Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2017

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 archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria, documents a category relevant to other articles, but could use the attention of other editors. WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this could have the longest title of any FLC ever. I'll review shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but each of these claims needs a reference. Also, a lot of non-free images used illegally here. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is a ref for almost every sentence in the opening section, so I need to know what is missing to fix it.
2. Some images are needed to illustrate meaning that is poorly conveyed by verbal descriptions. I think this is a valid fair-use argument since the images are already in use on WP to illustrate the articles on the schools.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed two non-free images, will write fair use rationale for two others.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the lead that needs referencing, it's all the rest of the list. Also I noticed some external links within the main body of the list as well, those need to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for the external links and convert them to refs. There are refs when available for questionable items, but I do not understand any need for the vast majority; this would indeed be citing that the sky is blue.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. How do I know that Chieftains play for "Nashoba Regional High School, Bolton, Massachusetts"? The school is not even notable enough for its own article? That's hardly blue sky citing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search for Chieftains in the database MascotDB.com lists Nashoba Regional High School. This source needs to be an inline cite for each school?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, as I said, this is definitely not a case of citing that the sky is blue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to include publishers (or works) in the references you add. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a web cite that included a work/publisher, only title, url, and accessdate. (This is a moot point, See below.)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What, like {{cite web}}? If you want an example of a list using {{cite web}} with works and publishers were available, see something like Ipswich Town F.C. Hall of Fame. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question The scope of this page seems a bit vague. Is it just schools in the United States and Canada? What reference is used to show completeness? By the way, very interesting topic. I just did a quick google[3] search and found high schools in Ontario with the name Eskimos, Braves, etc not included here. Mattximus (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence "Among the categories of names for sports teams in North America, those referring to Indigenous peoples are second in popularity only to the names various animals" defines both scope and importance. The completeness for Canada may be lacking, since the sources listed in External links are for the US.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, then I must oppose based on grounds of incompleteness with respect to the scope. Mattximus (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is complete and stable for the US, but narrowing the scope would increase the already lengthy title.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North America and the United States are almost the same number of characters. Mattximus (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be "List of United States secondary school sports team names and mascots derived from the indigenous peoples of North America" in order to include teams in the US called Eskimos and Aztecs.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for now, given the time needed to work through this long list making suggested changes. I appreciate the input.

• PS. Any suggestions for shortening the title? Does it need to fully define the scope? Perhaps "List of secondary school team names referring to Native Americans/First Nations", moving the additional criteria to the lead?

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the title should define the scope. Someone reading this title might think that it includes Canada and Mexico, but only includes the United States. I think the current title is still better than the change you propose, it just doesn't list what it says it lists. I'm afraid you'll have to include "United States" somewhere in the title if you stick to just USA as your scope. Mattximus (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list. Back in November 2016, the list has passed a thorough A-class review from Military history. All the information is cited, and all the sources used are meet WP:RS. The list was constructed on par with List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army etc. which are featured lists. So I think there won't be much trouble regarding the FLC criteria. I welcome suggestions for the same. By the way, the list is about the recipients for the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Alt text is missing from the images.
• Delink 'India' in the opening sentence, since WP:OLINK says that 'the names of major geographic features shouldn't be linked.
• Indo-Pakistani conflicts --> Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
• In the second para, the words "..of India" is repetitive. You can remove it in one of the instance.
• Indian Army is linked twice in the lead.
• Times of India --> The Times of India
• Are "Factly", "Topyaps" and "knowingindia.gov.in" RS?

