent something?) Please reword to "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country. Done. Your source for sales is not outdated? Antics was certified gold by RIAA (+500,000 copies sold), but your source says this album sold only 488,000 copies. Fixed - There is no source of updated information, so I have removed the sales figures. Distributor → Label Fixed. Add formats for albums and EPs (see In Flames discography) Done. "Mammoth" was released as enhanced CD (maxi-single) including the music video for this song, probably the name of the director is in the credits of this release.--Cannibaloki 16:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see you've already found this. No idea how, considering I hunted in all corners of the world for this, so well done. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Would prefer to know what NYU is before you abbreviate it. I have reworded to "Interpol was formed in 1997 by New York University students Daniel Kessler and Greg Drudy" Feels a bit like the alt text is cheap and easy, could you not expand it a little to include colours, and perhaps surroundings? I've reworded to mention the orange lit stage and the black backdrop, and noted the pieces of equipment on the stage. "The EP sold out, despite being the band's first release in Europe and the United Kingdom" - I think you've already told us it was the first release. Perhaps look at merging this sentence with the previous one. I've removed the bit about the country, and merged the two sentences following. "two previous EPs" personal taste, but "previous two EPs" works better for me. No big deal. Done. " the band members released Antics" reads odd, wasn't it just released by the band? Fixed. No idea why i did that. "The record charted in more..." perhaps, "The album charted..."? Changed. "longest charting" needs a hyphen. Done. "had parted ways" a little colloquial for a business arrangement discussed by an encyclopedia. Changed to "left". What does N/A mean in the albums table? When the band signed to Capitol, the album was no longer eligible to chart in the independant album chart, which was why i used "N/A". I've replaced it with "—", as I realise the key can cover ineligibility. Why is FRANCE as such in the EPs table? Instead of using "FRA", which left a lot of empty space in the box, but I'll change it to this anyway. The ref [23] doesn't support the fact that five out of six EPs didn't chart. Unless I missed something? Well the ref shows all the albums by interpol which have charted in France, as well as EPs (as i think EPs are treated like albums over there). Only the three albums and one EP have charted. Is this okay? I have also added a key to the bottom of the EPs section explaining the dashes. "download only" should be hyphenated. Done. No I In Threesome has no references at all. Are we supposed to assume that lack of reference (in all the chart info) means it actually did exist and therefore because it isn't mentioned in the references it didn't chart? Not good enough for me. I've scoured the internet for some mention of this and its not really spoke about much past "Radio single" in US and UK. Considering what this means isn't perfectly defined, I'm going to remove it from the singles section but leave it in the music videos section, as it is sourced that it has a video (albeit this implies a full release). Why is Mammoth notes italicised? I've unitalicised (?) them, and moved them outside the box. External link could use a bullet point before the link. Shouldn't have missed that. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Replies by SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question—Does a live performance video even count as a music video?—indopug (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a music video is surely just a promotional video for a single or even a piece of music (the latter applying to No I in Threesome, I think we've discovered), and on that basis I don't think that what the work can be is restricted in any way. On top of this, its listed on Muzu, NME and a few other websites as an "official video", and I can remember them playing it on MTV2 and NME, despite the fact I can't really get a source for that. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 06:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Thus far, all attempts at convincing me that Chart Stats holds up to our standards for sources have failed. I suggest you look for another source. Goodraise 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - I have removed all references to ChartStats. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, Zobbel and Alpha Charts also don't meet the criteria. Goodraise 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am unsure about this also, so I have added a note to a discussion already going over at WP:RS to clear it up for me, as I don't know where to look for answers. Despite this, aCharts is listed under WP:GOODCHARTS, suggesting its a good chart. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restarted this discussion here. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told here that ChartStats / everyHit fall under WP:GOODCHARTS, while Zobbel and aCharts do not. All of the aCharts references have been removed. I think that all of the Zobbel references can be replaced with ChartStats references (Haven't done this as of yet so i could get a response here first). --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that discussion. Nothing substantial has been said there. Aside from everyHit.com (which I am almost willing to accept per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources), all of these sources fail our criteria. Let me remind you that not some obscure guideline but WP:RS and WP:V are what we use to determine the reliability of sources. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider GOODCHARTS "some obscure guideline"? Surely this is the most appropriate guideline in terms of record charts. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a style guideline that focuses on record charts, it is the most appropriate guideline when it comes to record charts related questions of style. However, reliability of sources is a question of content, which is handled by content guidelines, specifically by WP:RS. Even if source reliability was within the guideline's competence (which it isn't), would the sources it deems reliable have to meet the requirements of our policy (perhaps in a way outlined by its accompanying guideline). Goodraise 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←After further discussion of the sources, I agree Zobbel shouldn't be used (since it includes disks which are ineligible to chart) and I will side with you on ChartStats, as its reliability is still in question. I have removed references to the above two with the exception of two citations, which I am leaving in for just now purely for flagging. I am currently waiting on an answers to a further question which i have asked RS, so I ask again that this is put on hold until I am given an answer. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Its official, Zobbel is gone! After looking through one of your more recent FLC's, I found ChartsPlus in the Ashley Tisdale discography article. As such, I've replaced all Zobbel references with ChartsPlus references. This satisfies WP:V per WP:PAYWALL. Took me a while to find that. Can I have your support now? --20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• EveryHit.com, on which discussion is still ongoing at WP:RSN, is still being used, so no, I'm still opposing. By the way, looking at the main article, it seems that this discography fails the featured list criterion 3. (b). Goodraise 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't understand why you've added the {{nl icon}} template like its French template counterpart, when the |language= field is much better suited for the {{cite web}} template. #47 is in Caps also. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was a straight copy from another FL, I didn't think any more to remove it than to include it. I've removed all copies of {{* icon}} and replaced them with the language field. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ref #6 "2002--04-26". #2, 5 and 7, the Internal link is listed as Allmusic but the reference title is listed in lower case which one is it? #39, 47 is in Caps. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the typo. For the references, the title of the page is written as "allmusic", but the wikipedia page itself is "Allmusic", which is why it was written this way. Do you object? The pages with capitals is a similar typing situation, in both, the articles themselves are titled in capitals. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The allmusic I accept, I think if the programming with Wikipedia was weird the Wiki page itself would be Lower case, though per WP:ALLCAPS the refs need to be changed. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thought there was probably a rule on this which i had missed. I've fixed it now. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just wondering since there are only 2 columns for the extended play Chart positions, why are the widths for the Chart Positions so small? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←It was added this way by Cannibaloki, so I don't want to talk for him, but I think it was because we had a discussion above about the widths remaining constant across all tables. Its the same as the widths for the albums and singles. Is this a problem? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah it isn't a problem as such it just seems weird since there are only 2 columns. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 13:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be more suited for you to give your support? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• it just looks weird since its 2 columns but the way it sounds with your above comment it seems like there was some sort of Consensus on it. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria, and I have improved the list based on feedback received during a peer review session. Thanks! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: This list should be up to par as far as reference formatting, disambig links, external links, and alt text go. A few things I am uncertain of myself:

1. Is "Historical context" an appropriate section title, or would something subject-related like "History of cannabis use" be better, with "Pre-prohibition" and "Post-prohibition" subheadings (or something along those lines)?
2. Also, I cannot find birth years for two of the politicians. How should I make this clear in the blank cells?
3. This list is specific enough that I am not sure it belongs in either of the templates currently displayed at the bottom of the list ('cannabis resources' and 'legality of cannabis in the United States'). Should the templates be removed?

Thanks so much for the suggestions and feedback, and for taking the time to review this list. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• No Disambiguous pages, external links look fine, article seems well written with a good lead and a clean and organized table. Alt text seems clear, I checked it through AWB and removed a couple of date related links but nothing major. In summery other than my skepticism of the encyclopedic value of the article I think it looks good and support. In regards to the 2 cells missing dates due to the politicians being living I would put a dash in the cell as in List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients.--Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, the problem with the blank cells is not that the politicians are living, but that I cannot find the years of birth. I am sure other reviewers will have additional ideas as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Try shortening the Reference column to just Ref. It removes some whitespace in the table, and all the entries have one cite each anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. The only suggestion I have is that {{Dynamic list}} should be above the actual list. But that is really not a big issue. As for the missing years of birth, you may need to add a footnote to explain that they can't be found.—Chris!_c/t 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the dynamic list tag, and will work on a footnote as soon as possible. Any suggestions for wording, or are you aware of an example I can look at for similar "missing information"? Thanks! -Another Believer _(Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of an example.—Chris!_c/t 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This list just uses question marks. I will insert these symbols, which I think are self-explanatory, and see if another reviewer has a problem with this or suggests an appropriate footnote to be used. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While topic is a great idea for a list, I think the List of politicians itself suffers from a lack of specificity. I'm not sure how useful it is to lump honest hemp farmers like Jefferson in with potheads/coke fiends like Obama. I'd like to be able to see from the table whether or not Michael Bloomberg for example smoked marijuana, rather than having to dig through the references section. I suggest adding a sortable column to the table for type of use; recreational/medicinal/agricultural would be one way to divide it. On another point, the captions for the Jefferson image parrots that of the Washington one; it would be best to change one of them so as to make reading them more worthwhile to the reader.  Skomorokh  15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is difficult for me to take your feedback seriously when you are calling Obama a pothead and "coke fiend". My problem with adding a column for type of use is that we cannot be certain that someone used for just one reason or all of the three you mentioned. Also, I think reading the prose informs readers that the Founding Fathers listed grew likely for agricultural purposes, and modern politicians used for recreational purposes. I did remove the duplicate caption. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The type of use ought to be specified in the sources; without this information differentiating farmers from habitual recreational drug users, this is list of people of a certain occupation from a certain country who have used a certain plant, which is about as useful as a List of Kazakh electricians who have encountered palm trees. In its current state I do not think the list meets criteria 3 [a] ("comprehensively covers the defined scope...has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items") or 4 ("easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities").  Skomorokh  23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh, please see my comment below regarding type of use. I tried addressing your concerns and Staxringold's concerns at the same time. Feel free to respond directly below this line if you would prefer to keep your section separate from Staxringold's comments. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Ignoring Skomorokh's rather... Odd comments above I have a big question about this list. Given the nature of cannabis history in the US isn't there a serious lack of pre-Civil War entries (when, according to the list, it was still domestically produced)? I realize that this list, like List of brain tumor patients (I always use that as my example of non-completable lists), can never really be completed but it comes off very thin to have twice as many entries for the past 70 years then for the near-200 years before that (particularly when growth and therefore probably use was more common). As such I too take issue with the idea that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" as the FL criteria require. Again, as with the brain tumor list I understand that you can't get every mayor who ever toked up once with a reliable source. But surely there's information on more than 9 pre-1900 born political users? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And as a sidenote, I realize that the illegality makes the use more likely to be documented and therefore source-able (Obama using pot will be far more notable and written down then some governor smoking it in a pipe when it was legal in the 1830s), but if that's what this list is going for then it should be under List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use after 1937 or 1952, or 1956, or whatever. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the background information has some pretty weighted sentences like "However, a wave of conservatism during the 1980s allowed President Ronald Reagan to accelerate the War on Drugs during his presidency, prompting anti-drug campaigns such as the "Just Say No" campaign of First Lady Nancy Reagan." (emphasis mine) With absolutely no source. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, the list was separated into two sections, distinguishing pre-prohibition use from post-prohibition use. However, at one point or another it was suggested that I combine them into a single table. If you feel the separation would be better, I'd be happy to revert to the previous version (leaving the edits made since then). Like List of recessions in the United States, I think having the pre- and post-prohibition sections makes the article flow better, and this would solve Skomorokh's concern with not stressing the type of use. While I do not like the idea of adding a 'type of use' label to each politician, as we cannot be certain that Old Abe's smoking was recreational or to help his bad back (I made up an arbitrary example), the two sections will certainly help to distinguish hemp/industrial use from modern recreational use. Thoughts?

