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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): D'SuperHero (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography of actor Ajay Devgan. Here is the complete list of films done in his career. with enough sources and context. D'SuperHero (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have nominated an article, with just few edits here and there. I believe the major contributor @Skr15081997: should be aware of this FLC. I also feel the lead needs some work. There is just one review supporting the "..appreciated by the critics" claim, and too many instances were the sentence starts with Devgan. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Yashthepunisher Not here and there. Lead was really short and had inadequate information, so have been expanded though. Added just few refs and footnotes. In addition, TV appearances had been added because only 3 shows were there. D'SuperHero (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but Skr was the one who addded sources in the table. You can check the article's history. The guideline says "Ones who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination." Your contributions are right, but we can't just ignore the one who sourced the table and was planning to take this to FL for a long time. Maybe you can add him as a co-nominator or such. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @SchroCat and PresN: I think it's time to consider this nomination for a procedural close. As the above user has highlighted, nominator is not a main contributor to this FLC. Has not discussed with the main contributor Skr. Their main edit to this article was an expansion of the lead which has been reverted as copyvio in this edit leaving just three sentences as the lead. [[2]]. Cowlibob (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, for starters, I think that this string of 33 edits is enough to count as a main contributor; I'm not going to get in the business of edit counting to determine who's number 1, preferring to reserve that issue for pure driveby nominations and nominations in bad faith where the list has someone who's been working on it continuously (someone did that to me a couple times, it's not fun). That said...
• I don't know if the contributions were a copyvio, though as D'SuperHero has not complained I assume that they are. I do know they were simply a prose conversion of the list, so that's no good. Which means at present the list has no real lead, and before the reversion it did not have an acceptable lead. @D'SuperHero: I'm not going to procedural close this nom, but it currently has some pretty substantive issues that you seem to have ignored for nearly 3 weeks after opening this nomination. If I don't see any work on it, I'm going to have to assume this nomination was abandoned and close it. --PresN 01:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PresN No! the contribs weren't a copyvio at all. On another tone, a bit expansion was framed as CopyVio by another user. Foremost edits have been done and no other claims to done to term it as a CopyVio. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• All of the sentences I see start with "Devgan then starred in", "In the same year, Devgan", "In xxx year, Devgan portrayed" or "His release of the year xxx were". The prose looks like presenting a list of bulleted-points in a passage form. IMO, it is very very very dull, partially incorrect (grammatically) and repetitive.
• "In 1992, Devgan then starred in Martial arts based film Jigar opposite" – there is no need of "then" and why is "M" of martial arts is capitalized? Also, the Jigar needs to be in italics since it's a film.
• "Devgan portrayed the role of a kickboxer" – where?
• "The same year Devgn starred in successful films Suhaag (1994), Dilwale" – why is the year of the Suhaag given and not Dilwale's? Also, in what terms were the films successful, and, according to the source, Suhaag was "above average" at the box office and that does not exactly mean successful.
• "Devgan's other releases in late 1990s including Itihaas, Ishq, Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha performed average at the box-office" – you need definite article before "late 1990s" and "performed average" is not grammatically correct.
• Can't you just combine the last two sentences of the first para?
• "In 2003, Devgan starred in Ram Gopal Verma's horror film Bhoot, opposite Urmila Matondkar" – Matondkar linked twice in the lead.
• "Devgan played Othello in critically acclaimed film Omkara (2006)" – for "critically acclaimed", you need a source which explicitly states that it was "critically acclaimed".
• "In 2007, Devgan starred in two films, director Anubhav Sinha-directed Cash and Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag" – what does "director Anubhav Sinha-directed" mean? Also, were both films directed by Sinha?
• "Devgan starred in Rohit Shetty's comedy Golmaal Returns, a sequel to the 2006 film Golmaal: Fun Unlimited" – it's the third time where you are wikilinking Shetty and second time for Golmaal. Also, here you refer to the 2006 film as "Golmaal: Fun Unlimited" but back in the third last line of the second para it's titled "Golmaal".
• "Devgan produced his third film, All the Best, directed by Rohit Shetty" – what is it with mentioning Rohit Shetty all the time?
• "Devgn then starred in numerous films in 2010s" – you need "the" before the decade.
• "Child Artist, as Master Chotu" – isn't "Master Chotu" supposed to be under "Role"? And why is "A" of "Artist" in uppercase letter?

I haven't looked at the references and table, and it was just for the prose part, which is not concise and needs a fair amount of work. -- Frankie _talk 18:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FrB.TG fixed some of the issues including "added films in italics", "cited some of the details", "removed redundant wikilinkings", "removed Child Artist junk" and etc. Plus above and foremost work is on to edit and shape the article fine. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 08:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, the issues which had been rectified as per now has been striked up. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. – SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each time the Rock Songs chart is mentioned in an article, it's always linked to this page. Given how heavily linked this article is, I figured it should look nice. This was originally meant to be just a quick cleanup, but I figured might as well go all the way with this list.

This is my first FLC, and first Featured nominee on Wikipedia. Hopefully I didn't miss out on anything necessary for FL's, but if I did, I'll gladly input it into the list. BTW, this list was HEAVILY reliant on the List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s article. Like, seriously reliant, just look at the two articles. If this is a problem, I'll try and work to make them different. Finally, since this is a list that will most likely go on forever, I do plan on maintaining this list for as long as I'm on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking your time to look at this list! Famous Hobo (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't seem to be any independent sources that discuss the topic of number-one songs on this chart in any detail, just Billboard itself. The only third-party source referenced gives some background on what the chart is but otherwise only mentions a songs that made this chart but did not go to number one. So in that sense, it doesn't seem to meet the requirements for stand-alone lists, thus failing 3b of the featured list criteria. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. But what about List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s or List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006? They rely solely on Billboard for references. Technically, since this is about a specific type of chart, I don't see why using that same source as a reference. I guess I could find individual sources from other websites for each week, but that seems a little absurd since they'll say the same thing. Don't get me wrong, if I need to do that, I'll do it (it'll just take forever). Famous Hobo (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the Christian Songs list falls under ths same parameters and probably should not be a featured list (at least as is), but Hot 100 charting is covered in different books and reaching number one is often noted and referred to in other publications as well. I'm not saying you need to use 3rd party references to cite each number one but to be a featured list, the topic of reaching number one or what's number one on the chart should be discussed elsewhere besides the main source. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. Honestly, I didn't spend too much time with this list (just a bit of cleanup, all the refs were there to begin with), so if it does fail the criteria, then I won't be too disappointed. I would like to get other peoples opinions though.

