Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2013

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...Florida has such a wonderful state park system, and many parks are under utilized. Featured lists are viewed by more people, and I want everyone to know about these Florida gems. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I don't think the parks listed twice with blank entries except for remarks saying "see XX State Park" should be included. Just use the official park name.

--commented out original park names Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for consistency in the remarks section - the first word should always be in caps.

--capitalized first word of comments where needed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert all units in the remarks as well, including temperatures, million gallons, etc. They should be imperial units first, metric second.

--changed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stats such as "5,100 acre plantation" where the unit of measure is singular should be displayed as "5,100-acre plantation" using adj=on.

--changed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to specific species and other features mentioned in the remarks.

--changed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• References are needed for everything in each park's remarks.
• All images should have alternative text.

More comments to come as revisions are made. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a column of white space below the map, please fix the formatting so the text will wrap.
• "There are 161" is meaningless; the source should be moved to after "Florida" to cite the actual fact.
• -> "and it won the Gold Medal, ->"it was also a finalist"
• The sentence starting with "Many parks offer" is rather awkward, especially the third clause, and should be rewritten.
• No quotation marks around conservation areas and historical/archaeological sites, which should be lowercase
• "Left mouse click..." is unnecessary; it doesn't need to be pointed out that pictures can't be sorted.
• "Water body" -> Body of Water. "Bodys" is not the plural form...just the singular is fine.
• Lowercase manatee.
• -> Florida cracker
• Great work on the table.

Reywas92^Talk 03:22, 21 July 2013 (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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis. I am nominating this for featured list because I think this article and list comprehensively cover the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured Lists require that the content is available not only to normal browsers but also to screen readers for visually impaired visitors. This means that we have to ensure that someone who can only hear the text read out will still receive all of the information. That means that we cannot use colour on its own to convey information because colour is not read out by a screen reader. Similarly, someone who is completely colour-blind would encounter the same problems. If you look at the List of Governors of Alabama the information about the party is given as text for each entry, so the coloured cell just repeats that information, making it quicker to see for a sighted viewer, but still allowing a visually impaired viewer to receive the information. If you look, for example, at Mikhail Youzhny career statistics #Singles: 2 (1 title, 1 runner-up), how would someone who could not see colour be able to tell that the Slovak Junior Indoor Tournament was in category G2? or that the Australian Open was category GA? (incidentally, I'm not a tennis fan, so don't understand the categories - is there any chance you could also link the terms to where someone could find out what they mean?) The same consideration needs to be applied to the other lists that have legends that are only linked by colour, because I can't see any way that a screen reader could pick up the information in the legend and apply it to the corresponding entry in the accompanying table. Giants is suggesting above that we often use a symbol such as † in the legend and table to make the connection for each category. Personally, I'd suggest that having another column for 'Category' in each of those tables, as that would avoid the problem altogether and keep the information together in a single table.

Note, though, that your use of colour doesn't cause the same problem where you use it to emphasise the ranking of the opponent, as in the Top 10 wins section, because you give the rank as text as well, so a screen reader would still get the information. Likewise for the Performance timelines where the 'Round' column contains textual information that a screen reader would get and where the colour just duplicates that information in a more convenient form for the sighted. All of that is ok, but check the Grand Slam/ATP World Tour Masters 1000/ATP World Tour 500 series/ATP World Tour 250 series/Davis Cup categorisations; nobody who can't see colour can figure out which event was in which category.

Finally, just an unrelated suggestion, but wouldn't it be easier for everyone to get the information in the table called 'key', if it looked like this:

Key

W	Won tournament
F	reached Final
SF	reached Semifinal
QF	reached Quarterfinal
#R	reached Round 4, 3, 2, 1
RR	competed at a Round Robin stage
Q#	lost in Qualification round 3, 2, 1
A	Absent from a tournament
P	Participated in a team event
Z#	played in a Davis Cup Zonal Group (with its number indication)
PO	played in a Davis Cup Play-off
SF-B	won a bronze medal at the Olympics (from 1908–1924 and 1996–present, awarded to the winner of a play-off match between losing semifinalists)
F	won a silver medal at the Olympics
S	won a silver medal at the Olympics
G	won a gold medal at the Olympics
NMS	played in a Masters Series/1000 tournament that was relegated (Not a Masters Series)
NH	tournament was Not Held in a given year

