Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2010

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:54, 27 July 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all six FL criteria, and represents one of the best lists Wikipedia has to offer. Adabow (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Personally, following a decade system like this is preferable. The lead is short and the whole table could concievably go into 11 single lines. Therefore I don't think it is large enough (3b). There are also other issues:

• MOS:COLOUR - don't use colour as only method to convey informaiton
• What makes servinghistory.com a WP:RS?
• Consistency: "number-one" or "number one"?

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback!

• Size: I largely based the list on this type. Adabow (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Colour:I have thought about this, but what else could I add without being obstructive and preventing flow?

• You could easily add a § or a dagger or an asterisk or some other punctuation mark immediately after either the song title or artist name. As it is, I have extremely good vision and I can barely make out the grey background, someone with poor vision would not be able to make it out at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• servinghistory: it compiles news from a variety of feeds, this one from the RIANZ. I have added the original source from the RIANZ site (with an archive) as well.
• "number one" is used alone eg "it went to number one", while "number-one" is used in conjunction with other terms eg "it was a number-one single". Do you see what I mean?

Adabow (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: Size. I realise others exist but standards seem to have changed a bit. The year format was quesioned both times on a twice failed FLC. Most other noms seem to be happy to work towards a decade format or were promoted as a decade format. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ja 1207 wants to make this change. What is the WP policy on this sort of information? Adabow(complain) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:54, 27 July 2010 [2].

Nominator(s): Bob talk 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" strand, which was a set of related but separate adaptations of M.R. James and other ghost stories. Although primarily a list, it also serves as the main article about the strand and related productions. Referenced to reliable sources, mainly the BBC and BFI, I think it meets the FL criteria, conveying the main information about the adaptations with relevant information on broadcast dates and adaptations. Bob talk 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This could make a great Good Article, but it is not a list. This is an article about the series that includes a list of episodes. Reywas92^Talk 01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it blurs the boundary somewhat, but thought it was more akin to a season list like Family Guy (season 5), Green Wing (series 1) or List of Bleach episodes (season 2) than an article in the traditional sense, as it mainly consists of a list of individual films (each yearly installment had a completely different cast/story, etc). Bob talk 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant fact which you are missing is that each of those pages is a list split out from a larger topic, while the page you have nominated is the primary page for its subject. Just because an article contains a list does not mean it is a list. --erachima talk 09:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is not a list. No insult to its quality intended, this is simply the wrong venue. --erachima talk 09:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've brought up the issue of whether this is a article or list at WT:GAN. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support well reffed. This is just as much a list, if not more, as the Freedom Award or the Ballon d'Or. In favour of consistency I support the nomination. Sandman888 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:37, 20 July 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was supposed to nominate this some time ago, but I feared that its length—which is nothing more than a direct consequence of the sport's recent and young Olympic history—would be an argument against it during the reviewing process. At that time, this list had more content which I ended up removing (making it even shorter) because it wasn't that vital or topic-related. Anyway, apart from this, I believe it fills all the other criteria... but that's up to you to judge. So, I appreciate any input. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments.

• An Olympic Congress doesn't have the power to add sports to the Programme; this is done by an IOC session, not the Congress. (Though they are held in the same city/timeframe, they are separate things.) Your source doesn't say if it happened in Lillehammer or Paris, as two IOC sessions were held in 1994.

• You're right, it doesn't say anything besides the year it was accepted. Don't know why, I think I just assumed... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why the unusual table of contents?

• If you check other similar FLs, it's quite usual. It was used mostly for those sports with many events which would yield a "mile long" table of contents. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, this list comes down to size. I remember seeing it a couple weeks ago and thinking it was an excellent FLC after London, but we do have 18 medallists, so, I could be persuaded either way on 3b.

Courcelles (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, you are totally right. I still had some doubts, but your comment just goes towards what I described above. This list is still not long enough to fully comply with criterium 3b, so I decided not to proceed with this nomination. Thanks anyway. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination, due to lack of compliance with criterium 3b. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:59, 20 July 2010 [4].

