Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2018
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC) [1].
- Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The next in the 17th century conclaves series I am working, this conclave only followed a month after the previous one (list of electors), and was pretty easy to make work of since there were only a few changes in the electorate in that month (two deaths, a few arrivals, and sickness). The conclave this list goes with is one of the more entertaining ones and features some of the best drama from saints and other leading figures of the late 16th and early 17th century Catholic church. I tried to capture these in the captions to the images, as I think they fit better there than in the prose, and I welcome any critiques on improving this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments
WP:FLCR 5(a) stipulates that a minimal proportion of items be WP:redlinked. I'm of the opinion that this list (which by my count has 18 redlinks out of 61 entries) has a low enough proportion, considering I would have expected it to consist mostly of redlinks. I recognize that this could be controversial. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Support TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments:It seemed right to review your 17th-century list of cardinal electors after you reviewed my 21st-century one. Anyway:
That should be about it for now. Good work on this list. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
|
It might not be completely up to my standards, but it's certainly good enough for me to support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm truly sorry but I don't see why this isn't simply an expansion of the brief Papal conclave, May 1605 article, and a bid for FA. Once again, TompaDompa's 3b acceptance here seems very peculiar to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, long-term, that is the plan for this series (taking the 17th century ones to GA/FL/FA). I’ve been removing the lists from the articles for a few reasons because 1) they’re generally sourced to self-published sources and require a lot of effort to source the lists like this and 2) I think the format that exists for the 20th and 21st century conclaves of having a list of electors that is distinct from the article is better. I’ve seen several of the older conclave GAs with lists and I personally find them overwhelming and distracting from the prose of the article when incorporated. I agree that the May 1605 article is short now, but when/if it is eventually expanded, I think having the list as a part of it rather than as a separate page would be less useful for readers. At least I tend to ignore incorporated tables in articles, and I see value in having them distinct so people who are more interested in the various electors themselves can have a treatment of them that is focused. It’s fine if you disagree, but thought I’d explain my logic here for the choice in this format. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Tony, I appreciate your explanation. I think your best bet is to just go all-in on one of these, merge the table and the GA header article, and head to FAC. I'm never going to turn down a great FL but I really can't, hand on heart, go for this one as an FL based on the really brief main article. I should also note that my opinion here is simply as a reviewer, and that others may (and probably will) disagree, and I'm not playing any kind of trump card on it. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Understood completely, though I disagree that it would improve the main article to have it there, to the point where I’d be fine with neither of them going to FL/FA if people think they’re too similar. My honest view is that a merge would be a net negative for the article, and keeping it readable and useful for the readers is what I care about more than the icons on the top. People can disagree in good faith on the best way to achieve that, which we seem to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think it would form a part of the main article which would eventually be auto-collapsed. Until the main article can be so large as to sustain a spin-off, I'm not sure I could legimitately support it standalone. I think TompaDompa is using a different approach to 3b, but let's see what the other FL delegate and director say since this is clearly going to be somewhat contentious, and possibly precedent-ial. Thanks for your approach, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I don’t mind discussion about these things ever. I’ve been pretty busy the last 6 or so months IRL, which is why I’ve mainly been focused on the easier admin type things than the conclave project (content being harder to do than mashing buttons...) I’ll have some time later in the week/this weekend to go over the main article again, and I think I might have some ideas there that could help with your objections. Part of my reticence here is that I’m trying to get this series of articles and lists to the point where it can be used as a sort of example of half-decent Catholic historical content, and that incorporating lists has traditionally been a way that articles in this area get away with not having reliably sourced prose. Tangential to the FL discussion, but I think it helps explain the choices I’ve made: I view it more of a long term project getting done piece by piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, cool, just let me know if you'd like more from me. For complete clarity, I'm just a single reviewer here, nothing more. If consensus weighs against my position, no problem either. I think you have a really strong Featured Topic in the making, once you merge these lists with their GAs. It could be more awesome than my Boat Race GA series (160+ and counting)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- My view is that it is fine having them as one article or two, but as two cardinal lists have already been promoted to FL it is better to carry on with two rather than have a confusing mixture of styles. I think it would be very helpful to have hatnotes on the articles on each conclave cross-referencing as e.g. {{about|the list of electors for the March 1605 conclave|the conclave itself|Papal conclave, March 1605}}. I would like to see a decision on the principle before I review. Views of Giants2008 and PresN? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, cool, just let me know if you'd like more from me. For complete clarity, I'm just a single reviewer here, nothing more. If consensus weighs against my position, no problem either. I think you have a really strong Featured Topic in the making, once you merge these lists with their GAs. It could be more awesome than my Boat Race GA series (160+ and counting)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. I don’t mind discussion about these things ever. I’ve been pretty busy the last 6 or so months IRL, which is why I’ve mainly been focused on the easier admin type things than the conclave project (content being harder to do than mashing buttons...) I’ll have some time later in the week/this weekend to go over the main article again, and I think I might have some ideas there that could help with your objections. Part of my reticence here is that I’m trying to get this series of articles and lists to the point where it can be used as a sort of example of half-decent Catholic historical content, and that incorporating lists has traditionally been a way that articles in this area get away with not having reliably sourced prose. Tangential to the FL discussion, but I think it helps explain the choices I’ve made: I view it more of a long term project getting done piece by piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think it would form a part of the main article which would eventually be auto-collapsed. Until the main article can be so large as to sustain a spin-off, I'm not sure I could legimitately support it standalone. I think TompaDompa is using a different approach to 3b, but let's see what the other FL delegate and director say since this is clearly going to be somewhat contentious, and possibly precedent-ial. Thanks for your approach, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Understood completely, though I disagree that it would improve the main article to have it there, to the point where I’d be fine with neither of them going to FL/FA if people think they’re too similar. My honest view is that a merge would be a net negative for the article, and keeping it readable and useful for the readers is what I care about more than the icons on the top. People can disagree in good faith on the best way to achieve that, which we seem to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Tony, I appreciate your explanation. I think your best bet is to just go all-in on one of these, merge the table and the GA header article, and head to FAC. I'm never going to turn down a great FL but I really can't, hand on heart, go for this one as an FL based on the really brief main article. I should also note that my opinion here is simply as a reviewer, and that others may (and probably will) disagree, and I'm not playing any kind of trump card on it. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, long-term, that is the plan for this series (taking the 17th century ones to GA/FL/FA). I’ve been removing the lists from the articles for a few reasons because 1) they’re generally sourced to self-published sources and require a lot of effort to source the lists like this and 2) I think the format that exists for the 20th and 21st century conclaves of having a list of electors that is distinct from the article is better. I’ve seen several of the older conclave GAs with lists and I personally find them overwhelming and distracting from the prose of the article when incorporated. I agree that the May 1605 article is short now, but when/if it is eventually expanded, I think having the list as a part of it rather than as a separate page would be less useful for readers. At least I tend to ignore incorporated tables in articles, and I see value in having them distinct so people who are more interested in the various electors themselves can have a treatment of them that is focused. It’s fine if you disagree, but thought I’d explain my logic here for the choice in this format. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
On the previous one in this century I had a participants section with a hatnote in the section. That could also work here (and is something I intended to do when talking above, but RL and other stuff on WP happened.) Currently it’s a see also in the main article, but it can be changed pretty easily and I can incorporate in content. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently I was pinged to this FLC before and missed it. Sorry about that. I don't recall seeing it on my notification list, but my apologies nonetheless. I looked at this list and the main article and hate to further muddy the waters, but if I was editing the pages in question I would merge them under the papal conclave page (since I see TRM's point about whether separate articles are needed) and nominate it here, not at FAC. In cases like this where it's borderline whether a page counts as an article or list for FAC/FLC purposes, I like to look at the size of the prose in relation to the table size. On my computer, the list is almost twice the size of the body prose, which tells me that a merged page should probably be treated as a list. Some of our FLs with history sections and the like actually have prose sizes similar to this article. If the main papal conclave article had the table added and was nominated at FAC, I think there's a substantial chance that they would refer it back here. I hate to point such interesting articles away from FAC, but I have to call them like I see them. Of course, if consensus develops for a cross-referencing system, I could live with that. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts, as it seems like we're pretty divided here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'd be happy to see the conent of the GA merged into this list and then taken once again through FLC. The GA is pretty sparse so it wouldn't be a big task. I certainly still have concerns over the way in which TompaDompa is interpreting the 3b rule, as this one, in particular, is a clear-cut case, just whether to merge into FL or FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- My concern is that I think that papal conclave articles should be in a consistent format. If this article should be merged then so should the two articles which have already passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's certainly something to consider after the conclusion of this. We can't, from this FLC, mandate any merge of material. That would be up to the principal editors and probably need other discussions. Right now, this is about this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- If everyone will let me flesh out the article a bit more tomorrow, I’d appreciate it. It was one of my first major articles, and looking back on it, I agree I could add a lot more, especially when compared to other articles I’ve worked on in this series. →I’ve spent the better part of the last year cleaning up the self-published lists from microstubs and actually having them tell the story of the conclaves. I think merging back in would distract from the narrative, which is in my view more important than the list of participants. I’ve been putting off expanding the GA, but since there seems to be pressure to move along, I’ll make it my top priority tomorrow. I do appreciate everyone’s feedback here, even if we don’t all agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- No pressure from here, Tony. I made my position clear about a month ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do not think this article should be considered in isolation from other papal conclave articles which have already passed FLC, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think past performance is no guide to the future. Let's deal with here and now, and if that impacts past endeavours, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do not think this article should be considered in isolation from other papal conclave articles which have already passed FLC, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- No pressure from here, Tony. I made my position clear about a month ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- My concern is that I think that papal conclave articles should be in a consistent format. If this article should be merged then so should the two articles which have already passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'd be happy to see the conent of the GA merged into this list and then taken once again through FLC. The GA is pretty sparse so it wouldn't be a big task. I certainly still have concerns over the way in which TompaDompa is interpreting the 3b rule, as this one, in particular, is a clear-cut case, just whether to merge into FL or FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to agree with TRM and Giants here. It seems quite unnecessary to have both a relatively brief article on the conclave itself and a relatively brief list on the participants. I would have the same thoughts on the previous nominations; 21st century conclaves may have enough content to warrant a split, but the earlier ones can definitely cover all information in a single article. These are not independent topics - the narrative of the events around the election, even if the most important part, is closely related to the participants and they should be covered in the same article without a content fork unless length really warrants it. Reywas92Talk 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Go ahead and consider this withdrawn then. I strongly oppose a merge still for the reasons stated, but I’m big enough to realize that consensus on FLC is against me here, so I won’t drag this out. The Rambling Man would you mind doing the paperwork here when you have a chance. I also might poke you on other conclaves in this series if you don’t mind it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2018 (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. --PresN 06:01, 28 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC) [4].
