Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2020

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): SabyaC (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is comprehensive and accurately produces data with proper reliable citations. This list features all time league record for East Bengal F.C. against all opposition it faced in the National Football League and the I-League till date accurately. I believe this list should get the featured list title. SabyaC (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The first thing that jumps out is.....if the club was formed in 1920, where are all the matches from the first 76 years of their history? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've just noticed the collapsed key, expanded it, and noticed it says "The records include the results of matches played in the National Football League (from 1996 to 2006) and the I-League (from 2006 to the present day)". Why are all the results from before 1996 excluded? It seems weird to have a list which purports to cover the club's complete league record but excludes over 75% of its history...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, National League was started in 1996, prior to that in India there was no national league happening just mere state leagues as East Bengal FC used to participate in the Calcutta Football League, which is not a national level tournament. -SabyaC (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Existing FLs Cardiff City F.C. league record by opponent, Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent, Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent and York City F.C. league record by opponent include periods when the clubs played regional football. In the case of East Bengal, such a massive chunk of the club's history is missing that I would find it hard to support..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from zmbro

• I have to agree with Chris as well. If other FLs of the same nature list every year, even when they weren't at the national level, I find that hard to support as well. On top of that, 22 out of 24 references listed are from "rsssf.com" while the other two are "East Bengal Football Club". You tend to want a variety of primary and secondary sources so that probably won't fly either, as everything here is primary. The other FLx Chris mentioned each have books that give some info so perhaps there's a book or two available? – zmbro _(talk) 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• After a month and a half it hasn't been expanded to include everything so have to oppose. – zmbro _(talk) 19:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dey subrata

• I think I have to agree with Chris the Dude, club has a 100 years of history, will be very poor if only 25 years history is included. With that the prose must be re-written accordingly with citations.
• Again it will not be wise to consider NFL or I-League or coming ISL only. Irony is that these clubs play the oldest league in Asia Calcutta FL or played the second cup in the world IFA shield. It will be indeed interesting to add all those match records for sure.

The records are well kept but not enough for FL promotion. Dey subrata (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We can't ignore a significant part of a club's history, so unfortunately this nomination is a non-starter as it is not comprehensive. Advise nominator to perhaps look for offline paper sources for the missing results (if there are no web records). Cowlibob (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2020 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because ...Baby One More Time (album) wiki's pages follow all the FL criteria. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is clearly not a list so doesn't belong at FLC. Please withdraw and try FAC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination

• @Giants2008 and PresN: Nominator has indicated that they would like to withdraw this FLC in the above unsigned comment. Cowlibob (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2020 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:17:09 12 January 2020 (UTC) [3].

Nominator(s): — Kpalion^(talk) 17:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete, up-to-date, stable, well-referenced, has a sufficiently-detailed lead, is well illustrated with free images. In short, it meets all the criteria. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I don't believe this meets the FL criteria yet. – zmbro _(talk) 22:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No lead image?
• The table should definitely have its own heading
• FLs do not say "This list..."; done in this meta fashion multiple times
• Almost all paragraphs in the lead should have references, especially if you wanna say "Karol Wojtyła was the only Polish cardinal to be elected pope. As Pope John Paul II, he elevated ten of his compatriots to cardinalate, the largest number of Polish cardinals created by a single pope."
• References are the biggest problem here.

• Everything in the ref col should not be externally linked
• What is Miranda?
• Ref 3 is a dead link
• Wikisource is 100% not an RS; honestly don't know if most of these are RSs
• Almost every reference is primary when you need a mix of different sources

• The table:

• Could benefit from being sortable
• Needs scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS
• Image col should be next to the name

All I can pinpoint at the moment, but for now this is sadly nowhere near ready for FL. – zmbro _(talk) 22:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the advice! — Kpalion^(talk) 18:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly on sourcing. Almost everything in the article is sourced to catholic-heirarchy.org and/or a site referred to as simply "Miranda". Both just seem to the personal website of some random person (and, for the record, both look like Geocities sites from 1998). Clearly neither can be considered to meet WP's definition of a reliable source, so unfortunately I have to oppose at this time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. Also, there are no sources for "Polish cardinals eligible for participation in a conclave" section. Suggest archiving this nomination. buidhe 03:16, 9 January 2020 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:12:07 12 January 2020 (UTC) [4].

