Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2018

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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Andre666 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete, sourced list of all songs by a notable musician, and provides a valuable source of information for anyone who would like to know about the subject's work. Andre666 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this list. I made a suggestion on the list's talk page re: the Notes column, which has mostly empty cells. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you nominated it! A couple comments:

• The writer column should be unsorted as there are multiple writers for many songs.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think having "Credited" in the artist and writer columns is unnecessary because to me that suggests there were uncredited writers as well.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• For songs that are B-sides only, I think the release boxes should be more evident. In the lists I'm working on currently, I use for example: (box below) Then for A-sides, I just say "non-album single" solely.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a content box, where you can click the letter and it goes to songs that start with that letter.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a heading (or caption) to the table.  Done Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Andre666 Sorry it's taken me a while to address this one. Fixed dashes for you to be en dashes per MOS:DASH. There's also a ref error for ref 33 that should be fixed. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are numerous problems with this list. In addition to those listed above, the table does not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT) and has sorting problems. The list criteria is not specified, but apparently includes all the recordings Cornell appears on. It includes those with Soundgarden and Audioslave, which arguably deserve their own lists of songs. WP practice is to include only songs recorded in the artist's name (see List of songs recorded by Syd Barrett, List of songs recorded by George Harrison, etc.), since it is often unclear what the extent of their contribution to group recordings is. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andre666 this nomination has seemingly been untouched for three weeks, are you intending to address Ojorojo's concerns or do you want it to be withdrawn? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had completely forgotten about this. I will make the suggested edits this week, leave it with me :) Andre666 (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andre666 I think we'll have to close this down unless some activity is demonstrated in the next day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Sorry, I have made most of these changes but did not update this page. I have now added done notes, is there anything else that needs to be looked at? Andre666 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, I imagine people were holding off to see whether or not you were going to address the concerns raised in late-November, so hopefully now we'll see some more reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I can't see any issues personally..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ojorojo, BeatlesLedTV, could you re-review to see if your requested changes have been made to your satisfaction? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems remain:

• Nowhere in the lead is the list criteria given, although the Soundgarden, Audioslave, and TOTD songs have been removed.
• "A" and "The" don't sort properly under "Release".
• It would be helpful to more readily see (maybe color instead of parenthetical info) which songs are Cornell releases vs guest appearances with other artists (the Harrison song list doesn't include guest appearances).
• It appears that users can edit MusicBrainz and therefore it is not a reliable source.
• Template:Cite web#Publisher includes "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)"; AllMusic, etc. citations should use |website= or |work=.
• The images seem to compete visually with the table columns and may take up more width than necessary (how does this look on portable devices?). Some image FURs show "copyrighted" and may only be justified for articles more closely tied to the artist.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre666 are you going to address these issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I will work on this later this week as per the notes above. Andre666 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre666 are you going to address these issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, I have made some of the changes and will make the rest later. I'll let you know when done. Andre666 (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry for the long delay. I think I've fixed everything now:

• The list criteria is given in the lead section.  Done
• "A" and "The" sort correctly under the release column.  Done
• I have added a colour for featured tracks. Let me know if it doesn't work, though.  Done
• I have replaced all MusicBrainz references.  Done
• I have changed publisher parameters to website or magazine where appropriate.  Done
• I'm not sure what to do about the images. Would it help if I just made the thumbnails smaller (150px)?  Not done