- Nominator(s): Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC), Akhiljaxxn (Talk) 07:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I added a lot of work into the article way back when and have nominated it before, but after a while I added some things that were listed as reasons for not being promoted. Chase | talk 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Akhiljaxxn
edit- Few thoughts
- One or two sentence about The Wiz.Captain EO and Moonwalker ?
- The section:Television needs to be composed better. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to Akhiljaxxn: I am not sure what you mean by the first bullet. Are you saying I should add one or two sentences about those two in the lead or are you asking why I only have one or two sentences about then in the article? As for the section on television, I agree that it is quite small, but there is notch content from Michael Jackson on the matter. I would love more input as to what you mean better "compose" as it use to be a table and that was awful for one or two shows. Chase | talk 14:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- yes you should add one or two sentence about those three films/short movies.amd yeah you are right on section television.except above i mentioned the article definitely meets all of the requirements; I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to Akhiljaxxn:
Done Chase | talk 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to Akhiljaxxn:
- yes you should add one or two sentence about those three films/short movies.amd yeah you are right on section television.except above i mentioned the article definitely meets all of the requirements; I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to Akhiljaxxn: I am not sure what you mean by the first bullet. Are you saying I should add one or two sentences about those two in the lead or are you asking why I only have one or two sentences about then in the article? As for the section on television, I agree that it is quite small, but there is notch content from Michael Jackson on the matter. I would love more input as to what you mean better "compose" as it use to be a table and that was awful for one or two shows. Chase | talk 14:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support the nomination. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Allied45
edit- Comment: nice work on the list, just wondering though why there are several directors that are red-linked when other have been left unlinked? Also in the filmography table there's no links for directors with multiple appearances, yet they are linked in other tables? — Allied45 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Allied45 how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Seems a lot more consistent now! – Allied45 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to Akhiljaxxn and to Allied45: Thank you for fixing the names, Akhiljaxxn. I did notice that when I first looked at the page from a while back, but just forgot to change it. Anything else you want to comment on, Allied45? Chase | talk 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Seems a lot more consistent now! – Allied45 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Allied45 how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: nice work on the list, just wondering though why there are several directors that are red-linked when other have been left unlinked? Also in the filmography table there's no links for directors with multiple appearances, yet they are linked in other tables? — Allied45 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I had another look over, and although I'm no expert on the topic, here's some things I noticed:
- "The video was filmed in four geographic regions (Americas, Europe and Africa)" – should this be three, or four within?
- Americas including two regions ie, Nrth America And South America. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- "The video features a cameo appearance by the rap duo Kris Kross and Michael Jordan" – the wording sounds like Kris Kross and Jordan are the rap duo. Perhaps change to: "The video features cameo appearances by the rap duo Kris Kross and basketball player Michael Jordan."
Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Link to the albums mentioned in the "Description" column of the "Video albums" table
- Reply to Allied45: The only reason that I did not do that because they are linked multiple times throughout the article, per MOS:REPEATLINK, but it does state links can repeating if it is necessary in tables, etc. So do you think this table needs it even though they can scroll up and see the same link? Chase | talk 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Chase | talk 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to Allied45: The only reason that I did not do that because they are linked multiple times throughout the article, per MOS:REPEATLINK, but it does state links can repeating if it is necessary in tables, etc. So do you think this table needs it even though they can scroll up and see the same link? Chase | talk 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This is all I really noticed, the list looks good, Allied45 (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Also link 9/11 – Allied45 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support the nomination – Allied45 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments from TompaDompa
edit- The WP:LEAD is way too long; the recommendation is no more than four paragraphs, whereas this is twice that. From what I can gather, this is an over-correction from the previous FLC review. The longest lead of the WP:Featured lists for artist videographies (the one for Beyoncé) has a word count of 715; this has a word count of 1,027.
- Hey how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Still too long, in my opinion. The WP:LEAD needs to find the right balance between the number of entries described in it and the level of detail each entry is described in. To my eye, the problem is more with the latter, and I think it can be fixed. If it turns out that I'm wrong and it is not feasible to get the WP:LEAD down to a reasonable length without leaving out either too many entries or too much information about each entry, one may have to consider tightening up the scope and/or using WP:Summary style. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think the word count of this article is almost same like beyonce now and I feel like the lead should be longer than Beyonce's. Beacuse MJ had a long career spanning more than four decade. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Still too long, in my opinion. The WP:LEAD needs to find the right balance between the number of entries described in it and the level of detail each entry is described in. To my eye, the problem is more with the latter, and I think it can be fixed. If it turns out that I'm wrong and it is not feasible to get the WP:LEAD down to a reasonable length without leaving out either too many entries or too much information about each entry, one may have to consider tightening up the scope and/or using WP:Summary style. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey how it looks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- The WP:LEAD needs copyediting to pass WP:FLCR 1. For example, the last paragraph has a typo ("an" should be "and") and a sentence beginning with a minuscule.
- Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Taking a quick look, I see a bunch of stray periods scattered throughout. I say focus on the length, though. The copyediting can wait until the bigger problem has been fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
At this time, the list does not meet the criteria for WP:Featured list status. If and when the above issues are resolved, I'll do a more thorough review. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Replaced few links with new. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
CCamp2013 has not edited Wikipedia for three weeks, if they do not respond here and/or this nomination is not adopted, I will archive it in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Akhiljaxxn are you willing to adopt this nomination? If not, I'll close it very shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man yes I am. And I think I've adressed all the suggestions above. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- TompaDompa your concerns have been responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- The last four issues remain unresolved. I haven't checked whether the ones relating to the WP:LEAD have been resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Solved all your issues and tell me how it looks now? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- See my replies above. TompaDompa (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Solved all your issues and tell me how it looks now? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- The last four issues remain unresolved. I haven't checked whether the ones relating to the WP:LEAD have been resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- TompaDompa your concerns have been responded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man yes I am. And I think I've adressed all the suggestions above. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to The Rambling Man and to TompaDompa: I am also here to provide any edits as the original nominator. I want to thank Akhiljaxxn for keeping this alive as I have put a lot of work into this list over the years. Also, I feel like the lead should be longer than Beyonce's, although I think the lead that I first nominated the list with was fine as well. Chase | talk
- Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Some more comments:
Jackson has been called the King of Music Videos.
– by whom? Is this so common as to warrant being mentioned in the second sentence of the page?
- Jackson has been called the King of Music Videos by many including Guinnes book of world records.[1] Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think it should be attributed inline or removed outright. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Referred to as the "King of Music Videos" in subsequent years.
is a sentence fragment. TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I stand by my previous assessment that
it should be attributed inline or removed outright
. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- I stand by my previous assessment that
- I think it should be attributed inline or removed outright. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jackson has been called the King of Music Videos by many including Guinnes book of world records.[1] Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
- The descriptions for the music videos are not consistent in style. For instance, some are in the past tense and some in the present tense.
- Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is still a mix of past and present tense, as well as other inconsistencies in style. TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
More comments about the WP:LEAD:
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
- The use of quotation marks vs. italics is not entirely consistent. The videos for "Thriller" and "Ghosts" are in italics.
- Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Michael Jackson's "Thriller short film"
should beMichael Jackson's "Thriller" short film
, no? The other one has an unpaired quotation mark at the first mention and italics at the second. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)- Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The issues with "Ghosts" remain. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved
|
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved
|
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
More comments to come. TompaDompa (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments about the list:
- As noted above, the descriptions are very inconsistent in style. It looks like they have been copied from elsewhere. They should be harmonized.
- Several of the descriptions mention the date the video was shot or released. Is this really relevant?
- Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
- The description for "Blame It on the Boogie" is a run-on sentence which starts with a sentence fragment.
- Fixed.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The video, features the group's members dancing on a black background, relied heavily on electronic trail effects, created at Image West, Ltd. using then-cutting edge equipment: the Scanimate analog computer system and a Quantel DFS 3000 digital framestore.
should be rewritten as multiple, shorter sentences. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
shower scenes referencing Psycho
– is it really the novel the music video references, and not the movie?
- There are lots of movies based on this novel.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I know there are only two: Psycho (1960 film) (which had several sequels) and Psycho (1998 film). That sort of narrows it down to just the 1960 film for a 1984 music video. My point was that it's more likely that a music video references the movie than the book, both because they're both made in a visual medium and because the movie is more well-known. Also, this reference doesn't seem to be verified by either of the sources cited. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's still unsourced, no? TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I know there are only two: Psycho (1960 film) (which had several sequels) and Psycho (1998 film). That sort of narrows it down to just the 1960 film for a 1984 music video. My point was that it's more likely that a music video references the movie than the book, both because they're both made in a visual medium and because the movie is more well-known. Also, this reference doesn't seem to be verified by either of the sources cited. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The video has many references to the 1961 film West Side Story, especially the "Cool" sequence.
– this is fairly opaque unless the reader is familiar with both the music video and the film.
- How it loks now?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Examples would be nice, as long as they're possible to understand for someone who hasn't seen the film or the music video. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The video begins with a group of males trying to pick up women, but they do not get any luck.
– I'd describe their attempts as being unsuccessful rather than saying that they do not get any luck (not a particularly encyclopedic phrasing). It is also unclear to me why this part of the video is described and the other parts are not.
- See how it looks now. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It should say what else happens in the video, not just how it starts. I also noticed a typo:
thiry-four
. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- It should say what else happens in the video, not just how it starts. I also noticed a typo:
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
The music video featured the Jackson family members, except for La Toya and Marlon, and also includes children of The Jacksons.
