Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a log of featured list candidates from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates which failed to reach consensus for promotion as featured lists. Discussions about successful nominations are located in the featured log.

Candidacy discussion about failed candidates in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2006.

Contents


Full current month log

view - edit - history

edit2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed
February 3 promoted 8 failed
March 13 promoted 11 failed
April 10 promoted 5 failed
May 10 promoted 7 failed
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed
August 10 promoted 7 failed
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed
November 11 promoted 8 failed
December 10 promoted 7 failed

List of planetary bodies

Accumulates information of planet-sized bodies in Solar system (planets, dwarf planets and planetary-sized moons) and their properties, focusing on those specific to planetary-sized objects and important for possible future solar system colonization. Internal structure (planetological model) of the bodies, where data exists, indicated as well. Information groupped by planet-satellite system and Solar System regions.--Planemo 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Object: Needs longer introduction and explanation of table colors (add a key). Rmhermen 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Added--Planemo 19:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The sources should be based on {{cite web}} rather than just external jumps. Jay32183 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some comments. First, you should reiterate it is about our solar system. The title is a little vague in that regard. You should include imperial and metric conversions in the table. The color for planet and dwarf planet should be noticably different, also. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just put the sources in cite web and mention that it is about this solar system in the intro and you have my support. Also, if you can edit the images, the cross-sections are pretty useless when they aren't labelled, but that isn't enough to make me vote against it. I am going to have to disagree with Hurricanehink about the imperial conversions, those would make the table look cluttered, and I don’t think any astronomers work in anything but metric. --Arctic Gnome 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

List of tributes to AC/DC in popular culture

Self-nomination. I've nominated this as I think it meets all of the featured list criteria. It provides information on all of the film's AC/DC have been referenced in (including films they have done the soundtrack for), the television shows the band has been referenced to in, and also tributes other bands and artists have made to the band. ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Remove all the links to IMDB, Amazon, etc. When citing a film, album, book, etc, you don't link to where you can buy or read about it. Your citation should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, etc. The Citation templates might help here. Remove any unsourced entries in the list. Finally, remove all the stuff about "influence", which doesn't belong here. I'm not sure that a "cover" is always a "tribute" or "reference". Perhaps you should just use the word "cover", both in the lead and also in the section title. Colin Harkness°Talk 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sources that linked to Amazon and replaced with links to AMG and Rolling Stones. I still don't know what to do with the IMDb links. What citation template should I use? Cheers. No-Bullet 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe Colin meant that the references should not be used as an external "see also", but instead should lead the reader to site which confirms the fact. No, you should not change the citation template; just add additional parameters to it as found in the citation templates category. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Harkness - done all the other stuff you mentioned. ĤĶ51→Łalk 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I sourced many items in the films section with links to IMDb trivia or soundtrack, the rest were deleted. I also deleted some unsourced items in the television section. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005

This was split from List of countries by Human Development Index (a featured list) and I believe that this "companion" list should be featured as well. This is sort of a self-nomination, as I tweaked lead and eliminated overlapping of the second map with the high table, but this is largely the work of others. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The editors on these lists have taken the list as it was in October when it was featured, and effectively renamed it to include 2005 in the name. The current version of the list has new 2006 sources. So essentially, the list you are asking for FL status is the list that got featured. I don't see that a name change should lose the FL status. I also didn't think there were any problems with the main list keeping its FL status even though a major change was immenent to revise for 2006.
The problem I have is that I'm really not convinced Wikipedia needs all these versions. The HDI goes back to 1990, and will presumably continue for many years to come. Only the current one is notable enough to be of encyclopedic value. Whilst historical data has a certain value, I don't think Wikipedia is an archive. Is there a precedence for this? What do others think? Colin Harkness°Talk 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It allows comparisons of how each country has changed. If you like this list can be renamed to something like "List of countries by Human Development Index (historical)" or the like. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, let's assume that sometime in the future, new rankings are published for 2007's HDI. Following your rules, we would have to either automatically demote 2006's list or automatically promote 2007's list. Are you prepared to do that because, after all, 2007's data would be an update and a split? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of dynamic (featured) lists. They don't all spawn off a historical snapshot each year. I'd be quite happy for List of countries by Human Development Index to maintain its featured status as long as the editors keep the standard high. Otherwise, it would only need reviewed if significant changes were made, aside from keeping the numbers up-to-date. The HDI website appear to have changed so I can't find the old articles. When I last looked, they specifically discouraged doing trend analysis on each year's data - since the formula used changes from time-to-time. For that reason, they specially prepared a historical trend report using the 2005 formula over the decades. The 2006 Statistics Trends provides a very visually appealing web page. It is encyclopedic for Wikipedia to contain details and (sourced) discussion of significant notable changes in HDI for countries or continents. That's quite different from just supplying the raw data, which is more than adequately done by the external sites (which we rely on). Whilst the past is a different and interesting place, last year is mundane. Colin Harkness°Talk 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of film formats

This has had a failed FLC before. To somewhat copy my last opening comments, let me first say that I am completely aware of the red-links problems that this list has, and I am (slowly) doing my best to deal with them, short of de-linking all of them (which I think would be unfair to both the list and the readers). If that dooms this FLC to failure, so be it. I unfortunately had to drop the last candidacy due to outside work, but I hope to continue where the last nomination left off. I have standardized the website references around a more standard citation formatting, although I have declined to use the cite web template as such, mainly because I prefer the simpler way to render what is essentially the same text. Our last discussion also included debate over whether or not inline citations were necessary (I'm neutral).