Comments from Wrestlinglover

• Lead
  • Inconsistency on number usage. Some are spelled out, some are just written out. Use a format and stick to it.
• List of number-one songs
  • Looks fine to me.
• Statistics
  • Looks fine to me.
• By artist
  • Looks fine to me
• Songs by total number of weeks at number one
  • Looks fine to me
• Notes
  • Looks fine to me
• References
  • May want to move the templates to an external links section and include some website links, like Billboard.--WillC 09:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlinglover Both issues have been addressed. I stuck with fully written out numbers as they look more professional in my opinion. For the external links section, the only website I could think of linking was Billboard, since they run the chart. BTW, would you mind chipping into the discussion of whether this list fits the criteria of stand-alone lists that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and I were talking about? Famous Hobo (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I never questioned whether it could be a stand alone list. It seems notable and fine with me. It could use some third party references to help curve the notability issue though.--WillC 20:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Calvin999

I agree that this is viable as a standalone list, as everything about the Hot Rock Songs chart records and statistics are here, however I cannot support this nomination based on following comments.

• I think the title of this article should be Hot Rock Songs. I disagree that I am redirected to the current title which searching or clicking Hot Rock Songs, as it's not in keeping with the other articles for Billboard charts. That said, I would keep the list in the article under the new title.
• June 20, 2009 through → Comma after 2009
• Beginning with the chart dated October 20, 2012, → However, since the chart dated October 20, 2012,
• the Rock Songs chart → Rock Songs or Hot Rock Songs?
• reached the number one position on → reached number-one on
• Since its introduction, thirty-nine singles have reached the number one position on the Rock Songs chart. → Source?
• Foo Fighters and Linkin Park have been the most successful groups, with each having three singles to top the chart. → Source?
• The whole second paragraph needs sourcing, as this is the only prose there is.
• Out of the thirty-nine singles that hit the number-one position, ten singles spent two separate runs atop the chart. → Why is this relevant?
• The most recent number-one single is Twenty One Pilots's "Stressed Out". → The current number-one song on the Dance Club Songs chart for the issue dated January 30, 2016, is "Stressed Out" by Twenty One Pilots.
• Return of a single to number one → Hyphenate number-one
• 2009; 2010; 2012; what songs were the year end number-one?
• Seven artists have achieved two or more number-one singles. → Not needed, can see that from the table
• Six artists have spent 20 or more weeks atop the chart. → Not needed, can see that from the table
• Thirteen songs have spent at least eleven weeks atop the chart. → Not needed, can see that from the table/You haven't included 11 to 18 anyway.
• Not sure on Blabbermouth.net's reliability.
• Every source bar that one is Billboard. You will have to find sources from other sites so that everything is not solely published by Billboard. There needs to be other coverage available.

I can tell you've been time and energy in to this list, but there are too many issues for me, some very big, that result in my Oppose.  — Calvin999 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999 So I began working on fixing the issues, but the one that really worries me is the last issue, the one that all three editors brought up. I tried looking through google to find other coverage, but almost every single mention of rock songs is by Billboard. I got lucky with a couple of mentions by Fuse, but other than that there's really no coverage of the Hot Rock Songs Chart (There's more coverage for the Active and Mainstream Rock Charts, so that's kind of annoying). And even if I were able to find more coverage, the refs would still be heavily dominated by Billboard. So yeah, I don't think I'm going to be able to fix that issue. Since that's been an issue with all three editors, I think it's best if I rescind this nomination. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely appreciate what you're saying as I've had similar problems before. Some from Fuse is better than nothing. As long as you can show that you can find other sources then that is fine.  — Calvin999 20:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the issue myself, just to say I was supporting the nomination to become an FL. I had forgot to include that. I think you should give it some time and try to do something. There may still be hope.--WillC 21:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for two months without any supports, I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Not opposition to renomination, though I must admit that as widespread as the Billboard charts are I'm surprised that you can't find any sources talking about the Rock charts. Seems like if you can solve that problem then another nomination would be an easy pass though. --PresN 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page shows the most comprehensive list of power stations in Sri Lanka, something that is [oddly] not found on a single source anywhere on the internet or offline. The list is rich with content, referencing, pictures, and a map. I believe this should pass FL. Rehman 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's so quiet in here... Rehman 12:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "while the renewable energy sector consists of mostly of privately-run plants" Repetition of "of"

• Fixed. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "2,115MW (53.8%) was from thermal" In my view, the fuel used - gas or coal etc - is more significant than the technology.

• There is only one coal source in the country. And thermal is the most common (and only) term used locally. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fossil fuel section - no figures for the percentage and MW for different fuels and no columns in the table for this.

• Sorry, I don't understand this point... Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Coal is 900+500=1,1400MW, which is 35.6% of the total of 3932MW. Oil is 2115-1400=715MW, which is 18.2%. Gas currently zero, although you say there are plans to introduce it. I think these figures should be stated. Personally, I would have separate tables for coal and oil, but this is of course up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the figures to the lead section. The tables were separate when this list was created a long time ago. It was changed for two reasons, one because there will only be two entries in the coal table, and two because the local energy industry always collectively identifies all fossil-fuel plants as thermal power stations. You cannot find separated list anywhere on local publications. Hence the table was merged to reflect a more locally recognizable style. Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree with merging oil and coal. The fact that local sources make it more difficult to find the information which is most important for international readers is no reason for Wikipedia to do so. You have a separate table for solar, which has two power stations and insignificant capacity, and not for coal which is over a third of capacity. I would also suggest you have a separate table giving the MW for each power source and its percentage share of the whole. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• By "You cannot find separated list anywhere on local publications", I meant that they are always collectively identified, not that info about them are hard to find. Rehman 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hydroelectricity played a very significant role in the national installed power capacity since it was rapidly introduced in the 1950s–1990s." It is unclear whether this refers to the current situation - if it does, then I think you need "Hydroelectricity has played"

• Fixed. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On my computer the list of hydroelectric stations is pushed below the images, created a large blank space.