Nominator(s): DreamNight (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because all the old problems were solved. DreamNight (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you mean to go to featured list candidates instead of featured article candidates? Ucucha 18:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this nomination to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, i'm sorry guys.20:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Important Note: To check out about the links used as references to the sale certifications all you need to do is to search for the name "Nightwish" in those websites; the links take you to the online pages of the Phonographic industry from each country (in the case, to the phonographic industry from Finland (IFPI FI), Germany (Bundesverband), Sweden (ifpi SE), Norway (ifpi NOR), Austria (ifpi AT), Greece (ifpi GRE), UK (bpi), Hungary (mahasz), Poland (ZPAV) and Switzerland (ifpi SI). Search for "Nightwish" using the Research Box and you'll see that all the informations about the gold and platinum certifications are true.DreamNight (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Current ref 17 (UK-charts.com) does not support any of the UK chart positions, all of which other than the number 25 placing of "Dark Passion Play" are completely wrong anyway. Nightwish have definitely never had a number 1 hit single in the UK as the article currently claims, in fact they have only charted one single in the UK, for one week at number 60 (see the official website of The Official Chart Company, who compile the UK charts). I haven't checked any of the other chart sources, but I have to oppose a list which contains such blatantly false information -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really brought some fake informations that i translated from the Wikipedia in portuguese. I'm checking out about all the references to the charts. About Nightwish in the UK charts, in the following link you can see that their album Dark Passion Play charted as 25º. You also can read about the most of the other charts. Nightwish.com; DreamNight (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live albums still show UK positions which are not supported by the source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oficial references to the charts in Germany: Musicline.de and UK: Everyhit.com (search for Nightwish to read about Dark Passion Play charts). The other references are OK as everyone can see. DreamNight (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still claiming that "End of an Era" got to number 7 on the UK Albums Chart, this is simply not true. On my talk page you say that it got to number 7 on the UK Rock Albums Chart, if this is the case then you need to change the heading for that column to reflect this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, i changed it.DreamNight (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the actual heading of the column as well as the wikilink it points to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's done. (if we're talking about the same mistake in the certifications column.)DreamNight (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant change the colmun heading that simply says "UK" to something like "UK Rock". People looking at the article as it stands will think that the album got to the top 10 of the main UK Albums Chart, which is not true --

ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, but for me, the original was better.DreamNight (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the wrong heading, I have fixed it for you. And I would disagree that the original weas better, as it was giving misleading information to readers and that is never a good thing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good to me.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Clear and easy understanding. Nice list, my support.. -Tadija^speaks 13:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Quite US-focused, yet it's a Finnish group. Maybe there's a good reason for this ...
  • Dark Passion Play was the first (and only) album charted in USA
• the inclusion of
  • inclusion of what? USA charts? explanation above
• Can "led to Nightwish video clips being shown on MTV" be "led to the broadcast [inclusion?] of Nightwish video clips on MTV"?
  • Better phrase
• The last "also" is redundant, I think.
  • If we're talking about the same "also" it was replaced.
• In the table, most of the text is rather small. There's a huge amount of white space. Can it be better organised? "Extended plays" table: glitch in second-last vertical boundary.
  • The Eps table was fixed, the text in the table is following the discographies protocol: Title, Releasing Date, labels, album format, charts (max of 10 charts in each table), and informations about sales and ceritifications.
• I hunted for information about why some of the numbers are bolded. Couldn't find, but didn't bother much.
  • They're bolded for being number one, to have the highlights.
    • According to WP:CHARTS "peaks should not appear boldfaced".--Cannibaloki 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "bolds" were erasedDreamNight (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Caption at top: remove "in", which is ungrammatical (it would be "on", but just use a comma instead.
  • "On" was better.DreamNight (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This discography is full of original research, thus fails with the criteria for featured lists. It should be noted that this page (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates) is not a substitution for peer review.--Cannibaloki 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added references in the necessary places, about the called "original research"... Did you check out all the references to the sales ceritifications and to the charts positions? all the references are right, they take you to the oficial website of the phonographic industry from each country, only search for Nightwish in the research box 'cause we can't to use the link of searching with the name digited. Read it by yourself. DreamNight (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but nightwish.com is a primary source and should be avoided.--Cannibaloki 17:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some informations like worldwide sales and original line-up only are verified on Nightwish.com DreamNight (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, FL Criteria states that features lists should be examplory of wikipedia's best works. This is not the case because:
  • per MOS:DISCOG no text should appear is the small font,
  • per MOS:BOLD number one chart positions should not be in bold.
  • per WP:OVERLINK the tables contain overlinking.
  • There is no reason, requirement or need to include sales for the singles.
  • the references are not formatted correct. Publishers and work fields need to be filled in.
  • per MOS:DISCOG all tables and columns should be equally aligned. Currently the tables are not visually easy to read because of this. try reducing column size to maximum of width=30.
  • "Sleeping Sun (Four Ballads of Eclipse)" in the video section has no source for who directed the video.
  • sales sourced for certifications are no longer allowed per multiple discussions at record charts, wp:songs etc. instead you provide the link for sales thresholds.