Oh, and the source for the 1980s comment follows the next sentence. I didn't see the need to use the same citation after every sentence. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A prohibition divide would be a good step towards clarifying the ambiguity of the links. As to your Abe example, even if we do not know his motives for using cannabis, it ought to be clear his mode. Smoking it in a pipe is categorically different to wearing it as your trousers or growing it in a field.  Skomorokh  17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the list into two separate sections. Prose in the pre-prohibition section clearly focuses on hemp and industrial use, and mentions a hint of recreational use for Lincoln. Similarly, prose in the post-prohibition section focuses on recreational use by modern politicians. I think this works well in that it distinguishes industrial and recreational use, but still illustrates the "universality" of cannabis--the prose explains how use has changed over time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely like a pre/post prohibition composition better, it brings the text into the list in a nicer way than before. But still my bigger issue remains. Were there really only 9, even if you only talk about those notable enough for Wiki, politicians who used cannabis prior to that prohibition? Labeling it as an incomplete list is correct, since you'll never know 100% about everyone, but that just seems too incomplete for me to say this meets FL criteria for completeness. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as an example, 10 seconds of Google'ing found this John Adams quote that certainly suggests he had connections with hemp. Not a really RS, but there just has to be more info out there. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the pre- and post-prohibition sections better. I've done quite a bit of research for this list, searching for any notable politicians who are known to have grown cannabis or used marijuana recreationally. As for John Adams, I have been unable to find a reliable source that confirms he did either. I have come across that quote numerous times, but I did not feel it warranted inclusion in the list as a confirmed grower/user. I've done a lot of searching, but of course we can assume there are more politicians that belong on the list, hence the "incomplete" tag. If you can come across any other politicians that need to be added to the list, I'd be more than happy to add them. The list as seen currently represents as many as I could find, though I will continue to research this subject in the future as it interests me greatly. As for the concern that the list is not complete, if someone could find many more politicians that should be added, I would certainly be very impressed with his or her research skills. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't oppose and be annoying, since I don't know of anyone else, but I just can't support the list with that short a group of entries for that wide a period of time. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your decision. I just feel helpless, as I wish there were more I could do to lengthen the list. I can only go by what the reliable resources tell me. :) Thanks for the comments and feedback! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While I commend Another Believer's valiant efforts here, I cannot support a list whose main list-content (the tables) only address half its topic (i.e. the politicians but not the cannabis use). The 3 (a) criterion has not, unfortunately, been met.  Skomorokh  22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that including an additional column would be helpful. Would it be reasonable for that column to including uses found in reliable sources (Lincoln smoking it, Washington growing it) and explain this in the prose? Just tell the story that is found in the sources, and use the prose as an opportunity to explain to readers how much value we give to reliable sourcing.--otherlleft 16:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But here is the problem with defining the type of use. Cannabis can be grown for industrial purposes, grown and ingested for medical purposes, smoked for medical reasons, grown and ingested or smoked for recreational purposes., etc. For me, the point of this article is to detail the history of cannabis in the U.S., highlighting how use has changed (generally speaking) over time. At one time, it was grown for industrial purposes, then used in many common medicines, then recreational use spread during the 20th century. When sources do not specifically mention why cannabis was used (medical vs. recreational, or smoking vs. ingesting), I don't see the purpose in expanding on that for the list. The list simply contains politicians who admit to using the plant, regardless of method or reason. Besides, the sentences just prior to the tables mention the type of use ("...politicians known ti have used cannabis for recreational purposes include..., or something similar). If this is not specific enough for a featured list, I understand. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to suggest that the list should include things that aren't in the sources - in fact, just the opposite. Only include what's in the sources, and use the paragraph of prose to explain it. "Between 19xx and 20xx the primary use of cannabis was recreational, with a secondary use being medical. Following is a list of politicians known to have used cannabis during this period." Add a note to the use column that says something along the lines of, "Only verifiable uses are mentioned for each politician." Take it as a suggestion only; I am trying to see if there are solutions to the concerns raised by other editors.--otherlleft 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 20 January 2010 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Blackknight12 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on this list for hundreds of hours and it is very hard to find information on the monarchs of Sri Lanka all in one place. It has come a long way and in my opinion has reached the standard of List of French monarchs which is the only other featured list on monarchs. Blackknight12 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work Blackknight12, what is missing is the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. Any reasons Taprobanus (talk)

Oppose Good work Blackknight12, but as Taprobanus says , where is the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. Please explain what motive behind to not to include or deleted the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Taprobanus. Yes the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom is missing but so is the list of kings belonging to Ruhuna, Maya Rata and Dhakkinadesa (and maybe more). The monarchs belonging to these monarchies only ruled a small region of the island of Sri Lanka and were not a dominant force. In the absence of these monarchies I have created a separate article for them: List of Jaffna monarchs, List of Ruhuna monarchs, and List of Maya Rata monarchs. However the first monarch of Jaffna did rule the island with most of the power but later established the Jaffna kingdom in the north which I assume you already know.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following books on Sri Lankan history definitely mention the Kingdom as an important part of the country's history.

de Silva, K. M. (2005). A History of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Vijitha Yapa. p. 782. ISBN 9-55-809592-3.

Peebles, Patrick (2006). The History of Sri Lanka. USA: Greenwood Press. p. 248. ISBN 0-313-33205-3. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading Jaffna kingdom, which I believe you wrote, and it seems to me that I may have missed something. It says "for a brief period, in the early to mid-fourteenth century, it was an ascendant power in the island of Sri Lanka when all regional kingdoms accepted subordination. However, the kingdom was eventually overpowered by the rival Kotte Kingdom, around 1450." I haven't heard of this anywhere else but if you can get me some sources on it I could probably include the Jaffna kingdom somewhere. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the status here? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcluded by Dabomb87 (talk) on 16:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I think that the list looks very good and is very well written but I have a couple concerns that should be addressed before I support.

• There is 1 disambiguous link
• The images need alt text
• There are several external links that are locking structure such as access date and publisher.

Once these are corrected I will support. --Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry mate, but this has too many problems.

• The actual list is unreferenced. There are a few inline citations for some facts regarding the confusion of dates, but the rest of the article has none.
• The "Relationship with Predecessor" column has other information as well in some cases.
• Invaders from India have managed to seize the throne several times. Only Elara and Magha are mentioned, and a reader has no way of knowing who the others were unless they already know the history very well. In short, it's not really possible to recognize who are invaders and who are local rulers.
• What happened to the lineage of Sri Lankan kings during those invasions? Where were they and what were they doing when foreigners were in control of their country? Did they manage to keep at least some part under their control?
• "the list only includes monarchs who had possession of most of the island and the power at any one time". Then why are local rulers from the time of Rajaraja I's invasion to Vijayabahu I mentioned? The Chola kings were, in effect, rulers of the country during this period and the local chieftains has little power even within Ruhuna. So if they are mentioned, the rest of the rulers of Ruhuna (such as Kavan Tissa) and Jaffna should be mentioned as well.
• "the Dipawamsa and Mahawamsa are the primary sources for ancient South Asian chronology". How come? Both are Sri Lankan chronicles and talk about Sri Lankan history. None of them significantly deal with South Asian history. Please clarify this.
• Why are British monarchs mentioned from 1948 to 72? After the country gained independence in 1948, why did it continue to regard the British monarch as its own? Also, they did not have any control or power over the country itself, which, as you have mentioned, are the requirements for inclusion in this list.
• The king resided in Colombo after the Kandyan Kingdom ended (mentioned in infobox)? How is this possible when the British monarch became the ruler?

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Fails most of the FLC. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 10:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 20 January 2010 [6].

---

Nominator(s): Dfwcre8tive (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the new list was created to highlight Landmark structures and districts in Dallas that were previously not mentioned. I created the list to better categorize and distinguish Dallas Landmarks from other historic designations. Dfwcre8tive (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcluded Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - suggest this is withdrawn and reintroduced when, as a minimum, the following is fixed:

• All references should use the {{cite web}} template, or similar, not just be bare URLs.
• The lead is expanded appropriately. One short paragraph is insufficient for a list with this many entries.
• The table is fixed (and probably made sortable) - look at line 2 (starts Structure...)
• Images need alt text.
• Disambiguation links need to be fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is there a reason why some of the words in the "Current Use" column are in italics?
• The "Designation Date", "Current Use", "NRHP Date" and "RTHL Date" look incomplete, is there a reason as to why there are so many empty columns?
• Redlinks seem to be overused.

Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 08:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm going to oppose this article as no effort has seemed to be made to improve this article at all since December 29, the only addition to this article has been a bot. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 10:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 20 January 2010 [7].

---

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. I realize that my grammar has a lot of issues and this being a mystery episode list can be confusing so all criticisms appreciated. I have a lot of time to fix up the mistakes. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The image does not have a proper WP:ALT. FUR looks line. (how would someone who is blind and unfamiliar with the series know what "Conan Edogawa" looks like. The Alt should be generic. The summary of ep 494 is too long (over 300 words and longer than all the rest). The rest of them seem fine, at under 200 words each on a quick check. A copyedit really should be done before an FLC is started. A few points from the lead that I noticed:

• "In Japan, the series is titled Meitantei Conan (名探偵 コナン?, Detective Conan) but was changed due to legal issues with the title Detective Conan" - was changed where? when? by who? not very clear. Also, the kanji/romaji seems unnecessary. Since it is licensed in English, what about the English release?
  • Fixed it. Well I just know that episodes 104 and up are not licensed by Funimation, so I left it blank.
• it states it is based on the manga, but not which part? Can it be limited to chapters X-Y or does it jump around too much to say much more than based on?
  • I could probably limit it between two volumes, but it might seem like original research.
• "The episodes' plot covers the adventures of teenage detective Shinichi Kudo who was turned into a child by a poison called APTX 4869. He continues to be a detective under the alias Conan Edogawa. The episode plot covers the FBI's confrontation with the Black Organization, a mysterious Criminal Syndicase and is then followed by Conan's usual adventures." - episode plot said twice. Suggested alternative: "The series focuses on the adventures of teenage detective Shinichi Kudo who was turned into a child by a poison called APTX 4869, but continues working as a detective under the alias Conan Edogawa. At the start of the season, he works with the FBI as they confrontation with the criminal syndicate, the Black Organization, before the episodes return to a more episodic formula."
  • Thank you
• "Episodes 491 to 523 were later collected into ten DVD compilations by Shogakukan. They were released between September 26, 2008 and August 28, 2009 in Japan" - makes it sound like only a partial release was done, yet it seems like that is the entire season. Why not just say, "The thirty-episodes were released in Japan across ten DVD volumes by Shogakukan between September 26, 2008 and August 28, 2009." should probably also note that the episodes were not released in the same order they aired.
  • I think I fixed it.

Did not check the episode summaries grammar. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – Also haven't looked at the episode summaries.

• Near the end of the first paragraph, is the FBI what I think it is (Federal Bureau of Investigation)? If so, spell it out fully and link it.
• Space needed after first sentence of second paragraph.
• "by Mai Kuraki starting episode 521 for the rest of the season." Grammar here leaves something to be desired. Try "by Mai Kuraki starting episodes 521 through 523"?
  • Fixed this time? DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In several of the references, I don't believe an external link to the Japanese Wikipedia is needed for Being Inc. If this is a notable entity, I see no harm in having red links, or just not linking the publisher if red links are a concern. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, did all those. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Refs 3-6 need to have the language specified. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 07:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it, Cite episode template doesn't have Languages section though so I can't add it on. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my bad then. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{ja icon}} - I was thinking if it'd be good to add this template at the beginning of those templates. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ja icon shouldn't be used in front of any reference nor behind it. It was discussed on the cite ep template to add a language and it had support...but no one apparently wrote the code or did the edit protected request. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well I thought I'd throw that idea out there anyway. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [8].

---

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the last nomination went stale / had a lot of editors that were arguing with me in another context that came to simply oppose it, and since the holidays are all but over. While I have created my own format in this road list, I feel its essentially as complete as possible (Minus a completely unavailable history of the system), and provides a more visually pleasing article.

