Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2019

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:19:03 18 August 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

Basshunter discography

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

According to sources, it's complete discography of Swedish musician Basshunter. It meets the criteria for a featured list, passed GOCE and received peer review. I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. I spent quite much time adjusting every detail of this list. Eurohunter (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

• How Chris already said, refs, are missing
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• The tables are a mess

• A discography should look like this: [2]
  • There are examples of FLs with different styles. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Changed.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Remove the year column
  • There are examples of FLs with year column. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Removed.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• The table should start with {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center;"
  • Missing only at first table.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Albums need to be listed in italics with in the first column
  • There are examples of FLs with albums listed in second column. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Removed.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Chart position should be in one row
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• It's IFPI DEN, BIP, RMNZ, IFPI AUT, IFPI SWE, IFPI FIN
  • There are examples of FLs which have certifications by country code name. "RMNZ" or "BIP" doesn't says anything to people not faimiliar with the music industry but "NZL" and "UK" are obvious and name of organisations are included in the link. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• "—" denotes album that did not chart. ""—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory."
  • In singles table changed "territory" to "country".  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Don't link CD multiple times
  • It's linked once per section. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• EPs: Label: None "Label: Independent
  • It wasn't released by any label. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Singles: The title column should be the first and has scopes, the year one the second; Same goes for the other tables
  • As above. There are examples of FLs with different tables. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Changed.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Do not use all caps in the references
  • I used original records. In certain cases in may be helpfull to find content. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Removed.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Refs with authors: Surname, first name
  • It's not sorted in any way and eventally links to Wikipedia article so first name, surname. Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• For IFPI AUT certs. [3]
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Sources which are not in English need to be translated with |trans-title=
  • Isn't it violation of WP:OR? Eurohunter (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Added. In two cases I will look for people that know Swedish and French to help. Eurohunter (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• All these FLs you mentioned are old. A discography should have the proper modern style. Independent is not a label; Independent record label. WP:OR has nothing to do with what I mentioned. Caps: MOS:CAPS.--Lirim | Talk 13:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This album also wasn't relesed by independent record label if you mean that. Eurohunter (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lirim.Z: Could you explain? Eurohunter (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• I did some fixes to the tables and refs: I have some more comments later.--Lirim | Talk 13:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Lirim.Z: Why you removed sale based on certifications? You removed even Finland with extact data sales. Eurohunter (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Certifications can't be used to source sales. i'm sorry for removing Finland, I'll add it back later.--Lirim | Talk 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Why they can't be while they are used in singles and album articles? I restored sales in Finland. Eurohunter (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lirim.Z: I'm just adding reminder. Eurohunter (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Some more comments

• it was certified tripe platinum. it was certified triple platinum by IFPI Denmark.
  • Could you provide example? Is name of organisation that important? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• His second studio album LOL released on 28 August 2006[8] charted in the top five in Sweden, Denmark and Finland. The album was certified platinum in Finland[10] and double platinum in Denmark.[11] ... LOL was released on .... and charted in the top five of ... . It was later certified platinum by IPFI Finland and double platinum by IFPI Denmark.
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• In the second half of this same year, In late 2006, Basshunter published his third studio album The Old Shit and rereleased The Bassmachine through his website Note: Was this a re-release?
  •  Done If I correctly understand word "re-release" yes. Is release released 3 days after original release a re-release? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• The album was supported through seven singles including "Now You're Gone", which reached number-one in the UK and Ireland and "All I Ever Wanted", which received similar success in the beforementioned countrys.
• It also reached platinum in the UK and New Zealand. It was certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and Recorded Music NZ (RMNZ).
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• His fifth studio album Bass Generation was released in September 2009 and was supported through two singles. The album reached minor-commercial success in Europe and was certified silver by the BPI. Calling Time his sixth studio album was released four years later and wasn't able to reach the charts in any country. Six singles were released to support the album; two were able to reach the charts; "Saturday" was later certified gold by RMNZ.
  • I don't guess we are here to give a ratings saying album reached "success" or not. Numbers are enough. I added information about silver. Calling Time reched number 25 on US Dance/Electronic Albums. Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  I still have comments for the references, but that should be everything for the lead. There is no reason to mention every single released. Only mention what is relevant.—Lirim | Talk 20:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Lirim.Z: Could you let me know what is incorrect with references? Eurohunter (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Lirim.Z: I changed parameter publisher to website and supply publisher where is it needed to references so Apple Music has perameter website = Apple Music and publisher = Apple. Is it what you meant? I didn't use Cite magazine because I don't know if these articles were published in paper versions. Eurohunter (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  Could you please incorparate my comments for the lead?

