Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2013

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of United States counties and county-equivalents

Nominator:  Buaidh  16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this list for featured list because it is simple, straightforward, efficient, and contains basic information for all 3143 counties and county-equivalents of the United States.  Buaidh  16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. What about former and proposed counties? Also, do we need to have a Etymology, Founding Date origin etc etc? I ask this because it is a "requiremnent" for individual US State County lists, featured and not....Coal town guy (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there are 3143 counties in the US. I'm very happy with this list just covering current counties and leaving those specifics in the state lists. Though as I mentioned to you before, Buaidh, this will need a WP:LEAD. It doesn't need to be long or detailed, but a few paragraphs summarizing what counties and county-equivalents are. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentDo you then think, it should be noted that specifics, founding dates, former and proposed counties, etymologies etc etc will be in the specific state county lists? Also, do you think that we need to at least follow the ref format for the tables used in speciofc state county lists. Me4aning that the header for each column would have a specific ref for that data? Additionally, while we have noted, (very nicely by the way) its a current list of equivalents, what about indepedant cities? Do they also get a notation? I am not trying to be picky here, I also agree that the intro would need to be lengthened. Overall, this is a hell of an ambitious list, I like it, alot. There are a few states that will require a look see as there current county or county equivalents are changing (Alaska)Coal town guy (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the counties in the U.S. have been redefined over the years, and many have been renamed or abolished and recreated. This sometimes makes the date of creation not a simple matter. Do we use the earliest date of establishment, or the date the county was established in its current form?

Independent cities are noted with the suffix ", City of". I'll make a note.

This list is current as of March 15, 2013. I'll also make a note.  Buaidh  19:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

MOST Excellent! As to the date to use, I would use a as of.......BUT, thats me, I am certain others will chime in. As to the data sources did you plan on putting those in the column names/as a column with a ref as opposed to the table of sources.....?Coal town guy (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I added Template:As of. I think it is better to leave the references in the column descriptions rather than clutter the column headers. Let me know otherwise.  Buaidh  23:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment We also need to look below at Reywas comments County (United States) says 3033 counties + 107 equivalents = 3140 total. Do you know what the discrepancy is? This proposed list has 3 extra.....AND the intro has to be expanded.Coal town guy (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• County (United States) says 3033 counties + 107 equivalents = 3140 total. Do you know what the discrepancy is? Reywas92^Talk 01:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I do now. The County (United States) article is incorrect. Its count is based on the obsolete Census Bureau document Local Governments and Public School Systems by Type and State: 2007 which purports to show the number of local government units. This document uses an unusual method to count local government. For example, the state of Colorado has 64 counties, of which two have combined city/county governments, and 271 municipalities (270 in 2007), including the two combined city/county governments. The document above counts these as 62 county and 270 city governments. The document above also finds no counties in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and only five in Massachusetts. While most of the government functions of the demoted New England counties have been relieved, the counties still exist as legal and census entities.

The correct count is from County Totals Datasets: Population, Population Change and Estimated Components of Population Change: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 issued by the Census Bureau on March 15, 2013. This detailed document identifies 3007 counties, 64 parishes, 18 organized boroughs, 11 census areas, 42 independent cities, and the District of Columbia for a total of 3143. We need to correct the County (United States) article.  Buaidh  08:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

FANDAMTASTIC!Coal town guy (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll add notes to the table for the county-equivalents and the demoted counties.  Buaidh  15:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Impressive list, but shouldn't it include area data too? The other things can be left to the state lists, but area seems like the sort of thing where a nationwide comparison would be appropriate. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, BUT cautiously. The state lists do a great job of the area, Population is here, it would follow with some logic area should be here as well. The CAUTION is that the repetition of data in the State lists could be a bad thing. Maybe a notation in this article that area specifics would be addressed in the specific state list???Coal town guy (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there's definitely value in having the nationwide comparison for area though, the same way as there is for population. Another way to do this is to have a separate list-article for the area statistics, since this list is already huge. It's also probably more feasible to do it that way, since adding all the area data to this article would be another monumental effort. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note of caution: This list is currently the longest list in the article namespace of the English language Wikipedia. (Please see Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages.) This list currently weighs in at 615,196 bytes. Its sortable table is quite efficient, so it handles well despite its size. We can certainly create sibling lists with other types of information.  Buaidh  11:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

With a few minor enhancements, the list is now 617,231 bytes long.  Buaidh  17:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

County area: The United States Census Bureau has not updated census geographic data since May 1, 2008. The next update is due in 2018. (Please see the County and City Data Book.) The Census Bureau has also terminated its support for the USA Counties database. (Please see USA Counties.) While the boundaries of most counties no longer change, a few do.