So to quickly summarize what I anticipate to be some of the issues:

  1. Reference formatting
  2. Inline citations or not?
  3. Redlinkage issues

Many thanks in advance for your comments, Girolamo Savonarola 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How can one format have been first used in 2007? Rmhermen 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting...that edit seemed to have slipped below my radar. I'm assuming that it means that this format won't have a premiered work until 2007. Let me investigate further on that entry. Any other comments in the meantime? Girolamo Savonarola 03:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the 2007 one, since the list doesn't count formats which haven't been completed. (I can't find enough information to fully document it as distinct from the Ultra Toruscope format anyway.) Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Object. I'm afraid you've anticipated the problems- there's too many redlinks and I think you definitely need inline citations, so you can actually check the data from the very long list of references. Less constructively, the table also breaks the scroll lock, which is a bit of a pain and I'm not very keen on the format of it (although I haven't got any suggestions on that I'm afraid). (sorry forgot to sign earlier) --G Rutter 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments. What does "break the scroll lock" mean? Girolamo Savonarola 22:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Um... did I mean that? What I was trying to say was that the table is too wide for my screen resolution (1024x768, so fairly standard), so I have to scroll sideways to read the whole table, which is a Bad Thing (at least as far as I'm concerned). On the redlinks issue, it depends whether you think that the lists are a good thing in and of themselves (which I probably do), but the Wikipedia definition of the point of lists is "bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic"- therefore redlinks are the most important issue. You might want to argue with that, but that is one of the main criterion for currently creating a Featured List. --G Rutter 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object too many red links.__Seadog ♪ 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that really all that can be said? I simply don't see how either delinking the redlinks or making trivial stubs of them really adds any value to the list. I'm more than happy to tackle other issues, but if redlinkage is the only objection you have, then it seems to me that an Object is more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Basically the content might as well be worthless? Girolamo Savonarola 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across that way...I was just pointing something else out. I could have said more but it has all been said. — Seadog 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Yes, creating a stub on each redlink is usually adviced in such situations. I myself don't see the point in a list of non-existing articles. No, this isn't my only reason for objection, actually there are a lot more, but I think it would be pointless to provide them all until the most important problem gets fixed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Superseded scientific theory

This list, while not complete, contains the major superseded scientific theories in many areas. It's been surprisingly uncontroversial and stable, except the occasional addition (and then removal) of "creationism". There are a couple of images that suit nicely, including a photo (i took) of some giraffes that i think illustrates Lamarckism beautifully. —Pengo talk · contribs 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - fine in principle, but the selection criterion is not clear (you seem to be admitting that it is not comprehensive) and it needs references. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - it just doesn't have enough detail about the things on it to really be interesting, plus it needs references. The description for Spontaneous generation implies that modern abiogenesis is the same as it, which it isn't. Caloric theory appears twice; none of the chemistry theories have even a perfunctory description, and saying "part of Dalton's law" is superseded tells very little. Saying continental drift was superseded by Plate tectonics is inaccurate: Plate techtonics is the mechanism of continental drift. I like the idea, and would like to see this develop, but don't think it's there yet. Adam Cuerden talk 17:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no references, I really doubt it's complete, not consistent descriptions of each item. Renata 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose while nice I belive that a FL should provide adequate references.__Seadog ♪ 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As someone said on the talk page, it is a bit of a mixed bag of theories, hypotheses, models and "branches of enquiry". The subheadings could be briefer and more general (why is the Flat Earth geographical and not geological?). How about just "Physics", "Chemistry", "Astronomy", etc. I agree with the above comments re: inconsistent detail. I'm surprised at the lack of controversy, but that might just be because it hasn't been discovered by the radicals yet. I really doubt you can define a NPOV entry criteria. For example, why include Astrology and not Homeopathy? Colin Harkness°Talk 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition

When this was last nominated a week ago, all the comments were dealt with within a few days of its nomination, but no one bothered voting ether for or against. According to the {{FLCfailed}} template now on the page, I can resubmit this “once the objections have been addressed”, and since all of the objections had been addressed four days into it’s last nomination, I guess I can just resubmit this automatically.

List of Metal Gear Solid characters

I have recently been spending some time redoing this article and I have cross checked it with the criteria for WP:FL and it passes all of them. All the info on the characters is verified and all plot summary is kept to a minimum per WP:FICT, so yeah, I'd like to see what the community thinks.