Overall this work is not a good example of the best work. See Rihanna discography for an example of a featured Article which is also a discography. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with the fixes, except that the table is still mostly acres of white space, with tiny print. Why FLC does not focus more on table formatting I do not know. "Album details is too wide, and why not remove the year column altogether and put it in parentheses after each title in the current second column? Yet more radical surgery is required: why not conflate the peak chart positions columns into one, the way that all countries are listed in single columns for certifications and sales? That would enable wider columns where they are needed, proper font size, and less wasted space. Tony (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC) PS Or if the last is unacceptable, narrow the Album details column. Tony (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Oppose

• there is small text in the albums tables.
• for the UK charts you use everyhit.com, that only verifies 1 of the positions.
• the sales thresholds shouldn't be in brackets next to the certifications.
• according to the BPI database, nothing by Nightwish has been certified in the UK. so the certification for 'Dark Passion Play' is fake.
• different countries are used in each table, it's very inconsistent and looks very odd.
• in the singles table you use the Nightwish biography to source the European chart positions. that page doesn't even mention chart positions.
• just flicking through the certification and chart position refs for other countries it appears that most of them are completely wrong.

This article still has lots and lots of problems and this should've gone to peer review, not an FLC discussion. The nomination should probably be withdrawn due to the vast amount of issues brought up on this page. Mister sparky (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The list looks unencyclopedic, there are reference formatting errors everywhere, the lead is too short, and the whole article is not FL worthy at present. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:59, 20 July 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): Etincelles ^(talk) 10:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Looking at the other season-type featured lists (i.e. 30 Rock (season 3), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2), The Simpsons (season 4)) this one seems incomplete. There's no reception or crew sections, which would be necessary. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:59, 20 July 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it could reach FL status, is the second time I submit the list for consideration, I'll be watching closely this nomination. Thanks in advance. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Looking at the history, nothing has changed since the last nomination. Has the idea of a decade list been discussed? Personally, I think by decade is superior. See my oppose here for further reasoning. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy with decade lists, but I do not have information for 2000-2006. I have access from mid 2007 to date. Is that enough for a decade list? Jaespinoza (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that is enough. The information is out there, for example I found some stuff[7][8][9]. I suggest you withdraw this information and have a comprehensive (cr.3) look for decade information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: The 3b question is tough here, as there are only nine linked songs. Typically, 10 is the magic number for articles in a list. I'll leave that up to the delegates though, here are my issues:
  • "In 2008, 11 albums reached number-one in the chart, including Para Siempre, the 79th studio album by Vicente Fernández, spent 14 non-consecutive weeks at the top and was certified Diamond in México." I'd split the sentences after 'chart'.
  • "while Spanish singer-songwriter also hit twice the top of the chart," while the Spanish..

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:21, 18 July 2010 [10].

Nominator(s): BLUE_DOG^TN 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is like the men's major championships one like List of Masters Tournament champions, which I believe this is equal quality. BLUE_DOG^TN 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For starters why not convert ref #1 to a general ref and perhaps cite the individual tournaments to individual sources? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it tell me how you think that I am doing.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far, 1992, 1994 and 2001 I was not able to find them!BLUE_DOG^TN 03:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got them all, I think this one is about their or getting closer!BLUE_DOG^TN 04:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wish there was more for the lead, but looks good. Any of the champs lefty? Staxringold _talk^{<span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;"contribs} 00:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to my recollection, which I don't know of any left-handed female players in all of golfing history!BLUE_DOG^TN 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It needed some cleanup for grammar and writing style, which I have done. The basic article is now very sound and this is an important addition to the collection of articles on women's professional golf. The data well-collected and presents and this provides information that is not readily found anywhere else online. --Crunch (talk)

• Good Job.BLUE_DOG^TN 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All newspapers in the references should be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done on this and all the articles in this series, thanks for the comment.BLUE_DOG^TN 14:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Finally, someone has created a list related to women's golf. Took way too long, I believe. If you look at my editing history, I know a little something about working on bios on the field. (Okay, bio. Same difference.) So this is perfect for me to review. Note that a couple of these may also applpy to the other lists in this budding series.