A few notes for reviewers:

1. No, I am not prepared to remove the Google Map references. They are there for the reader to visually see each route, as it is not possible to add visible numbers to the city map without distorting the thumbnail. The only information on the article contrived from Google Maps is the 0.1 kilometre accuracy of route lengths (I used a government made topographic map to measure distances to the nearest kilometre).
2. Please don't oppose simply on the basis of the shields in the table. They add a nice touch for the 99.99995% of us that do not use Lynx.
3. History is important, especially in this case. The province of Ontario downloaded most provincial and secondary class highways to the regions/counties they were within in 1998. The County of Victoria was restructured as the single-tier municipality of Kawartha Lakes in 2001, causing all Victoria County Road X to become Kawartha Lakes Road X. This little switcharoo can make things a bit confusing, but bare with it.
4. I have tried to contact the city, the road maintenance department, and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation regarding a history of the system. According to them, the information is "too spread about in various archives and offices, and not available at hand".
5. I fail at grammar (I'm about as qualified as the checker in Microsoft Word), so if anybody is a wiz with it, please fix any nuances. The article has been peer reviewed twice and a FL candidate

twice before, so I'm certain most of it has been caught, but second eyes are always appreciated. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Imzadi1979

First Review

Oppose — There are many issues with this list that need to be addressed. There MOS issues, reference issues, image issues and prose issues. Please combine the Google Maps references as much as possible. If you want maps of the routes, the appropriate location for them is on the individual road articles. Those road articles should then preferably contain an appropriately sourced map that's uploaded to Commons and placed in the articles. Failing that, the Google Maps links here can be added as an External link in the individual articles. The main map at the top of the list may benefit from the addition of shields to it. There is missing Alternate text for File:Hartley Road causeway.jpg. This needs to be added. The alt text checker is showing no alt text for the map, but a second, smaller map at the end of the page with alt text. I'll defer to others about the quality of the alt text vs. the caption. There are 31 links in the list article that redirect back here. Please either unlink them, delete the redirects to make them back into redlinks or create stub articles. As is, the current links are useless, and pushing overlinking since they have no utility. Prose issues. I've only skimmed the text. You should get someone else to do a full review or copy edit of the text. Measurements are properly a plural, not singular. You state: "there is 7.6 km (4.7 mi) of..." in a note when it should be "there are 7.6 km...". Please re-read the article out loud and verbally substitute the full measurement. You wouldn't state that "there is 4 wheels on a car" yet you state "there is 7.6 kilometres". Please check the whole article as that note I mentioned isn't the only time this occurs. Concurrencies exist between, not of, the two or more roads. "Mostly-rural", remove the - as unnecessary. Please explain RIRO briefly, or at least expand out the abbreviation. Please combine all the history information into a separate section. There is a broken wiki link in the Comments column of the city roads table. The explanatory note at the top of the route maps section doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Please reword it. MOS breach: if the "Route Maps" section is to be retained, please change it to "Route maps" or "External links" Is there a better source for distance measurements than the Google Maps? If there is, please use it. Note that it would be original research to physically measure the lengths of roads on a map. If the map gives lengths between junctions however, it is not OR to just add these lengths together. A note about the shield for the Trans-Canada Highway... it fell into the public domain on January 1, 2010. You should be allowed to use it in this article now if you wish. It has been re-hosted on the Commons now for that reason at File:TCHshield.svg, which should be renamed to File:Trans-Canada Highway shield.svg to replace the locally-hosted version. References: Refs 3 and 4 are from a self-published source. Please replace it. (Ref 3 is also showing as the template source, not the template output.) Ref 5 is missing publisher information. Ref 8 is missing the given author information from the source. It doesn't support the information being referenced to it. I scanned through the entire document and saw no mention that the numbers would or did remain the same after the change in municipal structure. Please replace with a source that supports this information. Ref 9 is also a SPS and a primary source. Please find a third-party replacement for it that isn't published by the city government itself. Some usages of the cited source don't support the information given in this article. You say that the information cited to Ref 9 is on page 2, but the source doesn't have numbered pages, and the two options in the source that I assume you mean by page 2 do not contain the referenced material. Ref 10 needs some more information. What table in that source contains the information being referenced? Also, the two dates are in different formats, one in ISO and the other not. Please make them consistent. You call the name of the reference "City Map", but there is no map in the reference, also confusing me. Ref 11 is from the same SPS as refs 3 and 4. Please replace the source or remove the cited information. The Google Maps sources all lack accessdate information. There is {{Google maps}} and now {{Bing maps}} to help simplify formatting those references if that helps. For these reasons, I can not support the promotion of this article until they are cleared up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'll go through the points in order: Google maps provides convenience and functionality to the user. It is very clear they are external links, but I can place them in a subsection of External links... Though I think it looks better and makes more sense to group them with the citations. As I mentioned, it would work fine on the fullsize of the map. However, the thumbnail used in the article would become distorted, inaccurate, and unreadable. In addition, the routes are not exactly an even grid, and the choice would come down to either A) shields all over the place to show the path each route follows on a map of black lines, or B) not enough shields, for clarity sake, but the path routes take, and where they begin and end, is left up in the air. I think your tool is broken. Every image (besides the purely decorative ones) has alt text Unnecessary stub creation is discouraged, especially of non-notable county roads. However, I have no prejudice against an author who has information (such as a detailed history) to make that road worthy of an article. Indeed, a bluelink is rather pointless when it comes back to the same article, but a blacklink discourages an article from existing, and too many of the judges will oppose based on redlinks. I will fix all of theseEDIT: fixed these. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Route maps. Please see the comment above. Google maps is only used to narrow down a 1 kilometre accuracy to a 100 metre accuracy. I think opinions will differ on whether or not it is original research to use a flat map, but so far you are the first to take issue with it. I have not done any research, so I do not see what is original or research. I have taken a map that is measured and drawn to a scale. I then take that scale, and apply it on the map, following the course of a route through a location which is clearly marked on (and the subject of) the map. This is a routine calculation, which is permitted according to WP:OR. I made a post somewhere (can't remember where, but I'll find it if you wish)... Probably on the village pump, and was told that it is acceptable as a routine calculation. Nice! I wonder why so many editors gave grief about it just a month ago if it was about to fall into the public domain. Refs: Ref 3/4 (Only 3 now, I replaced the biggest claim with a more reliable source) is published by Cameron Beavers, a Project Manager for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. As I have mentioned many times before to many people, there are no secondary or tertiary sources on this aspect. The government barely, if at all, publishes anything official regarding the transportation system, and there are no reliable publications that review this sort of topic. Keep in mind this source is used to A) mention that the sign used in most of Ontario is flowerpot shaped, and B) to describe the appearance of the sign, which we have an image of. Fixed ref 5 I changed the sentence the source supports. The source is used now only to say that they became Kawartha Lakes Roads. This is mentioned in brief brief passing on page 80 of the report, before it goes into a shtick about human resources. To be honest, there needn't be a source here. It is pretty clear that the roads are currently named Kawartha Lakes Roads, so why would it be out of the ordinary to say that the highways, which were downloaded to Victoria county (as proven by comparing a 1997 map to a 1999 map), became Kawartha Lakes routes? No way. Its the official website of the city, which maintains the roads. A secondary source would possibly be outdated or unreliable. The city website contains an up to date map which shows all the routes. I used the map in making the map that appears on the article in fact. It is on page three of a pdf, which is divided into pages (even if they are not marked on the pages themselves). Ref 9 is called city map (It is used in addition to ref 10 to show that route two is shared with Durham Region). It is named so as the city originally had just the map posted to their website when I made this article in August. They have since removed it. Rather than force someone to find it, I found a pdf that contain the map, though slightly more inconveniently than what was available before. I have clarified the tables and pages for ref 10. See above Will do. I didn't put it on before as the route is timeless (and obviously the article will be updated if any are removed or rerouted), and only the satellite images will change with time. I hope you can see the reasoning behind some of the points I made. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Further replies: I do see your reasoning, and I disagree, plus I have some addition points to make now. The maps are either references, or they are external links. Please pick one. If they are the latter, then remove the footnoting. If they are the former, please combine them. As for the convenience argument, placing a map that shows the location of a specific road on Commons that can be placed into an article is the best solution. Forcing a reader to rely on an external source that may or may not change is less than ideal. My oppose on these grounds will stand until changed. Many other maps use shields. List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan does. I'm not saying all roads need a shield, say only the provincial highways get them. It's still better for a non-local reader, say this American, to have a better idea of the location of the items in the map provided. Not all readers will be as familiar with Kawartha Lakes as you are. The tool could be broken. I'll defer to others better versed in ALT text as to why it isn't working right. There could be an error in the article's coding or something. I'm just not sure Redlinks are not a bad thing. Links that redirect back to this list just for the sake of being a blue link are useless. Please either convert them back into red links, create articles for the links or remove the links. In their current condition, they just frustrate readers and serve no useful purpose. If you're scared of an oppose !vote, point the reviewer to WP:RED and WP:Build the web. Looks good. I'll print the article at some point to do a more in-depth copy review/edit later. Glad to see that fixed. There's a big debate on the usage of maps, Google Maps and other electronic mapping services especially. Please read this essay on the most widely held opinion on the usage of maps as sources. If you have not done any research, as you claim above, then how did you derive the information used to create this article? The prohibition on OR is just that, on original research. Wikipedia is not meant to the first source published with information. That's the job of a primary source. It's not meant to even be the second source to detail its given information generally. It is meant to be an encyclopedia. If you simply add up the lengths that are written on a printed map, I won't disagree with you that a simple calculation doesn't violate OR. If you have to make the measurement though, you're in a gray area. Well, a month ago, using the shield was against the rules. Now it's not. I'm not saying that any over-zealous opposition to its usage was completely justified during your last nomination. I wasn't involved there. I will say, however, that your current usage is way too large for the article. It dominates all the other graphics visually. That large green shield overpowers the important things like the map. I suggest you downscale it in size and move it to the table next to the shield for Highway 7. Refs: I'm not trying to impugn the reliability or reputation of Mr. Beavers, but it doesn't change the fact that the source is self-published by him. Please tell me where on his website it states his current occupation. The e-mail link is his personal link. You'll have to post at WP:RSN for consensus, but this situation is not any different from that of using http://www.michiganhighways.org/ or any of Chris Bessert's other websites for MI, WI, or ON. Both are published by the author on a personally-owned webpage. You could have just as easily referenced a sentence like, "after the change in government structure, the Victoria County Roads were renamed Kawartha Lakes Roads" and sourced it to a map showing the names before and a map showing the names after. Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. In this case, a better map from a third-party publisher would be better than that source as I indicate below. The number of city roads could be referenced to an appropriate map. Simply counting them is not OR. Page three does not list the numbers of city roads, it shows a very poor quality map. (This whole file looks like a PowerPoint presentation. The map there is for decoration more than information at that resolution level.) Ditto referencing the specific road names. A better map would be a better source. As for referencing KLR 2 to that source for maintenance by Kawartha Lakes, that map doesn't cut it. I can't even see KLR 2 on that map in that PowerPoint. Ref 12 doesn't give the author/publisher information, and once again as I restate above, it's still a self-published source. Please go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at WP:RSN to get an opinion about using it. Until corrected, my oppose stands. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Many of your points make more sense now with the additional information. I'm going to do some inquiring into this. See what others opinions are on the method. That would work, and I do not have a problem doing that. See my response to Rschen below. Then I'll switch em back... again. Cool My issue stands in the idea that the government published these official maps, having measured everything. My calculations may be a bit complex, but it relies on information thats already there... if maybe not in numerical format, at least in a measurable, scaled, and precise graph. Besides, it's not like I'm not going out and driving my car down the road and using the odometer. :P Hm... Thought I had it on the default thumb size, but I'll put a 7 into it and make it the shield for 7 (since its the TCH for its whole length through Kawartha Lakes. Refs: here is the link to his About Me page, which mentions the upcoming book (which I will use once it is published) and employment with the ministry of transportation. Will do. The references for those maps are already there Like I said, it was originally referenced to a much larger and more readable map. The pdf map can be zoomed in on to quite a large size, and it shows where and what number (though no label is present for road 22) each road is. Street atlases are often as reliable as NavTEQ and Google Maps. For example, my 2010 edition of an ontario road map labels a road as "Durham Regional Road 62" when it hasn't been in over 5 years, as I found out by emailing the region's works department. Removed that ref and the sentence it backs up. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Additional replies: See below for maps discussions. There's a lot of editorial discretion on which shields to include, but a few would be helpful. That's all that I'm asking. I see that it's fixed now on the tool page. Glad that we figured it out. I'm not endorsing the prose, just saying that what I did find in a cursory review has been fixed. I'm sure others may and probably will find some minor things. You totally have misunderstood me. The debate is on using Google maps to determine distances. Paper maps are fine, especially if like the MDOT maps there are distances between junctions printed on the map along the routing. Simple arithmetic is all that's required then to determine a length. Additionally, MDOT publishes a Control Section atlas that indicates the length of the individual control sections that comprise a highway down to the thousandth of a mile in most cases. The grey area is if you are using a ruler to measure a paper map. The reason that I say that it is a grey area is that a rule can measure a straight line accurately to the precision of the scale on it, but curved lines are another matter. Like I said, it's a grey area. You're using both source types (Google and paper maps) here, but stating to the level of precision given by the online map. That's the cause for concern at this time. TCH shield issues: The default thumb size overwhelms the map, which is also at the default size. The shield is a large, bold, bright green graphic. The map is a series of colored lines on a white/light background. When I used a shield graphic as an illustration in an article before, at M-28 (Michigan highway), I overrode the default thumbnail size to 80px, the same size as the shield graphic at the top of the infobox. It's been a few years since I've been to Sault Ste. Marie, ON, but does the King's Highway that's carrying the TCH actually use the TCH shield with its number on the maple leaf? Or is the TCH shield more like the Great Lakes Circle Tour shields that are displayed next to or below the main highway's shield? Refs I see that on the About me page now. Playing devil's advocate here though, he's not an historian. I know MDOT actually employs an historian on their staff, in addition to archivists and photographers. Simply being an employee of an agency doesn't convey the same reliability as being the voice of the agency. In other words, just because I work for Walmart in the US, does not mean that if I publish a website about the company that my website qualifies as a WP:RS under the exceptions to WP:SPS. The crux of the issue is that anyone can write anything on a personally-published website, factual or not. Publication on his website does not guarantee any editorial oversight or fact-checking by the MTO, meaning his association with the MTO is nice, but it's still a self-published source. His book, once published, if not published by a vanity printer, will have had editorial oversight and fact-checking. The reputation of the publishing house will be lent to the book. If his website were hosted by the MTO, it would have the MTO's reputation lent to it. I know it's a long-winded reply, but that's the reason you're not supposed to use SPSs as sources on Wikipedia unless published by "an expert in [his] field". He's not a (highway) historian, so as great as his site is, unless the RSN says otherwise, I can't agree that using it as a source is allowable at this time. Ok. Map source (Ref 9) The map for Ref 9 [9] that I'm seeing can't be zoomed in at any higher level of resolution. There are two maps in that file, which is a PDF version of a PowerPoint presentation. The first is on the second page of the PDF where they list distances to major cities from Lindsay. That map shows an overview of Ontario with Kawartha Lakes highlighted. The second is a very poor resolution copy on the third page where they list land area. I finally got it to zoom in with some trial and error on my end, but seriously, it would be better to have a map like that without all the rest of the PowerPoint stuff. Additionally, Google Maps is showing Interstate 296 on their maps since late last year, even though the highway designation hasn't been signed in 30 years. They've also indicated that I-296 follows US 131 northbound past the ramps to I-96, when those ramps are unsigned I-296. Google has also been showing US 16 in the Grand Rapids area when that designation was decommissioned in the 1960s. MDOT has errors on their maps as well. C-66 (Michigan county highway) was shown in 2008 as H-66, and they show an H-16 designation on the map that has never existed. (It is in fact FFH-16, a Federal Forest Highway.) There will be mistakes on maps, which is why you should use more than one as necessary for a source. Ok, but that ref was from the same website and I would assume same author as Ref 3 and had the same issues. You removed the one, but not the other. Why? Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Replies I agree with the first few points, and will make the changes over the next day. Trans-Canada Highway Agreed. In Ontario it is not usually, as far as I've seen. However, in most provinces it is signed with the green leaf shield with the number in the middle (see File:Alberta_Highway_1.svg for example). For simplicity and decorative sake, I'll do that for the table (which would otherwise become shifted oddly). The King's Highway prose already explains everything in detail. Refs I'll start a discussion there. Like I said, its the only source for this information, so it's either I delete half the prose or don't have the article promoted. I can zoom it in with acrobat reader to 400% and easily see each road and the route it takes. It's y far enough information to count the number of them, as well as determine which numbers exist and which don't. I could change it to the wayback machine address for the old large version of the map: http://web.archive.org/web/20061010192459/http://www.city.kawarthalakes.on.ca/BusTour/PDFs/OverallCityMap.pdf Yes, but that ref didn't source anything useful. Ref 3/4 provide half of the information in the prose. Its simple information, but there are no other websites on the web that describe what the shields look like. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Current round of replies Re the TCT shield: if Ontario doesn't combine the number with the TCH graphic, you shouldn't do the same. If they are signed side by side, you should do the same. Anything else is false (visual) information. References: From WP:RS: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Once again, I'm not trying to impugn the reputation of Mr. Beavers, but "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The burden rests with those who want to use a source to demonstrate that reliability. So far, you have not. The PDF wasn't zooming well for me. I still don't consider that a very good source. I know it's a bit semantic, but it would have a touch more credibility if it was the "City of Kawartha Lakes Official City Map" or the like, and not a graphic in a PDF that was exported of a PowerPoint presentation. A simple photo can provide a source for the shape of the markers. A map produced by the City that uses the shapes of the markers can also provide such a source. The problem is that current Ref 5 is an essay on the history of the shape of the markers. That's research done by Mr. Beavers. The article on U.S. Route 41 in Michigan uses an included photo as a source to show the mileage sign that shows the mileage to Miami, FL from Copper Harbor. File:8 At Argyle.png included in the article shows the shape of the KLR markers. You took that photo, which is allowable under WP:OR policy. Take a few quality photos of some good markers posted in the field, and you have an acceptable source. I'd suggest a photo of Highway 7/TCH and one from KLR 8. I hope this helps Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re I'll see what I can do with regards to that. If I can reference the descriptions to an image, then I can remove the Cameron Beavers source, as currently it mostly serves the shield description. Hopefully somebody else has uploaded an image of Hwy 7 with the transcanada shield... I won't be up there until May 24. I do have an image of Highway 35 which shows its shield, however. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] That photo is fine! The Highway 7 suggestion was just a little better because it had the TCH photo, but check the image description talk page for the TCH shield graphic here, I believe that it also lists the official government document, the MUTCD for Canada that should also describe the marker assembly shapes. Doing a little research from there, it was originally published in the MUTCD for Canada in 1959 (which is the basis for the public domain copyrighty claim). Ontario is currently publishing their own manual in places of the MUCTDC, the Ontario Traffic Manual. You can download the various books at [10] and if you follow those directions to download Book 1A, and then look on page 82 of that book, you will see an official MTO document that shows the shape of reassurance markers in the provence of Ontario. It took me about 5 minutes of research to find the OTM online, figure out which book from [11] has what contents and then find the freely-available PDFs. I believe if you reference OTM Book 1A using the following: {{cite book |title=Ontario Traffic Manual |volume=1A |date= | date=July 2001 |origyear= |publisher=Ontario Ministry of Transporation |location= |language= |isbn= 0-7794-1857-3 |page=82 |chapter= Illustrated Sign and Signal Display Index }} "Illustrated Sign and Signal Display Index". Ontario Traffic Manual. Vol. 1A. Ontario Ministry of Transporation. July 2001. p. 82. ISBN 0-7794-1857-3. you'll be fine for a reliable source to replace Mr. Beaver's work, which is even better than a single photo of a single marker. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] EDIT: Just found this on my camera. It shows a 7 & 35 shield alongside the Trans-Canada marker. How would I go about citing these images? Should I do it as I would a website, simply linking to the file namespace in the url? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] If that photo is in Kawartha Lakes, I'd add it to the list as an illustration in the King's Highways section, but I'd prefer you use the OTM source I found you above, since that's the official provincial publication that shows what markers are used in Ontario. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] It is (Highway 7 and 35 are only concurrent in Kawartha Lakes, so its pretty locktite. Thank you so much for finding that source. Not only will I use it, but I also found this document that lays out all the construction and design specifications for the roads. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Cameron Bevers website is no longer a source on the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Alright, I believe that I've fixed every issue you've brought up thus far, with the exception of the Google Maps issue and adding shields to the map (in progress). Let me know if I missed something. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Review by Imzadi1979

