Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My first featured list candidate in a long time, so if anything is off, I apologize. This is based off similar featured lists of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada, Switzerland, and the United States, though Ukraine has only played in one Olympics (so far), so the list is significantly smaller, as is the lead. However I do believe it follows the criteria, and if so I plan to eventually get all Olympic ice hockey teams through here under a similar template. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

1. The images should have WP:ALT text.

   Done

2. The list of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Ukraine consists of 20 skaters and 3 goaltenders. should be rephrased per MOS:LEADSENTENCE.

   Modified. Again, I followed the basic idea of the above-mentioned articles, so if it needs further refining let me know.

3. Chybirev, Oletsky, and Salnikov had the most points (3). should explain what "points" means or at least link to point (ice hockey).

   Linked, as well as goal, and assist.

4. The numbers in parentheses in the WP:LEAD should be replaced with plain text without parentheses.

   Done

5. The key should not have its own section. Place the parts that apply to the first table in the same section as the first table (above the table), and the parts that apply to the second table in the same section as the second table instead.

   Done

6. The abbreviated headers should use the {{abbr}} template.

   Done

7. Both the "Olympics" and "Tournaments" columns are wholly unnecessary for a country who have so far only appeared in one, and should be removed to conserve horizontal space. The "Medals" column and the "Notes" column in the second of table should also be removed for the same reason, as they are completely empty.

   Done

8. The "Ref(s)" columns should be "Ref(s)" (i.e. {{abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}).

   Done

9. "GP" for Oleksandr Fedorov should be "0", and the rest of the cells that currently read "–" should use the {{N/A}} template.

   Done

10. The table of contents should be removed as it is not necessary for so short a list.

    Done

11. I'm not sure it's necessary to have two separate tables.

    I would agree, however due to skaters and goaltenders utilizing different stats, it makes it difficult to merge them without either leaving multiple empty columns for each player, or leaving out important information.

12. Andrew Podnieks is linked two put of three times in the "References" section. Either link all three or only the first one.

    Done

13. The statistics for the goaltenders don't seem to add up (the number of games played should equal the sum of the wins, losses and ties, no?) and also contradict Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics, according to which Ukraine didn't tie any matches, and Simchuk only played two (against France and Latvia).

    Not sure about the Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics article, but the official IIHF report of the tournament has both Karpenko and Simchuk playing in 3 games, with 65 and 174 minutes played, respectively (see this and this). I am in the middle of transiting my reference material, but will go through it once available to correct the above article, as something isn't adding up here. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the short length, I don't think this passes WP:FLCR 3(b). I would consider merging the list into Ukraine men's national ice hockey team. TompaDompa (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed everything here. Regarding the short length, I will again admit I'm not terribly familiar with the state of FLC these days, but is length of the list a legitimate argument against promotion? I know that at FAC, while contentious at times, there is no consensus on the matter, and feel that it shouldn't be considered an issue here, as it is a fully self-contained list that should be distinct from the national team article. However if consensus here is against that then I'll not argue the case, I am just unsure is all. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit nuanced- basically it needs to meet WP:Stand-alone lists and WP:CFORK, which means that the list shouldn't be better kept in a parent article due to their sizes. I don't think that this list violates those guidelines, for three reasons: One, there isn't a good parent to merge to anyways- Ukraine men's national ice hockey team is about the Ukraine national team, but this list is about their Olympic team members (though, I guess practically it's just their 2002 national team members). Two, we typically are more okay with shorter lists if they're part of a well-defined set/series- in this case, Olympic men's ice hockey players per country. And Three, generally the cutoff is about 10 items, which this passes.

