Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2020

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, 30 November 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a massive, comprehensive, well-written, fully-sourced and up-to-date list of all the original, high-end production, television films and movie series from Hallmark Channel (HC) and its sister channel Hallmark Movies & Mysteries (HMM). I would also like to add that this list has been continuously edited and built for 10 years now, and has had almost 100,000 page views in just the past month. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• There's a heck of a lot of references, but what is sourcing all the "by year" data from 2000 to 2011? None of that has any refs at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Chris. If you take a closer look you'll see that the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons DO have references in their sections (plus other sections). 2001 and 2004's are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively), 2003's in the 'Franchise series' section. 2005's in the 'Umbrella series' and 'Franchise series' sections. 2010's in the 'Seasonal programming' section. The list is only missing references for 2000, 2002 and 2011, which should be easy to find. Also, a reminder that the 2000-2014 period produced far less titles than the 2015-2020. No list is perfect, but this one is pretty good. And of course, improvements and polishing are always needed in this list as in all lists. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 22:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "2001[...]'s are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively)", and that part is certainly true, but what ref covers the fact that "Snow White: The Fairiest Them All" (which, by the way, seems to be spelt incorrectly) was broadcast on October 28, 2001, for example? And given that you've mentioned there that the channel launched in 2001, how can there be nine films listed for 2000 if the channel hadn't started broadcasting? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your input Chris :) I have addressed your above concerns as best as possible, plus I added refs to all the years/seasons that had none (see my changes here). I certainly agree that the 2000-2011 period could include more sources, but all its sub-sections now have at least one or two refs, and again, this is the earlier period that had much fewer movies in it than the latter period when they flourished. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but saying that all sections "have at least one or two refs" isn't really going to cut it at FLC. An FLC is expected to have everything reliably sourced. As it stands, the section on 2005, for example, only cites the existence of one out of 32 films, so regretfully I'm going to have to oppose due to lack of sourcing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With almost 600 unique references, I hardly think there is "a lack of sourcing" in this massive list. You seem to be asking for a perfect list, and that is unreasonable. I also don't understand why you are so quick to oppose, when you could offer more guidance, solutions, and specifics. If you care about the FLC project I kindly ask you to withhold your vote and allow more time to address its imperfections. The rules/guidelines even indicate that nominations can have up to 1 month to resolve issues. Are you seriously going to deny this nomination the time that everybody else here is getting? Please take into consideration that this list includes almost 1,000 unique film titles. The editors involved in the making of this list did great work and I support them 100%. Thanks, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 21:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more than happy to withdraw my oppose !vote if the issues with the article are resolved (and many nominations stay open for a lot longer than a month, so there's plenty of time). In the case of this list, though, there's just so much uncited content that I think it will be a huge task to bring it up to FL standard within a reasonable timeframe....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oppose – There's a lot of issues with this list in its current state.

• I'm inclined to agree with ChrisTheDude about this article. The sources are very weak and certainly not up to the standards of a featured list. Many movies are missing sources completely, so how do we know they are real in any way? Other movies have a source, but only for the ratings; this does not help to verify the other information in the table, such as DVD availability. Some sources consist of only a link with no formatting instead of a proper citation. As you pointed out, this has a lot of sources, but it's a long list, so it still needs more.
• The accessibility needs improvement. Per featured list criteria 4, there should be table sort functions for the movie titles, casts, and directors.
• The formatting should be more consistent; I think the early years also need to be put into a table. Moreover, every movie should have the same information, so if you're going to include the cast and director, you should do that for every movie.
• Finally, I'm hesitant to make this a featured list even if its formatting is improved solely because it will be significantly updated on a fairly regular basis (at the rate Hallmark makes movies, there would be dozens of movies each year that have to be added with the same level of formatting).

Here's what I would recommend. As this currently stands, the articles is over 400 kB – much too long to be comfortably navigated. I think the list should be broken up by year or into increments of several years (I think 5-year increments would work fairly nicely – so 2000-2004, 2005-2009, etc.). Then, each list would be much easier to manage, and years with plenty of sources would not be held back by years with little to no sources. This would also ensure that past years are included in a stable, unchanging list. I'm not going to propose a split myself, but it's something I think you should consider instead of trying to get this entire list to FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ChrisTheDude and RunningTiger123 for your interest in this nomination and for taking the time to comment. Let me begin by saying that I (and hopefully other editors willing to help get this list up to FL standards) will try to address as many of the aforementioned points as we can, and as best as we can. But we also need as much time as you are able to give to this nom, given the massive size of the list. I would also like to kindly reiterate that we must all be *realistic*. If we add layer upon layer of requirements to a FLC, tantamount to those expected of the main page's Today's Featured List (TFL), then we will end up with little to no Featured Lists at all, as well as many discouraged editors abandoning their overall participation in the improvement of lists. Ok, that being said here is my latest Update:

