Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2015

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

The list was not promoted by PresN 01:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp, the World Fantasy Award for Best Artist FLC closed, so time to move down the line to the 7th World Fantasy Award list, and #33 overall in our perpetual FLC series. I don't like this award. Not that it isn't fine in concept- a catchall award for professionals not covered by the written or artist categories (your editors, publishers, etc.). No, my issue starts with the name (An mdash? Really?) and ends with the utter lack of consistency in the stated reasons- a given person may be nominated one year as "for editing Magazine X", and the next as "for Magazine X". Ugh. Not to mention that a few times companies were nominated instead of individuals- that's just nonsense. I've faithfully transcribed what was awarded, though, so here it all is. As always, this list should look very familiar, since it keeps the standard award list formatting of my other FLs, and comments from prior FLCs have been brought forward here. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a very good list (though what else could we expect!) Is there any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women's international cricket hat-tricks/archive1, though I appreciate that the subject matter is not your norm!! Harrias ^talk 11:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Finally got to this! Addressed your points in-line. Will get to your list shortly. --PresN 02:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all looking good now. I've got a new nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PCA Player of the Year/archive1, if you fancy taking a look! Harrias ^talk 15:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this violates a rule, but as an FLC delegate (which I wasn't when I nominated this) I'm going to have to close this due to lack of activity. No inspirational message for myself, though. --PresN 01:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by PresN 01:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for Featured List status because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. The list consists of all attractions from the Universal Orlando Resort. The first nomination was closed due to a lack of reviewers. Dom497 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly suggest that the last two lines in the lead section be merged into the second paragraph, the rest is great. Support. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of suggestions, based on my list-creating experience:

• I think it should be split up into two tables—one for Universal Studios Florida, and one for Islands of Adventure. Since there's only two categories and they are separate parks adjacent to one another, it might look neater that way. (The Hogwarts Express could be listed in both categories with an explanatory footnote.)

  I kindly disagree. In all my lists I only split the "dry park" and water park in separate tables. Also, I actually think it would look messier. :) Maybe we could get the opinion of someone else? :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List should have more than just three photos, since it is quite long and there's lot of white space.

  White space is different for everyone so just because there is a lot of white space for you doesn't mean its the same for me. List of Canada's Wonderland attractions has only 3 pictures. Either way, there aren't a lot of good quality pictures from the park anyways.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is height requirement notable enough for this list? I feel like that wanders into the WP:NOTGUIDE category and don't think it's is necessary for this table.

  Again, List of Canada's Wonderland attractions and List of Kings Island attractions.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there enough sources available to include opening dates for each attraction in a new column?

  For the more recent attractions yes, but for the older ones no. There are also many attractions that have had soft-openings. So even if a news article lists a date, it technically could be wrong.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What about former attractions? (unless there's a separate page for that)

  Separate page. This list is only about current attractions. :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Univeral Orlando attractions seems like a more suitable title, as that is the proper name of the resort and the parent article, Universal Orlando.

  Actually, the official name is Universal Studios Orlando. I have no idea why the parent article is titled that.--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a source that says this? Everything I've looked at, including the resort's official website, says that name is "Universal Orlando" or "Universal Orlando Resort". The list needs to be moved to reflect one of these names. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream out loud:There actual appears to be a discrepancy. A google search reveals the official website to be called Universal Studios Orlando, but when you go into the site, it's called Universal Orlando. Upon further searching, the media most of the time refers to the resort as Universal Orlando. So I'm fine with moving it...it just seems that the resort changed it's name quietly.--Dom497 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no explanation in the lead about what the "Location" means. I've been to the resort so I understand, but any other reader would be confused as to why Disaster! is "located" in "San Francisco".

  Would "section" be better?--Dom497 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In general the lead seems a little short, only 1800 words, which just just above the bare-minimum 1500 requirement for WP:DYK. I know that's not a benchmark, but for the amount of history and details behind the parks, I think that more information in general could be included.

  I don't know what else to get into without being redundant with the parent article.--Dom497 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Type or model" column seems to lack consistency among the descriptions of rides, and some are not clear to the reader. For example, what is a "Flying Fish" ride? I've never heard of it and there's no Wikipedia article for it. On the otherhand, dark ride is appropriate, but should be kept simple.

  Epic fail on my end. I didn't put the references in when I re-did the list. I will get to it within the next few days.--Dom497 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all the references provided include the "Type or model" of the ride. I didn't check them all, but for example, the reference for Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey makes no mention of RoboCoaster.

  See above.--Dom497 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

–Dream out loud (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the pages List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions and List of former Islands of Adventure attractions, and I can't help but think that the prose-format of those lists work better than the table format. Since maybe half of the attractions on the list do not have articles, it may be appropriate to expand the page into a prose format, with descriptions of each ride, and hat notes for those that do have articles. It doesn't make sense that Wikipedia should have a page with prose descriptions of former attractions, while some present attractions are just mentioned by name on a list with no extra information. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with this. The majority have articles and it would simply become redundant. Plus there are already some descriptions at Islands of Adventure and Universal Studios Florida. I know that it seems the Universal Studios Orlando collection of the articles is a mess but, remember, I only focused on this list; if I had the time of course I would re-write every article. :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has hit the two-month mark without enough activity, so I'm going to have to unfortunately close it. You're in good company- I'm also going to have to close my own nomination just above you for the same reason. No prejudice against renomination; maybe we should review each other's nominations if you nominate again. --PresN 01:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was not promoted by PresN 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it passes the criteria for FL. It is follows the same structure, format and purpose as previous nominations of mine (Leona lewis, Adele, Emeli Sandé). I think that this one for Grande has a good section of prose/lead which covers her start in the music industry up to now. It is very comprehensive, and the table includes all songs from both albums and the EP, as well as guest appearances where writers can be sourced. It has a very clear structure and is visually appealing. It's very easy to use and navigate. The history of the article is very stable and only consists of me editing it. There not edit disputes or wars.  — ₳aron 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Excellent work. Just one minor point:

"Her music career started when she contributed to the soundtrack albums for the American TV sitcom, Victorious, in which she also starred". --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you  — ₳aron 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. After all my comments were addressed I can say that this list really deserves the golden barnstar. Good work! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you  — ₳aron 13:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The songs are not in quotes anymore, fix it please. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.  — ₳aron 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work overall. — HĐ (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you.  — ₳aron 11:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Aaron, you should also add this song. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not an alternate vocal recording though. It's the same vocals as her original, same for Azalea. So I'd be reluctant to include it, because it's not a different recording as such. It's just a remix.  — ₳aron 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then according to your theory you should also exclude "The Way" (featuring J. Balvin). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very nicely compiled list. While this doesn't prevent me from supporting, I'm curious of one thing; is the clickable "show" feature to see writers a new practice? I haven't seen it used very often in song lists. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Yes, I think it just makes the table look more streamlined. Because you don't have the same amount of writers for each song, the size of the rows are governed by how many writers there are, which can make the table unnecessarily longer.  — ₳aron 18:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing, and I'll keep this in kind for song lists I try to make FL's myself Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, as the lead is much too detailed: she's had a career for all of four years now, so what happens next year? The year after? Are we going to end up with a 10-paragraph lead? Some of the less necessary details should be trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input but this is the eighth list I'm nominating, and my previous seven have all passed with lead lengths in accordance with their discography and careers thus far. Saying what might happen next year, in five years, in 10 years is a bit superfluous to be quite honest and bordering on WP:CRYSTAL. If and when she releases a new album, then we can deal with that as and when it happens. But for the time being, I disagree that it is "too detailed"; the lead covers the scope of the list.  — ₳aron 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patently ridiculous. You have 3602 characters (597 words) in the lead, including such dithering fluff as "it is a genre which Grande revealed she never thought she would venture into, but the experience caused her to only want to record dance songs." In what appears to be an attempt to urge and contextualize every single she's released, you've bloated the lead with information which would be better suited for her article or the article on the song. 2500 characters would not be out of place, but 3600 is too much. That your other lists were promoted in such a state is simply evidence that they all need a more thorough check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's not crystal balling to say that a recording artist is liable to record more; that's kinda in the job description. Even if she were to retire immediately tomorrow, there'd still be at least a sentence added to the article (about her retirement). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• More minor note: the pictured in the image captions is not needed. (Indeed, it's not present in two of them).
  • I think this comes down to a matter of personal opinion, because you're the only one who has taken issue with in across eight nominations, so you are in the minority. It may come as no surprise, but I disagree with everyone you have written. I haven't solely written about singles in the lead; I've got a balance of singles and non-singles (it is a list of songs recorded), and I've given them all a little bit of info about genre or background, so that it doesn't read as a series of facts. I'm actually offended that you would accuse me, as well as all of the editors who have supported my nominations, of deliberately nominating/supporting them in "such a state." I don't understand why you are commenting and voting on something that hasn't happened yet, and might not happen for another year or two. I think you're being quite rude. No one is better than anyone else on Wikipedia, regardless of what one's contributions are.  — ₳aron 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. You don't seem to understand my point. This is a list of songs. This means that this should be an overview, speaking generally, of trends in her music. If we were to use your approach for, say, Whitney Houston, we'd end up with a lead that went on for 3,000 words. As Grande is reasonably early into her career, we don't have to quite worry about it yet, but there is still fat that needs to be trimmed. An overview means highlighting the bigger hits, maybe genre trends, not listing X amount of songs.
    • If you prefer not to consider my objections, fine. SchroCat or Giants can (when they have time) close this. So long as I'm opposing, I have to recuse from my delegate duties. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an overview, though, of songs she has recorded. I've hardly written about every song in the list, just a sample from each project. I have read your reasons for objecting, and I've responded to them. I've taken on board what you have said, and I have decided that I don't agree with them. You're not getting what I'm saying, though. With regard to the "An overview means highlighting the bigger hits, maybe genre trends, not listing X amount of songs," I am going to have to highlight your lack of knowhow here. Lists like these are here to document all songs recorded by the singer. It is not supposed to be single-release centric. Songs are first and foremost songs before they become singles. A single is just a song which receives more promotion and attention than other songs on an album. Placing more or all weight on the singles is not how we do it. The lead of of an article like this should never focus on just the singles, that is what a discography article/list is for: to document what songs have been released as singles and their respective chart positions and certifications. So I'm going to have to make you completely wrong on that point.  — ₳aron 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Final point: you mentioned your eight (actually, according to our records, seven) FLs, and how the issue was never raised before. Looking through them, the only one which is currently over 3k characters in length is List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis, which has expanded by 1,000 characters since it was promoted in 2012 (was 2572 characters, is now 3680 characters). It's quite likely that the issue was never brought up because the issue wasn't present at the time. Unless you're willing to bring this list in line with your own precedent, I can't in good faith strike my oppose.