• I will try to see if this can be fixed... It may be one of those cases where the table wont be perfect on all resolutions... Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What does nameplate capacity mean?

• I have linked it. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What does the 'segment' column in hydroelectric refer to?

• I have added a brief explanation. Basically, they are three regions which the government has created for hydropower development. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be better to change the heading from "segment" to "region" as your explanation refers to regions. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to "Region". Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No geolocation for hydroelectric stations under construction, and none for any of the dams.

• The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But you have a column for the location of power stations. Should this be location of water source? If so, the missing locations of the ones under construction are given in the separate articles about them. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the water source and power station are not always the same. They could be located large distances (dozens of kilometres) apart. The sub articles states the coordinates for the water source/dam, not the power plant. Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be missing my point. You say above "The physical locations of the power stations are not yet disclosed." yet you have a column headed "Geo-location of power station" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm referring to the two plants under construction. The power plant details of those are still not disclosed, but the water body is known. Hence those two fields under "Geo-location of power station" are blank. Rehman 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the commissioning date given for hydroelectric and not for other types?

• Commission dates (for non hydro) are very hard to find, and the published dates are often conflicting with other sources. I was considering if to remove the hydro dates (to be in line with others)... What do you think? Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would personally remove them, but other editors may disagree.Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... I personally feel that it would be a bad move to remove information for the sake of decoration, but lets see if anyone else feel this should be removed... Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "after numerous wrongdoings and hidden political dealings surfaced" "wrongdoings" is colloquial and vague.

• I chose that word from the referenced news linked. I have changed it to "misconducts". Hope that's better. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "scandals"? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects, the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms, were completed in late 2014, by when operations in the industry was ceased by presidential order.[" What are "first-come, first-served style wind farm projects"? Also "by when" is ungrammatical - and you say the industry was closed down and then give a list of operational stations.

• I'm trying to say that the Pollupalai and Vallimunai Wind Farms are the newest/last wind farms that were commissioned. I did some changes to the wordings, but I'm unsure if it gives out the correct meaning. Also, industry was closed down for new projects. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "when operations in the industry was ceased until further notice" This implies that the whole industry has been closed down. Maybe "when the construction of new wind farms was suspended further notice" Does the closure affect the Mannar Island proposal? This should be made clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I've added as "when the construction of new privately-owned wind farms were suspended until further notice", as that only applied to the private sector (the Mannar project was/is not affected). Thanks! Rehman 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The last privately owned first-come, first-served style wind farm projects" You still have not explained what "first-come, first-served style" means. If there are no new private projects being approved why not delete it and just say "The last private sector wind farm projects"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In first-come-first-serve, if a particular developer submits an application for a particular patch of land, the gov assigns that land to that developer. Another developer cannot develop on the same patch of land. I will add an explanation to this later today or tomo (it's 06:35 now, need to head to work soon). If you wish to add yourself, please feel free. Also, they are not the last projects. Wind projects will be back online (the stopping of projects is only temporary). Rehman 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think more work is needed on this list. The information is limited compared with - for example - List of power stations in England, and inconsistent between different categories. For example, you give nearest city for thermal but not for other types. The type of fuel for thermal stations is crucial information which needs to be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearest city is included for thermal power stations because, locally, most of these thermal stations are also commonly called by the names of their closest city. This is not the case for other types. Also, the list is maintained in a summarized type to avoid being stretched too far causing multiple devises to not display properly (such as the white space you mentioned earlier). I'm using a 1920px wide display, and it is already almost the widest it can comfortably be. For fuel, I have added a sentence explaining that all thermal plants run on fuel oil, except for Lakviyaja and Sampur.
• Thanks for the feedback Dudley Miles. I have responded to each point above with an indent. Rehman 14:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think most points are covered now. However, a column for geolocation of hydro water sources would be helpful. Separate tables for coal and oil are, in my view, crucial. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008 Oppose – Welcome to FLC, Rehman. The list you have worked on is certainly unique, and there is a lot of potential here. However, there are several issues remaining, which need to be addressed if this is to have a chance at promotion. The start of the lead is a variant of the "This is a list of XXX"-type openings, which have been discouraged at FLC for years. The lead doesn't have anything on how many power stations there are, so that's one option for leading off the article. Working on it... Will update here again. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Hmmm, I'm kind of lost on this. If you have any ideas before me, please feel free to make the change, and I shall join in. Else, will try my best to do it within the next couple of days. Rehman 14:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] As I said above, I don't see anything in the lead about how many power stations are in Sri Lanka, which feels like a good topic for a summary sentence that could start a list like this. A relevant statistic or definition is usually a good way to begin a list article, if one is having trouble thinking of an opening. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Working on it... Rehman 23:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Done. Is it better? Rehman 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] The bold link in the introduction should be removed, per the Manual of Style. Unbolded. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] The hyphen in "privately-run" should be removed. Removed. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] The tables require row and column scopes to meet accessibility guidelines. I understand that this is confusing for FLC newcomers, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial has a good illustrated of what is needed. Working on it... Will update here again. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Giants2008, I have updated the first table (fossil fuel) to experiment. All seems good, except for the background colour in the row headers. Do you know how to override that? Rehman 02:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I don't know of a way to override the darkening of the rows off the top of my head, but it hasn't been called a problem in other FLCs. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] No worries, it doesn't seem to be a big issue anyway. Rehman 14:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Accessibility guidelines also state that colored items in tables should have matching symbols. In this case, I think it would be better to remove the colors altogether, since they appear to duplicate the purpose of the Status columns. If you want to keep them, please at least consider removing the colors from some of the columns that are not directly related to the status; you could probably just have that column and the first one, rather than adding symbols to everything. Working on it... Will update here again. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I get your point on the colours and what MOS:DTT says. The reason I added the colours to the whole row is because it makes it much easier to identify operational/decommissioned power stations when sorting by Ownership, Name, City, or Capacity. The user does not need to look left-and-right each time. I think this is quite helpful, but if it negatively impacts passing FL, then we can take it off altogether. Waiting for your reply. Rehman 02:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that really needs to be changed. We can't be making too many exceptions to the access guidelines because of inconveniences that they cause, or we may invite everyone to make edits that are not generally recommended. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Alright. I went ahead and updated all the tables. I think it should be okay now. Rehman 14:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Fossil-fuel: "after the completion of the Sampur Power Station in late 2017, which is being...". Since the last bit is meant to refer to the station and not the year, some rearranging is in order. Try making a change to "after the late 2017 completion", which requires the least work elsewhere. Changed. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Another removable hyphen in "privately-owned". Also, there's one in the next section, along with one in Wind power. Removed all. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "except Lakvijaya and Sampur, which runs on coal." "runs" → "run", since there are two of them. Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Add "to" in "the government has decided not renew...". Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Hydroelectric: "when further thermal power stations was introduced in 2010." "was" → "were". Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "Further information of each power station...". "of" should probably be "about" or "on". Done. Changed to "on". Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Are geo-locations possible for the two entries without them? Unfortunately not. They are not disclosed yet, as explained to Dudley above. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Solar power: I'm not sure if "constructions" should be plural here. Changed to singular. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Wind power: "are Windforce and Senok, which currently owns 7 and 3 separate wind farms respectively". "owns" should be singular here. Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "The other companies in the market includes...". Same issue with "includes" here. Changed to singular. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] All references from printed publications such as newspapers should have their publishers italicized, which can be done be changed the publisher= parameter in the cite templates to work=. I count references 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, and 25 as needing such fixes, and there may be more that I missed. Updated. Some of the news references does not do printed publications. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Reference 18 needs a publisher listed. Done. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I like to offer support for topics that are different from what FLC normally sees, but there are simply too many prose and table issues right now. If you can fix them and satisfy Dudley, though, I would likely strike my oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Hi Giants2008. Thanks for the input. I have responded to each point above. Rehman 13:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The new intro looks much better. However, in "with a smaller share from by small hydro facilities", "by" should be removed. Do that and make separate tables for coal and oil stations as Dudley suggested, and you can consider me in the support column. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008. Done. Is it better? Rehman 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Don't start the article with "The following page lists...." we don't have featured articles which start "The following article ...." do we?