Let me know if there is anything else of concern, or if anything is now messed up! Andre666 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo it looks like Andre666 has responded to your concerns, would you revisit the nomination and see what you think please? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image WP:FUR concerns raised two months ago have not been addressed. Several copyrighted images do not appear to meet the "contextual significance criterion" for inclusion in a list about a different artist's songs (see WP:NONFREE). Has anyone reviewed the new citations? M.A.C.C. ("Hey Baby") appears to be a collective effort similar to Temple of the Dog (where M.A.C.C. redirects). Also, more recent edits have introduced some awkward phrasing: "It features songs on which Cornell is credited as an individual artist, including those on which he is a credited featured artist". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree about the fact those fair use images currently cannot be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre666 some more here for you to address. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how I would go about addressing the issue with the images. Would it be a case of simply removing every image on the page, as they'd all come under the same rules? I thought it was pretty normal to use images of songwriters and other artists on a list like this, but I'm happy to be corrected of course. Just don't know where to start. Andre666 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the album covers that are problematic. They are fair use images which aren't entitled to be used on this page without express rationales being added to each image page, and there's no justification for their fair use so that's not going to happen. The other images are appropriately licensed for use here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers? Do you mean the promotional images for the Screaming Trees (first image) and Eleven (under Alice Cooper)? I assume those are the problematic images, in which case I will remove them post-haste! Andre666 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andre666 (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo, Andre666, okay now you two need to work on the final issues here, or else I'll have to archive the nomination which I suspect already holds the record for being the longest in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo, Andre666 okay guys, last call here. If we're not making progress towards resolving the outstanding issues, I'll archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done everything, haven't I? The images were removed, the awkward phrasing fixed, and the M.A.C.C. thing I see as a non-issue. If it's an issue, it can be removed. Simple. What's left? Andre666 (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but Ojorojo still maintains an oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still a day late and a dollar short. If I flagged something once, it's still an issue. Some nominators wait a long time for the chance of a review. This has dragged on long enough. I'll leave it up to others. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre666 it looks like the ball is in your court now. There's insufficient consensus to promote, and this has been ongoing for a record time. Unless you can find more reviewers and/or action Ojorojo's outstanding issues, I think we'll need to withdraw this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it then. I've addressed everything and gone back to check. I don't see what is left, so it can remain unfeatured. Andre666 (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2018 (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 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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Classical Singles Chart was a short-lived record chart in the United Kingdom. I believe that this article fully summarises the history of the chart and its number ones, and I welcome any feedback. Thanks! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - not necessarily a deal breaker, but is there anything which says what would be considered a "single" for the purposes of this chart, in terms of track length (would a movement from a symphony which was 15 minutes or more long be eligible)? How about genre (how was a single categorised as "classical"?)? I personally wouldn't classify the Military Wives track as classical, but clearly somebody did :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found some chart eligibility rules that I think answer your questions. I've summarised them in a couple of notes at the bottom. Thanks, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I know that you've closed these comments, but I'd really like to discuss the year headers further. It's been a week, and there's been no further discussion either here or on the MOS:DTT talk page. I only really removed them because I was concerned that there might be accessibility issues, but, having reread MOS:DTT, I no longer think that that's the case. I would much rather fix them than remove them entirely, as, in my opinion, they serve a useful purpose to our readers. They sort correctly by No. and by date, and they move out of the way when sorted by anything else – this seems perfectly logical and intuitive to me, so I'm not sure how they can be said to be sorting improperly. I welcome your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put the year headers back in. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, I think it looks dreadfully clumsy when not sorted chronologically but clearly others may think differently. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors you need to find some more reviewers for this as it's been stalled for two months now, or else I'll have to archive it with insufficient weight of consensus to promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll post this at a few relevant WikiProjects. I'll try to find some time to review other FLCs over the next few days as well. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire Official Classical Singles Chart#Number ones section seems to be based on a single primary source. Tagged accordingly. Please attend to this issue. For the time being I'd not (yet) support this being labelled FA, for this and other issues. These other issues can be detailed later: not sure whether the hurdle of giving more appropriate references to the "Number ones" section can be handled. If not, this FAC (i.e., as a list) seems moot, making redundant to detail further issues. If not proposed as a featured list, I'd suppose this would have to go through GA procedure first (where it would normally fail for more than half of its content being referenced to self-published, promotional and/or blog-like sources). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose promotion in present state, per comments of Francis Schonken above.--Smerus (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to tell you both. Citing the number ones section to the publisher of the chart is pretty standard for lists of this type (e.g. the number ones section in this FL is cited exclusively to Billboard, this one's to the Official Charts Company, this one's to AMPROFON, this one's to Oricon, this one's to the official Goan website, and so on). Most of this information can't be sourced from elsewhere, and removing it would be a disservice to our readers. Nominating this article for GA status would not be appropriate. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is at the crossroads of classical music and more popular genres. In classical music standards for references of lists are pretty high (see e.g. List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach), and apparently much lower at the other end of the spectrum. Maybe some middle ground can be found? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I would say that a lot of the songs in this list are really "classical" in name only. Many of them are basically just pop songs that are capable of live performance in a concert setting, hence why they were included in, for example, the soundtracks to Fifty Shades of Grey and Love Actually. There's obviously a chasm of difference between Bach and, say, the Military Wives, hence why I believe that the current level of sourcing in this article is sufficient. But if the consensus leans in the opposite direction, then so be it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re. "... a lot of the songs in this list are really "classical" in name only" – probably. I couldn't find a reference to the chart at the Gramophone website, so in sum:
          1. the chart was not really successful in its natural habitat (discontinued after less than three years for "... lack of media interest ...")
          2. apparently never even superficially entered "classical music" surroundings (lack of independent reliable sources: afaics not even a single one after its launch)