And quite frankly I don't get why you've gone on a diatribe about singles and songs. That's neither here nor there. I've never asked you to focus exclusively on singles, nor would I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I said: "this is the eighth list I'm nominating, and my previous seven have all passed," I never said I have had eight promoted, I said this is my eight list nomination, and that my previous seven have been promoted, so please read what I write more carefully so you don't trip yourself up. And you did say about placing more weight on singles, you said: "highlighting the bigger hits," which is obviously about singles, because a non-single can't be a hit because it doesn't get commercial release. I can't take anything you have to say seriously while you keep on contradicting yourself and making embarrassing statements which shows you're not actually paying attention to what I'm saying. It shows that you're actually not up to commenting/reviewing/voting in an informed way because you keep on going back on what you say.  — ₳aron 23:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say, I like your gall, claiming that I need to read more carefully then immediately misrepresenting what I said. It's completely possible for an album-only track to end up becoming a hit. This often ends with the song being released as a single, but not always.
    • Yes, I was mistaken in remembering your statement about nominations/lists. That doesn't change the fact that, of your eight nominations, only this list appears to have been this size when you nominated it (though one has since expanded to the point that its lead is a bit too long, showing my concerns about the future are well-founded). My main point remains unchanged: objections have only been raised now because the problem seems to have only shown up now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, you've made another contradiction. "It's completely possible for an album-only track to end up becoming a hit. This often ends with the song being released as a single." So even if this does happen (although it doesn't) then it becomes a single anyway. Find me a song, a non-single, article whereby it has become a hit. Thus, meaning that it has had no commercial release (single, promo single etc), has reached the top 5 of multiple major national charts (no components) and stayed there for X amount of time (more than just one week or two weeks. A significant trajectory), has been certified gold or platinum, has been ranked high on an end of year chart and perhaps won awards, too. Basically, everything that a hit single is, but without any form of release or promotion (as non-singles tend not to be heavily promoted).  — ₳aron 08:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are again ignoring the main point, and clearly unwilling to work with reviewers. Instead, you are focusing on what you perceive to be inconsistencies in my posts, and going on a lengthy diatribe on a completely unrelated point. I have unwatchlisted this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not ignoring anything. I'm fully addressing you each and every time. I'm not perceiving anything, it's the bottom line truth. You can't say that a non-single can be a hit, then when I call you on it to give me an example, to then throw your toys out of the buggy and not do it and say I'm not willing to work with anyone. I think my contributions show that I have often worked with others. I have actually trimmed the lead down, not that you've noticed. I think that you use of "diatribe" is extremely misplaced; it's not me who started off being bitter, I think you will find that was you.  — ₳aron 09:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain Given the recent work on shortening the lead further, and making the cell contents visible, I have struck my opposition. I still have a few concerns about the quality of the lead: it seems to go into a fair bit of detail on specific songs, rather than providing an overall summary. But that might be my lack of understanding of the genre; while I happily listen to music, I don't "follow" it, so this might be reasonably common. On that basis, I'm going to abstain from a specific vote on this; I no longer oppose it, but I don't feel in a position to support it. Harrias ^talk 14:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken so much out, and there really isn't much detailed prose about any song at all. The lead must talk about genres and writers, otherwise there would be no lead. I've had enough song lists promoted and enough contributors have said that this is how a lead for this type of list should be written. What I've given is a summary.  — ₳aron 15:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – following the recent work on this article, a number of prose issues have been introduced into the lead. It needs a significant copy-edit to improve the writing, which certainly falls short of the "professional standard" required by the Featured list criteria. For example, and this is far from all of the problems:
  • .. with Grande appearing on .. This construction should be avoided, see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for explanation.
  • The second sentence includes one semi-colon and four commas, far too many. Split it down into two, or even three, sentences.
  • The final paragraph just reads like a string of bullet points rather than high quality prose. Harrias ^talk 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed all of these.  — Calvin999 01:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think this is an excellent list, and that the relative size of the lead is appropriate. I don't find Crisco's concerns persuasive. Good work. AgnosticAphid talk 03:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you  — ₳aron 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment Previous featured lists of this format (e.g. Cheryl Cole, Katy Perry, Adele, Alexandra Burke) all have sortable "Artist(s)" columns that detail precisely who is credited for each song. List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis currently does not, but it did when it was promoted. It seemed to me like this was the accepted standard amongst articles of this type. Why does this list have an unsortable "Other artist(s)" column instead? With so many grey N/A cells, the table just looks incomplete and visually unappealing. How is this column an improvement over a sortable "Artist(s)" one? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made it sortable.  — ₳aron 12:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am starting to question my support here. Other artists now has 'Ariana Grande' rather than n/a? We all know that the songs are sang by the artist the list is dedicated to. Please bring it back, because this is a non-sense now. Did Ariana Grande sang the song with Ariana Grande? o.O — Tom^(T2ME) 14:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The advantage of making the column sortable is that you can then easily group together all the songs by a particular artist. With this list, for example, you could sort all of Grande's solo songs together, or the songs where she had featured artists, or the songs where she featured on someone else's music. Almost all FLs of this type have this format. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I forgot to change it to "Artist(s)".  — ₳aron 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been 10 days since there has been any activity here and I've done everything suggested by certain individuals to improve this article.  — ₳aron 07:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks like a comprehensive, focused list. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you.  — ₳aron 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Looking through this list prior to closing; some issues listed below. The sheer quantity of these (non-trivial) structural issues makes me feel that this list is not ready for promotion and backs up what other editors have been saying about drive-by supports:

