Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of African XI ODI cricketers/Archive1

List of African XI ODI cricketers

Another complete cricket list, with no redlinks, jguk 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose -- the table causes a hscroll in lower resolutions. You could remove the column "career" =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, jguk 12:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in Firefox the Pollock image caption gets mixed up with the top rhs of the table -- Ian ≡ talk 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not using Firefox makes it difficult for me to fix this. Can you see how to do this yourself, or is it a simple case of adding a wee bit more prose? jguk 11:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Sam Vimes and ALoan have kindly fixed that. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - does the <br clear="all/"> just before the table cure the Firefox problem? A few comments: isn't "ct" the usual abbreviation of "caught"? Shouldn't maiden over be linked? Some more pixels could be saved by abbreviating "Nation". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes to your first question, after Sam changed it to <br clear="all">. I am no expert but I think the alternative tag is <br clear="all" />. One of the two are W3C compliant and the other is not (unsure which), but both appear to do the same thing -- Ian ≡ talk 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry - I meant to add "<br clear="all" />" but unaccountably put the slash inside the quotation marks and Sam corrected my typo. My one is clearly wrong ;) I think both of the other versions (with or without the slash) are meant to work, but is is good form for an html tag to be closed, and if it is not closed by a separate tag (like a "nowiki" would be by a "/nowiki") then it should close itself with a slash at the end. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Left for a few extra days for Nichalp to revisit his comments - see User talk:Jguk and User talk:Nichalp -- ALoan (Talk) 13:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been any comments since this notice and Nichalp was somewhat unequivocal in his comment that he would remove his "oppose" on my talk page. I think this nomination needs to be re-run, jguk 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although it might be worh poking Nichalp again to see if he changes his mind. Note that your nomination counts as the third/fourth support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that (and as you can see in the nomination history, I first considered promoting it anyway), but decided on balance that it would be better to re-run the nomination. If it means it takes three weeks or a month longer to get promoted, that's not really a great problem, jguk 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]