Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Naval Academy alumni

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Scorpion0422 21:57, 21 March 2009 [1].

List of United States Naval Academy alumni edit

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •
Toolbox

This is the main US Naval Academy alumni list and LAST almost last one for FLC submission I'm planning from USNA ;-) It had to have three sublists split from it due to size. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) and List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations) are already Featured lists. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Legislators) is currently listed at FLC. I've tried to give them a common look as it's one topic. In WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Comment -- I'm concerned about the tag given This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it. Is this incomplete?--₮RUCӨ 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other FLs with that tag, example at List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. It's no big deal. There are tens of thousands of service academy grads. Trying to list just the notable ones would be a never ending task. This is exactly the sort of case that tag is meant for. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, the prose looks fine as do the tables. Just make sure there are no periods where they aren't necessary. I also suggest removing images from sections where the extra images causes the section to stretch.--₮RUCӨ 04:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already removed some. Are you talking about any sections in particular? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most notably the "Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", "World War II MOH", and "World War II" sections.
OK, I cut one more pic from each of those. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to wait for other reviews before I support because I am so used to seeing these types of lists, so once more reviews are given, I'll come back.--₮RUCӨ 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JKBrooks85
  • Comments — It's an absolutely beautiful list, but I do have a few minor quibbles.
  • How about a semicolon after "Admiral" in the William Sims listing, per the Mahan and Eberle ones?
  • I'd suggest adding "MOH" after the Vera Cruz subhead to make it consistent with the other Medal of Honor listings.
Oops, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the biggest one -- your headings switch from people to phrases. You've got astronauts, lawyers, nobel laureates, then it switches to non-title things like "academia" or "business". For consistency's sake, I'd strongly suggest switching these latter examples to things like "academics", "businesspeople", "government officials", "literary figures", etc. It's a minor thing, but it read oddly to me as I was going through the list.
Wow, how'd I miss that? Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also confused about your criteria for inclusion in the list. I know we'll never be able to include every person who ever graduated from the Naval Academy, but there are 644 people in the category of Naval Academy graduates -- how did you pick? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use the wiki USNA cat for this at all. I mostly used the USNA official site listing (item B in general refs). You're right, we could never even include all the notable ones since there are so many. So what I did was start getting the existing wiki list up to snuff based on that Notables list. It quickly became too big (it'd take minutes to save a simple change), so I forked off Astronauts, CNOs, and Legislators (3 of the bigger sections) (Astros and CNOs are already FLs and Legislators is at FLC too, then I plan to make this a Featured Topic) leaving 5 people each as samples on this main list. Scholars is so huge making it a single sublist is out of the question (over 900 of them). Most of the people on the USNA list meet wiki criteria and have an article already. People who need an article are on the list talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a tick ... do you intend to add the folks on the talk page to this list? JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only after they have an article (or fixed whatever issue there is with them, like lack of a ref), then to the main list or sublist as appropriate. Eventually I may even make more sublists, esp an MOH one, but right now I'm working on the USAFA alumni list. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think I can see where you're going with this. Would it be possible to start child lists for the categories that are too big to fit on this page (academics, etc.) My specific concern is about item No. 3 (everything else is absolutely awesome) on the list of criteria: comprehensiveness. This is a great parent article, but I don't think it can be completely comprehensive until all the child lists are at least started. We can't include all the academics who graduated from the Naval Academy because this list would be too long -- but you can still do what you did with the astronauts list and start a child list, linking to it from this one. As it is now, with no child list for the relevant categories, it makes it seem as if the academics, etc. in this list are the only notable ones when that isn't the case. Do you see where I'm coming from? JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Astronaut, CNO, and Legislators are complete lists per the USNA website. The only ones that may warrant child lists beyond those three are academics (many, many of whom don't have articles btw but still prob enough for an article) and the MOH group. If you want to help create them, feel free. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reset indent. Okie dokie; take a look at what I've done, and after you're done recoiling in horror, let me know what you agree/disagree with. The way I look at it, this is the keystone article for any other list of Naval Academy alumni that might come after it. If someone wants to create a full list of notable literary figures who graduated from the Naval Academy, this style will already have a link to it. The way I look at it, this one should be a list of heavy hitters and let someone else tackle the big lists. Do you see where I'm coming from? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to a point. The main list is the starting point. Sublists are warranted for when there are enough notable people in a category. MOH warrants one so I will now change my stmt that this is the last USNA alum FLC and make an MOH sublist. Academics--I have to see if there are enough for a sublist. NO RED LINKS, so I have removed them all. Attorneys-prob many alum are, but how many are wiki notable and have an article? Just one doesn't warrant a sublist. When there are sublists, 5 is a good number to leave on the main list with a link to the subarticle. Some topics will never have a sub article --Nobel laureates are defacto notable but there are not enough for a sublist. Let's only create the link in the main list when a sublist is both warranted and actually created. As for title changes like "Sports/Athletes", "Business/Businesspeople", I followed the pattern of List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni but I think it does not matter as long as the pattern is consistent within a list or close group of lists like these. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at the Georgia Tech alum list, it has NO SUBLISTS of alum at all and yet there are bound to be many more notable GT alum than they've listed. So, I'm not so sure that holding up a main list simply because sublists could be created is a valid objection. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I don't care when the sub-lists are created, just that the structure of this article give a foundation for their creations. Look at it this way: It's possible for someone to create these sub-lists, and links will have to be inserted to them. Why not just put the links in now? I can't respond to the Georgia Tech comment — I didn't review that article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it'd be a red link now and red links in featured content are not good, unless you want to create it yourself. I really don't see your point about the structure as the structure does not stop a new sublist from being created--there are already four; so the foundation you mention already exists. Also keep in mind that we're trying to make a featured topic here so unless you're willing to put in the effort to make that sublist a FL-which would probably be very hard given the paucity of data on that sub group-it'd undermine that effort as in an Featured Topic all parts must be of highest quality. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, that's where our opinions differ. I encourage red links; they're a great way to encourage authors to start new articles. I try to include more than one in every featured article (not featured list, because I know how anal people here are about that), but I can understand that viewpoints differ. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. I am assuming good faith that the image uploaders correctly tagged the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "Canoe U." Logical punctuation, quotes should be inside the period.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the categories with sublists, how did you choose which alumni to list on the main list?
I chose ones that were well-known or especially noteworthy. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I requested an image check at WT:FLC. I cannot support until an independent editor can verify that all images check out. I hope you understand. There are just too many, and I am not experienced enough to check them myself.
OK, commented there, they're all PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry Procter"-->Henry Proctor
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • " National Law Journal "-->The National Law Journal, and it should be in italics because it is a publication.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington Post"-->The Washington Post, and same comment about the italics.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, everything in that article is accurate, but it already has one ref and I've added a third, so if you want to delete that one, we'd still have two. New one from Armed Forces Press Service. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it has a backup source then it's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out abbreviations in the publishers such as NASA, USAA, and SM&A.
Done, except SM&A doesn't break out to anything. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if every instance were spelled out (readers might not catch the first instance), but no big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 60, web titles in all caps should be converted to title case.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 5 and 16 need format=PDF added to them.
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved image issues and extraneous discussion
* File:Navyacademylogo.jpg has no source or date information
  • I followed the link (it was not dead) on the Commons description page to the U.S. Defense Department's Imagery site — it contains exactly the Commons description. Author=WHITE HOUSE — which means it is a U.S. Government image and thus public domain. What further proof is required? — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ERcheck is right, that link is not dead, besides, where's the requirement that all sources be online sources? What if the source was an 1895 book that is now out of print? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as above for Poindexter, the link on Commons is not dead. This image can also be found on another U.S. Government site — here; it clearly says this is a U.S. Navy photo and is released. This exercise of reverifying what is clearly documented in the Commons files should not be necessary. Please Assume Good Faith. The details are already there. — ERcheck (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is his official U.S. Military photo, which is c.2000-2007, after his promotion to 4-star rank. Not all official photos carry the name of the photographer. This is not a requirement; nor that links remain active forever. His official biography, with photo is still available here. 00:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Addendum — the date and photographer information is available from the original photo. — ERcheck (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following the links on the Commons page gets you to this original upload page, which has full source information; including the public domain information. From
Navy historic site - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/k14000/k14447.jpg<br?
Photo # 80-G-K-14447 Circa: 1945
"License: All information on this site is in the public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. - http://www.history.navy.mil/warning.htm
— ERcheck (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated information on Image file page on Commons, with live link to NHC. Full public domain licensing information provided. — ERcheck (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The National Parks Service is a Federal Agency and thereby it's photos should be PD, however the series which the NPS has posted and from where this image came from is the "Commemorative Series produced by the Marine Corps History and Museums Division" which would also make it PD. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is over the top, for example, I didn't upload these but one or two of these for one thing, two where is the requirement they be PD, three, most of them are on commons, four - just one example, the Staubach one is his official Academy yearbook photo and clearly PD-Navy. I thought I was on FLC, not IFD page. The Waddell photo is well over 100 years old and PD for that, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew asked me on my talk page to give my input on this. I don't think that the review was nitpicky at all; public domain images should be scrutinized as much as fair use ones, especially if the whole point of the public domain's description page is to prove that it is indeed in the public domain. Gary King (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on IRC, if an image is not free, it needs a FUR adding to the image page for its use on this article. If the copyright cannot be determined, we can't know if it is GFDL or Creative Commons licenced, or in the public domain. Trying to assume from the age or career of the subject is bordering on Original Research, and I feel that the copyright status of each image must be as verifiable as the claims made in an article.
