Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive, useful list that satisfies the Featured List criteria. I hope that it will help guide interested readers in understanding and comparing unsuccessful major party presidential candidates. Orser67 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gonzo_fan2007

• The column title "Office" could be reworded to "Previously held office", which would make the note somewhat unnecessary.
  • "Previously held office" would make sense for a list of presidential winners, but in many cases these candidates held office before, during, and after the presidential election. The note is also useful in clarifying that it refers to the most recent office the candidate held (e.g. Henry Clay in 1844 could also be referred to as a former Secretary of State, but he's referred to as a former Senator because he had held that office more recently) -Orser67
    • Orser67I still think this needs to be clearer. Footnotes should not present key information to the reader. They should be there to elaborate, clarify, or provide additional info. Previously held office or Office before nomination while still including the note would be better than the current column title. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not 100% convinced of it its necessity, but I changed the column title to "Office at time of election." Orser67 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead of a note, "PV%" and "EV%" would be better written using the {{Abbr}} template, ie PV% and EV%
• NR should also use the {{Abbr}} template, i.e. NR.
• All of the abbreviations in the table under "State" should either be linked in their first instance, or at the very least use the {{Abbr}} template.
• The key with the † and ‡, in my opinion, should come before the table so the reader naturally knows what they mean before they start looking at the table.
• You don't explain what the bolding means in the PV% and EV% columns.
• The "Election" cell should span two rows. You can do this by moving the Election field up and adding the rowspan qualifier to the table. I.e. move ! rowspan=2 | Election above the ! colspan=4 | Candidate

I really only focused on the table for now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments, I implemented all of your suggestions except for the first. Orser67 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

1. An image or two would be nice. Perhaps a timeline of the major parties?

   Added an image, open to adding more. -Orser67

2. Avoid using a "this is a list of" phrasing, as this is clunky.

   Rewrote the first sentence; not sure if this comment applies to anything else.

3. The United States has had a two-party system for much of its history, and the two major parties have nominated presidential candidates in most presidential elections. – seeing as this assertion serves as the basis for justifying the construction of this list in the first place, this definitely needs to attributed to WP:Reliable sources.

   Done

4. In the presidential election of 1820, incumbent President James Monroe of the Democratic-Republican Party effectively ran unopposed. – this should be explained in a bit more detail.

   Added a note

5. Similarly, in the presidential election of 1836, four different Whig candidates received electoral votes; the main Whig candidate in the North and the main Whig candidate in the South are listed in the table below. – why those two?

   The source emphasized that they were two major candidates of the Whig Party, and I thought it made sense to only include the two main candidates. Harrison was on the ballot in all but one of the Northern states that had a ballot (Webster was on the ballot in MA), while White or Harrison were on the ballots of every state in the South that had a ballot (Mangum received the electoral votes of SC, which didn't hold a presidential popular vote). If we included every major party candidate who received electoral votes, we should include a several other minor candidates who also received electoral votes, and I believe this list is better of those types candidates are not included. -Orser67

6. "PV%", "EV%", and "NR" should use the {{abbr}} template.

   Done

7. The state abbreviations should use the {{abbr}} template and link to the states.

   Done

8. The "EV%" column should use the {{percentage}} template and/or just write out the fraction.

   Done. I'm assuming the PV% column should also have a % for each record.

9. I think the election years should use rowspans where there are several candidates for the same election year (1824, 1836, 1856, and 1860).

   Done

10. In the 1792 election, the emerging Democratic-Republican Party did attempt – I'd say "attempted".

    Done

11. The Whigs did not unite around a single candidate in 1836, and four Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison, Hugh Lawson White, Daniel Webster, and Willie Person Mangum received electoral votes. – the punctuation should be changed, and perhaps also the phrasing. I'd suggest moving "received electoral votes" to right after candidates", and using a colon before the list.

    I rewrote it.

12. Greeley would have won 66 electoral votes (18.8% of the total number of electoral votes) – I'd write how many electoral votes there were in total.