The area of a county or county-equivalent includes both land area and water area. An area table should properly include land area, water area, and total area in both square miles and square kilometers. Michael J's County table includes these, but measures an incredible 1,306,134 bytes in length. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The table I created is in my userspace because it is so big, I did not want to put it in the mainspace yet. It is updated to include 2010 Census information. For some reason, the coordinates used by the Census Bureau changed from 2000 to 2010, but I don't know why. (It is not due to changing boundaries. I checked counties in my area that I know did not change, and there are different coordinates.) The data is all gathered there. Use it as you see fit.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't think you need the {{main}} articles at the top of the article, it's crowded enough already up there, and you link both these articles in the first line of the lead.
• Overlinking in the lead, you've relinked the US and county in first and second para of the lead.
• "eight of the 14 counties" -> "eight of the fourteen counties"...
• In the population column you use a comma for 1,000+ numbers but not the rank column, nor the lead or lead image caption... consistency needed.
• Per WP:DASH I would expect the "statistical areas" to use an en-dash to separate them, not a hyphen.
• What do blanks mean for the "Core Based Statistical Area"/"Combined Statistical Area" cols?
• Refs 4 through 21 are footnotes, not references.
• I personally think the See also section is way over the top, many are covered in the four templates at the bottom of the article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your good suggestions. The power-of-one-thousand comma is usually omitted when a column contains integers that do not exceed 4 digits. If there is an entry in the Core Based Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area columns, the county is a component of that area. If the column is blank, the county is not a component of any such area. Wikipedia has yet to officially distinguish footnotes from references.  Buaidh  20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You should have a note about the blank/filled in cells. And no, perhaps no "official" prescription but many articles have a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section and a separate "References" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I just saw this list, but I would strongly suggest trimming this list. An initial table should focus on stuff like # of counties in each state (with a list of the largest as a separate column) and then a table containing ONLY the counties above 100k inhabitants - which would still be almost 600 entries. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 17:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Timeline of the 1990 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Yellow Evan (talk · contribs), 12george1 (talk · contribs)

I proud to announce that I am nominating this wonderful list for featured list because I want a 1900 PHS GT. This list was made by GC a few years back (Who will be co-noming with me today) and I first thought about sending this here; however, it never got off the ground. Yesterday, when GC began to re-work this fine list, we agreed to co-nom. I a few hours back fixed the lead, and here we are at this very moment in time. Oh, BTW, this is a WP:CUP nomination. As for the season itself, it's a parallel to the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season in the lack of impact. However, the storms this year were amazing. There was an off-season storm and Hernan and Trudy intensity is truly mind-blowing, as well as the epic hurricane streak. Since 1990, there has been just one season that have had more than 21 storms, and that is the 1992 Pacific hurricane season as it had 28 storms. This is because Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) switched to a cold phase in 1995, and increased in intensity big time six years ago. It does not look like 2013 will be anywhere near as active as this awesome season. Have fun reading this list! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirming that the two of us are co-noming this article. Also, this will be a WikiCup nomination for me, too.--12george1 (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a few comments—

• "The 1990 Pacific hurricane season is [the] fifth most active Pacific hurricane season on record, tied with 1984." - Seem to be missing a word here.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Hurricane Alma formed on May 12, 1990, three days before the season's official start on May 15. " - Link to its subsection in the main season article.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Hurricane Trudy was the last storm to dissipate, doing so on November 1, nearly a month before the season officially ended on November 30." - In which basin?

• Better?--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Thousands were homeless, and 18 people were killed." → "Thousands were left homeless, and there were 18 confirmed fatalities." Maybe?

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Additionally, the remnants of Hurricane Boris brought light showers to California." - Link to subsection.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "One tropical storm formed in the Central Pacific Hurricane Center's warning zone and eventually crossed the International Dateline before dissipating." - Why is CPHC linked on its second' instance?