I know that's quite a lot to take in, but I'd be happy to elaborate on any of the issues if you're uncertain, or point you to other lists that make use of colour in an accessible way. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the help. --TIAYN (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new key is terrible and does not meet our guidelines. The first section (as added to the Yousney article) adds info that a 2 year old would understand... it's simply not needed. The second section is already handled by the old template. Can tweaks be made... I'm sure they can, to make sure color isn't the only criteria. But to make a giant table for each and every article is unnecessary and can take up more eye-space than the actual article. Most career stat pages are simply not FL ready and never will be since they are a collection of data with limited prose. The main articles are much better candidates. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where it doesn't meet the guidelines? It doesn't just use colour alone, e.g. green winners also have a W. I would agree though that the key is somewhat overwhelming (and I'm not sure why we have two entries for "won a silver medal at the Olympics" i.e. F and S, nor two entries using F i.e. Final and "won a silver medal at the Olympics"....) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's my bad. We have a detailed guidelines on proper performance charts but it appears we oopsed and neglected to include that we MUST use a key for those charts. I assumed it was included in the guidelines since we use it for most articles. Our key is the template:

So sorry, I assumed our proper key was right above the performance charts in the guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care what we use.. First stating that career statistics should not meet FL criteria is a bad argument, a really bad argument, secondly, can we agree on using the Performance key template? --TIAYN (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I assumed it was a standard part of our guidelines. As for FL... What I meant was that there are some articles on wikipedia in which it is impossible to meet FL criteria. Nor should those articles be deleted as they provide vital info. I feel the career stats pages will fall into this category. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way of it being impossible is if users don't bother to change the current layout ... It shouldn't be that hard (it's just minor changes). --TIAYN (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clearer, but the issue that I raised about the {{performance key}} was not related to colour. The problem I have with it is that it crams in at least 17 pieces of information and you want to keep its size down, which results in old folk like me having difficulty in reading the small text and being able to find the meaning for a given key. I understand that it makes sense to use a single template for that information as it makes maintenance much simpler across many articles, even though it means you will often include more items in the key than are actually used in the performance timeline. The choices are: (i) small and easily maintainable, but difficult to read for some; (ii) normal font size with 16 rows, which may visually overwhelm a small article; (iii) normal size with only the abbreviations that are used in the performance timeline tables, which will be a nightmare to keep updated as careers progress. I must say that in the current version of the article, I find it much easier to look up that "3R" means "reached round 3", but it was also possible for me to do that with the previous template – it's just that I found it more difficult as a consequence of my eyesight deteriorating with age.

