Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2024

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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Timeline of Brexit, which was promoted to FL earlier this year, here's another timeline about recent British history. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "eighteen days later, the death toll reached 335" – should be "18 days later" per MOS:NUMERAL

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Prime Minister Boris Johnson is discouraged per MOS:SEAOFBLUE; in the timeline there's the same problem with "Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak", "Education Secretary Gavin Williamson", "Home Secretary Priti Patel", "Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer", "Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab", "leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg"...

• All fixed (I think). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would maybe add in the lede that the rule of six introduced by the government was only in England (the other nations did have similar rules)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would spell out the acronym "BYOB" somewhere (either in the lede or the body)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would maybe add Johnson's resignation as Prime Minister and/or as an MP to the lede

• Done. I've rewritten the final sentence in the lead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You could link "civil servant" somewhere?

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 7 December 2020: "on Thursday" is a bit unhelpful as the days of the week aren't included in this list; could you give the date?

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 11 December 2020: Is the price of the wine fridge relevant?

• Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 14 December 2020: House of Commons should be linked to House of Commons of the United Kingdom

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 16 December 2020: You spell out what tier 1 and tier 2 restrictions are called ("medium" and "high"), but not tier 3 ("very high")

• Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe mention some Conservatives publicly calling for Johnson to resign over Partygate? e.g. ^[1] or ^[2]

• Added in Douglas Ross's call for Johnson to resign. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 15 June 2023: I think the context that's missing here is that a 90-day suspension would be enough to trigger a recall petition and hence a by-election in Johnson's constituency

• Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 19 June 2023: "354 to seven" should be "354 to 7" again per MOS:NUMERAL. I think there might be a couple more examples of this as well.

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you could add the changes of Prime Minister as well? I don't think it would add too much space to say that Johnson was replaced by Truss, and then that Truss was replaced by Sunak (Johnson tried to run for the leadership again, but maybe that's too much detail). Otherwise it's maybe a bit surprising that it says the Conservatives were led at the election by Sunak (in the "Aftermath" section)?

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the publication of the Gray report" – this is confusing because it's only the initial document that was published at this point, not the full report

• Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "70% of respondents regarded Johnson as performing badly as prime minister, compared with 25% who felt that he was doing well"; I think this could do with some context on how he was regarded before the scandal broke (he was already unpopular, but not to this extent)

• To be honest, I only mentioned that specific poll because Richard Hayton also made reference to it in his article on Johnson for Political Insight. Citing different YouGov polls and then using them to draw a conclusion about how Partygate affected Johnson's popularity feels like it might be skating a little too close to improper synthesis, but I'll see if I can find any third-party sources that come to those conclusions and then cite them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. I've added in a sentence about how Partygate specifically affected his popularity. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link (and maybe spell out) NHS

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review, N Oneemuss! I've done most of these, I'll complete the final two soon. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, N Oneemuss! I think I've covered all your points, but please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy to Support. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on British politics, but I'll give this a go. Disclaimer: Am an American, so feel free to ignore anything that is justified by AmE / BrE style differences if I accidentally perceive an oddity that's really fine.

Lede:

• The first COVID-19 death in the UK occurred on 5 March 2020; 18 days later, the death toll reached 335. As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the UK would go into a full lockdown,

I'm not a fan of "as a result". Presumably some parts of the world went into lockdown without a single death, while other areas never really locked down seriously despite deaths? If we're being pedantic, it would be "As a result of the advice of medical experts consulted by the government" or the like, not necessarily the deaths. Perhaps "In response" instead? Or even just cutting the introductory clause entirely.

Changed to "in response". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• London being placed in the "medium" tier 1 restrictions

This one isn't your fault, but this reads a bit weirdly to people not in the loop since "medium" was actually the mildest tier. I don't have any suggestions here as this seems relevant, but if you know of any friendlier ways to express this that still hit the main points, that'd be neat - but totally optional.

The only thing I can think to do is to remove the "'medium'" part so that it just says "tier 1". But that seems to me like removing useful information for our readers with no clear benefit. If another editor makes the same point, then I'll take it out. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire from the future: One overarching issue with all the historical stuff is making clear that this activity was a problem / scandalous. I guess the implication was that merely by appearing here at all, we're only talking about the "bad" parts, but I think we should be a little more blunt. Holding a party or playing loud music isn't a problem; it's holding a party indoors over size regulations that's a problem, but that's being hidden implicitly. It can weaken the "case" if anything, since someone might reasonably wonder what the big deal was, so I'd suggest making it clearer exactly how these parties were "bad".

Timeline:

• 15 May: In the garden of Downing Street, an early evening cheese and wine party is held. Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock both attend the gathering, which lasts for forty minutes to an hour.[12]

So what? This sounds like it complies with the rules at the time: the garden was outdoors and we've only listed two people attending. I presume the implication is that more people attended, but we should say so if that's the case. Unfortunately the reference doesn't seem to indicate that.

Clarified how many people attended. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 17 June: Emails are exchanged between Downing Street officials to prepare "drinks which aren't drinks"

The source doesn't explain either, but WTF was this email talking about? The polite reading would be "beverages which aren't alcoholic beverages" which seems too boring to bring up as a quote (they had mocktails, quelle horreur). So I presume this is really some British slang that I'm not familiar with that means something else that is scandalous, but what, then? Drugs?

