Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2013

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Florida state parks

Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...Florida has such a wonderful state park system, and many parks are under utilized. Featured lists are viewed by more people, and I want everyone to know about these Florida gems. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think the parks listed twice with blank entries except for remarks saying "see XX State Park" should be included. Just use the official park name.

--commented out original park names Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in the remarks section - the first word should always be in caps.

--capitalized first word of comments where needed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Convert all units in the remarks as well, including temperatures, million gallons, etc. They should be imperial units first, metric second.

--changed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Stats such as "5,100 acre plantation" where the unit of measure is singular should be displayed as "5,100-acre plantation" using adj=on.

--changed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Link to specific species and other features mentioned in the remarks.

--changed Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• References are needed for everything in each park's remarks.
• All images should have alternative text.

More comments to come as revisions are made. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: Ref 3 → |format=PDF --done Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) In the US dates are usually written month/day/year. Perhaps change this in the refs? --Within the reference template, the accessdate is automatically formatted as 17 July 2013. The date of the reference work is free format, which I include as July 17, 2013. All dates should be written in a similar fashion → 2012-05-19 or May 31, 2012. Add {{Use mdy dates|date=July 2013}} {{Use American English|date=July 2013}} Ref 1 → add Florida Department of Environmental Protection as the publisher. Also wikilink it the first time its used. --done Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 2 → changed publisher to Florida State Parks and wikilink --done Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 3 → wikilink National Recreation and Park Association --done Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Refs 6–15 → changed publisher to Florida State Parks Ref 16 → changed publisher to National Park Service – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is a column of white space below the map, please fix the formatting so the text will wrap.
• "There are 161" is meaningless; the source should be moved to after "Florida" to cite the actual fact.
• -> "and it won the Gold Medal, ->"it was also a finalist"
• The sentence starting with "Many parks offer" is rather awkward, especially the third clause, and should be rewritten.
• No quotation marks around conservation areas and historical/archaeological sites, which should be lowercase
• "Left mouse click..." is unnecessary; it doesn't need to be pointed out that pictures can't be sorted.
• "Water body" -> Body of Water. "Bodys" is not the plural form...just the singular is fine.
• Lowercase manatee.
• -> Florida cracker
• Great work on the table.

Reywas92^Talk 03:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Mikhail Youzhny career statistics

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tennis. I am nominating this for featured list because I think this article and list comprehensively cover the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose – Upon a brief glance, I see numerous colors without matching symbols, tables without other items encouraged by WP:ACCESS (namely column and row scopes), and external links to a questionable source in the ATP Tour career earnings table (SteveGTennis.com). The list doesn't appear to meet the FL criteria at this time. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Huh? Give me an example of the colors, because every colour is explained.... What do you mean with "tables without other items encouraged by WP:ACCESS (namely column and row scopes)" SteveGTennis is a reliable source, despite its strange name.. .Its a reason why its used in every career statistics article.. see Why are you so vague???... --TIAYN (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC) All right, I'll try to explain things more thoroughly this time. For each row of a table with colors in it, accessibility guidelines prescribe that there should be a matching symbol, such as a †, for each different color. List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning includes symbols, to pick out one candidate from the current crop of FLCs. In the tables themselves, row and column scopes should be inserted as needed; most lists currently at FLC have them already, such as the MLB one, and if you peek at their coding you'll see how to do this. It's a pain in the butt to put the scopes in, but necessary to meet modern FL standards. As for the website, we need stronger proof of its reliability than use in other tennis articles. They haven't been to FLC yet, and projects often have lower standards for reliability than community-wide processes. Personally, I don't see why you couldn't use the ATP website for most of this information. Hopefully this helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Not all colours need to be explained with symbols, for instance, the List of Governors of Alabama (which is an FL) does not explain its colours by the use of symbols.. Secondly, baseball lists may be easier to organize then tennis on this matter.. Thirdly, I've added several templates, tables and so forth to explain the colouring, aren't they good enough??? I'll fix the scope thing. --TIAYN (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Since we don't have many lists with color explanation tables like this, even I'm not sure if they are good enough. I recommend that you ask User:RexxS to come here and give his input. He is an accessibility guru and offers very easy-to-understand advice. He'll know whether the tables are sufficient. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Featured Lists require that the content is available not only to normal browsers but also to screen readers for visually impaired visitors. This means that we have to ensure that someone who can only hear the text read out will still receive all of the information. That means that we cannot use colour on its own to convey information because colour is not read out by a screen reader. Similarly, someone who is completely colour-blind would encounter the same problems. If you look at the List of Governors of Alabama the information about the party is given as text for each entry, so the coloured cell just repeats that information, making it quicker to see for a sighted viewer, but still allowing a visually impaired viewer to receive the information. If you look, for example, at Mikhail Youzhny career statistics #Singles: 2 (1 title, 1 runner-up), how would someone who could not see colour be able to tell that the Slovak Junior Indoor Tournament was in category G2? or that the Australian Open was category GA? (incidentally, I'm not a tennis fan, so don't understand the categories - is there any chance you could also link the terms to where someone could find out what they mean?) The same consideration needs to be applied to the other lists that have legends that are only linked by colour, because I can't see any way that a screen reader could pick up the information in the legend and apply it to the corresponding entry in the accompanying table. Giants is suggesting above that we often use a symbol such as † in the legend and table to make the connection for each category. Personally, I'd suggest that having another column for 'Category' in each of those tables, as that would avoid the problem altogether and keep the information together in a single table.