So, in summary, the {{performance key}} template is not inaccessible, but I wanted you to know that I thought it could be improved in readability. I find the current key more legible, but I accept that you have to balance considerations of size and maintenance against that. I wouldn't oppose your choice whichever way you felt was best. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably increase the text size a little bit, if that works. --TIAYN (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2013 (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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this article and list comprehensively cover the topic. After it appeared on DYK, I submitted it for peer review in June, but my request was archived without response. While I feel the article is complete, I have been actively working on improving it, including tracking down and uploading images to accompany it and creating articles on some of the redlinked authors on the list. Even if you feel this does not meed FL criteria, I am eager to hear constructive criticism regarding other ways I can improve this article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Seven paragraphs is very large for an FL's lead. Since most of the paras aren't that large, I suggest merging some of them together. It would be great if a four-paragraph lead was the result.
• The Author column should be sorting by last name, not first name.
• The hyphens in the Year column should be en dashes instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to my discovery of the wonderful sortname template, the author column is now properly sortable. I've also added en dashes. I'll brainstorm some ways to restructure the text as per your first suggestion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Zamorano club" v "Zamorano Club" be consistent.
• Any word on how the auctions went? i.e. were the sales successful and expensive?
• "books.[9][8]" reverse order.
• "rara avis" meaning?
• Cover or title page column need not be sortable.
• While I thoroughly enjoyed reading the lead, I don't think it really covers the list itself (i.e. the works) in any great detail, it spends more time discussing the collectors and their auctions/plans to steal etc. It may be worth adding an additional section after the lead to discuss collectors etc, and expand the lead to discuss the various books, authors etc which may be of interest within the list.
• "1882–1890" etc "1882–90" per WP:YEAR.
• How did you distinguish between which authors had red links and which weren't linked at all?
• When no image of the cover is available, don't row span the blanks, it looks odd. Just have an en-dash, centrally aligned, to indicate that nothing is currently available.
• "1854–5" -> "1854–55"
• "Retrieved June 03, 2013." etc no need for leading zero.
• Second external link needs an en-dash per WP:DASH, not a spaced hyphen.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only begun responding to these points (thanks for the feedback, btw), but I wanted to address the redlink question. I left all of the authors redlinked that I could, but removed links entirely when they pointed to articles about different people or disambiguation pages. Gamaliel (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2013 (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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left this list for a while, but I cleaned it up now so I hope it is ready to become a FL. Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While I still think it's problematic (the use of "N/A"), it won't get in the way of my support.-Godot13 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2013 (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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Arsenal's record against every team they have played in the league. This was created by scratch a month or so ago and I am inclined to believe it meets the criteria (or worth a shot here anyway). It's based on the lists which have already been promoted (Liverpool, Manchester United, Luton Town, Birmingham, et al). All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's a bit more complete now that when it arrived at this FLC, and it complies with the criteria. I do think that the prose of these record-by-opponent lists is a bit skimpy in content and bullet-pointy in style, but that criticism applies to many popular-culture type lists that succeed here (including my own contribution to this genre), and isn't a reason for me to oppose this particular one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The hyphen in "by the newly-formed Premier League" should probably be removed.
• Lead image could use alt text.
• General references with authors should likely be in alphabetical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated your suggestions, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the whole list recently. It meets all the criteria for a featured list, and it's also similar to List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). I'll do my best to address your reviews. Thank you! HĐ (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The article looks to be well-written and all the references are good links. My only suggestion would be to write out the dates in the references (like January 1, 2013 instead of 2013-01-01), because my understanding is that formatting is a preference among other FAs. But good work nonetheless! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! — HĐ (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support  — AARON • ^TALK 22:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a bunch! HĐ (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per below discussion. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 06:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "the former is excluded from the count". I was a bit confused by this. What "count", exactly?
  • It means the former is not counted as a number-one single that year.
    • So "We Found Love" isn't counted as being a number-one single in 2011?
      • Yes.
