Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): POS78 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because It is important in the lists of historical monuments and has sufficient and reliable sources POS78 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two drive-by comments

• At just four sentences, the lead is far far too short
• Why is the word "fire" capitalised in the article title? I can see no reason for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• I would lose the word "see" in the two brackets in the lead
• "For, one "who sacrifices unto fire with fuel in his hand ..., is given happiness"." - this isn't a complete sentence
• "The Adrian is a historical Fire Temple" - here you have capitals on both words of "Fire Temple". The title of the article only has a capital on Fire, and the first sentence of the lead doesn't have a capital on either word. Which is correct?
• "The Adrian is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => "The Adrian is a historical Fire Temple belonging to"
• "the story of finding Zarathustra and accepting Vishtaspa's religion is regulated" - the story is "regulated"? What does that mean?
• Under the second temple, the second sentence is insanely long and needs breaking up. Also, no reason for a capital A on "and" in the middle of a sentence
• "The Adur Farnbag is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => "The Adur Farnbag is a historical Fire Temple belonging to"
• No need to keep wikilinking fire temple
• No need for capital on Mosque
• "The Espi Mazget is a historical Fire Temple and mosque belonging to"
• "It related to the period Sassanid antiquity building." - I think this should just be "It relates to the Sassanid period of antiquity"
• "The Fire Temple of Aspakhu is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => belonging to
• "The Fire Temple of Azar Ju is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => belonging to (I'm going to stop typing that each time it occurs, just check for all the uses and fix them all)
• No need to keep wikilinking Sasanian Empire
• "eight kilometers west of city center" => "eight kilometers west of the city center"
• Fire Temple of Isfahan description has no sources
• Is there a way to vary the descriptions a bit? It gets a bit repetitive reading "The Fire Temple of [X] is a Fire Temple belongs to the [Y] dynasty and is located in [Z] County" over and over again............
• " The Fire Temple of Kusan is a historical Fire Temple belongs to the Early centuries" - no need for capital on Early
• Fire Temple of Yazd note is only partly sourced
• "The Temple of Mehr is a historical Temple belongs to the Prehistory" - no need for a capital on Prehistory
• All sources which are in (I presume) Persian need the language indicated. Also, a translation of the title would be useful
• Think that's all from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

• I agree with Chris: the lede is far too short.
• Could you add scope to the temple name column?
• Could you also add coordinates for the temple locations?
• You might run into some problems with the sources: I'm not sure they're reliable.

More in-depth comments later. ~ HAL333 21:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Is anyone planning to address the comments above? I added quite an extensive list of comments eight days ago and in all that time the only one that's been addressed is the incorrect capitalisation of the title (and that change wasn't made by the nominator)......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to now firm up an oppose on the grounds that the nominator isn't making any attempt to address comments which are now nearly two weeks old..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above until above comments are addressed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 20:10, 31 March 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 unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've improved the article significantly with all required information, citations and structure and from previous experiences of nominations I've taken care of small details carefully. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria per WP:WIAFL and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some inconsistent formatting between websites: the-aiff.com vs Indian Super League (why not indiansuperleague.com?)

Consistency should be between same website, not different, i.e, if once put the-aiff.com, then another one should not be AIFF. But it can be IndianSuperLeague and it should be consistent for all IndianSuperLeague citations.

• links for The Times of India, The Hindu and Sportstar should be every time

No, not every time, once is enough.

• date missing for ref 4
• ref 5 missing website and author
• date for ref 7
• refs 6 and 10 have website/publisher formatted differently when they're the same
• ref 12 missing date and author
• why is the Times Now Network in ref 13 but not ref 3?

because agencies are different, one is PTI, another is TNN

• ref 16 missing date
• Reliability is good. Glanced through for some brief spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, fixed. Other points are addressed above. Drat8sub (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drat8sub, the reason I brought up these things is because they're inconsistent, I don't know why you bother disagreeing about something that takes 5 seconds, it wastes everyone's time. The reason we link publishers is so a user can hover over a ref and see the link, no reader goes to the actual references section so linking every time makes sense – either way, the only reason I brought it up is because you linked India today in refs 8 and 9 but not the others... I have gone ahead and linked them. If you're going to use the website parameter you should use it consistently, otherwise change it to publisher. Once again, this fix would take literally 5 seconds, I have implemented it... feel free to change back to "Indian Super League" is you're going to change to the "website=" to "publisher=". Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I'm not changing. I believe in linking once as hardly anyone open link from the reflist and above that it's very short reflist. Drat8sub (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on AIFF but a few comments:

• Why is this article not called AIFF Player of the Year Awards? The text in bold style in the opening sentence and the article title are meant to be the same (see for example 69th Academy Awards).
• The AIFF Women’s Player of the Year award --> better to be consistent with the opening sentence and have a capital for Award here too
• Between 2001 and 2012, no women's award was given out --> bit odd. The 2012 seems to indicate this range is inclusive but 2001 did have an award, so inconsistent. Better perhaps to avoid the scope issue altogether and rephrase to something along the lines of "After the inaugural award, no women's awards were given out until 2012 when ..."
• Other than Bembem Devi, Bala Devi has also won the award twice in 2015 and 2016. --> a comma is needed after twice. Now it reads as if many awards were handed out in 2015.
• AIFF Emerging Player of the Year award --> capital A again
• was introduced in 2013, a similar award for women was introduced in 2015 --> better would be "was introduced in 2013, and a similar award for women in 2015.
• List of AIFF Men's Player of the Year winners --> List of AIFF Men's Player of the Year Award winners
• Sunil Chhetri has received the award a record six times in 2007 --> a comma is needed after times
• and most recently for the 2018−19 season --> why the change to seasons? Why not the year? Did something change in the way the awards worked? If so, that should be mentioned somewhere.
• Bembem Devi was the first recipient of the award in 2001; it was not awarded between 2002 and 2012. Bembem Devi retained it when it was awarded again in 2013 --> that is a lot of repetition of award. Perhaps something along the lines of "Bembem Devi was the first recipient of the women's award in 2001. Between 2002 and 2012 the contest was not held. Bembem Devi won again when the women's award was restarted, in 2013."
• Add the club names the player was playing for, similar to Premier League Player of the Season
• Add tables with awards won by club, similar to Premier League Player of the Season