Note, though, that your use of colour doesn't cause the same problem where you use it to emphasise the ranking of the opponent, as in the Top 10 wins section, because you give the rank as text as well, so a screen reader would still get the information. Likewise for the Performance timelines where the 'Round' column contains textual information that a screen reader would get and where the colour just duplicates that information in a more convenient form for the sighted. All of that is ok, but check the Grand Slam/ATP World Tour Masters 1000/ATP World Tour 500 series/ATP World Tour 250 series/Davis Cup categorisations; nobody who can't see colour can figure out which event was in which category.

Finally, just an unrelated suggestion, but wouldn't it be easier for everyone to get the information in the table called 'key', if it looked like this:

Key

W	Won tournament
F	reached Final
SF	reached Semifinal
QF	reached Quarterfinal
#R	reached Round 4, 3, 2, 1
RR	competed at a Round Robin stage
Q#	lost in Qualification round 3, 2, 1
A	Absent from a tournament
P	Participated in a team event
Z#	played in a Davis Cup Zonal Group (with its number indication)
PO	played in a Davis Cup Play-off
SF-B	won a bronze medal at the Olympics (from 1908–1924 and 1996–present, awarded to the winner of a play-off match between losing semifinalists)
F	won a silver medal at the Olympics
S	won a silver medal at the Olympics
G	won a gold medal at the Olympics
NMS	played in a Masters Series/1000 tournament that was relegated (Not a Masters Series)
NH	tournament was Not Held in a given year

I know that's quite a lot to take in, but I'd be happy to elaborate on any of the issues if you're uncertain, or point you to other lists that make use of colour in an accessible way. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help. --TIAYN (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The new key is terrible and does not meet our guidelines. The first section (as added to the Yousney article) adds info that a 2 year old would understand... it's simply not needed. The second section is already handled by the old template. Can tweaks be made... I'm sure they can, to make sure color isn't the only criteria. But to make a giant table for each and every article is unnecessary and can take up more eye-space than the actual article. Most career stat pages are simply not FL ready and never will be since they are a collection of data with limited prose. The main articles are much better candidates. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see where it doesn't meet the guidelines? It doesn't just use colour alone, e.g. green winners also have a W. I would agree though that the key is somewhat overwhelming (and I'm not sure why we have two entries for "won a silver medal at the Olympics" i.e. F and S, nor two entries using F i.e. Final and "won a silver medal at the Olympics"....) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's my bad. We have a detailed guidelines on proper performance charts but it appears we oopsed and neglected to include that we MUST use a key for those charts. I assumed it was included in the guidelines since we use it for most articles. Our key is the template:

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

P#

DNQ

A

Z#

PO

G

S

B

NMS

NTI

P

NH

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.

To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

.

So sorry, I assumed our proper key was right above the performance charts in the guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care what we use.. First stating that career statistics should not meet FL criteria is a bad argument, a really bad argument, secondly, can we agree on using the Performance key template? --TIAYN (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. I assumed it was a standard part of our guidelines. As for FL... What I meant was that there are some articles on wikipedia in which it is impossible to meet FL criteria. Nor should those articles be deleted as they provide vital info. I feel the career stats pages will fall into this category. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The only way of it being impossible is if users don't bother to change the current layout ... It shouldn't be that hard (it's just minor changes). --TIAYN (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clearer, but the issue that I raised about the {{performance key}} was not related to colour. The problem I have with it is that it crams in at least 17 pieces of information and you want to keep its size down, which results in old folk like me having difficulty in reading the small text and being able to find the meaning for a given key. I understand that it makes sense to use a single template for that information as it makes maintenance much simpler across many articles, even though it means you will often include more items in the key than are actually used in the performance timeline. The choices are: (i) small and easily maintainable, but difficult to read for some; (ii) normal font size with 16 rows, which may visually overwhelm a small article; (iii) normal size with only the abbreviations that are used in the performance timeline tables, which will be a nightmare to keep updated as careers progress. I must say that in the current version of the article, I find it much easier to look up that "3R" means "reached round 3", but it was also possible for me to do that with the previous template – it's just that I found it more difficult as a consequence of my eyesight deteriorating with age.

So, in summary, the {{performance key}} template is not inaccessible, but I wanted you to know that I thought it could be improved in readability. I find the current key more legible, but I accept that you have to balance considerations of size and maintenance against that. I wouldn't oppose your choice whichever way you felt was best. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We can probably increase the text size a little bit, if that works. --TIAYN (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

