Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of billionaires (2007)/archive1

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 13:19, 14 March 2008.

List of billionaires (2007)

I think that this is a worthy candidate for WP:FL. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - including a note saying that the dash, green up arrow, and red down arrow represent would be nice, although it's fairly easy to discern that they refer to changes from the previous list. Include it regardless though. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I added a legend. Gary King (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comment

I think the lead should mention this is only the first 100 billionaires, with a link to the next page of 101+
The gallery is just a little too wide on my screen (1024 x 728).
Perhaps link "2006", the last word of the final lead paragraph to List of billionaires (2006)

And that's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done All done. Gary King (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

How feasable is it to put last year's ranking in brackets next to this year's ranking, or in a separate column? It's ok to say up or down, but I'd like to see how much by.
- Probably not very practical since we already have the previous year's list at List of billionaires (2006). Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same with net worth.
- Per above. Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Sources of Income sourced in the references, or is it WP:OR?
- The Sources of Income originate from the Forbes article. When you go to the URL, click on one of the names and you will see 'Source'. Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming, given that Forbes published the list around this time last year that they're about ready to publish a new one - The article will be updated within a relatively small timeframe I hope?
- Either that, or a new list will be generated. Same layout, new data. It will probably reside at List of billionaires (2008). Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yeah! it says 2007 in the title. Silly me! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More explaination in the lead is needed for what Forbes is, I think. "Stock prices and exchange rates", too. Which stock prices? NYSE, FTSE, etc etc, also what are stock prices and what are exchange rates?
- Done Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"some period of absence" is a little vague. "Snapshot" is a term I also find un-encyclopaedic.
- Done Gary King (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the billionaires ranked 101–946 are found at List of billionaires (2007) 102-946" Wouldn't this be "the billionaires ranked 102–946 are found at List of billionaires (2007) 102-946" because there are two rankings this year at 100.
- Done Gary King (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

How about a local currency amount for those outside US? Similar to the wealthiest foundation list. Not sortable though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it wouldn't make much sense, considering I can only really get the exchange rates for today and I'm not sure how I'd get them from February 9 2007. If I used today's exchange rate, then obviously it wouldn't work well since the data is supposed to be set in stone on that day. Gary King (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support How about getting List of billionaires (2007) 102-946 and 2006, 2005, 2004 done, too? :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In due time, in due time... probably not the 102-946, though. That's way too massive. The page itself already slows computers down to a crawl. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support a great list with all the features I'd expect. Country flags are an excellent addition, and it's interesting to see that only our Duke of Westminster ranks in the top 100 British billionaires. I have two comments. In the external links section, you have a link to the top American billionaires. Could more be added for international diversity (if they can be found)? Also, I notice that the page is semi-protected; I'm sure that's just because it's controversial, but is it stable? Again, great work! PeterSymonds | talk 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added a few links. I wasn't even aware that the article was protected because it didn't have the lock symbol; there isn't really much I can do about it I guess? I don't even know why it is protected. Gary King (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've requested its unprotection at WP:RPP. At least it's stable, which was my major concern.~~ It's now unprotected. Great work :) PeterSymonds | talk 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Why isn't net worth sortable? It's the most important column, surely?! And shouldn't it be "Net worth" rather than "Net Worth"?
- Done I tried earlier but it didn't work. Turns out the 'US' preceding the dollar amount was messing up the sorting; I've moved that to the header now. And sortable. And renamed. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong but I'm sure trillion and billion are different in the US from the rest of the world. Can you check that out for me?
- Trillion is a mathematical term, therefore it is constant around the world, as much as hundred, thousand, million, and billion are. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine sorting names using the {{sortname}} template would be preferable.
- Done Didn't know about that template. Done. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last year's list doesn't need three links in three lines.
- If you're talking about 'See also', then those are 3 different lists of 3 different years. Gary King (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm talking about the key table.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth allowing "source of wealth" to be sortable if you have something like "investments" in there?
- Done Gary King (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider putting US$ in the heading for net worth so it's not repeated 101 times...!
- Done Gary King (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support although I still think billion and trillion in the lead need to link to the correct numbers, despite the idea that the long scale may not have been in wide use for a while, it's still potentially ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Linked! Gary King (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support
1. Maybe I missed it, but what number do you mean by saying a billion? 1 000 000 000? or 1 000 000 000 000?
  - 1000000000. The long scale has not been in wide use for decades, at the least. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, a link to the 1 000 000 000 000 page will be make it clearer.--Crzy cheetah 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Gary King (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. The "#" column doesn't sort properly.
  - I've unsorted it until someone can figure out how to properly sort it. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The {{nts}} template does the trick.--Crzy cheetah 06:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done Gary King (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzy cheetah 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the 'source of wealth' column could be more useful by being sortable. Hmains (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Gary King (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to say I disagree as it only sorts the first word out of those with more than one source. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The way I see it, some people would at least rather have that option than not at all. It isn't entirely useless; for instance, you can quickly see where the Wal-Mart inheritance lies on the list. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.