• First and most importantly, why are the winners from 1972 to 1982 not included in the table? Because it wasn't a major championship? Personally I feel that if the tournament was held in a given year, it should be included as long as reliable sources can be found to prove the facts. There should be Google News articles on the old tournaments like the ones used already, and if needed, I have almanacs that cover the winners and their scores, though no par totals are given.

Then I would have to change the navbox at the bottom of each page because it says major champions, which means non-major champions are not included in the articles.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The comma after "This event has been conducted in stroke play competition" should be removed.

FixedBLUE_DOG^TN 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice to include a few more statistical details in the lead. The ones I'm thinking of in particular are the first and most recent winners, and perhaps the number of players to win more than once. The latter stat is not as important to this list since there are few multiple champions, but it would be useful for the LPGA Championship and U.S. Women's Open lists in particluar.

Fixed your first suggestion, not many more stats I could put into the lead with out going into trivia.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Something about the last sentence in the lead doesn't agree with me. It just looks too long and winding. How about something like, "The fewest amount of strokes required to complete 72 holes in the tournament's history, and therefore the best score, is Dottie Pepper's 269 (19-under-par) in 1999."

FixedBLUE_DOG^TN 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note a could use citation.

FixedBLUE_DOG^TN 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 25 shouldn't have part of the title in all capital letters.

FixedBLUE_DOG^TN 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the men's major lists, such as List of PGA Championship champions, have a helpful note explaining what par is. This is really useful for the non-golf fan, and may be worth incorporating here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FixedBLUE_DOG^TN 03:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Couple more things I noticed while checking the changes: References 12 and 22 also have unwanted all caps, and reference 32 (the one now citing note a) should have an indication that it is in PDF format. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!!69.137.121.17 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on 3a grounds. Not including Jane Blalock-Sally Little means this list doesn't do what it says it does. As it stands the list acts like the championship began in '83, which it didn't. This isn't a list of major winners, which would rightly leave off the first 11 winners, this is a list of winners of a specific tournament. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could say the navbox is wrong because it says major champions not LPGA Tour winners now does it! So, they must be left off the lists because if the navboxes are suppose to be correct and not made a hideous laughing stock by putting in the non-major winners. By the way, we don't make lists to highlight non-major tournaments or winners in the golf project, we only reserve them for major winners and championship tournaments only! Until we get this resolved I will not fix any other errors with these or this article because we will encounter the same junk with the du Maurier Classic article and the Women's British Open article! I cannot in good faith allow them to be included in these articles because they were not sanctioned as major champions and major championship period end of story! If it must fail because of this little diff than so be it!BLUE_DOG^TN 23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ending involvement by nominator mark article as failed if 3a has to be met because these articles were not meant for that purpose at all! I am out Bluedogtn! See you all later!69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:40, 17 July 2010 [11].

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of it's kind, I believe, for nomination. There has been some discussion at WP:FOOTY, but there is (as usual) no consensus on whether these articles shd exist. But the fact is that they do exist for almost all major clubs (so someone thought they be important). It's well-reffed, has a lead and some pictures. I'll be the first to say it isn't very interesting, but that's (luckily) not a criteria. Sandman888 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 3(b), and furthermore I think this (and all similar articles) are AfD candidates on the basis of the results violating WP:NOTSTATS, and everything else being either duplication or easily includable into other articles.

I endorse the quality of this list, I really do. Once upon a time thought I worked fast, but what you've managed to with Barcelona in a short space of time is nothing short of amazing. But the fact of the matter is that this list is simply over the top for wikipedia. The prose says absolutely nothing that won't be in a decent history article. The results of finals could be merged into either the records and statistics or the list of seasons, and as I explained to PeeJay in the aforementioned discussion, the overall record in a slightly expanded form would be better off in the records and statistics as well. The European results would in future belong in individual season articles.

