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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one's the "big daddy" of all of the Sega games lists I've sent here, and its promotion would complete an excellent series: Sega Genesis is a featured article already, and both of the console's add ons, the Sega CD and Sega 32X have had their games lists pass FLCs recently as well, making this list the keystone to deep coverage in both the console itself and video game lists. This was a HUGE undertaking, at over 900 individual titles! Not only that, but adding in the incredible world diversity of the titles released from Japan, North America, and PAL territories to Brazil, Taiwan, Korea... it's taken a lot to track down so many titles and clean up what this listing once was, and I can count at least three or four days I've spent sitting at my computer cleaning this list up. After so much effort, it's finally ready for this, and I'm as always more than glad to address any concerns brought up during this FLC. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to be "that guy": The Japanese names. For example, Last Battle. The Japanese name begins "Hokuto no Ken". Now, this is Fist of the North Star, and is well known by that name in English, yet because it's not translated, that could be lost on the reader. Similarly but not identically, Phantasy Star IV's Japanese subtitle is Sennenki no Owari ni, which translates as ... the End of the Millennium. But, the Japanese title lacks the "IV", so it would still be a separate title, but should it be the Japanese or be translated? Now, this shouldn't just be fan translations; if no official or obvious translation exists, we should stick with the romaji. But, in the above two cases, we have an official translation (Fist of the North Star) and an obvious translation (the Japanese obviously matches the English subtitle) do we need to supply romaji? --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have a slight hesitation for that just in that the game was never released for the Sega Genesis under that title. I did something similar in List of Sega 32X games, where Sangokushi IV is a Japanese-only title, but it was released in other territories on other systems as Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV: Wall of Fire. Realistically, I think this may have to be a case-by-case examination, especially with any game series that has different releases in different regions. If you have more specifics, we can look at those cases. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, should we redlink the few unlinked titles in there? I don't see why not. Otherwise it seems odd that a very few of the entries in the list are blacklinked. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually explicitly went through and removed the redlinks. Not every game will eventually get its own article, I'm sure. Other lists, such as List of Sega CD games, have no such issue with the removal of redlinks. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - You know, every so often I think that List of Square Enix games is getting pretty long at 350 titles and no end in sight, and think about how I could split it up. After looking through this 1000+ title behemoth, I never will again.

• Altered Beast should be linked in the lead

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "of its games, as well as more difficult entries such as Ecco the Dolphin, and sports games such as Joe Montana Football" - I don't think that comma after Dolphin is necessary

• I actually got this one a while ago, so Done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• link Joe Montana Football

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• link Super Nintendo Entertainment System

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• link Mortal Kombat

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• link Electronic Arts

• Done - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirects: In the lead: List of Master System games->List of Sega Master System games, Sonic the Hedgehog 2->Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit video game), Aladdin (video game)->Disney's Aladdin (video game) , Sonic the Hedgehog (video game)->Sonic the Hedgehog (series)

• • Done, but some of these were just goofy. I actually moved List of Sega Master System games to List of Master System games for consistency - it makes no sense to have a Master System article named as such, and a list named the opposite. The second two have been fixed, and the last should actually be Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), so it's been fixed as well. - Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Like the last list, there's a bunch of game titles that are redirecting to similar titles rather than just sections of other articles; up to you if you want to fix them.

• I'd like to try and go in, but it will be an extensive project. For now, it should be close enough I would hope, but getting it all unkinked would be nice. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't sort titles by renaming them like "Addams Family, The" - sort them by placing them in a sort template: {{sort}}. It looks awful when you do the comma thing, especially with subtitles, and there's still 12 titles that are being sorted by "the".

• Ah, I was not aware of the sort template. Some issues here have been since this list already existed before I touched it, I've been working around how it was to get it set up right... otherwise, at over 900+ titles, this would have been a flat-out suicidal project. I'll see if I can work this out and get it fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, but that took a while. I made sure to fix all of them, those with the "the" in front and those without. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That will also allow you to get roman numerals in the right order- Double Dragon 1|Double Dragon, Double Dragon 2|Double Dragon II: The Revenge, Double Dragon 3|Double Dragon 3: The Arcade Game, Double Dragon 5|Double Dragon V: The Shadow Falls - right now when you sort by name double dragon goes 1-3-2-5, and mortal kombat goes 1-3-2, for example.

• Same as above.

• And Done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think asking for full release date rather than just year would be sadistic, so I won't.

• Thank you. I'm not sure I would ever be able to source everything for full release date, anyway. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any way you could get ISSNs for the magazine refs?

• That one's a little bit of a tall order; save for Retro Gamer, I don't actually have any of the issues, and for Retro Gamer I've got electronic versions, not paper. I'll see what I can do. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if I can't get ISSNs, I was able to scrounge up a little more info about some of them, and added them. It's still tricky to find. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the publisher an external link on ref 9?

• It shouldn't be. Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You link IGN in ref 29 but not 14, and you don't link Kotaku in 11 or 12.

• Linked IGN in 14 and Kotaku in 11, and delinked IGN in 29. The FAC for Sega Genesis indicated an unwillingness to have publishers linked more than once in a ref list. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As always, consider archiving the online refs that you haven't already so that the vagaries of time/the internet can never take them from you. This month's warning: When the Penny Arcade Report went offline this year, they removed their entire site from the web- anything not archived is now gone forever. --PresN 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be going through and doing this with all of my lists soon. List of Sega 32X games lost its FL status in 2010 when Sega-16 redid their website and some IPs tried to replace the sources with MobyGames... yeah, lovely, all of this while I was retired and not maintaining anything. I'll be intent on making sure that doesn't happen with any of my articles and lists again... though I wonder what would happen if one of the archiving sites ever went down... Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for your feedback, PresN. I always appreciate that you're willing to review my out-of-relevance outdated Sega game lists, even at over 900 games. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all of my above concerns are now addressed. --PresN 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it be appropriate to switch "Sonic" (the developer) to "Camelot"? Considering that this is an article about the Genesis, I think the current name could be confusing. Or at least "Sonic!". Tezero (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be appropriate to switch it to Camelot because they didn't publish games under the Camelot name for the Genesis, just like how games published by DMA Design are linked to Rockstar North but not titled that. Adding the exclamation point wouldn't necessarily be wrong or right in my opinion, but the links are correct, and the only developer this could be confused with is Sonic Team, which is always spelled out in the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll say support. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very well done. Ready to support but not quite yet, a couple minor points: (1) When clicking on the individual letters for the 2nd appearance of the table of contents by alphabet for the smaller subsection, it brings the reader to the larger subsection's alphabet entries, so just suggest only using it for the larger section. (2) Might be nice to have an External links section with a few extra links of additional resources for the reader. That's all for now and I'd be ready to support, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the idea of having two here for the larger section is because the table is so big, it helps users to navigate, and with over 900 items having one at each end is beneficial for the users. To eliminate confusion, I've moved the upper contents links into the section itself instead of being just above it. There's not a lot of external links actually necessary as well, I believe; as a list of Genesis games, its use of resources is already very detailed and comprehensive of the subject matter, and I don't believe an external link just for the sake of having external links is necessary in this case. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Thanks for the responses to my comments, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the previous season, I'm hoping this can reach FL. The plot builds from the previous season so if there are accessibility issues to the general reader, I'll try to address them. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Haha169

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenal work! I have a few nit-picky things to list, but they are all very minor, so I'm going to offer my support for this list if these issues are addressed (or, of course, explained to me why there is nothing wrong in the first place): In the intro: "The series was directed by Gorō Taniguchi who cooperated with Ichirō Ōkouchi on the script." I believe there should be a comma after Taniguchi. Reworded with "Who has also worked with..." In the intro: A few of the sentences in the middle of paragraph two are a bit choppy. See if you can combine/re-word it. For example, "Bandai Visual encapsulated the episodes into nine volumes in DVD, Blu-ray, and Universal Media Disc formats. Each volume contained a picture drama episode as a bonus." -> "...Universal Media Disc formats, with each volume containing..." Hmm yeah. I should think of ways to reduce the choppiness. In the intro: DVD releases are mentioned in both the second and third paragraphs in the lead. Any reason why they are split? Once again, good work! --haha169 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] The second paragraph is all about the Japanese broadcast and release. The third paragraph focuses on the English localization in NA, UK, and AUS. You might want to hold on the support in case there is some glaring error I missed. Thank you for the time though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the changes you've made! Just one thing catches my eye. At the end of the first paragraph, you mention that R2 takes place after the first series, then you launch into a plot summary. As I have not watched this show, can you make it more clear as to whether the short plot summary refers to the first series or the R2 series? Otherwise, I support. --haha169 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisGualtieri

• Seems to be missing some commas in the summary of the episodes. Some more optional than others: "A year after the Black Rebellion, a brainwashed Lelouch Lamperouge and his younger brother Rolo are gambling at Babel Tower when The Black Knights<comma?> led by C.C.<comma?> launches an attack on the complex to retrieve Lelouch." and ". The Black Knights are overwhelmed by the Knightmare Frame Vincent<comma> but are able to collapse Babel Tower in time to retreat to the Chinese Federation Consulate forcing the Britannian army to retreat." Some wording issues: "Lelouch collapses the grounding and forces the Britannian military to fall into Chinese territory where they are politically restrained from attacking." Needs to be clarified for non-viewers as to what is happening. Some sentences are a bit awkward: "However, he takes a bullet meant for Rolo and plays on his insecurities about his future and sibling relationship, convincing him to join his cause." Overall, its these little prose issues that need the most work, but this is indeed a strong candidate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Added suggested comma's.
• Replaced grounding sentence with "Lelouch collapses the flooring, causing the Britannian military to fall into Chinese territory where they are politically restrained from attacking."
• Replaced insecurity sentence with "Lelouch arranges a charade to seemingly save Rolo's life; using this and their pseudo-brotherly relationship, he convinces Rolo to join the Black Knights." DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gabriel Yuji

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Beginning episode 13, the opening theme is "World End" by Flow and "Waga Rōtashi Aku no Hana" (わが﨟たし悪の華?, lit. "My Beautifully Elegant Flower of Evil") by Ali Project." Is there something missing here? "Beginning episode 13, the opening theme is "World End" by Flow"; until here the sentence is ok. But then is stated "and "Waga Rōtashi Aku no Hana" (わが﨟たし悪の華?, lit. "My Beautifully Elegant Flower of Evil") by Ali Project." And what? Is "Waga Rōtashi Aku no Hana" also a opening theme or the second ending theme? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Missed that, thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] "There, Lelouch witnesses her past, and returns to the Sword of Akasha to save C.C.; The two return to reality where Lelouch discovers C.C. has lost all her memories except those before receiving the power of Geass." After a semicolon you shouldn't capitalize. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support. It's excellent! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cirt

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very nicely done overall by DragonZero. A minor point: I'd suggest changing subsection header from "Other English releases" to "Additional English releases". DragonZero, I wonder if you'd be interested in improving List of Cowboy Bebop episodes to a similar level of quality? — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to keep other though, since additional seems as if it is an add on to the North American release. I don't think I will take it up Cowboy Bebop as of current. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries, — Cirt (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2014 (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 promoted by Hahc21 17:55, 18 February 2014 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Gloss • talk 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although promoted years ago, List of Calgary Flames players and List of New Jersey Devils players seem to still serve as good models for these kinds of articles. I used them both to help me with this one, and after checking and double checking all of the numbers, this list should be good to go. I'm very open to further improvements as you all see fit! Gloss • talk 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Hwy43

*Comments from Hwy43: A TOC of article sections within the lead would be helpful for navigation. There are inconsistent date formats applied within the references and a third unique date format in the lead. May be more elsewhere. They should be made consistent. I believe the American standard date format is MDY. The title of the second ref should not be ALL CAPS, regardless if the title at the linked webpage uses it. I'd like to see the general references converted to inline citations, duplicated where necessary. These are my initial observations for now. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments, @Hwy43:. I've taken care of the first three. However the general references cover all of the statistics for the goaltenders and skaters tables. If I were to duplicate them throughout the article, they would appear over 500 times. Gloss • talk 02:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] No need for 500 duplicates. What about the column headers for each table? Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Done. Gloss • talk 05:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments from Hwy43: At the top of the page, add the template {{Use mdy dates|date=January 2014}}. The first image's caption ends with a period despite being an incomplete sentence. Those captions that are incomplete sentences should not end with a period per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Formatting and punctuation. The season dashes are inconsist. The lead and tables appear to use mdashes, while the notes below the key tables appear to use ndashes and finally there are hyphens used in the image captions. There may be other inconsistencies. Make the second and third notes under the "Key" section the same inline format as the first note then move all three notes to a new "Notes" section somewhere below the final table as the second note applies to both tables that follow the "Key" section. Please add scope cols and rows to the formatting of the two tables to conform with MOS:ACCESS. Although the Flames and Devils FLs don't at this time, I'd like to see both the "Goaltenders" and "Skaters" sections having one or two paragraphs worth of section leads each. I'd suggest these leads indicate the amount of players in each list and the team leaders among the various statistical categories. I recognize some of the image captions do this, but it would be helpful to have all this information together (mentioning the same in the image captions can remain). We are getting close. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Hwy43: I've taken care of all but the last two. As for the scope cols and rows, I'm embarrassingly clueless on how to do that. I'll look into it, but any help would be appreciated as I try to figure it out. As for adding prose to the two sections, I'll have to put some thought into it. This would be the first time a "players" list had prose before the tables, so I'll do my best. Gloss • talk 05:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) See table in edit mode for how the col/row thing is done at another FL. Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I've taken a crack at the scope cols and rows. Hoping that I did it correctly! If I did, that's also taken care of. Gloss • talk 06:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Hwy43: I've also added leads to the tables. Let me know if this is what you were thinking or if you have more information in mind that you think could be added. Gloss • talk 07:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] You are part way there on the cols and rows. My understanding of WP:DTAB within MOS:ACCESS is that each row below the column headers within the two tables needs the scope="row" at the beginning. Regarding the section leads, they look good. The only thing I'd add is the skater with most PIMs. Hwy43 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Hwy43: Both are completed. Gloss • talk 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. Very good work. Hwy43 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a very good list. The new standard for lists of NHL players by team. Hwy43 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the help, thanks! Gloss • talk 08:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC):[reply]

List is in really good shape, but I did notice a few of things.
1 It looks like you used the wrong size dash for the seasons. it looks like the longer M dash (—) was used when an N dash (–) should have been used.

Good work fixing this in the tables. There are a few more instances in the lead.

@Leech44: All fixed! Gloss • talk 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 The sorting is not working properly on the playoff columns. The large amount of dashes int his column throw things off. Either {{sort|-0001|—}} or {{sort dash}} should be used which will fix the sorting issue. 3 Save Percentage note should be referenced. Other Player lists have a reference for this so it should be easy to find and copy over. 4 When using a color cell there should also be a corresponding symbol. (see List of Detroit Red Wings players for an example.) 5 While I couldn't find a specific requirement. It might be a good ideal to change the notes to alpha characters to further distinguish them from the references. 6 Eliminate the empty cell in the goaltenders abbreviation table by using a straight vertical listing. (Like the a fore mentioned Wings list or List of Vancouver Canucks players)

@Leech44: I've taken care of all of these fixes. Gloss • talk 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leech44 (talk • contribs) 01:03, January 15, 2014‎ (UTC)

Resolved comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)