• I'm utterly baffled by the first paragraph. So she was on three albums (no dates given), and "Put Your Hearts Up" was her debut single (was it on one of those albums? Doesn't look like it from the table, but the sentence is connected to the Victorious albums), but "Hearts" isn't listed in the table at all
  • I don't really understand what's baffling about it? I've already had to remove a lot from the lead a few weeks ago per comments above. No, PYHU was not included on those soundtracks. It's a completely new sentence. I've added PYHU (I can't source the writers though (I'm in China and Google is blocked) so it is unsourced for the moment. I don't think I could find anyway, which is why I didn't include it in the table.  — Calvin999
    • PYHU and its writers are in the table now, but no source is given. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "inauthentic and fake." - per MOS:QUOTE, punctuation goes outside the quote unless you're quoting a full sentence. You do this a couple times.
  • I moved it outside, as I only found one.  — Calvin999
• When you sort the table by year, Christmas Kisses shows up before Yours Truly, which doesn't seem right. It should really sort by release date, even if it only shows year for concision.
  • This doesn't happen for me. Not really sure what you're saying.  — Calvin999
    • The same happens for me. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think that if you're going to list all the writers of each song for an artist like Grande in the lead, 3 years from now the lead is going to be a massive slog to get through- it's already a bit much, all that information is in the table.
  • WP:CRYSTAL. I've nominated this list for what might happen in the future. You could technically say that for every single list which contains information about someone or something who is still active. I've never had this comment before. If she releases three more albums in the next three years (unlikely), then we will deal with that if and when it happens. Three paragraphs covering her debut releases, first and second albums, respectively, really isn't that much of a slog at all. Didn't seem to be an issue for Ricky Martin's list which has just been promoted..  — Calvin999
    • Ricky Martin's career has spanned over fourty years. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You're linking Grande on the "Don't You (Forget About Me)" row in the table (but nowhere else)
  • Unlinked.  — Calvin999
• It would make sense to be, since you talk so much about them in the lead, to mark which songs were released a singles in the table, though I guess if that's not the done thing for these lists okay. I usually look at discographies, not song-ographies or whatever.
  • Yeah that's okay. I've done that for some previous lists.  — Calvin999
• So Christmas Kisses isn't mentioned in the lead? Actually, you don't mention any albums besides her studio albums.
  • It's not an album. It's just an EP release, and per comments by others above, the lead was too long, so adding this would add to the prose length, which you already think is a slog. The lead is just a summary.  — Calvin999 13:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, I'm seeing a big mismatch between the lead and the table- the lead talks about her studio albums and singles from those albums and what writers those singles had and random facts about those singles, but a lot of her songs in the tables are from albums you don't talk about (even just "she has appeared on three other albums as a contributing artist, A, B, and C") and the table doesn't call out singles. And again, you're missing her debut single from the table. I don't get a clear picture from the lead of how many albums she's been on/released or how many songs she's done.
  • I disagree with this comment. I think it's pretty obvious how many albums, I say debut and second. This list is also not single-centric, it's about songs. That's why the lead contains a mix of prose about songs as well as singles.
• Sort by artist is sorting by first name, not last- use {{sortname}} to have it sort by last name instead
  • They are by first name...  — Calvin999
    • They're supposed to be sorted by last name, though. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects (feel free to ignore): Sample (music), Childish Gambino, Tampa Bay Times Forum in lead; Lukasz Gottwald, Travis Garland in table; Seventeen (magazine), Nickelodeon Records in references
  • Thanks. Quite a few of these have been changed since I inputted them.  — Calvin999
• Consider archiving your online refs with a site like archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes/removals of content at those sites don't muck up your references in the future.

--PresN 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: According to the nominators page, they are on vacation currently till May 26 so may not be able to respond to your comments. They have not edited since May 8. Cowlibob (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, it's only been one day Cowlibob ! It does say in the tag that I would be online. I will get back to these comments. in the next couple of days. 13:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the word "may". Great please do so when you can, I'm just aware this nom has been open for 8 weeks which is usually pretty close to the cut off for closure in promotion/archival. Cowlibob (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continue to thread the comments above, listing here issues that are still outstanding:

• Para 1 says that she was in three albums from her tv series, but doesn't say when they were released- i.e. it never says when her career started. Put something like "Her music career started when she contributed to the soundtrack albums for the American TV sitcom, Victorious, in which she also starred from 2010 to 2013.[1] Three soundtrack albums for the show were released between 2011 and 2012 [...]"
  • Added years.  — Calvin999
• Para 1 needs something to indicate that she transitioned from tv acting/singing to also doing independent singing. Just, "In 2011 Grande also began to work an independent artist outside of Victorious; her debut single "Put Your Hearts Up", a bubblegum pop song, was released that same year."
  • Changed.  — Calvin999
• 'describing it as "the worst moment of my life," Republic Records' - comma outside of the quote
  • Moved comma.  — Calvin999 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Put Your Hearts Up" is now in the table, but needs a source
  • See my comment above in initial reply.  — Calvin999
    • I don't see a comment where you explain why you don't have a source for the release, nor would I likely find it justified. Her debut single as an already-notable artist was only in 2011, I'm sure you can find a source to put in the table for it. --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Here it is again: "I've added PYHU (I can't source the writers though (I'm in China and Google is blocked) so it is unsourced for the moment. I don't think I could find anyway, which is why I didn't include it in the table."  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but "I'm in China" (use Baidu) and "I don't think I can find a source" (have you looked? She's kind of famous...) aren't really good excuses for leaving something unsourced. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I'm sorry, but it is an excuse. Like I said (didn't you read it) Google is blocked, so how I am supposed to search for something, I don't know. Please enlighten me. I can't use Bing, either, because it redirects to Chinese Bing, which is all in Chinese, funnily enough. I'll be leaving China tomorrow, for the record.  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are many search engines out there, and you could always have asked someone else. I suppose we'll see once you leave China. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I use Google and know of Bing, but aside from that, no, I don't know any others. But this is irreverent to this nomination, and someone else added a source already.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The year sorting thing happens when you sort by something else, like album, then sort by date. It doesn't happen if you sort by date before clicking anything else; this means that whether Yours Truly is showing up before Christmas Kisses or not is a coincidence, and depends on what else the reader has clicked on before. {{sort|2013-1|2013}} for the first album, and {{sort|2013-2|2013}} for the second will fix it.
  • Where are these supposed to go?  — Calvin999
    • In the table, where you are putting the years. --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For every song?  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would do it, but to spell it out- when you sort the table by [anything] and then sort by date, some of the albums do not show up in the actual date they were released in that year. It should be fixed. One way to fix it is to use the sort template (on every song from that album) to force one album to show up in the correct order. I don't much care what method you use to make the ordering be correct. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see what the problem is though. When I sort the year column, it starts with 2011, then 2012, then 2013, then 2014, and lastly, 2015. So what is the problem??  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is what I said it was- when you sort the year column (after first sorting by anything else) the albums are not actually in chronological order. Yes, 2013 comes after 2012 and before 2014, but the Christmas album comes before the other album from that year, even though it was released afterwards. Fix it. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've added the template you put above for the Christmas Kisses songs, but I don't know if it's doing what it's supposed to do though.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead is currently not a summary of the table. You can't say both "I'm leaving in these minor details about selected songs because the lead isn't too long yet" and also "I'm not going to mention half the albums/EPs she's been on because then the lead would be too long". You don't have to go into detail, but to not even mention that she's also had an EP and been featured on several other songs besides her two studio albums is really weird, when those songs are listed in the table.
  • But I did have more detail before, but editors above said it was too detailed. I can't please you as well as the other editors. You want more detail, editors above didn't. That's what I mean by making it 'too long' again.  — Calvin999 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just told me up above that the level of current detail was fine for when she releases more albums, but now you're saying that you can't add a single sentence saying what other albums she was on? --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, some editors above still think the current lead is too long, so I'm reluctant to add anymore right now. It's completely different and separate issue to if and when she releases another album. I believe the lead is now fine as it is.  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I don't. The lead is not summarizing the table, as it leaves out the majority of albums she appears in. You are telling me/other editors that the current level of detail is fine because if she releases another album you can just add another couple sentences and it won't look off, and also telling me that you won't add a ~15-word sentence to cover the rest of the table. That's a bit contradictory. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • • So you want me to disregard what everyone else has already asked me to do? I might as well just reinstate the original lead I wrote, no?  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem incapable of reading what I'm writing. I'm asking for one sentence, which you've elsewhere stated is not a problem. I don't know what else to tell you. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • • I've added the one sentence.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorting for columns of names should sort by the last name of the first listed person.
  • Now sorting by last name.  — Calvin999 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not done; sorting by "artist(s)" puts Grande first, as it's sorting her under 'A'. You don't appear to have made any of the artists sort by last name. --PresN 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well click on the edit button yourself and have a look then, because each and every song entry has been inputted to sort by surname. I should now, I typed out the template for every song on the article.  — Calvin999 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's fine now except that Big Sean sorts by B when it's "Ariana Grande featuring Big Sean" but by S on the one time it's "Big Sean featuring Ariana Grande". It should sort by B for that last one- "Big Sean" is a stage name, not a firstname-lastname. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Ariana Grande featuring Big Sean" is sorted as {{Sort|Grande, Ariana featuring Big Sean|Ariana Grande featuring [[Big Sean]]}} and when it's "Big Sean featuring Ariana Grande" it sorts as {{Sort|Sean, Big featuring Ariana Grande|[[Big Sean]] featuring Ariana Grande}}. Is this wrong? I've sorted using surname both times.  — Calvin999 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, it should sort by B in the second instance- "Big Sean" is one name, "Big" is not a first name, it's the first half of his stage name. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, that's not surname, is it. I've changed it from Sean, Big to Big Sean.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 19:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've about hit the limit of what I'm willing to put up with here. You said you're leaving China tomorrow so we'll see once you get back home, but at this point this nomination has been going on for almost 2.5 months. You have one oppose that you simply badgered off the page, a couple other abstains from people you never quite convinced but managed to get them to drop their oppose, and several supports from people who clearly did not critically read the list, given the number of objective (rather than subjective) problems I found with the list after them. We're down to the final four issues, for which you continue to either not read what I actually am saying, claim you cannot do from China, or just outright refuse to do even though you use the opposite logic when it suits you. I'm giving this list until Friday and will not comment here again before then; if I feel it is up to snuff then I will promote it or else I will not, but either way I'm ending the nomination. --PresN 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand that China restricts all those who use the internet in China as to what they can access? Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google, anything owned by Google, are blocked. Bing was in Chinese. I fail to see how I was supposed to search for sources using a search engine that is blocked and another in a different language that I cannot understand. I am no longer in China, but I see someone else was kind enough to add a source for me. So drop this issue now please, it's irrelevant to this nomination to continue discussing it when someone else added a source days ago. You're not assuming good faith by suggesting that I've twisted peoples arms in getting them to strike an oppose or change their minds. I've done all that they asked, so what else were they supposed to do? I feel I've done everything you have asked.  — Calvin999 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, final decision time- it's Saturday, since I was busy yesterday. There's a consistent theme in this nomination, which I've now managed to identify- you ask (sometimes demand) that reviewers give you exact instructions for what to change, and get noticeably angry/upset when they instead identify problems and leave them for you to fix as you will. It's why Crisco left his oppose standing and left the nomination, and why you and I kept going in circles. Anyways, in addition to Crisco and Harrias' opposes (though you noted that you've responded to Harrias' comments:

• Your changes on the 21st actually added new problems; for instance, the last two sentences of the lead now have no context and the Christmas Kisses sentence doesn't have a citation- not that it's required, but given that you cite every other sentence it jumps out.
• More tellingly, you still don't mention the Hunger Games track or the Dark Sky Paradise track, not even (as I asked 3 times) as "she was featured on two other albums".
• The sorting thing is still wrong- yes, you did literally the edit I asked for, but did not actually check to see if the sorting now works right: it does not, Christmas Kisses, when sorting by date, still ends up before Yours Truly even though it was released later in the year.