• That's actually it's first instance. The previous "instance" you are referring to is actually the Central Pacific hurricane season, not the Central Pacific Hurricane Center.--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to state how each cyclone developed (from an area of low pressure).

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• "1800 UTC (11 a.m. PDT) – Tropical Depression One-E develops about 580 mi (930 km)[nb 2] south of Zihuatanejo, Guerrero.[8]" - You linked PDT, be sure to link UTC as well.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "0600 UTC (11 p.m. PDT May 15) – Hurricane Alma attains its peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 85 mph (140 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 979 mbar (28.9 inHg).[8]" - Link Hurricane Alma and the remainder of the storms to their subsection. Be sure to link them on their peak category. If the storm was a TS at peak, link it at [[Tropical Storm XXXXX]]. But if it was a hurricane, don't link [[Tropical Storm XXXXX]], link [[Hurricane XXXX]] on its first instance. Ping me on IRC if that doesn't make sense.

• Fixed; do I need to link Hurricanes Alma, Boris, Hernan, Trudy, and Tropical Storm Rachel again?--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "1800 UTC (11 a.m. PDT) – Tropical Depression Boris dissipated about 400 mi (640 km) west of La Paz, Baja California Sur.[9]" - Shouldn't be past tense. Dissipates, not dissipated.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "0000 UTC (5 p.m. PDT June 23) – Tropical Depression Douglas dissipated about 140 mi (230 km) south-southeast of the southern tip of Baja California.[11]" - Same as above.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "0600 UTC (11 p.m. PDT October 2) – Tropical Depression Rachel dissipated over Chihuahua.[24]" - Same as the two above.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• "0000 UTC (5 p.m. PDT October 2) – Tropical Storm Rachel weakened to a tropical depression.[24]" - Not past tense. Weakens, not weakened.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• State when the hurricane season(s) began and ended in the timeline.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support – Sorry for the delay. All of the above comments have been resolved and I don't see anything that fails WP:FL criteria. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – Firstly, it overlooks a tropical depression in the CPac. Secondly, it could use a lot higher quality images. Lastly, the images should state its timeframe in the caption, as it is a timeline article. These could use some work on. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 20:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (based on opening sentence/ref!) Sorry, how on earth can normal people use ref 1 to substantiate the claim "The 1990 Pacific hurricane season is tied with 1984 as the fifth most active Pacific hurricane season in recorded history"? No way at all. We have a HURDAT article, and ppl can count. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, for me it's completely inaccessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Better? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC) "of which twenty-one became named storms, and sixteen of those strengthened" you don't need "of those". Good call. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) " bringing flooding to" to avoid -ing -ing, perhaps "bringing floods to..." Done. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "by Hurricane Trudy months" once mentioned, you normally don't repeat "Hurricane". It's good to show some variety, so I disagree. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) " the International Dateline before" already linked, and spelt differently. (check August 13 too). Should be dealt with. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Timeline graphic needs an en-dash for Saffir–Simpson. Fixed. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "becoming a rare off-season tropical cyclone" where is "rare" cited? List of off-season Pacific hurricane says so. YE Pacific Hurricane This needs to be cited here, articles should standalone. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Done. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC) "The Pacific hurricane season officially begins" linked without a year, vs "The 1990 Central Pacific hurricane season officially begins" unlinked with a year. Consistency? Why? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) "weakens back into a" -> "weakens to a..." Why? YE Pacific Hurricane Because the extra "into" is a redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) "weakens back to a " -> as above. Check all others. Why? YE Pacific Hurricane Consistency needed in ref titles with date ranges and spacing (e.g. compare ref 27 with ref 29). Anything on this? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) This should be better now. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

List of songs written and recorded by Alicia Keys

Nominator(s):  — AARON • ^TALK 16:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC) and  — Noboyo (Noboyo)

I am nominating this for featured list because... myself and User:Noboyo have worked extensively on gathering the information for the list. Noboyo created and filled the table, while I wrote the lead. I also applied tips and comments from previous FLC's of mine to the table in the process to improve the aesthetics as well as the form and access. We believe it meets the FLC criteria, as it closely follows the structure of previous ones I have created which have been promoted. Of course, this list has been changed where appropriate in order to reflect Keys as an artist and not others.  — Noboyo (Noboyo) and  — AARON • ^TALK 16:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Missing song, "Impossible", from the album Stripped.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I added it. I didn't know she had written for Christina.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

;Comments Support

• The list looks really good!
• Refs 8 and 11 need to be fixed.