        • I'm still a bit confused. The article says that "We Found Love" topped the chart in 2011. Surely it should be counted as being a number-one single that year? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not being counted as a No. 1 in 2012 since it first topped the chart in 2011. --21:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Wait, now I'm not sure about something. First it says, "Throughout 2012, a total of 13 singles claimed the number-one position. One of which was Rihanna's song 'We Found Love'" (so it's part of the count here?). Then it says, "Rihanna was the only artist to achieve multiple number-one singles, with 'We Found Love' and 'Diamonds', although the former is excluded from the count because it previously topped the chart in 2011." (What count is it talking about here? She either did have multiple number ones – in which case, it's being counted – or she didn't because it's not being counted. I think that exclusion claim can be removed without losing anything from the context.) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Y I've fixed the issue. HĐ (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think that's really a fix, I'm afraid – you've just moved the problematic sentence out of the lead and into a note at the bottom. The lead states that 13 singles reached number one this year – the only way that this would be possible would be if "We Found Love" counted as a number one. Yet note A says that it doesn't count. So which is it? Personally, the former makes the most sense to me. I don't understand the rationale in ignoring a 2012 number one simply because it was also number-one in 2011. If you follow that argument through to its logical conclusion, does that then mean that if "We Found Love" had topped the chart in late-2011 and remained at number one throughout 2012 and into 2013 then the lead would be saying "Throughout 2012, no singles claimed the number-one position"? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Any update on my above concern here? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Could you check the list of 2011? Because I did this list based on the 2011 list. HĐ (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll bring it up at the talk page there, but for now regretful oppose. This article completely contradicts itself. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Please check again, I've fixed it. HĐ (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm afraid that it still seems contradictory to me. The lead states that "12 singles claimed the number-one position", then, in the very next sentence, it says that "13 singles topped the chart". Presumably "claimed the number-one position" and "topped the chart" mean the same thing, so how can there be two different numbers? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The first sentence indicates the number of singles which were counted as number-one singles (12), while the next sentence explained that why there are 13 singles claimed the top spot, but only 12 were counted. Do you understand clearly now? HĐ (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it doesn't count as a number-one single in 2012. I explained that because it peaked at no. 1 in 2011, previously? It peaked at number one in 2011, so it was counted to be the number-one single in 2011, not 2012. I think it's clear enough. HĐ (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so if it isn't a number-one single of 2012, how can it be in a list of number-one singles of 2012? Also, where exactly has this definition of a "number-one single of 2012" actually come from? Is it an official Billboard definition, or just something that Wikipedia editors have come up with? I can't find any Billboard article that says that it We Found Love doesn't "count" as a 2012 number one (it's not mentioned here or here, for example). This source lists it as beign a number one of 2012 (although I'm not sure how reliable it is). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it reached number one in 2012 but it previously reached the top spot in 2011, that's why it was counted as a number-one single in 2011, not 2012 anymore. That's all I can explain. HĐ (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I'm afraid that it sounds to me like the idea that a single doesn't "count" as a number-one in a year if it has already topped the chart in a previous year is original research – I can't find anything on Billboard to support it. My oppose stands. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 06:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not original research at all. Go to Billboard.com, find a year-end report, and you'll see that this strange way of counting singles was created by Billboard itself. If you oppose only stands by this, I'm afraid it must be dismissed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally I'd say that concerns regarding a list not meeting Wikipedia's content guidelines (such as no original research) are a perfectly fair reason to oppose an article becoming a FL. Also, I'm afraid that you may have to point me directly to these year-end reports. The closest things that I can find (e.g. this and this) don't seem to mention number ones at all. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is a fork according to 3.b. Nergaal (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you define from which article this information has been forked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010s (U.S.), as per many other previous FLs. Nergaal (talk)
      • It's not. It has more information and refs than the 2010s list. Please check FLs of previous years (02, 03, 04, 06, 07, 08, and 11). HĐ (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically it has ONLY 13 distinct entries. Please see: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s, List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s, List of 1950s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1970s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1980s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1990s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 2000s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of best-selling singles of the 1960s (UK), List of best-selling singles of the 2000s (UK), List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s, List of 2000s UK Albums Chart number ones, List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s for precedents. Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thirteen entries seems fine per 3b, where is this list forked from? Which precise article is this forked from please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and scope. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Crisco ! HĐ (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The Billboard Hot 100 is a chart that ranks the best-performing songs in the United States" — I don't know whether saying "of" instead of "in" is an American format, so please excuse me if it is.
• Obviously the tag will need addressing.
• Note B — we have a duplicate ref (56). I would delete the first 56 and leave the one at the end of the sentence.