I have now added 200+ new unique references (the list's total of unique refs is now 800+). Almost all of the (40) tables in the list are now 100% sourced, with the exception of (6) that are at about 75% sourced, and (2) that are minimally sourced because these are the harder-to-find pre-Hallmark Channel years. Additionally, according to InternetArchiveBot's most recent scan, requested yesterday, (0) dead links were found in this list (See: here). Several AutoWikiBrowser scans have also found no problems with the list. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 04:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really good to see that you're adding sources to the page; from past experience, I know how hard it can be to find old information like this for lists. That being said, the comments that have been made are not adding "layer upon layer of requirements" to an FLC (at least, I certainly think that's the case; I won't speak for ChrisTheDude). Per WP:FLCR: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, so if a list is to be promoted, it needs to live up to that standard to the fullest by having sources throughout – not just for most items, but for every item. We cannot change the requirements to be "realistic", as that sets a bad precedent and threatens to degrade the quality of future FLs. I'd also like to clarify that there are no additional requirements to be featured at TFL because anything that TFL chooses to display is already vetted by going through the FL nomination process. Again, though, your progress is really encouraging and is putting this list on the right track. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, I agree, and I don't see anything in what I typed above which seemed unreasonable or unrealistic. At the point when I initially commented, whole sections of the article had literally no references at all, and suggesting that these needed to be added is not adding "layer upon layer of requirements", it's simply stating what is expected of any FL. The nominator's response suggested (and apologies if I misrepresent) that he/she felt that because this is such a long list, referencing only some of the content ought to be sufficient for promotion, and that has simply never been true........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you might be on to something with your suggestion that this monumental list be broken up into articles for different ranges of years, along the lines of, say, Category:England national football team results -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2020 (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) 22:21, 29 November 2020 (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, 28 November 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I know this article is already FT-applicable, and because I want to make this list a future "Featured topic" later on. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Some Dude From North Carolina: You are not a significant contributor of this article and thus should have consulted with the editors that are (myself being one of them). As well, this should be a Good Article nomination, not a list, as it is not a list. I would suggest that Giants2008, PresN, or The Rambling Man please close this/delete the nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it could be a list if you squint? But if the primary contributors are going the article route, and don't think this should be nominated at all, then this nomination is at best premature and needs a discussion by the editors working on it first. Closing. --PresN 19:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For the sake of keeping conversation in one place before its closed, as one of the primary contributors, yes I feel going the good article route is probably what should be done, but would need to be discussed before any nominations are made. Thanks for closing this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2020 (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) 00:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it includes sufficient and notable information that gives it the requirements to become a featured list. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have two quick remarks about this list.

• The first tables listing the main crew and release details (i.e. the tables in sections 1 and 2) are not sourced. I'm not an expert on whether or not these need sources, but based upon similar featured lists such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of James Bond films, you should probably add them.
  • References have been added to the tables in the first two sections. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The section Technical information should probably be removed. It is not broad enough to be helpful (only focusing narrowly on stunt, music, and sound), and many statements are unsourced or have poor sources (Amazon and IMDb are no good).

• The section has been removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time, I'll do a more thorough review, but this is what I have for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: You are not a significant contributor to this list (in fact you have made 0 edits), please read the blurb at the top of the FLC page. Have you approached all of the main contributors of the list and asked them about nomination? In my opinion there are four users that have contributed ~18,000 characters and if anyone should nominate the list, it should most likely be one of them. Aza24 (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aza24: The top 4 contributors have been messaged. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm all for this, and happy to help in any way I can. I haven't been around the article heavily in recent months so I'll need to comb through and check references and see what needs copyediting. This needs two months of work at the least, perhaps for a mid-December date celebrating the completion of the decades-prognosticated sequel trilogy. I'd also make suggestions for the summary that would be displayed on the main page. It's interesting that a film originally expected to bomb produced such an expansive and successful saga in the complex way that it has. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• The spin-off films are given much more weight than the trilogy films are. If anything it should be the opposite.
• The Future Films section is dated.
• For inspiration, check out List of James Bond films.