Zamorano Eighty

Nominator(s): Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this article and list comprehensively cover the topic. After it appeared on DYK, I submitted it for peer review in June, but my request was archived without response. While I feel the article is complete, I have been actively working on improving it, including tracking down and uploading images to accompany it and creating articles on some of the redlinked authors on the list. Even if you feel this does not meed FL criteria, I am eager to hear constructive criticism regarding other ways I can improve this article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments Dates for refs. should all be written the same way. Ex: May 30, 2013 or 2013-05-30. Add alt text for all images I would insert a header titled "The Zamorano Eighty" above "The works on the list are numbered..." Ref 1 → add Hearst Corporation as publisher Ref 2 → add Doyce B. Nunis, Jr. as author Ref 4 → add Tribune Company as publisher Ref 7 → add Dorothy Sloan as author. Also, Dorothy Sloan Books is a website and therefore shouldn't be in italics. Ref 9 → needs date retrieved. Also the website name shouldn't be in italics (unless its also a published work?) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I don't have much experience with alt text, but I gather from Wikipedia:Alternative text for images that its primary purpose is for screen readers. So I imagined it would be tedious to click through a long list of 'book cover for this', 'book cover for that', so I just added a concise 'book cover' for all of them. I'll put in longer alt texts if it is considered more appropriate to do so, of course. I made all the ref corrections you suggestion with one exception: I left Americana Exchange Monthly in italics because I believe those articles are from a print publication and were later added to the Americana Exchange website. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Seven paragraphs is very large for an FL's lead. Since most of the paras aren't that large, I suggest merging some of them together. It would be great if a four-paragraph lead was the result.
• The Author column should be sorting by last name, not first name.
• The hyphens in the Year column should be en dashes instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks to my discovery of the wonderful sortname template, the author column is now properly sortable. I've also added en dashes. I'll brainstorm some ways to restructure the text as per your first suggestion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Zamorano club" v "Zamorano Club" be consistent.
• Any word on how the auctions went? i.e. were the sales successful and expensive?
• "books.[9][8]" reverse order.
• "rara avis" meaning?
• Cover or title page column need not be sortable.
• While I thoroughly enjoyed reading the lead, I don't think it really covers the list itself (i.e. the works) in any great detail, it spends more time discussing the collectors and their auctions/plans to steal etc. It may be worth adding an additional section after the lead to discuss collectors etc, and expand the lead to discuss the various books, authors etc which may be of interest within the list.
• "1882–1890" etc "1882–90" per WP:YEAR.
• How did you distinguish between which authors had red links and which weren't linked at all?
• When no image of the cover is available, don't row span the blanks, it looks odd. Just have an en-dash, centrally aligned, to indicate that nothing is currently available.
• "1854–5" -> "1854–55"
• "Retrieved June 03, 2013." etc no need for leading zero.
• Second external link needs an en-dash per WP:DASH, not a spaced hyphen.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've only begun responding to these points (thanks for the feedback, btw), but I wanted to address the redlink question. I left all of the authors redlinked that I could, but removed links entirely when they pointed to articles about different people or disambiguation pages. Gamaliel (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of accolades received by House