They were having drinks, but they knew that doing so was likely against the rules at the time, so they were pretending that they weren't really having drinks, even though that's exactly what was happening. Hence, "drinks which aren't drinks" . A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 19 June: The event lasts for 20 minutes, and is attended by Case, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, and others.

How many others? Sorry if I'm being repetitive here, but this seems like key information that the sources are inexplicably dropping. We're told that meetings of up to six people are allowed (although given the photo, this clearly wasn't outside, but we can presume that there might be an exception if the PM was on the job), so it's at least possible based on the description this was only a small party that complied with the rules. (I know that counting blurred heads from the lede photo suggests >6, but how much more, then?)

Added how many people attended. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnson's wife Carrie holds a second birthday gathering for her husband in their Downing Street flat that evening, with a number of friends

Same question here - if that number of friends was 4, then this could potentially be permissible. (If it's not known, can we at least assert it was "more than 6" or "in defiance of regulations"?)

Unfortunately, none of the sources I can find can be anymore specific that just saying the party was attended by "several" friends. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 14 September: To restrict a potential second wave of COVID-19 in the UK, the government restricts social gatherings again by implementing a new "rule of six" in England – groups of more than six people are banned from meeting in England, either indoors or outdoors.

A little confused here - weren't we still at 6 from the 1 June regulations? Are we missing a bullet point that eased things further after 1 June but before 14 Sept? Also, as a nit, I'd say "hinder a potential second wave" to avoid the close repetition.

From 1 June, people could meet outside (but not inside) in groups of six, but, from 14 September, groups of six couldn't meet either outside or inside. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 11 December: Johnson's staff smuggle a wine fridge through the back door of Downing Street.

I'm not saying to remove this, but this is weird. Johnson was PM. Couldn't he just ask a wine fridge be installed normally, through the front door? (And isn't it possible he was just using it to get blasted personally, not holding parties with it? I know that later on it says the fridge was indeed used for parties, and we should be chronological as a timeline, but maybe some sort of hint as to the problem here.) I see the source uses the term "smuggle", but also that the Mirror is a Labour tabloid. Do other sources agree that "smuggling" is the term to use here?

I can't really find any other sources that use "smuggle", so I've replaced it with "bring". As you say, the reporting of the fridge is significant later in the timeline, so I do think it's important to mention it chronologically here. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 14 December: A Christmas party—formally called a "Jingle and Mingle"...

Same problem here. The police issued fines so clearly this was in violation of the regulations, but we don't actually say the party was in violation of the regs. Should add that it was indoors and had (NUMBER) attendees or the like.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 15 December: Ellwood attends a Christmas party of 27 people

Does BrE have a way to quickly denote party affiliation? He's only been introduced as an MP from Bournemouth East before - at first I assumed this was a Labour / LibDem / SNP guy and thus was wondering if this was a broader scandal than just the Tories. (In US politics, people are sometimes introduced like "Jim Inhofe (R-OK)" as shorthand.)

Specified that he was a Conservative MP. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 15 December: A Christmas quiz is held at Downing Street. Most staff dial-in online from their homes, though some attend in person.

Same issue. I checked the source and I guess that the mere fact it appears there suggests something shady happened, but no numbers. I dunno, maybe I'm off-base here, but there's a huge difference between "4 people attend in person" and "40 people attend in person". The first isn't a scandal, the second is, so we should make clear it's the second case.

Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 16 December: (...) Johnson announces at a press conference that, from today, the city will move into tier 3 restrictions.

Nit: I would use "immediately" rather than ", from today,", but just a suggestion, up to you if "From today" sounds more natural in BrE.

Changed to "with immediate effect". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 16 December: A Christmas gathering is held for staff at the Department for Transport, with food and alcohol being served.[40]

The citation is messed up - both it and the archive go to Covid: London to move into in tier 2 lockdown, a story from November 2021. Can you replace with the proper URL?

Good catch, now fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A Christmas party is held for Case's staff at the Cabinet Office. Twelve staff attend online, but five join in the office.

Optional: This might be blazingly obvious from context, but precisely because it's so relevant here, maybe "the office, indoors." here? Since five was technically allowed within even the Tier 3 restrictions, it just had to be outdoors in a park or the like.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 17 December: ...and background music played

Was the background music particularly loud? For the "ABBA" party, the music was relevant because it was loud and suggested a big party rather than a small one when the numbers were unknown. But as written, this could be a tasteful recording of a string quartet playing Mozart or something.

Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 18 December: A Christmas party—formally named the "End of Year Meeting with Wine & Cheese"

The source notes that the party was "crowded" - I think we should too.

Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 9 April: At Windsor Castle, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and husband of Queen Elizabeth II,

Optional nit from an American: I see that Prince Philip's article is actually at "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", but he's just called "Prince Philip" (especially in the context of 2021). As is, it reads like a parenthetical clause explaining Prince Philip, except his role as "Duke of Edinburgh" was completely irrelevant and ceremonial and distracting here. So I'd personally recommend either just "Prince Philip" or "Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizbeth II, (...)". But up to you.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 12 January: Speaking at PMQs, Johnson admits that he attended the BYOB party on 20 May 2020, and apologises. Starmer calls on him to resign.

Was this a "notable" call for resignation? I may be jaded by post-2017 US politics but the "other" party here tends to throw these kind of requests out rather casually (see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/republicans-call-biden-resign-ending-2024-campaign-rcna162923 for the opinion of our Speaker of the House, which I'm sure was taken under deep consideration and then circular-filed by Biden - not really an important or serious political thrust). If Starmer saying this was indeed a Big Deal, it's fine, just double-checking.