I did do a small spotcheck of sources and all looks fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drat8sub hasn't edited for a month, if no-one else wants to pick this up I guess we'll have to archive it in a couple of days time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I'll partially handle the comments. Edwininlondon, I resolved all but point 1, and the last two. GeraldWL 07:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis ok, thanks, let's see how it goes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, The Rambling Man: I shall attempt to deal with the last 2 points. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started this but need some guidance as I know nothing about football in India. None of the award sources I checked list the winner's club, so this needs to be pieced together. It seems these awards are handed out in December. I think the seasons run from autumn to spring. Taking a random winner, Eugeneson Lyngdoh who won in 2015, my best guess is that he won the award for his performance at Bengaluru during the 2014-15 season and his performance at Pune City during the 2015-16 season. So in the club column both Bengaluru and Pune City should be listed. Am I doing this right? There are quite a few who have moved clubs a lot. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm abandoning this. I can't find any sources for the clubs these players played for. The usual sources have nothing on the winners from the 90s. So what that decision and thanks to edits by Gerald Waldo Luis, I now support. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1998 and 1999, no winner was announced." Perhaps "No winner was announced in 1998 and 1999."
• "Between 2001 and 2012, no women's award was given out." Perhaps "No winner was given out from 2002 up to 2012." The list says that Devi is the recipient in 2001, so why is it "Between 2001 and 2012"?
• "a similar award for women was introduced in 2015." Perhaps say the name of the award, if there's one?
• Recommend adding alt texts.

GeraldWL 10:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drat8sub I will close this nomination in two days if no-one steps up to take it over as the nominator hasn't edited since last November. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: bump --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I don't understand why the men and women table can't be merged like it is for the emerging award.
• Suddenly it goes from 2017 to "2018–19" so did the award change to being a "seasonal" thing?
• 1998, 1999 sorts out of order.
• Looks like we have an image of Bembem Devi which could be cropped for use here.
• Ref 5 is missing a work/publisher/website.
• Ref 6, "The Hindu" isn't a publisher, it's a work.
• Sometimes India Today refs have a publisher, sometimes not.
• Ref 3 and ref 13 have same work but different publisher.
• I'm not seeing this award mentioned in the "Football in India" template so it should either be added or the navigational template should be removed.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - this FLC's been open for a few days shy of six months, is it maybe time to put it out of its misery......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2021 (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.

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, 22 March 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as it clearly shows all the adequate information on the topic Living prime ministers of India, moreover, the table in this article displays the dated of swearing-in and death of all prime minsters so far, calculates the difference in dates, and displays every date in same uniform format. Same type of list created by me on Living presidents of India has also got a Featured list status, so I hope this article should also get the same.
Feel free t criticize or suggest any changes in either of the articles.
This list has been created by me
13:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose on the lead alone - a lead comprising two sentences is wholly unsuitable for a FL. Also, contrary to what you claim, Living presidents of India is not a Featured List. It was only created 11 days ago and has never been through the FLC process. You added the star yourself in the same edit that created the article - why did you do that? It is totally inappropriate...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, while creating the article, I added the templates like Lists of presidents of India, Union ministries of India and so on, which I copied from a page with similar topic, and by mistake, I also the featured list tage which I did not realize that it has been done by me until now, I assure that it was not intentional. So I would be careful in future and request you to kindly close this FLC. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
   ::ping to ChrisTheDude Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 03:43, 21 March 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 Dr Salvus via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

In your opinion, the page satisfies the FL Criterias? Dr Salvus (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate it for the featured list because in my opinion it meets all the criteria to become Featured List. After proposing the appointment a few days ago I made many changes and I also asked for the peer review. Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus: You cannot delete other users' comments from an FLC, as you did here. This is unacceptable behavior for any talk page or discussion. I have added the comments back. While I am willing to accept on good faith that this may have been an accident, if it happens again, I will be forced to oppose on a procedural basis. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: I apologize. I made an error in good faith. I got confused in something. I didn't understood what I had to do. Please leave comments about this page. Are you for or against about the nomination of the page for FL?

In terms of the actual article, sourcing is still a major concern.

• Source 1 is from AlterVista, which allows anyone to make their own website, so we don't know if it is reliable.
• Source 2 says nothing about Serie B, Serie C, and Serie D teams, so it isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
• Source 3 is about this year's championship, not past years' championships, so it also isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
• Source 6 is a book from 2004, so even if it verifies everything before that (I'm assuming it does, but I can't check because I don't have the ISBN, which you should probably add), it leaves the last 15 or so years unsourced.
• Source 7 contradicts the article and cites Wikipedia, so it is no good. (This was pointed out to you in the peer review.)

Other issues:

• There are no images; per WP:FLCR #5b, you should probably add one or two.
• I'm not a fan of writing the team names twice in years with two legs in the finals. At a quick glance, it gives the wrong impression that the team won two years in a row. I would suggest merging the team names in those years to span both rows.
• Don't use rows that span multiple columns, as in 1937–38, 1940–41, and so on. This causes accessibility and sorting issues. If you need to explain something, put it in an existing box or in a footnote. (The exception is 1926–27, since there was no final.)