Look, it's not actually my responsibility to go this in depth, but please please actually read what I'm writing here: at FLC nominations you have to actually fix the problems raised. Reviews are not simply checklists of edits to make; they can also be notes of the underlying issues that you need to fix, which are left up to the nominating editor's discretion to find their own way to solve. Can't use Google in China? Maybe ask someone else at WP:MUSIC to find you a source, or just ask me to wait 4 days for you to leave the country. Don't tell me that you're just not going to do it, implying it's my problem for asking. Someone says that the prose needs a copyedit? Then find a way to fix it, but demanding a point-by-point listing of every problem and treating that as a checklist of edits to make or not make (i.e. if they don't list it then it isn't a problem) isn't the way to go about it. In this nomination alone you've managed to annoy two of the delegates (me and Crisco), which is 2 out of the 4 people who can promote nominations and therefore look at every one. Badgering reviewers to give you point-by-point grammar checks or to simply oppose is not a winning strategy- FLCs don't get promoted on a straight vote-counting basis.

I'm closing this nomination as unsuccessful; no prejudice against re-nominating. Please, however, tell WP:MUSIC that instant support votes on FLC nominations which then later get longer, substantive reviews are not helpful. I basically can't treat any of the initial supports on this nomination as valid, because so many issues were found after they reviewed that they should have caught at least some of. --PresN 01:08, 24 May 2015 (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 withdrawn by SchroCat 07:35, 17 May 2015 [4].

Nominator(s): HYH.124 (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it already meets the featured list criteria and is written with the list of current Indian chief ministers as a model. I am the main contributor to this list as well as its corresponding Chinese Wikipedia article, also undergoing FL candidacy. Feel free to list your opinions on this nomination page and I will gladly try my best to address all of them. HYH.124 (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The length of this article's title is too long. Not concise at all. How about simply List of mayors and magistrates in the Republic of China? Hwy43 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the name should be shortened. It's slightly confusing to use Republic of China instead of Taiwan in the title, as Taiwan is used in the main wiki page. Mentioning that the Republic of China is the official name can be done in the first sentence of the article? Mattximus (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43 and Mattximus: I moved it to a shorter and more concise name. As for the use of "Taiwan" as part of the article name, consensus among the Wikipedia community is required, as the official name is not only accurate, precise and that it is neutral. There are two provinces (namely Taiwan Province and Fujian Province) in the Republic of China, but Taiwan is a province itself. Everyone is welcome to continue discussing on the article name length issue. HYH.124 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a need for "current" in this article title (or the other FLs with the same)? It is superfluous disambiguation. By default, the scope of List of heads of local governments in the Republic of China should only be "current" heads anyway. The only time this disambiguation should be considered is if there was a List of former heads of local governments in the Republic of China, and I would argue that should be a disambiguated child of the main undisambiguated article, List of heads of local governments in the Republic of China. See List of municipalities of Norway and List of former municipalities of Norway. I also still think "heads of local governments" is too wordy compared to "mayors and magistrates". As you said here, "local" may be vague, so using "mayors and magistrates" would address that. Hwy43 (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese Wikipedian User:Wildcursive raised his concern that the term "local" may be vague, which was why I moved to a more accurate title, but English and Chinese Wikipedias are different; English Wikipedia asks for conciseness, and I already think that the name I moved to is very accurate and precise already. Currently, I personally think that "local government" is also already correct because only the administrative divisions which I mentioned are "local governments" and there are no other sub-divisions with "governments". (I just need to have a lead that "defines the scope and inclusion criteria" as in the FL criteria). However, "mayors and magistrates" is definitely, absolutely incorrect. Anyone with a grasp of the Chinese language would know that "mayor" is a direct translation for the administrative head of a city. There are cities controlled by a county in the Republic of China, apart from special municipalities and provincial cities. I'll make a compromise here. I can't move the page, and you may request an administrator to move the page to List of heads of local governments in the Republic of China. HYH.124 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate there may be differences between Wikipedias of different languages, but I would like to explore this a little further before moving onto other details within the nomination. I do like "local governments", yet this article has since been moved again back to a more verbose title. I am catching up on all that I missed. I'll reply with more in a bit. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also don't see the need for a "Sex" column. Haven't seen that before (it is not in the FL it is modeled after). More than anything, a brief sentence in the lead stating, "Two of the local government heads are female while the remaining are male." would be the current sentence in the lead advising the number of female heads is sufficient. Hwy43 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, but you cannot be very sure that in the future, there will be a higher, equal proportion of females, or even more than males. This is with regard to gender equality, and readers may just read from the table, and if the table provides function to sort the females from the males and identify exactly the gender of each official, I don't see why not. If you really think the sex column should be removed, I will remove it. HYH.124 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask you if there was a featured list precedent that included a sex/gender column, but you have since decided to remove it. Thank you. Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to raise the issue that I tried to sort the date of birth, but I think the sorting function is being affected by the "Mayor of" or "Magistrate of" from the first column. Not sure if putting the office below the division would help. HYH.124 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is out of order, but Fujian Province is most definitely not part of Republic of China as you stated above, but part of China (People's Republic of China). Also the consensus on wikipedia has been to name the country Taiwan, and you can read the consensus here: Talk:Taiwan/Archive_23#Why_is_this_article_not_called_.22Republic_of_China.22.3F, which links to previous discussions if you want a history of the decision. I don't dispute that "Republic of China" is the official name, but we must go with the consensus on wikipedia, and also in the English world Taiwan is far more popular in common usage. Mattximus (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to another administrative division, and obviously you are not knowledgeable about Taiwan politics at all. (I can't believe someone unaware of or even severely misunderstand the current political situation in the East Asia region will have any strong reasoning) If you can get consensus on this, I will gladly use the word "Taiwan". Currently, I don't see the need to. You are the only one insisting the use of so-called "common name", so if others agree with you and there is consensus, I would move. Please move on to other aspects of the article first. HYH.124 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Taiwan. Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43 and Mattximus: I moved the article name to suit Mattximus' needs. Also the sex column on the list is removed. I don't mind further moving it to "mayors and magistrates" if any of you further insists. I will just sit back and laugh. HYH.124 (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still many issues with the article, for example, the date column does not sort properly. Also, since I don't know how the administrative divisions of Taiwan work, I clicked on a random city: Changhua City, and noticed it had a mayor, Chiu Chien-fu (DPP), that is not on this list. It appears he would be a head of local govenrment, no? Would you be able to explain this? Also you are slightly confused, the consensus on wikipedia was to use "Taiwan", and you can find the arguments linked above, it is not to suit my needs, but to be consistent with the rest of wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will make necessary amendments to the article, do some research on Taiwan's law and address what you pointed out in a day or two. HYH.124 (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: OK, this is problematic, I checked the Local Government Act which was amended in 2014 and found out that third-level administrative divisions are also "local autonomous bodies" and they have their own local head of administration too, so the current article name would be incorrect. You may refer to List of townships, cities and districts of Taiwan. Currently in the Republic of China, the local governments of special municipalities, counties and provincial cities are directly governed by Taiwan's central government, though the first one is de jure a first-level division while next two are second-level. The original name which I used to submit this nomination is definitely accurate and addresses all problems, but both of you said it was too lengthy and not concise. "List of heads of Taiwanese local governments directly controlled by the Executive Yuan" is still quite lengthy and not very accurate according to Taiwan's law. There are FLs with long names too. I personally think that long names cannot be avoided if shorter names will cause ambiguation, vagueness, serious inaccuracy and confusion.

1. I hereby propose to move the page to List of heads of governments of special municipalities, counties and provincial cities in Taiwan, which is a very accurate, precise name which much consideration and after "current" as well as the official name of Taiwan is not used. I will rename the page to my proposed name if you or anyone else agree.
2. As for the date column, I will fix it as soon as possible done.