Nominator(s): Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on it since I stumbled upon it in July 2010 - this is what it looked like back then. I think it has been improved, statements have been researched, the main Table is sortable, the images have alt texts and so on. The memorializing of cyclists who die while participating in races or while training is an important part of cycling's culture. These cyclists and their feats are remembered by cycling fans and historians of the sport, their memorials are places of pilgrimage. I confess - this has been the only List I have made meaningful contributions to, I've gotten some articles to WP:GAs but this List has always been something special to me. I feel a personal responsibility to these men and women - they deserve verifiable facts about their lives and that is what I have tried to do. Thanks in advance for all your feedback on how to improve this List. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments

• fix dashes.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the dash-placeholder for the blank images? I fixed that down below. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to "-" to "–" some i.e. Case 36-74. Walrave and Koch -> Case 36–74. Walrave and Koch.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it - this will take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Went through and checked all the hypens/dashes both dash-em & dash-en, adjusted when necessary. So far as I can tell (and I might have missed some), the hyphens that are left aren't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink For future reference, install this script and you can fix dashes with one button. – zmbro _(talk) 17:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• remove unused "publisher=" from refs.
  • Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• publisher=ABC - > ABC
  • Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• |title=Piet-Dickentmann.de -> Piet Dickentman biography
  • Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• no shouting in ref.
  • Heh, ok, I just took the refs/titles exactly as I found them, so if a title was all in caps (not unusual in early 20th C newspapers for instance) I left it alone but Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• archive sources.
  • So. Just to make sure I understand before I set down this long road...I need to convert the approximately 160 simple cite webs to wayback urls, correct? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this tool [5].___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this one too, it'll take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cycling related deaths including professionals who died during training section (why are some date in brackets and some are not)
  • Are you referring to some being set off by periods? I have made the date-style in that section consistent - does that address your concerns? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring below the image some dates have brackets on them however other two don't.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You're referring to the 4 photos in the training section. The parentheses for the 2 photos are a stylistic choice for those photos - I didn't have a firm date for them, just a decade for the one and a year for the other. The dates without parentheses are for the two dated photos. Using the parentheses for this gallery isn't incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• in the table it contains dash, some don't have the dash
  • Done. The dash is a placeholder for possible photos. Which, sadly, can be very hard to find. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• overlinking in table
  • I need more info on this particular bullet point, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying is overlinked. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countries are overlinked.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countries are overlinked...do you mean in the Nationality section of the table, that just the Name of the country should be linked and the flags should be unlinked? Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking (with Flag & country) has been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• remove format=mdy from the article. it already says it on top.
  • With the dts coding, that's the way the table was set up, so when people put dates in they all come out the same - keeps things simple. Every so often, the List sees a flurry of activity. That code should stay there so if folks are adding a new entry to the table section they can just follow the other entries as a template above. I did remove df=mdy-all from where I found that parameter. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• it says MDY but it isn't consistent i.e. "collided with his pacer during a 11 October 1903 race on the Dresden"
  • Fixed what I could find. Are there any others? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* publisher=Channel News Asia |accessdate=7 August 2019 |date=4 August 2018
* website=California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside |publisher=(Los Angeles Herald, Volume XXX, Number 236, 31 May 1903) |accessdate=August 14, 2019 |date=31 May 1903
* publisher=The Sydney Mail |accessdate=August 14, 2019 |date=28 September 1904
* website=Newspapers.Com|accessdate=15 August 2019 |pages=1, 2 |date=22 June 1907
* has a different date of death - 18 October 1908. See "Opgevouwen
* to death on his bike") |accessdate=August 18, 2019 |date=22 February 2012
* Geschiedenis24/History 24/Nederland 24 |accessdate=17 August 2019
* ongeluk-in-Het-Stadion.html |archivedate=11 August 2011 |date=5 August 2007
* History Workshop Journal |accessdate=17 August 2019 |page=166 |date=18 January 2015
* Melbourne, Victoria |date=12 August 1936 |page=10
* The Sporting Globe]] |location=Melbourne, Victoria |date=10 December 1938
* Cyclingarchives.com |date=1915-04-29 |accessdate=2012-07-17
* in sources as being in 2 different months in 1952 - 28 July
* publisher=ABC |accessdate=17 August 2019 |date=5 August 1958
* publisher=BBC|accessdate=8 July 2014|date=18 July 2005
* =The Independent|accessdate=8 July 2014|date=19 July 1995
* 20Deaths%20ABC.pdf|archive-date=8 September 2008
* publisher=Cycling News |accessdate=17 August 2019
* website=VeloNews.com|accessdate=2019-03-11
* language=fr |date=12 February 2014 |url-status
* round of Enduro World Series|last=|first=|date=2015-08-02|website=VeloNews.com|publisher=|language=en-US|access-date=2016-09-26
* publisher=Farrelly-Atkinson Limited|accessdate=7 April 2017
* publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited|accessdate=31 March 2017
* Immediate Media Limited|accessdate=29 April 2017
* Roubaix | work=CyclingNews.com | date=8 April 2018 | accessdate=8 April 2018
* Belgian elite race incident|work=CyclingNews|date=19 March 2019|accessdate=9 August 2019
* heart attack|first=Jonny|last=Long|date=26 April 2019|website=Cycling Weekly|accessdate=6 May 2019
* race|last=Williams |first=David |work=CNN|date=30 July 2019|accessdate=7 August 2019
* |work=CyclingNews|date=5 August 2019|accessdate=5 August 2019
* Hugh McLean, September 3 1909 -> add comma.
* accident |publisher=ESPN |date=2012-12-16 |accessdate=2012-12-16
* cyclingnews.com |date=2012-12-16 |accessdate=2012-12-16}}
* death |title=Driver to face trial over Burry Stander's death |publisher=Times LIVE |date=2013-07-30 |accessdate=2014-08-12
* in-training-crash_304886|accessdate=3 October 2013|publisher=Velonews|date=3 October 2013
*  overreden door bus aan Noxx|date=18 February 2014|accessdate=18 February 2014
* dies from crash injuries] Julia Wright, 28/12/2016, CBC news
* Gazzetta dello Sport|date=22 April 2017
* publisher = news.com.au | accessdate=22 December 2017

