Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

List of songs recorded by No Doubt

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating 'List of songs recorded by No Doubt' for featured list status because the list is complete, thoroughly sourced, and well written. Thanks in advanced to anyone who takes the time to review this nomination. Grazie! Carbrera (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC).

Comments from Aoba47

• I would revise the ALT text for the image to be a little more specific about what the picture is showing. Also, the text is not entirely accurate as No Doubt is not performing in the photo.

Done

• For the lead’s first paragraph, I would link “compilations” to the article for compilation abum to specify what you mean by this.

Done

• I would split this sentence (In response to the commercial disappointment of their debut and being dropped from Interscope Records, the group produced The Beacon Street Collection (1995) by themselves and took influence from punk music, which differentiated the record from the "synth and new wave influences" of No Doubt.) into two as it contains a lot of information and is rather long.

Done

• I am a question about this sentence (Four singles were released, including "New", "Ex-Girlfriend", "Simple Kind of Life", and "Bathwater".). You say that four albums were released from the album and then proceed to list all of them. I am not sure the word “including” is correct in this context, as it implies (at least to me) that there are other singles and the following list is a just a few of them.

Done

• For this sentence (the songs featured on Return of Saturn are complex), what do you mean by “complex”?
• For this part (originally sung by Talk Talk), I would use “recorded” instead of “sung”.

Done

• Do you think that you should include a sentence about Dreamcar at the end of the lead’s last paragraph?
• Do you think that you should specify that No Doubt went on a hiatus primarily due to Stefani focusing on her solo career?
• I would revise this image caption (Joe Escalante wrote the Christmas song "Oi to the World", which No Doubt recorded a cover of.) to (No Doubt recorded a cover of the Christmas song “Oi to the World”, which was written by Joe Escalante.”). I am not a fan of the last portion of the original caption (i.e. how it ends on “of”.).

Done

• Could you elaborate on this sentence (The group also has writing credits on several other albums.)? Do you mean that they wrote songs that were later recorded and performed by other singers? I am a little confused by this part (apologies if this is really obvious). Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• My only major problem with this article is the sourcing. I know that I made this same argument when you nominated List of songs recorded by Oh Land, but, outside of the liner notes, there are only five references, and three are to the same publisher. Three publishers (Allmusic; Billboard; BMG) is fewer than I would expect to see in a featured list. Are there any other sources that you could mine for information? For example, The LA Times discusses how No Doubt's songs revolve around love and heartbreak, and how Gwen Stefani's lyrics channel a female perspective. musicOMH describes the band's songs as "playful". MTV explains how a lot of No Doubt's songs are about Gwen Stefani's on-off relationship with Tony Kanal. There are almost certainly other sources that you may consider more appropriate.

• I agree that this is important. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Caption in the lead image isn't a complete sentence, so doesn't need a terminating period.

Done

• "has recorded material for". Not exactly a dealbreaker for me, but by my count there are 112 songs listed in this article, so we could probably afford to be slightly more precise than just "material" in the opening sentence, e.g. "has recorded over 100 songs for"

Done

• "on other artists' respective albums"

Done

• "After forming as a group in 1986"

Done

• "influences of No Doubt." -> "influences of their debut." Again, not a massive deal here, but, as currently written, this sentence could easily be confusing for anyone who, say, uses a screen reader.

Done

• Per MOS:NBSP, stick a non-breaking space within million numbers, i.e. 16 million -> 16 million

Done

• "Tragic Kingdom has sold 16 million copies worldwide". As of when?

Done

• "is considered one". Considered by whom? If it's a uncontroversially one of the best-selling albums of all time in the US, then you can get rid of "considered".

Done

• Did they spend three years working on Push and Shove? This confused me.
• The second paragraph ideally needs a citation at the end of it.

Done

• "Rock Steady" needs to be below "A Rock Steady Vibe", and "New" needs to be below "New Friend" when the page first loads (because sorting them by name will put them in this order).
  • @A Thousand Doors: I respectfully disagree. Rather, I think a sort key should be added to make "Rock Steady" sort above "A Rock Steady Vibe" and "New" above "New Friend" (the only reason they don't is that the songs are enclosed in quotation marks and quotation marks are sorted after spaces). TompaDompa (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Album titles beginning with "The" need to sort under the first letter of their second word, i.e. B, R and S.