HYH.124 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved, all above comments resolved. HYH.124 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a much better title that addressed my concern. Mattximus (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not quite resolved per above and my third-last edit summary. If the Local Government Act recognizes third-level divisions, exactly how many are there, and what type(s) are they called? Do they all have local government heads? You've mentioned administrative heads, but are they elected like those in the higher divisions? If one or both of these answers are yes, couldn't this list be expanded to be inclusive of all divisions and potentially returned to the concise List of heads of Taiwanese local governments with a complete scope of heads of all levels of Taiwanese local governments? Hwy43 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall carry out works to the article and re-nominate it when time is right. I am now withdrawing this nomination. HYH.124 (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2015 (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 withdrawn by Crisco 1492 07:58, 13 May 2015 [5].

Nominator(s): Serendi^podous 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been extensively cited and I think represents a comprehensive account of its subject. Serendi^podous 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw

As a non astronomer I clicked on this nomination not really having and idea of what I would find (or how it could be a list) - which might be an issue about the title - but I think I've got the idea now. I found it interesting but have a few comments:

• In the lead I found the sentence "The Earth is at the center of the observable universe because its observability is determined by its distance from Earth" confusing as a circular sentence or self fulfilling prophecy or something - but certainly didn't help my understanding.

• This now includes ... Earth, Earth is,... some rewording may be possible.

• On my screen the notes column is very wide and the size column runs to three or four lines for Geospace and Milky Way subgroup. I would narrow the notes column slightly.
• Geospace - I'm not sure I totally understand the difference in size on the sunward and trailing sides - is there mileage in having a short explanation next to the note?
• Orbit of the moon - how much does the diameter vary? - by "average" is this a mean median or mode?
• Oort cloud - which version of trillion is this - or is it being used in the sense of "massive but we don't really know"?
• Solar system appears twice in the Feature column with two different sizes given. I'm still trying to get me head around this.
• Universe - "no reason to suppose different natural laws" sounds like an assumption to me - not one I'm prepared to challenge but it would be nice to give a reference for who the speculation is made by.
• Ref 27 Eisenhauer... has a CS1 issue (CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al) which could be corrected by giving the detail of the other authors rather than et al.

The article has eight authors. Do you want to list them all? Serendi^podous 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that in cite web, cite journal etc if you list them all ie first1=|last1=|first2=... then the template sorts out when to use et al etc. (that's what happened when I cited a pare with 10 authors).— Rod ^talk 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note b just says "Existence is hypothetical" which is just about where my thoughts were heading to at this point - perhaps a little more explanation would be useful.
• I was surprised to see the Galaxy Song in the "see also" but it was what I was humming while reading this!— Rod ^talk 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to remove it? I can say I didn't put it there :-) Serendi^podous 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also should the Multiverse be included? I'd love to see the size calculation.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted points resolved; as for multiverse, well not everyone agrees with the multiverse hypothesis, or what form it would take, or how large it would ultimately be, or even if a concept like size even applies to it, so I really can't say. Serendi^podous 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Multiverse could be mentioned in the notes for the 'Universe' row rather than having a line of its own. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've struck some comments which I think are now resolved. A few more:

• Refs 13 & 15 appear to be to the same thing so could be "named and reused".

They're actually different pages; just needed better wording.

• Should refs 22 & 26 "Mark Anderson" & Harold Spencer Jones have years of publication?

Mark Anderson does have a year of publication. Jones and Huxley will need some doing.

Jones and Huxley doesn't appear to have a title either.— Rod ^talk 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 25, 36 & 38 appear to be deadlinks

Fixed.

• Some dates in the references are in d/m/y format others are eg 2009-10-02 which could be standardised.— Rod ^talk 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

I ran a script which did the rest.— Rod ^talk 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to comment on whether the sources are RS.— Rod ^talk 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The web cite of Local Chimney and Superbubbles should have an accessdate.— Rod ^talk 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Peel

This is a rather unusual list! Here's some comments/suggestions from me. I am a professional astronomer, but this topic doesn't really fall under my research area.

• On the table formatting: the header "Earth in the Universe" probably isn't needed. It might be better to give the notes either in the lead (for the distance measures) or under the 'Notes' column (for the Oort cloud)
• The diagram might be better if it were vertical down the side of the article rather than horizontal across it. Alternatively, small images could be added at the start of each row instead. That would avoid breaking the flow of the page with a large image.
• The sizes could be given more precisely in some cases (e.g. diameter of the earth); in all cases they should give uncertainties.

Well, most of the distances are so uncertain that they don't really have uncertainties. Serendi^podous 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that: they may have very large uncertainties, but they should still have uncertainties. Scientific statements/results always quote uncertainties. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It would probably be simpler to jump from AU to parsecs directly rather than using light-years, since distances within our Galaxy are typically referred to in parsecs (see the cited academic references). It might be better to set a standard definition of what you mean by 'size' rather than repeatedly saying 'across' (which I think effectively means 'diameter, assuming it's spherical'?)
• "Residence of humanity." seems a bit human-centric: why not refer to life instead?

We know humans are only here; we don't know if life is only here. Serendi^podous 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we don't know if life is only here, but I'm not sure we know that humans are only here. Or maybe I've watched too many SciFi shows. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the various layers of the Earth's atmosphere be included; in particular, would it be worth mentioning the Kármán line?

The atmosphere is part of the Earth. Serendi^podous 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Perhaps consider expanding the row entry in the note column to also talk about the atmosphere? Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that the Solar System extends to 4 light-years seems a bit odd: it would be better to refer to a Sphere of influence (astrodynamics) for the sun/combined mass of the solar system instead.
• "Milky Way subgroup" - the "orbital diameter of the Leo T Dwarf galaxy" doesn't seem to be suitably referenced. The linked paper only seems to talk about Leo T being 420kpc distant from us.
• The cosmic microwave background should be mentioned as the furthest light we can see in our universe. There's also the CMB dipole which tells us about the Earth's velocity relative to the CMB, although it is difficult to separate out the dipole due to our velocity and the cosmological dipole.
• With the references: I'm not sure how reliable [6] is. [7] is a broken link. Also, Carnegie Institution for Science could be linked to (and ditto with other publishers). [8] is somewhat reliable, although I'd recommend backing it up with a second reference.

[2] is working for me. Serendi^podous 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: the link loads a webpage, but it's not the same webpage that's indicated by the URL or reference. Rather than being a page answering this specific question, the link points to a welcome page for the "ask an astrophysicist" website. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have more comments, but that's probably enough for now! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking some of my comments above into account. I think the list is looking better! Some additional suggestions:

• It might be better to reference the sources in-line rather than having a second column, particularly where there are several entries in the 'notes' column as well as the distance. This would make it easier to verify the information.
• "Atmospheric hydrogen atoms have been detected as far as 100,000 km from Earth's surface." - hydrogen atoms are hydrogen atoms, I don't think you can tell whether they're atmospheric or not at that kind of distance. It would be better to talk about the Scale height instead.
• If km and AU are abbreviated, "parsecs" could also be abbreviated as "pc", and "megaparsecs" as "Mpc"
• It's really important to quote uncertainties on the distances here. Without them, this list doesn't pass muster for me.

I'll make some more minor edits to the article directly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a really neat list that I like very much. Here are some pointers:

• link parsec in intro
• the table really needs a section title. I am not sure what is the equivalent term for timescale or timeline but for space/length
• what are "trailing side" and Sunward side?
• how about Earth's gravitational well? i.e. the location of the important Lagrangian points
• maybe mention Sun's magnetic sphere? Helioshealth or something like that
• mention how far is Voyager 2 (the farthest humans have sent physical objects)
• mention somewhere the distance to the next closest star and galaxy;
• also mention in the note how far is Andromeda
• the distance scale is going to be confusing to non-experts. Perhaps move the table footnotes into a separate section? Maybe give out the time light takes to travel each unit?
• it would be nice if the left image would match better the table's separation points.
• this might sound weird, but about how much is Earth's neighborhood corresponding to the IUA's definition of planet?
• Mention the 100 km boundary defined as the limit between "atmosphere" and "space" as seen by an actual respectable organization.

Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to withdraw this; I severely underestimated what it would require. Still, Thanks for guiding me on to what is required. Serendi^podous 18:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Serendipodous, are you withdrawing? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I have too much other work to do. Serendi^podous 07:05, 13 May 2015 (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. Withdrawn — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 08:28, 7 May 2015 [9].