Working on it, as per Giants2008's first point. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rehman 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Graph caption has "hydropower" while the graph has "hydro power", be consistent. I would also avoid the glitzy graph style, 3D blocks, black background etc, this is an encyclopedic article, not a sales pitch.

I will do this over the course of this weekend. Is there any MOS for such charts? I'm unsure on what to base on... Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is done. Hope it's better now. Rehman 06:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "government" should pipelink to Ministry of Power and Energy .

Removed. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't "privately run" be hyphenated?

This was removed as per Giants2008's third point. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "Power Purchase Agreement" all capitalised?

Changed to lowercase. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link hydroelectricity the first time round.

Done. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to relink megawatt.

Done. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Or coal. So, in general, check for overlinking.

Done. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Loads of white space in the Hydroelectric section because of those three large images down the right-hand-side of the article.

See reply to the fifth point by Dudley. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That entire section of prose is unreferenced.

Will do this today. I will update here again. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rehman 11:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Two Hydroelectric power stations have no geographical info. At least add a note to say why not.

Added a note. Is that fine? Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please use human-readable dates for the commission date rather than YYYY-MM-DD.

Dates were kept that way for sorting. Is there way around this (human-readable dates that can be sorted)? Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sorting template {{dts}} is specifically designed for this type of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Check all references are formatted correctly, e.g. ref 11 is a bare URL.

That was added by IP recently. I have fixed it. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man. Thanks for your comment. I have replied to each point above. Rehman 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, after 2 months this FLC hasn't managed to get a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Feel free to renominate in the future, once you've finished any outstanding reviewer concerns. --PresN 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of India's second-highest civilian award recipients. I believe its written with the neutrality mentioning the refusals and returns of the coveted award. Looking forward to constructive criticism. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• DODs of posthumous wins should be mentioned. Maybe in footnotes like how they are done at Bharat Ratna.
  • Done
• Also, instead of using the Template:Dagger, can you insert the symbol "†"? The purpose of having a symbol along with colour coding is that it should help colour-blind people. But the template doesn't allow you to copy the dagger symbol and Ctrl+F it. This direct use of symbol will allow Ctrl+Fing for lazy guys like me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Let me know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yashthepunisher

• Prime Minister of India is linked twice in the lead.
  • Removed
• Is is necessary to write "..Republic Day of India"? As the opening sentence mentions that its an "Indian" award. You can remove India from it.
  • Removed
• Wiki-link "Ministry of Home Affairs" in ref 1.
  • I wish not to wiki-link anything in references. This was also asked earlier in one of my previous FLCs and was bought to my attention by Crisco as per the discussion here.
• Wiki-link Daily Mail and The Gazette of India at ref 3 and 4 respectively.
  • Same as above.
• Wiki-link The Hindu, The Times of India, Business Standard, Mumbai Mirror, Outlook magazine and Rediff.com as well, when they first appear in the ref. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above.
    • Fair enough.
  • @Yashthepunisher: Let me know if you have more comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There are few instances where the sentence is pointing to "India". Like: "Prime Minister of India", "Constitution of India.", "Supreme Court of India". They are repetitve and quite redundant. Try to trim some of them.

  • Done

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any other issue with this article. Solve the last comment and it has my Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for the comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Why is Rambhadracharya listed as Giridhar Mishra? It is neither the name used in the official list nor his common name?

• Fixed by @Cowper2:

• Instead of using flags, using the name of the country in State column (renamed as State/Domicile as done in the official list) is better. A foreign national can be colour-coded in a different colour like the posthumous one.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought of that earlier but recipient like Aga Khan is a citizen for two countries. So dropped the idea for the easier maintenance to address WP:ACCESS

• Image review:
  • Nominated Sumati Morarjee image for deletion. Replace with another female recipient, if possible.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Redtigerxyz: The deletion request is declined at Commons. Should I still replace the image? - Vivvt (Talk) 12:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm not sure why you split the tables by decade, it dramatically reduces the usability of the sorting, i.e. you can only find all those involved in Social Work (for example) in a decade, and not overall. I would merge the tables.

• Wouldn't it be a inconvenience for the navigation? Earlier, it was a huge long table. I chopped it off per decade considering its future expansion.

• I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me check how is it implemented in other FLCs. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like its the standard across. Thus, I have merged the tables. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do the flag symbols used in the table meet WP:ACCESS?