Ah, within the references. I think I got them all - Done.Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• add a short description.
  • If you are referring to Tim Johnson, Josef Schwarzer, Ernst Wolf (all in 1907), Hans Schneider (1920) and maybe any others I am missing atm the early cyclists are especially difficult to find out any details about. What you see is literally what I have been able to find. I am waiting on a German collaborator who has access to original documents to see if there is possibly any additional information available, but the bare bones of what is there might be all that we can get. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia:Short description which you put at top of a page. use one like {{Short description|List of deaths of cyclists during competition or training date.}}___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duh on me - of course. Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• roughly translates to "Verbist, if you hadn’t ridden your bike, you may not have ended up in a coffin." -> hadn't
  • ?Sorry I don't understand this one...what you posted above is identical to what is already there... Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see the comment left below___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• pacing event, Stuart’s front tyre blew -> Stuart's
  • ?Don't understand...I changed the spelling of tyre but? Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see the comment left below___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• injuries claim Casarotto’s life -> Casarotto's
  • ?I am not sure what issues you are pointing out with this and the previous two bullet points. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out " ’ " to " ' " -> Casarotto’s -> Casarotto's.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

these are the some issues.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes, greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink I have added some more notes.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA I have fixed all the points above with the exception of three two areas: I am still working on archiving sources & fixing dashes and I have a pending question about what you specifically mean by overlinking in the Table. Re; overlinking - I don't want to change something if it isn't what you're concerned about. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished hyphens/dashes fixes, I think I caught them all. Am taking a break but hope to finish up sometime next week. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks to Zmbro for lending a hand. The hyphens/dash-em/dash-ens should all be corrected now. Shearonink (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA I think of your issues posted above have now been fixed. Archive cites, dates, overlinking, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink thanks for fixing the issues. Also you're welcomed to review my FLC sumbsion here Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sanjay Dutt filmography/archive1___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• some further comments.

• Scheuermann posed on bicycle from between 1905–1906. -> between 1905 and 1906.

Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Stahurskaya Dies In Training Accident, Says Coach -> Stahurskaya Dies in Training Accident, Says Coach

? I'm sorry but I don't see what you are stating needs to be changed here... Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Head injuries claim Casarotto’s life -> Head injuries claim Casarotto's life

Done. I must say, though, that I am such a purist on quoting text & material that I don't even like to change punctuation, say from a ' to a ' in what had been an exact rendition of a title... Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• shrines to cycling’s fallen heroes -> shrines to cycling's fallen heroes are scattered

Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hugh McLean, September 3 1909 -> Hugh McLean, September 3, 1909

Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Julia Wright, 28/12/2016 -> Julia Wright, December 28, 2016

Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some comments added.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice work. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• One obvious thing that jumps out at me - any particular reason why one section is a table but the other is just bullet points.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List has gone through many generations of designs. The present layout makes complete sense to me though - splitting the two sections - the during a race and the during training - into two completely different designs sets them off as being different. The Table is laid out as just the facts, all those deaths happened during a race when cyclists are racing on a public roadway or on a track in supposedly controlled environments surrounded by fellow cyclist and with safety protocols. And yet...and yet they sometimes have accidents, and yet sometimes they die. The deaths in the during training/bullet point section happened on mostly everyday roads in normal everyday environments. The individual listings, the sheer numbers of professionals or competitive/notable amateurs, the people who have died during an otherwise normal day while on our shared roadways - especially since 1994 - is mind-boggling. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude See my response on this matter to Zmbro below. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point below that FLs have differing styles, but I can't see any compelling reason to have differing styles within the same article when the subject matter is essentially the same. For example, in a musician's discography, I wouldn't expect to see the albums in a table but the singles done as bullet points..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude (& also zmbro per a comment below) I see what you're saying about a discography, that does make sense. But I've been thinking about this and those discography Lists are all about one person's or one band's performances (and since the content used in a single is repeated in its album the actual digital files or recordings in these cases are not just essentially the same, they are exactly the same, the presentation is just different). The discography Lists are not about different activities by different people. To my mind - though they are (of course) related - racing is not the same as training, being in a race is not the same as being on a public road, and dying months or years from the aftereffects of a horrific accident that happened during a race is essentially different from dying instantaneously during a race. And regarding not expecting...why not? There are already Featured Lists that co-mingle text/bullet-point lists with Tables like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (especially between their Projects in development sections and various Table sections) and Audie Murphy honors and awards. Does co-mingling Tables + bullet-point lists/text paragraphs in a List specifically go against or specifically not fulfill WP:FLCR? Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well they could be said to be the same but they don't seem the same to me. An overwhelming number of the bullet-list deaths happened on regular roads, usually in completely-mixed traffic. To set the deaths off as being in different conditions is not a compelling reason? Is there a compelling reason to have all the information presented in exactly the same way in different sections? Let's say that the different death conditions are not a compelling reason to have the sections be different...then what is the compelling reason to have it all be the same. The WP:FLCR says about structure: "It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities." It doesn't say table sort facilities are required. The text list seems as easy to navigate as the table, they're just different, neither one is better over the other. I don't understand why they must be the same...I'll have to think on this quite e a bit more. Shearonink (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

Since I've been helping you out with dashes and archiving I'll go ahead and leave some thoughts:

• To me, the lead seems a little short, especially for how long a list this is. Maybe add a paragraph or two on notable cyclists who have died and/or the most common causes of death? Just some ideas

I'll have to work on that. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I expanded on the concepts of *different rates of death at different eras and *the memorializing of dead cyclists by fans. Take a look and tell me what you think. Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the image col would look better after the name col (have the names first); that's how I've seen many other lists of this nature
• Having "Notes" as the heading seems a little broad, as most individuals have their location of death first then notes, while others only have location of death and others have none at all and just a reference. Perhaps change it to "Location of death and notes"?

Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be interesting to see the ages everyone died at. I know that might take a while but having just their death date and no birth date seems a little odd (to me at least). Doesn't have to be its own col, maybe below the death date.

