Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2024

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, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning of the NFL, six different "MVP awards" have been handed out. Six players for the Green Bay Packers have won one of these MVP awards a total of 29 times. Additionally, three players have won a total of four Super Bowl MVP awards. List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award covers these award winners. Thank you for your time reviewing this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RunningTiger123

• Comment: What justifies a stand-alone list for this article? A list of the team's MVP winners can be short enough to easily fit in an existing article while still conveying the key information (see User:RunningTiger123/sandbox#List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award as an example). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RunningTiger123, you deleted all the text, deleted the photos, and converted the table to the most basic bulleted list. I could probably do that for just about any list on Wikipedia. That said, this very same issue was litigated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers, which provides a nice precedent for this type of issue for a similarly sized list. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an example of what I'm getting at: New York Giants#NFL MVP award winners fits everything in a fairly compact table and conveys the exact same key information. Additional context can be helpful, but most of the information is (or could be) easily covered in the players' articles if readers want more. That's why I think it's fair to point out its possible size – because if this isn't essentially a WP:SIZESPLIT to prevent the list from overwhelming the main article, it's especially important for the list to satisfy WP:N with significant coverage of Packers MVP winners as a group, and I don't see that here. (As for the retired numbers example: That was "no consensus", and even if there was a clearer result, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can apply). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • RunningTiger123, the following sources are in the article regarding the grouping of "Green Bay Packers who he won an MVP award": "Packers MVPs: The Great 10", "Green Bay Packers: Players Who Have Won the NFL MVP Award", "Aaron Rodgers: Comparing His 2011 Numbers with Past Green Bay MVPs", "Quiz: Remember past Packer MVPs?".

I wasn't trying to state that just because the other list exists, this one must too. I was merely pointing to a past discussion where consensus was clear not to delete a list (one that went on to be featured) that resembles the size and scope of this list, so it may be of interest to you. In that discussion, the thing that changed most minds was the inclusion of the prose, which wouldn't be appropriate in a larger, summary article (this article has 1,145 words of readable prose that covers the history and reasoning for each MVP award). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the issue above, here are other changes that should be made:

• Pete Rozelle misspelled in lead
• Image and references columns should not be sortable
• Sort keys need to be specified for "Super Bowl (Season)" column so Roman numerals sort in numerical order
• Favre did not win Jim Thorpe Trophy in 1997

Assuming these are fixed, I'm neutral on this list's promotion (support based on formatting and style, oppose because I'm still unconvinced by the sources that this warrants a stand-alone list instead of inclusion in the main article – so we'll split the difference). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, I have addressed all four of the items you identified. Cheers « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Just purely on the basis that I don't believe that the topic warrants a stand-alone list as RunningTiger123 brought up above, the routine coverage is obviously quality and FL standard. My stance on this is purely systematic and will help the nomination gather more attention. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Idiosincrático and RunningTiger123: I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind the concern regarding this as a stand-alone list. I think we can also agree that Green Bay Packers would be the only appropriate "parent" article for this list if it were merged back into a high-level topic. Disregarding the fact that this topic isn't even currently covered in the Green Bay Packers article, looking at it there are three separate forks in Green Bay Packers that provide the full "list" while still forking to its own stand-alone list (might I add all 3 of those are FLs): List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers and List of Green Bay Packers head coaches. Again, each one of these has a standalone article even though the entire "list" itself is in Green Bay Packers. There are a number of other standalone lists in Green Bay Packers that have sections that could conceivably have the entire table in it: Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame, List of Green Bay Packers seasons and List of Green Bay Packers stadiums. But right now Green Bay Packers is 182k bites, 68777 characters and 11,339 words, so per Wikipedia:Article size, it needs to be reduced in size and better summarized. Looking at just this list, sure you could cut out all the prose (but why would you want to???) and add this list to Green Bay Packers, but if you did that for all of these lists, Green Bay Packers would be massive. I know its a long-lasting goal, but I have been working to get all of the WP:PACKERS lists to WP:FLs and then go in and briefly summarize all of them in Green Bay Packers, hopefully cutting the article down in size and reducing the reliance on tables to convey information in an article that should primarily be prose. I know that Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent, but often past discussions can help form consensus, thus I can't help but point to List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers AFD and FL to provide an example of a basic list that was expanded with relevant and high-quality prose, was made into a please and graphically enhanced table that was not deleted and ended up passing FL. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ultimately, it's about the size of this list for me. Other lists generally include more players/entries, which better justifies a split, or have more information that is relevant to include and makes the list longer (example: it's reasonable to expect a win/loss record in the head coaching list). As to some other points:

    • I still think the retired numbers list should have been merged (and it's hard to form consensus from a "no consensus"), but if I had to offer one justification, there are some unique elements to that topic (i.e., "unofficial" retired numbers) that work in their own article. MVP winners don't really have that.
    • If article size at Green Bay Packers is a concern, a brief list of MVP winners is probably more urgent than, say, a 250+ word paragraph about the hiring of Mike Sherman (see section starting at "In 2000, Wolf replaced Rhodes with Mike Sherman"). Or instead of a list, maybe the MVP winners could just be named in the prose.
    • but why would you want to [cut the prose]??? Because we link to the players' articles if readers want that level of detail. As a comparison, should we include a paragraph about every winner at the AP NFL MVP article? I would guess most editors would push back on that.