Second Review

I've collapsed the original review, and I'm restarting it here with the remaining points left to address. The Google/Bing Maps links are still an issue. I have a sense that you're trying to "have your cake and eat it too" here. What is the exact purpose of 48 separate links all to the same mapping service, and 1 link to another mapping service? Are these sources, or are they external links? If they are sources, what are they supposed to be referencing, lengths? If they're external links intended solely as a convenience to the reader of the list article to show the routing of each individual roadway, then I have a suggestion. You should create and upload maps of each KLR for inclusion in articles on them. The map should have some shields added for perspective. I would suggest that combined with the above suggestion, including the provincial highways only. The KLRs would then be included in the individual maps. There are still 2 redirects that point back to this article that need to be fixed. The tool at top of this page will point them out. I haven't had time to do a full prose review. I stopped any attempts to do so when the article was being organized. When that is done, I can do a review properly. There are a few remaining, minor reference issues. Please be consistent in formatting. Either author names should be Last, First or First Last. Some of the references are formatted "City of Kawartha Lakes", some are "city of Kawartha Lakes" Again, pick a format and stick to it. [12] would be a better reference for the constituent highways of the TCH in Ontario than current Ref 8. The source I found is from Transport Canada, the Canadian equivalent to the US Department of Transportation. You're mixing {{citation}} with the {{cite XXX}} series of templates. One, or the another, but not both please. This is likely the reason for point 5.1 above. Please add the archival information for the City Map. {{cite web}} will explain how to do so. An additional issue regarding the links in this article. Is is necessary to wikilink to EVERY mention of a highway or road in the tables. It's one thing to wikilink to Highway 7 on first mention in the prose above the table and in the left-hand column for the entry on Highway 7. I would unlink it from all other mentions in the table. The sorting doesn't work right. If I resort the King's Highway table by route number, they don't return to numerical order. {{ntsh}} can be used to set up the sorting. See List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan to see it in action. {{ntsc}} can simplify the sorting and conversion of the lengths. I'd set the other columns to be nonsorting, leave only the highway number and lengths columns to sort. I still can't support the article at this time. Yes, substantial progress has been made, but there are still remaining issues. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] P.S. {{Google maps}} and {{Bing maps}} call {{cite map}} which is part of the {{cite XXX}} series of templates. If you standardize on {{citation}}, you'll need to change them and any other citation templates that start with the word "cite" over to {{citation}}. I don't use the latter template at all, so I don't know what you'll need to do to make it work, I've stuck with {{cite web}}, {{cite map}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and the like for my citation template needs. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Prose and Organization review I started a sandboxed version of this article to better illustrate some changes. I cleaned up and standardized all of the references in the main list. One change I made that is more of a personal preference was to spell out the full date, rather than using ISO dates. All of the citation templates are in the {{cite XX}} family instead of the even worse mixture of {{citation}} now used. I moved the History section down, which has the benefit of pushing the current designation types up including the IMHO better photos. The King's Highways table was reorganized to move the references into a separate column. The Names column was eliminated as it duplicated the names given under the Route # column, and the non-duplicative names could be moved to the Comments column. The Lengths column was moved left so that the two sortable columns come first. Finally, there was a lot of unnecessary code I removed to streamline the table. A lot of the WP:OVERLINKing was removed, including the extra links to MapArt in the references. The note at the bottom of the table needs to be reworded. The City roads table should be organized along the same principles, but in this case, I would prune out some of the unnecessary trivia from the Comments column to merge the names into that column. Barring that, the Names in this table could stay, but I'd remove the duplication between the Names and the Route # column. The other suggestion I would make is using some abbreviations. I've read the word "Kawartha" SO many times in reviewing this article that it looks misspelled every time I see it. "Kawartha Lakes Road 8" could easily be abbreviated to "KLR 8". Only the abbreviated version I just gave would need a non-breaking space. Street names do not. Please consider some of these ideas to help clean up this list. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Initial reply by Floydian Ideally, yes. However, given the clear consensus against it, I'd like to at least work towards a compromise instead of tossing the cake that I spent several hours making into the garbage. One link per road. It is not possible to have one link that has every road individually highlighted (perhaps with the My Maps feature on Google, but I'm not sure that would give me a link to post here). Each link is for an appropriate road. I use the footnoting system (which WP:FOOTNOTES explains is one of two purposes for the system, which can be used interchangeably), as then it appears beside the distance with a "map" tag, which they click to go to the footnote, and click to view that route specifically in reference to its surroundings. The lone link to bing is because when I first made the whole article, Google hadn't gone back 20 years on its maps, and every city road was labelled correctly for the correct length... except road 22 in Fenelon Falls, which is often hidden or missed on maps do to its minor nature. They are both. However, they are more intended as external links; the source for the lengths is at the top of the Length column. They would also qualify as external links in the sense that they provide information that would be impossible to represent on the article itself. They source the 100 metre precision, which would be impossible for me to calculate accurately with a paper map. However, being programmed to calculate lengths of curvy lines, I don't see how it would be unreliable in that sense. Regardless if they're not correctly labelling the road, I'm not using their map to figure out the where the road starts/ends. But according to the standards on your own wikiproject, those roads would not be notable to merit an article to contain that map. The 5 or 6 that I have made are barely notable as it stands. I only consider them as such because they were either colonization roads, former highways, or major links, and have some sort of history to them. I'd be happy to make a gallery of maps of all the roads on this article. I'm remaking the map now. It may take a day or two but it is coming. Will do I'm done moving the history around, but I see you've done the review below. refs Fixed. I copied ref 6 over from the King's Highway article. It used the author parameter, instead of using last and first as I do. Fixed. This cropped up because of my use of {{citation}}, which uses commas instead of periods. As a result, I used a lower-case city on ref 12. Fixed. Thank you once again for a great source. I don't know how you find these when I search for hours through hundreds of useless advertising on google and come up empty-handed! I've added it in. Fixed. I always thought they were the same template, and that citation was just for general use (not a book, journal, map or website). Fixed. Because the table can be sorted, no link in it can be concluded as the 'first'. However, I am going through and removing as much as I can from the prose. Fixed. This was a mistake that cropped up from adding a bunch of tables in to position the trans-Canada shield in Highway 7's row. I've also changed all dates to spelt out form. ISO dates do not work when you only have a month and a year, which is the case with some of the sources. The accessdates remain as ISO. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] With regards to the sandbox stuff, I took most of your ideas with the table. There are not enough terminii to have sorting in that table, but it does work correctly in the city roads table (which I will also move the length to the second column of). Don't get me started on abbreviations though. To put it in perspective, it'd be like putting a 7 in the Trans-Canada shield, instead of the way it is now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's more than just the tables in the Sandbox... I've done a copy edit of the text. I had a two-hour drive earlier today, and I didn't get to cleaning up the city roads table before I left. I actually found that source based off another source on the TCH article. Yes, it's true that no entry in a sortable table is the "first", but you miss my point. If all of the highway/road names are wikilinked in the Route # column, they don't need to be wikilinked anywhere else. They will still only have one link, which satisfies the principles of WP:OVERLINK. Btw, the table works just find if you gut the extra coding to display the TCH shield. I did in my Sandbox, and it displays just fine. The ISO dates for accesdates should probably be converted over to full dates. ISO dates are really only good for tables where space is an issue, but space isn't an issue in the References section, and now you have two formats of dates in use, which still isn't consistent. As for the abbreviations, there's nothing wrong with the very first usage at the top of the prose section to include an abbreviation that's subsequently used consistently throughout the article. You can't tell me that Canada doesn't use abbreviations, so there's no reason not to simplify things. Seriously, "Kawartha" looks misspelled when I finish a read of the article. According to my web browser, it is used over 100 times in the article. That's a lot for a single name in the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] P.S. I have a small point of clarification for the KLR 2 entry in the table, the comments are: "signed as Kawartha Lakes 2 north of Seagrave, where it forms the boundary with Durham Region, but is maintained by Kawartha Lakes". Do you mean that it's signed as Durham Regional Road 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] The road exists for a good 40km south of Kawartha Lakes as solely Durham Regional Road 2. North of Seagrave, it is on the western boundary line, and it is maintained and signed by both governments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] If the shorter section of the highway is in Durham Region, then maybe you should change the shield and name at the left of the table to Durham Regional Road 2 and leave the comments the same (with the "S" capitalized) or streamline the comments a bit to add in what you just explained without the comments taking up too much space. If you can't streamline it, maybe a footnote in the notes section for the long explanation with a short, less complete note in the table? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm fine just removing it. Its a rather meaningless piece of trivia that is hard to correctly source. The entire road is in Durham, and about 1/3rd of that length is shared with Kawartha Lakes. No reason it can't be in both this list of roads and the durham list of roads, under their respective names. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Review by Imzadi1979