If you're looking for similar FL examples, I would suggest looking at List of FA Cup Finals and List of Super Bowl champions as a starting point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Hi. I made some edits. Is the page ready for FL, or it need of more edits? Unfortunatley I did not find the ISBN of the book I've cited. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: - seriously, you don't need to keep asking over and over again if people think the article is ready for FL. People will support it if they think it's ready, you don't need to keep asking everyone the question...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've made some changes, but not everything that I noted was fixed. Right away, I noticed there are still rows spanning multiple columns that cause sorting issues and you did not remove source 1 even though its reliability is unclear (in other words, not acceptable for a FL). Also, the new source 5 does not appear reliable, and the attendance numbers for recent tournaments are still unverified. Additionally, the image does not have alt text, which it needs for accessibility reasons.

When it comes to sourcing, don't just find a random website listing the information you need to verify. You need to use reliable sources – official league or tournament websites, or websites for newspapers and magazines, are ideal. You also must have clear sources for everything in the list. You may not be able to find a single reliable source listing all of the information in the table for every tournament; in that case, find source for individual matches. Is it more work? Absolutely – but FLs aren't easy to do properly; they require a lot of time and research to be thoroughly sourced and verified. Please don't rush this; take the time to find everything you need. That ISBN, for instance, has to be out there somewhere; don't say you can't find it after only a few hours of work. (For reference, my current FL nominee has 172 references, and it took me about a month of dedicated work and research to get it from here to here.) If this needs to happen, maybe you should withdraw the nomination and take the time to find all of those sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the image you used is taken from Getty Images, meaning it is not free to use. I have removed the link here and will be deleting the image from Wikimedia Commons shortly. You cannot add copyrighted images to an article without a detailed explanation of why the image is necessary and why there are no alternatives available, which you have not done here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The photo caption should be "The Coppa Italia trophy" (no 's)
• There should not be a space between the end of the second sentence and the ref
• "Since the first final of the 1922 season between Vado and Udinese" => "Since the first final between Vado and Udinese in 1922" (and no need to link the 1922 season again, you already linked it two sentences earlier)
• There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the second paragraph
• "Juventus holds the record" => "Juventus hold the record"
• "Milan lost the greatest" => "Milan have lost the greatest"
• There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the third paragraph
• "The final match with the highest number of scored goals" => "The highest-scoring final"
• "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, where Sampdoria won 6–1" => "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, which Sampdoria won 6–1"
• The refs immediately after that should be in correct numerical order
• There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref after "Juventus in 2020"
• No need to link Juventus again in the last sentence of the lead
• Refs after the final sentence of the lead should be in correct numerical order
• Refs at the top of each table should be in correct numerical order
• There should not be a full stop after "edition not completed" in 1926-27
• Why were there no finals between 1922 and 1927, between 1927 and 1936, and between 1943 and 1957? This should be explained somewhere, probably in the lead
• If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below
• I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s
• Ref 1 is some random person's blog - not a reliable source
• UEFA.com is not the author of ref 7
• Date format is different in different refs
• Quite a bit of work to do, I'm afraid...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:

I made the edits that you advised me. Thank you. I've not understood very well these two comments.

• If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below (what do you mean?)
  • If you sort on the "winners" column, and then sort on "season" so that they go back into date order, the row saying "Internazionale won 2–1 on aggregate." for 1981-82 appears below the results of the two matches, but the row saying "2–2 on aggregate: Roma won 4–2 on penalties after extra time." for 1980-81 appears above the results of the two matches??? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s (data about the numbers of spectators for each final from the 1980s to today are present) -- Dr Salvus (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that I find it implausible there is no available source for the attendance at the final in, for example, 1986, given that List of FA Cup Finals has (sourced) attendance figures right back to the 1870s.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much. I would like know if the page will be suitable for FL when I will find the data about attendance and when I'll make the adjustment which you've advised? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Dr Salvus, we know you would like to know if the page will be suitable for FL, because you keep asking. This is the 6th time you've explicity asked on this page, not counting the nomination itself (or your first nomination). As you have already been told twice: Don't keep asking. Rather, read about the FL process in the blue box at the top of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates.

      And no, when you have made all of the changes suggested by ChrisTheDude, you need to address the concerns raised by RunningTiger123. There may be more editors looking at the list you've nominated, and they will probably raise other issues. Be patient, and let the process play out. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Dr Salvus (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does who mean by what? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• There are still lots of spaces between full stops and references, something I pointed out above
• "and 1943 from 1957" should be "and from 1943 to 1957"
• "the competition was not concluded on 1926–27" => "the competition was not concluded in 1926–27"
• "Finals matches of Coppa Italia" (above the table) => "Coppa Italia finals" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: - do you plan to return and address the outstanding comments, some of which are ten days old? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:. I did not edit the page because I have not find informations about the attendance of final matches Dr Salvus (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