– this does not make it immediately clear who or how many of the family members were featured. I would suggest phrasing it such that the reader is informed how many members from each generation the video features (which ones is optional, but there is definitely enough room for it). It should also include a link to the Jackson family.
- How it looks now? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Most" should not be capitalized. I also think that the number of family members should be given. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It was set in ancient Egypt and featured groundbreaking visual effects
– don't call the visual effects "groundbreaking", describe what they are instead.
- Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- What the visual effects are should be specified. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
The music video was inspired by the album's cover art from which the single was featured in and also uses computer graphics.
– this is an anacoluthon.
- Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's no longer an anacoluthon, but it is kind of a non sequitur. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
Two music videos were made for the single.
– should there not be two entries in the list then, since this is a videography?
- Done. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Both versions' descriptions should ideally start with "One of two music videos made for the single." TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Resolved:
|
Honestly, I think this would need a lot of copyediting to pass WP:FLCR 1; the writing is far from professional standards right now. TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- TompaDompa Can you please close the suggestions that I solved already? It will help me to identify the unsolved one very easily. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Lirim.Z
editAll the references should have the same date format, an accessdate, if given an author and the 'work' parameter should only be used for magazine and newspapers. For e.x. use 'publisher=MTV' not 'work=MTV'. I did a couple of refs already.--Lirim | Talk 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Seee how it looks now..Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are still refs with different date formats.--Lirim | Talk 19:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are still refs with different date formats.--Lirim | Talk 19:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Seee how it looks now..Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Lirim | Talk 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Giants2008
edit| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Source review – There's a lot of issues here, some of which should have been spotted before now. I haven't done spot-checks yet, but formatting and reliability checks show a laundry list of concerns:
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Oppose – Sorry to have to do this, but while checking the responses to the source review above, I found a ton of glitches that other reviewers should have spotted by now. Without looking that hard, I saw these issues:
That's a lot of errors, and I didn't even look at any of the prose inside the tables. In good conscience, I can't suggest that any of the closers promote this article until it's been cleaned up. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC) |
Just to update, I left a couple more notes above. In addition, I saw one more glaring prose issue in the last sentence of the Television section: as an encyclopedia, the use of Michael here is much too informal. I could understand it if we were using it to distinguish him from other members of his family, but that isn't the case there. Let's get that and the other issues fixed so that I can fully cap this review.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The point above about references 124 through 128 lacking access dates remains an issue, and I left another comment above that one as well about the newest source.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)One final response is above. Fix that issue and we can consider this source review a pass.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)- Okay, the source review now looks like a pass. Please do focus on the copy-editing concerns raised above, since they mirror the issues I found in a brief glance. I'm not sure how much longer we can keep this FLC open given the continued prose problems this far in. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: if I may be so bold, I think it should probably be archived. The problems with the prose and non-encyclopaedic phrasings are very widespread and although progress in fixing these has been and continues to be made, it does not seem likely that it can be brought up to snuff for WP:Featured list status within a reasonable timeframe. In addition to this, the descriptions for the list entries lack basic consistency in their approach to describing the music videos (presumably an artefact of not originally having been written for this purpose). It seems to me that the list would need a significant overhaul in order to harmonize the descriptions and while this is definitely something that can be done, I think it would be better to nominate the list all over again once it has been taken care of than to keep this nomination open until the issues have been dealt with satisfactorily, considering the substantial amount of time I would expect it to require. TompaDompa (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, the source review now looks like a pass. Please do focus on the copy-editing concerns raised above, since they mirror the issues I found in a brief glance. I'm not sure how much longer we can keep this FLC open given the continued prose problems this far in. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (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) 22:13, 9 December 2018 (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) 00:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) [11].
- Nominator(s): Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to Lang Lang discography, a FL, this article has a more engaging lead and is more detailed. Thank you for your consideration, Zingarese (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Question - are the performances listed under "contributions" the exact same performances as appear on the earlier album? We don't normally include tracks which have been "re-used" on compilation albums in a discography (at least not in the pop/rock field)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Yes, indeed. The reason why I included them is that Lang Lang discography also did... I'm happy to remove the "contributions" from Trifonov's article if it is well-established policy not to include them. Zingarese (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the Lang Lang discography, the "contributions" there are what I would expect them to be - instances where he performed new music but it was on an album that was not credited to him. In the case of Trifonov the listed contributions seem to be instances where his record label put one of his already-released performances onto a compilation album (the equivalent of a pop singer having one of their singles put on a Now That's What I Call Music album or similar). I would not include these. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- In the case of the Schumann and Brahms that is not the case, but the others, yes. That's my bad. I think I will remove the contributions from Trifonov's article. Zingarese (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Almost ready to support, but one last question - why are the refs in a smaller font size (or is it just my ageing eyes?).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- There was a missing {{refend}} tag, which I've now added. That's my bad! Zingarese (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Almost ready to support, but one last question - why are the refs in a smaller font size (or is it just my ageing eyes?).........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- In the case of the Schumann and Brahms that is not the case, but the others, yes. That's my bad. I think I will remove the contributions from Trifonov's article. Zingarese (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the Lang Lang discography, the "contributions" there are what I would expect them to be - instances where he performed new music but it was on an album that was not credited to him. In the case of Trifonov the listed contributions seem to be instances where his record label put one of his already-released performances onto a compilation album (the equivalent of a pop singer having one of their singles put on a Now That's What I Call Music album or similar). I would not include these. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Yes, indeed. The reason why I included them is that Lang Lang discography also did... I'm happy to remove the "contributions" from Trifonov's article if it is well-established policy not to include them. Zingarese (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Taking all the above into account I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Some suggestions:
- The article should start with {{As of}} – doesn't seem likely the "seven studio albums, three live albums, one video release, and one compilation" would be the end of the pianist's recording career, and without the {{As of}} the list could be soon outdated.