Those are some of the big-picture issues. ~ HAL333([4]) 22:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• I also concur that the article needs re-working to give the appropriate amount of emphasis to the different sections. Currently Rogue One gets about as much description as the nine "main" films combined, which is inappropriate....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I wholeheartedly disagree with the removal of the "Technical information" section. Although as it was written was far from top-notch material, music and special effects are critical aspects of Star Wars films. What would Star Wars be without John Williams? And how can there be no discussion of special effects (Everything from the practical effects in the originals and the continued innovation — and perhaps overuse of CGI — in some of the later films.)? The more I look at this list, I feel the urge to oppose this nomination. A subject of this notability, with the nearly infinite coverage in a variety of sources and references, should be written and sourced to the utmost quality. It really needs to be completely revamped. ~ HAL333([5]) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to quickly clarify: I suggested removing the Technical information section because it didn't cover enough topics. By only covering a few narrow aspects of production, it gave undue weight to those. If its focus was expanded beyond just music and special effects to focus on development, filming, etc., then I think the section would be much more valuable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I think the same goes for the Rogue One section. It is given undue weight, but the solution is to expand on the other films, not simply remove it. ~ HAL333([6]) 06:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment - maybe it would be best if this FLC was withdrawn? It was brought to FLC by someone who hadn't been actively involved with it, an editor who has been involved with it is conducive to it being nominated but thinks it needs working on for a good couple of months - maybe it would be best to close this nom and let the Star Wars editors work on it at their own pace and re-nom it when they deem it ready? Just a thought...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that idea. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this- the nominator was not a major contributor and has been missing since nominating; no one is addressing issues raised in the last month (or editing the list much at all), and there's an oppose with other strong negative opinions present. Whenever the list is ready to return, feel free to re-nominate. --PresN 04:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Harlow is a key figure in American cinema history. This is my rescue of an abandoned and totally unsourced list, originally created by a sock who was blocked shortly thereafter. I have recently checked various reliable sources to bring this up to list criteria, and have otherwise edited the prose to bring it up in standard.. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Can you please close this out as withdrawn? I'm not going through this about the browser issue mentioned below. Browser issues are not Featured criteria, not FLC nor FAC, but it certainly is a good way to muck up a nomination. Everything looks fine on my browser, and I don't need this nomination. I am officially withdrawing this. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 - I'm just a regular user, I don't have the authority to close a FLC, that only be done by the FLC director or one of his delegates (see the top of the page)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments I think the lead is a touch too long. Most of the first paragraph is probably not needed in this article, nor is the sentence starting "Her co-workers and colleagues appreciated her genial camaraderie"  Done No reason for her name to be in bold in the first sentence of the lead or in the lead image caption  Done "Among the vehicles she starred in, were" - no need for that comma  Done Last paragraph is only a single sentence, it should be merged with the one before  Done Image captions - "Jean Harlow & Myrna Loy Wife vs. Secretary (1936)" => "Jean Harlow and Myrna Loy in Wife vs. Secretary (1936)". "Jack Conway Jean Harlow Clark Gable in Saratoga (1937)" => "Jack Conway, Jean Harlow and Clark Gable in Saratoga (1937)". In the latter caption the film title should also be in italics and wikilinked.  Done Some of her roles are missing from the first table for films where she is not listed as "uncredited", so presumably she was credited with a role, is this info not available?  Done - One role was "unbilled extra", and the others were unknown. She appears in the cast list, but nothing specific One note in that first table just says "Al Christie" - what was his significance?  Done - he was the producer Refs against The Saturday Night Kid are not in correct numerical order  Done "Loews" is wikilinked the third time it appears - should be linked the first time  Done Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333([8]) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've been told that you should place the scope on the film title rather than the release year.  Editor note: Actually, it's the rows and columns headings, to facilitate screen readers. If you open the edit screen on those, you can see that's how I did it - rows and columns. But I just checked a number of successful Featured Lists. Most of them do it as I have. But there were a few who did it like you are saying. Maybe we're both correct. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm kimd of indifferent to it. Sometimes I do it and sometimes not. ~ HAL333([9]) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] In the references, LA Times is italicized, but The Atlanta Journal Constitution isn't.  Done The cite template automatically italicized one, and kept telling me that it wasn't allowed on the AJC. I finagled around until I finally found something that the template likes to let me italicize that. The information in Among the vehicles she starred in were China Seas (1935) with Clark Gable and Wallace Beery, Suzy (1936) with Cary Grant and Franchot Tone, Libeled Lady (1936) with William Powell, Spencer Tracy, and Myrna Loy, and Personal Property (1937) with Robert Taylor. needs some sourcing.  Done In the short subjects section, shou;d some of those be red-linked? Or are they not notable?  Done I'm confused by the role Woman in cab as Harlean Carpenter. I assume what's meant is that she's Carpenter's double in this scene? You should clarify this in a note.  Done I'm confused by it also, but that's exactly what the source said. Since she ditched the name "Harlean Carpenter" when she became an actress, I thought maybe someone in the studio was having a little joke about the name. I just shortened it to "Woman in cab" But nice work overall. I'm glad to see that my own Clark Gable filmography will have a companion. ~ HAL333([10]) 23:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. And, oh, you're right about Gable and Harlow FLs ... kind of good timing on this. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333([11]) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

• Is Fox Film the same as Fox Studios? Isn't one the company and the other the location? I checked the former article and found only one mention of "Fox Studios" but several "Fox Studio" mentions.

 Done For clarification here, I just changed the one instance of "Fox Studios" to "the studio", since "Fox Film" is in the previous sentence. Hopefully, that just resolves that issue.

• Jean Arthur is overlinked in the lead.

 Done

• "uncredited debut in two 1928 films," what about the 1928 short?

 Question: Make a suggestion. This is what the source says: Honor Bound for Fox was released April 28,1928, Moran of the Marines for Paramount was released in October 1928, "There is some speculation as to which of these films is Jean Harlow's first movie appearance." She made Chasing Husbands for Hal Roach after those two. The latter is a "lost film", but the image from the film in the source dates it as "1928". — Maile (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the formulation but nothing I can see suggests the "latter" is a lost film (indeed, that should be noted and linked, as with the other "lost films" in the list) nor can I see a reference saying this appearance came after her two movie appearances. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the book reference p.9 the author has just finished mentiniong Honor Bound and Moran of the Marines. The new paragraph begins, "Jean next received $10 per day for her bit role in the Charley Chase bit comedy Chasing Husbands ..." The next paragraph begins, "Sadly, Chasing Husbands is a lost film ... " with only the script and still photos still existing. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sounds fine in terms of chronology then. Perhaps include that she was in the short in the lead as it was same year as the other main movie appearances. And link lost film. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "UCLA Film and Television Archive" not in italics in the lead but consistently in italics in the references. Shouldn't it be a publisher in the refs?

 Done

• "Her career" ->"Harlow's career" as you've mentioned other people in between.

 Done

• "Norwegian" no need to link, Norway and its people are commonly known to English speakers.