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Many thanks for the review. All the issues raised have been fixed. Regarding the last one, http://knowindia.gov.in is an official site from the Government of India, the domain ".gov.in" makes that clear. Factly is strictly constrained by an editorial board, so this can be accepted. Also the content from Topyaps is tailored, the about us section on the site make it clear. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced by Topyaps, you can replace it with a much reliable source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Done, good catch. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The fix to the last issue I had looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Upon seeing Fowler's oppose, I looked at the main article and can understand why that user would think a split may not be justified. I actually think that if the list was in the main article, that the main article could potentially be eligible for FL status, as the tables would take up most of a combined page. As it stands, however, I do think this is likely a violation of criterion 3b. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would like to see less raiding, of well-established articles, for the creation of content forks that allow easy FLC runs. Seriously, what is the game here? Look how you have mangled the Param Vir Chakra page in the process. There was no talk page discussion before you removed the list from a relatively short article. Do you seriously think we are that clueless? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: In the first place, there is a reason to separate the list. Param Vir Chakra is India's highest gallantry award. Its list of recipients list is good enough to sustain a separate article. If you observe the other countries gallantry award recipients list, there are separate lists. And with 21 recipients and with the current format, it would make the main article ling. When I separated the list from the article, the columns like, date of action, conflict and citations never existed. So if these were part of the article, it would get complicated. I never mentioned about the "clueless" thing, I have improved the original PVC to GA, and this has already passed A-class review from MILHIS project, which is arguably the largest project on en wiki. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have templated the PVC article for issues I see there, which, in turn, are discussed on the article's talk page. Please reply there.

I will return to whether this list is comparable to the hundreds (of not thousands) of the VC, but here are some questions about the lead:

• "The Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest military decoration awarded for the highest degree of valour or self–sacrifice in the presence of the enemy."
  • Is there more than one award for the highest degree of valour or self-sacrifice? Or is there an non-defining relative clause that is not being separated by a comma?
  • What do the terms "highest degree," "self-sacrifice," and "in the presence of the enemy" mean? They might belong to the typically ceremonial language the award citation uses, but what do they mean in WP:NPOV language?
• "The medal has been awarded twenty-one times, including fourteen posthumous awards; sixteen were awarded for action in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, and two for action in peacekeeping operations."
  • Did you mean to say, "including fourteen times posthumously?"
• "Of twenty-one, twenty recipients were from the Indian Army, and one from the Indian Air Force."
  • Did you mean to say, "Of the twenty one recipients, twenty were ...?"
• "Literally meaning "Wheel (or Cross) of the Ultimate Brave", the Param Vir Chakra is comparable to the Medal of Honor in the United States and the Victoria Cross in the United Kingdom. (cited to a high school education publishing website, NCERT, and Priya Aurora (27 December 2013). "7 Facts Average Indian Doesn't Know About Param Vir Chakra". Topyaps. Retrieved 4 September 2016.."
  • The (present) participle clause "Literally meaning ..." applies to the award's name in Sanskirt/Hindi, not to the award itself. It is a little confusing when in the main clause the subject becomes the award itself.
  • Why does a reader need to know the "literal" meaning of an award's name, when we haven't been told the transformed, figurative, or metaphorical meaning, especially when the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary defines "chakra" in this latter sense to be "medal," and "param" to be highest?
  • Why is an interpretation offered at a website of the government of India the touchstone of the (award) name's meaning? Where are the secondary sources that have been vetted for scholarship?
  • According to whom is it similar to the medal of honor or the VC, and in what manner is the award similar?

