Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2021

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is about kings of Nepal who ruled from 1743 to its dissolution in 2008. 2008 was pretty recent, yeah. The civil war was a scary time to be part of. Crazy stories to listen to as well. Like, the communist would come to your house and take away your children or anyone to fight in the war. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 12:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like having the collage be a single file, as it prevents you from seeing any one of the images full-sized when you click on it and requires you to read the full caption to find out the name of the person you clicked on. I'd suggest switching to {{Multiple image}} or {{Image array}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead is seven substantial paragraphs, which goes beyond the four suggested by MOS:LEAD. I'd suggest moving much of the discussion on individual kings to the notes column, or just leaving it for King of Nepal. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The six-year increments starting from 1743 on the timeline are not great, plus there's shorter marks that appear add more odd intervals. I'd suggest converting to 10-year increments, and also considering suppressing on mobile via {{If mobile}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and one more: it might be good to include the chronological number of each king if that's something people sometimes mention. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Sdkb for the comments! I believe I have addressed all of them except for the last one because Template:Succession table monarch does not support it. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, so I'm afraid I have good news, bad news, and ugly news.

    First, the good: clicking through to some of the shahs, they tend to start with "was king of Nepal from X to Y" rather than "was the Xth king of Nepal", so it seems the ordinal probably isn't that important and we don't need to bother adding it to the template.

    The bad: Regarding the lead, though, it looks like you've mainly just taken out paragraph breaks, so it still looks overlong to me (the four paragraph target from MOS:LEAD is really just a proxy for length). My view on this might be unorthodox, in which case I won't stand in the way, but I feel that the lead of list pages like this one should be reserved for explaining a quick overview of the topic itself (i.e. what it means to be king of Nepal), not going through a chronology of all the most significant examples. That would be better done in the notes section, where it can be placed alongside the dates/photo/etc., or at King of Nepal, where it can be discussed narratively. If you opt to keep the info here, that'll essentially negate the purpose of King of Nepal, so you might want to consider redirecting that page to here, unless there's so much to say about the position itself that it can't be summarized in the lead.

    The ugly: Actually, looking into it a bit, there's a significant forking problem here. List of heads of state of Nepal exists, which has a scope that's 90% just a duplicate of this page. I realize that there's technically nothing in the criteria that requires you to address this, but it presents a significant WP:ENDURE problem by splitting future editor effort, so I would strongly suggest doing so. Your best option is probably to merge this page to that one, which would mean mainly just getting the listings of the two presidents up to par. Alternatively, you could transclude the table from this page to that one. On a related note, neither {{Nepal topics}} nor {{Heads of State of Nepal}} appears to link here currently. I'd suggest adding the former to this page, and adding the latter if this page isn't merged to include the presidents. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, List of heads of state of Nepal should be renamed to List of presidents of Nepal or be merged to President of Nepal. There seems to be forking problem with every page that begins with List of heads of state of [insert country here], some examples, List of heads of state of Germany, List of heads of state of Spain, List of heads of state of Romania etc. The article should be about present Nepal no the Kingdom. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that List of heads of state of Nepal has existed for many years, with the incoming links to show for it, whereas you only created this page last month. That makes me much more comfortable asking you to resolve the forking, since you created it. When there are forks, we generally keep the older, more established page. It also seems the most logical scope would include the presidents, since there are only three of them, so they shouldn't have their own list yet. Given both of those things, I think that this page should be redirected there and that page should be the one you take to FL status. That really shouldn't be as much work as it sounds, since you'll only have three more entries to fix up, but I unfortunately cannot support this until that happens. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The table duplicates Kingdom_of_Nepal#Kings_of_Nepal_(1768–2008), so this may fail criterion 3c. The table of prime ministers duplicates List of prime ministers of Nepal so perhaps it should all be removed. This also duplicates List_of_heads_of_state_of_Nepal#Kingdom_of_Nepal_(1768–2008).
• The corresponding article is King of Nepal, so shouldn't this be List of kings of Nepal? Merging these two pages would be ideal to consolidate information for readers since the former is short and somewhat duplicative.
• There shouldn't be a Family column when every entry is the same (and Shah is part of their names).
• The Notes column doesn't contain notes, it contains the claim for succession. Is there other information about the kings that may also be worth noting? Otherwise you should use precise headers.
• The use of multiple sources in both lifespan and reign end seems bit cluttered.
• With that, are there any general sources that cover several or all of the kings? It seems a little weird that one source is "The Role of Renewable Energy Technology in Holistic Community Development" and that there isn't something broader or more official.
• The cropped image for Pratap Singh Shah is a bit streched and lower quality: the original at List of heads of state of Nepal seems much better (as do many of the other portraits there, especially for Rajendra Bikram Shah).
• I'm not sure "dissolution" is the best word for the first sentence since it wasn't split into smaller parts. Abolition or replacement would be better.

