Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of dinosaurs

List of dinosaurs

Preivously denied featured status, but the team has put together some great work on this article to make it look special. Now all links are blue, & thanks to me, it now have roughly 1 or 2 pictures per letter, except for ones with no pictures, like x etc. Basically nothing really starts with x, but that's beside the point. I hope you find it in your hearts to support this list make from the blood & sweat of so many html programmers. Thanks, Spawn Man 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Support - As per above. Spawn Man 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes - lots of good work has made a fine (possibly unique) reference article. - Ballista 05:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great work. —Nightst a llion (?) 07:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could we get a link to its previous nomination? Rmhermen 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, here it is: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of dinosaurs/archive1. Thanks Spawn Man 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Making Wikipedia unique, all the way. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great and unique list but I don't like the choice of pictures. Many of them depict obsolete representations and fragments of bones. Is this because we don't have dino pictures? CG 10:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... basically yes. Although all links are blue, very few have photos or pictures. I feel that the pictures are a good respresentative of different dinosaurs & different styles from different periods. You can't tell me those old pictures are interesting; the way we view & construct dinosaurs has varied greatly. And considering that all dinosaurs we find are from fossils or "fragments of bones", I feel that those pictures are okay? Thanks for you support - Spawn Man 00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I haven't been able to find a single non-listed dinosaur in that entry. Even the bloody Neovenator is there. It's about as comprehensive as it can get; it's even annotated. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Mgm. --Arctic Gnome 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my god, we have an unbelievably amount of dinasour articles... :) NCurse _work 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best lists I've ever seen. That's a lot of dinosaurs, but not a single red link! --Thelb ⁴ 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, although I freely admit I'm not a neutral party in this: I turned 530 of those links blue. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Durova 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]