Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2018

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The list was withdrawn by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): :bloodofox: (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've nominated a list (the last list I nominate was list of valkyrie names years ago), but I figured that should look into giving some of the lists I've produced over the years extra polish and scrutiny. In addition, Wikipedia hosts very few folklore-related lists (including myth lists) and I'm working to improve our coverage on this topic in a number of areas (I recently founded WP:Folklore, for example). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per a suggestion below, I withdraw this nomination to merge the list into the topic's primary article, Freyja. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a straight-up bad fork. The name Freyja itself is not listed among them. There is no period/location indicated with names. Nergaal (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nergaal, I'm afraid I don't follow. Could you explain? Perhaps some explanation from my end is necessary. This article consists of a list of names of Freyja, all of which appear in Old Norse sources in a variety of contexts (as cited in the attestatons column), and all of which have produced some level of scholarly discourse (as cited in the notes column). Freyja is only attested in North Germanic sources (Old Norse). The name Freyja itself is handled at Freyja#Etymology (it's transparently cognate with, say, modern German Frau). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't believe this passes criterion 3b. This is not very long and I see no reason why it shouldn't be contained within Freyja. It is not clear that names used is itself a notable topic for a stand-alone article fork. I'm also a bit confused about the other article you mention: Why wouldn't it be a List of valkyries that lists more than just a translation of the name? I'd think broader information about valkyries themselves is a notable topic, but not their names alone, otherwise that could be merged with Valkyrie too. Reywas92^Talk 21:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by List of valkyrie names. This is an FA list. However, I'm also considering simply merging this list into the Freyja article, since it is indeed quite short at the moment. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2018 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 20 May 2018 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is complete and well-sourced. I've spent a lot of time researching this topic and I find it fascinating and I feel the information in the list reflects that. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 18:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am unable to get Dispenser's tools (on right) to load, I keep getting timeout errors. Not sure if that's a known issue or what... ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 18:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jmnbqb (Round 2)

• What does the N° mean in the Unmanned Missions table header? It isn't explained in the section lead
  • The whole thing stands for serial number. I am thinking of combining the mission and serial number columns, and labeling the column Mission (Serial Number), but I do not know how I would do the first missions where they are the same. Was also thinking of adding a column for launch site to break that out. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk)
    • Maybe have a key/coloring where it marks if the mission/serial number is the same? I'm personally fine with anything that's made to be as consistent as possible across all the tables in the article. Jmnbqb (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Launch Time isn't sorting correctly in the LES tests with the Little Joe II rocket table
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Why are words bolded in the Manned Apollo Missions section?
  • No good reason. de-bolded. Kees08 (Talk)
• Comma isn't needed in the sentence "This flight was cancelled around the time of the Apollo 11 first landing mission, to make the launch vehicle available for the Skylab space station."
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Manned Apollo missions lead needs references
• Are 5 references per entry really necessary for the Manned Apollo missions table? (WP:OVERCITE)
• Names in the Cancelled missions table need to sort by last name per WP:NAMESORT
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Under Cancelled missions, a range is given for Apollo 20 while others are just given one date; is this a mistake?
  • I only found citations supporting what I left; I added one since the citations did not seem to cover it. Kees08 (Talk)
• The bibliography date is wrong
  • Woof. Done. Kees08 (Talk)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Lead is gonna need references. There are currently zero.
• Paragraphs above tables also need references (there are none in many)
• Unsort all ref & remarks cols that are currently sortable
  • Fixed
• In the first table, I would personally fix the redirects "Sa-X (Apollo)" to "Saturn I SA-X
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Made this small edit for you per MOS:DASH
  • Whoops, sorry about that. I converted it to a template because it didn't render as the proper dash on my screen...
• All people need to be sorted by last name per WP:NAMESORT
  • Done Kees08 (Talk)
• Think all the ref cols can be centered
  • Fixed
• I count 7 'permanent dead links'
  • Fixed
• There's a random space between ref 34 & 35 in the Apollo 18 row
  • Fixed
• Make sure all images have alt text
  • Fixed

I know Jmnbqb probably said some of these things but I can tell he gave you a lot of stuff to work with. This definitely needs some work before it gets promoted. I would love to see this get promoted because as you have much an extensive amount of work into it. So far great job, but still needs work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. Like I said, I had surprise academic commitments... I've begun fixing things, I have to step away (yet again sorry), so more fixes will come soon! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 05:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt

• The paragraph at the beginning of unmanned section should have a note linking to the relevant A-20x entries, and A1 should mention A-204 somehow.

Fixed

• LES tables can probably be merged

Fixed

• The current table format is very confusing. Not sure if merging everything into a single one would be benefficial

I think merging to one table would be more confusing, this isn't List of Space Shuttle missions or the like. However, I've clarified section headings.

• Missing surface EVA totals
• CM and LM needs explanatory notes
• people on multiple missions should be marked down

How do you recommend I designate that? I'm not opposed, I just don't know how.

• people who walked on the moon should be marked

Same question.

• remarks entries need far more information added

Nergaal (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker you haven't edited for a while, if there's no activity here in the next few days, I'll archive it – you can re-nominate upon your return if need be. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Oh I'm still around, for whatever reason I've been getting no notifications related to edits on this page... your ping was the first thing I'd seen in a month. I'll address the concerns above and look into why I'm not getting notified. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker well that's good news. You haven't actually contributed to Wikipedia for more than three weeks so that's why I pinged you. And Nergaal didn't actually ping you when leaving comments, we usually expect people to have their nominations watchlisted so they can respond to comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you! I should have this page watchlisted, and I actually set up notifications via IFTTT so I receive an SMS and email on changes as well. That's neither here nor there, but I will begin addressing Nergaal's comments shortly. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker a week has now passed, are you intending to address these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Of course! I should have clarified in my last comment, I do all of my work offline using Puggle. Over the next couple days, I'll make a very large edit on the article addressing all comments. That's just me copying from offline to online. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker this nomination has somewhat stalled since you responded nine days ago, if no further activity is forthcoming, I'll close the nomination for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker On that note, I have been holding off editing because you said you have a lot of offline edits. If you get those in, I could potentially help wrap up whatever is remaining. Kees08 (Talk) 21:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Sure! I'll work on getting them merged later this evening, thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRM noted over a month ago that this nomination would be archived if there wasn't some movement; despite several promises there are still many outstanding comments and the nominator has again not edited for several weeks. I'm going to close this nomination for now; whenever you have a chance to update the list feel free to renominate. --PresN 17:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): TIAYN (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because its the greatest party on earth as the DPRK media puts it.

More seriously, it was very easy to make a leader list for this disgusting party (if you can even call it that)... However, the list is not important in itself since positions don't mean anything in Korea; the only thing that matters is if you're a Kim or not. TIAYN (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unfortunately I think this is a 3b failure. The list only contains four items and I think it could be reasonably incorporated into the article on the party -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: It contains 10 items. 5 offices, 4 four leaders and a leader designation. --TIAYN (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - those are generic, borderline non-reasons for nomination that could apply to any list. Also why you would nominate a list for (by your own admission) a disgusting party is just baffling. Wingwraith (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'd suggest this be a quick failure. As noted, 3b. It is, fundamentally, a list of four people, all of whom are covered better and with more context in the parent article, as is the inside-baseball of the lead position's name changes. The only thing this list brings to the table is a tabular format. That aside, the references are also a mire of template errors sufficient to be problem also. This isn't one of the project's best lists, but I suspect the nominator already knows that and is trying to make some manner of point here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination doesn't seem like it's going to come back from the initial response, so closing. --PresN 19:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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