This was, as far as I'm aware, the first time that Starmer called on Johnson to resign, hence its significance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 14 January: (...) describes its being used by Downing Street staff for gatherings—called "Wine Time Fridays"—every Friday afternoon during the pandemic

Can we add the word "large" or "non-compliant" or the like before gatherings, or some other modifier to make clear that these weren't <6 people matters?

Added in "non-COVID-compliant". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 & Aftermath sections look good to me. Overall, it's an impressive work - the main nits above are to add a few more attendee numbers in when possible on how big these parties were and verifying that they weren't compliant (e.g. indoors), and will be happy to support.

Also, no obligation, but there is another timeline FLC nomination that could use some reviews open at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Second Temple period/archive1, if interested. SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors, just pinging you in case this has been been missed on your watchlist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review, SnowFire! I'll try to get round to having a look at your list sometime soon. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, works for me. Recent edits resolved above concerns. Support. SnowFire (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first bullet point says "the coronavirus". I know this phrase was commonly used at the time, but from a technical perspective it's not ideal, as there are many coronaviruses. Especially for the first mention in the whole list, I suggest saying "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2". Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Toadspike: I've put "the 2019 novel coronavirus", which I believe is the name that the WHO was using for the virus at the time. My thinking is that we can't use "SARS-CoV-2" for an event that happened in January 2020, because that name wasn't chosen until the following month. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perfect! Toadspike [Talk] 12:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Links and abbreviations: MOS:REPEATLINK says to link "at most once per major section" and notes stand-alone lists as a case where duplicate linking can be especially useful. As a reader, I would appreciate a little more duplicate linking. Several terms are linked in the lead but not in the list itself (e.g. Whitehall, leaving do, FPN) – they could also be linked the first time they're used in the list. Also, I think FPN should be spelled out the first time it is used in the list, as it is so far removed from its first use in the lead that I had no idea what it meant. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Toadspike: Done. These are the links that I've added. Let me know if this was what you were after. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, looks good. I know I haven't done much reviewing, but I've read the whole list and support this FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 08:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solana Imani Rowe, or SZA, is a person of many accomplishments. She's killed her ex, been to Saturn, and won four Grammys so far... among other things. With ~50 awards out of ~200 nominations and a debut album that has made it to so many GOAT lists, SZA has achieved so much in her 12 years as an active musician. This list is here to present them all, and I believe it is ready for that bronze star. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple drive-by comments from me; good luck with the nomination! Cells starting with a double-quote character will need a {{sort}} or |data-sort-value= to make them sort properly. The table in § Awards and nominations needs a header for accessibility. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, TechnoSquirrel. This should be addressed now. - Elias

• "SZA signed under the label Top Dawg Entertainment in 2013" - to say she signed "under" a label sounds totally wrong to me, but maybe it is valid in US English.....?
  • Not sure if it has to do with language variants but I do admit it sounds off, since "under" appears again in the same sentence; changed to "signed to"
• "several lists of best music made for films" => "several lists of the best music made for films"
• "her first Grammy (Best Pop Duo/Group Performance)." - can't see any particularly compelling reason to separately link both the bit outside the brackets and the bit inside to the same article
  • Fair point
• In the table, anything starting with " should sort based on the first word, ignoring the "
• ....and anything starting with "The" should ignore the "The" and sort based on the next word
• As it's a sortable table, songs/people/etc should be linked every time they are used, not just the first -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three should be done. Thank you @ChrisTheDude; thoughtful and prompt comments as always. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 25 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 – Change from BMI/BMI.com to Broadcast Music, Inc. for consistency
• Ref 98 and 99 – Add the url-access parameter to note that these Business Insider links can be accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
• Ref 76 – Link seems to be dead? I visit it and I just get "error". Mark link as dead or tell me it just doesn't work for me or something lol.
  • Extremely bizarre... same thing happens on my end. Marked the link as dead
• Is Promonews considered RS/has that been discussed before? The fact they're verifying aren't controversial, but if better sources are available and they've not been discussed, it could make sense to replace them.
  • Unfortunately I cannot find any other source that is more reliable and covers the award noms
• The recipient column title should probably be tweaked, as the song itself wouldn't be the recipient of the award. Perhaps "Nominee/Work" instead? I also think "recipient" implies that they won, when some of these are for nominations that they did not win.
  • Agreed

Excellent work, I'm quite impressed with the consistency of the formatting in the references. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hey man im josh for the kind words. All should be addressed. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Solid prose throughout the lede, and following WP:LEDECITE
• Table is well-formatted. It has properly scoped rows and columns, centered refs on the ref and results column. Ditto on the Listicles table. Both tables are also captioned, seems good on accessibility and formatting concerns.
• The one image is properly licensed (CC-BY 2.0) and has alt-text.

Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support, @Generalissima! I look forward to reviewing more of your future stuff. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 05:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2024 (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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list on Christian IX’s descendants helps to tell the story of a Danish king, his queen, his children, his grandchildren, and his great-grandchildren. I will note that this list was vetted both at Articles for creation and at Did you know.

This nomination is significant for various reasons. Personally, this is my first attempt to create a featured list on Wikipedia, and its success would demonstrate that I am capable of producing exemplary content. Second, I note that at the time of this nomination, only 10 royalty-related lists, and none on descendants of individuals, are of featured status. I hope that this article can serve as a model to all Wikipedia editors of what a great royal and genealogical list can look like. Finally, and above all, I hope to show a general audience that there is far more to (European) royalty than just the House of Windsor! Everyone is welcome to give feedback to make these goals a reality!