I collapsed the second review and pulled the follow remaining items here into a short list.

1. Google/Bing Maps: still an issue. Consensus is against them in this article. You have yet to present a compelling reason to convince the three reviewers of the article otherwise. This is an actionable oppose, and must be rectified to remove three opposes.
2. Shields on map. It's a minor detail, and one that takes time, I know.
3. You cleaned up the reference formatting nicely, but there's still "Government of Ontario" vs. "Ontario Provincial Government" in the article though.
4. Overlinking is still a major issue. The King's Highways table doesn't have much left, except all the Communities links, several of which are duplicated. All three usages of the word causeway are linked. That's a bit excessive.
5. The King's Highway table looks great. The City roads table though is a sea of blue and red. Please remove the redundant links.
   1. You don't need to use {{jcon}} to create a link without the shield to an article. A wikilink works just fine by itself. I would hope that when you remove the links from the two termini columns that you use plain text instead of relying on a template to generate plain text. I know you're proud of the template, but there's no reason to ask the servers to parse a template when plain text or a plain wikilink will do. The reason so many US roads editors use {{jct}} now is that it simplifies calling the correct shield graphic, adding the |link=|alt= parameters and formatting the correct wikilink, with abbreviation. We don't have to remember the naming convention for 50+ systems of roadways' shields and links. Having said that, if I'm linking to another road in the prose of an article, where the shield will not be displayed, I enter a wikilink, not a template. If I'm not linking the text, I wouldn't use a wikilink either. It just makes editing the article that much easier for others.
   2. Are all the road names needed for all of the intersecting roads in the various terminus listings? In the listing for Highway 7, you give the first terminus as "Kawartha Lakes Road 2 (Simcoe Street)", when KLR 2 would suffice.
6. Abbreviations: use them and embrace them. Safari will not tell me the exact usage of the phrase "Kawartha Lakes"; it just tells me "more than 100 matches"". For List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan, a current FL, there are 17 matches for "Marquette County". Shortening "Kawartha Lakes Road 8" to "KLR 8" is perfectly acceptable. Shortening "Highway 7" and "Trans Canada Highway" to "Hwy 7" and "TCH" once in a while is also acceptable.
7. The organization of the City roads table needs to be revamped yet. There's no need to have anything in that table except # and length sortable.
8. References columns in the tables would be a good thing as well. This was something that was suggested when my FL when through an FLRC.
9. City roads table Comments:
   1. Fix the confusing comments for KLR 2
   2. KLR 3 comments: "Hartley Road exists as Kawartha Lakes Road 3 for just under one kilometre as it crosses Mitchell Lake by causeway, making it the shortest numbered road in Kawartha Lakes" could be shortened to "Shortest city road in Kawartha Lakes" since the length and both names are listed in other cells of the table already.
   3. The comments for KL 6: "Prior to 1998, the portion of Kawartha Lakes Road 6 between Kirkfield and Sebright was designated as Highway 503[10][11]" could be shortend to "Prior to 1998, was Highway 503" or ""Prior to 1998, was Hwy 503"
   4. KLR 47 has its comments in the Communities column.
10. References:
    1. Ref 2 doesn't specify where in the resulting link the information being cited is located.
    2. Ref 4 has a URL in the template that doesn't lead directly to the source. Either remove the URL, or use [13] as the url since that will cause the reader's browser to download the file. (I'd recommend erasing the link completely as unnecessary though.)
    3. Concerning Ref 6, I can't find the standards being referenced at that link.
    4. Ref 9 needs a page number
    5. Ref 12 should give a page number, or a schedule table number or something to aid in verifying the information in the source.

I've done a lot more than most reviewers in reviewing this list. I've researched better sources to clear up your SPS issues, and created the sandbox to illustrate what this list should look like. You still have a lot of work though to get this up to the quality that's expected of the bronze star. I'm still going to oppose until it's complete. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Floydian

1. Like I said, I'd like to come to some compromise. This provides useful information to the readers, which is too detailed to include in the article, and which could only become more difficult to locate as I move it away from this article. Most of the roads are far from notable enough to have their own article in which to put a drawn map.
2. Coming very soon
3. Will go with Government of Ontario, as thats how they more frequently refer to themselves.
4. My thoughts on the causeway issue are that if its linked ONCE (will remove the second) in the article, and then once in the picture description, it lets people click that link instead of searching the prose for the link.
5. I have yet to do the city table, but that will be done sometime tonight likely.
   1. The reason I use it is so that I can make rapid changes. For example, if you really insisted on using abbreviations, and I wasn't stubborn enough to say "no", then I could simply open up template:jcon, and change two or three pieces of text, and have all 100+ uses change immediately. Bandwidth is not an issue, and the template is certainly well documented (much more so than jct is, as I found out numerous times when I tore apart the template). Also, the code I use to display a plaintext road name is shorter than the name of the road itself. It is for this that I plan on making every instance of a road name in every Ontario article use jcon.
6. I'm sure you saw my rather passionate ranting in regards to abbreviations on the US road talk page. I also notice that close to 100% of the featured "list of roads in x" do not ever explain what the various abbreviations stand for. For this one, I must stick with accuracy and fore-go the abbreviations. I insist on being left on this, as it a personal style choice which I am allowed to make.
7. Thats not true. The terminii sort properly and in numerical order, with the township roads all grouped together at the end, and the King's Highways grouped at the beginning. I have removed the sorting of the names column, as that was unnecessary.
8. Wouldn't that cramp things more by pushing more columns in?
9. City maps table
   1. Fixed
   2. Fixed
   3. Yes, but only a portion in the centre of route 6 was part of Highway 503.
   4. Fixed
10. Refs
    1. How would I go about adding that into the citation?
    2. The URL for the pdf file appears to be a session ID that changes day-to-day. Having no link is a step backwards, since the onus is then on the user to track down the information. The URL currently leads to the summary information for that source.
    3. OPS volume 1 deals with most of it. Grading, general specs, drainage, electrical, watermains, etc. However, the entirety of that page deals with the specifications for the construction of King's Highways.
    4. The whole document is the source though. It is the final report ordering the creation of Kawartha Lakes out of Victoria County.
    5. Fixed

Thank you very much for the continued reviews. I've revamped the City Roads table, removing many instances of 'Kawartha Lakes' from the comments, removing repeated route names from the names column, eliminating the links from the terminii columns, cleaning up the comments, using {{ntsc}}, and shifting things around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

1. Guess what, three other editors have decided to the contrary; you continue to argue against consensus here and consensus still doesn't change.
   1. If an road is not notable enough to get its own article, it should NOT have a redlink in this list. I'm sure at a minimum, a writer like yourself could craft an article for each of these city roads that contains:
      1. An infobox with map
      2. A lead
      3. A route description of the named streets that comprise the road
      4. A history of the road in question, even if it's to state that before the change over, it was Victoria County Road #, or before 1998, it was Hwy #.
      5. A junction table of some sort.
   2. Look at M-212, a highway in Michigan that's less than a mile in length. It has a good article rating even though the highway is 0.732 miles (1.178 km) long. The presence or absence of the articles for the linked roads has no bearing on the quality of this list, but continuing to shoe-horn content into this list that best appears in a different article does. Consensus is still against you on this one. List of highways in Warren County, New York does not include such usage of an online mapping service. County routes listed there that are notable enough to have an article, like County Route 7 (Warren County, New York) exist, and a map if created, could be added to the infobox in the route article. If things like M-212 and the 1.06-mile (1.71 km) Interstate 375 (complete with its unsigned 884.2-foot (269.5 m) business spur) can receive article treatment, then some of the roads listed here deserve the same in the future. It's those articles that are the best location for a map of their routing, not this list. It is in that respect that I will continue to oppose the inclusion of the 49 separate links to Google or Bing when you already have a single paper map source used to calculate the lengths. The Warren County example doesn't even give lengths for county roads rather than calculate them off Google/Yahoo/Bing. The CR 7 article does use Yahoo Maps for its length reference, but that's in another article separate from the list.
2. I'm patient about this point, but if I didn't include it here, it would have been lost in the shuffle when I collapsed Review 1 and restarted in Review 2, or collapsed Review 2 and started Review 3.
3. Looks good.
4. It only needs to be linked once. It's fairly common enough of a word, and its plain meaning should be apparent by its usage.
5. There's no reason to resort to code when plaintext will suffice. In other words, if some other editor came along, and {{WP:AGF|in good faith]] attempted to correct an error in your article, you'd have them potentially correcting template code that doesn't do anything except general plaintext. Your abbreviation argument doesn't hold because: 1) if you claim the advantage that the code is shorter than the output in cases without links and without shields, then it will be longer than the output if the template was changed to output abbreviations. Unlike {{convert}} which normally outputs only plain text, {{|tljcon}} in this usage only outputs the text as a non-default usage. Convert has the benefit of actually generating the converted value. {{inflation}} has the benefit of generating a value adjusted for inflation that's updated annually without further intervention by the writers. Your template in these instances takes text that looks like gibberish and outputs good looking text, when the desired output can be simply generated by entering the intended text in the first place.

   We're both partially correct here in different respects, but why type {{jcon|KL|2|Simcoe Street|ot=yes}} which involves for another editor, dealing with the code in the edit window, a template that generate the same finished output as Kawartha Lakes Road (Simcoe Street). Why take two steps figuratively (template + ot parameter) when one step (plain text) would suffice?