†he Bread 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please expand the lead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Done it, how's that? †he Bread 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - messy layout, unnecessary bolding & linking, poor layout. Why Main and Other Characters don't have descriptions? Renata 23:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • They don't have descriptions because they are in other articles, or have their owna articles, there's no point having an entry here when there is already one somewhere else, also what bolding and hows the layout messy? †he Bread 23:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You were right about the links though, they've been fixed †he Bread 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Incomplete (featured list criterion 1.b.) - nine major characters have no description at all, they simply have their articles wikilinked to. Unverified (featured list criterion 1.c.). Images with no source information (featured list criterion 3). -- Steel 02:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This has pretty much been seen to. -- Steel 11:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • One, what is unverified? Two the images have sources they are from a press kit, Three, why have descriptions of characters who already have their own articles †he Bread 02:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • 1) Unverified as in "no sources". 2) Where is this press kit? 3) Because otherwise you could reduce the article to this and call it a featured list. I strongly suggest you take a look at some current featured lists of people to see how they do it. -- Steel 02:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Urggh, source what? The plot summary, I can't compare it to other lists as there is no precident for a character list, the closest thing is this, which isn't helpful at all. †he Bread 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Content in Wikipedia needs a source. This is pretty basic stuff. And I realise there are currently no FLs of game characters, but there are still lists of people. -- Steel 02:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. I think this is almost there. There's a bit more that can be done:
    • The refs kind of suck, formatting-wise. I'd suggest using {{cite web}}; if you don't do this, I might end up doing it myself.
    • We can probably ditch {{Metal Gear series}} since this list isn't linked on it.
    • I haven't had any luck finding a properly sourced copy of the images of FOXHOUND. My suggestion would be to use the shadowy image of FOXHOUND from the intro; screenshots are easy to source, and it would be one image in lieu of several. If that image isn't at all useful (which is possible; I've not played MGS in a while) screenshots shouldn't be hard to find.
    • We can probably ditch all the redlinks to voice actors, unless a reasonable stub (which is more than "Foo Bar is a voice actor. He was the voice of Quux."
    • A copyedit is desperately needed. I noticed several typos, as well as some mangled prose.
    I'll do some cleanup when I'm in the mood to fiddle, but the copyedit and the image issues need to be resolved before this can be featured. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, what guild is the intro talking about? A wikilink could help; an explanation might be better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Guild as in union? i'll see what I can do, and I've got 1/3 screenshots up and errors fixed †he Bread 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the red links last night actually, and about the shadowy image I'd like to Use it but where to put it, also I'll try and find the closeups of each characters face (well Wolf Raven and Manits at least). I have been using {{Citeweb}} though, though I may have missed it in places.

†he Bread 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Object a little messy for me and also the concerns raised by others.__Seadog ♪ 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

Okay, this is the page as I last edited it. All sketches have been replaced with sourced screenshots (It turns out the shadowy FOXHOUND pic had no source and it wasn't really effective at showing the characters), given a copyedit, all characters now have descriptions and plot summary is sourced. Are there any other things that need to be done to done to the article before it is a WP:FL

†he Bread 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, but why do only a few characters in the middle have images? Isn't it good to be consistent? bibliomaniac15 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ideally I’d like to give all of them images, but WP:FU (WP:FUC? I can't rememeber) states to use as few fair use images as possible, also Snake, Fox, Meryl, Liquid, Ocelot, Mei Ling, Roy Campbell all have images in their pages or sections in pages. Also giving them all images would created alot of whitespace as we discovered at List of Metal Gear Solid 3 characters. I came to the desicion to give Wolf, Mantis and Raven images because of all the ones left over who don't have images on other pages, they were the only ones whose appearance was fairly distinct. Baker Anderson and Housemen are just old men in suits (pretty much) and Naomi will eventually be moved to List of recurring Metal Gear characters where there is enough plot summary to justify giving an image without creating whitespace and she only appears over the radio in the game we never actually see her whole body. Thanks for the support, hope the reply wasn't too longwinded or preachy†he Bread 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The characters who have images are the FOXHOUND members, who are various outlandish soldiers with unusual specialties and appearances, whereas the characters who don't either have their own articles (which have their own image) or are just talking heads (the codec support team, the guys in suits). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think i've fixed the refs if you'd like to check them out, they're either {{citebook}}, {{citeweb}}, {{cite video}} or a quote, and now I have got a relevant wikilink in the place of the union sponsered thing. Do I have your support? †he Bread 09:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: lead is still too short. There is no need to bold character names. Renata 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Expanded, how about now? †he Bread 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support: It's well-written and passes guidelines, but some things are a tad confusing.
    • In the Meryl Silverburgh section, it brings up Roy Campbell without explaining who he is or what he does. This could be remedied by bringing up Roy Campbell in the Solid Snake section.
    • Same deal in the Gray Fox section, except this time mentioning Otacon and Liquid Snake.
    • In the Revolver Ocelot section, who is Kenneth Baker? The Solid Snake section mentions the ArmsTech President, but not his name Kenneth Baker.
    • Big Boss is brought up in the Sniper Wolf section, but who is Big Boss?
    • In the Jim Houseman section, it says he is the mission controller via AWACS. Can you give a small iteration to what this is? (technical terms need to be explained)

Nice work. I also suggest making things a little more comprehensive, but it's not as important as the above issues. Information on Big Boss may be a help too. Once the above points are fixed I will change to a normal "support."--TheEmulatorGuy 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_list_candidates_Failed_log_a85a.html"