    Done

13. The "See also" section should be placed above the "Notes" section.

    Done

TompaDompa (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to all of your comments, thanks for the various suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not sure why this article exists when there's already List of United States major party presidential tickets and United States presidential election#Electoral college results. I fail to the see the purpose of an article with only the losers, or at least one that just duplicates half the information in the tickets article. Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This list is distinct from United States presidential election#Electoral college results in that a)it only lists the major party presidential losers, and b)it includes more information about those losers. As for List of United States major party presidential tickets, that list unfortunately has major sourcing issues and I don't think I would be able to get it to Featured list, mostly because it's difficult to find sufficient information about some of the more obscure candidates. Orser67 (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article title is "List of United States major party' presidential tickets" so that entire "Other significant tickets" section could be removed, though I'm not why sourcing election results would be difficult... The main table in the loser list is just the same as the tickets list but with the winners and VPs removed, so it actually provides even less information.

• That list also includes ages and years of birth for the presidential candidates, which are difficult to source even for some of the major party candidates. I like how this list cleanly and simply presents the list of presidential losers, and I think it works as a good complement to the list of presidents. Orser67 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so now you've added third party candidates, making it even more similar to the List of United States major party presidential tickets, despite still being a less-useful article by not listing the VP candidates or just having all tickets? That article could easily be modified to denote the winning and losing tickets better, with whatever criteria you want for the minors. At the least, now the title here is wrong. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list is designed to be more biographical and mirror List of Presidents of the United States. The other is essentially a list of election results. It contains portraits/photos of each candidate, which aren't suitable for the other list. It also contains notes and refs that don't exist on the other list, as well as a further reading section and an external links section that are designed to help the reader find more information on defeated candidates. Anyway, you've already made it clear that you oppose this list. Orser67 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well that wasn't how it was designed when it was nominated last week. And "major third party" isn't a thing. The title needs to be changed, otherwise Ross Perot, George Wallace, etc. don't fit here at all. I think adding the images is an improvement, but the name is something that can be easily fixed and I could then lean toward support. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true that I nominated the list prematurely, so that was my mistake. Orser67 (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 do you still object to this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has improved substantially since its original state so I guess I can support it. Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LOL I was about to suggest moving the candidate's name to the left and adding running mate, but I just refreshed the page and voila it was already there!

• The birth and death dates would be better if made small.
  • Agreed (and done)
• I recommend changing the fully-shaded party cells (which are undesirably the most eye-catching elements of the table) to the thin strips of the list of Potus.

Good idea, done. Do you think I should move the thin strips to the other side of the "party" column?

• I also think the images at 125px make each row too tall; if you add cropped versions of the pics (I'm looking at Goldwater or even McGovern as models of how tightly cropped) they appear easily visible even at 100px or lower. It's a lot of work though, cropping ~60 images, so I won't insist.
  • I changed the size to 100px and I agree it looks better. I've cropped several images since you left this comment, and I think I'm happy with all of the images as they are now, except for Landon and Dukakis, both of which imo lack good pictures on Wikimedia for whatever reason.
• Office at time...: I don't think Fmr. needs abbreviating? Inconsistency in linking: President but not Senator, for eg?
  • Changed to consistently link to some office (except for "none"). I like abbreviating fmr. since it's shorter and focuses more attention to the office held, but that's not a deal-breaker to me.
• State: probably needs a note explaining exactly what you mean, state of birth or what? Again, I don't think you need to abbreviate these.
  • Added a note clarifying that it's "state of primary residence" as opposed to state of birth. I think I prefer abbreviating the states since the abbreviations are widely known and it keeps the column narrow, but as with abbreviating fmr., that's not a vital point to me.
    • I don't think the abbreviations are widely known outside the US, so from a WP:Systemic bias point of view there is a good reason not to abbreviate them. TompaDompa (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a link to their presidential campaign somewhere?—indopug (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea, I also would like to include a link to either the relevant article on the national convention (e.g. 1840 Democratic National Convention) or primary (e.g. Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012), but on the other hand I don't want to overload the table with information.
  • Thanks for the constructive suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• " two major parties have " this is linked but not to an article about "major parties". Indeed, using that link, we would expect to see individuals only from the Republicans and Democrats in the list. It may have been covered in previous discussion here, but where's the definition of "major party" for this list please? And what makes it notable?