Nominator(s): RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the criteria. There were some unreferenced teams, which I have fixed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Blackhole78, Joseph2302, and Shagadelicbasil23: Informing the major contributors of this list of this nom. Cowlibob (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the featured list criteria, I think it has a chance- it's the first time an article I've worked on has been nominated, so I don't really know much more to say. I've done a few minor date fixes, and added a picture of the MCG, as it was lacking in pictures. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: the lead is exceptionally short for an article of this length, and does not sufficiently summarise the content. The tables all lack row scopes, which are required for accessibility. The tables would further benefit greatly from being sortable, and does not require the flags in the final column (in fact, MOS:FLAG frowns upon the flags being used like this anyway.) The lead image requires alt text for accessibility. The tables appear to be unreferenced, as it is unclear which (if any) citation covers them. It needs to be made clear when the ages and the number of matches played refers to (the start of the tournament, the final?) The section headings should not be linked, and definitely should not include flags. It would be useful to include appearances in the tournament as an additional column, to give an indication of who played, and how much. Harrias ^talk 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for a couple of days, Joseph2302 has already strated working, and me too. I hope within 2 or 3 days, the article will be according to your suggestions. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush, featured list candidates have to be open for at least ten days, and most are closer to a month. Harrias ^talk 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Hi, all the references had been added. Please let me know what more should be done. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently adding the number of matches each player played in the World Cup. Also, I think it would be good if each team had a few lines of text about their squads, not just 1 sentence. I've added some detail for England and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I've added a lead, with a better summary of the scope of the article i.e. more about the 2015 Cricket World Cup, and clarified the ODI and age figures in the lead section. I can see how the referencing of player details looks bad, so am going to add sources for them (it'll take ages to do, because I need to run a stats query into a database for each player, to get the correct info at 14 Feb). I guess using similar queries on the same database I can also find all matches played in the World Cup, and add this. Flags I can deal with too, but I'll probably do it last. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I'm planning to add total World Cup appearances after the tournament finishes on Sunday, using sources from here. We're currently working on the nightmare task of adding sources for all the currently listed player stats, as we need 2 sources for each player (so over 400 sources in total). There's unfortunately not a more efficient way, I searched every cricket stats site. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the nominator – I'm not sure if your are a major contributor to this list. Leaving that aside, did you go through the criteria and ensure that this list meets the prime requirements of an FL. Also, are you aware of WP:PR? —Vensatry _(ping) 18:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Looks good. I've added rowscopes, column scopes and made all columns the same width. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 06:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• No need to have 2015 Cricket World Cup in bold.
• I don't think that there is a need to mention the 2011 and 2019 tournaments in the lead of this article. In general, I think the lead would benefit from discussing less about the tournament in general, and more about the composition of the squads. For example, maybe mention that Jayawardene had played the most ODIs prior to the tournament, and maybe mention how many World Cups he had played in, stuff like that.
• Now that the lists are sortable, {{sortname}} should be used so that the players name sort by surname.
• The ODIs column for the England table doesn't sort right for me either.
• A Key would be beneficial so that it is obvious what the ODI and CWC 15 columns signify.
• Remove the flags from the coaches.

This list is moving in the right direction, for sure. Harrias ^talk 19:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from User:Joseph2302 to these points

• Removed
• Removed the unnecessary stuff, will add some interesting squad stuff (Jayawardene, maybe the oldest/youngest players too).
• Will add the sortname thing at some point.
• Wiki didn't like Morgan's note, I moved it which fixed the problem. Error didn't make sense, since Ronchi and Joyce notes didn't affect their columns.
• Added a key, now changed the key so it's a table.
• Removed flags. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (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. This has been open long enough, and there is still an outstanding oppose and no sign of any support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that's about 100 hours of my life wasted improving this article- won't be doing this again anytime soon. I'd basically fixed most of the problems, yet no-one else could be bothered to contribute. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 08:28, 7 May 2015 [10].

Nominator(s): All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have worked hard on it and it satisfies most of the criteria. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A comprehensive list. Good work! HĐ (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @HĐ: I will add the track listings back. Consensus at the recent deletion discussion for the "List of songs recorded" article was to merge the contents to this article. Specifically, two editors agreed that the track listings of the non-notable albums should be included here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Seems to pass Featured list criteria. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from that, Support, can't see anything that would hinder this from meeting criteria, great article. Azealia911 _talk 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I have replaced the superior lead paragraph wording that was implemented by NeilN but removed by another editor. The better wording mentions the article subject, while the inferior wording mentions Trainor first. The reader's focus should first be on the article subject. Have made some wording simpler (we are supposed to write for readers in such a manner that the average 6th grader can understand it), removed a redundancy or two, fixed some punctuation. Removed WP:OR and WP:SYNTH peacocking not used by or verifiable through reliable references. Question: Is there precedence for the nomination of such a short list article with its sub-subject being a brand-new recording artist with only one major-label album? Time will tell if this article is a viable candidate, I suppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande discography is an FL with two albums, Lorde discography is an FL with just one major-label album. This article is definitely a viable candidate. This is not a random decision, you have to put a support vote if you support or give something to improve on. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "have" to do anything. You wanted comments (see here [11]), I provided some. See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with how the article has shaped up. Just the lead section can have some c/e by a GOCE member, and it should be fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: The lead was just copy edited by a member of GOCE and looks great now! All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is up to my expectations, it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been four months since the Spotify Sessions album has been released; why isn't it available for sale in those regions? Shouldn't those just be ndashes if they didn't chart?
  • Spotify albums aren't released for sale on a whole. It's a streaming service, accounts are created and used for free, there's no transaction fees involved. See Lorde's EP's for example. Azealia911 _talk 13:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it isn't for sale, why wouldn't you move that note to the "Sales" column and add "—" to the "Peaks" section, as it didn't chart anywhere? Seattle (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there should be note to make readers aware that the project wasn't available for sale, as opposed to have them think that it was, but failed commercially, as you may well have from your original comment on the situation. Azealia911 _talk 17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, misunderstood your point, doing what you suggested now! Azealia911 _talk 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, changed it back, the EP was released in all countries, but not for sale, only for streaming purposes. The note below the section states ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." but the EP doesn't fit into any of these categories. Azealia911 _talk 22:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the "—" means that the album didn't chart– which it hasn't. Its commercial status doesn't matter; it didn't chart. The note should be moved to the "Sales" section. Seattle (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't believe this is notable on the grounds that she simply hasn't released much music at all. As such, only one album has charting info, and only three singles have been released. Her discography is not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. There was nothing wrong with including the Title charts table and a singles table in her bio, and a singles table on in the article for Title itself. Until she releases another album and has more of a discography, I won't be able to support this nomination. For someone who has only released one commercially successful album and three singles, the article looks very fluffed up to look more than what it is, such as including three albums which never charted anywhere. I don't want to be rude, but I think this unnecessary article is a case of WP:FANCRUFT.  — ₳aron 07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't really need "commercially successful" albums to warrant a discography. Charli XCX has a discography, Lorde has a discography (which is an FL by the way), Carly Rae Jepsen has a discography, even Iggy Azalea has a discography (which is also an FL). There is a lot of support above. There is also consensus that Trainor is notable enough to warrant a discography. As for your accusations of CRUFT, I don't see anything of that sort. But I respect your opinion, and if you think there is cruft, please point it out so I can remove it. Trainor has four, reliably sourced, albums. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  What I mean is that the first three albums have 0 information with regard to charting, sales and certifications, so the reader doesn't actually gain any information about them at all. With regard to those singers you mention, I have just explained why I have given my oppose in comparison on my talk page (for anyone else reading this, see User talk:Calvin999#Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1.) My comment about fancruft is more to do with you as an editor rather than the list, specifically. I often see you being warned about edit warring on Trainor-related articles, and I believe that this very short, not detailed and 'un-comprehensive' list is a creation of your fandom, which I do not mean as an insult in any way, shape or form.  — ₳aron 12:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to let the closer make the call on this one but I essentially see no reason as to why you would consider a 4-album list fancruft. There is clear consensus for the discography's existence. Although, all I can see is that there is nothing here that I can improve upon so... All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 12:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, it is ultimately up to whether the closing delegate decides if your supports provide solidarity in opinion to outweigh my oppose, or if my oppose brings up issues of notability which outweighs those supports. Again, I'm not saying that a four-album discography is fancruft, I'm saying that the creation of the entire list in the first place is what I believe is fancruft. There's no denying you're a Trainor fan, and I think you have prematurely created this list with what is a very, very small discography which I don't think is notable at all because you're a fan. You're not quite understanding my point on that. There are things you can improve on, it's not a perfect article, but I'm not going to list everything that needs correcting or changing when I don't believe the list should even exist (yet). And there are quite clearly a lot of issues, per the editor's comments above.  — ₳aron 12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Calvin999 it's not the fact she has a large discography, it's the fact she has a large main article. Her article would be too large then. And you can't claim fancruft on me, as I actually dislike her music, not even tolerable to me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a moot point to make, and I'll explain why. Meghan Trainor article is not large at all. It's actually very short. If someone like Trainor had a large article for what a little discography she has and her age, then something would be wrong. If you think Meghan Trainor is large, then I'd like to know what you think Mariah Carey's is, or Celine Dion's, or Beyoncé's. Trainor's discography would be far better suited to being in Meghan Trainor. That's why it's a moot point. (And I'm not sure why you're making a point on me "claiming fancruft" on you).  — ₳aron 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per ₳aron. Nom is premature as article shouldn't exist -- his Captain Obvious comment that this article exists as a result of fandom is right on. It's already been nominated for deletion once, unsuccessfully so. While the article is now well-written, construct isn't the problem: one major label release and three singles doesn't make for a discography with notability. Should be a part of the Trainor article and definitely shouldn't be a FL candidate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time per ₳aron's comments. I will add that his concerns are particularly relevant to #3b of the featured list criteria: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article."