- The list's layout, in particular the layout of its tables, seems quite problematic, at least on my screen. I'd suggest two tables (and only those two):
- One table focussing on Recordings (separate columns for recording date, title of the work, number of movements–i.e. tracks–, composer (the composition's number in the composer's works catalogue can be included in this column), studio/live/video, recording venue, orchestra/conductor accompanying the pianist, ... ending in a last column that indicates in which album(s) the recording is included)
- Another table focussing on Releases (Title of the album, type–CD/DVD/...–, when released, by whom, unique identification of the release –e.g. publisher's code or EAN–, accolades like chartings and other prizes)
- I'd like somewhat more prose on reception.
- Avoid editorialising (and other WP:WTW issues), e.g. "considerable" in "...received considerable critical acclaim..." – the nature of the acclaim is an interpretation: either such interpretation can be referenced to reliable sources, or, if such wording can't be sourced reliably, press reviews should be referenced individually, leaving it to the reader of the Wikipedia article whether or not that amounts to "considerable" (without using that word in Wikipedia's prose).
--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: Thank you for your suggestions. As for the {{As of}}; most discography articles do not include it, even for artists who still have active recording careers (see WP:FL; Artist discographies). I will be sure to update the article when new releases arrive! :-) Also, after I nominated this article, User:EditorE added peak chart positions in the table; while a tremendously positive addition, it made the tables severely unreadible on smaller screens. I simply moved those to a separate table, and now, after some other tweaks, the tables are now very legible! I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright (it's somewhat subjective in any case) and did some tweaking on the remainder. Please let me know what you think! Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Daniil Trifonov discography#Compilations is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Video releases is a sortable table with a single entry. Doesn't make sense. Daniil Trifonov discography#Live albums is a sortable table with three entries: to me this doesn't make much sense either. In Daniil Trifonov discography#Studio albums the table has seven entries, but since the bulk of the content is in unsortable columns one has to wonder whether the sortable table format makes any sense here too. For those four sections I'd drop the table format altogether (if the two-table suggestion I made above finds no approval).
- Re. "I also removed the first sentence from the last paragraph outright" – OK, but this clashes with my "I'd like somewhat more prose on reception" suggestion. I suggested more prose on that topic, not less. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments
My main issue with the article at this time is that I think it fails WP:FLCR 4 by being structured in a way which I feel impedes navigability and readability severely. To put it bluntly, I disagree entirely with Francis Schonken's opinions on the layout (except for the part about sortability being unnecessary) and think it was way better the way it was before those changes were made. Another big issue is that the WP:LEAD contains a lot of very long sentences filled with punctuation marks (some of which are used incorrectly). Understanding the intended meaning consequently gets unnecessarily difficult, making the reading experience rather frustrating. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC) |
- @TompaDompa: thank you for your comments; @Francis Schonken: would you mind commenting? --Zingarese talk · contribs 19:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- They are currently blocked, so I don't think they can. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry; didn't notice that. Would I be able to earn your support if I reverted the table structure for the releases to what it was before, removed the "recordings" table (& possibly merge it to a separate new article), and fixed the intro? Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Zingarese do you intend to return to this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I don’t believe I have ever “left” it? —Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well you've made about four edits in the last two weeks, so I was just checking. Plus you didn't respond to TompaDompa. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I really haven't made many edits here lately at all... real life has gotten in the way! I believe I have addressed all of TompaDompa's concerns; when I get the chance, I may add two (or three?) compilations featuring Trifonov back to the article (which I had removed to restore the table to original format).This article is fine with or without them, but I feel it's not too bad of an idea to include them. --Zingarese talk · contribs 20:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well you've made about four edits in the last two weeks, so I was just checking. Plus you didn't respond to TompaDompa. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I don’t believe I have ever “left” it? —Zingarese talk · contribs 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Zingarese do you intend to return to this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry; didn't notice that. Would I be able to earn your support if I reverted the table structure for the releases to what it was before, removed the "recordings" table (& possibly merge it to a separate new article), and fixed the intro? Zingarese talk · contribs 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- They are currently blocked, so I don't think they can. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed you have. Support TompaDompa (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I restored the more detailed layout; and commented out the collapse above which suggested this was somehow solved. It isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: What is not solved? Pinging TompaDompa as well if they dont mind commenting Zingarese talk · contribs 02:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- They've been blocked again. I still support this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: What is not solved? Pinging TompaDompa as well if they dont mind commenting Zingarese talk · contribs 02:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Quick comment – Haven't reviewed this one in detail, but the Compilations table probably doesn't need to be sortable yet, as it currently has only one entry.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)- I changed it to unsortable. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments
- "set off with a focus on" is a bit verbose for me, "initially focussed" perhaps.