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I left this list for a while, but I cleaned it up now so I hope it is ready to become a FL. Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments Leaning towards oppose, given I'm concerned with the verifiability of this list. According to this, the majority of sources are dead. Strange, I checked the refs with refcheck not long ago and they appeared to be fine. I will work on this asap. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I think the bot used an erroneous cached version of the article when I checked it initially. I have replaced almost all of the dead links. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC) You have dab link issues which need addressing. I think I've fixed these. Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC) "Laurie, yadda...which has been regarded by some critics in the entertainment industry as among the biggest snubs in the award's history", would be nice if this was a bit more specific. Saying 'some critics' and citing numerous references is a tad open to interpretation; some of these critics aren't even critics – just wannabe hacks. What I would suggest you could do is name one critic from a respectable, high-quality source who commented on Laurie's failure to pick the award, then quote and cite where appropriate. not yet dealt with. Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Careful with overlinking (ie: Hugh Laurie, Katie Jacobs) I tried to link the name once per section/table. Is that ok? Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC) No problem. Be consistent with date formats (2012-12-26 or December 26, 2012) fixed Ref 1 is BBC Learning English, which is completely different to its BBC News branch. fixed Ref 48, 82 and 111 need to be formatted correctly. removed/fixed Fix the title of Ref 56 fixed Be consistent: is it Articles.latimes.com or the Los Angeles Times? Preferably go with the latter. fixed Likewise News.yahoo.com/Yahoo! News and Eonline.com/E! Online. Again, I would advise going against the domain if it has a familiar name. fixed Ref 91 needs page number. Added the url instead. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Remove location of Ref 96 – it's already stated in its title. fixed Ref 124 is a news agency; doesn't need italicizing. fixed Ref 97 is the website of the Fox Broadcasting Company, completely different to 20th Century Fox. fixed Huffingtonpost.co.uk and Huffingtonpost.com can just be referred to as The Huffington Post fixed Sources which cite Entertainment Weekly and Variety should be italicized as they are publications. fixed Open question: is it permissible to cite IMDb as it is user generated? replaced it Is Thehollywoodgossip.com a reliable source? No idea. Should I try replacing them? Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I'll be more than happy to reassess once you have made the suggested corrections; feel free to get back to me at that point. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I went through all the references and tried to actually fix everything I could think of. Since I have changed so many refs, it is probably a good idea for somebody to take another look at the refs. Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 89 and 95 need a location Removed the first, while the latter (115 now) is a USA Today, but I have no idea what location. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC) McLean, Virginia would do. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Would be nice if the tables met MOS:DTT and included rowscopes and colscopes. I have no idea what is that. Is there a bot for it? Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC) This is done manually and designed with accessibility in mind. I did the first table for you. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Ref 67 has a problem. Fixed all these. Did I do the the DTT stuff right? Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Godot13 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments- First run-through of text only, I made a few minor suggestions/corrections please review the edit diff and let me know if you don't agree with any of them. Review of the tables soon.--Godot13 (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Tyvm for your copyediting! Looks great! Nergaal (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Second run-through - Generally minor additional comments-- (Intro) 159 noms by American orgs with 50 wins; 10 noms outside US with 1(?) win… Infobox at upper right has 169 noms (correct) but 56 wins. Where are the other 5 wins coming from? They are listed in the second hidden table in the infobox. Nergaal (talk) So they are... (Golden Globe Awards) The image of Hugh Laurie is smaller than the rest. Since he is the title character perhaps he should be the same size? increased it from 170 to 200 In the same section table, the dashes in the nominee(s) column is a bit confusing, should they say “House” instead? (See last comment) (Humanitas Prizes) “House has been nominated six times for the 60 Minute Category, and has one once” – change to … “has won once” fixed (NAACP Image Awards) “The show has received 12 nominations in total, seven of which for Omar Epps” – change to … “in total, including seven for” fixed Same section - Ref #82 isn’t working properly (not going to a specific article) replaced ref Also, should the dashes be replaced by House? (Okay, now I’m realizing that all the dashes represent the series, a comment in the beginning would be helpful) I am not sure how to do this without making it awkward. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC) (Prism Awards) – “The PRISM Awards are awarded annually by the Entertainment Industries Council to honor the creative community” Is there something better than “creative community,” it strikes me as a bit off. replaced with artists (Screen Actors Guild Awards) – The table would look better if it was brought up next to the image to be consistent with the other sections that have images. not sure what you mean. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC) My monitor was misbehaving... All good here. (Teen Choice Awards) – ‘’ House has received 16 nominations, four for” – change to “nominations, including four for” otherwise it sounds 16 + 4… fixed Same section – “Laurie has won one once for the Teen Choice Award for Choice TV Actor: Drama, in 2007” change to “Laurie won in 2007 for Choice TV Actor: Drama” fixed (Writers Guild of America Awards) – End of second sentence- replace comma with a period. fixed (Other U.S. Awards) – In the table, you might want to make the Nominee column non-sortable (currently it will only sort by the first name of the first nominee and therefore isn’t really helpful since they’re all multiple nominees). it helps for David Shore entries though... Well, it places his three wins side by side, not sure how useful that is... fixed this If the dashes are meant to represent “House” I can help you (I think) make the table sortable by Nominee (for single nominee table only) so that the dash is visible, but interpreted by the sort as “House.” Not necessary, your call. --Godot13 (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I am not sure that would really be better. For example I don't think having House sort between Laurie and Wilde would actually make sense. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I hear what you're saying, but in sorting the dash as "House" all the other names would be sorted by last name (though still visible exactly as they are...) and House would be treated as a last name. I demonstrated on the Teen Choice Awards table. Check it out, if you don't like it or it's not what you had in mind, feel free to undo the change, no hard feelings at all...--Godot13 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I think I've fixed this by replacing dashes with N/A. Does that work? Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Using N/A is a problem here because it is referring to the nominee. It doesn't make sense to say "not applicable" in the nominee column, particularly when describing the winner (which happens to be the title subject of the list). I think some reference to the show (e.g., House, "House", (ensemble), etc.) is necessary-Godot13 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) I just noticed that the suggestion to use N/A came from TRM...

• While I still think it's problematic (the use of "N/A"), it won't get in the way of my support.-Godot13 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Logo" is hardly a descriptive caption. not sure what to change this to Perhaps something like "The logo used in the opening credits for House"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) changed "U.S. Awards & Nominations" and "International Awards & Nominations" - why the over-capitalisation? done " on FOX from" -> "on the Fox network" for our non-US readers. done It has also aired internationally... 66 countries, so try not to be too US-centric, or at least mention it's been highly successful worldwide. added First para of the lead essentially recreates the info box. Pointless really, perhaps you could give us a synopsis of the show, the characters, anything relevant that doesn't just turn the info box into prose. how is it now? Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Infobox "0time"? fixed " they are considered to be the television equivalent to the Academy Awards" well, you have one BBC source saying that. It's hardly definitive. you suggest removing this altogether? Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I'm saying add one or two more refs where the same claim is given, or else say "The BBC consider ..." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Switched this. Nergaal (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC) In sortable tables, linkable items should be linked every time. removed the sortability since it did not add anything Don't have blank cells in tables, either N/A or — or something, otherwise it just looks like you've forgotten something. fixed Check for Nominee when it should be Nominee(s). fixed "to honor the best achievements in film" presumably this is a quote, if not it's hardly encyclopedic. Check this sort of thing throughout. added the quotation marks Globe Newswire seems to be GlobeNewswire. fixed WP:DASH required in the reference titles. I think I've fixed the instance you were referring to The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A list of Arsenal's record against every team they have played in the league. This was created by scratch a month or so ago and I am inclined to believe it meets the criteria (or worth a shot here anyway). It's based on the lists which have already been promoted (Liverpool, Manchester United, Luton Town, Birmingham, et al). All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments (nice work) " solely contesting in cup " not keen, maybe "solely participating in... " or "solely contesting cup...". Consider linking "friendlies". "The club was formed..." vs "the club were elected..." I'm not fussed but several of our US readers take umbrage at, as a minimum, inconsistency here. Similarly, based on your opening sentence, "Arsenal hold the" should really be "Arsenal holds..." "which they were an inaugural member" -> "of which... "whom they first met" are you sure it's whom? Chelsea row is missing the last cell border. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments TRM, have dealt with them and made the necessary changes. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