That this this article is a content fork is demonstrated in my post at Talk:List_of_Param_Vir_Chakra_recipients#Content_fork. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga there seems to be an evolving consensus against this being promoted, particularly in light of a possible 3b violation. Do you wish to continue with the nomination and attempt to address these concerns (nothing appears to have happened here for a few days) or shall I archive it for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man and Fowler&fowler: Back in September 2016, when I separated the list from the article, I felt that the list would bloat the article. But as the consensus it that it would not, I see no requirement for separate page. Please archive this discussion and the list be merged with the main article. As Giants2008 said, the original article would be potentially eligible for FL status, I will work on the same. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 withdrawn by PanagiotisZois via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this list is about the second season of the anime series Prisma Illya. The season itself is based on the first half of Prisma Illya 2wei, the second series of the Prisma Illya manga. It includes information about its announcement, production, airing, theme songs, home video releases and a few reviews. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 05:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Modest Mouse. Underground darlings turned mainstream juggernauts, these guys are an all-time top 5 artist for me. I'm quite proud of the work I've put into this article/list over the past week or so, and I'm hoping that at this point it's worthy of the FL star. This was my first attempt with working on a discography, so any feedback is appreciated. Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 05:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• @Dylan620: The information in the lead that is not supported by the rest of the list (for instance, the first sentence of the lead’s second paragraph and the sentences about the band earning a cult following, getting mainstream exposure, etc.) requires citations. I would suggest going through the lead and adding references for any these types of sentences. This is the main and only issue that I have with the list. Once this is addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Aoba47, thank you for the feedback. I'll see what I can do to address this concern within the next few days. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 13:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your response, and take as long as you need. Just ping me when you are through with your revisions and I will look through the list again. Aoba47 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Link Music recording sales certification for "certified".
• Avoid the use of # to mean "number".
• Some elements of the lead need references, such as "the only Modest Mouse album to feature former The Smiths guitarist Johnny Marr as a member of the band.".
• Where are the release dates referenced for each entry and which territory(ies) is the date pertinent to?
• Look at other discogs to see the way to note what an en-dash in the table means, i.e. not charting or not released in that territory.
• Where is live album referenced?
• Where are reissues referenced?
• Where are the singles referenced?
• Check for MOS:DASH fails in the reference titles, i.e. avoid spaced hyphens in favour of spaced en-dashes.

A lot to do here to meet the standards of other discog FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM: Points 1, 2, and 9 have just been taken care of; I will see what I can do about points 3 through 8 in the coming days. I have a question about point 4, though. Many of the singles and all of the reissues do not have their own articles, so providing references for those makes sense, but why should the existence of the live album need to be proven by a reference when one can just click on the article for it? Of course I'll still try and dig up a reference if necessary, but I just wanted to have this cleared up. --Dylan620's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Featured lists/articles usually do not rely on blue links for referencing, after all Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The added benefit of bringing sources into the article (even if it's just a copy and paste from the blue linked article) is that this list will standalone and no matter what happens to the linked articles (e.g. editors removing information, links going dead etc), this list will be independent of such problems. And it's not just the existence of the blue linked articles, it's their release dates, their territories etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for completeness, I clicked on the live album. There's an orange maintenance tag at the top of the article. That's why we should never rely on Wikipedia to source our articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, that makes perfect sense. I'll see what I can do as quickly as real life will allow. Also FWIW, I've now taken care of point 5. --Dylan620's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 21:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620 two weeks have passed, where are we with all my comments Dylan? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM: Frustrated. Have spent several days on-and-off trying to look for reliable sources to confirm that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fisherman" were the B-sides for the "Birds vs. Worms" single (see relevant RSN post) and that "Shit Luck" was the B-side for the "Heart Cooks Brain" single. I've gone into the "Birds vs. Worms" issue at RSN; for the "Heart Cooks Brain"/"Shit Luck" issue, the best I seem to be able to come up with is the last.fm page (which appears to have been provided by the site, instead of being added by a member of their userbase), and this expired auction listing. The existence of the two singles can already be proven - see this archived web page on the site of their former label - but finding a reliable source for the B-sides has been another story. (Unless the auction listings/last.fm overviews count as reliable sources, in which case problem solved!) Apologies for the wait, between the search efforts and real-life stuff I have made less progress on this than I would have hoped to by now. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 23:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: problem solved by removing B-sides from the tables in question. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to academic obligations which have kept me away from Wikipedia for the past two weeks, and will keep my activity levels at a minimum for the next month or so, I feel it proper to withdraw this nomination at this time. Thank you Aoba and TRM for your feedback; once my workload lightens up (in or around early May), I intend to resume addressing your concerns. Regards, Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 01:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as withdrawn. --PresN 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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 archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]