• "meets all of the requirements for standalone lists" – Not sure. The notability guidelines for standalone lists require that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set [emphasis not mine] by independent reliable sources." Has Trainor's discography as a whole – not just "All About That Bass" – been discussed extensively in reliable sources? It would seem doubtful given that she's only distributed one album in wide release and she hasn't even been famous for a year, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on this.
• "does not violate the content-forking guideline" –  Met.
• "does not largely duplicate material from another article" –  Obvious fail. Almost all of the content in the lead is included at the main Meghan Trainor article.
• "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" –  Debatable, but probably could. Trainor's article is not that large. A few extra tables wouldn't hurt it IMO.

I appreciate the work that has been put into this, but sorry, not right now. And MaranoFan, whether or not other similar lists should exist (or be FLs) or not is completely unrelated to this FLC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This article is currently being proposed for deletion. (See discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Trainor discography).  — ₳aron 10:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The nominator has self-imposed a script-enforced wikibreak that will prevent her from editing until October. An early close may be needed unless someone else is willing to address comments and make fixes. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:45, 6 May 2015 (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. With several outstanding opposes and the nominator gone, I don't think there's much of a reason to keep this open. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2015 (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 withdrawn by SchroCat 09:47, 5 May 2015 [12].

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, part of The Boat Race mega-work. This has been spun off from the main Boat Race article as it took up an awful lot of space and was better placed as an individual article. I've added in a bunch of factoids and prose lead and some nice images from "over the years". Of course, I will be 100% dedicated to resolving each and every issue levelled against the list, I look forward to hearing from the community. As always, I thank each and every one of you for your time invested and energy spent in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw A nice looking list but a few questions/comments:

• In the lead the link to the 1877 race is a bit of a teaser and may need to be explained (otherwise there could be a light blue riot)

  Could you be kind enough to suggest something that wouldn't result in 'Tabs running riot? I expand on it in the main part of the article... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe just "this excludes the dead heat in 1877, which Oxford claim they won by 5 feet (1.5 m)" or something similar.— Rod ^talk 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it best if I remove that Oxon claim altogether from the lead and deal with it in the main text, which I've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks.— Rod ^talk 13:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the infobox we see largest margin of victory = 35 lengths - and yet in the table we get "easily" is this more or less than 35 lengths (how long is a length anyway?) & is that claim backed up by a reference anywhere?

  Yep, that's my laziness. "Easily" is what some of the official results have been recorded as, and actually, as I note in the main text, the majority (i.e. all but six) of the races have been held on a different course from that one where 35 lengths was the winning margin. I can do a number of things here, remove the "biggest winning margin" altogether, caveat it with where it was made and include the main winning margin, try to explain to the reader that often, in early times, "easily" was a standard way of reporting results....? Also, a "length" is really not that well defined but often used, even in reliable sources. Back in the day, they had to count the seconds between the winner crossing the line and the loser following up. Divide by about three, that's how many "lengths" are reported. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I see you've taken it out. All sounds a bit casual in the "old days" before the current microsecond technologies came into play. While we are discussing units - how much is a "canvas" is it less that the 1 ft (30 cms) given in the infobox?— Rod ^talk 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly was a lot more "approximate"! A canvas is longer than a foot, if you look at a modern rowing eight (or this which shows a coxed four), the canvas extends from just behind the bow man (or just behind/in front of the cox, depending on which end you're talking about, and where the cox is situated!!) to the tip of the boat. It's usually several feet. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm learning a lot from this I thought it meant the width of canvas (ie half an inch or less).— Rod ^talk 13:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad to be of service! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I came to ask the same question - to me, "canvas" is another word for the sails ... but boats solely propelled by oars don't have sails. The article on the Boat Race 1980 doesn't explain it either, whereas the Boat Race 1952 uses the term three times, one of which has the parenthesis "(approximately 9 feet (2.7 m))", with no further explanation. I think that in this list, "canvas" should either be defined in a footnote, or be linked, perhaps to an article on rowing terminology. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, it can be linked to the glossary if you think that helps? Individual rowing articles should definitely not be the place to explain rowing terminology, if we need a better explanation in the glossary, that's a different question. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the "1 foot" for the smallest margin have a metric conversion?

  Infobox? I've modified it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the table itself I see the Number column links to one of your myriad articles which provide references for the statistics (eg winning time, margin of victory etc) but these don't seem to be supported by citations on the list page. I know it will be a major job to add citations for all of them, but I tjhink it has to be done & I know you have all possible reference materials on this topic.— Rod ^talk 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response, all of the results (i.e. winning margins, times) are referenced by the Boat Race "results" page. Do you want more than that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see now the ref 6 in the header of the column provides the source - I hadn't spotted that before.— Rod ^talk 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new section on "Unofficial wartime races" which is referenced to The Times (Refs 15-18) however these are showing a CS1 error "|accessdate= requires |url=" either a link to web site (even if behind a paywall) should be added or the accessdate removed. They may be in BNA if you have access (if not some free accounts are available).— Rod ^talk 09:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you could see, I didn't add this section, but it's adding some value, so I'll do my best to work on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now resolved those "CS1" errors (not that I know what a CS1 error is, nor which actually show up to most normal readers, FWIW, but hey, in for a penny etc etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 = Citation Style 1. A CS1 error is a red error message emitted by any of those templates. Most (all?) of them are described at Help:CS1 errors. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, they only show up to some dedicated editors, and not our readers. But they should be fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fixed.— Rod ^talk 07:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

• Only glanced through this so far, but my main concern is with the Goldie/Isis table. I guess the columns for the team names are just alphabetical, but for me it looked a bit confusing having Oxford on the left and Cambridge on the right in the "Main race" table, but Goldie (Cambridge) on the left and Isis (Oxford) on the right in the "Reserves race" table. Harrias ^talk 20:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I'm not even really sure how relevant this listing is, but I'm happy to stick with these results being included, and will perform a dramatic switcheroo any time soon.... (ish). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Switch performed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Ref 13 ""University Boat Race". The Times. 17 December 1849" and ref 21 "Rosewell, Mike (2 April 1990). "Light Blue Light at the end of the tunnel"" need {{subscription required}}, or something similar

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Access dates used in all references but 13 and 21

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Times linked throughout but not in reference 13

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ISBN for Burnell, Richard (1979) should optimally be 13-digit hyphenated; see WP:ISBN for a converter.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Charles Wordsworth.jpg: source link dead; image requires a US public domain tag if in PD in US

  Removed. I have no expertise in licensing images. If you can help, that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Waddington.jpg: no source at all; image requires a US public domain tag if in PD in US

  As above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:William Henry Grenfell 1921.jpg: image requires a US public domain tag if in PD in US

  As above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Oliver Russell 2nd Baron Ampthill.jpg: no source at all; image requires a US public domain tag if in PD in US

  As above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The 1914 Cambridge Boat Race crew by Christine Broom.jpg: {{PD-1923-abroad}} should be used here

  I have blindly done as you suggest. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll leave this comment out if someone with a more thorough copyright knowledge would like to evaluate this. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you link "canvas" in the table and photo caption?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hugh Laurie Actors Guild.jpg: image needs a personality rights template

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Matthew Pinsent (flipped right-facing).jpg: image needs a personality rights template

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Boat Race 2015 - Boris Rankov.jpg: image needs a personality rights template

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Boat Race 2015 - Louloudis (cropped).jpg: image needs a personality rights template

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• on the Thames in south-west London. why not add this on the first mention of the Thames?

  Because the first race wasn't in south-west London. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• officially recorded that Oxford won the race "easily". where? by whom? Can you provide direct reference for this quote?

  In the official record, referenced by The Boat Race Company Limited list of results. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having won the ninth Boat Race "easily" can you reference this directly?

  Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the only time in the history of the event that the race was decided in such a manner "in the history of the event" superfluous phrase; used twice in this section

  Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (which has been widely accepted as a victory to Oxford by several feet) accepted by whom? Can you provide a few references here?

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2003 was the closest in history word missing

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The overall record has been tied on just three occasions: following The Boat Race 1836, it was one victory each, Oxford's third consecutive triumph in the 1863 race took the record to 10–10, while Cambridge's sixth victory in a streak of thirteen wins between 1924 and 1936 tied the universities at 40–40 can you rework this? Oxford's third consecutive triumph especially doesn't flow with the rest of the sentence

  I can't see an issue with this. But I split it into two sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It ran on. It reads much better now. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 foot can you convert this to metric within the table?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1943, a race in front of a crowed estimated to be between 7,000 and 10,000 took place at Sandford-on-Thames... → In 1943, a race took place at Sandford-on-Thamesn in front of a crowd estimated to be between 7,000 and 10,000

  As you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• in the contest superfluous phrase

  Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 24 March 1877 "Dead Heat" in the "margin of victory" section but "Dead heat" in the "Winner" section

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "1940–1945 no race" not sure this is accurate; no official races, but races occurred

  Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "foul" sorts last in the "Winning time" section of the main race table but "No time" in the "Reserve races" section sorts first

  Well, I've tried all sorts of tricks with sort templates and nothing seems to fix this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Will leave this out as well. Seattle (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why aren't scope col tags used on any of the tables?