*Lead. If Arsenal was founded in 1886, why does the image caption say "its first season, 1888–89"? Whoops. Removed the image given they never played in the league that season. Had intended to replace it with this one but it seems there are copyright issues. So replaced it with another one of Arsenal in a league match. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) The lead speaks of Arsenal's lengthy unbroken tenure in the top two divisions of the English league system. Yet when we come to the key, we suddenly meet several other competitions. For the benefit of the easily confused, they should get a mention in the lead; perhaps make the first sentence of para 2 more explicit, something to the effect of how in the early years of league football, Arsenal's first team played a few seasons in regionally based subsidiary competitions, and their record against clubs faced in those leagues as well as the FL and PL is detailed below. Have tweaked this -- hope it reads well. Be consistent with capitalising the/The Football League. Personally, I prefer the uncapitalised, standard English, usage rather than the capitalised trade-mark version You can't source "Arsenal hold the record for the longest uninterrupted period in the top flight" to an 11-year-old webpage Although it's generally a good idea to avoid starting sentences with "In xxx, Arsenal did such-and-such", the construction "Arsenal became the first English football club since Preston North End in 1888–89 to go through a league season without defeat in 2003–04" would say what it meant rather better with the "in 2003–04" at the beginning Make sure you're consistent with singular and plural usage: e.g. "Arsenal's first team have competed in a number of nationally and regionally contested leagues, and its record" Key. If the only uncompleted competition is the 1939–40 FL season, I'd just say something like Matches from the abandoned 1939–40 FL season are excluded, as are... But if it stays as it is, the dashes should either be spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, not spaced emdashes as you have (MOS:EMDASH) Have Arsenal ever played in a test match? Only in cup competitions to my knowledge. Have removed that bit. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Leyton Orient were Clapton Orient until 1946 Swansea City have been called that since 1969 Millwall was probably Millwall Athletic when Arsenal first played them Footnotes. The Southport Central note must be left over from wherever you pasted them from I might reword note A as Record against Small Heath and Birmingham included Wimbledon relocated in 2003, not 2004; they renamed in 2004 Table. Glossop North End changed its name to Glossop in 1899 and remained so called until long after its last meeting with Arsenal, (GNEFC website, FCHD) which was in 1914–15, not 1904–05 Burton United was formed in 1901, as an amalgamation of Swifts and Wanderers, so I doubt Arsenal played 11 seasons against them between 1893–94 and 1903–04... Think you've got the Swifts details in with the United record as well as in its own row Chesterfield were Chesterfield Town until 1919 (CFC website) which is after the last time Arsenal played them, so their name should be Chesterfield Town, not Chesterfield with a footnote The WISA link's dead, and has been for some time. There's an archive.org copy, but it doesn't verify the relocation year which needs either referencing or the note rewording so it's verifiable from the WISA link that's enough to be going on with. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your through review, Struway2. Have dealt with all your points. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Couple more... Regionally-contested shouldn't be hyphenated (MOS:HYPHEN section 3 bullet 4) Loughborough dates are wrong In Ref 5, Premier League should be publisher rather than work Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Corrected them now, thanks once more. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Couple more... Chesterfield Town "Last" season is wrong Burton Wanderers "Last" season is wrong Millwall "First" season is wrong cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Made corrections, thanks again. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC) There are a few clubs missing: Stockport County is one, there are at least two others in the FL. Does the Official History book not give an all-time list of opponents? or if it doesn't, how do you know when you've got them all? Leeds City and New Brighton Tower were the two that I seemed to have left out. The book does provide a statistical record, but I relied more on Andy Kelly's website, as it includes the regional leagues (something Statto and this website) left out. Kelly is the club's historian, which should answer any variability questions and his website is updated reguarly. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) They were my other two. And I don't have any problem with Andy Kelly's reliability, although he isn't the club's historian (unless it's a very recent appointment). Was more concerned with how you/we know the list is complete. For example, the Birmingham record by opponent was based on a complete list of FL/PL opponents published in a 2010 book, so all I had to check in the way of extras was 2010 to 2012, and 3 seasons of Football Alliance, which was only 3 extra clubs. If you've had to build this entire list by checking each league table for new opponents, I'm not surprised you left some out... Struway2 (talk) You're still missing at least one non-FL opponent... Chatham I believe? Lemonade51 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Assuming they're all there now, you need to update the bit in the lead about "their 81st and most recent" opponent (best count them, because I think 81st was wrong in the first place). Struway2 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Done. Got 84 in total (19 divisional opponents + 11 defunct + 54 other clubs) Lemonade51 (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. It's a bit more complete now that when it arrived at this FLC, and it complies with the criteria. I do think that the prose of these record-by-opponent lists is a bit skimpy in content and bullet-pointy in style, but that criticism applies to many popular-culture type lists that succeed here (including my own contribution to this genre), and isn't a reason for me to oppose this particular one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• The hyphen in "by the newly-formed Premier League" should probably be removed.
• Lead image could use alt text.
• General references with authors should likely be in alphabetical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorporated your suggestions, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2012 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the whole list recently. It meets all the criteria for a featured list, and it's also similar to List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). I'll do my best to address your reviews. Thank you! HĐ (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: The article looks to be well-written and all the references are good links. My only suggestion would be to write out the dates in the references (like January 1, 2013 instead of 2013-01-01), because my understanding is that formatting is a preference among other FAs. But good work nonetheless! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! — HĐ (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aaron

