The following discussion is a concluded List of the Day and List of the Month vote. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was First LOTM is List of countries. Other January 2008 LOTDs are Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army, Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, List of Chicago Landmarks, List of circulating currencies, List of countries where United Nations peacekeepers are currently deployed, List of cricket terms, List of dinosaurs, List of districts of India, List of elements by symbol, List of European Union member states by accession, List of Florida hurricanes, List of Harry Potter films cast members, List of islands of Scotland, List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, List of Odonata species recorded in Britain, List of Ohio county name etymologies, List of Oklahoma birds, List of Pennsylvania state parks, List of popes (graphical), List of premature obituaries, List of Presidents of the United States, List of space shuttle missions, List of Super Bowl champions, List of tallest buildings in Miami, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of wild mammal species in Florida, Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal, Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, United Nations member states, and United States Secretary of Energy. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

At 00:00, 11 December 2007 commence voting. Enter votes below the example for 5 candidates in your order of preference in the following format: 1. List A, 2. List B, 3. List C, 4. List D & 5. List E ~~~~

1. List of Chicago Landmarks, 2. List of wild mammal species in Florida, 3. Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army, 4. List of Presidents of the United States, 5. Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of countries, 2. List of space shuttle missions, 3. List of Super Bowl Champions, 4. List of premature obituaries, 5. List of Florida hurricanes --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of premature obituaries, 2. List of countries, 3. Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, 4. Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal, 5. Grade I listed buildings in Bristol --— Rod ^talk 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal, 2. List of circulating currencies, 3. List of countries, 4. List of Florida hurricanes, 5. Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of elements by symbol, 2. List of Florida hurricanes, 3. List of countries, 4. List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5. List of Super Bowl champions --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of Chicago Landmarks, 2. List of Harry Potter films cast members, 3. United Nations member states, 4. List of circulating currencies, 5. List of premature obituaries. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of space shuttle missions, 2. List of tallest buildings in Miami, 3. Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, 4. List of Chicago Landmarks, 5. List of circulating currencies -- Rai-me 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of Pennsylvania state parks, 2. List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, 3. List of premature obituaries. 4. List of Super Bowl Champions. 5. List of space shuttle missions. Dincher (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of islands of Scotland, 2. List of dinosaurs, 3. List of cricket terms, 5. Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, 5. List of premature obituaries (was nominated by me though!) Ben Finn (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

1. United Nations member states, 2. List of circulating currencies, 3. List of countries, 4. List of popes (graphical), 5. List of European Union member states by accession. —Nightstallion 08:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is not too late to vote it is still the 20th here 1. List of countries, 2. List of Odonata species recorded in Britain, 3. United States Secretary of Energy, 4. List of Ohio county name etymologies, 5. List of countries where United Nations peacekeepers are currently deployed --216.79.66.34 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

1. List of space shuttle missions, 2. List of districts of India, 3. List of Oklahoma birds, 4. List of circulating currencies 5. List of Presidents of the United States --Babybambam (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is a concluded vote. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is a concluded List of the Day and List of the Month discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments and feedback are optional. Comments on your selections are also welcome. The feedback received here will be useful in determining our first set of Lists of the Day.

• Comment How many Chicago landmarks are there? Is this list a complete list of all of them? I think these questions are not answered in the article, and could/should be. doncram (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are about 20 listed landmarks that are red-links only, for which there are no articles created. Each of the landmarks is notable enough for a wikipedia article, so why not create at least a stub article for each one of these. One function of the list-article is to serve as an index to the articles for the landmarks; let that be the case by creating those articles as stubs.
• Comment The footnotes are excessive IMHO, given that there exist articles for most of the landmarks in the list. The natural source of info for the list-article's entry for any one landmark is the article on that landmark. Assuming that the landmark article is properly sourced, there is not need, IMO, for additional footnotes in the list-article. The link to the landmark article is like a super-footnote. doncram (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The list could be a numbered list, like many of the state lists of NHLs indexed by List of National Historic Landmarks by state (none of which are featured lists yet, but are heading there...). doncram (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Division of the list into 3 alphabetical chunks is arbitrary and i don't think it is helpful. Are there not regions / neighborhoods of Chicago, into which the list could be organized? I suppose that could be addressed by adding a neighborhood column.
• Comment Why not make it a sortable list, sortable on each of its fields. You can preserve the current near-but-not-quite alphabetical order by use of strategic numbering the list. This comment and others above informed by my working with lists of NHLs, as you know. doncram (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Since Florida gets more hurricanes than any other U.S. State, should there be a comparison between it and other Caribbean jurisdictions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 00:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While that fact would be neat, I can't find it, and I don't know even if it should be compared (since Florida has storms that are very different from Caribbean storms). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Is every claim in the WP:LEAD backed up by a properly sourced fact in the main body?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 00:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • In the main body of the article does it say that Florida is the most targetted state?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I added that source to the lede earlier today. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Can you check the punctuation in the WP:CAPTIONs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. What is wrong? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • See WP:CAPTION#Wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I read that, and I still don't see what's wrong. Could you tell me rather than pointing me to another page? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment are there WP or WKT links for term such as extinct species, vagrants, rare species, breeding species, provenance, non-natives, taxonomic matters, fauna and the Channel Islands? I don't really know what most of them mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the appendices sections are not laid out according to WP:LAYOUT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment is there a link for locks of this type?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to Lock (water transport)