I conducted this review based on others I have seen and received, such as at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of First Ladies of the United States. I have asked User:Elcobbola, a Commons admin and frequent FAC image reviewer to comment, as well as two highly active FLC nominators, User: Gary King and User:Sephiroth BCR to comment. Hopefully others will see this too and decide to comment. If it's agreed that I have been too strict, I will strike my concerns and see where they are appropriate.
I'm sorry that this has annoyed you, and I hope it doesn't put you off FLC in the future. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. I mean, Elcobbola is the godfather (godmother?) of image reviewing and what Matthew did was no more strict than what he does. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female Nobel Laureates for an example. Simply because the images are PD doesn't mean that we take a break from following WP:IUP. Proving that images are public domain with sufficient proof and rationales shown is just as important as writing good rationales for fair use images. This is what you're going to find at FAC and FLC nowadays. If you can't find the proper proof that the image is PD, then just cut it. The list isn't going to fail without all those images. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying so quickly, Gary and Sephiroth. Is this the right forum for discussing the images though? Should the image policy pages be the best place to discuss the public domain-dom of the images, or is a review of the article they're used in an okay place to discuss it too? I think that's what Rlevse is concerned with -- that this is the wrong place for an image discussion. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the images are such a problem, then this is what I think should happen: the images with questionable status should be commented out until after promotion (promotion assumed unless there is another issue that pops up). After the list is promoted, continue the image review on the talk page of the list. There, you all can work one-by-one one images without having to worry about time limits or any of that. Also, we won't take up space on this FLC with image issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed here. We can ask for a second opinion from the image policy talk pages, but otherwise, it should be discussed here. Images are covered by criteria six of WIAFL, so they definitely need to be addressed for the nomination to be successful. That said, per my comments above and per Dabomb, simply removing the images with bad rationales at the moment and addressing them at the talk page after the nomination concludes successfully (assuming there are no other outstanding issues) is fine too. Lack of images isn't a failure of criteria six. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at just one: Does anyone REALLY think the Waddell image is NOT PD? It was taken about 140 years ago for pete's sake. Most of these are official government photos and clearly PD--like Staubach's image is his senior yearbook photo and also clearly PD. FLC is not the plae to quibble over which tag or source or to fix a dead link. That's what we have image pages like IFD for. The uploader should have the responsiblity to fix quibbles not someone that uses them. This is FLC, not IFD page. These issues should be on IFD or the image page, not the FLC page. This FL nom has lost all focus. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FLC is the place for this, just as it is at FAC. Featured content is supposed to follow all of our content policies and guidelines, including WP:IUP. If we can't confirm that the image is PD, then the image shouldn't be used. As I said above, doing so is just as important as writing fair use rationales for fair use images is. Doesn't matter how blatantly obvious it is. Really, this has an easy solution: remove all the images with bad rationales and go through them at the talk page after the nomination passes. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even easier, delete the nomination and the article. Civil War pics are copyrighted, ugh. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Can we do without the drama? If this is such a big deal, I can do most of this when I return from my vacation. If the images are the only things keeping the article from promotion, I'd rather just fix them myself. My gosh. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if people would stop trying to claim things like Civil War pics are not PD and can't be used. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a lot of these images can be found in government image databases then? Gary King (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to look. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is usually on the nominator, or at least someone else closely affiliated with the scope... Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't care anymore. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I have replaced said image with one which I took in the State Capital of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He means the one now in the article, clearly PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Samuelwilderking.jpg claims to be from Hawaii State Archives, but has no source link. No author or date information either to verify public domain status. Image is also tagged with a depreciated public domain template
Deleted from article, Hawaii is a non free state/site, see [10], could be used under FUR but I'm not messing with that. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dupe of commons file, which has info, deleted en wiki version. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources there, the defense imagery one still works. This is PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full PD information now posted on Commons:
{{PD-USGov-Military-DVIC}}
Info found and added to all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NHC link and source information added to image description page for c.1864-1865 photo. — ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the NHC as shown on image description page: — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File information
Description

