Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2017

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) 00:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My magnum opus is ready for nomination. I started this about ten years ago, in a vaguely presentable form, but this rewrite, which has taken me about two years, is vastly improved:

• The maps are much prettier ("baby poop brown" was a common term), and include the surrounding geographic context instead of floating in a sea of white
• The maps are much better, with more standard text and better handling of other countries (and removing the "unclaimed territory" that continues to haunt me every time this goes viral)
• The disputes are better handled/handled at all, separately, so we get one set of maps of "how the US sees itself" and one set of "how other countries see it".
• Insular territories! These were a great omission from the previous one, when I was in the mindset of "they're possessions, not *part of* the country." But it doesn't matter - they should still be noted, as they are extremely interesting and important.
• The CSA is now actually handled instead of a single lump change.
• The maps on the page now chronicle the changes, instead of showing a snapshot of the country; this should make them much easier to follow, and are generally more useful to the reader. Snapshots are still available at commons, in the link at the top of the article.
• This couldn't have been done without the amazing help of others, especially User:Jeff in CA, User:XavierGreen, and others whom I may have left out.

So, I now present it to y'all's mercy. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. If there are any questions or concerns i can help with going forward with the FL review, i am happy to assist.XavierGreen (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I am sure it is for Golbez and XavierGreen, my assistance with this list is a labor of joy. Kudos to you! I too am glad to help with anything. Jeff in CA (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly lots of work has went into this page, but there are quite a few changes that need to be made before it becomes featured. This biggest issues are that this list is not inline with the style of lists on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists). For example:

• The lead is far too short for a list of this magnitude.  Not done
• The notes section should be made of notes, and located at the bottom of the page.  Not done

• I can give you a good example of why this is important. This note applies to only one entry: "Dates are given in local time. This only matters for some changes in the mid-Pacific. For example, Guam surrendered on the morning of December 10, 1941, which was December 9 in the mainland United States.", so why not add a endnote right after this one point, which links to the bottom of the page with other notes? This is the preferred style of wikipedia, so as to not overwhelm the user with trivia before even getting to the main list! I would use the {{#tag:ref format.

• An excellent idea, but as I was doing it I realized we probably didn't need to specify at all. The date is not confusing, it's not like there's events on the previous and next days that we need to worry about it leapfrogging, so I removed it altogether.

• There is no need to tell the reader to click on the image to view at full screen, this is implicit. In fact, any notes that tell the user what to do should be used very sparingly, and even then only in the notes section.

• Just to expand here, you should never refer to the list itself directly, for example "This article includes", as that should be evident by the title/lead and redundant.

• OK, but we have to communicate the rules of the list, otherwise people will be confused as to why things like Cuba, Berlin, and Attu are omitted.

• I disagree, if you need to communicate the rules (beyond a legend), they should all be done after the table in a notes section, like every other featured list. There is no reason to have a completely new format just for one page. Mattximus (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no argument regarding "click on the image to view" and accept the removal. Just fyi, it is the second click (once at the Commons image view after the first click) that I found helpful in order for me to view the smallest, minute details of an image. Before working on this list, I was unaware (ignorant?) of that capability in Commons, because I had no need. It was an "a-ha" thing when I first wanted to get deep in the weeds.Jeff in CA (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The notes section is completely unsourced. Not done

• Even statements like this: "the purpose of unorganized territory was to act as land for Native American settlement. " needs a source.

• Yes, and not to be rude but I specifically mentioned that in my response, so I'm unsure why you're repeating it here. I've removed it, since it was difficult to source and ultimately unnecessary. --Golbez (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that having a row on "The State of Pennsylvania enacted a constitution, renaming itself the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" constitutes a territorial change... Not done

• Then the scope of the page is more than territorial...

• Probably right; if you have a better title, I'm open to it. I created the term "territorial evolution" out of whole cloth a decade ago.

• The way I see it, a change of name is not a physical alteration of a territory, but it is part of territorial evolution. Just saying. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some notes are not even needed at all "Due to the lower complexity, maps of the changes to the United States in the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, or northwestern North America include any disputes." If this is very important to a map, then the note should be on the map, not before the list.
• Scrolling randomly I came across "The United Kingdom created the British Western Pacific Territories, including Atafu and Nukunono.", how does this related to the territorial evolution of the United States?