I agree, it would be interesting but it might not be feasible to have an age for everyone, especially for some of the early cyclists - for a lot of them there just isn't any more information than what is already here. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Going along with a previous point, some notes, like Hubert Sevenich, read "Died as a result of a collision with a pacing motorcycle during a race at the track in Brunswick, Germany." (a complete sentence) while others, like Josef Schwarzer just read "Düsseldorf track". Another one reads "Tour of Portugal. Died of dehydration during race." instead of "Died of dehydration during the race at the 1958 Tour of Portugal." I'd make them all complete sentences. A good reference is how User:Dudley Miles has been crafting his lists on SSSIs, etc. (see List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire for a good example (how there's a complete description for each site))

Will work on that, I agree. Should have it done within the next day or two. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what re-writing & editing that I can but there is something that I must mention. Many of the early cyclists - starting with Hubert Sevenich in 1905, Tim Johnson/Josef Schwarzer/Ernst Wolf in 1907, Theile (1911), Bachmann/Lange/Kraft/Max Hansen in 1913 and so on - what you see here in this List is probably all there is. Many of these early cyclists, especially the Germans, only seem to have received coverage in Sport-Album der Rad-Welt a German-language sports-newspaper which is (so far as I know) only available in Germany, is printed in German, and only available in its physical form. I would have loved to included more information on the individuals who only have a place of death listed but in many cases it is not accessible to me and is apparently only available to librarians who have access to certain archives. In Germany. I will do what I can to coax the fragments into complete sentences but I think you should know that some of what you're asking of me just might not be possible. Shearonink (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have finished re-crafting the following:

• Andrei Kivilev
• Brett Malin
• Garrett Lemire
• Juan Barrero
• Tim Pauwels
• Alessio Galletti
• Bob Breedlove

The following entries with somewhat-truncated "Died of" sections have references that are in 1)German, 2)Only accessible in paper form, 4)only accessible to researchers & librarians in archives in Germany, & use either Sport-Album der Rad-Welt or Illustrierter Radrennsport. Giving more details on the following's manner of death, etc. might prove to be impossible:

Tim Johnson Track cyclist (coach), Ernst Wolf, Josef Schwarzer - 1907, Fritz Theile - 1911, Max Hansen - 1913, Bachmann & Lange - 1913, Hans Schneider and Emanuel Kudela - 1920, Franz Krupkat - 1927, Emil Richli - 1934.

I have been trying to find more details but it is proving to be very difficult to find out any information beyond the bare-bones/facts about these cyclists already posted because of the source-material being used as references and the way the sources were initially posted. Shearonink (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA and zmbro I've done all that I can do with the "Location of death and additional information" parameter for the following cyclists:

• Huhndorf, Tim Johnson, Schwarzer, Ernst Wolf, Fritz Theile, Hans Bachmann, Hans Lange, August Kraft, Max Hansen, Max Bauer, Hans Schneider, Kudela, Walter Ebert, Franz Krupkat, Emil Richli, and Stefan Veger.

I am still working on:

• Kaminski, Ravasio, Connie Meijer, Saúl Morales, Espinosa, Manuel Galera, Jean-Pierre Monseré, Valentín Uriona, and José Samyn. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some individuals don't have a competitive status listed. Some of these individuals have WP pages, such as Stan Ockers, which says he was a "Belgian professional racing cyclist." That sounds like a status to me, right? I'd make sure there's a status for everyone where applicable, and if not, just put "N/A"

I'll work on that, just got overlooked. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with ChrisTheDude, it's weird seeing one section in a table and another in prose. I think they should both be in a table

I'll have to think about that. Before I nominated this List as an FLC, I looked through various Featured Lists and I realized something...there are many different forms in Featured Lists - some are one big Table (List of tallest buildings in New York City), some are in Separate Tables (List of Mesopotamian deities and List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse), some are bullet Lists-only or have paragraphs about each separate subject or sub-section (List of culinary nuts, List of vegetable oils, and Snow in Florida), some seem short (Robot Hall of Fame - File size: 131 kB) and (List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis - File size: 112 kB), some are long(List of West Virginia state parks - File size: 599 kB), some have a short lead section (Ed Chynoweth Cup and List of retired Pacific typhoon names), some have linked sections in table without extensive text (Ed Chynoweth Cup again)...I understand other editors' hesitancy about the present form but...I'll have to think about it. Just because WP maybe hasn't done it before doesn't mean we can't have different but acceptable forms for Featured Lists. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above reply to ChrisTheDude. I've pinged you on it to make it easier for you to find. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this was mentioned previously but date formats should be consistent – note 8 and 16 are UK-style while the rest of the articles is US-style (there's also a script to help with that)