Weak oppose from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Richard Brodeur did not win a Stanley Cup with the Islanders; he was only with the team for two games in the regular season. Check to make sure that only players that have their names engraved on the Cup be indicated. Goaltenders with 0's in their OTLs before 2005 and Ties after should instead have em dashes, don't you think? Ties aren't applicable in the current NHL, and should be indicated with an em dash instead of a 0 for goaltenders who joined the Islanders after 2005. This is extremely minor; more like a pet peeve than a mandatory thing that you have to do. The Goaltender column would be more visually appealing if there was no fixed width. Trust me on this one. I should really write a Wikipedia essay on this sometime, but ain't nobody got time for that. No one calls Ron Hextall Ronald. Indication of retired numbers would be nice. Both tables need captions (MOS:DTT). Captions need to be more descriptive. So instead of "Goaltenders", it should be something along the lines of "New York Islanders' goaltenders" (MOS:DTT#Correct table captions). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Awesome job with the list. The main thing to fix is the indications of Stanley Cup winners. Other than that, great work, and let's hope the Islanders get back into their 80's groove! :) P.S. Your userpage tells me that you have contributed to 11 featured lists, yet I can't seem to find you on this list. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'll take care of this all later today. My old username was "IMatthew" - it was changed a few months ago. I changed it on that list but I guess the bot reverted me. Gloss • talk 17:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] @K. Annoyomous: I took care of all of your comments. I agree with you on the ties/OTL thing, so that's taken care of too. Gloss • talk 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Gloss: O wow. I just learned two new things: the new ping function and your name change. Shows you how inactive I have been. The bot did that to me too when I changed my name a few years ago. You just have to change your name on all the FL yearly logs, cause that's where Rick Bot retrieve his data from. To get you started off, here's Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2008 :). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] @K. Annoyomous: Ha! Glad I could help you with both of those :) I'll take care of the captions right now and thanks for the link, I'll get to that sooner or later. Gloss • talk 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2014 (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 promoted by Hahc21 17:55, 18 February 2014 [4].

---

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket. The list also went through a Peer Review and I think this now fulfills the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated. Happy holidays to all! Cheers, Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Çomments I think that the list should be initially sorted by the no. of wickets. This list is about bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets, and this was also discussed at the PR. Zia Khan 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] There are two BBM in the Key section. Fixed. Zia Khan 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] There should be consistency in the date forms used in Period column. Done. Zia Khan 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] "considered by cricket critics a significant achievement in Test cricket" ---> "considered a significant achievement in Test cricket by cricket critics" ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done. Thanks for the review. Zia Khan

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I would remove the citation on the image text, that piece of information is already cited in the main text. For Ref 4, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the work (they wrote the content), Google News is the publisher (they published the content on their site). You only use the agency parameter when the source is part of a series, not if they are a news agency. Ref 5 needs the location parameter filled in (London). Check the retrieval date for Ref 4, 5 and 35. It was obtained before the article was actually published. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done. Thanks for the review! Zia Khan 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Minor issues have been addressed. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• On what grounds you decided to fix the 300 mark as a significant achievement in Test cricket. Why not 200 or may be 400? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that was answered in the lead with the references to sources quoting a 300-club etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a look at ref# 3, 4 and 5. —Zia Khan 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • May be, also have a look at [5], [6] and see what the man at top of the table feels. Although I'm aware that we shouldn't rely too much on Cricinfo, the most comprehensive cricket website, see their standards for "Most wickets in career". Fixing 300 wickets as an yardstick based on some random news sources seems arbitrary to me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before creating the list I had asked for opinion here. Also, at the PR non of the reviewers had this kind of concern, including Harrias (talk · contribs). I'm not fixing 300 wickets, you may create lists for for 200, 400 or most wickets etc. There are only 11 and 4 bowlers with 400 wickets in Tests and ODIs respectively, and too many bowlers have taken over 200 wickets and many others are about to reach the 200 mark. Many cricket articles depend upon these "random news sources". You showed me Cricinfo's standards for the most Test wicket, so look at this for List of Test cricket triple centuries. Actually, your concern is just like this one. —Zia Khan 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought WT:CRIC is the right place. After reading the last comment it's clear that you haven't got my point. Since TRM is a co-nom, I may have to wait for others opinion and will continue with the review if they are satisfied with your benchmark. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better, appreciated. —Zia Khan 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a problem with it: Only 11 bowlers have taken over 400 wickets in Test cricket, so that seems a little restrictive, while in excess of 50 bowlers have taken over 200 wickets, so that seems too inclusive. At the moment, this seems the best balance. The line has to be somewhere, and this in my opinion is the most logical point to draw it. Harrias ^talk 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Harrias. We need to have a benchmark, and 300 wickets is the most balanced one. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The title of the article should be "more than" not over. I'll look at the rest of it in a bit. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I suggest it probably ought to be "300 or more", unless those who take 300 wickets are excluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll move the page! —Zia Khan 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the table is sorted by surname, should this be sorted by number of wickets taken, as this is the focus of the article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table is sorted by surname because this list is about the bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets rather than the list of most wickets?! Earlier this was sorted by wickets, I changed it because Harrias suggested this at the PR. —Zia Khan 13:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deafault should be the number of wickets. Compare with (mis-titled) List of batsmen who have scored over 10000 Test cricket runs. Every single Test match/ODI I've ever watched on TV that shows a "career best" table during a slow period in the game, lists the achievement by total runs/wickets/catches/stumpings, etc. Maybe that's just me though. Any others with thoughts on this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list you mentioned will be discussed if gets a nomination here. Referring my previous comment, I would say a list of most wickets may be created. Anyway, lets wait what say others! 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine with that, just makes sense to me to have it highest to lowest by wickets taken. Another example is List of tallest buildings in the world. No one would really want this listed A-Z, as the key fact is the height. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm with Nutlugs here, the wickets taken is the key parameter. Should initially sort by that. Bummer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my comment at the PR was merely intended to mean that when sorting by name, it should sort by surname alphabetically, not that it should be pre-sorted by surname. That said, I think the player's name should be the row scope. Harrias ^talk 19:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as suggested! —Zia Khan 05:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Another question - is Daniel Vettori still active in Tests? Hehe, Nutlugs. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think. —Zia Khan 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose

• While I'm convinced with the "300 figure", I don't think the prose does enough justice to this list at the moment. The first para seems okay, while the second one just reads like a list of facts. Given the amount of sources available and facts to be included, I think the lead can be re-written slightly to make the prose even more engaging. —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what may be changed here. I'll leave this to The Rambling Man. —Zia Khan 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel the prose has improved since my previous visit. There are many other aspects which can be included apart from the ones mentioned currently in the lead. However, that isn't a problem. So I'll switch to support. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is very well sourced throughout. Good job by Vibhijain and Lemonade51 with helping to address some minor fixes, and nice response by Sahara4u to those comments, above. A few recommendations: the title for the sect Notes should actually be Footnotes, as Notes refers to actual citations and Footnotes refers to comments on article text at the end of the article; in addition, I think the article has room enough for a couple more free-use images, if possible. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for the support. —Zia Khan 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. My pleasure. Good luck with the rest of the FLC, — Cirt (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but you should change "The list is initially arranged by the most number of wickets taken by a bowler" to "The list is initially arranged in order of number of wickets taken". "Most number" is not gramatically correct English. It should be "highest number", however saying that the table is sorted by the highest number of wickets taken by a bowler implies that bowlers could have multiple numbers of wickets taken, which is obviously nonsense. My suggested version is gramatically correct and makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted. The minor concern left can be handled outside this nomination. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 17:53, 18 February 2014 (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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review this list for its WP:FL? compatibility! haha169 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The most important part of TV season articles (and the part that makes this a list rather than an article - there is a lot of good prose here) is the table of episodes. But naturally just the names and production info isn't all that vital: readers (including me) like to know briefly what happens in each episode without having to go to each article. Episodes 1, 7, and 14 are fairly good, but most others could hardly be called a summary, so I'd really appreciate an expansion of these. More review to come. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I googled several of these summaries after noticing they didn't seem like typical WP writing style - they're mostly copied from stuff like http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/releases/view?id=11590 and tvrage.com/How_I_Met_Your_Mother/episode_guide/1. You did a good job with the text sections, but these have been there since the article's creation, and these copyvios need to be completely rewritten, not just expanded. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch! I hadn't thought that that might happen. I'll get to work on it. --haha169 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I hope my new summaries are up to standard. --haha169 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are much better. Here are some other suggestions:

• The lead summary is a little too detailed, particularly "but when she moves to Germany for a culinary fellowship, Ted and Robin nearly have sex." if that could be rewritten.
• "Ted's self-appointed best friend and womanizer" sounds like he's Ted's womanizer.
• Award names should not have quotation marks. (Casting and Awards sections)
• "who were cast as Ted and Marshall respectively" is redundant to the first paragraph's info.
• Tense should be consistent in reception, e.g. derides -> derided.

Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done, fixed all of these things. Looked over the tenses in the whole article and I think I caught all of the errors there. Thanks for the suggestions!! --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few are still a bit short (like The Limo and Return of the Shirt) and several still read too much like a teaser than a summary, but everything else looks great. Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I see what you mean. How does it look now? --haha169 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent Support

Comments: Nice work on the list, but the references could be fixed

• Main sources such as The Hollywood Reporter and Orlando Sentinel should be listed as work instead of publisher.
• The publisher of the sources should be the owner of the publication. For example Tribune Company would be for the Orlando Sentinel, Prometheus Global Media for The Hollywood Reporter, The Walt Disney Company for ABC Television Group and so on and so forth.
• For ref 21, the article's title should not be all caps per se WP:ALLCAPS policy.
• For ref 22, the work is credited as the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences with its abbreviation ATAS as its publisher.

Otherwise, I support this list for promotion

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hope I have fixed these issues to your satisfaction. --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Excellent effort overall by Haha169. I do agree with the comments by Birdienest81, above, in particular those first two comments about work and publisher modification recommendations to citations. Another minor thingy: there should not be an External links subsection, if there are no actual external links. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments! I begun working on some of them. But because of time restraints, I will finish them up tomorrow. --haha169 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made those changes that you asked for correctly. Thank you for the comments, Birdienest81 and Cirt! --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DragonZero

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 needs its link to be updated Ex (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1141640,00.html) should be the updated link, (http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1141640,00.html) Same with Ref 10 Checklinks says the link redirects to the UK subdomain, instead of the www. I'm assuming this is like IGN's website where some articles are on its UK servers or its American server. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Must be something wrong with the tool because if the url is entered with the UK subdomain, it redirects to www. --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Site's subdomain is region dependent. Issue resolved. Same with Ref 13 The ABC medianet references titles should have more detail to differentiate them. The first one would be something like "September 19(n-dash)25, 2005 weekly program rankings". You should also include the published date. Ranges use n dashs, not m dashs. Done --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] – is the n dash. I believe the ones used right now are hyphens. Oh okay. Done. --haha169 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I suggest linking rain dance. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, could you elaborate the first bit? What about these links needs to be updated? I did the rest. Thanks for your comments! --haha169 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] No problem. Updated. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Gotcha, I see what you mean. I updated refs 1 and 13. 10 looks right to me though? --haha169 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I believe it would be better to have the cast section either in the parent article or the character article, as it is information that relates to the series as a whole instead of just a season. Otherwise, no further issue as far as I can see. Please revisit your review for Code Geass if possible. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick responses. I will check back to my review on your FLC in turn! --haha169 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2014 (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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC) and Takuy (bother me)[reply]

I am nominating this to become a featured list. I have worked over the past few weeks to clean up some loose ends on an already good list (made so significantly by myself and Takuy) to make it ready for nomination. Thank you in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would just like to make any reviewers aware that I will be on wikibreak from 12/30 - 1/10, and will not be able to address anything during that time. Myself and Takuy have addressed all of Darkwarriorblake's initial concerns, so if any more from him or anyone else are added 12/29 I can address them. If not, please look to Takuy during my wikibreak for any concerns brought up in the review. Thank you very much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Darkwarriorblake

Prose.

Lead.

I'm grouping these two FLCriteria together as they are the same thing. I think there are some issues with the lead and the prose therein. For instance "Forever Evil" is thrown in there assuming that everyone will know what it is. "The 2013 storyline "Forever Evil"" or some other simple alternative would help. Also I am not sure what " August 2013 was the last month that the titles were solicited by the following groups" means, it may need rewriting, as could "However, the December 2013 solicits grouped titles together resembling the previous families, for all titles that were not involved in "Forever Evil".[3]". Don't be afraid to go wordier, or use the lead of The New 52 article as inspiration, either in the lead or the opening of the "The New 52 titles" section just to clarify what it is people are about to read about.}

• I have reworked the lead. First off, I moved and rewrote the info regarding the families and Forever Evil to underneath the "The New 52 titles" heading, so please take a look at that. I also added a new last sentence to the lead. I'm not sure about it, but would like opinions. I know you said to go wordier in the lead, but didn't think it had to be too wordy. I looked at The New 52's lead, but did not see much that could be brought here to talk about the titles. Opinions on what to possibly add there, if anything, would be appreciated. and was able to add some parts from that to this page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness.

It seems fully comprehensive of the specified content and could not reasonably fit in The New 52 article.

Structure.

There is an error with Ref 13

• Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing seems mostly in order, I may be wrong but if the article author isn't named, i.e. "Staff", then just leave the first and last fields in the ref template empty.

• Is this in regards to all the solicits from Newsarama? They all do say "Newsarama Staff" under the "by:" area of the page. If this is not appropriate, I will remove them, so it will just give the title, publisher, date and accesses date, when viewed on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetically it looks fairly pleasing and well coded.

Style.

(a) Visual appeal.

No red links, tables and colour are well designed except for maybe Batman. I will wait for other editors to weigh in, but it seems to me at least difficult to read the Black on that particular shade of Blue, more precisely it starts to hurt my eyes looking at it too long, particularly the title on the outer blue.

• I do not personally have this issue, but I was concerned with the colors. If it is an issue, and someone can suggest another blue color code to use, I will make the change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, I've altered the colors for the Batman table. Let me know if its better or worse. || Tako (bother me) || 03:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tako. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(b) Media files.

Article has only one image what has a suitable Fair Use rationale. I'm not sure if it's basic shape could allow it to be replaced by a fair use alternative or if such an image can be copyrighted, I'm not an expert on that so I will leave it for a more informed reviewer.

Stability.

Article is stable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comments Dark. I will make any notes/comments I have based on what you said, below each item. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my issues have been dealt with, the colour change seems to be an improvement. I am just waiting on some feedback regarding the use of "Newsarama Staff" from that template's discussion page, as I am not clear what the situation should be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, where there is no credited author, the field should use the code

|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've replaced all mentions of Newsarama Staff with the comment <!--Staff writer(s)--> - we'd be lying if we said there was no by-line on those pages. Would this type of comment apply to all references without an author, or just those that are in journal/article format? Currently, the article uses a lot of pages from DC Comics's site, which are just single-book solicitations]. I do plan to change these out (where ever I can) in the future, but currently would all of these require a "no by-line" comment? || Tako (bother me) || 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The code is for the sake of bots, not people. I'm just going off this (fifth indent down) - "If the cited source does not credit an author, as is common with newswire reports, press releases or company websites use:

|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> This HTML comment alerts both fact-checking and citation-fixing editors and bots that the cited source specifically did not name an author and therefore an author credit wasn't accidentally omitted from the citation. Without this entry editors and bots would waste time researching cited sources in an attempt to improve existing citations only to find that there is no author to credit." Though personally I would only be using it to replace the Newsarama Staff stuff. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support, the first/last thing doesn't seem at the moment to have a definitive answer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Two initial points based on a quick drive-by:

• "The following is a list of..." - list articles should not start like this. We wouldn't expect to see a non-list article starting "The following is an article about.....". Check some recently promoted FLs for examples of good openings.