Resolved comments by Aaron Comments from Aaron I'm not sure what others think about this, but it's not just singles that chart on the Hot 100, non-singles do too now. So maybe the first two sentences should say song's, not single's?  Done In 2012, 13 singles claimed the top spot in 52 issues of the magazine, one of which, singer Rihanna's "We Found Love" spent eight weeks at the top position in late 2011. → Throughout 2012, a total of 13 singles claimed the number-one position. One of which was Rihanna's song "We Found Love", featuring Calvin Harris, which spent eight weeks atop the chart in late 2011.  Done (although I thought that the former was OK) It just shows that Calvin Harris is on the song too, he is a featured artist after all (and he solely wrote, produced and mixed it!)  — AARON • TALK 16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC) In 2012, six acts achieved their first US number-one single, either as a lead artist or a featured guest: Fun, Janelle Monáe, Gotye, Kimbra, Carly Rae Jepsen and Taylor Swift. → I would have thought facts like these would need sourcing. I'm sure they exist on Billboard or Chartbeat by Billboard articles from last year, or other reliable sources. Unnecessary, the similar lists of several years (2002, 03, 06, 11...) does not have sources for the information. But they are FL. Just because others don't have it, doesn't mean you don't have to. No FL is the same. Things like this should be sourced.  — AARON • TALK 16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I'll try to find source You've written that "Locked Out of Heaven" spent six weeks at number, but only two of which were in 2012.  Done Still implies six weeks in 2012, when it was two in 2012 and four in 2013.  — AARON • TALK 16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I've noted it. Please check carefully The Issue date column should be marked up for access (the grey shading), like on List of number-one R&B/hip-hop songs of 2011 (U.S.) for example. You could also include the yellow highlighting to signify the biggest selling single. Unnecessary WP:ACCESS  — AARON • TALK 16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Other FLs don't have it, but I'll do. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Yes they do, I've written them.  — AARON • TALK 12:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC) The first reference needs to have Billboard and Prometheus Global Media linked.  — AARON • TALK 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)  Done — HĐ (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support  — AARON • ^TALK 22:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch! HĐ (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments – I count five repeat links in the lead that don't need to be there. The first names of the artists aren't going to need repeating either.  Done Rihanna photo caption: "It makes Rihanna to be one of the three artists...". "to be" is unnecessary verbiage here.  Done Note A: "Combining, the single peaked at number one on the chart for a total of 6 weeks." "Combining" → "Combined"?  Done Refs 2 and 56 are spelling out dates, unlike the others. The refs should be consistent throughout in this regard, and it would be a lot easier to fix these two than all of the other 54. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)  Done Thanks for your comment!

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Similar lists of this type have a lead image – any reason why this one doesn't?  Done Arron removed it because he thought it would make the article "clearer". But I've fixed it. The image captions seem really long to me. WP:CAP suggests, in the interests of succinctness, not having captions any longer than three lines – the captions in this article are double and triple that. There's probably no real need to repeat information that is already in the lead. As Aaron says, the table doesn't currently meet MOS:DTT – adding !scope=row Other than that, it looks pretty good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Images need alt text. List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones is a long and unwieldy article – rather than just linking to it in this article, it might be worth linking to its specific section, i.e. [[List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones#Most number-one singles|artists with the fifth-most number ones]]</small>. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Y All of them are done