• Comment the spelling of numbers does not mesh with WP:MOSNUM.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this coment

• Comment what do you think about converting to ((reflist|2))?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done

• Comment Does this follow WP:CAPTION?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it does - do you have a specific suggestion?— Rod ^talk 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Does this follow WP:CAPTION?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What is the meaning of "potential candidate countries" and "application frozen"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just that -- they are officially recognised by the EU as countries which will, in due course, become candidate countries and then members of the union, and the application of Switzerland was officially not retracted, but simply frozen for now. —Nightstallion 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Check WP:CAPTION#Wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that the Manhattanization is an important point and that several images should include dates in their WP:CAPTIONs to help us understand the skyline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added dates to three image captions (many already had them), but I don't think that any of the completed building image captions need dates. Do you think dates are necessary for all captions, even those of completed building images? And what are you proposing in terms of Manhattanization? Rai-me 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You have clarified my confusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the first sentence has a malplaced reference. It also seems to fail WP:UNITS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Both Fixed. Thanks, Rai-me 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment can you clarify the phrase "due to skyscraper height limits in Miami". Is there a numerical limit or is it vaguely related to the "potential interference with aviation traffic" mentioned in the ref?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed - I have reworded the phrase to include information about air traffic interference, and not height limits. There are strict height limits, but I could not find a suitable reference to include. Thanks, Rai-me 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Better, but I am still curious about the height limits. Of course, your list is now fixed to remove this disappointment to the reader though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I cannot find any sources specifically listing the height limits in Miami. Rai-me 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a more encyclopedic phrase than topped out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No, topped out is widely used by many sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Furthermore, since Topping out has its own Wikipedia article, I think it can be considered encyclopedic. Cheers, Rai-me 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you clarify that as of date? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean the first sentence: "This List of Pennsylvania state parks contains the 120 state parks in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, as of 2007.[1]" it means that there were 120 parks in the PA state park system as of 2007 and this list has all of them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you saying the list is current or was current as of January 1, 2007 (or something else)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see the explanatory text at Category:Redirects from "As of" which explains this better than I could Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Can you comment on the image placement. I think I would prefer to see them alongside the table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The image galleries this way were fine in both peer review and FLC. The table is already 100% wide, no real room to put images "alongside the table". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess my question would be is it necessary to use 100% wide format then? Most lists use other image distributions systems. I am just curious. There is no right or wrong way. I am just comparing 45 lists and asking why you do something different than most.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It is 120 parks long, so making it less than 100% wide would make it even longer in terms of layout. Plus not every park has a picture (only about 25% did when we wrote the list, more now). Not sure what else to say here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please see WP:MOSNUM#Spelling_out_numbers for numbers between 21 and 99.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hyphens added to several numbers, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Y Thanks. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Seems underlinked with several uncommon terms like bond issue, conservation area, etc. left unexplained.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikilinks added, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Y Thanks. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment terms like incorporated municipality, legislature, etymologies, and McHenry Township need links for me.

 Done thanks. Dincher (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment does it mean anything to be a class five county. I.E., does it affect municipal services paid by the state or federal government? Taxes? Is this a state or federal class? I.E., what does this statement mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem to mean anything more than a way to classify counties by population. Dincher (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I added a clarification that it is so defined by Pennsylvania law, and is just based on population (the reference gives more information on it). No federal meaning that I can find. Not aware of any tax implications. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment underlinking. I think causes such as Pseudocide should be linked. Others as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now done (to the two that appear to have relevant articles).Ben Finn 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment should there be any respect paid to people who we just can't permit ourselved to be dead such as "Elvis has not yet left the building" and Tupac. Sort of asking/sort of joking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an opposite category, viz. people dead who are thought to be alive (rather than people alive who are thought to be dead), so would belong to a different, new, list. There are some relevant cases I know of, e.g. on several occasions I've seen corrections in e.g. The Times because their (famous people's) Birthdays column reported someone's birthday when they were in fact dead. There was also once apparently a review of a concert published I think in the Times which the reviewer had made up without attending - this came to light because the concert had in fact been cancelled as the performer had died en route to the concert hall.Ben Finn (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment see WP:CAPTION#Wording. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this list is particularly topical in the UK due to the ongoing John Darwin 'missing canoeist' case, covered in the list. Ben Finn (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This list is a wonderful illustration that not all Wikipedia lists need to be dull. However, I share TonyTheTiger's view that it is underlinked. More images also would be nice. --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It used to have more images (which I'd taken from other Wikipedia articles), but several were removed on copyright grounds, so I didn't feel up to sourcing more - feel free to add any yourself though! Incidentally I think the multifarious causes of premature obituaries are rather interesting, so I might do a pie-chart at some point of what proportions of entries have what cause, if this wouldn't count as original research that is. Ben Finn (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have never seen a WP:LEAD with that many paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your congratulations are humbly accepted. I once received award [6] for an over-lengthy DYK too, you know. It is of course not really a lead, but simply an introduction to the subject.