        or, a notability maybe not all that much higher than an average Amazon bestseller list. Above you spoke about "... a disservice to our readers ..." – I'm not sure what service we're rendering the readers by serving them extensive detail that can not, not even minimally, be sourced to reliable secondary sources, about something that never really was a thing, and is, in the Wikipedia article, almost "hyped" into having been one. It all made me think about Wikifonia, an article I started on a blue Monday many years ago. Looked very promising with media attention at the time of launch, etc. At least it existed for seven years. But not FA material after its demise. Klara's Top 100 [nl], excuse my Dutch, with articles in leading newspapers throughout the time of its still continuing existence seems, imho, much more eligible to build a FAFL upon. I think the content of Official Classical Singles Chart should be seriously cut down until *no more than half* of it is only sourceable to self-published, blog-like and/or promotional material. It might still be considerably larger than the Wikifonia article; but with the current detail & sourcing it seems too bloated, which is a formidable contra-indication against FAFL promotion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC); updated per below 20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

        • Just noting that you seem to be arguing against FA promotion, this is nominated for FL. You might want to read the significant differences between FA criteria and FL criteria. Your objections do not seem based in the actual criteria for what makes something an FL. (Though they would stand well if the FA criteria were what was being judged.) Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

          No, err, the lead section of the FL criteria starts: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work. It covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see MOS:LIST) and, in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, living persons, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not) a featured list..." – I emphasised the ones where it most obviously fails (for "what Wikipedia is not" e.g. WP:NOTREPOSITORY – that is, for detail that can only be retrieved from the web archive... for the entire content of the actual list). So I changed FA→FL above, while it obviously applies either way. This does not, imho, exemplify "our very best work". --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Additionally emphasized "no original research" in the quote of the FL criteria intro above: not really consistent with WP:PRIMARY ("... be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources] ...), which is a part of the WP:NOR policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors are you going to attempt to address the opposition and tagging, or should I withdraw this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I'm addressing the tagging: I've been through and checked all 65 of the featured lists that we have of this type (i.e. music charts), and 59 of them (>90%) cite information about chart placings to the company that compiles the chart, as this article also does. That's to say nothing of the 228 artist discographies we've featured, many of which do the same thing. So the implicit consensus of the last 10 years seems to be that this level of sourcing is perfectly acceptable for articles of this type. At the risk of sounding elitist, how can one editor who's never even reviewed a featured list nomination before come along and decide that the way we've been reviewing and promoting these lists for the last decade has been wrong? Doesn't that make something of a mockery of the entire FL process? As far as I'm concerned, the tag never needed to have been placed at all and can be removed (although this should probably be done by someone other than me). Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking a side, I was simply asking if we, as a community, were still advancing this nomination. Your analysis is fair, and we often use primary sources (e.g. look at the Nobel Prize lists) when the content isn't controversial. Let's hope some other editors get involved with this review to move it from its current stagnant position. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I've compiled two of Wikipedia's top five longest lists (and many more). I've commented in FAC and GAC procedures, and wrote a GA. I've no problem using primary sources (within the limits of WP:PRIMARY) as my work shows. Here I commented on the specific issue of providing referencing in long lists.

I'd like to invite A Thousand Doors to look a bit less at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of rationales. Most of these don't really compare, and I'll try to explain that a bit more precisely. When I look at Official Classical Singles Chart, what I see is:

1. A list article that struggles with WP:GNG. I don't really see "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The most independent reliable source is, afaics, the The Daily Telegraph article – which however doesn't seem to add much to the press release talk that can be found almost word-for-word in other sources from around the same time, as quoted in the list article.

   →I invite A Thousand Doors to find more independent reliable sources. The OCC's own admission, when closing the chart after less than three years, "... lack of media interest ...", seems to me to say as much as... there is a lack of independent sources covering the chart's short existence... List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s (and other examples listed above) seem to struggle less with this problem: they seem to have made a lasting impression as evidenced by multiple independent secondary sources used in these list articles. So that's why these examples don't really compare as far as I'm concerned.