• Oppose per below discussion. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 06:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "the former is excluded from the count". I was a bit confused by this. What "count", exactly?
  • It means the former is not counted as a number-one single that year.
    • So "We Found Love" isn't counted as being a number-one single in 2011?
      • Yes.
        • I'm still a bit confused. The article says that "We Found Love" topped the chart in 2011. Surely it should be counted as being a number-one single that year? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
          • It's not being counted as a No. 1 in 2012 since it first topped the chart in 2011. --21:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Wait, now I'm not sure about something. First it says, "Throughout 2012, a total of 13 singles claimed the number-one position. One of which was Rihanna's song 'We Found Love'" (so it's part of the count here?). Then it says, "Rihanna was the only artist to achieve multiple number-one singles, with 'We Found Love' and 'Diamonds', although the former is excluded from the count because it previously topped the chart in 2011." (What count is it talking about here? She either did have multiple number ones – in which case, it's being counted – or she didn't because it's not being counted. I think that exclusion claim can be removed without losing anything from the context.) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Y I've fixed the issue. HĐ (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I don't think that's really a fix, I'm afraid – you've just moved the problematic sentence out of the lead and into a note at the bottom. The lead states that 13 singles reached number one this year – the only way that this would be possible would be if "We Found Love" counted as a number one. Yet note A says that it doesn't count. So which is it? Personally, the former makes the most sense to me. I don't understand the rationale in ignoring a 2012 number one simply because it was also number-one in 2011. If you follow that argument through to its logical conclusion, does that then mean that if "We Found Love" had topped the chart in late-2011 and remained at number one throughout 2012 and into 2013 then the lead would be saying "Throughout 2012, no singles claimed the number-one position"? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Any update on my above concern here? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Could you check the list of 2011? Because I did this list based on the 2011 list. HĐ (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • I'll bring it up at the talk page there, but for now regretful oppose. This article completely contradicts itself. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Please check again, I've fixed it. HĐ (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • I'm afraid that it still seems contradictory to me. The lead states that "12 singles claimed the number-one position", then, in the very next sentence, it says that "13 singles topped the chart". Presumably "claimed the number-one position" and "topped the chart" mean the same thing, so how can there be two different numbers? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
                        • The first sentence indicates the number of singles which were counted as number-one singles (12), while the next sentence explained that why there are 13 singles claimed the top spot, but only 12 were counted. Do you understand clearly now? HĐ (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, I still don't. Are you saying that We Found Love doesn't count as a number-one single of 2012? Because the title of this article is "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2012", and We Found Love is the second one in the list. If it doesn't "count" as a number-one single of 2012, for whatever reason, then it's beyond the scope of this list, and should be removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it doesn't count as a number-one single in 2012. I explained that because it peaked at no. 1 in 2011, previously? It peaked at number one in 2011, so it was counted to be the number-one single in 2011, not 2012. I think it's clear enough. HĐ (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, so if it isn't a number-one single of 2012, how can it be in a list of number-one singles of 2012? Also, where exactly has this definition of a "number-one single of 2012" actually come from? Is it an official Billboard definition, or just something that Wikipedia editors have come up with? I can't find any Billboard article that says that it We Found Love doesn't "count" as a 2012 number one (it's not mentioned here or here, for example). This source lists it as beign a number one of 2012 (although I'm not sure how reliable it is). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Although it reached number one in 2012 but it previously reached the top spot in 2011, that's why it was counted as a number-one single in 2011, not 2012 anymore. That's all I can explain. HĐ (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Then I'm afraid that it sounds to me like the idea that a single doesn't "count" as a number-one in a year if it has already topped the chart in a previous year is original research – I can't find anything on Billboard to support it. My oppose stands. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 06:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It is not original research at all. Go to Billboard.com, find a year-end report, and you'll see that this strange way of counting singles was created by Billboard itself. If you oppose only stands by this, I'm afraid it must be dismissed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Personally I'd say that concerns regarding a list not meeting Wikipedia's content guidelines (such as no original research) are a perfectly fair reason to oppose an article becoming a FL. Also, I'm afraid that you may have to point me directly to these year-end reports. The closest things that I can find (e.g. this and this) don't seem to mention number ones at all. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a fork according to 3.b. Nergaal (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you define from which article this information has been forked please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010s (U.S.), as per many other previous FLs. Nergaal (talk)
      • It's not. It has more information and refs than the 2010s list. Please check FLs of previous years (02, 03, 04, 06, 07, 08, and 11). HĐ (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Technically it has ONLY 13 distinct entries. Please see: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s, List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s, List of 1950s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1970s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1980s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 1990s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of 2000s UK Singles Chart number ones, List of best-selling singles of the 1960s (UK), List of best-selling singles of the 2000s (UK), List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s, List of 2000s UK Albums Chart number ones, List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s for precedents. Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Thirteen entries seems fine per 3b, where is this list forked from? Which precise article is this forked from please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments collaboration singles - What is this? It means singles which have two or more musical artists perform together. I'd use that, as it's much clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Any word about another way of saying collaboration singles? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC) I think no. HĐ (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Image caption for Jepsen and lead contradict each other. What do you mean? Both lead and image caption stated that "Call Me Maybe" was the longest-running of the year? No, the lede says "Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" and Maroon 5's "One More Night" tied for the longest-running number-one single of the year," while the image caption implies that "Call Me Maybe" was the only longest-running number one single. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Y Fix'. HĐ (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Otherwise looks quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and scope. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Crisco ! HĐ (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Billboard Hot 100 is a chart that ranks the best-performing songs in the United States" — I don't know whether saying "of" instead of "in" is an American format, so please excuse me if it is.
• Obviously the tag will need addressing.
• Note B — we have a duplicate ref (56). I would delete the first 56 and leave the one at the end of the sentence.