WP:LEAD#Length states that "as a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." However, this list has seven. Perhaps some paragphs can be merged? Rai-me 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Are you saying you have a WP:RS that does not consider a land mass to be an island once a bridge is connected to it? If so, please cite. If not, please clarify.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We do - the estimable Haswell-Smith, Hamish. (2004) The Scottish Islands. Edinburgh. Canongate as referred to in footnote 1. The blurb quotes the Sunday Times describing the book as the "acknowledged Rosetta Stone of island hopping" and who would disagree? However, the wretched fellow's definition of an island is hardly ideal. In fairness to him, such are the complications that we have to keep spreadsheets to keep track of the additional fifty islands he doesn't fully include and a couple of them we have not been able to find reliable data for so far. (South Walls for example). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Commment Please see WP:CAPTION#Wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't some statement be made about the United States presidential line of succession and Designated survivor experiences since this is somewhat of an article with extensive list content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you tell me any more about the open houses?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Underlinking, especially countries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment see WP:CAPTION#Wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done all done - I believe - though I am not sure about the caption wording. I think that we should maybe discuss open houses more in the article on Temples - and then link to it. --Trödel 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why the odd time intervals for date of dedication? (1877-1949, 1950-1978, 1979-1983, 1984-1985, 1986-1992, 1993-1998, 1999, Jan-May 2000, Jun-Dec 2000, 2001-2002, 2003-2006). Not only are these inconsistent time spans, but the headings do not indicate gaps in dates. Notably, there were no temples dedicated in the years 1946 to 1954, so it is misleading to end one time span in 1949 and start the next in 1950. If I had my druthers, I would group these by a less puzzling set of intervals, such as "before 1900," "1900-1945", "1950s," "1960s," "1970s," "1980s," etc. --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• They are grouped so that about 10-22 temples appear in each subsection, and the headings are for ease in navigating the group and set intervals would have widely varying #s of temples (1870s-1, 1880s-2, 1890s-1, 10s-1, 20s-2, 40s-1, 50s-4, 60s-1, 70s-4, 80s-26, 90s-26, 00s-56). The time intervals vary based on how quickly temples were dedicated - there was a large number of temples dedicated in 1999 and 2000 and the odd time intervals indicate this. Similarly in 1984-85 a relatively large number of temples were dedicated. I think that 1949,1950 was chosen as a break just randomly since it is an even number during the time period when no temples were dedicated as you noted - and it was thought more confusing to go 1877-1946, 1954-1978. But personally I am not tied to the current system --Trödel 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I guessed it was something like that. IMHO, breaks that are inserted as subheadings ought to either (1) have some sort of substantive significance or (2) follow an arbitrary logic (such as decadal groupings) that is apparent to the user. If the only purpose of the breaks is navigational convenience, a compact table of contents (tied to hidden codes within the list) seems more appropriate. One compact TOC that is generically applicable, but which would not meet the needs of this list, is Template:CategoryYearTOC; you might be able to generate code that would link to the sequential numbers (for example, number 1, number 10, number 20, etc.). I suggested the breakdown of "before 1900" and "1900-1945", followed by decade groupings, because I saw that (1) only a few temples were built in the earlier periods and (2) there was a long hiatus between 1945 and 1955, followed by a surge of building. With your knowledge, you might be able to define some eras of temple-building punctuated by events, such as Gordon Hinkley's adoption of the current standardized design. --Orlady (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't really given much thought to alternative headings - I'll think about how we could more logically organize the list. --Trödel 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I tried a different organization including a few break points that are not decades - let me know what you think. --Trödel 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Based on a quick look, I think I like it. However, can you add something to the introductory text to explain "Standardized temple building period ends"? I didn't see any indication that standardized temple building had ceased. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is 22. Apia Samoa out of sequence? --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Apia Samoa temple was originally built as the 22nd temple but it was destroyed by fire. Consensus was reached on the talk page to continue to list the rebuilt temple as 22, following the numbering used by the LDS church and by other outside groups. Rather than have a numbering system that was different than other sources. --Trödel 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) PS - the note on 22 explains why it is "out of order"