  Added, but I have been "reliably" informed that the wikitable class now provides these without having to code them explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure the "No." column is needed at all; can't you just link the "date" to the article and use scope row tags for that column?

  I disagree. The Boat Races are variously referred to by both their year and their number, so both are relevant here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanity Fair shouldn't be italicized in the photo captions

Oppose overall, based largely on 5(b) concerns. Seattle (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Responses above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination thanks to Rodw, Harrias and Seattle for your comments and assistance in improving the list. It is currently subject to an edit war, and I am no longer pursuing it to FL. As such I would like this nomination to be withdrawn. Sorry for wasting your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination has only been open a few days, so has plenty of time left to run. Obviously, it's up to you, but there is no rush on account of FLC at the moment. I have every hope that the edit warring can be resolved before this FLC needs closing. If not, what harm in trying to come to a solution and then withdrawing in a week's time? Harrias ^talk 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's fine, thanks Harrias. I have no desire to pursue this any further, we're at loggerheads, a very unpleasant encounter indeed. Of course, someone far more diplomatic than me can renominate the list, I've barely touched it really since it was spun off, so no problems there. Thanks again for your support and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SchroCat: would you mind closing this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2015 (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.. Per above request of nominee. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2015 (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 withdrawn by Crisco 1492 13:44, 2 May 2015 [13].

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This lists was created and written as an article under the name Adolf Hitler's adjutants. During the GA-review and FL-review, it was decided to be a list by consensus and the title was change to List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants. Then, after suggestions on the previously mentioned review pages, the article was renamed yet again, this time to List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff and now includes adjutants, cooks, secretaries, chauffeurs, aide-de-camps, valets, dentists, surgeons, physicians, and so on. Please contribute with comments for improvements or throw in an oppose or support vote. Best regards, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not a requirement)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Image is PD and appears to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Caption looks fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • I did a copy-edit and made a few MOS tweaks pls see my edits here [14]. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Anotherclown, for both your copy edits and vote. :) Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsOppose by MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead you use wording such as "large personal staff", "large group of aides-de-camp and adjutants", "part of his entourage", "Many from Hitler's personal staff", etc. This wording gives the impression that the group of people to be considered for this list is unquantifiable and therefore raises the question if this list is complete? Do you consider this list complete? If yes, I would avoid these vague phrases, if no, you need to add some verbiage explaining why these people have been listed.

The list is complete; I have tweaked the sentences in question. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I, a few minutes ago, discovered that Hans Baur and Georg Betz, Hitler's pilots, were not included and have added them to the list. Now the list is surely complete! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Eastern front" should be linked and capitalized

Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume the list is initially sorted alphabetically by first name. It is good practice to explain the order sequence.

Good call, done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "who was later sacked" and "was fired as" I find this wording too colloquial

Reformulated. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Berghof" should be linked on first occurrence, or better on every occurrence since list is sortable

Done. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Brother of the better known Martin Bormann", better known? maybe "Brother of Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann"

Martin is obviously better known, but tweaked per your suggestion. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was the only one of the 15 used to survive World War II." 15 what? Who were the other 14, you claimed earlier that the list is complete.

Me and Kierzek have concluded that the food taster does not belong on the list of Hitler's personal staff, as they were being forced (and some kidnapped) and most likely never befriended or even met Hitler, as all the others did. Accordingly, Margot has been removed, so, yes, the list is complete. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was not really part of his staff but only a functionary used by the SS for a certain task; further, all the others used for the same task are unknown, as you noted MisterBee. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Me and Kierzek have concluded that the food taster does not belong on the list of Hitler's personal staff". This raises the concern if this list meets the WP:NOR requirement. Please comment MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has never been listed by any WP:RS source as being "part of his staff" and from what is written and cited she was only one of several people used by the SS for the function of tasting food. Jonas used wording which is not stating the whole picture. It has nothing to do with OR. Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think (I had expressed this in an earlier review of a variant of this list) the article/list would benefit from more verbiage explaining the roles and tasks of the various military adjutants.

A longer discussion toke place on what the lede should write and this was the result. In an attempt to add a little extra to each on the list, a "Notes" subsection was added which gives a little info on each individual.

Okay, that is fair; however I am not satisfied with some of the notes as they do not relate to role as adjutant or servant. Example, Gerhard Engel, the note states "A recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves". Over 800 people received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. How does this fact relate to the Engel's role as Hitler's adjutant? Or Georg Betz, how does the fact that he was killed in Berlin relate to his service as co-pilot. I would expect to see some commentary that indicates why he qualified as Hitler's co-pilot. In general I think that the notes should be linked to the topic.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966, the notes given to each on the list is not, necessary, meant to relate to their role in Hitler's staff, but simply something related to that person. I think you're overthinking this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas, I understand your point, but MisterBee has a point, as well. I did tweak several entries. Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look and I acknowledge that improvement was made. However, I am still not 100% satisfied. I strongly believe that the roles of these adjutants, especially the military ones, need to be better motivated. I assume they helped prepare the daily military situation briefings for Hitler. What role did the adjutant play on the day of the Normandy Invasion? Was it the decision of the adjutant not to wake Hitler in the early morning hours? One can speculate what influence this may have had on the further events, that is not my point here, but we need more verbiage explaining the roles. Look at the note on Julius Schaub, it says "Hitler's longest serving adjutant.", what was he responsible for? Buying his toilet paper? Friedrich Hoßbach, it says "Dismissed as adjutant in 1938 for unfavorable conduct.", this raises more questions than it answers. Have a look at List of battleships of Germany or List of heavy cruisers of Germany, both lists are featured and check the amount of motivating detail that helps the reader understand the articles. Please don't get me wrong, the article is making good progress, it is a worthy topic, but it just needs more work to be featured. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966, I have made further edits according your comments. I can't do more than this! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton had commented on the previous FLC review. He explicitly mentioned the work "Managing Hitlers Court" in High Society in the Third Reich by Fabrice d' Almeida. I think it would be good if he would comment on the current state of the article/list as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The ISBN numbers should be formatted uniformly. You currently have 10 digits and 13 digits, and some dashed and some not. Examples 0-393-06757-2, 978-1559707282 and 978-1-60239-804-7

My understanding has always been that using both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers were acceptable at best and didn't matter/make a difference. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They should be standardized. I use this tool whenever I need to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but that simply strikes me as being too irrelevant. Unless you tell me it's a WP policy, I won't do it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas this List is "your baby" for which I have been glad to help with, but you need to relax. What I can tell you is that neither is wrong, either 10 number or 13 number, ISBN; but the 13 number system has become more of the standard for newer books and Wikipedia does suggest it be used, if known; further uniformity is something to work towards. There are conversion tools, etc. Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check on disambiguations. Currently two links "Pilot" and "Wiking" require attention. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the links. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are currently lacking alt text (see WP:MOSIM on WP:ALT), I believe this is madated at FLC MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I am opposing this nomination until the roles and responsibilities of the various people are clearly worked into this article. I don't care if this is done through a thorough expansion of the lead or by addressing this concern in the notes section of the table. If this concern is adequately addressed; I may change my opinion (if the other items I pointed out are addressed as well). Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intentions of changing the lead or adding more on the roles and responsibilities of the various people, so I suppose I'm just gonna' have to swallow your oppose vote. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas consider my latest comments above. Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kierzek, I tweaked the 10 ISBN's to 13 ISBN's. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator

As of this moment, it looks like the fate of this candidate comes down to whoever votes next. I will leave a message on the military wikiproject and ask some people to vote here. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the paucity of images. Nergaal (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only free images are allowed to be used in Lists. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered a lot of images from their main articles could actually be used; I have added more pictures. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Any of the people in the group pic not have a table pic? If yes, crop that face and put it in the table pls. Nergaal (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Schaub, Julius and Morell, Theo Prof. Dr. are in the lead pic but do not have a table image. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In EU images become PD after 70 years. Since these people died or them images were taken more than 70 years ago the following images should be relabeled as PD:

• File:Fritz Darges photo in color, early 1945.png
• File:Hans Hermann Junge.jpg
• File:Hitler visiting Heinrich Borgmann in hospital after the failed 20 July bomb plot.png
• File:Schreckj.jpeg
• File:Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer.jpg
• File:LudwigStumpfegger.jpg
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1976-096-007, Max Wünsche.jpg
  • The image is incorrectly placed as "Karl Wilhelm Krause" MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Nazi Party and SS member Wilhelm Brückner in 1924.jpg