Thank you, AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the list and its sources, I am not convinced that it is fully in line with Wikipedia:Notability, and I think its subject is not verified by a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its DYK was held for a very long time, and I wasn't entirely sure it passed WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — 48JCL 12:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar concerns were raised at the Did you know nomination. I responded to this inquiry by noting that Aronson 2000 and Lerche and Mandal 2003 established notability. The objector then conceded the point (in my eyes). Both of the aforementioned sources (albeit the 2020 version of Aronson's text) are also listed in the "Further reading" section of this article.

That being said, I will not object if the consensus of this discussion is to merge or delete this stand-alone list. If so, I ask that the tables be merged into the "Issue" (or corresponding) sections of the articles on Christian IX and his children. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the links. I am not sure that works written by Theo Aronson are reliable sources. Miranda Carter did not write of Christian's descendants, but of three cousins who ruled three great powers during WWI. Lerche and Mandal do not seem to be historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting to ensure collapse template works properly) So that my thought process in writing the article is clear both to you and to everyone else commenting, I will qualify the notability of the subject matter further:

Although I personally believe these backgrounds on the authors sufficiently qualify the topic for a Wikipedia article, I will leave it to this page's consensus to see if this is truly the case. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With these sources, surely these should replace the "Royal Family Tree" sources (which appear to be SPS) could be replaced, right? I am still not going to warrant an oppose, but I would suggest withdrawal, there is a lot of work that could be done. 48JCL public (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all of the self-published sources in the article that I could find, and I have replaced the citations with references to more reliable sources. If I missed a source and/or I should still use the Further reading texts more exhaustively in the article, please let me know. Also, with respect to WP:NOTDATABASE, the only criterion I could realistically see being used against this nomination is #3, as creative works, song lyrics, and software updates are not listed in this article. To make all of the lifespan information encyclopedically relevant, I have written prose that accompanies each table elaborating on the family life of Christian/Louise and the families of their children. Please let me know if that prose should be more comprehensive. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I have not been convinced about the notability of this list. I think the core information of this list could be summarised in one or two sentences in the article about Christian IX. I oppose its nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Borsoka. If I may ask, which part of WP:GNG do you believe the list does not meet? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, aside from the sources already present, I have been unable to find a reliable text that covers Christian IX's descendants to the extent this list does. As I have said before, I will not object to merging the content into Christian and Louise's articles if the nomination fails. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[Name]] becomes !scope=row |[[Name]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions.
  • All "primary" columns in the tables have been defined. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding a minor note on to this- the row and col scopes by default bold the text in those headers, so since you did so as well right now they're double-bolded, which should be fixed. --PresN 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you for noting this. I have removed the excess bolding both in the table headers and elsewhere in the article. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a list should have "This article describes the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Christian and Louise." at the end of the list

@48JCL: Could you please suggest how this sentence should be replaced? Per WP:SALLEAD, the inclusion criteria of a stand-alone list should make a direct statement about the inclusion criteria. This is the purpose of the text you quoted. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten that sentence to attempt to make the inclusion criteria as explicit as possible without actively self-referencing the article. Please let me know if I should further modify the text. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with sources

I am noticing Blogspot and Wordpress being cited. What makes them reliable? More to come. 48JCL 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the Blogspot and WordPress sources. That being said, my rationale for including them was that the specific authors appeared to have professional credentials in their field. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that does not exactly make it reliable, still being a SPS. I'm still not sure whether or not this article should be supported, but thanks for addressing my concerns. 48JCL 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew – I've just started working on a review that will focus primarily on prose and images, and should be done by the end of the day Monday at the latest. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: while I have been making quite a bit of progress with this review, I've unfortunately been slowed down by real-life stuff, so I'm running a bit behind schedule. I get out of work fairly early tomorrow, so knock on wood, I should be able to finish in the next 24 hours or so. I do have a few preliminary comments:

• File:Princess Dagmar of Denmark.jpg – the source URL provides a completely different image
• File:Louise Princess Royal.jpg – the source just circles back to the ENWP page for the upload
• File:Princess Princess Maria of Greece and Denmark with her parents and siblinsg.jpg – uploader partial-blocked from the article and draft namespaces for copyright violations
• File:GustavDenmark.jpg – uploader indefinitely site-blocked for copyright violations

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:

• I have replaced the portrait of Dagmar with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time she died (to be consistent with the entries on other royals with no available portrait).
• I have replaced the portrait of Louise with the one used in her article's lede infobox.
• I have removed the portrait of George I's family altogether. In any case, his youngest son, Christopher, was not yet born when the image was taken.
• I have likewise replaced the portrait of Gustav with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time he died. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Andrew – I've finally finished the review, and I'm sorry it took so long. This was probably the most challenging image review I've done since I started tackling them earlier this year, since I'm not super familiar with European public domain laws and needed to give myself something of a crash course. The majority of images check out for licensing and sourcing. I took it upon myself to add missing US public domain tags on Commons in cases where I felt comfortable doing so (see my edits there). A few images are sourced to offline refs, which I'm choosing to accept in good faith. However, there are some issues:

• I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
  • On that note, is a "portrait of a coat of arms" really a portrait? This is super nitpicky, but the portrait article states that a portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face is always predominant. Every coat of arms usage here has alt text that describes the coat as a portrait.
• File:Christian IX of Denmark and family 1862.jpg – uploader partially blocked on ENWP from article and draft spaces. (Coincidentally, this is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of George I's family.) This image seems to be an alternate version of File:Christian IX Denmark and family 1862.jpg, which, per that file's description page, was apparently part of a legal dispute between the NPG and the WMF. Maybe I'm worrying too much, but I would be wary of including either image here.
• File:Family Photo.jpg – The source URL is dead. There is an archived link available, but it's not loading the images on my end.
• File:Alexander russia.jpg – The source URL is dead.
• File:Ernstaugusthannover.jpg – Uploader indefinitely site-blocked from ENWP for copyright violations. (This is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of Gustav.)
• File:Xenia, russian grand duchess.jpg – The source URL does not contain this image.

The prose is good overall, but I do have a few queries/suggested adjustments:

• Moreover, he nearly abdicated... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here; indeed, this could probably be merged with the previous sentence by using a semicolon.
• Moreover, through her charity work... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here.
• Is there anything about Valdemar that could be added to the second paragraph of §Children?
• They then married in October 1866 – "Then" feels extraneous here.
• Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution. – I think this would read more smoothly as "Nicholas, Michael, and the former's five children were killed during the Russian Revolution."

Quite impressive work overall, Andrew. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Thank you very much for your extensive review. Here is how I have addressed your feedback. Please let me know if anything else should be done.

For the images:

• I have changed the alt text for Gustav's image to better describe the coat of arms. Moreover, I have rewritten the alt text descriptors for all of the coat of arms images to avoid mention of portraits.
• I have removed the family portrait for Christian IX, given the concerns you have described.
• I have likewise removed the family portrait for Frederick VIII.
• I have replaced the image of Alexander with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms, given the lack of other appropriate free-use images that I could locate.
• I have likewise replaced the image of Ernest Augustus with one of the pertinent Hanoverian coat of arms.
• I have likewise replaced the image of Xenia with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms.

For the prose:

• I have removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Christian IX's background.
• I have likewise removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Louise's background.
• I have added some information on Valdemar in the second paragraph of the Children section, namely on how family ties influenced him to reject the Bulgarian throne.
• I have removed "then" from that sentence on Dagmar and Alexander III's marriage.
• I have rewritten that sentence on the deaths of Nicholas II, his children, and Michael as you have suggested.

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me now, Andrew, and I'm happy to support on prose and images. For what it's worth, I believe this would be the first geneology FL if promoted. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I aim to do a full review, but looking at the lead initially, the sentence "The families of Christian and Louise, their children, and their grandchildren are described below." should be removed. The fact that the article is going to cover this is completely obvious from the title, so you don't need to state it in the prose. That will leave a lead of just three sentences, which is far too short for a FL. While the lead should provide a summary of the article, it should be more detailed than just three sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your initial comments, ChrisTheDude. I have removed the last sentence of the lede per your feedback. As for that section's length, I will be sure to rewrite the prose to provide a more comprehensive summary. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open well past the time it would normally be closed, so in order to push it past the finish line, pinging everyone involved who has not formally closed their review: @Borsoka, 48JCL, and ChrisTheDude:. Please support/oppose/recuse as appropriate. --PresN 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: - I was still waiting for the nominator to expand the woefully short lead before I started looking at anything else, but after more than two weeks that hasn't been done. If the nominator doesn't have any interest in doing that then I will have to oppose..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT: Hey Andy, just wanted to give you a quick heads up/reminder about this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: I am expanding the lede at this moment. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: Apologies for the delay in response; I have been busy off-wiki. I have expanded the article lede to four paragraphs. Would you please be able to let me know if the section should still be longer? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - I will aim to do a full review tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Known as the "father-in-law of Europe", he and his queen consort," - this suggests that they were both known as the father-in-law
  • I have moved the "father-in-law" information into the first sentence to make it more explicit that only Christian was known by that sobriquet. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Christian on first use in body
  • I have inserted a link to Christian's article accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "However, Christian's popularity recovered" => "Christian's popularity recovered, however,"
  • I have reworded the sentence in question accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Louise on first use in body
  • I have inserted a link to Christian's article accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Christian IX and Louise had forty grandchildren via eight children" => "Christian IX and Louise had forty grandchildren: eight children"
  • I have changed the "via" to a colon. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "However, Louise had one potential suitor in mind for Thyra" - don't think the "however" is needed
  • I have removed "however" from that sentence. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Namely, Prince George died in a car accident on the way to the funeral of King Frederick VIII of Denmark. In addition, Prince Christian died of appendicitis" => "Prince George died in a car accident on the way to the funeral of King Frederick VIII of Denmark and Prince Christian died of appendicitis"
  • I have combined those two sentences as suggested. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all I got. Fix these and I will be happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your feedback. I have resolved your concerns to the best of my ability. Assuming you have no further qualms, I look forward to your support. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is :-) support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not doing a full source review, but as a note: all of the ALLCAPS in the references should be fixed, e.g. "DEATH OF THE KING OF DENMARK. - A PEACEFUL END" -> "Death of the King of Denmark. - A Peaceful End". --PresN 15:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, PresN. I have rewritten all of the reference titles in title case accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've dithered on this one for a while due to the oppose above, but I've come down on the side of this being a valid stand-alone list. I'm not sure that every monarch should get such a list, but someone with the sobriquet Father-in-law of Europe has enough weight to support such a list. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk & RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2024 Primetime Emmys for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 2020, 2021, and 2022 were written and structured. Note: I also listed RunningTiger123 as a co-nominator since he made considerable and significant contributions to this list. Birdienest81talk 17:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The award ceremony" - is this an Americanism? I am British and we would say "awards ceremony" but maybe American usage is different......?
• "The aforementioned program was " - I think just "It was" would be fine
• "they along with D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai of the series Reservation Dogs were the first " => "along with D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai of the series Reservation Dogs they were the first "
• "Nominations and wins by network" - are all these really "networks"? Is Netflix or BBC America a "network"? Maybe "Nominations and wins by broadcaster" would be better.....?
• "He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" as "tonally questionably" " => "He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionably" " or "He also described the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" as "tonally questionably" " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All done except the network item – previous years use the term "network" and it's often the term used in other sources (e.g., Variety, Deadline, Television Academy) so consistency might be better here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:FUR rationale on the first image is fine.
• Captions are appropriate.
• Free-use tags are fine. I didn't personally get into Flickr to check the Eugene Levy image, but a reviewer did check it. Otherwise, source links are fine.
• The images are all suitable.
• Pass. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Formatting