• Since I commented above, there has been a fresh round of editing, and now the big table (the matches) has no references at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this nomination should probably be withdrawn for the time being. While the formatting has seen significant improvements, there are still issues with sourcing, and given the nominator's apparent struggle to find sources (see here), I don't think it'll have all of the citations it needs in a reasonable timeframe. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to confirm, if sources genuinely aren't available for the crowds at the finals where this info is currently missing then I will strike any objection on that basis, and the other issues seem reasonably easily fixable. But it just seems implausible to me that crowd figures for the final of the national cup in one of the world's leading football nations in the not-too-distant past aren't available..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: Until the 1980s, the smaller teams hoped to be eliminated from the cup as soon as possible to focus only on the championship. This indicates the lack of importance that the tournament had. Here is the cause as to why there is not much data on spectators in stadiums Dr Salvus (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think he's talking about the recent finals, which are more significant and should have sources for their attendances. In other words, there may not be sources for attendance for finals from the 1930s (though I would still encourage you to look for it), but there should definitely be sources for recent decades. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @RunningTiger123: Data about finals from 1980s to today are present Dr Salvus (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Dr Salvus:: Correct, but you don't have any sources for this information, so it's not acceptable in its current state. Everything in FLs (and on Wikipedia in general) that might be challenged has to be sourced. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @RunningTiger123: Sources are from non-live web sites. Are these OK for FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Dr Salvus: Yes, as long as the original website is accessible through some online archiving service. Readers have to be able to access the resource somehow; if there is no remaining record of the website, it will not work. The websites still have to pass all standards for reliability as well (i.e. no self-published sources). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @RunningTiger123: I find some sources that there are link rot. Are that OK? Dr Salvus (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @RunningTiger123: Is the source that I add reliable? Dr Salvus (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (stopped indenting as it was getting silly) Which source do you mean? The only ref currently against the table is the Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio, which looks OK but doesn't cover the last 16 years..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChrisTheDude: I can add the sources for period from 2005 to today Dr Salvus (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RunningTiger123 and ChrisTheDude: I add the sources. Is the page ready for FL? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with calcio.com, which appears to be the Italian version of worldfootball.net. I'm generally inclined to think it's reliable, but I'm really not sure; I'll have to do more research unless someone else knows more about it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @RunningTiger123: calcio.com is the italian version of worldfootball.net. Dr Salvus (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that; I'm trying to say that I don't know if worldfootball.net is reliable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regard to whether the page is ready for FL: There are still changes that were suggested weeks ago that have not been addressed. For example, I mentioned issues regarding rows spanning multiple columns and the issues they create for sorting; this has not been fixed yet. Please reread everyone's comments and make sure all of our suggestions have been implemented. Once you're done making changes, we'll give our support or oppose the nomination in accordance with FLC policy. I would encourage you to not ask if the list is ready for FL status every time you make a change; we'll know if it's ready, and we'll tell you when that happens. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FLC in about a year, and only my second overall, so this may be a bit rusty. This is a list and description of all eight properties in Linn County, Kansas, that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: two historic sites, two bridges, two schools, a courthouse, and a former jail. Hog Farm _Talk 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Colour by itself cannot be used to indicate something per WP:ACCESS - you will need to also use a symbol Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

• The map is fine, I'm sure, if you know where it is contextually, but for me (for instance) it's basically approximately a square to the right of an approximate rectangle. It would be useful to show it in the context of the US as well as just boxy ol' Kansas.
• Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, bit clunky to read, we're looking for engaging prose.
• Last para of lead, "National Register of Historic Places in Linn County, Kansas," all over overlinked.
  • I've removed that whole sentence.
• Linn County Courthouse is a dab link.
  • Fixed by a dabfixer.
• "Battle of Mine Creek Site " etc if you're not using the official/formal name, then write this kind of thing in sentence case, so "Site" should be "site".
  • It's listed on the Register as the "Battle of Mine Site", so I'd say this is an official enough name to warrant the current capitalization
• I think it's useful in the lead to describe what the "National Register of Historic Places" means and why/how things get added to it.
• Please ensure that the use of templates like {{NRHP row}} meet MOS:DTT.
• How does the image column sort?! I would make it unsortable.
• Description being free text, sortability is also not sensible.
• How does location sort?
• "City or town" column seems to sort at least three different ways.
• Ref 3 isn't a ref, it's a footnote.
• Colourings etc, like Chris says, shouldn't be exclusively used to indicate something. And moreover, we shouldn't have to go to another article to find the key to this article.
• Ref 13 has spaced hyphen, dash per MOS required.
  • I'm not sure what you're seeing. All of the references with dashes in the title are bringing the dash through {{endash}}, so there shouldn't be any hyphens in there. Although the difference is evidently small enough that I don't see why MOS:DASH compliance is significant for FAC or FLC. Just another MOS hoop to jump through that doesn't really affect content
• Turns out ref 1 and ref 5 are also footnotes, not refs.
• If, as I suspect, The Wichita Eagle is a newspaper or similar, it should be in italics.
  • Corrected

I haven't looked at the descriptions or the lead text in detail, the technical issues should be resolved though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (some may duplicate the above)

• The opening could do with an explanation of what the Historic Register actually is, to give context (without the reader having to click away to another article to find out). This would also allow the opening paragraph to be beefed up from its current single sentence
• "This is intended to be a complete list of the properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Linn County, Kansas, United States." - is there really any need to state this? I would have thought it reasonably obvious that an article entitled National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Kansas would list all the places on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Kansas.
  • I've removed this. A holdover from an earlier version of this article where that statement was literally half of the lead.
• "The locations of National Register properties for which the latitude and longitude coordinates are included below, may be seen in a map" - where's the map? I don't get this sentence at all......
  • Also removed. Another holdover from before I started editing the article,
• There's a large amount of whitespace between the last paragraph and the heading, can that be reduced?
  • I've shuffled some stuff around and removed a random {{clear}}, and it looks a lot better on my screen now.
• Could the first column be given a title, even if it is only "No."? It looks weird with a ref just floating there.
• Also, as TRM pointed out, that ref isn't a ref, it's a footnote and should be formatted as such
• And it's really weird that the ref/footnote essentially says "there's a key to these colours, but you are going to have to look elsewhere for it". The key to this article should be in this article.
• Image, location, and description columns shouldn't be sortable
• No queries on the text other than "The Old Linn County Jail is two stories tall" - is that the US spelling or a typo? In the UK, we spell that "storeys", but maybe the spelling is different in the States.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stories is the proper spelling in the states.