 Done

• "an overnight star with the audiences" this is a bit emotive/POV. If it's a quote, quote it. Otherwise it's not particularly encyclopedic in tone.
• Clark Gable is overlinked in the lead.

 Done

• Don't use MGM without putting (MGM) after the first unabbreviated usage.
• " look-a-likes " piped to a redirect, I would say "look-alikes" would suffice.

 Done

• You have "Hollywood Walk of Fame " non-italics in the lead but italicised in the refs.

 Done

• I don't understand why column widths are vastly different between tables.

 Question: Clarification needed on what you are seeing. The coding in the two tables are identical. And on my computer, they look identical in column widths. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've looked at it on Chrome and Firefox and the col widths for each table are different in width. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different in Safari too. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, now that you bring it up. I primarily use Firefox, which is where they look the same to me. But over in Chrome, there certainly is a difference. I'm not sure it's fixable for every browser out there. Suggestion? — Maile (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well given it's not the same in any browser I use, I suggest you take it up at the Village Pump (technical) if you can't fix it yourself. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK - diff. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, meanwhile there is a discussion at VP over this, I resolved the issue between my two browsers, by zooming the Chrome one notch. Like magic, both Firefox and Chrome look identical to me. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "between" browsers. The problem is between sections. You have two tables with identical column headings yet the column widths are different. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 01:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's undesirable hard-coding of col widths using %. Suggest you take a look at how to resolve that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 01:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the row scope the year, not the work, after all the principle piece of information in each line in this filmography is the film, not the coincidental year of release.
• In sortable tables every item that is normally linked just once on the first appearance should be linked every time because after re-sorting there's no assurance that the linked item will appear first.
• Watz title needs an en-dash in the year range.

 Done

That's it for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Making a note here that this has been withdrawn over the above issue, which even the Village Pump (technical) says is not possible to achieve.diff This really should not be happening on a nomination here. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has certainly been some process. Kleiber has always been one of my favorite conductors but I only recently learned of his legendary, yet mysterious reputation in the Western Classical Music world. This list would not be possible without the use of Toru Hirasawa's website, which at first glance may seem unreliable but my rationale for reliability is the following: In Charles Barber's biography on Kleiber he offers a partial discography (which has been thoroughly used) and recommends Hirasawa's list for a complete list, saying: "For accuracy and completeness it stands above all others". Ap news also says that Hirasawa "has researched a comprehensive performance history". This being said, if the reviewers still do not find the source agreeable, this list will likely be impossible to make at FL status, as no other comprehensive databases for such information (nor references that discuss many of the minor recordings) exist. Other than this I think the list meets the criteria, but am open to any suggestions or criticism! Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments on the lead numbers less than 10 (eg "9 studio albums") should be written as words "five-decade career" needs a hyphen "it was done so against his wishes" => "it was done against his wishes" "His small number of studio recordings each one became critically acclaimed in their own right" => "Each of his small number of studio recordings became critically acclaimed in its own right" "Kleiber's' contributions" - one too many apostrophes in there The first sentence of paragraph 2 is far too long and should be broken up "followed by monumental recordings" - what does "monumental" mean here? I don't understand "It was around this time that a Kleiber became well associated" - "a Kleiber"? "1977 also saw the release" - a sentence shouldn't start with a number, also a year cannot "see" anything This sentence is also too long and should be shortened or broken up "These recordings were more controversial than earlier releases" - why? "until April of 1982" => "until April 1982" "especially from the daring yet successful pick" => "especially for the daring yet successful pick" "Out of the eighteen orchestras he performed with" => "Out of the eighteen orchestras with which he performed" "19 recordings of live performances survive" - again, don't start a sentence with a number "posthumuos documenteries" - both these words are spelt wrong "Addtionally, two posthumuos documenteries on Kleiber were also" - additionally and also mean exactly the same thing, there is no reason to use both I will look at the tables later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] All fixed... some very silly mistakes on my part...! Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comments on the first table "Release" doesn't need a capital in the headers "Lps" should be written as "LPs" Think that's it on that one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] All done as well Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on live recordings table

• Official is spelt incorrectly in the heading
• In some cases where there are multiple refs in a cell, they are not in numerical order
• The words "Released as a DVD in 2003" are wikilinked but don't seem to go anywhere.....?
• In one place you use "Released: ?" but in another you use "Released: Unknown" (the latter looks more professional IMO)
• Why are a handful of refs in the first column (eg 51 and 56) whereas all others are in the dedicated refs column
• Think that's it on that one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: The "Released as a DVD in 2003" goes to the first row of the DVD table (which has the recording in question), due to the formatting it may appear that it is going to that table as a whole, but I'm not sure if there's much to do about that. The refs you're referring to in the first column were there as sources for the order of the concerts/recordings, but looking closer they seem unnecessary so I removed them. Everything else is fixed! Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "released in 2003" link works for me now - how weird. Anyway.......