Reywas92^Talk 01:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: It is best to withdraw this nomination. I will renominate the article when the issues mentioned above are resloved. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Thrakkx (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of (hopefully all) the documented incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C. The article was in bad shape before the 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol, but after fixing up the source issues, adding some images from the famous incidents, and reworking the prose of each entry, I feel that it's approaching WP:FL status. This is my first time nominating anything, so I appreciate any and all help throughout the process. Thrakkx (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Guerillero

• Needs a lead
  • No FL starts with "The following is a list of"
• No violence during the civil war? Baltimore was pretty much occupied at the time
• There is no uniting theme of this list. Ex. I don't see how the DC Sniper is comparable to the Storming of the United States Capitol. How much violence? How much of a political bent?
• There is some definite cherry picking to the point that I have major NPOV concerns.
  • November 14, 2020 is included but not any of the violence that happened at the WTO meetings in the 90s and early 2000s
  • There was arson this summer during the george floyd protests.
  • DC burned in 1976 from unrest
• outside the White House President George W. Bush was inside
• Day 1989 probably needs an ID number
• Use of primary sources is a question

You should probably withdraw this --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:20, 23 January 2021 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 20:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked this list nearly two years ago. The lists for 1945/46 have already been promoted. Thank you very much for all your comments. Lirim | Talk 20:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Link "chart".

  Done.

• I would say somewhere that this chart has evolved into (as of 2020) the Billboard 200 so it gives non-experts some context for the historical legacy.

  Rewrote the section.

• Also may be worth saying when this chart started.

• Not really relevant for the list

• I disagree, it's useful for our readers to know if this was like the first one or the 41st such list of its type. No harm in adding a sentence to say when the chart was initiated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "was based on a "weekly survey among 4,020 dealers in all sections of the country."[1]" this appears to be correct for that specific issue, e.g. I took a look at the June 28 edition which takes account of 4,970 dealers.

  Clarified via a note.

• " to top the chart." I would add " in 1947."

  Done.

• "bringing the total amount the album topped the chart to 14 across three years." -> meaning the album topped the charts for 14 weeks over three years.

  Done.

• "atop, bringing his total weeks spent atop " atop atop repetitive.

  Done.

• Why isn't Glenn Miller linked in Jan 18/25 entry in the table?

  Done.

• Similar for "& His Orchestra".

  Done.

• I think the row scope should be the album, not the date of the chart.

  row scope on the first column is the standard for chart lists

  That's not true. Just check out the nomination beside your one!!! (List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1994 and 1995) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 1, 3 and 6 through 66, it should be work=Billboard and title=Best-Selling Popular Record Albums.

  Done.

That's all I have at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Addressed most of your issues. Thank you! Lirim | Talk 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: All done. Thank you! Lirim | Talk 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

• The lead feels a bit bare at 300 words/1998 bytes
• The lead should ideally use more than 3 non-billboard chart sources
• The links to the scans at https://worldradiohistory.com/ need to go due to copyright problems

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why are the lines in the captions (pictured in 19...) italicized?
• Could you archive the sources?
• It would be better if the scope was placed on the album rather than the issue date.

That's all. ~ HAL333 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @The Rambling Man:, @Giants2008:, @PresN:; I would like this to be closed early, I really don't have enough time to change all the sources right now or in the nearest future. Thank you.Lirim | Talk 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it passes the FL-criteria in my eyes and because I have tried my best to make it similar to other articles that have actually passed the criteria to become featured lists. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per FL nomination guidelines, Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. With your recent FL nomination starting just three days ago, I would suggest you close this nomination until the other nomination has been promoted or failed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I just noticed a third FL nomination from just over a week ago. You should really wait on this nomination to ensure that other nominations can be reviewed and addressed properly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure/withdrawal - Some Dude From North Carolina opening the second nomination was OK as the first had multiple supports, but opening a third just three days later while both the other two are still open is not really appropriate..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The Clint Eastwood article already has two supports and is about to receive a source review, so that's basically three. The Better Call Saul list and this list are essentially the same thing, and I believe I can do both (I constantly spend my time refreshing both pages to make sure I'm up to date with new suggestions and so I can address problems as they come up). Please, don't close this nomination. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think we should make an exception to this rule. I'm not saying you couldn't keep up, but the rules are in place for everyone for a reason; allowing this nomination to continue sets a bad precedent and could lead to other users nominating multiple lists while not being able to devote time to the nominations. Second, it's somewhat a matter of fairness for everyone. If you flood the FLC page with a bunch of new nominations, other nominations will be pushed down and receive less attention, which isn't fair to the users who worked on those lists and are waiting patiently to have their work reviewed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard that no one is allowed 3 nominations at once. - Dank (push to talk) 05:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse closure. This is pushing it a little bit. ~ HAL333 00:06, 24 December 2020 (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.