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I have corrected the refs.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Could this nomination be withdrawn please. There has been a dispute over the title and it apaprently being misleading, so it's been decided that two separate articles should be created, one for written and one for recorded. Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Ref #4 needs to be fixed. Other than that, great work. I am happy to support. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for but I've asked for it to be withdrawn.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn by nominator, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of former NTA Film Network affiliates in the United States

Nominator(s): Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 20:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an list that I should have nominated earlier but could not due to lack of consensus on a certain edit. I believe this article is well-detailed and has excellent use of references (1125!). There is an excellent introduction to kick things off. Spelling is good here. Lastly, I think trivia has been limited to only the crucial. Overall, a perfect complement to the parent article (it is a Good article). Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 20:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: My bad! I screwed up; this is supposed to be a FEATURED LIST! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment wow, what a list. Massive.

• Don't start lists with "This is a list...".
• Avoid bold links.
• Explain abbreviations before you use them, like NTA (perhaps that needs a page move), NBC, CBS, etc etc.
• Six-para lead is over the top. Perhaps consider a "history" section or something to enhance the article.
• " the 1961–1962 television" see WP:YEAR.
• What does "channel number" really mean? In the UK we have channel numbers that differ between Freeview, Sky, Virgin etc.
• Programs Aired -< aired.
• "now on 19" etc, WP:ASOF.
• Not one single of the programs aired has an article? Really? Is this list even notable?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have called for the attention of WP:TVS on the comments. We will discuss them. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 15:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I thought this was your own nomination? If there's no activity here soon, we'll archive it, and I would suggest you take the article to peer review before renominating. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Third bullet (explain abbreviations before you use them) is covered by MOS:ACRO. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

NTA already explained as "National Telefilm Associates"; recent edit to clarify. I also removed the "this is a list". The networks may be better as acronyms though. (The Rambling Man, you probably never even heard of the networks NBC, CBS, and ABC. Even there are full names [and CBS is now pretty much a orphan initialism; see article], here in Canada, that's how we call them.) By the way, you may wish to explain clearly some of your cryptic commands. I'm 15 years old. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 23:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing cryptic as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If nothing changes here within 24 hours, I'll archive the nomination, the nominator hasn't edited since 1 June, and there seems little likelihood that the comments will be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Use simple English please. Explain the changes needed. (I swear to God that there is some sort of regional bias here. This would have been way easier if an American took over.) Don't discourage me, okay? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps you should ask User:Giants2008 or another non-British contributor. There's no regional bias, we just expect that people nominating a list at WP:FLC have a clue as to what we're doing here. Sorry if that's not coming across for you. By the way, for Simple English, there is another Wikpiedia, called Simple English Wikipedia. You may feel more at home there? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this FLC because my name was linked above by TRM; the notification system picked up on it, which is about the first worthwhile thing it's done for me since being introduced. I'd hate to see a newcomer to FLC scared away by comments they have trouble understanding, as we've all had difficulty with new concepts on this site at one time or another. Allow me to elaborate on TRM's points above:

• The "This is a list of" opening has been discouraged at FLC for a while now. We wouldn't start the main NTA Film Network article with "This is an article about", since that is needless and not an inviting start for the readers. Lists should ideally have a better intro, and it seems that this has been fixed already.
• Bold links, such as the NTA Film Network one in the lead and numerous links in the table, are discouraged by the Manual of Style, which FLs should follow.
• Abbreviations may confuse readers who are unfamiliar with them, so it's a good idea to define them when first using them. NTA has been defined already in the first sentence, while CBS, NBC, and ABC could do with similar definitions even if most Americans will recognize them. ABC is also the name of an Australian network, to name one possible problem.
• According to the guidelines at WP:LEAD, the lead section shouldn't be longer than four paragraphs. One way to get around this is to create a history section and summarize it in the lead, as TRM recommends. Personally, I think you could get away with merging a couple of the paragraphs because they aren't that big; this would leave a four-paragraph lead, which suits a list of this size well.
• Year ranges are usually supposed to be given in the form of 1961–62, omitting the first two years of the second year. I heard somewhere that this was changing, but WP:YEAR doesn't reflect that, so I'd go with the shortened format.
• I think TRM is asking for an explanatory note for the channel number column in the table, but I'm not 100% sure. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he will clarify further.
• Since "Aired" isn't a proper noun that would normally be capitalized, it shouldn't be capitalized in the table headings. Generally, headings with more than one word shouldn't have capitalization after the first word, unless they would normally be capitalized in prose.
• "Now" is a term that will become outdated quickly, so its use is discouraged. Adding "as of" states to the reader when this was updated, and can help with article maintenance.
• If the programs are notable enough for their own articles, then red links could be added for them. More than a minimal amount of red links could cause problems with the FL criteria, however. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