  Changed the link, and tried to make clear why the list is about major parties (their candidates have won most presidential elections). -Orser67

• "electoral vote" is piped to a redirect.

  Fixed

• Ah, re: my first point, I see you go on to explain it, using one source to define "major party"... is that enough?

  It was tough finding sources that explicitly listed the pre-Civil War major parties, so I tried to use a good number of sources that made clear what parties don't qualify as major parties.

• "Vote[6][2]" numerical order for refs please.

• Changed

• (Birth–Death), just death, not Death.

• Sure

• Candidate and Running mate should sort by surname.

• Done

• If you have a key, why not add EV and PV to it?

• Sure

• "List of unsuccessful major third party and independent candidates" why are they in this list?

• I'm ok with dropping them, but I'd slightly prefer to keep them because a)some of them were borderline members of major parties (as is discussed in the notes) and b)I think the list is simply more informative with them included.

• Check refs for hyphens in year ranges per MOS. Should be unspaced en-dashes.

• I think I got them all, let me know if that isn't the case

• Don't split refs per 35em, either 30em or nothing.

• Sure

• Don't SHOUT in reference titles.

• I think I fixed them all now

Enough for a quick skip through. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't understand why the birth & death dates are listed at all. I could possibly maybe see an argument for "age at time of election", maybe, but what does it matter whether the candidate lived for 5 years or 50 afterward? Seems the equivalent of listing candidate height or spouse's name or alma mater too. I see birth/death years are on List of Presidents as well, but would also be in favor of removing it from there too unless there's some significance I don't see. I'd also prefer just "born 19XX" for living people over 19XX-present, but that's just a style preference, no big deal either way. SnowFire (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "unsuccessful major party candidates for President of the United States" I do not think this needs to be in bold.
• "If no individual wins a majority of the electoral vote, then the United States House of Representatives holds a contingent election to determine the election winner." I would say how many have been decided that way.
• "The national popular vote has no direct effect on the winner of the presidential election" I would prefer "The national popular vote does not determine who wins the presidential election"
• "there have been five presidential elections in which the winner did not win a majority or a plurality of the popular vote" I would list here the losing candidates who got more votes.
• "One unsuccessful major party candidate, DeWitt Clinton, served as the de facto Federalist nominee in the 1812 presidential election even though he was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party. Clinton lost the 1812 election to incumbent Democratic-Republican President James Madison.[3] In the 1872 presidential election, the Liberal Republican Party put forward an unsuccessful major party nominee, Horace Greeley. Greeley, who was also nominated by the Democratic Party, was defeated by incumbent Republican President Ulysses S. Grant." These comments are of limited interest and better relegated to a note.
• "Aside from the Liberal Republican Party, seven different third parties have put forward candidates who won at least ten percent of the electoral vote or at least ten percent of the popular vote." This nearly duplicates the statement in the first paragraph and should be deleted.
• "Since 1796, just one independent candidate, Ross Perot, has accrued more than ten percent of the popular vote.[6]" I am not clear why you state this and not the achievements of Roosevelt and Breckinridge which seem to me more noteworthy.
• "In the presidential election of 1824, four Democratic-Republicans competed for the presidency in the general election as the party was unable to agree on a single nominee.[10] Similarly, in the presidential election of 1836, four different Whig candidates received electoral votes; the main Whig candidate in the North and the main Whig candidate in the South are listed in the table below.[11]" In the table you list three in 1824 and two in 1836. Your selection criteria are unclear - not 10% as you list one below that.
• I do not see why you need to abbreviate the details under 'Office at the time of election' - particularly the irritating 'Fmr'.
• I do not think you should have the " Prior to the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804" comment four times. Similarly, you should not repeat the comment that no candidate got a majority in 1824.
• This article seems to me basically sound but I have some niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comments, and I did make a few changes based on them. But to be honest, I disagreed with most of your suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This nomination has been open for a couple months now and still has no supports. I ask the coordinators to please withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Orser67 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing as per nominator request. --PresN 05:33, 30 November 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. It has resemblance with List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan which became a FA couple of years back. This is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan. It has good lead and prose and is referenced as per the referencing guidelines. --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