- Ref 2 appears not to verify all the claims about the competition and him coming third.
- The back cover of the album in the ref state (in Polish) that the music was recorded live at the Competition. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Decca is piped to a redirect.
- Fixed
- "homage of" I would normally say "homage to".
- Agreed Done Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed
- I'm mildly confused that TompaDompa would support this when the main article is so very small indeed. What makes this not a clear-cut 3b violation while lists such as List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao are of concern to TompaDompa?
- Sorry, but I do not see how this violates 3b at all. This is a very substantial article, with almost half of the albums winning notable awards including Grammys, and would be much too long for the main article. One of the reasons why the main article can be perceived as small is because it certainly needs updating and expanding. I invite TompaDompa to comment. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the point is that some users have been recently attempting to strongly reinforce 3b, and this is a case in point, the main article is not much more than a stub so merging this information in would be no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- The explanation is that when I did my initial review, the discography was so long that it would not have been reasonable to include it in the main article (even though the main article is indeed short). When the discography was restructured and thus got a lot shorter, it did not occur to me to reassess it from a WP:FLCR 3(b) perspective. I have now taken a second look at the length of the main article and the length and depth of the discography (which roughly corresponds to the tables and the WP:LEAD, respectively). In doing so, I tried copying the tables from the discography to the main article to preview how it would look if the pages were merged. I came to the conclusion that the current length might not necessarily make it unreasonable to merge the pages, but I think the depth is such that it would be inappropriate to include it on the main article (see my related comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Capital Bra discography/archive1). I have to admit that I'm not certain that I would have reached the same conclusion if this were the first time I assessed this list (as opposed to a reassessment). TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, that's not particularly convincing, it seems to imply that you're applying different standards of 3b to different lists/articles, which is a pity. As the main article is so slight, in my opinion this is far more a 3b violation than some of those you have opposed, yet you actually support this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, sorry but I have to vehemently disagree with your view. Minus the tables, this article is pretty lengthy with over 3,000 characters of prose (more so than the featured lists Lang Lang discography and Kronos Quartet discography). In addition, please take a look at those FL's vs. their main articles, as well as Oregon Symphony discography vs. Oregon Symphony. I share TompaDompa's view that the depth of this discography is such that it would not be suitable to include it on the main article.. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome to "vehemently disagree" with me. My main issue is that we have a reviewer applying different interpretations of 3b to different lists here, and that is of concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure what it is you think implies that I'm applying different standards – would you care to elaborate? I'm certainly not doing so intentionally. TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your position seems to be that if a main article is very small indeed, and a forked article is quite large, that the forked article is just fine. If the main article is quite large then the forked article suddenly becomes not a reasonable fork. For instance, if we reduced the main Radamel Falcao article to a couple of paragraphs, then the list of international goals would be fine in your eyes for a standalone list. However, because the main Falcao article is very substantial, you think the list should be incorporated within it. Very odd to me, and not what 3b was ever designed for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're reading more into my words than I ever said or intended. I didn't say I thought List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao should be merged with Radamel Falcao – I said I had concerns about WP:FLCR 3(b) (if my choice of words made it come off as unreserved agreement with the editor who said it didn't pass, I apologize for not making myself clear). I consciously avoided either supporting or opposing the nomination because I was on the fence about whether it passed. I also specifically avoided commenting on Talk:Radamel Falcao#Merge tag for the same reason – I didn't think the pages should be merged, I was undecided about whether they reasonably could.
Perhaps my reading of WP:FLCR 3(b) is more literal than the one that was intended when the criteria were formulated – I take it to mean that there are three categories of lists: (1) lists that should be merged with a main article, (2) lists for which both merging and keeping separate would be valid options, and (3) lists that should be kept separate from the main article. In my reading, only category (3) would qualify for WP:Featured list status, but perhaps the original intention was either that category (2) should also qualify or that there is no category (2). I just now took a look at the talk page archives for the WP:Featured list criteria, and I see that the phrasing, interpretation, and implementation of 3(b) has been controversial for nigh on a decade now (and I see that my reading of it has been criticized as well as advocated long before I started reviewing WP:FLCs). I thank you for raising the issue of what the purpose of WP:FLCR 3(b) is, and I will keep this in mind with future nominations. TompaDompa (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)- I didn't say I thought List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao should be merged with Radamel Falcao – I said I had concerns about WP:FLCR 3(b) well, for me it's either both or neither. If you have concerns over a list for FLCR on 3b concerns then chances are it should be considered for merging back into the main article. If not, then it's a perfectly acceptable standalone list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you're reading more into my words than I ever said or intended. I didn't say I thought List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao should be merged with Radamel Falcao – I said I had concerns about WP:FLCR 3(b) (if my choice of words made it come off as unreserved agreement with the editor who said it didn't pass, I apologize for not making myself clear). I consciously avoided either supporting or opposing the nomination because I was on the fence about whether it passed. I also specifically avoided commenting on Talk:Radamel Falcao#Merge tag for the same reason – I didn't think the pages should be merged, I was undecided about whether they reasonably could.