6. Abbreviations: use them, embrace them, love them. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if you notice at List of state highways in Marquette County, you can't find an explanation of what M-28 means. It is the sum total of that highway's number. In this case, as it is for all of Michigan, and this is a major misunderstanding with a lot of roadgeeks out there, the M- in Michigan state trunkline highway numbers doesn't actually stand for anything. In other words, there's nothing to explain. It was felt that the section on U.S. highways implicitly explained the abbreviation, but in retrospect, I've added the appropriate parenthetical notations. See the prose in the articles on M-28, M-35, US 41 for appropriate examples. Prose examples from FAs have been better guidance for me in my experience than prose examples from FLs. You've yet to state anything in this forum about why abbreviations would be a detriment to this article. I've given you a reason why they would be an enhancement. After about the 50th usage of an uncommon word/place/name, it begins to look misspelled. Fifty or more iterations of an abbreviation don't carry that effect because my brain intuitively knows that the abbreviation is valid. The repetition does not enhance the quality of the writing in this article.

   As a side note, standards continue to evolve and change at FAC and FLC. As an editor that has contributed nominations to both forums, I follow future nominations that are similar to my own, if not actively review them, in order to keep up with any major or minor changes in standards and preferences since the passage of my last nominations. Then I can easily update the FAs and FL I've produced to keep them as current as possible. I will not speak for other project members, nor will I attest to their FLs, but if you check, I've made minor edits to the FL I nominated as comments and discussions have taken place here. In some cases, it's because I didn't know of something, like the utility of the {{ntsc}} template when that list was nominated, and now that I do, I can implement it.

7. Sorting those columns is not beneficial. That sorting function was removed from the King's Highways table. The columns each contain two cardinal directions "Western/Southern" or "Eastern/Northern", meaning that you're mixing in separate concepts (western terminus, southern terminus) arbitrarily and sorting on that basis. Why not combine the other combination (western/northern, eastern/southern) for sorting purposes. Either way, the grouping is purely arbitrary. The sorting should be removed here as well.
8. It won't cramp things if the names column and the comments column are merged. If you look at the sandbox, the References column is no wider than the title, the Names column is wider than the title, and wider than the References column.
9. City roads table comments:
   1. Good
   2. Good
   3. Yes, but the sandboxed version says that same thing in shorter, more concise prose.
   4. Good
10. References:
    1. As for Ref 2, {{cite web}} has the at= parameter that works similar to the page= parameter, but doesn't prepend the "p." From the documentation, "When the page prefix is unwanted. "at=Table 5" produces Table 5." You could use that parameter to reference the exact location inside of the reference, such as at=Part III, Section 26 or even use the internal anchors and change the link directly to [14] if that is the section you are specifically using. (The first method would look better though.)
    2. Ref 3: Newspaper articles no longer or never yet archived online don't have URLs. Books typically aren't cited using Google Books links (although they can be). This is a traditional publication that is sold by Publications Canada as well as freely available online. It is nice to point a reader to a copy of the source online, but in this case, the ISBN link in the reference does the same already.
    3. For Ref 3 the very least you could do is include volume and page numbers. Where in that link does it say that provincial highways generally have "generally have wider lanes, smoother curves with greater banking, and exceptionally well maintained pavement"? (The word "exceptional" here is POV if the source does not state it.) Where in the source does it discuss maintenance items like plowing, salting and repairs? If the referenced items are in separate volumes, consider breaking the reference into separate references by volume, and then linking directly to the PDF as appropriate. For instance, the Vol. 1 index PDF is available at [15]. Please note though, that MTO has established in OPS User Notes, April 2005 that the hard copy supersedes the online copy where there is a discrepancy, so maybe dropping the online link here would be a good idea as well?
    4. Ref 9 could be reformatted using {{cite report}} instead of cite web. (I know that the documentation on that template is atrocious, but it does have page= and pages= parameters. It doesn't prepend the p./pp. though, so you'd have to add that manually if you switch over.) Where in all of that text is the information that specifically supports the claim: "The City of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that"? A page number, range of page numbers, etc. is needed. This could be in the form of "p. 1", "pp 2–4", or "pp. 2, 5–6" as needed, but whatever the situation, the pages numbers are necessary to complete this reference. Additionally, you now state here that this report ordered the creation of the merged municipality. It looks like the final draft of a study report into the feasibility of merging the county and it's constituent municipalities. Wouldn't there actually be an act of the provincial legislature that accomplished that task?

Some final comments:

1. You still have overlinking in the table. Each community does not need a link in either table. As it stands now, if I resort the King's Highway table by length, in increasing order, Lindsay is not linked until the third entry in which it appears. Reaboro isn't linked at all. Just simplify things and remove all the linking.
2. You've actually unlinked on the KLR 6 entry the text "Simcoe County Road 52". That should remain linked because SCR 52 is not an entry line in the table, unlike the other KLR references in the termini columns
3. The lead sentence needs work. I've been putting this off until the very end.
   1. The bolding is wrong.
      1. Option 1: Unbold everything except "numbered roads". Wikilink Kawartha Lakes, since that is the VERY first mention of the term in the entire article.
      2. Option 2: Leave the bolding as is, but find the next reference to the City of Kawartha Lakes in some form, say "municipality" and wikilink there to the article on Kawartha Lakes, piping the text to fit the sentence. (This is the option used at List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan.)
   2. The sentence doesn't offer that Kawartha Lakes is a city. That fact isn't included until the History section below, but it's a big omission for the lead.
   3. The mess about concurrencies needs to be cleaned up. Try rewording it like the following:

Sample lead

The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi) of roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes in the Canadian province of Ontario.^{[note 1][1]} These roads^{[note 2][2]} include King's Highways that are signed and maintained by the province, as well as the Kawartha Lakes Roads under the jurisdiction of the city. The third type of existing roadway in the single-tier municipality is that of locally-maintained roads that are also called concession roads and sidelines. A fourth category of roads, Secondary highways, existed prior to 1998, but no longer exist within Kawartha Lakes.

The 49 numbered highways provide year-round access to the mostly rural municipality. The longest of these roads is Highway 35, which stretches 86.7 kilometres (53.9 mi) across the municipality from the south to the north. The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake.

Before 1998, several additional King's Highways and Secondary highways were located in what was then known as Victoria County. These were downloaded to Victoria County in 1998. All Victoria County Roads, including the former provincial highways, were renamed when Victoria County was abolished in 2001 and replaced with the City of Kawartha Lakes.

Note: I'd rewrite the other two explanatory footnotes as ^{[note 3][note 4]} if not combine them all as ^{[note 5]}. If you use the <ref group="note" name='' "></ref> these shorts of noes are reusable, like reference footnotes.

Notes

References

This sample lead flows better, has all the important stuff linked, and it summarized the whole article better

You'll notice that I substituted a different map for the lead. I'd move the existing map down to the top of the first section, "Types of roads", left-aligned. I've just realized that the King's Highway photo is left-aligned under a third-level heading, which is a violation of the MOS. You could add a brief into paragraph about the types of roads, link to the MTO and explain that they maintain and sign the provincial highways, explain who maintains and signs the city roads (CKL Dept. of Public Works?) and then move the photo to right. The second photo should be moved down into the City roads section, because that what classification of roadway is shown in the photo.

I hope this helps. Imzadi1979 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

1. If you are saying that every road is notable so long as there is verifiable information concerning it, then I have no problem creating the remaining road articles and taking out the google references. My concern is not that they cannot be notable, but that an article I could create with the information I have would not. I have no historical information regarding these roads.

1. Understood
2. Cool
3. Fixed
4. Yes but consistency is key here, especially when there are well over 100 instances of road names. I know a plaintext link simplifies things on the editors end, but it also opens up a greater possibility of a mess being made and inconsistencies propping up. What it comes down to, however, is that it doesn't affect the appearance of the article. Many users use templates to simplify highly repetitive tasks, and this is one of those cases for me. As a side note, there should not be any changes made by other users to the table as it already has every road correctly entered, unless the city changes routings.
5. My main issue stemming from abbreviations is that there are no documents that use abbreviations. Its always either Kawartha Lakes City Road X, or City Road X. There is no KLR-X or cKL-X. Otherstuffexists goes both ways in this case. I'd rather trim out the term 'Kawartha Lakes' where possible, than to change it to an abbreviation anywhere.
6. I removed sorting from the Kings Highways list because there were only 5 entries, and every entry was different. In the city table, 3/4–7/8 of the routes end at another route. Sorting works and is not detrimental here, so why does it matter?
7. Perhaps just merging the names into the comments column? The refs at this point are solely in regards to the comments.
8. City Roads table: I'll take a look at road 6. I did reword mine as well yesterday, but I'm guessing you've already taken a look at it.
9. References
   1. Fixed
   2. Fixed. I removed the url, added that it was in volume 1, and changed the sentence it supports. Exceptional is a rather subjective word. In this case I meant it in a comparison sense; the construction of King's Highways is superior to that of the city or local roads. However, I've reworded it as to not make any sort of... exceptional... claim.
   3. Fixed. The kitchen report essentially orders the creation, but I'm certain that another piece of legislature would have actually authorized it / made it official.

Final comments:

1. Each community should be linked only once in the tables. An odd one here or there may be also linked in the prose, and I'm trying to spot them out right now.
2. I did that with every case of "continues Xward into nieghboring county as foo road X", as none of those road articles exist. I found it unappealing in appearance, but will insert those links when the articles exist.
3. With regards to the lead, I chose option 2 (it makes no sense to bold only 'numbered roads' since the article title indicates it's the numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes. I haven't mentioned that it is "a city" because I can't confirm that it is. There is no concrete evidence as to whether Kawartha Lakes is a city, or if its a municipality named "City of Kawartha Lakes". The Kitchen report definitely suggests the latter of the two, but aside from that all the sources indicate the former. I have made use of your sample lead, but have two points on it:

1. You cannot nest references using your standard <ref name="" group=""> tag. This is why one note uses a tag template.
2. I personally find the new image placement cramps things in, and doesn't look as nice. I placed the images where they fit in the best, and where they interfered the least with the section edit links. I can move the shields up to the second level header if that's a MOS breach, but the map fits so much better at the top (plus one can generally assume someone knows where Kawartha Lakes is before they are interested in the roads in it. If not, they can click on the Kawartha Lakes link and see it in that article.

Now get this! I removed all the google maps from the City Maps table. At this point I ask that it be permitted to keep them for the King's Highways. Why are they an exception? Because there will never ever be an article titled "Highway 7 in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario". The King's Highways have their own articles with maps of the complete route, but would become rather disorderly if they had maps of the route through each jurisdiction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754

• Oppose solely on alt text, and Google maps citations. I'm sure there's other stuff that needs to be changed, but I refuse to look further at the article until those two issues are resolved. [16] is the tool - it indicates there is no alt text. --Rschen7754 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold that there is nothing wrong with the Google Maps citations, as they do not cite anything, and are only there to help the reader in visualizing everything. The alt text is definitely there, regardless of what the tool says. The map at the top has the following code:

[[File:KL Road Map.svg|thumb|200px|alt = "A map of the entire city of Kawartha Lakes. The lakes, rivers, and roads are shown, each represented by coloured lines, except lakes which are coloured shapes. Lakes and rivers are light-blue; roads are either black, representing numbered city roads, or dark-blue, representing highways maintained by the province of Ontario. The outline of the city is a much thicker, partially transparent grey line."|A map of Kawartha Lakes. Highway 115 crosses to the lower right, King's highways are deep-blue, city roads are black.]]

The causeway image is as follows:

[[File:Hartley Road causeway.jpg|thumb|alt = "a dirt road crosses the centre of a lake on a clear day."|Hartley Road (Kawartha Lakes Road 3) crossing [[Mitchell Lake (Ontario)|Mitchell Lake]] by [[causeway]].]]