• Not sure. How do you want me handle Aga Khan who is a citizen for two countries? Should I just represent all the all the non-Indian in same colour and mention the respective countries in the footnote? Redtigerxyz also asked the same Q above.

• I don't know how best to do it, I just asked you if the symbols were accessible to screen-reading software, for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As we both are not sure about the image eligibility for WP:ACCESS, I have removed them and replaced them wtih the footnotes.

• All tables, including the key, should use row and col scopes.

• Done

• Is there a reason for the over-capitalisation in the table, e.g. Why isn't "Public Affairs" just "Public affairs"?

• Capitalisation is used in the referential data. Let me know if that should be changed.

• "only Five-star rank officer" - caps again, just "five-star" is fine.

• Done

• Really should be using page references for that 193-page PDF which is being used to source the winners from 1954 to 2014.

• In-ProgressDone

• Basanti Devi redirects to Basanti Devi College. Who was the recipient? And if it was Basanti Devi herself, would it have been posthumous? Or was she 93 at the time?

• Basanti Devi herself was the recipient. I didnt get your 93-year-old concern. Could you please elaborate? - Vivvt (Talk) 11:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was because the link appeared to give the award to the college, not the individual. When I looked into the individual, it appears she would either have been deceased, or very old (93) at the time of the award. I just wanted to confirm to whom it was awarded (because the list isn't clear on that with the redirect to the college) and whether it was posthumous. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basanti Devi is now a separate article. She died a year later and was 93 when she received the award. Btw, just observing that non of the Padma awards have ever been given to institutes, but only to people, DOA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha Thanks.

Very good list indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you have more comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): SOAD KoRn (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it presents a comprehensive list of João Sousa's statistical achievements during his career. Sousa is widely regarded as the greatest Portuguese tennis player ever. The list's development was influenced by other similar pages, including a featured one. I thank you in advance for your feedback. SOAD KoRn (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parutakupiu:

Disclaimer: I've contributed to this page with 11 edits prior to this nomination (out of 17 edits in total), mostly copyedit-related chages.

• Section headers should not be wikilinked.
• Section "Top 10 wins" should be renamed to "Wins over top 10 players" for clarity. Similarly, "Singles Grand Slam seedings" should be "Grand Slam singles seedings".
• In the Davis Cup results table, the wikilinks should be on the tournament round instead of the date.
• Ref. 14 is not a dead url but the news article no longer exists.

Minor issues that you can easily address, SOAD KoRn. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Parutakupiu. All issues were addressed. SOAD KoRn (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more: is the {{Performance key}} template under "Performance timeline" necessary, when you have the abbreviations table in the beginning of the page? The only thing in that template that is not repeated is the note saying "To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated either at the conclusion of a tournament, or when the player's participation in the tournament has ended.", which you could add by yourself to the section. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought about that, to be honest. It's a template used in nearly every tennis player articles, but you're right, it's duplicated in this case. It doesn't make sense to keep it. I only kept the last phrase. SOAD KoRn (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The few issues I spotted have been addressed and this list seems fit for promotion. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed some key bloat and moved a key to the proper location. I also standardized it more in line with Tennis project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits, Fyunck(click). I also noticed that a couple of links are dead, due to recent changes in their host website. I will try to find the correct links for the news articles. SOAD KoRn (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Maybe it's just me but I find the reduced-font-size table at the top of the article somewhat odd, I'd prefer to see the photo there and table below it. Particularly as most of the table is redundant. I also note that you have no mention of any doubles titles yet in the lead " Sousa has also competed in doubles..." Wouldn't it be better to list his titles (ATP Challenger, ITF etc) rather than list a load of stuff he hasn't even reached the finals in? Not sure you need the ranking in the lead, particularly as this will go out of date rapidly. Ref 17 currently tagged as dead. In sortable tables we typically link every linkable item every time as there's no guarantee that the linked item will remain as the first instance after a sort. Where are his winnings referenced? Finals Reached -> Finals reached. Year-End Ranking -> Year-end ranking. etc etc. Sousa Rk? Why not just Sousa ranking? Head-to-head vs. Top 20 ... -> Head-to-head against top 20 ... Active players in boldface? Violates MOS:BOLD. I think win % should be all to the same number of d.p. That's all on a quick fly through. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man, thank you for yours comments. I changed the photo/table order, as proposed. Wikilinks corrected. Titles and tables c/e as proposed. Active players in boldface removed. Win % now have zero (0) d.p. Regarding the dead refs, I tried to contact the website admin a couple of weeks but so far I received no answer back or new links. Therefore, I will change the sources for ref 13 and 17 as soon as I find reliable alternatives. Titles in minor circuits (Challenger, ITF, etc) are not as relevant as major circuit achievements. This a career statistics article, not just a assemble of titles and finals. I tried to present in the introductory section the main reasons why Sousa stands out, his ATP singles career being the most relevant. I did not include any doubles title for the reason stated above. He has no doubles title or finals presence at the ATP World Tour level. In References section, the "General sources" present all data used to reference his winnings. Each season's winnings refer to the sum obtained from singles and doubles activities - it is the same methodology adopted by the ATP. Do you think I should add this information? If you disagree with any of my points, I will be happy to discuss them with you. If you find any other issue, I will do my best to try and fix it. Regards, SOAD KoRn (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to thanks Parutakupiu for fixing ref 17. I will try to find a solution for ref 13 now. SOAD KoRn (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Finally found new link for ref 13. Dead links issue is solved. SOAD KoRn (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I kind of agree with TRM on the career finals table in the lead, as Sousa has not yet that many top-tier titles. Instead of a table with just the row filled with numbers other than zero, it's better for now to list his other junior and low-tier professional achievements. Even if not that relevant, they are titles nonetheless and contributed to his career development. When Sousa wins more World Tour titles, I agree that the Challenger and other low-tier titles can be removed from the table. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I agree that the table is more informative now and could be modified, depending on how Sousa fares in his ATP World Tour career. Also, I added the following edits to "Career finals" section, per Parutakupiu's suggestions: Edited the key table titles and removed those key entries that were never used in João's career (except those for ATP World Tour); Removed links from Category and Surface columns in the tables, as they are already in the key; Brought the font size to 100% in the last tables, but introduced a code to prevent player names and scores to wrap inside the cell; After all these edits, I hope I did not forget to address any of The Rambling Man's comments. SOAD KoRn (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Jason Rees, Typhoon2013