Would this apply to just the lead, or to each sub-section as well? I count three instances where this occurs in the article, it's easy enough to rephrase though. || Tako (bother me) || 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO the tables within tables using small fonts and background colours look horrible and are almost certainly a massive WP:ACCESS failure. Do the colours actually serve any purpose other than making the article "prettier".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table colors are essential at this point, they very much help to differentiate between the family tables; I can look into color contrasting, if that would help. The collapsible tables-in-tables was something that was a discussion on, which lead to a compromise and consensus on. Do you have any suggestions on how to style it better? || Tako (bother me) || 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the colours are needed, many existing FLs have six or seven different tables and they aren't colour coded. IMO the colours just make the article look garish. Why not just have, for example, "Justice League" as a regular level 3 heading and then start a normal table below that? As for the access issues, you also need rows and scopes in the tables. Ignore my comment about small font size, I thought that was an access issue but I was wrong..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris. I thought that I added rows and scopes in this edit here. Did I not do enough or it incorrectly? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "shell" tables don't have rows and scopes. Maybe they don't need them, I'm not sure. I still don't think those tables are even needed, personally...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not worked much with rows and scopes, so if they did need them, I do not know where they would go. Also, I do think it is useful to have, say, the current, discontinued (and possibly upcoming) Justice League tables all under one collapsable table. That is instead of having the two (or three) still visible if collapsed. But if this presents and ACCESS issue, they can be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any other outstanding issues with the list? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but I still think the coloured tables look horrible..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if they were a different shade of their color? I know you said you just thought they were there to make them "prettier" but how, in essence, are they any different then colored episode tables for a TV series List of episodes page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a TV list like List of Moonlighting episodes, only the headings at the top of each section are coloured. The colour does not "enclose" the entire section. I just don't see why it neesd to do that, but maybe that's just me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if it was changed to something like this? It removes some of the color from areas that don't really need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be better IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will ping the other nominators and commenters below just to get additional comments on this. Thank you for the feedback. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support by TriiipleThreat

• The article is well organized, referenced and presented. The only thing I would add is better explanation of the "Waves": some over arching description of the durations and some background information would be nice. Also there are a few uses of industry jargon (i.e. solicits vs. solicitations). Overall good job by all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Triiiple. I believe I've addressed your issue with the "Wave" explanation, if you'd like to take a look. And I wasn't clear if you meant that only "solicits" was jargon (or both), so I padded the wording a bit to hopefully make it clear (and made all uses consistent). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Favre1fan93 (nominator)

Hello. Just wanted further opinions on a commenter's suggestion. ChrisTheDude has likened and suggested that some of the color from the tables be removed, to this. I am just requesting the other commenter's and nominator's opinions, to see their thoughts. If need be, we can take it to the article's talk page for more. The reason I am doing it for this requested change, is it a bit "bigger" than some of the requests by Darkwarriorblake and TriiipleThreat. I personally will support either choice made. Thanks. @TriiipleThreat:@Darkwarriorblake:@Takuy: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the difference? Is it the white box inside the coloured box? I think that works well, it makes the tables seem less cramped and helps separate the "current", "upcoming", and "discontinued" sections in each one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I removed the color that existed from below the section heading and description that filled the area where the "Current", "Upcoming", and "Discontinued" sections exist. So the Justice League, for example, got less "yellow-y". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think it looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ChrisTheDude:! Just to be clear, that is with the color change (I'm assuming)? It appears the other editors are fine with this change, and I will be changing over the page to reflect that. Thanks once again for your comments. Now to try and get this closed.... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, sorry if my comment was a bit confusing.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just wasn't sure because I had not made the edit yet, so I wasn't sure if you had a change of opinion. But regardless, done now. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Great quality page, but still a few small recommendations: (1) Extremely small paragraphs in the lede, these should be merged to just one paragraph. (2) Per WP:LEAD, lede intro sect should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire page's contents. Perhaps the lede intro sect could be expanded upon a bit more. (3) Nice responses, above, by Favre1fan93 and Takuy to suggestions by Darkwarriorblake, TriiipleThreat, and ChrisTheDude, I see the page has undergone significant improvement since the nomination at DIFF. (4) Could use some actual hyperlinks in the External links sect, at present the sect is almost empty. (5) Other than that, nice work, I'm just surprised at the sheer amount of new user and IP participation in the article's edit history, not sure what's bringing them all here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Done. (may change after working on #2)

2) Will work on expanding some more. Done. Added one sentence about the anniversary events. Not much else to really add that would help summarize the article.

3) Thanks.

4) What do you suggest can go here? It is kind of hard, as there is no "home page" for these titles. All DC titles can be viewed here: [9], so would that be acceptable? That covers all items on the page. Done

5) Yes. A lot of IPs come to the page. I'm not sure why either. At a time, they were mostly updating the Collected editions, but that has seemed to wan once we added citations for all the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's a good idea for an external link. Thanks for being so responsive to my suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "initiative" is used four times in the single para lead, a bit repetitive. Done. Removed two uses. No title for the image? (e.g. The New 52 logo"). Does it really need one? Would limit the table of contents to level 2 headings. Limited to level 3. Still reduced excessive white space. How accessible are these embedded tables? I'm not sure how screen readers cope with them, worth checking with an expert (e.g. User:RexxS). @RexxS: Pinging to bring their attention to this. I do not believe they are an issue, but am no expert with it. " new titles occurred from" "took place" is more "active" sounding. Done. A bit of overcapitalisation in the table headings (e.g. Publication Date -> date, Initial Creative Team -> Initial creative team etc.) Done. What does "0, 1- " mean? Title is still being published (1-) but has also released a "#0" issue (0,). This is for titles that 0 was not their first issues (such as Harley Quinn or the upcoming Justice League United). Be consistent with the italicisation of Shazam!. Done. Sortable tables should link linkable items every time. This will take a bit. Done. Consider linking "the Justice League.". Done. Figured you meant in the table subheading for "Justice League". I'm not sure you should be hiding tables by default. This was done by consensus after the nested table format was chosen, in a way to reduced the "scrolling" length of the page. Additionally, the Current and Upcoming titles are more relevant now, then the discontinued ones. Can you double check that with WP:COLLAPSE to make sure it's okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I removed the outer table for the "Other titles" and will investigate this further for the rest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Issues 9-11" needs en-dash. Done. Be consistent with the use of hashes when you list issue numbers. Can you give an example(s) where this is? Some issue numbers you say "issue #12" and others you say "issue 12" for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Why are some 0- and others 0, 1-? See answer above. I think, even though there's no "end", you still need an en-dash rather than a hyphen here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Is there a link for "flip issue"? Not that I can see. "Trillionnaires" one n in that. Done. Not sure I see the benefit at all of the embedded tables in the "Other titles" section. This was also done to be consistent with the other families on the page, as you could collapse all three tables. This one may not really need it. Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] What is the purpose of having the Creative Team column sortable? It sorts by first names (we normally sort by surname) and then only by the first person listed in that column (i.e. the writer). I don't think there is one, but I've always created sortable tables where all columns are. Is there formatting to have it only sort some? There is, you use class=unsortable in the column heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Done. Thanks for the tip! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Some SHOUTING in ref titles. Done. There were two correct? External link needs a bullet point. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Answers for each bullet above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS

I still make no claim to be an expert, but I have some experience working with disabled visitors. Nevertheless the internal tables generally will be navigable by screen-readers; the row and column scopes are sensible and helpful. Personally, I see no point at all in enclosing tables in an outer table. The level 3 heading itself should be sufficient to demark each set, and the days of using tables just to provide layout went out 10 years ago. I should say that using collapsed/hidden tables can pose accessibility issues - for instance for users who have difficulty in fine motor control of a mouse. I'd only use them in article space if I had a very pressing need to hide content - that I don't see here.

Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem in my humble opinion is the colours. Using too many unharmonised colours leads us to what an erstwhile colleague of mine called "Skittlepedia". The actual use of colours tends to be tolerated as a personal taste, but I don't favour them because I think it makes the page look amateurish and because it leads the editor to think that they can use any combination of colours without realising the effect on the readability of the page. There are a set of guidelines produced by WCAG that help us ensure that as many people as possible can read a webpage. There are standards for brightness and colour difference as well as contrast ratio between text colour and its background. You can check whether the colours used meet these standards by using Snook's Colour Contrast Check. I checked the background colour used in "The Dark" (#747170) against black text and it fails the test for colour, brightness and contrast - although it would just about be acceptable at 18pt size - which it's not. I should add that the smaller the text, the harder it is for readers to cope with poor contrast between text and background. There's really no need for <small>...</small> text that I can see and it only makes it harder for some readers. I'd recommend that at the very least, the background colours should be checked and brought up to compliance with WCAG - I'm not prepared to fight about the text size and the presence of colours, although I think that normalising them would improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text size Done. All colors were checked too and all passed. You had tested the wrong color for "The Dark" as that was the border color. The background color was #969392, but that was adjusted slightly to get passing on all. Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work here. I do have to correct you on one point though: the version of the list I looked at clearly had #747170 as the background colour for the level 3 heading "The Dark" (which is 17pt). That was far too dark, but you fixed that when you removed the outer tables anyway. I'm glad you've been able to check the other colours now and tweaked those that were borderline. Well done! --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I see. I did not realize that you might have looked at a version that still had the outer tables. I hope you will formally support it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've worked hard to resolve all of the issues that have been brought to your attention. I hope that you have found it a useful (if stressful) experience and I'm more than happy to support this nomination. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SchroCat. Thanks to Takuy for helping get the page where it was to nominate it, and thanks to Darkwarriorblake, TriiipleThreat, ChrisTheDude, Cirt, The Rambling Man, and RexxS for taking the time to comment on the review and provide comments to make the article better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, Favre1fan93, — Cirt (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2014 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): prism △ 11:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Natalia Kills-related articles are mostly of low quality here on Wikipedia and she doesn't have a devoted WikiProject or even a medium number of fans here. After seeing the discographies for Ashley Tisdale, Rihanna and Katy Perry, I decided I wanted to organize the discography for Kills to make it of, well, featured list quality. I have been working on it for the few past days, I've asked for assistance to an user that has successfully made an FL discography, and he has been very helpful. As this is my first nomination, I will try to address all the problems observed and helpful commentaries, though, please say something more than just 'Support' or 'Oppose'. Please present your reasons and give me constructive criticism, not just a mere word that will not help the outcome of this. Thank you in advance. prism △ 11:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be in good shape. Just one question: Any particular reason this was nominated for FL before it reached GA? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of article does not qualify for GA. Thank you for the comment, but, please read the first sentence of my text. You need to present reasons for why you think this is worthy of being an FL, and improvements to references, text, or wikitables. As you aren't familiarized with featured lists, please check the required criteria. prism △ 13:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it is quite organized. If anything, I would just say to keep adding content as her career goes forward. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the changes, and due to the following of the suggestions listed below, I must say this article seems good now. Simple and broad. Hence I support it now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments made a couple of changes, but please reduce the SHOUTING in some of the ref titles, and for non-English refs, please include the language. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though I left the capitalized letters like they were in the original websites. I'll work on them right away. prism △ 15:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list looks to be in good shape, and after the adjustments are made, I don't have an issue with supporting its promotion. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SnapSnap: Thank you, and I've done everything you asked for. Do you support the nomination now? prism △ 11:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good now. Support. SnapSnap 18:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice sourcing and good structure. — Cirt (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CrowzRSA 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CrowzRSA:Thank you. Do I have your support now? prism △ 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: "Champagne Showers" received triple platinum certification in Australia, however I can't see the chart? — Simon (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ:  Added. Do I have your support now? prism △ 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a well done list without any major issues — Simon (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SchroCat

• "English singer-songwriter Natalia Kills": As this is written in British English, there should be the definate article before the descriptor "The English singer-songwriter"

 Added

• Formatting on FN30 needs sorting

What do you mean?

Don't worry - it was cleared up in an intervening edit. - SchroCat (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FN39 needs looking at (is there a url - what is in the url field of the template isn't one)

 Added link.

• FN42 has full stops before and after the closing bracket

 Removed full stop.

• Are you linking the first mention of (for example) a publisher in the links? If so, then you've doubled up on iTunes (FNs 1 and 19)

 Removed linking.

• I'm not sure IMVDb is a reliable source. This suggests information can be edited by anyone, without any formal checks being made on the veracity.

 Removed, as there isn't any reliable source that also reports it

- SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:, please respond to my comment above. prism △ 17:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Just as an aside: we don't encourage the use of graphics when replying to comments on featured nominations as it slows the page load time on the main nomination pages.) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: do you support or oppose this nom now? prism △ 18:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. I'm one of the FL delegates, so I avoid COIs as much as possible by not supporting unless a list is short on comments after a long period: it means I am not ever in the position of having to close something I've supported. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Everything looks good to me! Good job, congratulations! :) decodet. (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 10 February 2014 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1999 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written.--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good list consistent with the others. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – "and" is needed before What Dreams May Come" in the lead. Winners and nominees: "Shakespeare in Love earned the most nominations with thirteen nominations". Redundant use of "nominations" here. Ceremony information: Where Whoopi is used outside the quote, the more formal Goldberg should be placed instead. Space should be removed before ref 40. In Memoriam: Not sure another Whoopi Goldberg link is needed here, since there's one a few sections back. The hyphens in the title of ref 38 should be an en dash instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Fixed: I have fixed everything you have listed above. Thank you. --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Ratings and reception: "which was a 18% decrease from the previous year's ceremony." "a" → "an"? Fixed: The problem is fixed. --Birdienest81 (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a good list.--Earthh (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Nice work on prose and organization.--Jagarin (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Tbhotch: "Shakespeare in Love won won" "Morever,..." "garnered record-high viewership figures and several Emmys" -> link Emmys "Robert Rehme" -> link it Spotchecks not done. In general great work. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I have fixed the errors listed above. Thank you for your help.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support excellent list. --Carioca (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 10 February 2014 (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 promoted by Crisco 1492 13:48, February 2, 2014 [12].