Perhaps the space is making a difference. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have images turned off on Wikipedia sites, and I can't see the alt text. Alt text does no good if it doesn't work. --Rschen7754 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but its hard to fix when the reason it isn't working isn't apparent. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the quotation marks. The examples at WP:ALT don't use quotes. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. I believe it was the spaces before and after the = . - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have fixed the ALT text issue with regards to the tool page. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I renamed the Route maps section to External links, would that be satisfactory? There is a citation (to the paper map) at the top of the Length column that is the actual reference to the length of each road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's still too many (now redundant) external links. --Rschen7754 07:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the idea is that I cannot have this useful functionality for readers because of some policy (which I'd like to see come to think of it), and that I may scrap it for A) a redundant list of external links that's really the same thing with a different section header name, or B) a redundant single link to google maps which shows a satellite photo with outdated information. This stinks of WP:IAR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all a) is incorrect. That would not be acceptable either. Secondly, it's not necessarily a matter of policy - if the consensus is that the Google Map links are clutter, then they need to go. WP:CONSENSUS. So far three people have been telling you they need to go. Nobody else has said otherwise. So far, that's consensus. --Rschen7754 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because I only count you, who is opposing solely on the basis of this. Dough and Imzadi both said to avoid using it as a source, and to clean it up. However, you are the only one making a big deal about it. I'm sorry, but I am not going to remove the maps. They are useful to the reader, and thats what matters. I will accept your oppose and focus on the other editors who are picking at important details with regard to content and sourcing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I originally said that they should be combined together. So count me in the same camp as Rschen on this one. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way FAC and FLC work is that you have to resolve *all* actionable opposes in order for the article to pass. This is an actionable oppose, meaning you can do something about it. --Rschen7754 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article fails. I'm not removing information that is helpful to the readers because a few editors dislike the appearance. No policy against it, no change. I said that from the get go. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets give it a go and see where it heads. The Google Maps references are almost 100% gone (save a last few from the King's Highway table that I mention in the review with imzadi above). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872

• Oppose - The article still has issues that have not been addressed since the last FLC, such as uncited information in prose and the overuse of Google as a source. There clearly needs to be more sources than Google that discuss these routes. ---Dough4872 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is a convenience link. Most of the information is sourced to my 2010 Ontario Back Roads Atlas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, is there a different source that can be used for the mileage other than Google? ---Dough4872 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wish there was. I would certainly use it if it existed, but as I mention, the Ontario government doesn't keep track of things, and the Kawartha Lakes website has next to no information, besides a snow plowing schedule that lists out every road in sections. Ontario road atlases show the kilometres between certain points (a major intersection or a town) on the King's Highways, but there is nothing that just lists the routes and the length of them, as NJDOT or MDOT do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose still stands with the issue of uncited information. ---Dough4872 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out which information you contest? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following excerpts need citations:

1. "These signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers. Highway 7, which is part of the Trans-Canada Highway, is also marked with a green maple leaf shield. Highways 7 and 35 together measure 140.0 km (87.0 mi) and account for 83.8% of the length of numbered roads. The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) comprises Highway 115, a RIRO freeway in the southern corner of the city; and Highway 7A, an alternate route to Highway 7 around the Lindsay area."
2. "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length."
3. "The road number appears in the centre of the sign, with the word KAWARTHA above and the word LAKES below. Like King's Highways, these signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers."
4. "Most city roads are two lanes wide (one lane in either direction), though a select few contain sections with four lanes (two lanes in either direction), and several have no centre line at all. Most city roads are paved, though some remain as dirt or gravel roads."
5. The comments and note in the King's Highways table.

Here are some other issues I noticed:

1. In the comments for Kawartha Lakes Road 3, there is a wikilink that needs to be fixed.
2. Most of the Kawartha Lakes Road articles redirect back to this list, making the links unnecessary. ---Dough4872 16:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now is it really necessary to provide a source for the third one? I'm describing a sign for which we have a picture. A source for "these signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers," maybe... but for a description of a sign is overkill for the sake of making a point. Alos, which part of the first one is necessary to source? Most of it is a written out version of the information, which is sourced, that is provided in the King's Highways table. The rest I will delete, as there are no sources besides a satellite map or going there that could verify the information (Though I've never understood what the difference is between citing an obscure book that isn't available anywhere, and citing a physical location that can be verified by just going to it (which anybody can do). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if there was a non-primary reliable source that discusses the signs. In the first part, "Highways 7 and 35 together measure 140.0 km (87.0 mi) and account for 83.8% of the length of numbered roads. The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) comprises Highway 115, a RIRO freeway in the southern corner of the city; and Highway 7A, an alternate route to Highway 7 around the Lindsay are." needs to be sourced to verify the statistics concerning the numbered routes. ---Dough4872 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would. It would also be nice if there was any type of source regarding the current state of the system, or an article anywhere that mentions the passing lanes that are there. Can a satellite shot not serve as a reference to any of those statements though (without regard what-so-ever to the other Google maps references)? I added a legitimate reference for the statement regarding the lengths. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a sattelite shot to reference the lengths, but I would prefer if another source could be found. However, a sattelite image would work in the absence of another source. ---Dough4872 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to show that passing lanes exist, but otherwise the highways are generally two lanes, and that Highway 115 is a four lane dual-carriage freeway. The distances I can (and have already) source to a proper hardcopy atlas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information you mentioned above now has a source, or has been removed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only caveats I have now is the overuse of Google links and the removal of redlinks in the list. ---Dough4872 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the redlinks, WP:RED and WP:Build the web cover things. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what about the Google links? ---Dough4872 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a compromise should be reached on that. As it stands, I have three editors now objecting almost solely on that, for aesthetics. I feel I at least offer a valid rationale in that they offer a lot of information that simply cannot be contained within the article, and would like to find some way of still providing that information to readers in the simple way that I have. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the google references. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

• Comment I am considering closing this FLC soon. I had asked at the previous FLC for this not to be re-nominated until the major disputes had been resolved and a director notified. I see no evidence of a director being notified, and not surprisingly, the disputes have not been resolved. I might keep this open until the weekend, but no longer if there is not a sea change at this FLC, which has already become one of the longest on the nomination page despite being only four days old. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed 95% of the problems at this point, and it seems to be down to only having the complaint over the Google Maps at the bottom (pending responses. Most of the disputes have been fixed, and only the lone issue remains, which as you can see above your comment, I am looking to come to a compromise about. I apologize for not contacting a director. If you had mentioned it to me, I have since forgotten over the course of the past month and change. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It's a bit hard to see what and what has not been done by simply looking at this mass of text; could the reviewers please strike/cap their resolved comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [17].

---

Nominator(s): —User:GroundZ3R0 002_c/t 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of Saw media as per the new featured list criteria and that I based the article formatting and style off of List of Metal Gear media, another featured list with similar multimedia scope. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments On the first use of Lions Gate, I'd use the full title we have here on Wikipedia, i.e. Lions Gate Entertainment. Image needs alt text. That caption - shouldn't "mediums" be "media" per the list title? "Saw, while starting as a film series, Saw has evolved to encompass..." - read that again...! "and other unique forms such as a roller coaster " - is this really unique to Saw? Can you prove it? "adding in international sales and revenue" - adding in -> including? "This is comprised of over 28 million.." -> "This comprises over 28 million..." "The series debuted in 2004 with Saw, the first film was met with much financial success[3], which allowed a sequel, Saw II...": Full stop after Saw and then capital The if you keep it phrased this way. Move the ref behind the comma. At the time, it was the sequel, not "a" sequel. You say "exactly" a year later but you've only specified 2004 in the text... "were all released a year after the previous film, with each being released in theaters" - released x2 repetitive. The lead focuses almost entirely on the films - you should discuss in a bit more detail the other media. How should I do that? It seems fairly balanced but I'm not entirely sure how I would fix it. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] On reflection, it's not too bad. I wouldn't worry too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] " Future products and follow-ups to current products are in production, possibly to release with future Saw films." - sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me, especially without a citation. Check for spaced hyphens here where either unspaced en-dashes or spaced em-dashes (per WP:DASH) should be used. I have no idea how this fits into this article, could you explain this to me? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you check the information on releases, you get "October 29, 2004 - Theatrical release" (a hyphen) and "October 18, 2005 – Uncut Edition DVD[9]" (an en-dash). At the very least you need to be consistent, and if you check WP:DASH, you'll see how our MOS recommends you use dashes/hyphens etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Okay I changed everything to spaced em dashes (—), is this better? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] "$87 million USD[13]" - why not link $ to USD and remove USD altogether? October 07->October 7. Is "Roller Coaster" really capitalised like that? I capitalized every media piece including "Comic Book, Video Game, and Internet Browser Game", so should all of these be changed? If so, how? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, generally only proper nouns get capitalized. That means "video game" instead of "Video Game", for example (the last one would be "Internet browser game", Internet is a proper noun and always gets capitalized. TJ Spyke 22:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't think you need to link just about every word in "Live action horror maze". Would live action horror maze work? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's just a little confusing - a number of blue links in a row... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] " etc." - never keen on this, especially in an encyclopedic article. 1:18:07 vs 01:04:32 - be consistent with leading zeros. And then you have 64:01 which is actually 1:04:01... be consistent with the format. What does "variable" mean in the duration? The song, Hello Zepp, has multiple mixes that are all different lengths which makes the length undefined or "variable" unless we can decide that the very first mix is the one that counts for this in which case it would be 2:57. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps a note then? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] I wrote it as a reference. Check ref 50(or somewhere near there), is this good? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Don't mix date formats in the references. Look out for the (MOS) incorrect use of hyphens in the reference titles. Please explain I'm not sure what you are getting at. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Saw V (2008) - Movie Details" for instance. Again, read WP:DASH for how this should be formatted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ref 9 has an odd ]. Not sure you need so many external links. Since this is about the series as a whole, I also don't think you need specific series links either. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does this list violates criterion 3b? It seems to me that this list can logically be merged to Saw (franchise).—Chris!_c/t 02:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think merging it would create a monster. The franchise article is large as it is, without adding in all of this detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I tend to agree. I think that the Saw franchise will continue in the future, so the main article will probably be even longer.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even as it is now it's pretty lengthy and there is simply too many media pieces to conveniently mention everything. As of now, the major media pieces have mentions on the franchise page and it is labeled with the "Main article: List of Saw media" tag, plenty sufficient. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Big comment Unless I'm mistaken, IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources reads: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." They make an exception for WGA-provided credits, but I would try to replace those cites (particularly for the comic book, which is unaided by another source currently. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Wikipedia's policy, I think an exception could be made for this since it is the only source available for the comic, other than YouTube (the Animated Comic was uploaded on YouTube). I mean we know the comic exist, that's verified. It contradicting the Saw IV storyline, that's also verified. I think the author added IMDb because Wikipedia requires sources for verification. I don't know what else could be added in place of IMDb, nothing? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ok I added the official Saw; Rebirth site (via archive.com) I hope that is good enough? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comments –
• I was about to ask you why the VH1 reality show wasn't included, but just saw it under other films. My question then becomes why this isn't listed among other media instead. This is the format used in List of The Legend of Zelda media.
• "Saw has evolved to encompass numerous media forms including video games, comics, as well as mazes and a roller coaster." In a case where there are only two elements before "as well as", I would go with "video games and comics", eliminating a comma.
• Capitalize friday in the second paragraph?
• "as well as a seventh film, entitled Saw VII." This is the second time this film is mentioned in the lead. Perhaps try "as well as Saw VII"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all of these. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The success of the films have inspired...". "have" → "has". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that have is the correct word tense as there are multiple films. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is worded, the success (singular) was the inspiration, not merely the films (plural). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, success=sing, so "has" is correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay changed to "has". GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed—Mike Allen 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The problem I have is a possible overlinking of words, such as DVD, Theatrical release, Internet browser game, etc. Or is it acceptable in this format? Mike Allen 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition to Mike Allen's comment about overlinking, the media types are inconsistently capitalized. For example, I see "Television series" and "Television Series". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The only inconsisant caps I noticed was the o television series, which I fixed. Is there any more? As for the overlinking, should each media type only be linked once in the list and once in the lead? GroundZ3R0 002 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [18].

---

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie}, GageSkidmore, Qst

I am nominating this for featured list because after it faild the first nomination i was ocupaded by another FLC but now i am able to give this nomination a lot of atention. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it hasn't changed at all since the previous nomination. Ωphois 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it failed because it did not have enough reviewers--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only somewhat true. It was unsuccessful because there was no consensus, among the reviewers who did look at the article, that this list should be promoted to FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The boxset is red, so the color for the infobox and the table should be red also.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No source for the second half of the second paragraph in "Production."

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Third paragraph in same section, source only confirms that Phineas and Ferb has been nominated for an Emmy. Everything else is unsourced.

Not much information about that i will look further--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No source for the entire first paragraph in "Reception."