1. Images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
2. marked the constitutional transition of power from one democratically-elected government to another for the second time in the history of Pakistan. – It should be mentioned that the first time was after the previous election.
3. The National Assembly is a democratically elected body consisting of 342 members – The discrepancy between this number and the 329 members in the list should be explained in detail.
4. There are a few discrepancies between the number of seats in the WP:LEAD and in the table on the right.
5. Per MOS:DTT, column headers in the middle of the table should be avoidable. I'd suggest simply splitting the table of members in two: one for the constituencies, and one for the reserved seats.

TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you for your comments. I made some changes and tried to fix the first two issues. The reason of discrepancy is because some of the seats are vacant and by-election are due to be held in October. Regarding the last point, it was not an issue for List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discrepancies should be explained in the WP:LEAD. That the last issue was missed in a previous WP:FLC is no reason not to fix it in this one. TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I've made the changes. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PTI has 149 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 150 according to the table. PML-N has 82 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 81 according to the table. PPP has 53 seats according to the WP:LEAD, 54 according to the table. TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PML-N and PPP numbers are correct. PTI's difference is because one reserved seat for women is vacant. --Saqib (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The differences between the table and the next need to be explained on the page itself. TompaDompa (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed PTI's vacant seat from the table. --Saqib (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a bunch of mismatches between the text in the WP:LEAD, the image in the lead, and the table in the lead. The image says 329 seats in total, whereas the table says 330. The text says 149 seats for PTI, whereas the image shows 150 and the table says 151. The text says 82 seats for PML-N, whereas the image and table say 81. The text says 53 seats for PPP, whereas the image and table say 54. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib are you going to address TompaDompa's last comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course but by 21 October. --Saqib (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man and TompaDompa: I've fixed the list. --Saqib (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I compared this to the previous edition which is already a FL so it's understandable why it's so similar, but I have some current comments:

• What does "bicameral" mean?
• "remaining 2 directly-electable" two
• "PTI won 149 seats in the National Assembly." infobox says 156, discrepancy needs explanation or resolution.
• Similar for the following sentences.
• " PML-N" key says " PML (N)"
• "On 14 October 2018, by-election were held on 11 National Assembly seats.[10]" by-elections, and what was the result of this?
• Rowspans should be used where possible.
• Blank "assumed office" cell should be fixed.
• In fact, what's the point of the "assumed office" column when 99% of it was 13 August 2018? Just add footnotes to the ones who didn't assume office on that day.
• What is the default sort? Why can't I get back to listing it by constituency?
• Use ref's 11, 12 and 31 more elegantly, instead of repeating them dozens of times.