• Thanks for explaining. The note helps, but considering that the list is consistently organized by date, IMO it would be more straightforward for the user if the rebuilding information were included under the main headings, such as:
  

"Announcement (of rebuilding): 2003-07-16

Dedication: Original temple 1983-08-05; rebuilt temple 2005-09-04; both by Gordon B. Hinckley"

--Orlady (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What are the different shades of grey for?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The legend should explain the distinction not the text, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    •  Done --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why aren't all the column headings similarly sourced?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The IMDb pages of the first four films are "verified as complete". The IMDb page for Order of the Phoenix is not yet verified as complete, but since the DVD has recently been released in the UK and will be fairly soon in the US, it should be updated soon. Half-Blood Prince has not been released yet so the IMDb page is unreliable. Thus, for films 5 and 6 individual references which verify certain actors' appearance are used. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Should there be a mention of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" somewhere other than the footer template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:CAPTION#Wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do you have a WP:RS for the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the Scope and terminology section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why are the image sizes so small given the sparse text to the left?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why does so much important text follow the list instead of precede it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with this. It's more logical, in my mind, to see the current members first before reading all the "extra" attributes. It would only make sense after reading the current members, and besides, the current members is the most important thing and deserves to come first. I think it's fine as it is. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 18:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The lead has several distinct claims and facts that should be reliably sourced so that they are attributable and verifyable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is an exceedingly short WP:LEAD. What is a currency? Why is it important?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• The following two comments are standard auto peer review comments:
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I added an image and expanded the lead to include the definition of currency. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment you lead with a controversy warning:((About lists of countries and territories)). Then you say what you include in a way that sounds like WP:OR. Is there a WP:RS that you could cite to explain your inclusion. I don't think a topic like this should have an unsourced lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a formatting problem at the end of the notes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment must resolve the ((disputed title))--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment saying "They were roughly equivalent in size to an Army in British or American military terminology" tells a military history buff a lot, but it tells me nothing. Explain the size more clearly to the average reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The lead has no WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't the United States and President both be defined in the lead intro to the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Do you have any sources for the lead?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment See WP:CAPTION#Wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Short WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Main image has no WP:CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This may be the prettiest list of the whole group, but why is nothing linked in the WP:LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Does a lead of this brevity seem appropriate for this list?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:CAPTION#Wording. Normal punctuation applies to Captions. Don't omit commas or periods or include them inappropriately.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Extemely short WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I remain unsure what the significance of a district is. Does it serve as a political jurisdiction like a congressional district? Does it serve as a census district like Community areas of Chicago? What is the meaning of administrative purposes. Are all municipal services delivered at the district level? Is the term solely a tax collection reference?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am on your behalf closing the merger discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is the reader suppose to know what an antipope is?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Does this list pass WP:DASH?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why is the lead not WP:V?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The main image does not seem to be consistent with WP:CAPTION#Wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Lead is extemely brief and unsourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure what you want me to do about your comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Short WP:LEAD--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment See WP:CAPTION#Wording--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:CAPTION#Wording for main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Lead needs more linking. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The first sentence reading "This is a list of Super Bowl champions, that is, all the franchises that have won the championship game of the National Football League." is incorrect because the league has been around since 1920. Please provide some explanation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 00:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Needs an image. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could the WP:LEAD be expanded? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment See WP:CAPTION#Wording. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:CAPTION#Wording. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are there really only two appropriate links in the first paragraph. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:CAPTION#Wording. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• What is going on with the blank as of date. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Why are month and day linked without year?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Main lead and section leads are all extremely short and unsourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure what you want me to do about your comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I like this list. An enormous amount of good information has been packed into the article. However, it bothers me that the image of the periodic table in the article is of the Periodic Table by Article Quality, with the result that the color-coding in the image has no substantive meaning and the colors in the image don't match the colors in the list. I want the illustration that accompanies this article to be a periodic table that uses color to identify the element categories, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Standard_periodic_table --Orlady (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I replaced the image for this article (and also List of elements by name).--Orlady (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The image size is among the smallest I have seen. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• The are many unlinked terms that seem important.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This list should have an image of either one of the stars, the creator, or the same one shown in the shows infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't the actors' names appear somewhere on the list? If not shouldn't the shows template include them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You mention two animals as the largest. In terms of what? Is one the heaviest and the other the longest or tallest? Do you have any general measurements to back this claim up with a WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

some information about the sizes can be found here.

• Comment To what do you attribute the Right Whale's importance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording is a little off and your help would be appreciated: the Right Whale is endangered, and Florida hjas its only known calving grounds, so the importance of Florida in the context of the species' survival is very big.--Legionarius (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is a concluded discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.