I can answer this, the inclusion of Atafu and Nukunono in the British Western Pacific Territories created the territorial dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over those islands. Prior to the creation of the British Western Pacific Territories, these two islands were not claimed by the United Kingdom.XavierGreen (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • If it said "The United Kingdom created the Confederate States of America, including South Carolina and Virginia," would you be asking why this is relevant? Earlier in the list, Atafu and Nukunono are explained, and now this is the earliest known date of their claim by the UK. Why were you confused? --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that would still be confusing. You would have to say the United Kingdom created the CSA out of x parts of the USA. Remember not everybody reading this is an expert. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • When the British claimed Atafu and Nukunono as part of the British Western Pacific Territories, it did not "create them out of x parts of the United States", because the United Kingdom did not recognize them as being possessions of the United States. Thus, the United States and the United Kingdom both considered themselves to be the owners of the same islands at the same time, and had parrallel administrations of their claims. This lasted until 1983, when the United States formally abandoned its claims to the islands and recognized them as belonging to the Government of Tokelau in the Treaty of Tokehega.XavierGreen (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can do for now, hope that's an actionable start. Mattximus (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm unsure what to do about the lede. Any suggestions?
• The notes are more ... instructions/exceptions for the list. They belong at the top but perhaps could use a different name?
• Thanks, not sure where that came from. Removed.
• What in the notes section needs to be sourced? Apart from the definition of "unorganized/Indian" territory, which I'll work on, everything else seems to be either something that doesn't need sourcing, or is a negative, which are included to head off any confusions but themselves likely should not (and in some cases, could not) be sourced.
• Any name change counts, especially since I referred to them specifically as the State of Pennsylvania in the opening entry.

Thank you for looking and for the review! --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to Oppose for now, there are serious MOS issues that would take quite a while to fix (not the least being a very short lead for a very long article, and an unorthodox note section). Also several points above remain, and I haven't even started reviewing the list. I'm happy to continue my review once the above changes are complete. It's an interesting article for sure, but it needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is now longer, but the notes section (although in the correct place) is not in the correct format. Notes should be linked to the place in the article where they apply (as in all other Featured Lists with notes). Also you do not need to include lines like "To see snapshots of the layout of the country at any given moment, visit the Wikimedia Commons category via the box on the right." This does not follow the MOS for featured lists. Nor do notes like "The maps are" "this is a list of" and things like that. Think of them more like footnotes in books, explaining something that is perhaps a bit too trivial to include in the main table.

I can give you concrete example. "While the United States occupied Cuba for a time, it was not ceded to the United States after the Spanish–American War nor ever claimed by it." This should be linked to the place on the table where Spain ceded territory to the USA. I can't strike my oppose until these changes and the other outstanding ones above are addressed. This is a commendable list, however it's still a ways away from featured status. Mattximus (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's say I move the Cuba note to the relevant entry [done, by the way]. But how do I handle a note like "Descriptions of borders are of the idealized versions described in official documents, which usually differ slightly from the actual surveyed border in use."? Yes, Colorado is defined by these four lines, but the reality on the ground is closer to a thousand little lines with a thousand different angles between them. But this applies to every border description. I've removed the notes altogether (if someone's confused, they can ask - I don't need to be so proactive about fighting confusion) but I'm very curious as to any solution you may have for this issue. --Golbez (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now very confused at what you did, it appears there are now no notes whatsoever, the whole notes section is gone. Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! As I said, I've removed the notes altogether, since if there was confusion, someone can ask and we can work from there. But my question about what to do with the note about descriptions of borders. --Golbez (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2017 (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) 21:18, 23 July 2017 (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) 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meet the criteria and Peter Dinklage is awesome... AffeL (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

• Under "Monte-Carlo Television Festival", you mention "Dinklage has been awarded once from one nomination" yet the table claims he was only nominated. I'd change the statement because it may lead the reader into thinking that Dinklage actually won. Other than that, a very a good list indeed. Carbrera (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Thank you. I have now fixed that sentence. - AffeL (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above resolved comments and my suggestion, I will now support this list. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose. Every time I look at this list, I keep finding more and more issues. I just took a look and you didn't request a peer review before nominating this for featured list status. I think you really need to do that and perfect this list before you nominate it a second time. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What issues?.. and you don't have to to request a peer review before nomination something. Your "oppose" does not mean anything if you can't come up and present any real issues with this list. I have addressed all your comments btw, but it's clear that you are not willing to discuss for some reason. - AffeL (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did address all of the comments I have posted so far but I kept finding more and more and concluded that you needed to work on this list more. It's not mandatory to have your article peer reviewed before nominating it but you do need to make sure it is up to FL standards and I think a peer review is a really good way to do that. Now if peer reviews really are defunct, that's a shame but I don't think the FL nomination process should be used as a substitute. Littlecarmen (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not hold any value if you can't come up with any issues with this list and a valid reason for the "oppose". You can't just say that their are problems with this list, but I won't tell you what. - AffeL (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. Un-actionable comments tend to be ignored by closing delegates. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AffeL: Alright, your comment on my nomination may be the most childish thing I have seen during my time on Wikipedia. I'm just going to strike my comments here and remove this page from my watchlist. Good luck with your nomination. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Peer review is defunct. Please add your comments here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: What do you mean it's defunct? Littlecarmen (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barely functioning... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2017 (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) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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