Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2011

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 18:26, 7 February 2011 [1].

---

Nightwish discography

Nominator(s): Rodrigo15 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i've just solved all the problems cited during the last nomination. So, i think it's ready now. Rodrigo15 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. I've done a little copy editing, and I see no problems otherwise. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose per GreatOrangePumpkin. Sorry for the mistakes; this is the first time I've voted in an FLC. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually you have to look at this disco more deeply; if you have "done a little copy editing" that doesn't mean that this disco meets all of the FL criteria.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disambig/External Link check - There are no Dab links but there is a dead link. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)done

• Comment Please avoid multiple, useless linking, as you did in the certs column.done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • WW links to "World"done
  • Why no peak chart for Once in the UK?done The informations says that Once charted as 102 in UK, but i couldn't find any reference about it, so i didn't listed it.
  • What does — means, i.e. add a note at the bottom (for example | colspan="23" style="font-size:8pt;"| "—" denotes releases that did not chart.done
  • x -> ×done
  • Why are the number of certs behind the "Platinum" or "Gold"?done
  • Nightwish's first release ever why not just ...first release.?done
  • Other Appearances: I would add an extra column for the refs.done
  • "Wish I Had an Angel forgot one '"' at the end.
  • avoid beginnings This is the done
  • a symphonic metal band from Finland why not just a finnish symphonic metal band?done
  • Although Nightwish has been prominent in their home country since the release of their first single delink singles.done If i understood correctly
    • No you must delink it, singles -> singles
  • one million copies,[2] no need to add refs, because you did it down under.done
  • which has sold almost two million copies.[6] again.done
  • A new E.P./live album, Made in Hong Kong (And in Various Other Places) a live album and EP together?done Yes, it's an Ep (as you should know, too big to be an single and too small to be an album), but with all the tracks record live during the Dark Passion Play World Tour, from 2007 to 2009.
  • Explain how you know that a few singles are promo singles?done I can't, erased information
    • well, then "erase" promo, or find a reliable sourcedone
  • Demo albums section: avoid multiple linking: Members: Tarja Turunen, Tuomas Holopainen and Emppu Vuorinen.done
  • HOL means "Holland" and is a region in the Netherlands. So write "NLD" or "NED".done
  • Why did you add a track length column in the Music videos section? done Only an extra information, necessary in my opinion
  • Sami Käyhkö citation needed.done
  • Chart columns: You didn't add the "work", the publisher are wrong (AUT: Hung Medien, FIN: Hung Medien, FRA: Hung Medien, GER: Phononet, GRE: Hung Medien, SWE: Hung Medien, NOR: Hung Medien, UK: everyhit.com and I suggest you to replace HUN with another chart, for example SWI), and I don't understand why you added an external link in the publisher parameter? done
  • The titles are false in the references. done

I will add more comments, if I find any. Please have a look at discogs like Miles Davis discography or Santana discography. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Studio albums and Extended Plays section: you can use the {{Ref label}} template instead of normal bulleted list.
• Mege the year column in the row Bestwishes and Highest Hopes: The Best of Nightwish, the same in the Soundtrack section, between "Nemo" and "I Wish I Hhad an Angel"done
• "Kuolema tekee taiteilijan" should be capitalicizeddone.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't write {{done}} if you haven't do that. And you must write, let's say 4×Platinum, an not 4 times Platinum.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid adding certs that aren't in the chart column, for example Poland, there are no Poland chart.

Yes, cause only Dark Passion Play charted in Poland, and we only can add ten charts.

That's right, so delete this certs, that are not charts, for example Poland or Switzerland.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments tomorrow. Goodbye.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: For some reason I was contacted on my talk page about this article, but looking through it now, it really doesn't blow me away.
• The way you refer to the official website in references is inconsistent. I don't mind, apart from the fact it does not need to be capitalised (other than "Nightwish"), and nor does it need to be in italics.
• Are we certain all of these sources are reliable? Few of them are the usual kinds of sources (newspapers, industry magazines).
  • TheTableWorld.com?
  • Spinefarm.fi?
  • SoundTrack.net?
  • Hung Medien?
  • PhonoNet?
  • Mahasz?
  • Everyhit.com?
  • Ifpi.fi?
  • Ifpi.se?
    • Hung Medien, PhonoNet, Mahasz and all IFPIs are reliable, per WP:GOODCHARTS.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• I could go on... http://www.metalfromfinland.com/news/2007-08-10_15:37/nightwish_end_of_an_era_dvd_certified_gold_in_switzerland is probably the most suspicious one, but it is in turn sourced to Blabbermouth. Could we just cut out the middle man?
• Roadrunner is referred to inconsistently in the references, and a wikilink would be good. Also, the stuff on Blabbermouth.net should be, y'know, attributed to BM.
• First line- "finnish".
• Title of "Erämaan Viimeinen" does not match the article