List of springs in Florida

Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn 16:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...Hydrological Springs in the state of Florida are of great interest to many people, and there has been limited information generally available except for a popular few which are state parks. Mgrē@sŏn 16:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Tomcat (7) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose quick comments Do not write "This is a list of hydrological springs in the U.S. state of Florida.", but introduce the topic. The next sentence is a good introduction. --Changed as per suggestion. I would briefly define a "spring" and describe the difference between a spring and a river. --Included definition. There are some broken or unavailable pictures. --Unable to find images for all springs. Should I remove setup so the cell is blank? I would add a header right after the lead.--Tomcat (7) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC) --Added header. Mgrē@sŏn 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC) --Tomcat (7) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose quick comments No lead image? --Included an image. Lead is all wrong, you can't have a two-sentence lead then a History section in a featured list. --Added as per previous reviewer's suggestion above. It has now been removed. Link Florida (the state) at some point. --Reworded intro and wikified Florida. "More than 21 springs" so, 22? 220? 4000? --Changed to say "known" springs. " at least 14 Florida cities have "Spring" in their name." surely we know exactly how many cities in Florida have "spring" in their name? --There are 14 municipalities and 78 place names. Which is the preferred usage? "Daily Magnitude" why is magnitude capitalised? --Uncapitalised it. Why is Millions capitalised? --Uncapitalised it. Flow col doesn't sort correctly. --Hmm...working on that. Scopes are wrong, the col scopes are being shown as row scopes. --Changed row scopes to col scopes. Don't use bold to display a certain characteristic. --Removed bold. Temp -> Temperature. --What are you suggesting; use the entire word? Any real need for ELEVEN external links? If that information is so vital, it should be incorporated into the list as references. --Removed half of them as not important. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by ColonelHenry

• Oppose Wondering how an incomplete list (with a dynamic list template) claiming in the lede section there are 700 springs in Florida but listing only 110 (about 15%) meets criterion 3 for "comprehensiveness." By an analogue, I wouldn't consider a list of twentieth-century Nobel prize laureates to be "comprehensive" or "FL-promotable" if it started at 1900 stopped at 1915. Likewise, if someone mowed only 15% of my lawn, they'd likely not get paid. I think this article needs the other roughly 590 more springs advertised in the lede to be "comprehensive." Sure they might discover more springs as time goes by (and they can be included), but if the State of Florida identifies 700 (note: actually 720 per bulletin 66), this article should list 700. This article is well-organized, well-written, and has a great structure, but alas, only 15% of the race has been run.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  While it is true that over 700 springs have been identified, only the first and second magnitude springs were visited and have current detailed information in Bulletin 66 (a maximum of 224). Most of the remainder have only five digit id numbers and are magnitude 3 or lower. Your comparison to Nobel honorees is like comparing apples to oranges. All Nobel winners are notable; relatively few springs in Florida are. Mgrē@sŏn 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Why are you using a different spring classification system than the one laid out by the state in Bulletin 66 (see page 9 for their eight-tier classification)?--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  The 1927 Meinzer system is the standard used by hydrologists, but most people can better comprehend gallons per day than cubic feet per second or a combination of both. Mgrē@sŏn 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also, expand footnote No. 1 to read: State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection. "Florida Springs". Retrieved 22 January 2013..--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  DEP aded to ref as suggested. Mgrē@sŏn 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Rejectwater

• ""Type" denotes RR-River Rise; SS-Single Spring; GS-Group Spring; SK-Sink." What does this mean? What is a "River Rise", etc? The key should include explanations for each.