Comments on remaining tables

• Video recordings
  • My only query here is that I don't understand how some of these recordings are "not commercially available". If they were not released on video, how are they video recordings? Does it just mean that a performance he conducted was broadcast on TV? To my mind that doesn't make it a "video recording". The BBC televise dozens of performances at Glastonbury each year but I wouldn't expect to see them included as "recordings" in the discographies of the relevant bands.......
• Posthumous Documentaries
  • No need for capital D in the headings
• That's it on the tables

Comments on notes

• Notes b, l and p need full stops
• Conversely notes f and g are not full sentences so don't need full stops
• In notes q and r, "Since the concert begins" should be "Since the concert began", because we are talking about events in the past
• Think that's the lot from me, great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChrisTheDude: All fixed. My thoughts with the video recordings that aren't commercially available is that they do exist in the Stanford archives (and are available to see there in person), I've added a note to each of them to explain that. The other thing is that since there's such a limited amount in the first place, in my mind there's no reason for them not to be included. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think it's bizarre to include recordings which have never been made available commercially in a discography. Let's see what other reviewers think. By the way, notes s and t say exactly the same thing so could be combined...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from 3family6

I'm seeing several instances of the use of rowspan in the middle of tables. This makes accessibility more difficult for some screenreaders. The merged rows need to be unmerged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: Thanks for the comments. I'm not seeing this in MOS:DTAB, would you point my towards the right policy? I just want to read it carefully to make sure I can make the appropriate adjustments here. Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izno is the one who has pointed this out to me. There seems to be some new guidance Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Avoiding rowspan/colspan. According to this, it's not mandatory, but encouraged, to not use rowspan unless necessary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this and as something that is optional I've decided I'm going to keep the rowspans. My thoughts are that without it it makes the table confusing, since performances on the same dates appear as separate ones. With that in mind there are faults to having and not having, but I would rather benefit the larger audience that will have screen readers able to see the rowspan formatting. Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the way the list is formatted is working very well. This is an over-all comment, not some nit-picking about whether or not completely optional features such as rowspan are used:

• Why split studio & life recordings (& videos, etc) in separate tables? Seems rather something one would like to use for sorting.
• The collapsible sub-tables are imho completely unacceptable, e.g. if the cast of a performance is not used as something according to which one sorts, then what is it doing in the sortable table? I'd make a non-table list of all of Kleiber's opera recordings, and retain, in the table, only the limited part of the recording data that are used for sorting, referring with a link to the full details.
• A separate column for references is completely ridiculous: don't loose space with something that has no use for sorting

Etc... too many problems to name – this accumulated mess, that doesn't appropriately exploit the technologies wiki-editing has in store, should never be a featured list. In other words, a complete makeover is necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken I appreciate you taking time to leave some comments. Some of the things you find issue with are standard for featured/discography lists. The split sections for example is part of virtually all FL discographies (Kronos Quartet discography, Isobel Campbell discography, Bryan Adams discography as some random examples, there's some more on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies) and the references in another column is common practice for FLs as well (for example Ray Bradbury Award or List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1945 which were just promoted last week). As far as the embedded cast tables, I understand your reasoning but don't find much of an issue there myself; it's hard for me to visualize what it would look like with links to an unsortable table below. However, if you would be open to it, maybe you could put a sample of your idea in a sandbox and share it with me? I wonder if perhaps I should insert the information into "custom" notes? Do let me know what your other concerns are, because I would be happy to address them or make the appropriate changes. Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "are standard for..." – Don't care which standards were acceptable in the past: if these are *still* the standard, then these standards need to change. Now. That is: before the formatting of this list is accepted as anything near good enough for a 2020 featured list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this might work (other approaches are possible, just showing that it is possible to present something practical/acceptable):

---

Recordings by Carlos Kleiber

Rec.	Composer: work	Orchestra (choir)	Soloist(s)	Rel.	Co. cat. (medium)	Type
...	...	...	...	...	...	...
1975-10-09– 1975-10-28	Strauss, J. II: Die Fledermaus	Bavarian State Orchestra (& Chorus)	Prey (et al.)	1976	DG 2707 088 (2 LPs)	Studio[1][2]
				1986	DG 415 646-2 (2 CDs)
...	...	...	...	...	...	...
1978-10-12	Schubert: Symphony No. 3	Chicago Symphony Orchestra	—	1992	Exclusive EX92T21 (CD)	Live[3][4]
...	...	...	...	...	...	...
1986-05-19	Strauss, J. II: Die Fledermaus (ov.)	Bavarian State Orchestra	—	1986	NHK (TV: 19 July)	Live[a][7][9]
...	...	...	...	...	...	...

... section header about works that are presented in a detailed list ...

Die Fledermaus by Johann Strauss II (Libretto by Karl Haffner)

Recorded

9–14, 28 October, 1975; Munich^[1][2]

Orchestra and choir

Bavarian State Orchestra and Chorus; Chorus Master: Wolfgang Baumgart^[1][2]

Fledermaus Oct. 75 cast^[1][2]

Role	Cast
Gabriel von Eisenstein	Hermann Prey
Rosalinde	Julia Varady
Frank	Benno Kusche
Prince Orlofsky	Iwan Rebroff
Alfred	René Kollo
Max	Bernd Weikl
Dr Blind	Ferry Gruber
Dr Falke	Wolfgang Brendel
Adele	Lucia Popp
Ida	Evi List
Frosch	Franz Muxender
Ivan	Nikolai Lugowoi

Recordings of the overture of Die Fledermaus as a stand-alone instrumental piece:

• ...
• 19 May 1986: Japan Tour – Tokyo, Hitomi Memorial Hall.^[a][7][10]
• ...

