Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of film formats/archive1

List of film formats
Let me first say that I am completely aware of the red-links problems that this list has, and I am (slowly) doing my best to deal with them, short of de-linking all of them (which I think would be unfair to both the list and the readers). If that dooms this FLC to failure, so be it. However, my peer review for this list got absolutely NO comments whatsoever, excepting some generally inapplicable ones by the automated suggestion bot. So I'd rather see some real critique now from interested editors, despite the likely failure of the candidacy. Many thanks in advance for your comments, Girolamo Savonarola 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - As Girolamo mentions there is a large porportion of red links on this list and it was something I mentioned on the first peer review even before it was put on the main namespace. Despite this I feel it is a unique and comprehensive list and that the red links are forgivable for such a specialised subject. I suspect however that I may be in the minority on this :o) CheekyMonkey 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there any way to collapse the reference: 1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ? Perhaps using the older citation technique? Rmhermen 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that was caused by a recent editor who decided to repeat the header row at regular intervals within the table. I didn't really think much of it one way or another, but do you think that I should revert it to the original state (identical header and footer rows only) or just drop the reference link on all but the top and bottom copies? Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't like to see the headers removed. Linking only the first and last might be a good choice but I think the old Footnote3 method would work while keeping all the links. I think there may also be another way of doing this that I can't remember. Rmhermen 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too many red links, improperly formated references, too short lead, too technical. Renata 01:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Too technical? As in, "could you please delete some of that"? Girolamo Savonarola 06:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, as in "could you please explain some of that." Renata 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me elaborate because it would not be fair not to. Don't get me wrong from the very short comment above. I do think the list is very interesting and is very well suited for FL. I just can image how much time you had to spend on it. On red links part: I could ignore that if everything else is spotless. On references: I am not talking about the first footnote that goes from a to ab (I don't really see problem there). I am talking about all the external links (from "Adventures in Cybersound" down) - try using cite web. The last two points come together. As I am completely unfamiliar with the topic, I am completely lost: what are you talking about. The lead could explain what it is about, what's film format, why there are so many of them, if there is some sort of historical trend, or something else so that I could look at the table and know what I am looking at. Renata 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please use cite web for website references. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When did use of the cite templates (or indeed any other style of reference) become mandatory? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object This looks like an impressive piece of work. I think it will become an FL although not necessarily on this round.  Yes, the redlinks are a problem.  Please continue creating stubs for them.  Also the website links list, while extensive, runs the risk of being called linkspam.  As a previous comment suggested, please add line citations where appropriate if using these sites as references.  More line citations in general would be a good thing.  Keep plugging away: this is a superb list in progress. Durova 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the whole "too many red links" has been discussed to death in the past. I don't see how a stub that says "this is a film format" is any better than a red link. That being said, if the list is linking to as much wiki info as it can (within reason) then it's doing it's job, red links or not. Although, maybe to make the others happy you could link to "parent" articles of some sort, like the company who made that film format, so the reader will at least have some info to start from (and the info might be on those articles, and simply not their own stand-alone article). -- Ned Scott 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)