The list was withdrawn by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]
A simple timeline. I created it for my own use while developing a series of articles on British nuclear weapons. Title comes from the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator of this list, User:Hawkeye7, has another nomination, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy First Captains/archive1, not yet archived. The FLC instructions state: "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". The first nomination does not has is considered as 'substantial support'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: in addition to Kavyansh's point, there's another potential problem. One of the things that sometimes takes nominators by surprise at FLC (it sure as hell surprised me!) is how rigorous reviewers can be about the method used to include or exclude things from your list. If you can select one or more of your highest-quality sources, and then make the case that the only events that made it into this list were the ones that were singled out in some way by that set of sources, then you should be fine (not guaranteed, but probably). Otherwise, not so much. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well written, well cited article that clearly and with readable prose brings together a lot of information on an important topic that is not available to my knowledge anywhere else on the internet (or at least anywhere of general accessibility) to the same degree of detail and comprehensive coverage. In fact, several of the first results if you google "most expensive books" appear to be direct cribs of the article, though now somewhat out of date. For instance this article is the only place that mentions that the first printing of the Constitution of the United States is now the most expensive. Hochithecreator (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A really interesting list, but shouldn't it be called something like "List of printed books and other documents which have sold for more than US$1 million"? A copy of the Codex Sinaiticus was bought for the British Museum for £100,000 in 1933 which, with inflation, surely makes it more expensive than some of the items on the list, but it fails to meet the criterion of costing more than $1m. Also, I don't mind for an article like this that it "may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness" (e.g. we could not include unreported private sales), but how can readers be confident about the list being a reasonably complete one of publicly known sales? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|+ caption_textas the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting
|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}instead.
!scope=colto each header cell, e.g.
!rowspan=2|Author becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Author. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroupinstead.
!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
|''[[United States Constitution]]'' becomes !scope=row |''[[United States Constitution]]''. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroupinstead. Note: This would make your third column the "primary", which is correct since it's the one that "defines" the row- the first row is the row for the Constitution, not the row for "43.2 million". If this looks odd to you, it would be best solved by moving the title of the work over to the first column, not the third.
{{Inflation}} template, however, it seems to me that there are two problems with the use of that template. First, that template indicates changes in price for consumer goods, it is not for use in regards to capital goods. That problem cannot be overcome by using the GDP inflator, which is for use for assets/capital goods, but cannot be used for change in value for collectible items which are notoriously fluid, rather a specific index informed by asset pricing theory in collectibles is needed. The second problem is the sale prices are not universally in US$ - a item purchased in one market in-/de-flates at different levels than that purchased in another (and these items have all realised their values, ie were sold, in different countries). Again, how to account for exchange rate change? How to account for differences between prices realised in national markets versus an international market? Unless there is a source that can give a recent value for all these items, (or possibly an agreed index, reliably sourced, to apply to the sale prices), the adjusted contemporary prices/value all appear to me as original research. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]@Hochithecreator: this nomination has been here for almost two months, and you've not responded to any comments. Are you still pursuing an FL here? Aza24 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving, nominator appears to have abandoned this nomination. --PresN 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]