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (updated, as explained below, 16:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Francis Schonken, I like a lot of the ideas you've proposed here and I will work to implement them soon and update you accordingly. However, the standards I've recognized on having sections are present standards, not past ones – the most recent featured list discography (Lecrae discography) was done so this way, as is virtually every featured list discography. The reference column on the other hand I agree with you, I suppose it just takes up unnecessary space. Aza24 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Lecrae discography: completely different type of artist, and the formatting of that list is also *completely different* from the formatting of the Kleiber list. E.g., date-related info is one column in all tables of the Lecrae discography (and never the first column); in the Kleiber list there are, depending on table, two or three columns that sort by date, a date-related column being the first column in every case (but for some tables a recording date, for others a release date). That is not the same. So please, spare me from the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifications: what works for Lecrae does not necessarily work for Kleiber (etc.). It is about presenting the Kleiber material in a layout that is eligible to be called "featured". Not about presenting the best hack-work on mingling a pre-existing table style with content that is not suitable to be presented in the layout that is used as model. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an "Other stuff exists" argument, it's a "Every single other discography does this", if you need examples closer to Kleiber look at Lang Lang discography, Vladimir Horowitz discography or Kronos Quartet discography. What do the other reviewers here (3family6 and ChrisTheDude) think about keeping the separation of "live", "studio" "video" etc., vs combining into a single list? Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still OTHERSTUFFEXISTS all over. I don't say some ideas might be useful, but no, the current format of this list is and remains way below "featured" status as far as I'm concerned. If these were the standards until yesterday, then today they have to change. I've always been an opponent of basing one "featured" page on what was acceptable for a previous one. Standards change all the time, e.g., fairly recently opposition against collapsed content in mainspace has become much stronger (the most obvious templates with which this can be done were recently disabled for mainspace: surprised you found one that still works in mainspace, apparently {{collapse top}}, the documentation of which says "Do not hide content in articles. This violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Scrolling lists and collapsible content and Wikipedia:Accessibility guidelines." Clicking through to such guideline one can read "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes ... tables ...") than it used to be, so using collapsed content in a new "featured" submission because previous featured pages had it is really going nowhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying how this article fails to meet featured status multiple times does nothing but create a negative and discouraging environment. I am happy to work with you and already plan to implement many of your suggestions. See below for the rest of my response. Aza24 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tried a TV recording in the table above: it would be nice to know if (and if so: when) this was broadcast, a date which could then be used in the "release" column. Again, just some brainstorming ideas: other ways to approach this are possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found the broadcast date (in Barber), added to example table above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also in my mind, it makes sense to clearly distinguish his 9 studio albums that were meant for releasing, from the live recordings/video recordings of random performances that just happen to exist, often without his permission. Aza24 (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Kleiber, in my mind: no. IMHO it makes much more sense to put all of Kleiber's Fledermaus recordings in the same table, *sortable* so that studio/live/video recordings of the same work can be grouped for those who like this to be grouped in this way – someone else might like to see all of Kleiber's Fledermaus recordings grouped to compare analogue recordings with digital ones of the same work. (etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is an essay. Either way, I would consider combining live and videos (as they are effectively both "live"), but not studio. A random live recording isn't in the same category as a studio recording rehearsed over many months and putting them in the same table, even with a sortable column, would make them appear that way. The 9 studio recordings have received much more attention and acclaim, and are ones that Kleiber intended to release. However if (with the input of 3family6, ChrisTheDude and hopefully others from the CM project) a consensus exists to combine Studio, live and video I would support it, at the moment I support all separate or combining live and video. Aza24 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant by exploiting Wikipedia's sort feature for tables: the current list does a very bad job at it. It puts a lot of info in the table that is *not* in any way used for sorting, while something as obvious as grouping all studio recordings (using the sort function) or grouping all recordings of the same work (using the sort function) is simply not implemented. As for the "bootlegs" – the *current* table does a very bad job at making that clear too: so if that is an important distinction for Kleiber's recordings, then it should be explicit in the list, which it currently isn't, and so can't be used as an excuse for bad formatting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have an issue with the organization of the list. I'll do a double-check, but it looked fine to me. I agree that this is something different from Lecrae.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reviewing it again - I don't care either way. If Francis Schonken cares that much about it, that's fine, too.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I've redone the Studio albums section to see what it looks like, I'm quite happy with the result and I think you might be as well. I will expand to a similar format in the rest of the list over the next few days. I'm concerned that linking to a more detailed section results in two lists – the second of which would be organized by piece, something which is already available with the sortable tables (so redundant in that sense). I've opted to only link to the full cast below. However, both methods, yours and mine, will result in a massive list and one that I don't believe is ideal. Would you have any ideas about how to better conceal the cast? I attempted to put the full cast table in a note but the html doesn't allow such a feat – however, I could put a bulleted cast list in a note instead... I'm unsure how to proceed so any insight would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thanks. Of what follows, only the first remark is quite essential (the others are editorial choices):