• Refs. 5, 15 and 16 missing wikilink for The Hollywood Reporter
• Refs. 38 and 46 missing wikilink for Los Angeles Times
• Ref. 40 - rotten tomatoes should be website; publisher is Fandango Media
• Ref. 41 missing wikilink for Variety
• Ref. 51 missing wikilink for Entertainment Weekly
• Archive Refs. 5 and 48.

Prose

• He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionably" ==> He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionable" (the source says tonally questionable)
• Robert Lloyd wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the telecast was.... ==> Wikilink Los Angeles Times
• Ben Travers of IndieWire found Eugene and Dan Levy's performances as hosts..... ==> italicise IndieWire

@Sgubaldo: All done except inline LA Times link (it is linked earlier in the prose). RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did a source review of my own, and everything looks good. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2024 (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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk and Sgubaldo (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheimer is a 2023 epic biographical thriller drama film written, directed, and produced by Christopher Nolan. Based on the 2005 biography American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, the film stars Cillian Murphy as the eponymous scientist and chronicles his studies, his direction of the Los Alamos Laboratory and his 1954 security hearing. This is my tenth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, CODA, Dune, Dunkirk, If Beale Street Could Talk, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. Note I added Sgubaldo as a co-nominator since he provided significant contributions into improving this list. Birdienest81talk 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "who co-produced it with his wife, Emma Thomas, and Charles Roven" - is there any way to reword this to avoid the possible implication that "his wife, Emma Thomas, and Charles Roven" are three people rather than two?
• "did not get released in Japan until March 29, 2024" - was this related to the fact that the subject matter was considered sensitive in Japan? If so, it might be worth adding that, as otherwise it seems a bit random
• That's it I think - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just removed 'his wife' since I suppose it's not necessary to specify.
  • I've added an explanation in a note after "December 2023", which hopefully clears it up.

  Thank you for the comments, @ChrisTheDude. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the film received 13 nominations, surpassing eight nominations ... winning seven - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• received another 13 nominations ... winning eight - Ditto.
• The film won seven awards from 13 nominations - Ditto.
• for his direction, screenplay and producing - There should probably be a comma before and, to make the use of the serial comma consistent.

That's what I saw, Birdienest81 and Sgubaldo. Nice work. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, @Alavense. I'll try to take a look at the Toledo nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

• For header cells spanning multiple rows, (e.g. AACTA International Awards) the scope should be "rowspan". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought it was supposed to be "rowgroup"? Sgubaldo (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to "rowgroup" for all the relevant ones. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support promotion on table accessibility. Yes, I meant "rowgroup". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The collage of images in the lead all have appropriate free licenses and alt text, and the caption looks okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Source reliability and formatting both appear okay, and no issues were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 22:06, 10 November 2024 (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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because of the recent success of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2. I think this list is of similar quality and preparedness.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by accessibility comments