That's it for a really quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Let me answer some of the queries here. Parliament of Pakistan is a bicameral federal legislature that consists of the Senate as the upper house and the National Assembly, as the lower house. I've fixed the 2nd point. PTI won 149 seats and PML-N won 82 in the general election held on 25 July. Some of the seats won by PTI were later vacated and by-election on vacated seats were held. As of now, PTI has 156 seats and PML-N has 85. I've expanded the last paragraph to resolve the 6th point. I don't get 7th point (Rowspans should be used where possible.). 8th point (assumed office date) has been fixed. --Saqib (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered all of the questions, as for the 7th point, please see Help:Table for how to implement rowspans (where you don't have to repeat the same data line after line after line, like you do with Region (for instance) with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa repeated 30 or so times... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Rowspans added. Regarding your question "what's the point of the assumed office"; if you look at the List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan, you will find many new members joined the National Assembly following the 2013 general election so I assume same should happen with the 15th National Assembly and we should mention the office joined date to give an overview who joined when. There is no default sort and I've no idea how to fix it. I've fixed the last point (references). I believe rest of queries have been answered already above. Please feel free to raise further issues. --Saqib (talk) 11:41, 14 November 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 25 November 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): — JFG ^talk 03:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been stable for a couple years, it is well-maintained to the point of having reached completeness. Inclusion criteria are well-defined, and regular contributors ensure timely updates, as well-sourced news develop. It can be an effective first-stop resource for readers wishing to check current and future offerings in the booming space launch market. In short, it's high time this list got a lil' star. — JFG ^talk 03:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start immediately by noting that we should write a longer and more explanatory introduction. Can the reviewers look at the rest of the page while I gather a few "regulars" to think of what we should add in the intro? — JFG ^talk 03:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Web citations need an access-date
•  Later I know you try to cover it by defining propellant, but since a solid-fuel rocket could be a rocket with either solid propellant or a traditional hybrid, I prefer to word it differently - " conventional solid-fuel rocket is a rocket"
• Y I do not see any citations for the footnotes, at a glance.
• N Development rockets should get their own table.
• Y Orbital ATK is now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS)
• N Instead of listing out the manufacturers for all the subsystems (e.g. solid rocket boosters as ATK), can we have that column be the prime contractor? We have a lot of detail for the subsystems on American rockets, but not for rockets of other countries. There are a few solutions to that issue, and using the prime contractor might be the simplest.
• Y There are some bare URL citations
• Y I have some neat books I could use to help with the citations, but I might have to recuse myself from supporting/opposing. History of Rocketry and Space Travel being one, and one specifically on Soviet rockets.
• Y/N Not sure how to bring this up properly, but how do we define things like LEO? In History of Rocketry and Space Travel, when discussing payload capacity to LEO, sometimes it uses a 100 mile orbit, sometimes a 150 mile orbit, and sometimes a 300 mile orbit. I am not sure what specific LEO the tables refer to, as LEO can be a wide range of orbits.
• Y/N Reforder: some references are not in order, such as: " 2020[97][56]"
• Not sure As reliability is important, it would be nice if we could somehow include launches/failures/success% (not all of them..) to show general reliability of each system.
• Y It would be nice to remove suborbital launches completely, since this is comparison of orbital launch systems. A footnote on the column header saying only orbital launches count for this table could alleviate confusion.
• Not sure I have seen images here and there showing launchers next to each other, to show the general size of them. Maybe NASA or someone has an open source version of that? Would be a great addition to the article.

Will add more later Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Quick note: it has been decided to keep currently-available rockets with rockets under development, to allow for easier comparison of what is "on the market" today. Decisions to launch are made years ahead, so that studying whether to launch a future spacecraft on a future rocket is a totally reasonable pursuit. Conversely, retired rockets were split off into their own table, because direct comparisons would have no practical value. I think we should leave things that way, but I'm prepared to change my mind if a majority of other editors disagree. — JFG ^talk 04:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for now. It may address N2e's accessibility concerns as well. Kees08 (Talk) 05:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per your suggestion, I have now removed the parenthetical count of suborbital flights. They are explained in footnotes only, and always with a citation. Checking to-do items off your list above. — JFG ^talk 08:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I also excluded on-pad explosions, because the big kabooms didn't even try to go to orbit. They get footnotes for posterity, though. — JFG ^talk 17:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Progress on current and upcoming rockets

I made some more progress. First, take note that everything I'm doing is for the table of current and upcoming rockets. Once that's settled, I'll request help to bring the retired rockets up to scratch.