All that aside- it is short. Given that it is only about a single team, I'd expect more detail about the (4) matches and (23) players, and some discussion about why they only sent a team in 2002 and never since. It wouldn't have to be a ton, but right now the lead is just 1.5 paragraphs and that's a little scant. You may also consider at least listing the Ukranian Soviet Union/Unified Team players, since most of the Ukrainian Olympic players have been under that umbrella, and you have the space to discuss it. --PresN 14:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. As noted I am in the middle of moving, so don't have immediate access to some sources that could fill out the prose a bit, though I do know that information like you mentioned is there. It will just be about a week or so until I can get into it, if that is alright. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think this passes criterion 3b either. Although these other articles are not particularly well developed as an older event, this list is redundant in part each to Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics and Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics – Men's team rosters, and Ukraine at the 2002 Winter Olympics. I don't see this as a topic for a stand-alone list. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Getting the idea that this is not going to successfully pass, so may I suggest withdrawing it and saving the effort? The suggestions noted here I will take in, and while I will not try and submit similar-length lists, I do plan on going through other country lists, once I get them up to the standards here. Thanks for the reviews, it is good to have such quick, in depth feedback. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, withdrawing. --PresN 14:09, 31 August 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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Deidaramonroe (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. Deidaramonroe (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

• "It follows the story of Madoka Kaname" – who is she? I'd suggest adding a few words before the name to describe her characteristics (maybe age, occupation, nationality – whatever is relevant to know).
• "During early planning stage" – missing definite article.
• "decided to not adapt" – I would swap the second and third word for better flow.
• "He then contacted Gen Urobuchi to work on the project as a scriptwriter and Ume Aoki as a character designer." – I would suggest rephrasing this to "Gen Urobuchi and Ume Aoki then joined the project as scriptwriter and character designer, respectively." The production history should not receive undue focus in the WP:LEAD.
• "The first ten episodes aired on MBS, TBS and CBC" – I would add a few words to clarify that these are television channels (right?). Assuming they are all Japanese, I would mention that too.
• "a week after broadcast" – I would change "a" to "one".
• "due to the quake" – "quake" is too informal. Use "earthquake".
• "each volume containing a bonus CD" – this is unnecessary since it's described in more detail in the next paragraph.
• Where several references directly follow each other, it looks better if they appear in numerical order.
• "while the ending theme" – "and" is better than "while" since we're not trying to contrast the two.
• "Kalafina, both of which were released" – I'd change the comma to a semicolon and remove "of which".
• "were released on February 16, 2011" – released how, which format?
• "limited edition" should have a hyphen when used attributively.
• "with a third film containing an original story set after the series released in October 2013" – I'd change "with" to "and" and add "was" before "released".
• The table should not be sortable.
• "No." should be No. (i.e. {{abbr|No.|Number}}).
• The episode descriptions contain a lot of sentences with three or more commas. It is usually preferable to rewrite the sentences to avoid this, though not critical.
• "enroll into" – I've never heard this phrasing. I've always heard "enroll in".
• Explain and/or link "familiar" at first appearance.
• "their attempted suicide" – I would rephrase it as "the attempted mass suicide".
• "doesn't" should be "does not" per MOS:CONTRACTION.
• "the term 'magical girl' only makes sense for it to be a prelude to whomever has yet to become a 'witch'." – this should be rephrased. I had to read it a couple of times to be able to parse it correctly, and it's still kind of odd.
• "Thus the process is only feasible with humans, especially adolescent girls." – this seems like a non sequitur to me, but maybe that has more to do with the series than the summary.
• "Lacking confidence in herself, having been in hospital for the past six months" – I'd change this to either "[...] herself as she had been [...]" or "[...] herself, and having been [...]" depending on which is more accurate.
• Replace "PE" with "physical education", "gym class", or a synonym. I'd also consider linking the term you choose for those who may only be familiar with some other term for it.
• "The girls head to the beach" – I would name the girls.
• In the Home video releases section, all hyphens except the ones in "Mini-poster", "Double-side", and "4-page" should be replaced with en dashes.
• Some of the references lack access dates (and other parameters).