1. If cells in a column have content such as

   22 January –
   6 February 1973;
   Leipzig

   then that won't sort right, unless with some help. That help is called sort keys, see Help:Sorting#Specifying a sort key for a cell. Such sort key has to be introduced before the second pipe preceding the cell's content. For the example, the sort key may read:

   data-sort-value="1973-01-22"

   if sorting on date of the start of the recording, or:

   data-sort-value="1973-02-06"

   if sorting on the date the recording was completed (which of those two dates is chosen is an editorial choice). This has to be done with the same method for all cells that have such content that otherwise doesn't sort right.
2. I'm not totally convinced the recording venue is best given in the table (now appended to the content of the cells in the first column)
3. I'd definitely keep names of libretto authors out of the table. As far as I'm concerned this should not even be given anywhere in this discography list: all of these vocal works have a wikilink where mentioned, and a reader interested in knowing who wrote the libretto can click through to the page on the vocal work. But as such, it is quite unrelated to the conductor's discography. For me, for example, I'd think the date of the composition (i.e., placing the composition somewhere in the style evolutions of Western music that took place over time) would be more essential for this discography (i.e. knowing which kind of repertoire Kleiber was most comfortable with, and which kind of repertoire he chose only exceptionally) than libretto authors. Surely, Kleiber did not choose which works he was going to conduct because of who wrote the libretto. But he, apparently, broadly chose works from the 19th century, something like pre-romantic to pre-modern, but for instance, only exceptionally works from an earlier or later repertoire.
4. There's something wrong with row heights vs column widths: every row is three, or sometimes four, lines high, while for most columns (on my screen) the content is only one or two lines high. Especially the "Soloist(s)" column seems way too wide for the content, on average, contained in it.

Not commenting on merging the studio/live/video (etc) sections in one table yet again: I want to see where this is going first. Likely, though, I'd stick to that as something I'd see as an "essential" rearrangement needed for me to support the FL nomination. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to reply to some of your questions. Let me say first that I have no "comprehensive" answer to them, while much of this depends on editor choice. I'd never oppose a FL nomination that is based on sound and defensible choices, even if I'd have chosen widely different if I had been the main editor of the list. Some points:

• Are you sticking to the table format for the casts? Something like this would, of course, be possible too:

...could even be put between "small" tags and/or moved back to the main table.

• For my next suggestion, which, as you will see, goes in a completely different direction, I'd suggest you first take a thorough look at Wikipedia:Content forking#List formats (disclosure: I initiated that piece of guidance). If, as is confirmed in some suggestions by others above, and also in that piece of guidance, certain browsers and/or screen readers may have issues with Wikipedia table formatting, and if, per that guidance, it is even allowed to have two separate pages with the same content (one as a sortable table, the other as a bullet list) as an exception to normal content forking rules, then it is surely allowed to present the same (or similar) content in both formats on the same page. One should have no qualms about that. Furthermore, if looking at the two main external sources giving a comprehensive listing of Kleiber recordings, then the first (Barber) lists by "Type", and then collates by composer within the by type list, and the other, the Kleiber website, has separate pages by composer (which is the main subdivision of this listing), and then chronological (by recording date) for each of these pages. Wikipedia's table technology makes possible to reproduce both of these collation schemes, appearing in reference literature, by a diligent use of the sort function. If it is an editor's choice *not* to use such multilayered sorting schemes in a single table, then, for instance, sortable tables can be used to reproduce Barber's scheme (as it is now), and a bullet list (accessible by all screen readers) reproducing the collation scheme of the Japanese website. If you don't believe that this "double listing" happens in Wikipedia, I can point you to some examples (but am not doing that yet, while such examples would hardly be suitable for blunt imitation in the Kleiber list, so just ask if you don't believe me).
• Further (taking another direction again), did you know that it is technically possible to have section and subsection headers, complete with [edit] button, within a sortable table? This can also be a way to unite benefits of a "big" sortable table with those of a structure with section titles appearing in the TOC. Again I'd point you to some examples if you don't believe me, but none of these are, afaik, suitable for blunt imitation in the Kleiber list (this kind of formatting is over-all somewhat tricky, so needs a lot of diligent choices to make it workable).

So... options enough, just make a sensible choice, please, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC) (third bullet added 09:22, 27 October 2020)[reply]

Plenty of options! And thanks for them of course. I'm leaning towards something like your flat list for the casts rather then mini-tables... I've removed the librettists' names (not sure why I had them in the first place) and will think about the recording locations. The row/column issues don't occur on my screen but I think I may know why they occur on yours and will mess around with it later to try and solve it. And yes I've been meaning to set the dates so they sort correctly, but was not aware of that help link, so thanks – that should help. Aza24 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing some tweaks (mainly layout tweaks; some of the tweaks, such as sort keys, are only visible in edit mode):

Recordings by Carlos Kleiber

Recording	Composer: Work	Orchestra (chorus: chorus master)	Soloist (role)	Release(s)[1]
				Yr.	Label Cat (Medium)
Studio recordings [edit]
...	...	...	...	...	...
9–14, 28 October 1975; Munich	Strauss II: Die Fledermaus	Bavarian State Orchestra (& Chorus: Wolfgang Baumgart)	Hermann Prey (Gabriel von Eisenstein) Julia Varady (Rosalinde) Benno Kusche (Frank) Iwan Rebroff (Prince Orlofsky) René Kollo (Alfred) Bernd Weikl (Max) Ferry Gruber (Dr Blind) Wolfgang Brendel (Dr Falke) Lucia Popp (Adele) Evi List (Ida) Franz Muxender (Frosch) Nikolai Lugowoi (Ivan)	1976	DG 2707 088 (2 LPs)[2][3]
				1986	DG 415 646-2 (2 CDs)[2][3]
...	...	...	...	...	...
Live audio recordings [edit]
...	...	...	...	...	...