So me and Jason were recently just talking about bringing the article: Tropical cyclone naming to the FLC and I agreed. It sure does meet the criteria. Well, this is a list of names for tropical cyclones in each different basins and I believe it is important, especially for meteorologists. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate here I feel that Tropical Cyclone Naming meets the criteria for a Featured List as all names are sourced and the sections have an appropriate summary that is sourced. I asked Typhoon2013 to co-nominate it with me as he has had almost as many edits to the article as me.Jason Rees (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments strange to me that you've had to wait almost two months for any comments, hopefully mine will get the ball rolling. Its one of those topics which can seem rather boring and trivial to most people, but hopefully we will now get a stream of comments.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Lists of tropical cyclone names is linked in the lead, but that just self-redirects so unlink it. Unlinked.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I would split the lead into two paragraphs. Split.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Tables need to include row and col scopes and preferably captions to comply with WP:ACCESS. Not sure how to deal with this comment - as a result I will defer to CB on this one.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] WMO uses a z, not a s in its "organization". Fixed.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] What is " ₱1"? Linked.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] " of 120W in " be consistent with the inclusion of degree symbols. Should be consistent now.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "A — Z" should be an unspaced en-dash rather than a spaced em-dash. " 5°N - 25°N" should be an en-dash per WP:DASH. ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee just redirects back to the WMO, is there a subsection link that would be more specific? Fraid not - Have unlinked it for now.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Contributing Nations -> Contributing nations. Fixed.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Typhoon Hanna (Soudelor) is an odd image choice as it links to Typhoon Soudelour, a name which isn't on the list. Soudelor and Hanna are the same storm, we just put more emphasis on the usage of Soudelor for it since that's the international name. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "2015-16" en-dash required. "The next named storm to be used within the area is Corentin." cite, and WP:ASOF. Check other instances of this kind of thing. I am not a fan of having the next name to be used in the area stuff, because it is unciteable for most of the lists especially at the height of summer for the typhoon list. As a result I have removed them and I hope that my co-nominator @Typhoon2013: does not add them back in again unless he can source them all.Jason Rees (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You don't need to keep relinking the WMO, but please spell it consistently. I think they are now all consistant.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] 90°E - 141°E - en-dash please. Equator - 10°S ditto. Please fix all other such instances. I ran the dash checker which seemed to fix the dashes - if there are still problems let me know and I will fix them.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Isobel [nb 6] remove the space before the note. Check all other notes. Removed all spaces.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] That's in on a quick trawl through. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: seeing if I can help out with the table formatting...are the changes to the North Atlantic one appropriate? Style is a bit different than what I'm used to so just want to make sure before I move on with the rest of the list. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yup, I think that works. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ok we have applied this to the rest of the tables.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the Review :) @The Rambling Man:

Sorry to have to do this, but this nomination has been open for 2 months without getting a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it down. Feel free to renominate in the future. --PresN 02:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is quite comprehensive of the Georgetown University alumni that are notable and/or have Wikipedia articles about them. Additionally, the alumni are sorted into sections by field and each section is alphabetized. Each section's table is sortable by name, school, and class year. Each alumnus/alumna has his or her own corresponding citation to a reliable source. The lead section introduces and explains the list and gives a succinct description of Georgetown alumni as a whole. There is an identifying image in the lead section that is salient to the list with an appropriate caption. There is a legend that explains the sorting and listing of individuals. The See Also section links to other related Wikipedia articles. For these reasons (and in comparing the list to other featured college alumni lists, such as List of Dartmouth College alumni), I believe the list meets the FL criteria. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Ergo Sum 23:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Disclosure, I am close to the general topic, but my edits to this article have been limited. My only recent concern here was some dead links, but they seem to have been fixed. It is intentionally on par with other college alumni articles that are FLs, so it seems this deserves the recognition too.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Don't start list articles with "This list ...." "Marquis Who's Who " should be in italics. "14th highest percentage and eighth" MOS NUM, either 14th/8th or fourteenth/eighth. "Col - Georgetown College" etc, WP:DASH. What does a blank class year indicate? Not known? Be explicit. Same for blank School/degree. No need for the HM and King and all that, use Wikipedia's naming conventions for these individuals. Year ranges don't repeat the century if it remains the same, e.g. 1973–1977 should be 1973–77. In sortable tables, items that can be linked should be linked every time, as there's no guarantee that the only linked one will be the first instance after a sort. It seems inconsistent at the moment, e.g. you relink Illinois each time but not United States Representative. "Washington Post" should be "The Washington Post". "Director of the National Air and Space Museum" implies currently, when was he? Why the centrally aligned "notability" column? Be consistent with the format of accessdates and publication dates. That's it for a very quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks @The Rambling Man for your comments. I'll get on those. Ergo Sum 19:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Done. I think I've addressed those issues. Ergo Sum 01:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to do this, but this nomination has been open for 2 months without getting a lot of support, and I'm going to have to close it down. Feel free to renominate in the future. --PresN 02:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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 withdrawn by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Azealia911 _talk 01:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list documents the musical releases of American R&B singer Teyana Taylor, from her early 2012 mixtapes to her 2014 debut studio album. Thankyou for all constructive feedback / support in advance. Azealia911 _talk 01:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by shaidar cuebiyar

I believe the list does not meet the following three criteria:

• Prose: there are too many problems with expression. Three examples:
  • "released her first official body of work, a mixtape entitled From a Planet Called Harlem," seems a long-winded way of saying "released her first mixtape, From a Planet Called Harlem,"

Changed. Azealia911 _talk

• • "which spawned her breakout debut single "Google Me"" > "which provided her debut single "Google Me"" Reduce unencyclopaedic terms.

Provided didn't sound right to me, I've switched 'spawned' to 'included'. Azealia911 _talk

'included' is acceptable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The song went on to enter and peak on the US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart at number ninety." > "It debuted at its peak of number ninety on the US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart." Improve concision, also note a hard space between number and ninety.