  @Lirim.Z: What you mean? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Everything that is not a website or a newspaper needs to be credited with |pulbisher= and not |work=/|website=
  • I think there is no thing which can be called just a "website". Every reference links to website of organisation, shop, encyclopedia, database, news paper, new agency etc. so I don't know what to do at this point. Question would be what can be called just as "website"? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Every hyphen (-) needs to be changed to en-dashes (–)
  • Why Self-publishing has no em dash per WP:Dash? Schould I link it as [[Self-publishing|Self—publishing]] (example)? Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• It's |via=Itunes Store; the publisher is the label; no need to give a language for an itunes ref
  • Did you mean cite AV media notes reference number 21 and 24 which used "via = Apple Music"? I changed them for standard web cite. Eurohunter (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Don't use Discogs as a reference--Lirim | Talk 22:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Discogs isn't used as reference. Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• en dashes only for refs, not for words which are writen with an hyphen like self-published--Lirim | Talk 02:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lirim.Z: Done. Why only for references? What is the difference? I used one em dash in case of title like "50-2018". Eurohunter (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Discogs refs that need to be replaced: Ref 37, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60.--Lirim | Talk 00:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lirim.Z: No, they aren't. It's not reference to Discogs. You should notice it use Template:Cite AV media notes. Eurohunter (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

• Basshunter in the lead doesn't need to be in bold.
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Lead para is too short.
  • Look below.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Lead sentence shouldn't mix numbers and words, see the "cats and dogs" clause in MOS:NUM.
  • All FL disographies which I checked had numbers and words mix included. I just connected them to the next paragraph.  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• " Denmark and Finland.[6][4][9] " citations in numerical order please, plenty of these to fix.
  • Why you want that? It follow content order instead of numerical order so you know what to expect from next reference (top 5 in Sweden, Denmark and Finland not Denmark, Sweden and Finland). Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Where are release dates referenced?
  • @The Rambling Man:  Done Eurohunter (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Which territories are the release dates relevant to?
  • I don't gues it's really needed and it just would lead to big mess. Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Nota at all, I see that information in all recent featured discographies. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: So what if album was released digitally and territory wasn't specified? What if album was first released in two or even more countries? Which country is more important to list? Eurohunter (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Don't need the row span in certification column after "Hallå där".
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Itunes is really iTunes.
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I thought discogs wasn't considered a reliable source.
  • @The Rambling Man: True and it isn't used as source. You should notice it use Template:Cite AV media notes. Eurohunter (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I don't follow. The discogs website is used seven times as a source. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: No. These seven references use Template:Cite AV media notes sourcing directly to release and has link to their images on Discogs. Eurohunter (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
        • They all link to discogs, which isn't RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
          • @The Rambling Man: They are sourcing directly to release and has optional link to their images on Discogs. They are not sourcing to Discogs. What's the problem? Eurohunter (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
            • As I said, I'm not following your logic. Take ref 37, the release date of that is "verified" by discogs and discogs only, which is not an RS. What else is verifying that release date which I'm not seeing? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
              • @The Rambling Man: In this case it's right. Should I delete whole date? Eurohunter (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                • I'm still not following really, sorry. This is how you're using discogs, then each time you use it this way, it's not RS. You need to find other sources instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • @The Rambling Man: No. It was only two cases from whole article (I just checked them all). I changed them to "Unknown". Eurohunter (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• The thing that immediately jumps out is that there are a lot of sources missing. Currently the Compilation albums section, the EPs section and the Remixes sections are all completely unsourced. You also need sources for any album or single that didn't chart anywhere. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: - apologies, I completely forgot to return here. My only remaining query is with the note against "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA". The table says it got to number 33, but then a footnote says it got to number 30. I don't understand...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Yes bacuse different release of this song called "DotA" got to number 30. What do you think to change it to "2007 "DotA" charted at number 30."? Eurohunter (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If they are completely different recordings then they should be listed separately in the table. If the song was simply remixed/re-released then it should just be shown once but with the higher peak position. The way it is shown at the moment is not clear/helpful at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: It's new version released in 2007 but 2006 "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" and "2007" DotA was charted separetly in Germany. In simplification we could say the same song was charted as two different songs. Eurohunter (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If they are different recordings then I would list them separately and put a footnote against the 2007 version saying Re-recording of "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Could you show example? It was labeled as "new single version" on track list. Eurohunter (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