Because I am not familiar with the series, I can offer only these style-related suggestions for improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deidaramonroe has not edited since late-June. If this ping is not responded to or if this nomination is not adopted by someone else, it will be archived in the next few days. Thank you TompaDompa in any case for such a good review. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 17 August 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 withdrawn by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Packers list for your consideration. Thanks for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe in QPQ at FLC. I will review 3 noms for every one I nominate (1, 2, 3). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per criterion 3b: This "largely duplicate[s] material from another article, and could...reasonably be included as part of a related article." The prose in this article is about the same length and replicates the same information as Green Bay Packers#Stadium history and the bottom of the infobox. There aren't many FLs where the lead is twice the size as the list itself, and the table could more than easily fit there in the main article or alternatively History of the Green Bay Packers. This is also duplicative of Chronology of home stadiums for current National Football League teams, and you could link to an anchor at the Packers' section of that; no other team appears to have an article just for stadiums because it isn't needed. Reywas92^Talk 06:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree Reywas92. I think you bring up a good point, however I think the issue is more with Green Bay Packers article than this list. I think there is undue weight on the Packers stadiums in the Green Bay Packers article. As an example, there is about the same amount of text in that section as there is in the history section for the first 40 years of the team's history!

I would also point you to these two discussions that brought up similar points: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers and Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame/archive1. Both of these discussions came to the conclusion that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE was a good reason for breaking these types of lists out of the main team article (which in the Packers case is currently a huge, rambling mess). The Pro Football Hall of Fame discussion is especially relevant to this discussion. Lastly, just because no other team has a stadium list, doesn't mean the Packers shouldn't (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). A lot of this comes from the fact that the Packers have played in the most home stadiums in NFL history and have an iconic facility right now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it would be undue weight to have a simple eight-item table in main page; you're welcome to expand the early history in the summary there. The history of stadiums played in is part of the team's history overall, so if you don't want this taking up space in the main article, put it in a History of the Green Bay Packers#Stadiums. Lambeau being iconic has no bearing on the previous stadiums and if anything diminishes the fields with just one and three games played in each. Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. We break off sections of larger articles into separate articles once the topic is large enough. I am stating that there currently is too much text in Green Bay Packers (there isn't a table currently) and thus deserves its own article so that Green Bay Packers can be better summarized. Literally every sports related list could be included in the team's main page, but then it would be too long. Did you look at the other discussions that I provided? As an example, seasons are part of the team's history, but we have separate lists showing seasonal results because it is a unique item of interest that is discussed as a group. This topic is in the exact same boat. I would be happy to summarize the Green Bay Packers#Stadium history section to something that better reflects our WP:SUMMARY guideline. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 Do you have any resolvable comments to improve the list? If not, based on your concerns, it would seem the next logical choice would be for you to WP:AFD it. If, per AFD, it meets all the criteria in WP:STANDALONE and is kept, than criterion 3b would seem to no longer be an issue. I would not be opposed to this route, or bringing this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates to resolve. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well my point is that this is really not something so long that it needs to be split off! Or it can be included in an article that has already been split off! The list of seasons or even hall of famers are absolutely not comparable, they are substantially longer. I do not believe it should be deleted, it should be merged. I have been criticized in the past for AFDing an article that really could have been merged because of course the content should be kept, just not on a separate, duplicate page. Just because an article is sourced and has notable enough contents that the contents should be kept at AFD (like the retired numbers article) does not necessarily mean it should be on a separate article. If I should start a merge discussion, should I propose targeting it to the main article or the history article or either? If anything should be summarized better in the main article, it should be the recent history, which doesn't need separate subsections for most years since 1996, or even the playoff record, which itself is redundant to the following Championships section. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007, the FLC instructions state that "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". As you already had an existing FLC which as yet hasn't attracted any comments at all, you really shouldn't have nominated this one. I respectfully suggest that you withdraw this one (or the other one - your choice) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: Withdrawn per ChrisTheDude. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 8 August 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 12 August 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.