Changed. Azealia911 _talk

• • Have you checked for other expression problems, too? Three more examples:

"featured on songs with the likes" > "featured on tracks by"

"Taylor has spoken about her inspiration from fellow female musician Lauryn Hill, which was noted with the release of her second mixtape in 2012. The mixtape, entitled The Misunderstanding of Teyana Taylor," > "Taylor has described her inspiration by Lauryn Hill; Taylor's second mixtape, The Misunderstanding of Teyana Taylor (2012),"

"labels" > "label's"

There are more expression problems, fix them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: the inclusion criteria seem too broadly applied:
  • The compilation album is not a compilation by the artist herself but it is a various artist album from her label, for which she appears as a featured artist on two tracks. Including this album for the artist is misleading.

Which is exactly why I've started the sentance with "contributed to her labels compilation album". I have in no way claimed that it was Taylor's album, nor have I even claimed that she had a quintessential part in its making. The album provided her with the best charting song of her career (only not included in the lead because I cannot source it), it was a vital part of her career.

Its misleading to the average reader due to its classification as a compilation album in the discography of Teyana Taylor: it is not her album. For a compilation album, both in the infobox and in its own subsection, I expect to see one of her works as a solo artist. Not an album where she has two appearances as a featured vocalist by various artists, which is charting largely due to contributions from those other artists. By listing it here the article is giving undue weight to her contribution to this album by apparently claiming it as a solo release in the infobox and wikitable (albeit not in the Lead's text).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Likewise the singles tally (also in the infobox) should only include the artist's solo singles.

With what reasoning? There are a great number of featured discographies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, some quick exaples) that factor in featured singles and/or promotional singles to their respective tallies. Azealia911 _talk

I am willing to concede this point, thanks for pointing out those FLs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have another problem, the Lead has "One of her contributions to the album, "To the World",". AllMusic's David Jeffries cites the performers for this track as R. Kelly and Kanye West; Taylor is acknowledged for "Sin City" and "Bliss" only (see here) on this album. I want to see a reliable source for Taylor's singing role on "To the World". This also affects the Other charted songs wikitable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comprehensiveness: Could you explain how this list qualifies as a Stand-alone list? The discography consists of only one studio album, one EP, two mixtapes and three singles as a solo artist. The content could be returned to the main article without need for a separate list.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS on page splits advises that "If the discography of an artist, group or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list" Taylor's bio article is 21,581 bytes, while her discography article is 26,643 bytes. Merging the content of this article would increase the size of the page by over 100% and make the discography section more than double the length of the entire biographical prose. Let's remember that the discography nor the bio have to be exponentially long, but according to the MoS, the discography must be disproportionately large to the biographical article. Standing at it's size, I think that this is more than the case. Azealia911 _talk

Certainly some editing would be needed to return her discography back to her page, similar to its form back in September this year (see here). Such editing would make the return of the discography a lot less than 26,643 bytes: remember that redundancies and other material would be reduced, too.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 _talk 23:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More improvements are still required.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): User:LoveFromBJM (Talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list provides a overview of the submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. I look forward to the helpful comments on how to improve it. =] User:LoveFromBJM (Talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Comments by Birdienest81

• News sources whose titles are not italicized (i.e. BBC News, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, etc.) should be moved from the works field to the publishers field since they are not newspapers, books, magazines, etc. DONE:Unitalicized
• I'm not sure if using the film's poster is considered fair use in this context. The director's photo might be more appropriate in this case. DONE:Director's image is used

--More to come soon Birdienest81 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Thank you for your comments, Birdienest81 =]. I will help to resolve it and check whether the image can be used or not. Feel free to leave more comment. User:LoveFromBJM (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Comments by Cowlibob

• Table needs rowscope and colscopes for accessibility.
• Main image needs to be changed as I don't think the film poster will meet fair use. Director's image can replace it. DONE:Director's image is used
• Ensure that all the info in each row is supported by the references. Including language of film, title, original title, director etc.
• PDF refs need page number where the info is found
• Sorting needs fixing in the table. e.g. "A Few..." should be sorted under F not A. "The Circle" should sort under C not T. The and A should be ignored for sorting.
• Director(s) should sort by last name of the director in the table.
• Ref 33 is dead.

--Cowlibob (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Thank you =}, Cowlibob, I will try to resolve it. Do feel free to leave more comment. User:LoveFromBJM (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Comments from Vensatry

• In these kinda lists, alt text should name the subject. DONE:Alt text for lead image is provided

--This is the alternate text for the lead image:"Bespectacled man in a grey suit. This is a photo of Paweł Pawlikowski in 2015.", is it appropriate?

• Timbuktu and Abderrahmane Sissako are linked twice in the lead. DONE:Unlinked
• De-link English language DONE:Unlinked
• Is movie-on.blogspot.co.uk a reliable source? DONE:Removed the source, reused another source from AMPAS
• Major geographic regions shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK.

--Do you mean the links in the lead section or the lists?

• "Three Windows and a Hanging, directed by Isa Qosja," The comma should be replaced by a semi-colon. DONE:Replaced the comma with a semi-colon
• " In May 2014, Nigeria announced that AMPAS had approved the first-ever Nigerian Oscar selection committee and they would make their first Oscar submission; however, they did not submit a film by the deadline" is the latter part covered in the source?
• The table needs row scopes.
• "New York, Los Angeles and (for the first time) London" - Which on are you referring to?
• I'd prefer votes to ballots, as the former is more formal.
• "For the first time, the director's name would be engraved on the Oscar statuette in addition to the country name" - Was it implemented?
• Poland's Ida - Country name is repetitive.
• Per WP:SEEALSO, the section shouldn't contain links that are already covered in the article.
• Why is 'News.az' italicised?
• "OLVIDADOS E YVY MARAEY BUSCAN NOMINACIÓN AL OSCAR Y LOS GOYA" - WP:SHOUT

--But I'm a little bit unsure on how to change the title as I do not know Spanish, I will try to find another source or seek help from user who knows Spanish.

• Publisher of ref #33 (Variety) should be italicised. DONE:Italicised
• Are C7nema and ComingSoon.net 24 reliable sources?
• The 'Academy Awards' template should be removed as it doesn't link to this page.