Done

I realise that I've given a lot of criticism here, so, if you'd like to get your own back on me, my current open FLC is YouTube Awards. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Carbrera plenty of comments here to address? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

• American band No Doubt – I'd add a genre modifier.

Maybe this is just me, but it's really hard to list just one genre for No Doubt – almost each album served as a reinvention so it is rather difficult to summarize their style in just one type of music. Carbrera (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

• After forming in 1986, No Doubt released a series of demo tapes at their concerts and live shows – I'd call them "the band" in this instance.

Done

• "synth and new wave influences" – I'd remove the MOS:SCAREQUOTES.

Done

• Their third studio album, Tragic Kingdom (1995), incorporates punk, pop, and ska; the album spawned seven singles, including the commercially successful hits "Just a Girl", "Spiderwebs", and "Don't Speak". – don't mix verb tenses.

Done

• whereas her brother – Eric Stefani – had written – the WP:ENDASHes are unnecessary here.

Done

• Tragic Kingdom has sold 16 million copies worldwide as of 2015, and is one of the best-selling albums of all time in the United States. Five years later, No Doubt released their fourth studio album, Return of Saturn (2000). – the first sentence is a bit clunky, and the second sentence initially seems to refer to 2020 (five years after 2015) as a result of coming right after the first one.

Done

• Lyrically, the songs featured on Return of Saturn are complex and have Stefani singing about her personal romances. – I'd include this information in the first sentence about the album.
• Push and Shove explores more modern sounds and expands on their exploration with dancehall and reggae music. – I like that the musical style of each album is mentioned and compared to the others, but this phrasing sounds a bit too much like something I'd find in a review (rather than an encyclopedia) for my taste.
• The group also has writing credits on several other albums. They collaborated [...] – I'd use a semicolon instead of a period here.
• All songs recorded by No Doubt, except where noted. is unnecessary and should be removed.
• This is not a complete list. Two things:
  • This should use the {{inc-musong}} template.
  • How do you reconcile this with WP:FLCR 3(a)?
• What does the {{N/A}} template for "Intro" mean (considering the different {{Unknown}} template is used for several other songs)?
• How is it possible that "My Room Is Still Clean" was released in 1994 as a B-side to "Squeal" which was released in 1995?
• I'd suggest adding cell shadings (and symbols, as required by WP:ACCESSIBILITY) to add visual variety to the table as this increases the visual appeal significantly and makes it easier to read longer lists such as this one. Covers of other artists' songs would be a possible category for this, as would single releases.

TompaDompa (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

TompaDompa – I hope this isn't too much of a trouble for you, but I converted your usage of the "#" into bulletpoints so I could more easily mark which issues I had completed (or rather, added Done to afterwards) without breaking the numbered list. Sorry if that causes any trouble, Carbrera (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

Carbrera comments have been here nearly ten days unaddressed, do you intend to respond to them, or shall I archive this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man – I am sorry for the long response in addressing comments. Not that this is any excuse, as I did not respond to comments earlier, but recently I have been tending to some health problems, so again I apologizeHowever, this shouldn't be an issue in the future. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

• I hope that you are feeling better! Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man – Would you please archive this FLC? Due to unexpected circumstances I will likely remain off of Wikipedia for an extended amount of time. The Rambling Man, Aoba47, TompaDompa – Thank you for your time taken to provide detailed input and sorry for the inconvenience. Carbrera (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Sure, all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2018 (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.

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, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [2].

---

List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs

Nominator(s): exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was originally submitted 13 years ago in 2005, and only failed due to some minor, since-fixed issues. This list has gone far beyond that and is a very comprehensive and useful index of some of the Sun's nearest neighbors in the Milky Way. Plus, with the release of Gaia DR2, it's most likely 100% complete to the scope described in the lead. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

60-second scan review: The lead has a bunch of grammar problems and is just kind of messy; it really needs to use much more plain language to explain why the definition of "within 5 parsecs" can be fuzzy. I mean, you don't link parsec, go off on arc-seconds and stellar paralax without saying what it is or what it means in this context, it's not until the 3rd paragraph that you say how many stars are in the area even though that's half the point of the list, you start off with "the following two lists which a) they're tables, not lists and b) lists haven't started out like that for over a decade, you don't need to predefine what your sections are going to be about.