Date-issues have all now been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I got so far. I'm sorry if this may seem overwhelming but I'm more than happy to help out when I'm available. Best of luck :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: @Zmbro: As two of us have raised this concern, I thought it might be worth centralising the discussion in its own section rather than having it in two separate places above. To my mind having half the list in a table and half as bullet points looks a mess. The second section could easily be converted to a table and then the article would look much more polished and much closer to exemplifying WP's best work (IMO). I personally don't believe that the slightly different scope of the two sections justifies having them in wildly differing formats, but that is just my opinion and I am prepared to be swayed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your posts. It just never occurred to me in all the years I have worked on this List that the different styles of the two main sections would be a concern. To me, as the List's structure exists right now, everything simply fits. I dunno, I suppose I could possibly even convert the table to a bullet-list so the different sections would be in the same format. Maybe, but anyway, I'm taking a few days off to think about it. Thanks again. Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think tables look better in these types of lists but that's just me. – zmbro _(talk) 19:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the differing deaths can be dealt with in different ways - there isn't a FL criteria or a List guideline that states either a text-list format or that a table-list format must be completely adhered to within a Wikipedia List. It is a stylistic/editorial choice to have the 2 styles in the one List. In my opinion, it is more powerful to have the names one after another, no lines, no sorting, no clinical boxes around the info, As a matter of fact I've never been fond of the sortable tables style but that was introduced by another editor and I can see how the sorting could be helpful in the professional section so I went with their choice.

There is a difference of opinion about having 2 different styles within a List so it seems that I have hit an impasse. If other editors commenting here at this FLC aren't convinced by the depth of coverage, by the relentless sourcing, by the extensive changes I have made to the text per reviewers' suggestions, by the way that I have dealt quickly with their various concerns then I don't know what else I can possibly persuade anyone with. I was prepared to be queried relentlessly about the sourcing, about the text-content, about the images and so on but it just never occurred to me that the differing styles of the two sections might be a possible issue. This is probably the only List I will ever attempt to bring to a Featured List status because it is the only List I have done such extensive work on. If the different formats of the two sections of this list are what is holding folks back from possibly supporting this List to Featured List status then that is the way it is. As the nominator and editor who has done most of the work on this List I am not convinced that completely overhauling either section to bring the two sections into stylistic agreement with each other - either all Table-List or all bullet-point List - is the best way to proceed. So far as I can tell - not that this is a "vote" - 2 editors support this List being a FL and 2 do not. Unless someone else weighs in and the consensus turns overwhelmingly one way or another, I am content to let this FLC sit for a while and see if I change my mind. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else care to weigh in? Short of completely changing the second section or completely changing the first section so they would both be in the same style I don't know what else I can say or do to sway other editors' opinions... Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:08:06 5 January 2020 (UTC) [7].