---

Nominator(s): Mediran (t • c) 04:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am nominating this article for featured list. I have redeveloped this article based on current and previous featured episode lists. Any comments that will help the list more are welcome. Thanks in advance. :) Mediran (t • c) 04:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous(talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this. Done. Mediran (t • c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] The series overview section should have prose. Look at List of Adventure Time episodes's series overview section as an example. I have checked other FLs, like List of The Simpsons episodes,List of Regular Show episodes, List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes, and I didn't see any prose texts in their series overview section. I'm not sure if it matters but the overview table already provides it. If you think it is really needed in the section, please reply. Thanks. :) Mediran (t• c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] My apologies for using the word should. It isn't necessary for episodes lists in general, but for Spongebob Squarepants episodes in particular, explanations of the overview is necessary. There is no mention of why most episodes are separated into two segments, how come season 2 and 3 each took three years to complete, why some episodes air out of the production timeline, etc. These details should be explained to the readers. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Done. I have added some prose. Is it better now? Thanks! Mediran (t •c) 07:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] It is definitely a whole lot better! Were you not able to find the reasoning of why seasons overlap? --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I was unable to find something on that matter. However, according to Production code number: "[The show] may air episodes in radically different order to how they are produced, because character development and continuity are not major aspects of production. The airing order may in the end be decided by the network, based on ratings, sweeps months, or other networks' competition." That quote constitutes WP:OR but I think it makes a good point. The second season extended for three years because "Gary Takes a Bath" took years to be broadcast. The third season also took years because I think of the "production hiatus" that the network decided "to cover the delay." Was that satisfying? I'm very sorry but I can't find sources on why the seasons overlapped. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Alright then. Thank you for taking the effort in looking deeper into this. Sorry for being troublesome! I just want to make sure that this list be as comprehensive as possible. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] You should definitely mention the segments somewhere in the lead or series overview. Done? Mediran (t • c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thank you so much for your comments! :) Mediran (t • c) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm surprised that it's been 50 days and I've been the only person to support this! I'm having trouble as well on trying to get people to comment or support my FLC, so if you have time on your hands, please, head over to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches/archive1 and do the same for me! :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments - A few comments before I can support Any reason why the tables aren't sortable? I followed how the The Simpsons, Adventure Time, Regular Show, Ed, Edd n Eddy, Family Guy were written and they don't have sortable tables. Also, sorting is not possible to "{{Episode list}}" or "{{Episode list/sublist}}". Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Given that only 2 out of 9 tables don't have viewer numbers, I wonder if you shouldn't have the column in those two as well just for consistency. You mean I should add "US viewers" column to them? This is quite confusing. BTW, some episode lists like The Simpsons don't have the viewer number column in some tables because they are unavailable. Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I meant you should add the US viewers column to the two tables that don't have them so that all of the tables are consistent with each other. If you feel strongly against this I won't oppose over it, it just struck me as I went through the list that they didn't match. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Information [...] is taken from the opening credits of each episodes" - should be "each episode", or "the episodes". That's better! I omitted "regarding story development, storyboard artists and animation directors". Thanks. :) Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Remove all-caps from refs 16,69,72-77 Done. Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] St. Petersburg Times is redirecting in ref 69 (though nowhere else) That is transcluded from "SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1)". Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] And? You can fix it there, surely. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] That is done. Sorry. Mediran (t • c) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] The link is broken on ref 142 Done. Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] --PresN 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments! :) Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - outstanding issues are not enough for me to oppose over. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*I will take a closer look later. For now, I suggest you split the airdate table and media release. It is stretching the page pretty badly on higher zooms. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Hi DragonZero! I have fixed the table by following how The X-Files, Adventure Time were written. Do you think it's better? Thanks! Mediran (t • c) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, it fixed the problem. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] MoS caps ref titles. "THE STRETCH" -> "The Stretch" Done. Mediran (t • c) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] There are some instances where the ref titles are referring to SpongeBob SquarePants, the series, so you should italicize those instants. Done. Mediran (t • c) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Scope=Row for season rows in the table Done. Mediran (t • c) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support I don't see any glaring issues. So it's a support unless someone points out a fatal flaw. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:13, 28 January 2014 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 Pacific hurricane season featured above-average activity, but minimal impact and fatalities (fortunately). I have significantly improved the status of the article and feel that it now meets the criteria to be recognized as a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Dudley Miles 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley Miles Comments by Dudley Miles A good list. I have a few minor points. The second sentence is a bit long. I would suggest ending it at "both basins" and then "These dates conventionally". Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Explaining or linking the first use of UTC and PDT would be helpful. Sorry about that, I usually do. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Is there a reason that the first three tropical depressions are designated by a number and the rest by number and -E? Oops. In the Atlantic, depressions just get a number designation, while in the East Pacific, they get a number and "-E" to denote the basin. It's a mistake that I've corrected. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] You mention seventeen tropical depressions, but with ten and thirteen you do not mention them but go straight to the storm. Is there a reason for this? No, that should say tropical cyclones instead of tropical depressions. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks but now I am even more confused. If I understand correctly, cyclone is a generic term covering various strengths such as tropical storm and hurricane, so how can a cyclone strengthen to become a tropical storm? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] That's an interesting point that hasn't been brought up in any of my FLCs before. For this season in particular, the mention of 17 depressions isn't really necessary so I've removed it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Dudley Miles (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have only one concern, which is that of referencing: in the lede, damage from Bud and Carlotta is mentioned, yet neither is referenced. Other than that, I'm satisfied with the article. Nice one as usual, TAWX. Cloudchased (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referenced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - seems comparable to other featured timelines. Only one point of concern- "East Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W—and on June 1 in the central Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W to the International Date Line" - so the central Pacific is located entirely inside the East Pacific? Looks good besides that. --PresN 19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should say west, not east. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Only one concern: what's with repeating "operationally" in the third paragraph (same sentence even)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments some minor technical details... "A few weeks later" a little loose for an encyclopedia. In the timeline you have "less than or equal to 39 mph" as TD and "equal to or more than 39mph but less than 73mph" for TS, meaning 39mph could be a TD and a TS. "1200 UTC (8:00 a.m. PDT)" four hours difference vs "0000 UTC (5:00 p.m. PDT May 14)" seven hours difference? "1,055 km" vs "1330 km" consistency with commas please. " Saffir-Simpson" needs an en-dash. Not sure, but we've been tending to move away from the use of the semi-colon to make bold text, I believe it has issues for WP:ACCESS. A lot of editors, me included, who access PDF files of multiple pages look for a page reference so they don't have to scour the whole thing to find the data they're looking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I fixed all except the comment concerning the use of semi-colons; I'm not quite sure what to do with that. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] You could replace them with the standard triple apostrophe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] As suggested. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is most educational and encyclopedic. It is meticulously sourced throughout to appropriate citations. My only minor quibble is the title Notes for that subsection: Notes usually refers to Harvard Citations followed by a References section with the full Citations -- this type of section should be called Footnotes. Great job overall by TropicalAnalystwx13, — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2014 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC), and co-nominator Hwy43 (talk)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured list because it is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities within the Province of Saskatchewan in Canada. It follows the same format of successful nominations for the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba (and |Alberta, currently a Featured List Candidate). We are hoping to ultimately complete a featured topic for all municipalities in Canada. If this nomination and the nomination of Alberta below are successful 4 out of the 13 provinces and territories will be featured lists using this new and rigorous format. Thanks for your input! Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to reviewers: A record of our collaboration can be viewed on my talk page. I'll now use this page to further collaborate with Mattximus on this article concurrent with your reviews. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Mattximus: The "Rural municipalities" and "Northern municipalities" sections both should mention the largest and smallest by population like the urban municipality subsections. Could you add this content? Also, please review the comments received on the Alberta nomination from Dudley Miles and The Rambling Man received to date and consider implementing the same suggested changes where/if applicable as I anticipate some of them may emerge here. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added largest/smallest. Will see if recommendations can be used from other nomination. Mattximus (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Stumbled upon this Municipal System History page which has incorporation dates for urban, rural and northern municipalities. I've added the original incorporation dates for the 24 northern municipalities. Though the current lack of the same for the urbans and rurals should not preclude achievement of FL status (it wasn't a barrier for List of municipalities in Ontario), I think these should be added eventually. The sheer number of urbans and rurals makes this a significant undertaking that could occur after FL achievement in my opinion. That being said, I have contacted the Saskatchewan government to ask if they could provide the PDF tables in Excel format, in the spirit of open data, to help streamline the eventual additions. Hwy43 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reply? I could always start plugging away if there is no alternative. Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not yet. Given the time of year, not surprised if there is no reply until the week of January 6-10. Hwy43 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response from Saskatchewan Municipal Relations "Sorry all I received for posting are the pdf files that are currently up on the site." Drat. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you think? Do you see incorporation dates as integral to the list of municipalities in Canada pages? Would you like them to be eventually in all the articles? If so I certainly don't mind helping you input them, but it will take a bit longer than the scope of the featured list review. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • As mentioned above, and per the successful outcome of the Ontario FLC review where inclusion wasn't a barrier to promotion, I don't think its necessary to add them before the FL review closes. However, I do think it should be an action item for this article afterwards since the data is immediately available. I'll ask some co-workers if they can convert the PDFs to Excel format to save us some time. Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds good to me. Keep me posted on the conversion, if it's not possible I can do the manual inputting. Mattximus (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The lists of urban and rural municipalities are very long with no breaks. Making the name the default field and adding Template:Compact ToC, as was done with Alberta, would make it easier for readers to find a municipality they were interested in.
  • Comment is it possible to do a compact TOC that allows links to towns a, b, c, etc, then villages a, b, c, etc? It would be nice to retain the current default sort of cities alpha, then towns alpha, then villages alpha, the resort villages alpha. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could post a question on the ToC talk page. I am not sure how it would work. I find ToC helpful when searching long tables, but I do not think it is crucial if you want to keep the default sort.
• "A village can be created from an organized hamlet by Saskatchewan's Minister of Municipal Relations by ministerial order via section 51 of The Municipalities Act if it has: been an organized hamlet for three or more years; a population of 100 or more; 50 or more dwellings or businesses; and a taxable assessment base that meets a prescribed minimum." It is not clear from the wording whether it has to meet one of the criteria or all of them.
  • Comment they have to meet all. I can re-word. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done Hwy43 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not understand the third column under urban municipality, rural municipality. How are they related?
  • Comment third column advises which rural municipality surrounds the urban municipality. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you need a note explaining this. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would changing the column header to read "Surrounding rural municipality" be sufficient instead? Hwy43 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not sure. You would need to ask someone who has not already read your explanation. I think a footnote might be better, but I will leave you to decide.
          • Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AmericanLemming I recently left a note on the talk page of list of municipalities in Manitoba regarding the placement of the table of contents. Since my questions regard all 13 articles of this type (and particularly those which are FLs or FLCs, like this one), I thought I would bring it up here as well. I have two questions:

1. Why is the table of contents on the right for this article when almost all other articles have it on the left?

2. Why is the table of contents on the right for the lists of municipalities in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan but on the left for British Columbia (and yes, I know BC was promoted to FL status in 2007)? Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other?