2. A list article that struggles with WP:PRIMARY, notably the "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" part. For this aspect Nobel Prize lists are a bad comparison: maybe such lists are compiled to a large extent from primary sources, but when the Nobel Committee drops a pin there's a host of secondary sources reporting on it, detailing the colour, make, and size of the pin in lengthy articles. So even if such lists themselves are compiled from primary sources, there would be no problem to find the same information in secondary sources in multiple languages. For Official Classical Singles Chart the situation seems fundamentally different: *can* it's information also be retrieved from secondary sources? Having to go to the web.archive, manually changing dates is the only option offered for verifiability of the data in the list... did perhaps no secondary source ever report on the chartings during its short existence?

   →I invite the FLC initiator to find more reliable secondary sources which may have reported on the chartings. If the surrounding text is clearer that there are plenty of such sources regarding the chart, that would make a huge difference.

As said above, the list article as it is now, with the two above issues as they are now, this seems like Wikipedia hyping something which in a more neutral perspective would fall wholly within the folds of history without much of a lasting effect. I'd really like to read more about a lasting effect of this chart, if any, so please tackle these issues if possible, instead of just denying they are issues. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors are you going to try to work through any of the issues raised by the two opposers, or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination at this time? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Doesn't look like this nomination is really going anywhere, and I've got one or two other lists that I'd like to nominate, so this one may as well be withdrawn. I'll open up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts and see if we can reach consensus about the original research issue, then I'll re-nominate at a later date. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:03, 25 April 2018 (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) 10:08, 25 April 2018 (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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Latin music hall of fame, this time focusing on songwriters. I just wanted this article to see if it can pass FL or not. Erick (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support promotion to FL, even though I would have liked 2012 in Latin music to have been linked in the lead; especially since the award was created in that year. Overall, great article – jona ✉ 19:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid that I don't think this article is at FL level just yet.