@The Rambling Man and ChrisTheDude: - So it seems like the standard NRHP templates that the hundreds of lists like this one on WP use is a blazing dumpster. Among other things, the two templates used are set up to where all rows are automatically sortable, the footnotes in the header are automatic and I can't figure out how to remove them, etc. I've cleanup up the extra whitespace at the top by removing a template that just generates whitespace and moving some stuff around, and nixed the "see map" sentence, which appears to be boilerplate for NRHP articles. However, to fix the hot mess with the table, I'm going to have to draft a table by hand in my sandbox, and then manage to convert everything over to that new table method, which could be an interesting process, as I'm not the most familiar with making tables. Would I be better off withdrawing this if it will take a few days to get things sorted out? I'm going to leave a note at WT:NRHP noting that there's a lot of issues with the standards templates used, as the sorting image columns and random unremovable footnotes is a very-widespread thing with these templates. Hog Farm _Talk 03:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for uniformity across lists of similar types but we have to get the basics right. Someone who is familiar with those templates needs to explain how they implement all the needs of MOS:ACCESS and the other various concerns above, and if it's all fine, that's cool. If we can't get the templates to do the "right thing" then they should be ditched. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - I'm more than happy to help convert the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the NRHP templates are inappropriate for use, then leave a hidden note on this list explaining why you're not using them, just for the avoidance of doubt should someone come along and re-insert them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reviewers so far here (Rambling Man, ChrisTheDude) may want to consult WikiProject NRHP for some of these issues. Many of them are aspects of NRHP list articles are outside of the scope of this nomination, and that have been in place for years, if not a decade or more. This doesn't at all mean that they shouldn't be changed, but what I mean is that they are in place across countless articles, and in the case of the table templates used, would necessitate a larger discussion into how best to modify the existing template. While I appreciate Hog Farm's work to draft what a replacement template could look like, it does not use code that is easily replicable in other articles, unlike {{NRHP row}} (which has MOS issues but nevertheless has advanced coding that allows for easy user functions and tracking). Let's try to avoid reinventing the wheel here. I would suggest overlooking issues that involve editing {{NRHP row}} and {{NRHP header}} for now, while simultaneously requesting those changes on the template talk and NRHP wikiproject talk pages in detail. ɱ (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally rather not go through the hard process of changing the article over to my rather clunky homemade template unless there is clear consensus that template is appropriate. But I do agree that there are problems with the standard NRHP templates from access and other perspectives. I'd rather not have to withdraw this nomination, but it looks like it might come to that eventually. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled most of the replies that don't involve the table, will try to get to the rest of the non-table ones soon. Hog Farm _Talk 04:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally for me, being able to sort on the image, location, and description columns is daft but I guess I wouldn't oppose based on that. The weird floating ref attached to nothing in the header of the first column could be fixed quite easily I would have thought. For me the major issues are:

1. Using colour only as an indicator of type is a clear WP:ACCESS failure
2. Not having the key in the article and requiring people to click away to find it is very unhelpful and user-unfriendly.