  Added explanations of types in text section of article as suggested. Mgrē@sŏn 20:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see there has been some discussion regarding the list as incomplete. Does the list include all the first and second magnitude springs in Florida? Perhaps, if it does and/or if this is a reasonable possibility, the scope could be changed and it could be complete. For instance "List of first magnitude springs in Florida" or "List of first and second magnitude springs in Florida". I'm not certain that overall completeness for a topic such as this one is something we really want, but reducing the scope of the list could be a compromise position. Rejectwater (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with you that the title does not match the scope of my project. I will change it to List of major springs in Florida. Thanks for the feedback. Mgrē@sŏn 20:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

Russian Booker Prize

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am sure it meets the criterions. Regards. Tomcat (7) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: All refs should be in numeric order: [31][11] → [11][31] They are in order.--Tomcat (7) 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Ref 1 → Wikilink The Independent and add Independent Print Limited as the publisher. Ref 2 → add Sanoma as the publisher. Check the wikilinks for Refs 3 + 6. Ref 11 → add Rambler Media Group as the publisher. Rambler is a portal and does not host that site imho. --Tomcat (7) 09:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Ref 33 → Wikilink Voice of Russia and add All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company as the publisher. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Done the rest.--Tomcat (7) 09:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments – There should be a small key indicating that the blue colour denotes winners (as per FL Arthur C. Clarke Award) Section title should be "Winners and nominees" (again, as per the aforementioned FL) "No person won the award more than once." – should be "has won", since this is presently the case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Done--Tomcat (7) 13:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to leave my voting until later in order to see what other users have to say. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