- Your position seems to be that if a main article is very small indeed, and a forked article is quite large, that the forked article is just fine. If the main article is quite large then the forked article suddenly becomes not a reasonable fork. For instance, if we reduced the main Radamel Falcao article to a couple of paragraphs, then the list of international goals would be fine in your eyes for a standalone list. However, because the main Falcao article is very substantial, you think the list should be incorporated within it. Very odd to me, and not what 3b was ever designed for. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure what it is you think implies that I'm applying different standards – would you care to elaborate? I'm certainly not doing so intentionally. TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome to "vehemently disagree" with me. My main issue is that we have a reviewer applying different interpretations of 3b to different lists here, and that is of concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, sorry but I have to vehemently disagree with your view. Minus the tables, this article is pretty lengthy with over 3,000 characters of prose (more so than the featured lists Lang Lang discography and Kronos Quartet discography). In addition, please take a look at those FL's vs. their main articles, as well as Oregon Symphony discography vs. Oregon Symphony. I share TompaDompa's view that the depth of this discography is such that it would not be suitable to include it on the main article.. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, that's not particularly convincing, it seems to imply that you're applying different standards of 3b to different lists/articles, which is a pity. As the main article is so slight, in my opinion this is far more a 3b violation than some of those you have opposed, yet you actually support this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The explanation is that when I did my initial review, the discography was so long that it would not have been reasonable to include it in the main article (even though the main article is indeed short). When the discography was restructured and thus got a lot shorter, it did not occur to me to reassess it from a WP:FLCR 3(b) perspective. I have now taken a second look at the length of the main article and the length and depth of the discography (which roughly corresponds to the tables and the WP:LEAD, respectively). In doing so, I tried copying the tables from the discography to the main article to preview how it would look if the pages were merged. I came to the conclusion that the current length might not necessarily make it unreasonable to merge the pages, but I think the depth is such that it would be inappropriate to include it on the main article (see my related comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Capital Bra discography/archive1). I have to admit that I'm not certain that I would have reached the same conclusion if this were the first time I assessed this list (as opposed to a reassessment). TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the point is that some users have been recently attempting to strongly reinforce 3b, and this is a case in point, the main article is not much more than a stub so merging this information in would be no problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I do not see how this violates 3b at all. This is a very substantial article, with almost half of the albums winning notable awards including Grammys, and would be much too long for the main article. One of the reasons why the main article can be perceived as small is because it certainly needs updating and expanding. I invite TompaDompa to comment. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS.
- Fixed
- Are the release dates global or do they relate to release in one or more specific territories?
- Global
- "Trio élégiaque No. 1 /" why the slash?
- Fixed
- " Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra" is that the " Warsaw National Philharmonic Orchestra"?
- Yes; both names are used to refer to the orchestra although the former is more common
- "Peak chart positions" all the hyphens should be en-dashes (per your own key).
- Already Fixed
- Already
- As noted, compilation table need not be sortable.
- Fixed
- Peak chart position table doesn't sort correctly.
- Fixed
- "US Classical" is piped to a redirect.
- Don't see the problem; the redirect goes directly to the part of the page about US Classical
- Avoid spaced hyphens in the ref titles, use spaced en-dashes instead.
- Fixed
- Ref 7 is missing access date.
- Fixed
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Thank you very much for your review; I believe I have addressed everything. Please let me know if that is not the case or if you have any further questions or comments. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Further comments
- Mixed date formats in the references.
- Fixed
- Some SHOUTING in there too.
- I'm not sure I understand...
- TEXT IN CAPITAL LETTERS. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed
- TEXT IN CAPITAL LETTERS. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand...
- Also some spaced hyphens there which should be en-dashes.
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Plus I'm still not sure about how this meets the 3b concerns that TompaDompa seems quite content with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I do not concur with any notion that this list violates 3b. It would make little sense to merge this large article with the artist's article; it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". Take a look at the FLs Lang Lang discography, Oregon Symphony discography, Kronos Quartet discography, etc.. vs. their main articles, for example. If I had more time, I would expand Trifonov's article myself;it badly needs updating. @TompaDompa: Please comment Zingarese talk · contribs 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I believe I've said all I have to say in my comments from late September, above. TompaDompa (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, other stuff exists. I'm afraid I find the previous commentator's approach terribly inconsistent, actually voting against a list which was justifiably split from a main article, while voting for this, simply because the main article is very weak indeed. It's counter to what Wikipedia is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I believe I've said all I have to say in my comments from late September, above. TompaDompa (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I do not concur with any notion that this list violates 3b. It would make little sense to merge this large article with the artist's article; it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". Take a look at the FLs Lang Lang discography, Oregon Symphony discography, Kronos Quartet discography, etc.. vs. their main articles, for example. If I had more time, I would expand Trifonov's article myself;it badly needs updating. @TompaDompa: Please comment Zingarese talk · contribs 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Director comment – @Zingarese: TRM's latest batch of comments has been up for a couple of weeks now without a response. This FLC has been going on for five months now and we can't leave it open indefinitely. Please respond to TRM as soon as possible, or I'm afraid we will eventually be forced to archive the FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 15 November 2018 (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) 22:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.