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. This is needed for both tables.
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. This is for the 4-division table.
  • I think this is what you want.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• You cannot only use bolding or a background color to indicate something. Use a symbol. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MPGuy2824, when I added scope row, why did the second column get bolded?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The header cell needs to be in its own separate line. i.e. move the University winner's name to a new line. This should fix the problem. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the first sentence could be reworded for clarity - the way it's written, it appears to say that the award is the most outstanding female, which doesn't make sense.
  • I think I have addressed this issue. Not sure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The districts are as follows: – District 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT), District 2 (DC, DE, KY, MD, NJ, PA, WV), District 3 (NC, TN, VA), District 4 (AL, FL, GA, PR, SC), District 5 (IL, IN, MI, OH), District 6 (AR, IA, LA, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, SD, WI, WY), – District 7 (CO, ID, KS, NE, NM, NV, OK, TX), District 8 (AK, AZ, CA, HI, OR, UT, WA, Canada). What do the – stand for?
  • I don't think you asked a clear question. Are you asking what the linked abbreviations stand for?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why there are – before districts 1 and 7, TonyTheTiger. Alavense (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not needed. Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Men's and women's basketball No need for the capital m.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Two-time Winners No need for the capital w.
  • This seemed like a proper place to use Title case. Is this against MOS? Happy to change if it is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the captions in the charts confusing. I thing something along these lines would be clearer: Maya Moore (pictured in 2019), the 2010 and 2011 winner
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• the have been
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The notes belong in the "Footnotes" section.
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note c) doesn't require a full stop.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the things that caught my attention in a first read, TonyTheTiger. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the first sentence is not clear enough. In general, I feel the first paragraph is a bit convoluted, in my opinion. For the tables, wouldn't it be better to use a dagger and background colour instead of just bold. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for the first sentence because I am not seeing the confusion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to determine if the convoluted paragraph was because of two different emphases. I have split the first paragraph. Could you tell me if both halves are convoluted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example of a table that uses the dagger and background color that you suggest. Is this combination in keeping with MOS and accessibility policies?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is I don't think it complies with MOS as it is, as MPGuy2824 already pointed out. I'd get rid of the bold and include, instead, a symbol and a background colour. You have more information regarding symbols and the legend here: MOS:LEGEND. Besides, this and this could serve you as examples of how it is done, given that they were recently promoted. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging to make sure @TonyTheTiger has followed up about this comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look this weekend.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @MPGuy2824, Hey man im josh, and Alavense:, I have added a symbol and changed to background color from bold text.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The symbol should probably go before the reference? I'm not sure. Alavense (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have moved the symbol before the ref throughout this set of AAA Member of the Year articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I feel the prose on this list should still be worked on, so I am afraid I will not support just yet. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Alavense, can you provide any further thoughts/advice on the prose flaws?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I may not be able to help you here. I feel the text is not as clear as it could be: I've read it multiple times now and it still requires quite a lot of effort to get the gist of it. That's why I'd rather rely on the opinion of others here, so I will not either support or oppose. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alavense, There were recent minor tweaks to the prose. I don't know if this takes the prose far enough in the right direction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• In the four-division era table, you don't need to use all that styling for the header cells. Copy what you've used for the previous table and remove the explicit bolding of the column names.
  • I think I've done what you suggested.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Stanford University has had the most women's basketball Academic All-America honorees (17..." The linked source says they have 18 honorees. Maybe update the number and the date.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "(1995 before there were separate awards by level)" -Add a comma after 1995.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace "&" with "and" everywhere, per MOS:AMP.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Selected based on excellence in both classroom achievement and athletic competition performance by the College Sports Communicators (CSC, known before the 2022–23 school year as College Sports Information Directors of America, or CoSIDA), the Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes." This is quite a complicated sentence with sub-clauses. See if you can divide it.
  • I have streamlined the sentence.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Aliyah Boston's rows sort weirdly (probably due to the flag). Please fix.
  • I got some help at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Sort irregularity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for over 2 months without any supports, and will be closed soon unless that changes. It looks like MPGuy2824 and Alavense's comments have been addressed, but were not pinged again. --PresN 01:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. @PresN: one point: Is it a problem that multiple columns have the same header ("School") in the table? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I think it's clear that they're associated with the previous column. A more specific name could be nice, but I couldn't think of a short one. --PresN 16:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Staraction and ChrisTheDude: both supported the prior nomination of this "series" at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2. The article from that nomination has greatly benefitted from advice here, which I have used to elevate the whole set of articles. If either of those editors would care to comment here that would be helpful. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open well past the time it would normally be closed, so in order to move it past the finish line, pinging everyone involved who has not formally closed their review: @Alavense:. Please support/oppose/recuse as appropriate. --PresN 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Hey man im josh, you are the only discussant (Other than PresN, who is visiting this page in a seeming administrative role) here who has not really given a verdict. I have one support and one neutral/abstain. In order to have a meaningful close, your opinion is important here. Although your prior commentary here was not substantive, a substantive evaluation is requested.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TonyTheTiger: I have not given a verdict because I have not made an attempt to evaluate the article. My comments on this nomination were following up with respondents in an effort to push this nomination along. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User talk:Hey man im josh, Care to opine before I have to restart this nom?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but I am not interested in reviewing the list at this time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also pinging @Staraction and ChrisTheDude: again for their input.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "chosen from both the College and University Divisions for all twelve Academic All-America teams, including football." - why mention football? Seems a bit random......
  • You are right.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes. " - you literally just said that in the previous paragraph
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "One of these [singular] is selected as the Academic All-America Team Members [plural]".....?
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• also, "twelve sport-by-sport Academic All-American of the year" - should be plural
  • Good catch.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As the tables are sortable, repeat winners should be linked each time, not just the first
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thx for dropping by. I hope I have addressed your concerns and that you are able to offer an opinion on this candidate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; did my own edits to the text and references because this has been open so long. Promoting. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another Detroit Lions list, which I hope will be my seventh Detroit Lions featured list. NFL All-Decade Teams are meant to represent the best players in each decade. It's a significant accolade which is weighted fairly heavily when considering a player's candidacy for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It's based on List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections, which was promoted on September 10th of this year. Please let me know if there are any issues or concerns and I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. Thank you in advance to anybody willing to review or provide any feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The most recent Lions selections were for the 2010s Team: Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh. --> The most recent Lions' selections were Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh as part of the 2010s Team.