Those are my personal sticking points...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: It's the other way around. What the NRHP templates do or do not do are not within scope of FLC until an attempt is made to use them in an FL candidate. Hog Farm, you do not need to withdraw at all, the re-coded table looks much better and while it's useful for someone to leave a courtesy note at the NRHP project perhaps making various suggestions to improve those templates, it has no bearing on this candidate. There's no policy that says all NRHP articles need to use these templates, and until they are demonstrably improved, nor should they be for articles we are aiming to make the "best" on offer from Wikipedia. Once the NRHP templates are fixed to the satisfaction of MOS then they can be used in featured material. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude - I think your larger sticking points are addressed in, as Magicpiano mentioned, List of NHLs in MI. And to Rambling Man too - This does not require edits to the templates themselves, and can be implemented in NRHP lists as seen here. Hog Farm can easily make these changes. As for those that involve template editing - you both don't see that this isn't how we make changes on Wikipedia. Problematic templates need to have their issues addressed centrally; complaining about them in an FLC to editors who can't directly make those changes is unhelpful. Your points are valid, but there are several other NRHP lists that are FLs; it seems there is a precedent that changes to template codes is beyond the scope here. ɱ (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you both don't see that this isn't how we make changes on Wikipedia... Um, not quite, but it's Sunday so it must be the day for patronising me. I said the template issues needed to be addressed centrally at the project. "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, some of the lists to which you allude are nearly ten years old and would fail FLC quickly these days. In fact, I may go through and get them up at FLRC now you've mentioned it, it's obvious they need work to be considered the best we can do. I'm also not clear on how those templates meet MOS:DTT. But as I said, that's not for here, that's for elsewhere. There's no policy enforcing the use of sub-standard templates, and if an editor wants to use a simple hand-crafted MOS-compliant table, that's not a problem in the slightest. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to offend, but I am uncertain of your work on NRHP/historic site articles - consistency is important across the project. "Other stuff exists" may not itself be an argument, but when highly-regarded FLC reviewers had accessibility concerns then and mentioned that it's beyond the scope of the review, it sets an important precedent. ɱ (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant in any sense. We are here for FLC not to held hostage to a Wikiproject. Other stuff exists and is more than a decade old. Times and standards have changed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the review I linked there? ɱ (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this discussion and agree with ChrisTheDude and The Rambling Man on the accessibility issues. I'd like to jump in and add a comment regarding the use of existing templates in FL candidates. We recently encountered a similar issue at the FLC for Gibraltar national football team results, which originally used templates from WikiProject Football and looked like this. After discussion, it was decided to convert the table away from the templates to use a table format; it now looks like this. In other words, there is established precedent for ignoring problematic templates with accessibility issues. If the relevant WikiProject can create a properly accessible template, FLs should use it, but we can't just ignore the FL criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think my example of the FLC for Michigan landmarks is precisely the opposite precedent; we're not about to reinvent what color coding is used for the roughly 88,000 NRHP-related articles (potentially over 100k eventually given 94k NRHP sites listed now), just within the course of this single FLC review, sorry. It's an important idea to bring up at the WikiProject, but breaking the standard here alone is improper. ɱ (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant really what a wikiproject thinks I'm afraid. The tables aren't compliant with MOS, they don't sort properly and that's just scratching the surface. They must be avoided in featured material until they are proven fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: - I think your larger sticking points are addressed in, as Magicpiano mentioned, List of NHLs in MI - that list looks OK to me in terms of having the key actually in the article and not using just colour to signify something. If that was implemented here, I'd be happy with that (although I'd still prefer the first column to have an actual heading, as the "floating ref" just looks weird to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that latter part is something that requires template editing, which will affect articles across the whole project. If other editors agree that "No." is okay, I can add that, but it's not a reference number, it's just numerically ordering the alphabetical list. ɱ (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another good reason not to be bound by a project. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done trying to convince against stubborn editors. Using a handmade table that can't be replicated elsewhere will mean the improvements will be useless to the rest of the encyclopedia. Your points are good, simply list all of them in a place where they can be properly addressed by actual template editors. The ideas have helped my historic place lists, but I don't see making them FLCs anytime soon without a spirit of cooperation and improvement to span across the project. ɱ (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: - I think it's best for this to be withdrawn. There's consensus that the current template system has a few quirks that may not be desirable, but there's no consensus my homemade table would be appropriate, either. And since the list is the backbone of this article, there's no real way to get this promoted at this time, I don't think. The list is an improvement over what it looked like before, so that content was improved is the most important thing. Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 7 March 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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Footlessmouse (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, other than I think it now meets the criteria, I am a relatively new editor and I want to get some experience in featured content, as the standards here are the highest. I ultimately want to both improve the article as much as possible and learn from the experience. I plan on nominating a couple of other articles for featured status once I have a better sense of how it all works. I am quick to respond and all comments and critisims are most welcome, thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Alexandra

• Note that I'm not a mathematician (or historian). I'm more of an arts kind of person, and I'm judging the writing as writing - checking that it makes sense to me and that it is well written, rather than whether it is correct about the subject.
• Please add brief descriptive alt text to all images, to aid readers with vision impairments.
• I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs for ease of reading.
• Titles should not sort on the, a, an, etc. - "The beginning and end of the world" should for example sort on "Beginning and...". You can achieve this with {{Sort}}.
• Sorting of dates is currently also broken (try clicking "Date" under the "Maths and science" heading, and you will see - 1950 is followed by three April releases from different years, then August 1928...). You can solve this by wrapping the dates in the {{Date table sorting}} template.
• Otherwise this looks good! Please {{ping}} me when you have addressed the above, and I will be with you again asap!--Alexandra^IDV 07:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alexandra IDV: I believe I have completed all of the above improvements. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, thank you!--Alexandra^IDV 04:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Alexandra^IDV 04:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It would be helpful to place his lifespan (year–year)[ref] after his name in the lede.
• You should break the "Topic and Notes" column into separate "Subject" and "Notes" columns like in the first table.
• I would remove the sortability of the "Notes" column.

Really a wonderful list. ~ HAL333 15:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one has certainly been waiting around for a while; a lot of refs, so this may take make a day or two to get through Aza24 (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Publications

• Looks good here

References

• Refs 1 & 2 should be pp.
• Ref 4 should be p.
• ref 32 should be pp.
• page ranges should always be with – not a dash (-) for refs 62 & 71
• The "Further reading" should be titled something else, perhaps "Bibliography" or "Sources". On Wikipedia we only use "Further reading" as a list of additional sources that are not already cited, where as the current one seems to include a lot that are already cited. See MOS:FURTHER for more details
• You had most of the journals and publishers linked; I tried to link some ones missing a link, but if you can take a glance to see if I missed any, it would be much appreciated

Both

• In both References & publications you use four retrieval dates 25, 165 + 15 & 69. Looking for consistency: I would think that the publications 25 and 165 don't need it, since you don't include them for any other publication. As a web source, using it for ref 15 makes sense, but ref 69 is the only journal you include it for, and as such, I would think it ought to be removed there

Reliabillity

• I have no doubts on the quality of sources used.