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The updated proposal now also illustrates how "(sub)section titles within a table" (see suggestion above) work.
• I've encountered some issues with referencing, including plain errors, original research and malformed cite template usage (see updates to the Gramophone reference in the above table example, as opposed to how the same ref displays in the previous "Recordings of Carlos Kleiber" table example higher on this page). I suggest that a full check-up on all references be conducted. IMHO, a FLC should not be accepted with serious referencing issues, at least not with referencing issues that would fall short of core content policies such as WP:V and WP:OR.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Francis, I'm wording what you think of the state of the list now? Aza24 (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was following the updates (via watchlist) – seeing major improvements. A question: I saw, that on one point you experimented with the section-titles-in-table format, but then, later, stepped away from it again. What were your major issues with the format (I said it was somewhat tricky, I'd be happy to hear about your experience)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well I tried it out, but I realized that combining all three sections means they all have to share one column name, which created an issue between the "recording" column of Studio vs "date" of the Live ones. I don't know – I mean I suppose they could both probably be "date" – but the main hesitation I'm having with combining studio and live now is that there's so much more written about the studio ones, it seems weird to group them together with a random recording from Teatro Juárez (Guanajuato) [es] for example. Aza24 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since no official (even no unofficial) disc releases seem to exist (afaics whatever recordings may have been made at that concert they are also not listed in Hirasawa's discography) – why keep these in the main list? It would make more sense to list these separately, that is, keep everything that has been released on disc in a list of disc releases, and the bootlegs in a separate list (maybe not even as a table as this is really some far-fetched info to present in a discography list). Compare bibliography lists of an author: there too it is often the case that books and articles in periodicals are in separate lists (a writing published in, say, a newspaper or magazine also not "strictly" being a bibliographical publication). I don't think the big distinction is studio vs live, but recordings made in circumstances that made a digital (re)mastering, by professionals, result in a meaningful commercial product, as opposed to something recorded from a radio transmission or some such without any professional studio or label seeing anything that could under reasonable circumstances be commercialised as a Kleiber recording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure such a format would help the reader, since the divide between studio and live is very similar (in the case of this list) to the divide between official and bootleg. The only exception to this seems to be some of the video recordings which were published by DG or Phillips – but it seems like studio recordings more or less fall under your category of being a commercial product, hence retaining that divide. Aza24 (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, as said, that is not the distinction of the Hirasawa listing. I can not support this FL candidacy as long as I can't see the recordings that are grouped at, for instance, http://www.thrsw.com/ckdisc/strauss_johannjr_1825_1899_/ also being grouped in the Wikipedia list. I'll be working on the list soon, but will give you some time first to withdraw the FLC. Thanks for your efforts, you made great improvements, but, in my assessment, not resulting in a FL thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following, are you saying that every single release should be on the list? I'm confused what your objection is here. If it's combining studio and live – I mean, I'm not as against that I was before so I would be happy to. Aza24 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, all recordings which at some point in time were digitally sampled, and then commercially released, in one list, and the few that weren't in another (not necessarily sortable) part of the list. Regarding what I want to see grouped, giving the Hirasawa page as an example, should also be clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, the distinction made here (if you don't understand the German I'd be ready to translate), i.e., if not "released", not in the main list (& bootlegs listed separately). That would work for me too – this list of Kleiber's recordings lists "video" releases separately from "audio" releases, and, within these categories groups by type of work (opera/symphonic/mixed programs) and within these subgroups alphabetically by composer (i.e., no separate lists for studio and live recordings – if you want to keep these distinctions, following Barber, I'm OK with that, but two other representative lists of Kleiber recordings don't make separate lists according to that criterion, thus with whatever Wiki technique, also do what more than one other list does: allow or display grouping by composer across the studio/live distinction). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is there should be.a clear division between private and commercial recordings? I'll see what I can do... I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep telling me to withdrawal, rather than just explaining the issue. Aza24 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that. Not at all. Frankly, for me, this is getting too tiring. I'd rather you retract your FL candidacy, it will cost me less time to improve the article than explain & list all options. And then explain them all over again, and add a few more. And then arriving at a situation where even the simplest things about what should be a minimum are still not understood. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is the bootleg concept (for instance, the German discography refers to it too) – not all private recordings are necessarily bootlegs, but I don't see a clear distinction between bootlegs and other recordings in the list. This seems, however, a significant distinction when talking about Kleiber's discography. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no bootleg recordings. They're either private/commercial, studio/live and audio/video. I have now combined the studio into the rest to make sorting by composer optimal, and added a color scheme (that sorts properly too) to make the the private/commercial recordings divide clear. Aza24 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above I linked to the introduction Alexander Werner gives to the discography section of his Kleiber biography. Werner lists bootlegs in a separate section of the list. If you don't understand German, I'd be happy to translate (I already said so above), but bootlegs there are, evidently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, yes, I have access to that book now and agree the best option is to withdrawal and renominate when I clarify the bootlegs. I see that you said earlier you were willing to work on the list, help would be appreciated but I would ask that you not alter the list in any dramatic ways without discussing first, since I still plan to work on it as well and would like to renominate it myself. @FLC director and delegates: I'd like to withdrawal this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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