Cassianto^Talk 10:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question am I really the only one who sees this list as a 3.b-problem? Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It appears to be the case, as evidenced by the various comments and supports above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • As far as evidence goes, that's pretty weak. Supporters may just not have considered criterion 3b. Asking them to clarify their position might help. Goodraise 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Wow, I thought reviewers should be reviewing against all the criteria, not just some of them. Silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, painfully obvious content fork of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s. Goodraise 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

List of songs written by Alicia Keys

Nominator(s):  — AARON • ^TALK 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC) and and  — Noboyo (Noboyo)

I am nominating this for featured list because... the dispute over the title of the name of the article has been resolved. This is a list of songs written by Keys, so every song that can be reliably sourced that is written or co-written by her is listed here. A separate list, List of songs recorded by Alicia Keys, has also been created for every song that can be reliably sourced that she has recorded, regardless of whether she has written it or not. This was done because the old title, List of songs written and recorded by Alicia Keys, the name the first FLC was submitted under (and withdrawn at my request while it was resolved), was deemed to be misleading. Both lists are very different. Myself and and  — Noboyo have worked on hard on this list and I have applied my experience with previous FLCs to the article. We believe it meets the FLC criteria, and we are open to suggestions for improvements from editors of all topics.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC) and  — Noboyo (Noboyo)

• Note - I will be on holiday from 1 July to 8 July, 2013, and I will not be on Wikipedia to respond to comments in this nomination.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by User:ColonelHenry -- I find the existence of the two lists is troubling because it seems to pose a WP:CONTENTFORK issue, and the two lists could easily be merged without the redundancy into a two-section article under something titled like List of Alicia Keys songs. The two sections would be (1) songs AK wrote, (2) songs AK recorded and offers some form of notation to indicate those songs both written and recorded by AK. Compare this to an article listing people associated with a certain university that are either faculty, alumni, or both alumni and faculty (usually marked by bold text). I don't see the two lists as being inherently different in its core purpose, and I think the rationale vis-à-vis the policies/guidelines of content forking vs. splitting needs to be explained and resolved before proceeding. The previous issue (with "written and recorded by") seemed to be one focused on the apposite precision of the article's name, not a content issue. All the best, --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• No list follows the "List of songs by X" anymore, they were all moved to "List songs recorded by X". There have been multiple discussions about it, and this is the consensus for Keys' lists I'm afraid. I did propose the two section list, but it was not favoured. Having two separate articles was favoured in the majority. The other one isn't finished yet, but it is different.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• It comes back to whether we obey policies and guidelines vs. consensus that flouts the policies and guidelines (damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!), and I'd err on policy. Just because a consensus wishes to insist upon creating a WP:CONTENTFORK problem, it doesn't make it right. Reminds me of the childhood excuse "but mom, everyone's doing it! please!?!?!?" as if just the mere presence of several people in agreement over executing a bad decision automatically makes it a good one. I cannot justify endorsing the article (despite it's other positive attributes) until the WP:CONTENTFORK issue is resolved with deference to policies and guidelines. I do not see the two lists as being significantly different enough to warrant two articles, and more significant reasons to merge the overlapping articles. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can you suggest a solution then? It either has to be 'List of songs written' or 'List of songs recorded'. If we use the latter, only songs she has written, inclusive of BMI, can be included. If we use the latter, only songs she recorded can be included, whether she wrote them or not, and BMI can't be included. The title 'List of songs written and recorded by' can't be used, as it implies she has written and recorded each and every song, which she hasn't. 'List of songs by'/'List of X songs' is the old format and isn't used anymore. So you can see why there are two articles presently. (By the way, I didn't want to have two separate articles).  — AARON • ^TALK 18:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I can see why two articles are used, but more importantly, I see why two articles should NOT be used. We still have List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of bus routes in London. I don't see anything wrong with the old format, and think the editors who shift away from it were a little trigger-happy. Perhaps the model for a two-or-more-section article could be as List of books by or about Adolf Hitler, or List of Rutgers University people (with bold text for faculty members who are also alumni...something we can use when she recorded a song that she also wrote), or the list of songs recorded could be more properly merged into a Alicia Keys discography article. However, the current issue with WP:CONTENTFORK needs to be resolved regardless of where the material ends up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• I really like the 'List of compositions by', I like it a lot. Do you think that would work?  — AARON • ^TALK 20:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think that could definitely work.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem...but, does Alicia Keys write symphonies? There's a difference between a songwriter and a composer.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well she writes compositions? She composes her material, like Mariah.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regretful Oppose (as I can see that a lot of hard work went into this article). Clear WP:CONTENTFORK of List of songs recorded by Alicia Keys. Only a few of these songs she actually wrote for another artist; the others are her own songs, or songs she herself is featured on. I am too trying to think of a solution for a list that I started, that involves an artist who has written and recorded their own material, and also wrote and produced for other artists (although he has done a lot more than Keys has).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well to be honest, this is as a result of consensus. We've been through the multiple options, and they were disregarded in favour for this option. The two lists are very different. Keys only has two separate lists because there is a clear divide between what she has written and what she has recorded. The other lists I've done for don't require the artist to have two lists, but in this case, Key's needs two. By the looks of it, Timberlake only needs one list, and that is a List of songs written by Justin Timberlake, as he writes all of his material and writes for others, and he has recorded a lot less than he has written. He is similar to Emeli Sandé list; she has only released one album and done some features, but she has got 99 songs logged on BMI, so hers it titled 'List of songs written by', as 'recorded by' would be pointless for her.

• This isn't going anywhere, it's been motionless for well over a month now. I need to resolve the fork issue so if this could be closed please. Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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.