Having only recently seen List of nearest exoplanets finally make it through FLC with a lot of back-and-forth on the lead: A large amount of the readership of a list about "what are the nearest stars" is going to have only a passing understanding of astromic terms. The lead needs to be written in a way that guides these readers in to the big points (how many stars/systems, why we count stars that aren't within 5 parsecs but look like their future motion takes them inside the line, etc.) and briefly explains the technical details that go into making those determinations.

As to the 1st table, 2 fast changes: drop the system/star "number" columns because it clutters things up without clearly adding anything, and make the first three columns 'system name'/'star name'/'distance', not 'distance'/'system name'/'star name'. Distance is a property of the star/system, the star is not a property of the distance. Oh, and you can't use just color to distinguish something per WP:ACCESS because color-blind/blind/sight-limited readers can't get it. For stellar type it seems to be decorative and gives the same information as the text in the cell, but the brown/blue coloring isn't. (also, it's not clear what it means even if you can see it- please use a key, like at List of nearest exoplanets. --PresN 02:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Also: please add the FLC template onto the list's talk page, or else this FLC will not close correctly when it ends. --PresN 03:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I can probably manage to fix all that by tomorrow. Stay tuned? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've left this at the article's Talk page as well, but I object to removing the rank "#" column. I think it provides needed context. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall:@PresN: Okay, I updated it to the best of my ability/judgement based on your inputs. To add a few things, I support removing the number as it is somewhat redundant to the distance. It could give context, but I feel it is not particularly significant. Additionally, I attempted to clarify some of the definitions and explanations in the lead (please tell me how I did on that) although I feel that the distinction of a list/table and the exact phrasing of the lead is getting slightly into semantics and doesn't affect the actual quality or readability of the article in any major way. Furthermore, while the spectral types are indeed redundant and therefore don't present a significant loss for colorblind users, as someone familiar with color blindness, brown, light beige, and light blue should be distinct enough from one another as to be easily distinct from one another to even 100% color blind people. Again, please let me know if my additions and concerns are reasonable & justified or not. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd support renaming that column to something other than "#" (possibly "Rank"? Or "No."?) but I don't support removing it entirely. Also, it looks like the list has been switched to "small text" (e.g. "font-size:90%), probably in attempt to "fit it to a screen", but that should not be avoided as much as possible on WP:ACCESSIBILITY grounds – it is "allowed" in this particular case, as per WP:FONTSIZE, but in general it's not a good idea. In fact, in general, I suspect this entire table is problematic on WP:ACCESS grounds – I'm not sure there's a way to fix that, in this case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• In the first line you give parsecs first and then light years first. You should be consistent. This shows up when you switch back to parsecs in the second paragraph, with the result that you give two different criteria for stars close in the past, 5 light years and then 4.9. Below you say 5.1.
• You do not define astronomically near past or future in the lead. This should be given.
• "The second table additionally lists stars" Additionally to what? If to the first list then the word is superfluous and confusing.
• "Determining which stars fall within the stated range relies on accurate astrometric measurements of their parallax and total proper motions" Presumably proper motion etc only applies to predictions, not to the first list.
• "only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, meaning only about 12% of these objects can be observed with the naked eye" I assume you mean that 6.5 is the limit for normal vision, but you should clarify this.
• "first-magnitude stars" You link to List of brightest stars which does not define first-magnitude.
• "Gaia DR2 astrometric results" What is Gaia DR2? You also mention 13.8G, and on a quick look I do not see a definition of G in the linked article.
• If predictions thousands of years ahead are not accurate, what is the point of giving them for 15 million years?
• " 694 solar-like or cooler stars " What is the point of the qualification "or cooler stars". Why exclude hotter ones?
• The last paragraph of the lead is not strictly relevant but would be interesting if it did not have so many unnecessary technical details which mean nothing to the layman.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean it as an excuse or a valid reason, but most of your issues are due to nothing but the inevitably convoluted editing and conflicting views of a large number who have written the article, which I am almost scared to touch for fear of reawakening one or both sides. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The article will not pass FLC unless you are WP:Bold and fix problems. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that other people have been involved in writing it, but this is your FLC- take a deep breath, rewrite the whole lead without worrying about what other people have done before, and then let other editors make tweaks if they want. If they fundamentally disagree with any changes, then they can be discussed/adjusted. --PresN 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I remember this having a short table showing THE closest star in the past and future. Can this be added back in? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: Are you still engaging with this nomination? --PresN 17:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'd gotten onto some other projects and had somewhat forgotten about this. Will see what I can do! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@PresN: sorry again about the further delay, I am currently on vacation so am unable to do anything about it, and should have realized I wouldn’t be available earlier. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

exoplanetaryscience you've been editing over the past few weeks, if you don't wish to return to this then please let me know and I'll archive it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose this is starting to seem to the contrary, but I did forget again. Give me a moment and I will try my best to get to it tomorrow morning. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Alright, updated it to the recommendations. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TompaDompa