Support That's all I got Hey man im josh. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the base that I built this on, thanks for taking a look, and thanks for the helpful feedback as always @Gonzo fan2007! Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "did change from decade-to-decade" => "did change from decade to decade"
• "TThe most recent Lions' selections" - there's a stray extra T at the start. Also I think "The Lions' most recent selections" would read more naturally
• That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @ChrisTheDude, I've made the changes. Thanks so much for looking this over for me! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The second lead paragraph is pretty chunky; consider splitting it.
• The tenses in this paragraph are slightly confusing, in switching from past to present: (" Each team was selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee, which is primarily made up of national sportswriters. The Selection Committee is asked...") I would suggest changing the "was selected" to "has been selected" or something similar.
• "to develop the team" I'm not sure "develop" is the right word for a selection from scratch, maybe "construct"?
• Are we sure that "team" should be capitalised e.g. in "2010s Team"?
• "although starting with the 2010s Team" implies that this will become a pattern, but CRYSTALBALL applies.
• "although standard offensive, defensive and special teams positions were always included, the position names, types of positions and the number of positions did change from decade to decade" again the tenses are a bit odd, would suggest changing to "have always been included" and "have changed".
• Mind glossing what the "Pride of the Lions" is?
• If you have Calvin Johnson as the lead image, you might as well have Ndamukong Suh too ({{multiple image}} may be helpful here). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the review @AirshipJungleman29!

  • The second lead paragraph is pretty chunky; consider splitting it. – Split, hope that's a good spot.
  • The tenses in this paragraph are slightly confusing, in switching from past to present: (" Each team was selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee, which is primarily made up of national sportswriters. The Selection Committee is asked...") I would suggest changing the "was selected" to "has been selected" or something similar. – I went with "has been selected", you're right about the tenses there.
  • "to develop the team" I'm not sure "develop" is the right word for a selection from scratch, maybe "construct"? – I like that, done.
  • Are we sure that "team" should be capitalised e.g. in "2010s Team"? – Honestly I'm not. I followed the capitalization used by Gonzo fan2007 on List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections. I recognize that sometimes a shorter form of a name may maintain capitalization of the full name, but I'm not an expert at when to use this. I've pinged Gonzo in an effort to hear whether they believe it should be and so that we can maintain consistency.
  • "although starting with the 2010s Team" implies that this will become a pattern, but CRYSTALBALL applies. – Good point, I've changed it to just "... whereas the 2010s Team did not make this distinction."
  • "although standard offensive, defensive and special teams positions were always included, the position names, types of positions and the number of positions did change from decade to decade" again the tenses are a bit odd, would suggest changing to "have always been included" and "have changed". – Damn, yeah, you're right. Changed to "While standard offensive, defensive, and special teams positions have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions have changed from decade to decade".
  • Mind glossing what the "Pride of the Lions" is? – I added ", a permanent display at Ford Field meant to honor the team's greatest players." with a reference, I hope this is concise and informative enough.
  • If you have Calvin Johnson as the lead image, you might as well have Ndamukong Suh too ( may be helpful here – While there were two selections to the recent team, I chose Calvin Johnson because he's been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and Pride of the Lions. I'm open to including Suh, but I think by doing so I push the images in the team selections down further than they should be, which then pushes into the see also section for me.

  This was a lot of great feedback, I'm grateful you took the time to provide this review and I hope I've addressed all of your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im elias :) As I said on WP:DISCORD I am volunteering to review this FLC, the first of yours I have reviewed, based primarily on how concise the prose is. In celebration, have a hot dog 🌭

• "in recognition of the 50th anniversary" we can shorten to "to recognize the 50th anniversary"
• "history of the league" -> "league's history"
• "have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions" what is the first comma supposed to be doing there ?
• "As an example, for the 2010s Team, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included and a new "flex" offensive position was added" that is a mouthful. Perhaps "For example, due to greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was instead added." Or you can split that into two sentences, which arguably would make this more readable
• "and both made" I don't think the "both" is necessary

That's all from me @Hey man im josh. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review @PSA!

• "in recognition of the 50th anniversary" we can shorten to "to recognize the 50th anniversary" – I'm having difficult explaining why I think the first option is better. It would make it shorter, but I think it flows better with this wording instead.
• "history of the league" -> "league's history" – I chose "history of the league" as the phrasing to better match the target, History of the National Football League.
• "have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions" what is the first comma supposed to be doing there ? – Well you see the purpose of that comma was to help me realize I missed a word! Changed to "have always been included..." which makes the usage of the comma in that context make more sense.
  • That makes more sense
• "As an example, for the 2010s Team, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included and a new "flex" offensive position was added" that is a mouthful. Perhaps "For example, due to greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was instead added." Or you can split that into two sentences, which arguably would make this more readable – I changed it to "For example, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was added instead.", hope this is satisfactory.
• "and both made" I don't think the "both" is necessary – Ehhh, I'm iffy on this, how strongly do you feel? I do feel like while it should obviously be inferred that they [both] made the 1950s team, I think it's more clear, direct, and less ambiguous. I'm not married to the phrasing though.
  • My experience is limited to FAC and GAN where I've been acclimated to keeping phrases as concise as possible wherever applicable, which contextualizes my comment. In this case, though, both verbiages are valid, and I want to avoid splitting hairs over what's essentially one word

Let me know your thoughts on the parts I didn't implement. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up @PSA. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hey man im josh, and thanks for your patience. I'm still getting into the swing of things with FLC, which may slightly affect the quality of my comments. Your responses were thoughtful and sufficient enough; I won't prod on the ones that were stylistic-preference in retrospect. A support from me Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.