*Object. (OK now). The list of winners lacks reliable secondary sources per the rules of WP:Verifiability. There is one secondary source for a winner. The rest are about runner-ups and the Booker Prize of the Decade. That means out of 20 years, only 1 year has a secondary source, or 95% primary source. PRIMARY policy says "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]", and "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.". Secondary sources are available for the winners, for example: Walden, George. "Russian Booker." TLS. Times Literary Supplement 5307 (2004): 15. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. Tait, Arch. "The awarding of the third Russian Booker prize." The Modern Language Review 92.3 (1997): 660+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. There are others. It doesn't mean every single winner needs a secondary (it's possible some years don't exist), but where secondaries exist they should be included per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC) "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]" - this is the case if the primary source(s) are unreliable or have questionable reliability. The Russian Booker Prize is definitely reliable. "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." - this is not the case. There are four secondary sources (why don't you count the Russian sources?)--Tomcat (7) 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC) It appears a large number of secondary sources have been found. Secondary sources are an important part of how Wikipedia operates. In particular for literary awards because the primary sources are non-critical by nature. Legitimate art criticism is found in secondary sources. Otherwise Wikipedia is just a mirror of the primary source and pointless redundancy. The point of Wikipedia is to use secondary sources. This is not my opinion it is written policy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC) What is your opinion is that references are designed, in this instance, to provide "legitimate art criticism" which they clearly are not. Is there a policy that backs up your statement? And your "cherry-picking" the actual policy when you claim "The point of Wikipedia is to use secondary sources"... WP:PRIMARY very clearly says: " Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." It goes on to say "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Which is exactly what the primary sources used in this list are intended to do. They are not being used to provide critical commentary. Please read the policies fully and quote them correctly in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Yeah I understand that rote reading, but the rules are generalized and each case is unique in how applied, we don't have specific rules for every type of article, but every type of article has its own needs. In any case, this article now has secondaries so the continued discussion here doesn't make sense. Will pick it up at Nobel. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Comments Green Cardamom, could you explain how to access those "Academic OneFile" links? I can't find them in a quick search. Are they subscription only? If so, they're not actually that useful as third-party sources to the majority of our readers. Alternatively you could be helpful and tell us what the citations say so we can add them to the article. Also, for consistency, are you suggesting that List of Nobel laureates in Physics should be delisted according to your view of the criteria? Are you distrustful of the Nobel Foundation? Tomcat7, Sources that you could use include This Guardian article which links to the Russian Booker website, giving some credibility to the reliability of the "primary source", This Guardian article cites the 2005 winner, This Guardian article tips a nod at the 2000 winner, This Guardian article discusses one of the nominees, This Guardian article cites the 2006 winner... Looks like The Guardian is a good place to start with GC's complaints. Try this and have a scan over the "Refine by date" section, looks like it'd provide you with plenty of non-primary sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, I've added a bunch of references that aren't primary sources. I suspect the 5% has now got to around 70%, so please can we move on Green Cardamom? I think I know what's coming next.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Yes concern of sources is resolved. Re: offline vs online sources, there is no difference for Wikipedia. It's more than verification, it's completeness since this is featured content. List of Nobel laureates in Physics is also incomplete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC) You miss the point entirely. How can I or Tomcat find out what's in those offline sources? For all I know you could be making them up (I'm sure you're not), but how do we know what they say? How do we know what they verify? Just because they exist, it doesn't mean we should use them, especially if we can't get to them.... I look forward to you nominating List of Nobel laureates in Physics at WP:FLRC unless you're content to adopt double standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC) "How can I or Tomcat find out what's in those offline sources?" Some options: 1. Travel to the library and use the databases there for free; 2. or at home through the library website if available; 3. use the source request service here on Wikipedia to ask another member who has access, they'll send the documents via email. 4. Or, ask the person who posted the ref. There are probably other options. Although a lot of work on Wikipedia is done with stuff found on the Internet, that's not the only source or even the best. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Please re-read above where I said "Alternatively you could be helpful and tell us what the citations say so we can add them to the article.". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Walden, George. "Russian Booker." Times Literary Supplement (Dec. 17, 2004): p15.. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. Unfortunately Academic OneFile doesn't have a full-text copy of this article on file, but they provide an abstract which says "The article provides a history of the Russian Booker Prize" which isn't much help though looks like a valuable article. Other databases may have a full copy, but I did find another source by George Walden, "Throwing the Booker", George Walden on the controversies surrounding the Russian literary prize, which seems like an important source, controversies should be part of the article, like in a controversy section. Most big awards have ongoing controversies. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Tait, Arch. "The awarding of the third Russian Booker prize." The Modern Language Review 92.3 (1997): 660+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013. Abstract: The number of new novels appearing in Russia in 1986-89 was very small. The Russian Booker Prize was insituted with the intention of promoting Russian fiction. It was first awarded in 1992. This article describes the controversies surrounding the choice of the short-listed books for the 1994 prize and reactions to the winning work, Bult Okudzhava's Uprazdennyi teatr. Brief plot synopses are given of all the works on the short list. Full text: (can't copy here for copyright reasons). Academic OneFile has at least 10 more English language sources, the two above are just examples. If I create a proper non-list article I'll use them. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC) You mean a "main" article not a "proper" article, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC) BTW it appears Tomcat already requested and received access to the Arch Tait source[7]. Just noticed because I was going there to see if anyone had access to the first Walden source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Question - A large chunk of this article was deleted by Tomcat7 (who also wrote it). Here is how it looked previously. Question: Why was this material deleted? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As expected. You know exactly why. Please also respond to my question above. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If I was to guess, it looks that sub-section content was deleted in order to make the article look more like a list so that it could be acceptable for FLC on stylistic grounds. However Tomcat may have had other reasons for deleting it, so that's why I asked first before reaching conclusions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Once again, you know exactly why. Perhaps you should refresh your memory by reading the last derailed FLC for this article. I do hope you won't be repeating the trick? If your suggestion is to rename this "List of winners of the Russian Booker Prize" so you can create a stubbish main article (a la Orange Prize), I would hazard a guess that Tomcat would just agree that's the best way forward. Then you can add back the content that Tomcat removed as a result of your comments in the last FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
        • If Tomcat wants a FLC but not a FAC, that would be a legitimate way, per the MOS definition of a list article and the scope of this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
          • So let's get on with reviewing the list now shall we? If you want to create the main article, you are welcome to do so yourself. Let's now stop derailing this discussion. As you have done twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Sure, no problem, if that is acceptable to Tomcat and yourself. Do we have consensus? I would like to do the split before the flc closes so there is not an ongoing content dispute. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Also, if you feel the need to roll this crusade out further, can I suggest you do it in a centralised location rather than at individual lists or candidates? It's clear you have a serious personal issue with this type of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Nah we covered this already, it's legitimate to question during FLC if an article should be "list" or a "main" - it's defined in the MOS - and since there is no mechanism to say all articles of a category are main/list, there is nothing to centrally discuss, it's done per article basis. And btw involvement in one article's FLC and another article's talk page - over a 2 year period - will hardly convince anyone of "crusade", stick to the issue not person WP:NPA. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • The idea is that you have a concept for use of references (to provide critical/artistic commentary) and a lot of lists here use references to back up purely objective and factual claims. As is the case here, as is the case at Nobel. It's tiresome chasing you around Wikipedia with your version of how to use references when it's obvious a centralised discussion is the way forward. As for "what is a list", the community continually prove that this is reasonably flexible. It's unhelpful to attempt to make it otherwise. Please now comment on the content. I'll shortly be moving this discussion to the talk page because, as you can see below, it's putting others off participating. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• OH FOR PETE'S SAKE! This is exactly why I didn't review last time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