• All citations should be good now: no more bare URLs, no missing dates, no dead or unverified stuff, some updated data. Please review them.
• Orbital ATK moved to NG Innovation, however I kept the pointers to archived Orbital documentation for older rockets (Minotaur series, Pegasus), because the NG site has almost nothing of value for those (they basically slapped their logo on the old docs). Antares and OmegA refer to the new Northrop documents.
• Subsystem manufacturers: most cases have only one "face", irrespective of their suppliers. The cases where we list two companies reflect the reality that labor is strongly divided between them. For example, the Antares 230 first stage is entirely manufactured in Ukraine, and Orbital (ahem, Northrop) just assemble their second stage on top of it. I think such cases deserve to be singled out. There are very few. The big obvious one is the SLS. Now I'm not sure if we can list NASA, Boeing or Northrop as prime contractor. My understanding is that NASA supervises development and launch pad integration, and provides the all-important funding impetus, while Boeing and Northrop each build their part of the launcher rather independently from each other. Do you have more accurate information?
• Reference order: I fixed most of them. However for the Soyuz citations, there is a logical order to the sources: first the bare rocket, then the same with Fregat upper stage, then the same with Ikar upper stage. Because the way our main source for launch counts is structured, the "Soyuz + Fregat" page is repeated for all Soyuz variants, so that its reference number ends up lower than some base variants that come before it. Given this logic, I'd leave things as they stand; the other solution would be to always place the Fregat config first. What do you think is less confusing?
• Still about references, you may have noticed that we don't repeat the citation in every column of performance figures for various orbits. By default, the LEO source also provides figures for GTO and other orbits. If we need to use a different source, then we add both. I tried with repeating the source everywhere, but that looked really cluttered; the current formula lets readers see at a glance when several sources are used for the same rocket, I think that's a bonus.
• I have added reference altitudes for SSO orbits when the information is readily available. Unfortunately, not every LSP documents this publicly. I hope that we have enough of them for readers to understand that the information may simply not be available. For LEO, it's just hopeless. I have added the ISS orbit for vehicles which are specialized to fo there, such as the Japanese H-IIB with its HTV cargo spacecraft. For the generic rockets, I wouldn't bother. LEO theoretical figures are enough of a pissing contest already…
• When sources give a range of payloads, I generally keep the highest value, unless it's totally unrealistic, i.e. projected for a future version of the vehicle. This means we are biased for mass rather than biased for altitude, but at least we try to be always biased in the same direction, so that's fair for everybody.
• Adding a column for success rate may be worthwhile, but it would have to be applied by family, and we get into OR pretty quick. It also would not make sense for low-volume rockets that have less than 10 flights under their belt. To be discussed.
• You said: I have some neat books I could use to help with the citations. That would be much welcome, especially for the retired rockets. Their specs are probably easier to find in books. Apparently a lot of the old rocket entries are sourced to a web site called Encyclopedia Astronautica, which is not well maintained (most links need to be found again, because the site URLs were reshuffled recently), and unclear about its own sources. I'd much rather replace those links by citations to well-known books on the history of rocketry.
• Images: we have plenty of good-quality illustrations of rocket outlines on wiki already, so I'm sure a volunteer could scrape together enough material to fill the page. The problem would be to choose which rockets to include, because we can't possibly list them all. This page should remain a useful and precise overview, I'm not too keen into turning it into a photo album. Ideas welcome, though.
• Propellants, and general definitions: I haven't worked on the intro text yet, it's in pretty bad shape. Hopefully some volunteers will show up and bring some drafts for consideration.

Looking forward to your next round of feedback. — JFG ^talk 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for failure/success ratio. If not for every launch system, than for those that made more than [place number here] launches.Igor Krein (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. An image in the WP:LEAD would be nice.
2. The first paragraph should be a hatnote, rather than a paragraph.
3. The second paragraph is so broken up with explanatory footnotes that it impedes readability.
4. The WP:LEAD is very scant for such a long list.
5. Is there any particular reason to have the table of contents to the right?
6. All abbreviations used in the tables should use the {{abbr}} template so the reader doesn't have to scroll all the way to the top to find out what an abbreviation means. It would also help those using screen readers quite a bit.
7. Where color is used to convey information, symbols also need to be used per WP:ACCESS.
8. Keep the number of empty cells to a minimum. The use of TBA is good, as it tells the reader the nature of the missing information (it will be added at a later date, but right now it is not available – other examples might be that a cell is not applicable for the entry in question, that the value is known but not available to the public if it for instance is kept secret, or that the value is unknown to anyone).
9. The sourcing is either poor or unclear. There are very many cells that contain values that should be sourced, but no reference.
10. The LEO payload cell for Simorgh only contains a reference, no value.
11. Rocket variants are not distinguished; i.e., the Atlas V series is only counted once for all its configurations 401–431, 501–551, 552, and N22. – "i.e." should be "e.g." (unless that's the only example).
12. The "Launch systems by country" graphic would be better as a table.
13. The external links listed here need to be fixed.

