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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a re-nomination. The previous FLC discussion for this article is located here.
Re-nominating. Have addressed the concerns expressed by the previous reviewers. Geraldk 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think it matters that much on a sortable table? Geraldk 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has to be the other way around. It has to be in chronological ordering, then if anyone wants, he/she can sort in a non-chronological way. Why? Because every publishing newspaper or magazine orders such lists chronologically. Even the official website(?) lists chronologically. --Crzycheetah 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think both normal and reverse ordering are defensible. Circeus 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way to forestall long, drawn-out debate, Crzy. Geraldk 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