Verifiability

• Admittedly, I've only gone through a few spot-checks, but the ones I did check were fine. Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• courtesy ping to @Footlessmouse: who seems to be on a wikibreak Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful for context to give his dates of birth and death immediately after his name.
• "three titles that remain in circulation over a century after their initial publications." You author a book, not a title. Also, maybe list the books here?
• "in popular magazines like Scientific American" I would not describe Scientific American as a popular magazine.
• "The bibliography includes eleven total books and monographs" "total" is ungrammatical and unnecessary.
• "John Lighton Synge reviewed ten of Whittaker's papers when he wrote about Whittaker's contributions to electromagnetism and general relativity.[3] Among other tributes as part of the same memorial volume of the Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society" What does "same" mean here? It would be clearer if you gave details of the memorial volume in the first sentence.
• "several biographical articles, including one for Albert Einstein written just a few months before his death" Whose death - Whittaker's or Einstein's? Also I would usually take "for Albert Einstein" to mean commissioned by him. I think "about Albert Einstein" would be better.
• " A Course of Modern Analysis, Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies, and The Calculus of Observations" I suggest giving the year of publication in brackets after each title.
• "Despite the success of these textbooks" Why "despite"?
• "The book went through four editions, published in 1917" You only list three. Perhaps move the first edition details here.
• No change needed, but I see that Aether theories does not mention Descartes and René Descartes does not mention Aether theories. This is obviously a gap in Wikipedia.
• "The Calculus of Observations or A Short Course in Interpolation" There is confusion over the title here. First you appear to give alternative titles, then you combine them and then you say that A Short Course was the title of part of the book published separately.
• "Kilmister later wrote a book on the topic, titled Eddington's search for a fundamental theory, which was published by Cambridge University Press in 1994,[36] and was itself reviewed by David Kaiser,[37] among others." Why is this relevant?
• "Whittaker spoke at the annual Arthur Stanley Eddington Memorial Lecture in 1952, which was subsequently published by American Scientist" I would say "Whittaker gave the annual Arthur Stanley Eddington Memorial Lecture".
• "He also wrote several popular articles in magazines such as Scientific American" I may be wrong but I doubt whether any of his articles would have been regarded by readers as "popular".
• I would say obituary of Einstein, not for him.
• There is a typo in publication 86.
• "Book reviews" There is an excessive gap between this heading and the text.
• "Popular articles" I think "Other articles" would be a better title.
• I do not think it is helpful for readers to list reviews in the main text where you do not give details of what the reviewer said. Perhaps you could add a separate note section for these reviews.
• A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footlessmouse are you going to return to this nomination? If we get no response in a few days, we'll need to archive this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, Footlessmouse seems to be a on wikibreak (since Feb 4th), their userpage says they'll respond to pings but my ping from the 13th was left un-responded. I emailed them a few days ago about this, also to no response. If archived, I expect it would not be difficult for Footlessmouse to resubmit (when they have more time), and pass at a faster pace. Aza24 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 thanks for the update, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:39, 2 March 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Alexandra^IDV 05:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Changeling FLC was promoted, and my Mage FLC has four supports (still waiting for a source review), so here's my fifth World of Darkness FLC: the critically well received but commercially underperforming Wraith: The Oblivion, in the same format as the previous lists. As before, I appreciate any constructive criticism as I want to make these lists look as good as they can!--Alexandra^IDV 05:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing. You've got these down to a fine art now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I try to take comments from previous FLCs into account when working on these, so hopefully they'll just continue to go smoother and smoother.--Alexandra^IDV 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead isn't long enough to be a DYK there has to be more to say about this series of RBG books --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guerillero: Sorry, I'm unclear on how DYK is related? Did you mean to post this here?--Alexandra^IDV 06:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I did. The lead is only 1324 byes (202 words). I don't think that is enough space to properly introduce the subject and define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. I'm not looking for a 1k word treatment, but it should at the very least meet the 1500 byte lower limit for DYK. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just curious - do the DYK guidelines cross with the FLC guidelines for something like that, or is that more of a personal preference? BOZ (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Guerillero: What is it you feel is missing? You say the inclusion criteria is not defined, but I think it's very clear that it covers all the RPG books published for the game Wraith: The Oblivion. It also introduces the game (bearing in mind that this is a list of the books and not an article about the game itself) and describes what types of books were released, and how they were received. To be clear, I'm not trying to be "difficult" or avoiding doing the work - I don't mind expanding if you think something is missing - but I don't want to pad the lead with fluff to reach a threshold for a different Wikipedia process.--Alexandra^IDV 06:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm confused as to if this is a singular game or an expansion of another game. How does this game relate to the rest of the World of Darkness? Why are you playing as wraiths? I'm not looking for fluff but for context. (I also believe that the lead of an FL should have a small amount of heft to it. If the top Country songs of any particular year can have 3k bytes of text as a lead, any FL with enough context shouldn't be below 1.5k byes.) -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Guerillero: I apologize for the delay - I have been busy this month - but I believe I have addressed your concern. The lead is now just above 1.6K, and gives some more context and detail for how Wraith relates to the larger World of Darkness series, and how the series consists of horror games about supernatural beings. If you would take another look and see if there's anything else you think needs fixing, I would appreciate it a lot.--Alexandra^IDV 07:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (ftr, if any of the FLC delegates/director are reading this, I'm working on addressing the above now that I know what specific questions Guerillero want answered - I have not abandoned this FLC).--Alexandra^IDV 00:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "series of horror tabletop role-playing games. The games in the series" bit repetitive on the prose here.
• "where supernatural beings exist. These supernaturals " likewise.
• You said it's an "interpretation of the real world" but then characters are playing wraiths "in the afterlife" which doesn't seem very "real world".
• There seems to be very limited information on how these books performed commercially or how they were received critically.
• I never find a compelling argument to make Notes (which are usually free text) to be sortable.
• Only five of these items have an article. What makes those more notable than all the others?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Responding in turn to each:

• Reworded
• Reworded
• In this game, the afterlife is portrayed as overlapping with "the human world" - another layer on top of our reality. See for example the entry Necropolis: Atlanta, which is about Atlanta as it appears to wraiths. I want to avoid going into too much detail about the fiction in this type of article - should I perhaps just remove "in the afterlife" for raising more questions than it answers?
• I can get more material on the critical reception if you think it currently is too thin, but I don't know if I can find any more specific sales information for the line as a whole as this does not seem to be anything White Wolf Publishing made public.
• Set notes to unsortable - I had copied some other list when I set this up, but I don't disagree now that you point it out.
• WP:RPG is a relatively small WikiProject, and most of these books' RS coverage is found in print media - it is not so that books in this list that do not have stand-alone articles are not notable, but rather that all those articles have not yet been written. Is this an issue?--Alexandra^IDV 21:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If the books pass whatever notability criteria which apply to books, i.e. presumably those which mean we have a handful of blue links, then there's no reason why all the books listed shouldn't be linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: This is a vague enough request that I need to check: are you asking me to write one article for every item on this list that meets WP:GNG? And if so, you are requesting enough work that I have to ask you: what criterion are you basing this request on?--Alexandra^IDV 23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saying if the books are all notable enough, they should be linked. If that means we have a list of too many red links then yes, you'll need to write some more articles to meet the FL criteria. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned before, and sorry if you find this "vague". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: I'm withdrawing this as something requiring far too much work to be done in a reasonable time frame, and am unlikely to do anything more at FLC.--Alexandra^IDV 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How unfortunate. I didn't even oppose. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot research and write however many articles are required for this in a reasonable timeframe for this FLC, regardless of whether your comment formally is an oppose or not. There is no point to keeping it open.--Alexandra^IDV 18:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the only reason you'd say that is because you agree with my position, because as you've noted, the precedent is set with previous FLs of yours and no-one else has asked for due consideration to be given to the other nonlinked elements of the list. Other people and delegates may have different opinions. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need to withdraw this. I disagree with the need to create articles merely for the sake of creating articles, and this list is a great example of how we can still cover generally non-notable items without each of them having their own page. I even question the need for independent articles for some of those that already do here. However, I would suggest slightly longer descriptions. These basically just rephrase the title and say what the books are but not what's actually in them. What is special about the character types? What does the reader get out of buying that book vs another? Only other minor thing is no comma after '1994' or 'consistency'. Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not asking "to create articles merely for the sake of creating articles", I'm asking why some books are deemed non-notable compared to others, and if they are notable then they should be linked. Thanks, but don't misrepresent my thoughts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree that there is no need to withdraw this yet, and I feel that there is no deadline or need to rush on creating more articles for notable works, and it should not interfere with the FLC process. I have come to respect Alexandra's work though, and if Alexandra wants to withdraw this then the list can be promoted again at some point in the future if necessary when more of the articles have been started. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I have already asked to have this withdrawn and am regretting getting into FLs in the first place. There is no need for further comments)--Alexandra^IDV 20:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is deeply regrettable based on a sensible and open conversation about what constitutes Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame, since the discussion seemed to be moving towards a significantly less amount of work than "write a bunch of articles", but it's your nomination to withdraw. Closing. --PresN 02:45, 1 March 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 Dr Salvus via PresN 22:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed naming this page in FL because it meets all the criteria to be. The prose part is legible and understandable. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. 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. The only lack to information is the absence of data about attendance in the earlyest finals, but it is impossible to find information about. All informations are cited from reliable sources. It meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. And finally 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.

Numerous criticisms helped me improve this page. I went through all the nomination criteria, the whole page and other FL pages. I think this is the best way to reward the work of all contributors to this page.

Dr_Salvus (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the 2nd FL review was closed after this editor chose to withdraw it just 2 days ago. No evidence of a significant article improvement in that time frame. If editors choose to withdraw nominations when they get feedback, they shouldn't be encouraged to just create a new discussion. So much unsourced text, doesn't have a chance of meeting FL criteria. Problems include, but are not limited to:

1. Nothing in reference column prior to 2003-04
2. Attendances listed as N/A, which is clearly just missing information, which fails the comprehensiveness criteria of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria
3. Sorting on Coppa Italia finals table doesn't work properly because of the columns that say the scores on aggregate, and get bundled up together when sorting

• All in all, this list needs improvement just like it did a few days ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302:

1. Information on the finals prior to 2004 is cited in the "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio"
2. I made an incredible effort to find data on the number of spectators of the older finals. But I found nothing
3. I don't understand what do you mean in this Sorting on Coppa Italia finals table doesn't work properly because of the columns that say the scores on aggregate, and get bundled up together when sorting sentence Dr_Salvus (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302:

I've find information about attendance in some finals, but there are from trasfermarkt.com (it is not a reliable source). I believe that is Impossible find the data about attendance in the earlyest finals because Coppa Italia haven't any importance for participating teams. Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on procedural basis, for three reasons. First, the last FL nomination was closed just two days ago by the nominator's decision. I do not understand why that review was closed and this one was immediately opened. Second, this article has an open peer review that needs to be completed before this nomination is considered. Third, this nomination was created incorrectly (just as the last one was). From the FL nomination procedure: From the FLC template [on the article talk page], click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Since this was not done, this page is not linked to the article talk page (which still shows a redlink), and this page lacks the tools used to analyze FL nominations. While I do not necessarily oppose the nomination based on content, I also agree that there are still issues that need to be addressed, as I noted in the previous FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 and Joseph2302: I shouldn't have reopened the discussion. I was wrong. If you want to help me you can do it in the peer review. I will learn from this mistake Dr_Salvus (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: The page has not been withdrawn by the bot after several days. Do you know what might be causing this? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the nominator manually closed the talk page templates (and likely never did it right the first time) and now it's messed up. Manually closing, thanks. --PresN 22:34, 16 March 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.