As for the Luton article you cited at WT:FOOTY, I feel that it shouldn't be an FL without including cup results. But given my vested interest in giving them a hard time I'm staying well away from that one. In its defence, it is an extension of the records and statistics that could not reasonably be incorporated anywhere else, devotes a total of one line plus relevant footnotes to their entire history against any given club, and while I would personally demote it as-is, the work that would need to be done to keep it there would not be all that difficult. WFC (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has an open peer review request. Per the rules, an article should not be at PR and FLC at the same time, please close one or the other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Director's note Sandman, this FLC has been removed from the nominations list for now because you already have two nominations running. Please wait for one of your older FLCs to be archived before re-submitting this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:40, 17 July 2010 [12].

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first nomination (AFAIK) of a list of football honours.

Took this list from this to triple the size, including independent references and the usual lead. It also serves as a nice gallery of the different trophies. It's been through PR where one editor was concerned about 3.b, which was before the inclusion of runners up (as per consensus on FCB talkpage). The layout is based on List of Aston Villa F.C. records and statistics and the general footy honours layout. Sandman888 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I'm trying not to review articles until the English season starts, I do watchlist the main FLC page in case lists that I'm interested in come up. There is, in my opinion, scope to include the pertinent information in the list of seasons article, by using footnotes to elabourate on scores and opposition in finals. Even for a club as successful as FC Barcelona, I'm confident that a Featured topic on the club would not need this list. You may wish to initiate a discussion there, to garner the opinions of regulars at that process. Regards, WFC (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you mean? on WP:FT or on List of FC Barcelona seasons? I don't think having the wins in footnotes would be a good solution, as most english football clubs have a section on trophies per se (on a record and stats page), and curiously, some spanish teams have a separate articles about honours. So in either case the content shd remain somewhere. Sandman888 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant on WP:FT, as they are the more authoritative guide on the completion of a topic. If regulars there feel that this article is merited, I doubt anyone here would have just cause to oppose on 3(b). If they don't, or there isn't consensus, it may be appropriate to consider alternative solutions. You are of course correct, the content merits inclusion somewhere, and the season article was merely an idea that popped into my head; there is probably a better way. I just question whether a stand-alone article is the best way forward. Regards, WFC (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • one editor thought it shd be included. No-one else has offered their opinion. Discussion is here. Sandman888 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put the two articles together here User:Sandman888/Sandbox, so people can see how they'd be if merged. Sandman888 (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I know I'm the one that caused the delay here, but I'd appeal for this FLC to be kept open for a bit. Sandman's attempts at seeking consensus on the matter at the featured topics page and WT:FOOTY look like producing some sort of consensus. Even if the end result is a merge, this FLC being open could add uncharacteristic urgency to the decision making process there. WFC (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you opposed the Europe article on 3.b I wd like to hear where you suppose that shd go? As noted on the footy page, "Europe" "Stats" and "Honours" in one article is about 114 kb, that is too much. So which one do you reckon shd not be merged? Sandman888 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My personal opinion is that there is no need for ten articles if seven will serve the purpose to the same effect. I'll leave that judgement to others, and go with the flow. As an aside, a 114kb list isn't really a problem. An indidivual, 114kb sortable table possibly would be. Regards, WFC (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with WFC. Regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• withdraw , too much hassle for little stars. Have fun! Sandman888 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:12, 16 July 2010 [13].

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little list I created. Been here before, but there where some issues with the naming. A rFc ensued, which only had support for the employed naming convention. Sandman888 (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is 200 appearances the new accepted threshold, or is it just for this list? I remember the last list used 100 appearances, which I find better. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus on threshold. If it were 100 or less for FLC it wd create ~50 new redlinks, and I'd abandon the FLC along with any other Spanish "list of X footies" save for Real. Sandman888 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The highest number I could see myself supporting would be 100. It still wouldn't be excessively large, at least I don't think it would be. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A lack of reviewers, I withdraw this nomination. Sandman888 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 03:46, 12 July 2010 [14].

Nominator(s): Rp0211 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it shows very high quality. Looking at other lists under the "Lists of awards by musicians" category, it matches the quality of other lists in the same category. According to the Featured list criteria, this article:</noinclude>

1. Uses Prose. It features professional standards of writing with correct grammar, punctuation, and sentence flow.
2. Uses Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
3. Uses Comprehensiveness.
   • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
   • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
4. Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
   • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
   • (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.
6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.