Cassianto^Talk 10:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question am I really the only one who sees this list as a 3.b-problem? Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to be the case, as evidenced by the various comments and supports above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as evidence goes, that's pretty weak. Supporters may just not have considered criterion 3b. Asking them to clarify their position might help. Goodraise 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I thought reviewers should be reviewing against all the criteria, not just some of them. Silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, painfully obvious content fork of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s. Goodraise 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — AARON • ^TALK 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC) and and  — Noboyo (Noboyo)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... the dispute over the title of the name of the article has been resolved. This is a list of songs written by Keys, so every song that can be reliably sourced that is written or co-written by her is listed here. A separate list, List of songs recorded by Alicia Keys, has also been created for every song that can be reliably sourced that she has recorded, regardless of whether she has written it or not. This was done because the old title, List of songs written and recorded by Alicia Keys, the name the first FLC was submitted under (and withdrawn at my request while it was resolved), was deemed to be misleading. Both lists are very different. Myself and and  — Noboyo have worked on hard on this list and I have applied my experience with previous FLCs to the article. We believe it meets the FLC criteria, and we are open to suggestions for improvements from editors of all topics.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC) and  — Noboyo (Noboyo)[reply]

• Note - I will be on holiday from 1 July to 8 July, 2013, and I will not be on Wikipedia to respond to comments in this nomination.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by User:ColonelHenry -- I find the existence of the two lists is troubling because it seems to pose a WP:CONTENTFORK issue, and the two lists could easily be merged without the redundancy into a two-section article under something titled like List of Alicia Keys songs. The two sections would be (1) songs AK wrote, (2) songs AK recorded and offers some form of notation to indicate those songs both written and recorded by AK. Compare this to an article listing people associated with a certain university that are either faculty, alumni, or both alumni and faculty (usually marked by bold text). I don't see the two lists as being inherently different in its core purpose, and I think the rationale vis-à-vis the policies/guidelines of content forking vs. splitting needs to be explained and resolved before proceeding. The previous issue (with "written and recorded by") seemed to be one focused on the apposite precision of the article's name, not a content issue. All the best, --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No list follows the "List of songs by X" anymore, they were all moved to "List songs recorded by X". There have been multiple discussions about it, and this is the consensus for Keys' lists I'm afraid. I did propose the two section list, but it was not favoured. Having two separate articles was favoured in the majority. The other one isn't finished yet, but it is different.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It comes back to whether we obey policies and guidelines vs. consensus that flouts the policies and guidelines (damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!), and I'd err on policy. Just because a consensus wishes to insist upon creating a WP:CONTENTFORK problem, it doesn't make it right. Reminds me of the childhood excuse "but mom, everyone's doing it! please!?!?!?" as if just the mere presence of several people in agreement over executing a bad decision automatically makes it a good one. I cannot justify endorsing the article (despite it's other positive attributes) until the WP:CONTENTFORK issue is resolved with deference to policies and guidelines. I do not see the two lists as being significantly different enough to warrant two articles, and more significant reasons to merge the overlapping articles. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you suggest a solution then? It either has to be 'List of songs written' or 'List of songs recorded'. If we use the latter, only songs she has written, inclusive of BMI, can be included. If we use the latter, only songs she recorded can be included, whether she wrote them or not, and BMI can't be included. The title 'List of songs written and recorded by' can't be used, as it implies she has written and recorded each and every song, which she hasn't. 'List of songs by'/'List of X songs' is the old format and isn't used anymore. So you can see why there are two articles presently. (By the way, I didn't want to have two separate articles).  — AARON • ^TALK 18:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see why two articles are used, but more importantly, I see why two articles should NOT be used. We still have List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of bus routes in London. I don't see anything wrong with the old format, and think the editors who shift away from it were a little trigger-happy. Perhaps the model for a two-or-more-section article could be as List of books by or about Adolf Hitler, or List of Rutgers University people (with bold text for faculty members who are also alumni...something we can use when she recorded a song that she also wrote), or the list of songs recorded could be more properly merged into a Alicia Keys discography article. However, the current issue with WP:CONTENTFORK needs to be resolved regardless of where the material ends up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I really like the 'List of compositions by', I like it a lot. Do you think that would work?  — AARON • ^TALK 20:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that could definitely work.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a problem...but, does Alicia Keys write symphonies? There's a difference between a songwriter and a composer.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well she writes compositions? She composes her material, like Mariah.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful Oppose (as I can see that a lot of hard work went into this article). Clear WP:CONTENTFORK of List of songs recorded by Alicia Keys. Only a few of these songs she actually wrote for another artist; the others are her own songs, or songs she herself is featured on. I am too trying to think of a solution for a list that I started, that involves an artist who has written and recorded their own material, and also wrote and produced for other artists (although he has done a lot more than Keys has).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well to be honest, this is as a result of consensus. We've been through the multiple options, and they were disregarded in favour for this option. The two lists are very different. Keys only has two separate lists because there is a clear divide between what she has written and what she has recorded. The other lists I've done for don't require the artist to have two lists, but in this case, Key's needs two. By the looks of it, Timberlake only needs one list, and that is a List of songs written by Justin Timberlake, as he writes all of his material and writes for others, and he has recorded a lot less than he has written. He is similar to Emeli Sandé list; she has only released one album and done some features, but she has got 99 songs logged on BMI, so hers it titled 'List of songs written by', as 'recorded by' would be pointless for her.

• This isn't going anywhere, it's been motionless for well over a month now. I need to resolve the fork issue so if this could be closed please. Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:40, 31 July 2013 (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.