Commander James Iredell Waddell (1824-1886), CSN; photographed in Confederate Navy uniform.

Source

"Commander James Iredell Waddell, Confederate States Navy, (1824-1886)", Online Library of Selected Images, Naval Historical Center, Department of the Navy.
Photo #: NH 66710

Date

circa 1864-1865.

Author

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Permission
(Reusing this file)

From the public domain U.S. Naval Historical Center.


  • File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg is tagged with {{PD-old}}, but no author information can be found, so it may be possible that he died after 1939, and so the "life of the author plus 70 years" has not occurred yet
Info you seek is below in a comment by ERcheck, online info shows it's PD and that the Bohemia mentioned was a book in 1904, not the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, retagged with {{PD-US}} — published in 1904. Comment about Sigsbee source below. — ERcheck (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Website moved here but I can't find where they moved photo. I'll ask the webmaster about the photo's status. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John Ripley.jpg has no source, date or author infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim
Removed from the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FOund new link, same site, but new address, added to image page, see [13] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Joeweberphysicist2.jpg is from http://www.usna.com, but I have found nothing to show that images there are automatically in the public domain. Image information states "This is a US Naval photo of Weber in Naval uniform, and thus is a US Governmental photo in the public domain." Yes, he's in uniform, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a Naval photo, and with no other image information, there is nothing to verify the copyright status/public domain claim
It's his academy yearbook photo, see comment to Staubach for more on this. Updated image info, see [14] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:WWBehrensJr.jpg "Source: Family photo", tagged with {{PD-release}}. No other image information is given, so copyright status/public domain claim cannot be verified
See this I doubt Arlington Cemetery would use a copyrighted image — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's his academy yearbook photo. They are taken by Navy photogs for official gov pub, the yearbook. I can show you hundreds more like it. See this and this. The yearbook is called the "Lucky Bag" and they call these "Lucky Bag photos". HOpe this helps — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found source book and added: " Scanned from a Naval Historical [Center] photo in:

Laning, Harris (1999).Admiral's Yarn, Newport, Rhode Island: U.S. Naval War College Press. This is U.S. Naval War College Historical Monograph Series, No. 14 This book is the "Memoirs of Admiral Harris Laning, who was Pres. of the Naval War College (NWC) circa 1930. Also note...includes Laning's opening address delivered before the NWC staff & classes of 1931; & Laning's thesis written while a student in 1921."...which is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All other image files have been checked and verified as good.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said they're not PD. I've said their status cannot be verified. Yes, common sense tells us they are PD, but that is original research. The deadlinked source links cannot help us verify that. Claims that they are PD because they are 70 years older than the death of the author cannot be verified because we don't know who the author is. I like Dabomb's suggestion of commenting them out and working on them one-by-one. There's no need to throw any toys out of the crib and delete stuff. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is like lawyers with legal minds carried to the extreme. Take the most obivous ones, Civil War, let's say the author was 15 in 1865, now he'd be 159, but we can't use it. right. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at WP:MILHIST, maybe some kind soul will come to help. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Support: WP:AGF on images. Even if the links are "dead" now on some of the sources, they were provided at the time, and looking at their source (.mil), these are U.S. Military/DoD sources = public domain. Commons images, if not acceptable, should be tagged and discussed on Commons; else, they are in Commons so that they can be used anywhere, including Wikipedia Featured Lists. This is a well-written list and deserves featured status. — ERcheck (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are .mil links, but because they doesn't work we don't know if the images was ever sourced from that page. It's easy to say it is, but it has to be verified. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg — the Commons description clearly says it "Photograph published in Bohemia, 1904, by the International League of Press Clubs" [15] — this is 105 years ago - which is {{PD-US}} (seems to be published by the International League of Press Clubs in Philadelphia [16] [17]. — ERcheck (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could easily be edited to say it was first published in 1931. It also says "Courtesy of Larry Franklin, 1983". Without a reliable, working source link to verify when it was published, we don't know if it is PD, and we don't know if Larry Franklin is the current copyright owner, if he's released it under a GFDL or Creative Commons licence, or what. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GEEZ. Talk about a complete lack of AGF, accusing things of being falsified without any justification. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Matthewedwards response above — 2 points:
  1. I did provide a link above (right after the words the Commons description clearly says it "Photograph published in Bohemia, 1904, by the International League of Press Clubs") — directly to the U.S. Department of the Navy's Naval Historical Center (NHC) page from which the information posted on Commons is taken. It is exactly as in the Commons source comment. Here it is again: www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/maine.htm. As for the "Courtesy of Larry Franklin 1983", I took that to mean that Larry Franklin provided 1904 book to the NHC from which the image was taken— which can still be found from a few antique book dealers. Nonetheless, it is clear that the U.S. Government is saying it was from a source published in 1904.
  2. Again, I ask you to Assume Good Faith. Your note above reads as if you are accusing the uploader of lying about his source.
— ERcheck (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note: I replaced File:Dennis Blair.jpg with File:Dennis C. Blair.JPEG, the latter of which is from a non-forum source. I don't know anything about insignia, but Blair appears to have fewer bands on his sleeves in the replacement. If this means it is depicting a different rank than before and/or a different rank than that which "needs" to be depicted, feel free to revert. Эlcobbola talk 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the JPG one he is a 4-star admiral, in the JPEG one he is a 1-star admiral (lower rank) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize if someone has already asked this, but how did you choose who to include in this page? The astronauts list has five people, but List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) has over 50. -- Scorpion0422 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the capped discussion from JKBrooks. Dabomb87 (talk)
      • Yep, already answered; in fact it was a suggestion from Dabomb87 to do it that way since a single list is hopelessly undoable for this topic, which I plan to FT this set of lists and later the USMA alum I'm going to create. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_United_States_Naval_Academy_alumni&oldid=1138484997"