I restructured the WP:LEAD to what I consider a better structure, but feel free to change it around again (I did it mostly to get rid of "this is a list of"-like phrasings). I also added symbols with WP:ALT text (and a key) to the first table to make it WP:ACCESSIBILITY-compliant. On to the things that still need fixing:

1. All images should have WP:ALT text (see also below about whether all of these images should be included at all).
2. only nine exceed 6.5 apparent magnitude, the dimmest magnitude visible to the naked eye from Earth. – I really think it should be clarified whether this includes the Sun or not.
3. Of these, 26 have a good probability to come within 1.0 parsec (3.3 light-years) and another 7 within 0.5 parsecs (1.6 light-years), although this number is likely, in reality, much higher, due to the sheer number of stars needed to be surveyed. – this sentence has so many commas that it impedes readability. I'd split it in two, and combine the second half with the following sentence (A star approaching the Solar System 10 million years ago, moving at 200 kilometers per second, would be more than 6,000 light years from the Sun at present day, with hundreds of millions of stars closer to the Sun.), joining the two with a semicolon.
4. moving at 200 kilometers per second – if this is a typical velocity relative to the Sun, it should be mentioned.
5. It is currently predicted to pass roughly 19300±3200 Astronomical units from the Sun – in order for the reader to be able to compare this to the other distances on the page, it also needs to be given in light-years. Also, the explicit MOS:UNCERTAINTY makes the word "roughly" pretty redundant. I fixed it myself.
6. spectroscopic determined radial velocities – I believe the first word should be "spectroscopically".
7. Many brown dwarfs are not listed by visual magnitude but are listed by near-infrared J band apparent magnitude due to how dim (and often invisible) they are in visible colors. – I take this to mean that all magnitudes followed by "J" are M_J /m_J values and the rest are M_V /m_V values, but this should really be spelled out explicitly.
8. Nearest star systems is not a bad caption for the table, but I'd prefer one that stated the inclusion criterion (e.g. "Star systems within 5.0 parsecs (16.3 light-years) of the Sun").
9. When something is linked in a long sortable table, it should be linked at every instance, not just the first one (because the reader might sort it in a different order and then have difficulty finding the explanatory link).
10. The only valid reasons for an empty cell is (1) it's in the "Notes and additional references" column, and there are none, or (2) you are going to fill it in, but haven't gotten around to it yet. If the value is not applicable (like the discovery date of the Sun), use {{N/A}}. If the value is unknown, use {{Unknown}}. If the value is known but unavailable, use {{N/A|Unavailable}}. This also applies to cells with "?" or "–" as the only content.
11. Star # – if this means "Star number", it should say that (per MOS:NUMBERSIGN). Otherwise, it should just say "Star".
12. For the magnitude columns, I'd just move the reference that verifies almost all values to the respective heading cells (after M_V/m_V) and only place the reference in the cell if it's some other source. This would reduce the visual clutter.
13. There are several cells in the "Stellar class" column and a few in the magnitude columns that are apparently unsourced, as is the entirety of the "discovery date" column.
14. I'm not sure that the bottom row of the first table is necessary, but it should at least match the top row.
15. The "Maps of nearby stars" section essentially repeats the same information thrice (in greater or lesser detail). I think the rotating 3D image is by far the most helpful one to the reader as it gives a sense of depth, but it would be more helpful if there were a version that didn't have the 3D glasses effect (just the rotation). It also kind of duplicates the information given in the video in the WP:LEAD. I tried removing this section and replacing the video in the lead with the rotating 3D image, and I personally think that was an improvement (though I may have made the image too large for smaller screens).
16. Over long periods of time, the slow independent motion of stars change in both relative position and in their distance from the observer. is an anacoluthon.
17. This can cause other currently distant stars to fall within a stated range, which may be readily calculated and predicted using accurate astromertic measurements of parallax and total proper motions, along with spectroscopic determined radial velocities. – "fall within a stated range" is very clunky, and "astrometric" is misspelled.
18. I'd use "predict" for stars that will be close in the future, and "calculate" for stars that were close in the past.
19. The "Distant future and past encounters" section shouldn't contain both a table and a bullet list. The bullet list should be converted to prose and cleaned up.
20. Examples of notable predicted stellar encounters falling within 5 parsecs from the Sun appear in the list below. A summary of the more likely candidates include: is a very "this is a list of" phrasing, which should be avoided.
21. Scholz's star and its companion brown dwarf is thought to have passed should be plural.
22. Gamma Microscopii approximately 3.8 million years ago has been predicted to approach as close as 6 light-years from the Sun. badly needs copyediting. I'd consider removing it altogether considering both the qualifier that comes later and the relatively large distance.
23. The Gliese 710 / HIP 89825 entry should be copyedited for length. Previous predictions in particular aren't relevant.
24. With the release of Gaia DR2, it was determined that HIP 85605 is actually a much more distant 1790±30 light-years away, and as such will not be passing remotely close to the Sun at any point in time. – in that case, this entry should be removed.
25. Known stars that have passed or will pass within 5.1 light-years of the Sun within ±3 million years: shouldn't have a colon at the end, and "5.1 light-years" seems very arbitrary to me. I'd go with 1.5 parsecs (4.9 light-years) (which would still include all the current entries).
26. There are a bunch of WP:Redlinks in the second table. I'd remove those links.
27. It should be made clearer for the Alpha Centauri AB entry that where two values are given, one is for A and one for B (I think the easiest solution would be writing "A:" and "B:" before the respective values).
28. HIP# should either be spelled out or use the {{abbr}} template.
29. For the entries that do not have a Hipparcos number, the {{N/A}} template should be used, not just an empty cell.
30. The use of tildes (presumably to denote "approximately") breaks the sorting for the column, and I'm not sure if it's WP:MOS-compliant.
31. The "External links" section needs a clean-up.

TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

exoplanetaryscience, comments have been here unaddressed for nine days, do you intend to get to them or should I archive this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand pinging me to check in, but I did address several of the comments here on the 24th as you'll see on the page, and additionally have not had much time to edit in general besides finishing up older projects. I'm still working on this. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:07, 31 August 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) 22:15, 16 September 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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Lutheran denominations

Nominator(s): Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Between February and April of this year, I significantly expanded this list, more than octupling the size of the list (at least in terms of the byte size). The most significant improvements I made were 1) organizing the denominations into tables, 2) adding the year each denomination was founded, 3) adding the current membership of each denomination, 4) adding references (the list previously had four references; it now has 295), and 5) adding denominations that were not previously included in this list. This list should now include practically every active Lutheran denomination in the world.

Looking at the FL criteria in detail, I believe this list meets them all:

1. Prose - The list includes only a few short paragraphs of prose, but I believe these meet professional standards.

2. Lead - Short and to the point, but I believe it does define the scope of the list.

3. Comprehensiveness - I have done my best to include every active Lutheran denomination in the world. If it isn't completely comprehensive, it should be extremely close.

4. Structure - The division by international affiliation (LWF, ILC, CELC, and unaffiliated) has been in place since the list was first created. I think this division makes sense and makes the list easier to navigate. The ability to sort denominations by country, name, founding year, and membership should also aid in navigation.

5. Style - The list does have a number of red links, but after looking at a few other FLs, it seems that this is not necessarily a deal-breaker. Also, I intend over the next several (6–12?) months to create a series of "Lutheranism in (country)" articles, and to link each of the redlinked denominations to those articles. See Lutheranism in Angola for an example.

6. Stability - The only major changes in the past several years have been my edits expanding the list.

Although I think the list looks fairly good as-is, I would obviously be happy to make any changes others feel are necessary. Bnng (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• I would give a date for the numbers. "As of January 2018" or something like that. Just giving numbers for a religion without giving a date is somewhat useless.
• why did you use two "--" and not just one "–" (en-dash) or "—" (em-dash)?--Lirim | T 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, and my apologies for getting back to you so late; this past week has been a busy one for me. I have added a note to each of the tables indicating that the membership numbers are the most recently available numbers as of April 2018. Some of the sources I used didn't include a date, but I'm reasonably confident none of the numbers are more than a decade old, and I know most are less than three years old.