List of winners of the William E. Harmon foundation award for distinguished achievement among Negroes

Nominator(s): • Serviceable†Villain 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I made this many moons ago. I'm Ling.Nut. I know it cannot be more complete, because the award no longer exists. I'm also reasonably sure it can't be any more fully verified, since everything comes from the NYT. The list covers an undeservedly obscure but key aspect of African American history with respect to the fine arts. Thanks for your time & trouble. • Serviceable†Villain 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this needs to be merged with the main article, there's not enough to enable both articles to exist (per our criterion 3b). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• So you're saying that FLIST, unlike FAC, has an arbitrary length cut-off? I'm interested in learning the nature of the formula that is applied to determine whether one list can stand alone while another cannot. From my perspective, if you cram this list into the relevant article, the latter becomes a list with a top-heavy lead... looking at "awards" FLISTS, we have List of Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, which seems shorter than this one; and ummm.. List of submissions to the 74th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film ... and .. should I keep going? ...this one looks a bit small: The Ting Tings discography ... and.. I bet you probably already know which one is shortest, don't you? Anyhow, I fail to see this standard being applied consistently. Thank you for your time & trouble. • Serviceable†Villain 05:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm saying our 3b criterion exists to prevent lists being forked out of main articles when the list could easily fit within the main article without make the main article unmanageably large. Thank you for the links to the other lists, but I'm not really interested in those, I'm commenting on this list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sorry, I just don't see it anywhere close to the criteria. It is very well referenced, but in addition to failing criteria 3b and needing a merge into William E. Harmon Foundation award for distinguished achievement among Negroes, this list also has issues with criteria 4 and 5a. Now, don't get me wrong here, I'm impressed with the work and the referencing, but there is some serious potential I can see here.
  • Of course, I'd recommend starting with the merge. This will give due weight to the subject and the list of winners both.
  • Given that the awards are repetitive each year, I'd recommend using a table (or tables, if you prefer) in place of the bulleted lists. These can be arranged by year, award category, who won, and what they won the award for; enough, I would say, to meet WP:WHENTABLE. As it stands right now, the list feels very difficult to read.
  • You have a bare URL in your footnotes that needs to be properly cited, with at bare minimum a title and a retrieval date.

Don't let this FLC get you down. There's definitely been a lot of great work so far, and more potential to be had. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 13:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please observe the wee tiny TingTings article, whose discography I linked above. With a bit of searching, I'm fairly sure I can find similar inconsistencies... De-flist the tingting list, and I'll agree that you are consistent. Otherwise, nope. • Serviceable†Villain 04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The Ting Tings discography is considered large enough to standalone from the main article (which itself is large). The example here is way off the scale, the main article is almost entirely repeated at the top of this list article. What's the point of two articles here? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • So if I delete 90% of the lede of the list, it's OK? DONE! Also, the TingTings is tiny. Look again. It's a lede and some lists. But never mind. I'm off to delete content from the list... OK, content deleted, as per your request. • Serviceable†Villain 09:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
      • No no no, what I'm saying is there is just one article here, the list content should be merged back into the main article. This is a 3b violation, it's nothing to do with the Tings Tings discog, which I've already explained was a reasonable fork from a long main article. I'm not sure you're really getting this, perhaps someone else can explain it to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good luck with your editing. Thank you for your opinions. • Serviceable†Villain 00:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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