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 20:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC), Cooper 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now a complete listing of all confirmed Category 1 hurricanes in the Pacific. Noah^Talk 20:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "a low-pressure area known as the Aleutian Low, are present" - no need for that comma there
• What version of English is the article in? I notice spellings like "categorize" and "organize", which are American, yet the word "autumn" is used instead of "fall"
• "In addition to those, 7 systems" => "In addition to those, seven systems"
• "The Aleutian Low's retreat in late-April" - no need for that hyphen
• "La Niña events increase wind shear and decreases" - the subject is "events", so the last word should be "decrease"
• That's what I have on the lead, I will look at the tables later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be fixed. Noah^Talk 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I'm just pinging you since it has been over a week since your initial comments. Noah^Talk 22:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away on holiday. Promise I will catch up........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment on the tables is that it looks weird for the "Deaths" and "Damage" columns to be centred where is no data but left-aligned where there is data. I suggest that all should be centred. I would also centre-align the refs column -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on that over the weekend. I need to update Lorena as well since the TCR came out today. Noah^Talk 02:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I don't know exactly what needs to be done coding wise in order to fix the issue. Noah^Talk 22:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just add align=center before each cell where there's an actual value, so for example |{{sort|00.200|$200 thousand}} becomes |align=center|{{sort|00.200|$200 thousand}} -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I was trying to center the column as a whole. I will do this on the weekend. I spent 8 hours doing lab reports yesterday (with classes until noon) and still have 2 chemistry homeworks + a paper to write. The joys of college lol. Noah^Talk 11:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you already supported, but I just finished aligning all of them. The holiday has resulted in me getting extra time at work. Noah^Talk 15:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick drive-by comment. There are lots of hurricanes before 1949, but you only list three. Considering you mention in your nomination statement that it contains all "confirmed" C1 hurricanes, I suggest limiting the article to the storms in HURDAT (1949-present). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are there no dates for Hurricane "C" in 1962? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Hurricane "C" isn't in Hurdat and there isn't any kind of BT so dates can't be used. Also, removed the pre-1949. Noah^Talk 16:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing pre-1949. Have all of the stats been updated? (such as the overall number) Also, for Hurricane "C", maybe just say something like "August 1962" and add a note. It's odd that it's the only one that has no dates listed, even if it isn't explicitly known. Also, the text highly implies that the date was August 24th, but that's not explicitly said, so you can get away with "August 1962". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Yes, it should be updated now. Note that storms at Cat 1 over multiple months are counted for both months when it is broken down. Noah^Talk 22:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, maybe my math is wrong, but you might wanna double check your total number of storms. I got 257. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah and Hurricanehink: I get 237 using Ctrl+F and inputting "mph" or "km/h" for the Systems section. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added up the storms by month, which adds up to 257. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: That is how many have existed at Cat 1 intensity during each month, not reached it. A storm that maintains Cat 1 from September to October is counted for both months. Noah^Talk 16:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thank you Noah! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I looked through the article again, and I don't see anything that stands out or needs to be addressed for me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Manuel Sept 18 2013 1755Z.jpg: Source link is broken.

  Fixed. Noah^Talk 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Map of Pacific Category 1 hurricanes.png: Seems OK to me.
• File:Lorena 2019-09-20 2010Z.jpg: I take this image was taken on the day Lorena made landfall, and that Lorena was chosen as the most recent landfalling Category 1 hurricane in that basin?

• Yes. Noah^Talk 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Is everything okay now? Noah^Talk 22:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Jason Rees

• This list needs some love before it can be listed as a featured list imho, as it feels like it has just been slammed together without any love or fact checking.
• For starters I feel that one specific table listing all of the category 1 hurricanes would be a lot better than the four currently in the article. It would allow us to view all the Category 1 hurricanes at once and allow us to answer important questions like which TC caused the most damage or lasted the longest easier.

• Done (got sorting adjusted). I will do a bit tomorrow and some after my English final on Wednesday. Noah^Talk 01:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• While looking through the list, I notice that there isn't any consistency in how a reference is formatted. Some are first name first while others are first name last.
• I feel that the duration column would be more accessible if it was broken up it up into days and hours rather than just hours. For example: At a brief glance would i be able to tell that 102 hours is 4.25 days?
• The areas affected need to be looked carefully. For example: Henriette 2007 should probably be updated to just list Mexico since you are basically saying that Northern, Southern and Western Mexico were impacted. Barbara 2013 surely impacted Southern Mexico since it listed as it is listed as impacting Southwestern Mexico & Eastern Mexico?
• I randomly decided to look at Isis 1998 in order to verify the data and I note that the list says that it impacted Baja California Peninsula, Northern Pacific Coast of Mexico, Southwestern United States, Northwestern United States and that it caused 14 deaths as well as $10 million in damages. When I look at the TCR which is the only reference cited, I can verify that it caused 14 deaths, impacted Baja California and the Pacific Coast of Mexico, however, I can not verify that it impacted the United States or caused $10 million in damages.
• Why are you using a report from 1982 to verify note which says Prior to 1988 for the Eastern Pacific and 2001 for the Central Pacific?

• Added NHC text document to support years stated and kept the report from '82 which discusses how pressure readings were taken for older storms. Noah^Talk 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All Eastern North Pacific Hurricane Season of XXXX articles need to be cited up as a journal and as a part of the Monthly Weather Review rather than as reports.
• I would remove Hurricane C as there isnt any BT Data for it and thus can not be verified as a Cat 1 TC.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed "C". Noah^Talk 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it interesting that you include the Revillagigedo Islands in your areas affected for Lorena, but not for any of the other entries on the list. I would personally wouldn't have included it as we can only cover the broader areas affected, but it's up to you just make sure its sourced and can be easily verified if you do include it.
• I would like to see Flossie's non-damages to Hawaii sourced, as I know that Flossie impacted the islands with heavy rain. I would also like to see it listed as None and None rather than N/A.
• I like the usage of Template:N/A but feel that its usage needs to be restricted to just systems that didnt impact land and even then im not sure, im a fan of it being used in terms of deaths since deaths can occur at sea.
• Thats it for now - More later.Jason Rees (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @CooperScience and Hurricane Noah: Is there any news on my comments above being addressed? I'm loathed to invest the time to review the list further until my comments above are dealt with.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by KN2731