As for using "--" rather than an en- or em-dash, I believe I copied that from another FL. If you think an en- or em-dash would look better, I can certainly change it. Just let me know which you would prefer. Bnng (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• The list looks fine, but I wonder if it could be improved by merging the tables and using 3-color backgrounds instead. Also, a world map could be nice, coloring where each of the 3 players is present. Also, a mini-section summarizing the 3+1 headers could also be better, so that way you can compare the 3 organizations a bit. Nergaal (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I initially thought about putting all the denominations into one large table, but I ultimately decided against it, for a few reasons. First, there are currently eleven church bodies that are members of both the LWF and the ILC (and that number is steadily growing), which would complicate a simple colorization scheme like the one you proposed. (Thanks for mentioning that idea, though; after reading it, I realized I forgot to add a footnote to those church bodies, indicating their dual membership.) Second, using a colorization scheme to indicate membership would not allow the readers to sort the church bodies by membership, which seems like a drawback. One way around this problem, and an idea I toyed with for awhile, would be to add separate columns to indicate membership in the LWF, ILC, CELC, and possibly also the World Council of Churches. This would show the dual membership arrangements very clearly and would allow the readers to sort the table by membership if they wanted, which are definite pluses. The downside is that it would make the table more complicated and a bit messy, and might make them too wide for easy reading on most computer screens. The current split into four separate groupings (in place since the list was first created) seems to me like a good compromise between navigability and conciseness. That said, if you or anyone else can think of a way to combine these tables in a way that avoids those pitfalls, I would love to hear it. I don't really like the fact that several denominations are duplicated in two separate tables.

I like the idea of including a map, and I'd be willing to put one together, but I'm not sure exactly how I would do it. In addition to the problem of denominations with dual memberships, many countries also have multiple denominations, some affiliated with the LWF, some with the ILC, some with the CELC, and some unaffiliated. I'm not sure how I'd include them all in a single map. I'm also limited by the fact that this is about the most complicated map I'd be able to create on my own.

Finally, I think your idea of adding a short section comparing the various groupings is a good one, and I will try to put together something to that effect either tonight or tomorrow. Bnng (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

• As noted above, there are a lot of WP:Redlinks. This is a deal-breaker to me. For now, I think the best solution is to remove the links.
• I'd suggest using a centered en dash (<center>–</center>) for missing information rather than "--".
  • On second thought, I'd suggest using {{N/A}}, {{N/A|Unavailable}}, or {{Unknown}}. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• There are a lot of empty cells. I looked at a few of the sources, and it should be possible to give at least approximate years (e.g. "c. 1984", "1982–1986", or "1980s") for many of them. I don't know about the membership numbers, but it might be possible to give approximate figures for some of them too.
• The visual appeal would be greatly helped by some kind of image or images. A map would of course be ideal, but an image of Martin Luther would be a pretty good start.
• There's plenty of room the expand the WP:LEAD. I'd suggest explaining more about the LWF, ILC, and CELC as a start.
• Instead of footnotes, I'd suggest adding a column called "Notes" to improve readability. This would make the table wider, but the improved readability is more important in my opinion.
• The "Ref" column should be "Refs", using the {{abbr}} template.
• I noticed some discrepancies. The text says that the LWF includes 145 church bodies. I count 141 entries in the list. Likewise, the text says that the ILC includes 38 church bodies, whereas I count 39 entries. Finally, the text says that CELC includes 32 church bodies, but I count 22 entries in the list.
• The number of members for the LWF should be mentioned in the text preceding its table (as is done for the other two, as well as in the WP:LEAD).
• Avoid using the "This list [...]" phrasing, as it is clunky. Instead, try summarizing the contents (e.g. "There are XX affiliated and YY unaffiliated denominations, not including groups that have been merged into other groups (e.g. Hauge Synod), nor groups that have become defunct (e.g. Eielsen Synod)."
• The word "million" should be preceded by a non-breaking space (74 million instead of 74 million). This turns up a few times.
• The sorting by year is broken for the entries with "c." values. I'd suggest using {{Sort}} or {{Hidden sort key}} sort keys to solve this.
• A few of the references need to be fixed. A list (which unfortunately contains false positives as well) can be found here.

This should be possible to bring up to WP:Featured list standard (the topic is definitely suitable), but right now there's a long way to go, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Bnng has not edited Wikipedia since early July. If they do not respond to continue this nomination and/or no-one adopts it, I shall archive it in a few days time. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 August 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.

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