Needs tidying up in places, but, until I'm shown otherwise, too many of those sources look questionable... J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the article currently claims that "Nemo" got to number 15 on the UK Singles Chart, this is completely untrue. If you check the source, you will see that it says it got to number 15 on the British Top 40 Rock Singles chart, a completely different (and incredibly minor) chart. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Rodrigo15, I think it would be wise to withdraw the nomination and deal with these comments outside the FLC process. I'm sure the editors who have contributed comments would be happy to help you en route to a renomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments from J Milburn-

• The way the official website is referred to is inconsistent, should not be italicised and should not feature random capitals.
• Allmusic should not be italicised (and wikilinks wouldn't hurt). Allmusic is referred to inconsistently in the refs.
• Random caps in the ext link section.
• Don't like the ""*" director is unknown or can't be found." thing. There is no director, as you note in your footnote.
• "Made in Hong Kong is also listed here because it's an EP with live tracks; so it's an EP and a live album" ?! I'd go with listing it as a "live album", but if you're going to include it in both places, that note is hardly the best way to explain it.
• Studio album table there are no sales thresholds listed, and the worldwide sales are not a certification.
• "American tour.[1][1]"

This is still feeling a way off featured quality, but at least the sourcing is looking a little better. The overreliance on the official site is less than ideal... J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest closure - article has not been edited for over a week, many outstanding points which clearly aren't being addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2011 (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 18:11, 7 February 2011 [2].

---

List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is being nominated for feature list. The article is a detailed list of all the individuals that were members of the Chicago Bears that became enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I believe the article meets the FL criteria, is well cited, and prose is good. Let me know what everyone thinks. Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have support or fail votes please. I fear this list might fail as others have on this forum because of the lacking of yea/nay votes among the members. Thanks Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Can you format the picture under inducties so that the table is not so far down the page? KnowIG (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain better? I just edited it where the table is now closer to the top of the inductees header. Is that what you were asking about? Happyman22 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to primarily be a problem with the users screen, as I do not have this problem. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Or how about the user has fixed the issue by the time you've looked at it. Thanks Happyman! KnowIG (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - the number column sorts incorrectly. Ref 6 is dead. Footnote c needs a citation. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to comment Ref 6 has been fixed. Note c has a reference and the number column sorted correctly for me..is it possible there might be a glitch because I just did it and all the numbers sorted correctly. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So you don't get the Walter Payton followed by Bronko Nagurski or, Bill Hewitt followed by George McAfee and, Stan Jones followed by George Halas. Afro (Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It did just do that. However, once I reset the list again by hitting the sorter it sorted them out again. I don't know if that is a glitch of some kind because it did not do that the first time, but it did yesterday when I tried it again. Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I figured out the problem looking at the coding the column lacks any kind of sorting code. Afro (Talk) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Can you describe what you mean by minor. You have written 'while the other three contributed only a minor portion of their career to the Bears.' What does minor mean 1 season? 2 seasons? Or perhaps remove the sentence and list the three people and say that they are in the hall of fame for exploits at other clubs, having come to Chicago when already legends (as in Page's case) or were at the club before they were notable (as in the case with the other two). KnowIG (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to comment: I defined minor as 3 seasons or less...but I don't know if that is good enough of a definition. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, but I'm no expert of whether that's good enough on here (I'm still learning). If other users do have issue with it then just remove minor from the article and it would still be OK. KnowIG (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – Criterion 3b. The contents of the list are substantially similar to what can be found in List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, with only the players' numbers added. I fail to see why a separate list is needed for this team. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment it's a nice list, but these days we're trying not to create unnecessary forks, and I think Giants2008 hits this on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Response - List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees lists all of the members of the Hall of Fame, which has hundred of inductees, while this list devotes a separate space for the franchise with the most members, the Chicago Bears. This list details only Chicago Bears members and allows people to access their favorite team if they wanted to see who is in the HOF instead of having to look through a huge list of all members. Also, the franchise with the second most members is a FA list so if this list is an "unnecessary fork" would that not apply for the other list as well? Happyman22 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That list was passed in 2008, when reviewers weren't paying close attention to forky lists. It probably wouldn't pass today, which is what matters. Also, the main Hall of Fame inductees list isn't overly long to me, and it does allow the option of sorting by team. It's not perfect because many players were on multiple teams, but that information is present in the main list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of surprised that TRM promoted the Green Bay list judging by the Nomination page it only had 2 supports one of which was weak, Not to mention 3 of the reviewers didn't comment regarding their disposition one of which was TRM, it might be down to a change in standards but by today's it might not be promoted due to lack of interest. Afro (Talk)

My ears burning...? Yes, things have changed since July 2008, and if I was closing the nomination today, well, it wouldn't be being closed, it would need more reviews and more support. Ho hum, live and learn. I don't often comment per my disposition, I usually review and leave it to others, but in the current climate, whereby we're lacking reviewers, I feel more inclined to offer more of an opinion than just "comments". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest FLRC on the Packers list. Given that the general inductees page gets along fine (like the MLB HoF list) it doesn't really need subdivisions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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