• and 7 in November – 7 should be spelt out
  • Completed. Cooper 22:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Preliminary reports and TCRs should have dates of publication
• Double daggers should be in the same column, same goes for daggers
• Collectively, Category 1 hurricanes have killed at least 913 people – from the tables, I'm getting a minimum of 912.
  • Completed. Cooper 22:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the issues I've found besides those raised by Jason Rees. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With the exception of a redlink at the bottom of the page, the list looks excellent! -- JavaHurricane 09:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I haven't seen much of Cooper lately and am recovering from surgery, I hereby withdraw this FLC so I can focus on my recovery and not waste your time with this any further. Noah^Talk 20:26, 31 December 2019 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:13:07 5 January 2020 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): User:Maile66 and KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a quality list and well researched and referenced and list all key politicians in the executive cabinet during the reign of Hawaii’s last queen Liliʻuokalani. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The table should be sortable so each type of minister could be viewed together.
• Gulick and Parker have inconsistent use of (acting)
• Mott-Smith's description doesn't need a comma
• Inconsistent use of abbreviations for months in descriptions
• Holdover is not hyphenated
• Optional since this isn't a huge table, but references don't need their own column, can go in the notes. Would allow for a separate sortable column for dates.
• I see you also wrote the articles on the positions themselves: the three are titled as Ministry but the subject and bolded first mention are about the Minister – I'd suggest moving the page to that since they're not actually about the government department
• Do not link to a WP: page in the see also, a reader does not need to read our manual of style from this page...
• I'm wondering if this should be renamed Cabinet of Liliʻuokalani to be more consistent with e.g. Cabinet of Donald Trump. This list has primacy on the individuals rather than the positions, which could make more sense, grouping together those who served in the same position rather than just alphabetical order. The lead focuses on the government timeline and formations/dissolutions rather than the people themselves.

Very nice topic overall. Reywas92^Talk 21:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: I am no longer interested in putting this through FLC. Could we please just withdraw this? — Maile (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting withdrawal. Co-nominator has expressed they don’t want to proceed.KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:18:10 5 January 2020 (UTC) [9].

Nominator(s): User:Maile66 and KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a quality list and well researched and referenced and list all key politicians in the executive cabinet during the reign of Hawaii’s last king Kalākaua. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of my comments on the other list also apply here and vice versa; please ensure the two pages are consistent and relevant changes are made to both pages
• King Kalākaua is not the article's topic and should not be bolded
• Perhaps Kalākaua's Privy Council of State should be linked in the lead rather than see also; Privy Council of the Hawaiian Kingdom does not link to it, nor Liliʻuokalani's.
• The third paragraph describes the replacements for all four positions, so I am unsure what "The remaining August 14 cabinet members were replaced by new ministers on September 22." refers to
• The lead says Cummins, et al. were installed on July 17, 1890, but these people have June 17, 1890 as start/end dates in the table. Please review the inconsistency..
• Since there are specific cabinets of people all starting or ending their terms at the same time, I would encourage building on the suggestion on the other FLC to make the table sortable by date or have a supplementary table showing groupings of who served together, rather than solely alphabetical across the 15-year period.
• Businessmen is one word
• Several hyphens in the table date ranges should be dashes
• Gibson is listed as Prime Minister in 1886. This position is mentioned nowhere else and the linked Kuhina Nui goes through 1864 so I have no idea what's going on here.
• What does it mean that Gibson was both an acting and ad interim AG?
• No need for an EL header if there are no ELs...

Reywas92^Talk 21:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: I am no longer interested in putting this through FLC. Could we please just withdraw this? — Maile (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting withdrawal. Co-nominator has expressed they don’t want to proceed.KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2020 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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