See Coldplay discography - "Lost!" and "Lost+" (which are different recordings of the same song) are shown separately, with a different US chart position for each -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Maybe the reason is that "Lost+" wasn't released as single and was charted? Do you have other examples? Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have expressed what I think needs to be done. Either show them completely separately, or else show them as one row but with the higher position. It is lunacy to have the table show a peak position and then have a footnote hidden away right at the bottom saying "oh, actually it got higher than that". If the re-release had got to number 1 would you still have the table showing it got to number 33 but then a tiny footnote right at the bottom saying "actually it got to number 1 later"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I think yes because it's re-release, not original release. Eurohunter (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all. If the song got as high as number 30 then the table should say it got to number 30. It doesn't matter when that happened -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I have added separate entry for 2007's "DotA".  Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: the last column is missing on that row.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:  Done Eurohunter (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008

• Commas are sorely needed before and after "released on 28 August 2006".
  • @Giants2008:  Done Eurohunter (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• "and same as single" would read better as "and like the single".
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Another comma would be helpful after I Promised Myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Eurohunter (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 18 August 2019 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:16:06 11 August 2019 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Big Brother (American TV series) episodes (2010–present)

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a great list comprehensively covers the topic and would make a good addition to featured lists.. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm afraid that I don't think it's at FL level just yet.

• My biggest problem is the lead. It's quite short for a featured list, and lacks a lot of focus – less than a quarter of the text is about Big Brother during the 2010s (the final four sentences of the lead), even though that's the entire subject of the article. The rest is either about Big Brother in general, or about episodes during the 2000s. It's telling that the lead for this list is identical to the one at List of Big Brother (American TV series) episodes (2000–2009).
• There's a lot of information missing from the lead. For example, there's nothing about Over the Top. What was it? How was it different to the regular BB series? Why was it introduced? Why did it only run for a single series? Similarly, it looks as if the format of the episodes changed between seasons 16 and 17 – how did they change, and why?
• I think that, even with a more comprehensive lead, this might be a difficult article to get to FL standard. The "No. in season" columns in the tables are entirely redundant given the "Title" columns, and could definitely be removed without any loss of information to our readers. However, if you do that, what's left? Is there anything further that you could include in the earlier tables, such as viewing figures or ratings share?
• "Big Brother" in the article title needs to be in italics. I can talk you through how to do this, if you'd like.
• The lead image needs alt text.
• "Series Overview" -> "Series overview"
• It seems to me that you could get rid of the first 11 rows in the Series overview section, since they're outside the scope of this list.
• Per MOS:NUMRANGE, use en dashes ( – ) in the Day(s) columns, rather than hyphens ( - ), i.e. "Days 1-8" -> "Days 1–8". Similarly, "18-49" -> "18–49".
• "Marsh, Calumdate=June 27, 2018" -> "Marsh, Calum. June 27, 2018"
• Spaced hyphens need to be spaced en dashes.
• Avoiding shouting in reference titles (i.e. citations 12 and 14).
• The publisher of the viewing figures jumps between "TV by the Numbers", "TV By The Numbers", "TV By the Numbers" and "TV by the Numbers.com". It should be the first one throughout.
• Similarly, dates flit between "January 1, 2000" format and "2000-01-01" format.
• Citation 97 contains an error.

I think this list still has some way to go before it's at FL level, and I wish all the participating editors the best of luck in improving it. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho comments have been here now for a month, are you intending to address them or would you prefer the nomination to be archived? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: My apologies, I've fixed about half the issues but aren't sure I'll be able to get to the rest. It can be archived and when or if I ever get to the other half I'll renominate. Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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