TompaDompa (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JFG these comments appear to have remained unaddressed (at least unanswered) for two-and-a-half weeks, are you intending to respond to/resolve them? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had no time to work on this. Will definitely continue the process asap. — JFG ^talk 11:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JFG no stress, was just checking it was active. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JFG it's been a few weeks now, are you going to address/respond to these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The main issue is that there is a lot of data in the table of retired rockets that is badly sourced because the source URLs were changed all across the site. It will be a lot of work to update them all. I was hoping that some other rocketry "regulars" could help. I also need to write a new lede section. Expecting to do this by the end of the month. — JFG ^talk 22:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to have stalled, with little or no interest reviewing it. I'd suggest that unless significant progress is made in the next week, this will be archived with no prejudice for a renomination once existing issues have been resolved. Let's give it until 1 November. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 29 October 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 4 November 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) 00:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator:  Buaidh  talk contribs 07:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it consolidates information from multiple articles including ISO 3166, ISO 3166-1, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, ISO 3166-1 numeric, ISO 3166-2, Member states of the United Nations, United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, List of sovereign states, Dependent territory, Country code top-level domain, and List of Internet top-level domains. This list is sortable on all columns and includes information about United Nations and International Organization for Standardization country name preferences. This list includes the common country name and official state name of all 249 countries. This list also includes UN membership of sovereign states and the parent state of each dependent territory.

I would appreciate all constructive criticism of this list. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 07:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - unless I am missing something, there are no references at all. The section headed "references" actually consists of footnotes and nothing in the article is actually sourced......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've added nine original source references as you requested.  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I had to revert your removal of information from ISO 3166-1 because your new list did not accurately reflect the names of countries given by the ISO 3166 standard (as opposed to the common names in use elsewhere). Anomie⚔ 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've removed the first column entitled "Common country name" and replaced it with a column entitled "ISO 3166 Country name".  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall remove the disputed tag.  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment note I tagged the article as unreferenced. I'll give the nominator a little time to respond here regarding the lack of sources, however I am inclined to oppose this nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I am working to resolve your concerns.  Buaidh  talk contribs 15:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added nine original source references and replaced "Common country name" with "ISO 3166 Country name". Please let me know if this resolves your concerns. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unref tag but I have not reviewed the list entirely. Not sure if I will at all at this point though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list is factually correct.  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the other tag. Anomie added it here. I have no opinion regarding the tag. On an unrelated note, Anomie, seeing User:AnomieBOT date your tag here made me chuckle. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions for improvements?  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at this time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled why you created this article. What does this present that the featured list ISO 3166-1 doesn't? Why shouldn't the alpha-2, alpha-3, and numeric articles be merged into that article? They are duplicates of the same information, and this is a new article that again duplicates all the same information for no apparent reason. Listing the countries' long names and sovereignty status is neither a particularly useful consolidation of information, nor directly relevant to the standardization system, nor something that couldn't be done to the preexisting FL. Reywas92^Talk 22:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't see why this isn't in the main article at all. A bright line violation of 3b. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• PresN, Giants2008, this one could use closing out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I didn't want to close this out without also going through and cleaning the area up, but I don't have time. Agree with Reywas and TRM- it's not that this list shouldn't exist, it's that it should not exist as long as the other 3 3166 lists exist. I'm totally on board with combining the alpha-2/3/numeric lists into a single list, as they're very duplicative, but instead this list just sits alongside them as a content fork. Closing. --PresN 02:10, 1 November 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.