    I'm really trying to give this list a chance (which is why I !voted neutral instead of oppose), but I think it's good to acknowledge not everything needs a standalone page. That's not meant as a judgement of value, just as a way to keep articles more concentrated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list has 9 separate entries who have won 33 separate awards spanning six different types of season MVP awards and the SB MVP. It's just that the list itself has been merged into one table to better show the combined MVP awards. The table itself conveys a lot of information, even though it appears relatively short. The prose expands on the history of the awards and how they are decided, provides context for why they won their award, and provides additional details (most MVP awards, additional recognition for the players, etc). Re your question about having a paragraph every entry in AP NFL MVP, obviously if someone did that then answer would be no. But if someone did do that, it would be appropriate to fork that level of detail into smaller articles/lists. That way the level of detail can be focused on the specific topic at hand. There are also four clear sources that discuss this list as a topic, which clearly meets WP:LISTN. Also, regarding the retired numbers list, there was no consensus to delete the article, primarily because I expanded it late into the AFD. It going to and passing FL reinforced the consensus that a list of that limited scope was appropriate so far as the list met WP:LISTN and it was larger enough (prose and table) to not be included in the primary article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's ignore Super Bowl MVPs for a moment (since those could easily be one extra column here) and focus on season MVPs. You argue there are 29 items in the list; I would argue there are either 6 (players) or 12 (players by season), as the specific awards are less important, especially since most years have one winner across all awards. (Best analogy I can think of: If the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, and CFP Rankings rank the same 25 football teams, there would be 25 items to list, not 75.) At that point, even if a list meets LISTN, WP:PAGEDECIDE is relevant and we should consider if it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, which I argue it is. That's what I meant by it's especially important for the list to satisfy WP:N earlier – as a small list, this would need to be a very clear standalone topic to justify a new page under PAGEDECIDE, and I don't see that within the context of overall coverage of the Packers. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123 just for clarity's sake, do you agree that the list meets WP:LISTN?

Regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think it is better to include the full sentence: Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context... (my emphasis added). In my reading of this, the assumption is a standalone page on any notable topic is the presumption unless there is reasoning not to. When I read the whole section under WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is nothing there that strongly applies to this topic. I will note under "Further information" in that section, WP:Article size is listed. I know that Green Bay Packers isn't a perfect article, but all I can operate is under the existing conditions. And right now, expansion of Green Bay Packers (especially with adding another table to an article that is already to reliant on tables) doesn't feel appropriate.

Just wanted to note, I appreciate your "neutral" sincerely in a case where things aren't black and white, and I respect the dialogue we are having right now, if not for the only reason to assist any future reviewers in their thoughts. If this article were to survive an AFD, similar to List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers, would this satisfy your 3(c) concerns? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would stay neutral – I personally would disagree and wouldn't seek to actively promote the list, but I wouldn't try to block it (in other words, the same stance I have now). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: Withdraw nomination for now. I have other FLCs in the pipeline and don't want to wait for this to get resolved right now. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. --PresN 21:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krashaon19 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article has good potential. I am currently attempting to gain featured status with all Bath City F.C. related lists. I also trust that with more experienced editors assistance, the review process would improve it's quality greatly. Krashaon19 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note

• This nomination was not transcluded to the FLC page until 31 December 2023 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment

• There seem to be some significant sourcing issues here. Taking the Gary Owers row as an example, the refs confirm the exact date of his departure but only the calendar year of his appointment, and neither of them contains any data whatsoever related to the club's win/loss record during his tenure. The two refs against the Lee Howells row don't confirm either his arrival date or departure, let alone the playing record during his tenure. John Relish refs do not seem to support the dates of arrival (other than that he was "new" in late June 2005) or departure, the playing record, or the Somerset Cup wins. I think there is a not insignificant amount of unsourced content in this list so unfortunately I have to oppose at this time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

I've had a look at CTD's issues and I find them to be convincing. You can mark me down as an oppose as well, on the grounds of text-source integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No action taken and the nominator seems to be inactive; archiving. --PresN 20:39, 19 January 2024 (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.