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No source for last statement in the last paragraph of "Reception."

donre--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As requested. Article needs some improvements, especially in sourcing. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Issues taken care of; article meets requirements in my eyes. The Flash ^{talk} 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support also - Per previous nomination, which should have passed. Gage (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators' supports are assumed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I point out that the reception section is extremely lacking. Many of the scant reviews it does have just say "such and such were great episodes" without giving any indication as to why they were great (which pretty much makes them useless, IMO). Anyways, again I will leave it up to Dabomb87. Ωphois 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the prose in the production section could use some work. The info related to Brian's girlfriend is confusing in its current wording. Ωphois 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i guessed youed say that ohpios but i will not object, will see if i can re-word it--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i think he did not see that--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I will be on vacation for three weeks and there's a good chance that I will not be closing this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to now--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was requested to review this list, which puzzles me a bit, since I do citation formatting over at FACs, and there's no requirement for consistent formatting of citations here, other than MOS. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  IGN is cited in multiple ways (3), it is a publisher, or a "newspaper" type title. Parents Television Council (of where? The world is larger than the US) is cited in 3 ways. BBC Three is incorrectly cited, BBC has multiple stations. Plus you'd need to make clear that they're programme guides, not the object itself. Same with the IGN objects with titles identical to the show. "^ "FAMILY GUY". The futon critic. Retrieved 2009-10-03." is unnecessarily duplicated given that you're using refnames, unless it relates to the different broadcasting dates, in which case you could say that in the cite, "Family Guy: [episode name] broadcast: broadcast date"... Speaking of MOS regarding titles in all caps. Generally, your citations are misnamed. Is Amazon referring to the object of FG season X, or to the advertising material and cataloguing information... But as I said, FLCs have a different criteria. Check your MOS for perfect details, this is simply what I'd point out at FAC if it were held to FAC standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was asked on my talk page to review this list, and so I come bearing comments. However, I am concerned about some of the repetitive phrasing I'm seeing after reviewing the first part of the page.

• Blind Ambition links to a disambiguation page.
• "before being released as a DVD box set and in repeat broadcasts." It says later in the article that there were two box sets, so why does this say one?
• "the first episode was 'Stewie Loves Lois' and the season's final episode 'Meet the Quagmires'." Missing "was" after "final episode".
• The quotes in the second paragraph of the lead should be cited. Normally content doesn't need to be cited in the lead if it is in the body, but it's better to be safe with quotes and very controversial statements.
• "Season five won one Annie Award at the 35th Annie Awards for storyboarding and was nominated for three other Annie Awards including for writing and voice acting." Very redundant use of Annie Awards; three times in one sentence is a bit much. Also don't like the "including for" part, which is not great grammar. How about "included those for"?
• Consecutive sentences start "Season fice" and "Season 5". Pick one and be consistent. Per WP:MOSNUM, I'd go with the first option.
• "There were 18 episodes produced for the season." This is repeating information from the second sentence of the article.
• "Thirteen of the total eighteen episodes are included in the volume." Another redundant word, this time "total". Removing it harms nothing; in fact, it makes the sentence tighter as a whole.
• Production: "As the fifth season began production, (long list of names) ... ,". Something is clearly missing from the end of this sentence.
• "before leaving the show to create his own series, entitled Phineas and Ferb, a series which has since been nominated for three Emmy Awards." Again, the struck words represent repetitive phrasing.

I'll come back to review more at a later time. Meanwhile, please consider finding an outside copy-editor to take a look at the page and clean it up. I'd hate to see a bunch of problems in the episode summaries, which are usually a problem spot for similar FLCs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gage (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note before I make these comments that I left one unstruck above.

• "Other guest stars who made multiple appearances as recurring characters from previous seasons, comprised...". I don't think the comma should be there. It seems like a minor point, but I would quickly check for similar punctuation issues elsewhere to ensure the best possible writing.
• "The decision to end the fifth season before the 100th episode was made due to Fox executive's desire to show...". Move the apostrophe to after the last letter of "executives". Otherwise, it reads like it was one executive's call.
• The first paragraph of Reception contains an overload of "also"s. I don't think these add anything to the text, and believe they should be dropped. The previous section has a few as well, with varying degrees of necessity.
• In the quote from Gord Lacey, there is a hyphen in the text where we would normally have an en dash. I believe we are allowed to adjust a quote in this fashion, so it would be worth it to make this confirm with our style standards.
• Episode 1: "While attempting to receive one from the Dr. Elmer Hartman". Remove "the".
• Episode 3: "she demands that Peter and Lois to allow her to buy a car." Remove first "to".
• "Despite showing an interest in a station wagon, Peter uses her money to buy a military tank." This makes little sense. Did Meg show the interest?
• Episode 5: "so he requests Lois to do his work for him". Should this be similar to "so he requests that Lois do his work for him."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and not sure where the 18 episodes is mentioned outside the lead and the DVD information. Gage (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode 6: Comma after Doug.
• Episode 7: Another comma after Rupert.
• "he leaves the house in anger, but decides to set fire to it". I don't see the contrast in this sentence that "but" implies. Perhaps this should be "and" instead?
• Episode 12: Space in "airtraffic" for "Quagmire eventually contacts Peter, Cleveland and Joe via airtraffic control".
• In some of the summaries, I detect a few unnecessary links, such as pornography and boyfriend in episode 6 (fairly common terms). In contrast, the episode 16 summary could contain links for Swan Lake and the No Child Left Behind Act, since those are more specialized and useful.
• DVD release: "The remaining five episodes of the fifth season, along with the first seven of the sixth season, were also released under the title 'Volume 6' by 20th Century Fox, in the United States and Canada on October 21, 2008, five months after it had completed broadcast on television." A couple of picky prose items here. First, the comma after 20th Century Fox should not be there. Second, "it" should be changed to "they", since the item in question is the number of episodes, not a season.
• Regarding the 18 episodes, I'm commenting about the information being repeated in the lead itself. The second sentence says "It includes 18 episodes", and the third paragraph says "There were 18 episodes produced for the season." They are heavily repetitive of each other, which is glaring since they are both in the lead. As I should have said above, why not chop the second one to avoid this?
• The general reference should be formatted like the others, with publisher and date of access. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Terrence and Phillip 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the status on Giants' comments? More importantly, has an independent copy-editor looked at the prose as per his suggestion? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No we have not got to that, he looks neutral for now, good to see you back--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [19].

---

Nominator(s): 03md 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has gone through peer review and I feel the list is ready to become featured. I am not sure whether a table for doubles players is needed. 03md 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criteria 3a and 3b. For 3a, you would need the doubles. Also, given that we have complete lists of finalists from 1905 and 1922 for men and women respectively, I don't understand why this only goes as far back as the start of the slam era. Surely we should be consistent? But my main issue is 3b. I just don't see the need for this list. I don't see why it couldn't reasonably be incorporated into List of Australian Open champions (or vice versa, given the superior quality of this list in terms of referencing and prose). WFCforLife (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and Support Merge I also fail to see how this must be a separate article from List of Australian Open champions and its five subarticles. That lisst is not terribly long so this table should be trimmed and merged there. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The 3b criterion was created to avoid lists like this. It is reasonable to merge this list to the main list.--Cheetah (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:30, 11 January 2010 [20].

---

Nominator(s): Loveable Daveo (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Although short, it will extend as time passes, without changing the current design/layout of the article. It is incomplete, but the only new information to be added will be the future number-one albums and current top 10, which will be added after they are revealed every Sunday. Many other similar lists have been given featured list status when still incomplete, such as List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) Loveable Daveo (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There has only been 1 number-one album in the 2010s. It's vastly premature to say that this is an example of WP's finest work. Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Further comment) List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) was promoted in Feb 2009, so over 90% of the decade was over by that point. 2/520ths (to use Reywas's figures) is a completely different order of magnitude. Bencherlite^Talk 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but Oppose. We're only two weeks into a decade of 520. Although I'm generally an advocate for short lists, this one is much too premature. It will surely and steadily grow and perhaps be great in at least a few months. Reywas92^Talk 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. A list of something ongoing is one thing, but this is just silly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there is no reason for the current top 10 to even be in there, and removing that just leaves a list with one entry, which is obviously far too short for a FL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 18:31, 2 January 2010 [21].

---

Nominator(s): Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets FL criteria and deserves featured status. Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

• Lead is very short; 1 paragraph isn't enough. Perhaps some of the prose from later into the article could be incorporated into a longer lead.
• The key should be made into a table.
• Not a huge fan of the giant green checkmarks in the first table. There's gotta be a better way to effectively present this information, such as a "Notes" column or symbols/colors.
• Why do the later lists only use a bulleted format instead of a tabular format?
• Quite a few redlinks in the second section.
• I don't have time to copyedit right now, but there are some grammar, capitalization, and punctuation errors. Two examples that I saw are "Higher Education institutions" (higher ed isn't a proper noun) and "South-West London" (southwest is the proper spelling).

I suggest recruiting an experienced copy editor. This list probably should have gone to peer review before coming here, and I wouldn't be opposed to its withdrawal to be put through peer review before a re-nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

1. I agree that the second section should be converted into a tabular form. I also think that the list should provide more information: street address, number of students, year of foundation etc. See, for instance, List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_New_Hampshire.
2. I do not understand what are inclusion criteria? Some of the institution mentioned in the list do not look like universities. The list should be either renamed to List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_London or the inclusion criteria should be rectified.
3. The lead should be expanded. It should, for instance, list the inclusion criteria which I mentioned above.

Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, a bit of this is said above, but my main concern is the rather subjective presentation of and lack of crucial information. In addition there are some style and grammar issues.

• What is the difference between a "major university" and "specialised universities and higher education colleges". For instance, I was under the impression that London School of Economics was a business/economics university and not a full-range university, and was sort of expecting it in the second section. Is there any reliable sources that can be sited for this divide?
• The second list needs to become a table. By merging the two sections, a full, sortable list can be created, which is much more useful for this kind of information.
• What I expect from a list like this is: name, location (for instance borough or similar), no. of students, public/private and perhaps notes. Maybe there are other things too, for instance year of establishment, faculty size etc. Rankings and accreditation actually say very little about a university, and there is academic dispute whether the rankings actually measure the quality of a university at all. There also becomes the discussion of which rankings to include.
• Why are some of the universities in italics? The key should be above the list in table format (what is the point of reading a table without having read the key, just to discover it after the table was read), and not use italics for indication.
• There seems to be an undue attention (in amount of prose) given to future universities. Why is a qualitative discussion of them worth while, where only a bare mention of the current in Name (type) format.
• Don't use relative terms like "within the next few years".
• Lots of statements are unreferenced.
• The lead should perhaps be five times the length. It also seems subjective, over-focusing on the University of London.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 18:36, 2 January 2010 [22].

---

Nominator(s): Notorious4life (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, because the list is fully complete, well structured, very accurate, easily navigable, and is categorized very well with an extensive amount of information. My only real concern is that the article may be too long at 115 kilobytes to meet specific criteria without being split into multiple articles (though the maximum length of an article is not really mentioned in the criteria). —Notorious4life (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In my opinion the article is very user-friendly and easy to navigate.Mephiston999 (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KV5

• There are absolutely no references anywhere in this article. Two external links are simply not acceptable.
• Featured lists no longer start with "This is a list of...". See recently promoted featured lists for examples.
• The FLC hasn't been initiated properly, as there's no banner on the talk page.
• Some em-dashes are spaced; em-dashes should not be spaced per WP:DASH.
• All images need alt text.
• All of the colors in the tables need to be united in a single key and accompanied by a symbol per WP:ACCESS. I have no idea what the orange means right now.
• "Michigan also has 64,980 inland lakes" - I don't see that many in this list; what are the criteria for inclusion that makes this list smaller than the claimed number?

Some serious issues here that need to be fixed before I could considering supporting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the talk page banner. To nominator: please follow the nominating instruction when nominating a FLC.—Chris!_c/t 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per the lack of references. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this list is a nice starting point and has potential, but some critical elements are still lacking. The most obvious is the complete lack of references. Some other comments:

• When I clicked on the link, I was expecting to see the island, location and coordinates (that is all nice), but also the size (in both metric and imperial unit) and the populations. Frankly, a list like this is not much worth if not details like this are provided. Because of the information in the lead and section leads, I feel that information is being withheld because data is being provided for a limited number of the islands.
• If the above mentioned information was added, I would have preferred to see a column for 'body of water' added and make a single table that then could be sorted.
• The maps are nice, but I would have liked to have seen a few images to increase my feel for the topic.
• The lead fails to mention the number of islands, even though it mentions the number of of lakes and ponds.
• It is better to use the {{convert}} template for conversion, among other things because the text uses ² instead of <sup>2</sup> that produces ².
• There is no key; obviously there is some color coding system, and this needs to be explained. Also, the colors need to be supplemented with a symbol for accessibility.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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