I'm new to the featured list process, so it's quite possible that list articles are more likely to have the TOC on the right for some reason unknown to me. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See replies at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba#Why is the table of contents on the right?. Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I've proposed adding a guideline on the position of TOCs on the MoS's talk page; the proposed addition currently states "the table of contents should be floated left unless there is a compelling reason to have it on the right." "The table of contents may be floated left or right, but general practice is to have it floated left (the default setting)" I'd appreciate any input any regulars at the featured list candidate process have on the proposed addition. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think of the TOC placement in List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories? That seems to me to be clearer. If you agree I can make that a standard for all of these lists including this one. Mattximus (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for getting back to you so late; I delisted this discussion from my watch list because I thought my concerns had been addressed (that is, I learned that it's okay to have the TOC on the right). But about your question, I very much prefer having the TOC where it is in the Northwest Territories article. It looks better and isn't stuck between the lead and the first section of the body. Please do change all of the articles to look like that. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Mattximus and AmericanLemming, but it should not go where it is in the Northwest Territories article per #5 at Help:Section#Floating the TOC. Hwy43 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If there was a way to force the floated-right TOC that is stacked next to images to appear precisely after the first paragraph, let's do it. I've been unsuccessful in my previous attempts. Hwy43 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hwy43: Um, I'm a little confused. #5 states "However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text." (emphasis mine) That means in some cases you can have it be otherwise, such as here. I'm inferring that you personally prefer to have it follow at least the first paragraph of article text? Because the guideline doesn't say that it always has to follow at least the first paragraph of article text. Anyway, I'm sure you have you reasons for wanting to have the TOC right-floated and sandwiched right between the lead and the first paragraph of the body, and I am willing to respect your preferences. You've spent a lot more time working on these articles than me, anyway. :)
• We could ask around at the help desk or the village pump about your proposed solution, though. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AmericanLemming, actually, where Mattximus put it is exactly my preference (with the dead white space resolved between the two adjacent images, which can be resolved). However, it is my interpretation that #5's "should in most cases" is the alternative to #2's "should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text". #2 goes on to say "Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing." That last bit is key here. My preference is at the top, but we are constrained by these guidelines. Trying to put it after the first paragraph seems to be the best compromise between the end of the lead and before any text. Hwy43 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of TOC positioning discussion from above

I have started my reply on a new line because, when you need eight colons to indent your reply, it's time to start over. Anyway, I have to agree with you, Hwy43, that putting it immediately after the first paragraph in the lead would be preferable, considering guideline #2. As such, I have asked around at the Help desk: Placing the TOC immediately after the first paragraph in the lead. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Though I have to say I agree with Hwy43 and AmericanLemming about placing the Table of Contents immediately after the first paragraph in the lede, on the left. Great job overall by Mattximus and Hwy43, — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and please change title of sect Notes to Footnotes. Notes is for citations, Footnotes is for commentary about main article body text. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. I made the change, but I'm wondering if you have those two mixed up? I thought notes were for commentary and footnotes are for references. Mattximus (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Cirt. I have reviewed WP:FOOTNOTES and it appears it is "Notes" per WP:REFGROUP as the footnotes in question here are clarifications of content. Hwy43 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, no worries. I think my idea is the case when there are three sects: Footnotes, then Notes, then References. — Cirt (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a reasonable read through revealed no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (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 promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [15].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): PresN 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what this place needs? If you said "more nominations of speculative fiction award lists", you're right! To that end, here's the list for the World Fantasy Award for Best Novella, the award for those stories in that awkward length where they're a bit too long to be short stories but still too short to generally get published on their own, as presented by the biggest player in the Fantasy-specific literary awards. Like always, the list is based off of the dozens of Hugo, Nebula, etc. award lists I've pushed through here in the last few years, with specific attention paid to the comments received at the Novel category nomination from a month ago. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - several of the authors have photos in their articles, could some of these not be added to make the list a bit more visually interesting........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments— Of authors who have won at least once, Hand has the most nominations,...... how many? A ref for the last para Not necessary but could you reduce these red-links? Zia Khan 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] The text mentions that Hand had 8 nominations in the sentence just before it. The whole last paragraph is just counting the authors and nominations in the table below, there's no new information being given - WP:CALC The only redlinks are for novellas which have won the award but don't have articles; I've been asked in prior nominations to do so for novels/novellas, since by winning a major award they prove that they're notable enough for an article. --PresN 23:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I mean you may create articles to reduce them. Zia Khan 23:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – on prose. Zia Khan 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another great article from PresN, consistent with his other award lists; have just found a few very minor issues, included below:

• the next-most nominations without winning is five by Kim Newman. -- not a fan of this wording, suggest a re-write
• Per WP:ALSO, why is World Fantasy Convention repeated in the See also section? Ruby 2010/2013 17:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded, and pulled the see also. --PresN 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, am happy to support. Ruby 2010/2013 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Crisco 1492

published in English or translated into English. - aren't these both, technically, published in English?

Why are your novellas in quotes? WP:ITALICS puts "books" (novellas are often published stand-alone, so they count) in italics, whereas short stories are in quotes.

and K. J. Parker, who won both times they were nominated. - what's with the singular "they"? Is Parker's gender unknown? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was trying to be explicit that the work doesn't have to be originally written in English, just translated and published in that language in the prior year. Remove, though.

If you notice, some of them are in quotes and some of them are italicized- this corresponds to if the novella, in its original incarnation, was published by itself or as a part of a larger work. This, in turn, matches up with the publisher/publication column- for example, Night Moves is italicized, and the publisher is listed as Axolotl Press, but "The River of Night's Dreaming" is in quotes, and the publication listed is Whispers III (Doubleday).

• That's an interesting way of approaching it. Has any consensus been formally established? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To my knowledge, no- the MOS doesn't get any more specific about it, and WP:NOVELS doesn't have any guidelines either. That said, as far as I can tell it's the standard way of dealing with them- stand-alone works get italics, works that are a part of a longer work get quotes. After all, if it's in an anthology a novella is just a long short story, but if it's published on its own it's just a short book. Only awards try to give it a word-count definition. --PresN 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First line of K. J. Parker's wikipedia page- "K. J. Parker is an author of fantasy fiction. The name is a pseudonym and the writer's true identity has never been revealed." --PresN 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose: solid list, and a congratulations to PresN for his work here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is impressive. The sourcing is detailed and helpful for each entry. This list page will surely become an invaluable resource in the future for researchers on the specific topic of World Fantasy Award but also hopefully as a model for participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction. — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Should the "Awarded for" in the infobox also include the fact it should be in English, per the lead? "The judges panel" pretty sure there should be an apostrophe in there somewhere...! Picky but "with five nominations without winning" with... without reads a little odd to me. Could consider adding Category:Novella awards to this (and other similar award categories to the others in this series?) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] All four done; will replicate to other lists. --PresN 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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