• The biggest sticking point for me is the lack of references – nine is far fewer than I would expect to see in a list of this type (List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, for example, has 158 citations, while List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame has 159). A Google Books search for "Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame" returns 407 results – could any of these be used for references?
• Beefing up the references would also beef up the lead, which, in my opinion, is very brief. By my count the prose portion of this article is 1,328 characters, which wouldn't qualify it for DYK, never mind FL – this suggests to me that the article is not as comprehensive as it needs to be. Additionally, everything up to and including "and the United States." is about the LSHOF in general, and only from "Nominees for the..." does the lead actually start discussing the inductees. Obviously it's perfectly fine to provide some background about the LSHOF, but it means that the total prose on the actual inductees comes to less than 600 characters. Is there nothing more that can be said about them?
• There isn't a massive amount of content in Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame either – I'm wondering whether it might be worth merging the two articles.
• The images in the table are pretty large, and they jump between two different widths. I think it would be preferable to keep the images at one consistent, small width (75px would be fine, for example).
• All the images need alt text.
• "NBC Latino" and "Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame" don't need to be italicised in the references.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: Well when you put that way, I guess that makes sense. Especially after looking at the FL articles you cited as examples. I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination until I figure what I can do in the meantime. Erick (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2018 (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 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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very small list, but complete. I used my previous nominations, Municipalities of Colima and Municipalities of Aguascalientes, as templates for this one, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 17 promoted lists of municipalities all using similar formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks again for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Everything else looks good to me. Check out my comment above about the image. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Does not comply with WP:LEAD. This is an article about municipalities but the first two sentences are solely about the state. The second paragraph should explain what a "municipal seat" is (e.g. explain why it is in this list of municipalities) and the "responsible for providing all the public services" is contradicted two sentences down which lists some of the public services the state is responsible for. Regarding the third paragraph, why split the population and area information between this and the first paragraph? Just have one paragraph that introduces and explains the relevance of this to the municipalities (e.g. why this is included in the list's scope). Also, "incorporation date" is included in the list but its relevance is not explained in the intro. And should probably either go with either sq. or ² (I'm not sure, but I though mixing them was against some MOS somewhere). maclean (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus, do you intend to address Maclean25's comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've asked another user who has helped me improve the leads before and they will be assisting again, however they are on vacation at the moment but should return before this nom is closed. Some comments are not quite correct, for some reason the custom is to put km squared and square miles, not "miles squared". Mattximus (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've never said "miles squared" in my life, square miles is the usual term. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright the lead has been enhanced thanks to Cobblet. I think it's now much improved. The first paragraph reflects the context for municipalities (they are creations of the state), the second is powers of municipalities in general, and the third is highlights from individual municipalities in the table. It follows a general to specific format which is proper form for the lead. Explaining the significance for the incorporation date/municipal seat is tautological (eg. It's the date the municipality incorporated, and municipal seat is the seat of the municipal government). And I agree, I will keep it as square miles as per common usage. I'm now much more confident about the featured quality nature of the lead. Mattximus (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean25 are your concerns for this particular list now addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit made to the article. So, no The Rambling Man, that, combined with a comment declining to follow the instructions of WP:LEAD to summarize the body of the article, per WP:FL? criteria #2, does not address my concerns. Mattximus, I did not ask you to define what incorporation and seats are, I asked you to put those dates and locations in context (for example, why is Playas de Rosarito incorporated so late? was it split off another municipality or was the area just never incorporated until then?; are those "internal subdivisions" what the "Municipal seat" are, a defined geographic area? or just a place where the 'municipal hall'(is that what it is called?) is located?). Regarding the sq. or ² question, I found the relevant guide here so what is in the article is fine but we should probably stick to basing decisions on WP policies, rather than life experiences. And a FL delegate has instructed me that the FL leads are exempt from the MOS:FIRST and MOS:BEGIN parts of WP:LEAD, so that may also be struck from my above oppose. maclean (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean25 I already asked you once to provide a link to that discussion with an FL delegate stating exemption from specific parts of MOS please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the {{convert}} template instruction is not a Wikipedia policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here. That is how FL criteria #2 is being interpreted and implemented, so this nomination is fine and I have struck that part from my oppose. Don't worry about it. maclean (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that assumption is erroneous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what maclean is talking about now. Under the Spanish wiki site, there is a statement (unsourced) that says "the municipal seat is the population centre in which the administrative action of a town hall is exercised; it is also defined as the place where municipal public power is established, it has a capital function in that territory. " Is that what was needed? It still seems to be a bit tautological, but perhaps you can help with the wording to meet what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean25 Mattximus left this question for your three weeks ago, do you intend to return to this review? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus are you prepared to find some more reviewers for this list? Maclean25 has failed to return; I will discount his opposition when wrapping things up, but there's not enough support right now for it to be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I feel this may be one of those close with lack of interest nominations. I have another more interesting list to nominate after this one that hopefully gets more attention. Mattximus (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2018 (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 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, 10 April 2018 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Zawl 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the required criteria. — Zawl 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose – Honestly there are many things that need to be fixed. While the tables and all that look good, many refs, the lead, among others could use improvement. For now I have to oppose. If you take care of my comments I'll retract it. I think it would also help to look at other featured list discographies for help on the lead. Best, BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: I've resolved the issues. — Zawl 13:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revoke my oppose but couple more comments:

• Garrix's name doesn't need to be bolded
• Link E3 2016 to Electronic Entertainment Expo 2016
• Still a couple blue links
• List out what Garrix has released after the first sentence, such as x singles, x extended plays, etc. That's usually the standard for discography pages; be sure to link each type of media

I think that's it for me. But I would like to see what other editors have to say for this. Good work on this. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Zawl 08:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zawl this nomination has somewhat stalled, right now it can't be promoted. Have you considered making requests for reviews at relevant wikiprojects or by reviewing other nominations here? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2018 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list follows the pattern of FLs for sites in Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia, I believe all the issues (style, formatting, table contents, etc.) that were raised during the previous nominations of those three lists were addressed here as well. At the same time, nominating List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro with the same rationale. Tone 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: rather unconventionally, this is on hold until its sister nomination, for List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro, has all its issues ironed out. Please head there first and once we have a decent consensus, this can be released back into the review wilderness, hopefully with a confirmation from Tone that they've addressed all common issues discovered in the other review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the other list took so long to shake out that this is now down at the bottom of FLC. I'm going to close it, so that when you re-nominate it (with changes carted over from the Montenegro list) it will be up at the top. --PresN 20:46, 6 April 2018 (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.