Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2019

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) 19:53:00 27 June 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now a complete listing of all Eastern Pacific tropical storms from 2000–present.

For reviewers, please note this list does not contain entire sections on background and climatology as this is meant to be a child article for List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms (not created yet). The lede does contain a brief summary of what would be expected from these sections. Noah^Talk 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed a typo on one of the storms and just was wondering, on hPa, if it is normal to use commas now. DerpieDerpie:D 02:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "that are also located in the Eastern Pacific basin, which is denoted as the part of the Pacific Ocean north of the equator" rather wordy and I found myself stumbling over it. Try and see if you can rearrange this part of the sentence or cut down on the number of words.
• "move over land" seems odd to me... given that its linking "landfall", would "reach landfall" be an acceptable alternative? (Especially because you use the word often later in the article, it would be good to have "landfall" in the lead.)
• Remove the comma after "Aleutian Low" in paragraph two sentence two.
• The image of the tropical storm needs alt text.
• "Refs" -> "Ref."
• Make the note after "discontinuous duration" a proper superscript note. It's additional information the reader may already know and it helps keep the page cleaner.
• The image of the storm is the only picture on the page. I like the graph under the Landfall section but other than that the list is rather devoid of visuals. Would you be able to add some more images to the page to help illustrate the lists? (And if you do, don't forget to give them alt text!)

Other than that it looks pretty good. All the sources are acceptable. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw I think we are going to do one massive list despite some people having had size concerns. Noah^Talk 16:23, 26 June 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.

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) 21:23:54 23 June 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the feature list criteria. I have pushed 17 lists to FL status and each time I have learned a little. This latest list is the sum of everything I have learned and hopefully produced featured content. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

• • "contested for by Tag teams only" - shouldn't have a capital T on tag
  • "the lineage began in 1957 when they were by Los Hermanos Shadow" - I think there's a few words missing here??
  • " In December 1995, one-half " - shouldn't be a hyphen here
  • "Los Guerreras was never" - Los Guerreras is plural, surely?
  • "but did not defend them between March 14, 2009, and December 25, 2011, but not since then" - doesn't really make sense. I would suggest simply "but did not defend them after December 25, 2011"
  • "There has been at least 41 championship reigns" - "there were at least...."
  • "Los Metálicos (Oro and Plata) has" - had, not has
  • "Championship history is unrecorded from June 14, 1957 to uncertain" - that sounds really weird. Maybe "Championship history is unrecorded from June 14, 1957 for an uncertain length of time"
  • "Uncertain who Espectro" - uncertain whom....
  • This applies in several other places too
  • "Championship vacated when Promo Aztecas" - Promo Azteca (no S)
  • "Atlantis, held the championship for 780 days with Ángel Azteca." => "Atlantis held the championship for 780 days with Ángel Azteca."
  • "Máscara Año 2000, champion with his brother Cien Caras." => "Máscara Año 2000 was champion with his brother Cien Caras."
  • "Héctor Garza (black shirt), one time champion." => "Héctor Garza (black shirt) was a one-time champion."
  • Individual reigns table has a heading of "Team"
  • Footnote a is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
• HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude thank you so much for your input, I have implemented all changes suggested. Please let me know if you see any other issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just had a quick glance and the first paragraph now says "it is generally accepted that the lineage began in 1957 when they were defeated by Los Hermanos Shadow", which still seems to be missing some words..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dang my reading comprehension skills are way off point today. I believe I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted one more thing - the wrestler who partnered Octagon in the final champion team is referred to sometimes as La Parka and sometimes as La Parka Jr. His article says that he is known by both names, but you should be consistent within the article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His name was changed shortly after his second championship victory. I refer to him as "La Parka" for anything past the name change, but the first reign still lists him as "La Parka Jr." since that was his name. Added a couple of notes to help, did that clarify it any? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abolutely. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment the table sorts terribly. And the colspan headers within it sort terribly too (i.e. they bunch up when sorting rendering them pretty much useless). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So each column sorts by the data there is - for the colspan rows it sorts it as if there is no data except for #. Not sure how else it can sort? the # column resets the whole thing, keeps each row in order as they are numbered to reset. Do you have an example of where a colspan sort works like you had in mind? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well no, the date column (for example) doesn't sort correctly, irrespective of colspan'ed entries. I think there's a real question here, i.e. what benefit does sorting give the reader? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the date sorting problem, glad you caught that. Sorting allows the user to sort on individual reign length, location etc. if they are interested. It is start of the standard template for professional wrestling championships and part of every PW FL passed. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well those colspanned rows are still sorting badly, so I wouldn't be able to support as-is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure I am seeing what you are seeing, so please bear with me because I want to make sure this is done right

• Date - Sorts by date, the "Unknown" bars are grouped together, looks okay t me
• Event - Sorts alphabetically, the "—" sorts before the "Unknown" bars, looks okay to me
• Location - Sorts alphabetically, "N/A" and "—" sort differently (one is when it is not known, the other where the data doesn't apply) and again the "unknown" bars are grouped together, looks okay to me

• Which of these are the problem? On and follow up - what browser are you using and skin? Maybe that's why I am no seeing what you are seeing. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorting for real data works now, but those colspanned rows clustering together is unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ':How would you suggest it sorts rows with no data? I don't understand what your "acceptable" state is. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would probably make it unsortable. As I asked before, what benefit does it bring with those nasty colspan rows collecting together incorrectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The entire list? That feela a bit like throwing the babyvoutbwith the bathwater and make thiz FLC inconsistent with every other pw FL in existence. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, if it doesn't sort reliably, it shouldn't sort, nor should the others at the other wrestling FLs. It's unprofessional looking and not intuitive to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  So this is the part where we are fundamentally off kilter here - you say it does not sort "reliably", but it does. It is rock steady, consistenty no matter how you sort, you just don't like it it seems. It sorts the column like it would any table where there is an empty cell - why? Because there is no data for date, there is no data for champion, location, show, length etc. so it sorts appropriately and consistently on the "null" value, except if you click on the "#" where it sorts by order. How does it look "unprofessional" that the table sorts "null" as lower than "0"? Because that's basically what's happening. Should tables with blank cells not sort? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, until we can fix the problem of all those rows clustering unprofessionally together, they shouldn't sort. It probably only affects a handful of tables out of millions, and should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It sorts correctly, I 100% disagree with your assessment and you have not explained how it's "Unprofessional" to sort "null" as "null". If that means you oppose it so be it, I cannot help that. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think our readers will be commensurate with the idea of a "null sorting as a null". They'll just see them all cluster together unprofessionally. It looks junk. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes because sorting that "groups all the things that are alike" is a problem? So here is the thing, you've said "unprofessional" plenty of times, yet not actually explained what is "unprofessional" about the unknown being grouped together when you sort, just repeated the word. Basically it's your subjective opinion being stated, not based on anything factual. The other option to get your support is to make this one championship list inconsistent with all other PW FLs. Not gonna happen. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well torpedoed by a "I want it my way", this is dead, if someone can close it properly please? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:56, 15 June 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) 21:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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