--—Vensatry _(Talk) 17:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: --LoveFromBJM, are you planning on returning to this nomination? It's almost 2 months old, and has outstanding issues from Vensatry and Cowlibob that you haven't addressed from weeks ago. --PresN 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN Sorry for making any inconvenience, I'm starting to work on the article now. I will try to fix and improve the article within one week. User:LoveFromBJM (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a guy who needs no introduction, Elvis Presley inspired a generation of musicians. His film career began with great promise, but soon became little more than a profit gimmick for both his manager and the studios. The bulk of this list was created by an IP many years ago, but was in need of being brought up to Wikipedia standards, which I believe I have done. Within the lead, I've endeavored to explain how the promise turned to disappointment for Presley. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

Comments from FrB.TG Do you think it's a good idea to have an image of a poster of a film he has starred in? @FrB.TG: Can you explain why this might be in error? — Maile (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] The first paragraph of the lead somehow goes into discussing his singing career when it should discuss only his films. Alternative texts for images shouldn't use wiki-markups like [ ] ' as they do not display any results and remain as is, which does not make any sense at all. Use the subject's full name in the ALT#2. I honestly think that the article has a very very long lead for a career less than 20 years. It discusses his music career way too much when this is not the right place to do so. I find a bit of trivial info in the Notes part (the table) of Feature films, such as "Presley's personal favorite", the adaptation info, and awards and nominations, especially for the films' albums. Any chance you could look at my one? -- Frankie talk 22:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Frankie: I was concerned that the lead was too long. When I started to improve this list, it was an article with 5X the amount of prose, and much, much more trivia in the table. I'll do a rewrite on the lead, and work on getting the trivia out, but it might be a few days before I get to it. Same thing with your nomination. I'll look it over when I get a chance. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Frankie: I've made the edits. Although, I think you can't get away from the singing altogether, since the last theatrical releases and TV broadcasts were concert related. — Maile (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Do you think it's relevant to add the HWoF award? Even though I know this was for his contributions to the industry, it can very well be added to his awards and nominations page. There is a consensus not to include info like Producer, production company, box-office gross and such in an actor's filmography. I am not sure about the directors, but the producers and Studio/Distributor definitely can not be here [12]. Why are the years bold in the Feature films section? I have no idea why those years are in bold. Something odd in the formatting, I think. I'll see if I can figure it out, but in the meantime if you have any ideas, please pass them along. — Maile (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Oh, hooray!, I figured it out and took care of it. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Two irrelevant braces } at the end of of ref 37. -- Frankie talk 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Frankie: I have taken care of everything, I believe, and also re-edited the lead. I think you'll like the lead a lot better now. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Looking better. One final thing: make sure you use {{sort}} for titles that start with 'A' or 'The' so that they are ignored. I know you have already used the template but it is missing in The Trouble With Girls, — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrB.TG (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 November 2015 — Maile (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I should have no problem endorsing the list once the televised interview query is resolved. -- Frankie talk 12:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Interviews removed. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – now that everything has been taken care of, I can gladly endorse it. Good job! -- Frankie _talk 13:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and guidance. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now

• "other cast members" and the TV listings (except for the specials) aren't necessary.
• As for photos, just the Jailhouse Rock publicity shoot will suffice.
• No need for his military service; that belongs in his main article.
• There is nothing on the levels of critical or financial success his films had

What I've check above was taken care of. Per what Frankie linked above, there is a consensus that budget and box office do not belong in a filmography. I've looked through Julia Roberts filmography, Ronald Reagan filmography, Charlie Chaplin filmography, James Cameron filmography, Amy Adams filmography - there doesn't seem to be budget and box office (financial success) in them. I don't see "critical success" in these either, unless you are talking about winning an Oscar. Elvis didn't win awards for his acting. I think what you're asking for here really belongs on the articles for the individual films. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards not withstanding, what I mean is include whether critics liked or didn't like his films. See Madonna filmography for a good example. I should note that the link FrB.TG gave pertains to tables, though, does not say anything against including box office figures in lead's prose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I understand what you mean, but I don't see that in the Featured Lists I've linked above, or in any number of others. I still believe that kind of information belongs in the individual articles for the films, and is otherwise covered in the Focus on movies section of his biography article. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just remove all the TV listings prior to The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis since talk shows and radio shows aren't supposed to be listed in filmography articles (unless hosting them), and this will be good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I am clear on your concerns. You are asking that talk shows and radio shows be removed. Well, there are no radio shows, so that takes care of that. Hy Gardner was a televised interview where Elvis and Gardner were the only people involved, not exactly a talk show, but I think it fits into what you are getting at. The Teenage Dance Party was a local version of American Bandstand. The only clip I've ever seen about that, is where Elvis and Wink are talking about a ring Elvis has donated for auction, and maybe that's all Elvis did there. So, maybe on a technicality that's something you are referring to. The other shows were musical variety shows with Elvis as the entertainment, no interviews involved, same thing as the Frank Sinatra show. Those shows have been out on DVD for a long time. I question whether or not anything but the Hy Gardner and Wink Martindale should be deleted. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Televised interviews and variety shows don't really belong either. What sets the Sinatra show apart from those is that it was a television special. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we get everything in a row, so there is no later question about this. I will delete what you ask, if you can provide links to policy or guidelines that back this up. This being Elvis, I can see later edit wars, maybe even during this process, if there is nothing to substantiate this. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through WP:FILMOGRAPHY, it seems only films, TV shows (with episodes), and TV specials (which include TV films) are included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it might be more prudent to move the article, because we have Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record with "Television: guest appearances of Peter Sellers" (one of which was Steve Allen); Lauren Bacall on screen and stage appearing on 3 episodes of a quiz show and voicing a character on an animated episode; Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record on Toast of the Town, which was the Ed Sullivan show , and a whole slew of variety shows; Ralph Richardson, roles and awards whose credits look to include variety and/or awards shows; David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print appearing on Jack Benny's variety show and an awards show; Stanley Holloway on stage and screen same thing. So, maybe this might work better if I just move the article. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have brought up a valid concern here. For lack of any policy or guideline to substantiate it, I've posted a question on WT: FLC Elvis Presley filmography - TV appearances. — Maile (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With or without variety shows, at least get rid of televised interviews. They're not exactly television credits and pretty much anyone can give an interview when on TV. What makes me inclined to remove them is that simply appearing on such shows doesn't really count as TV roles in the same playing playing/voicing a character on a TV show. Hosting such shows would be different since one is known to be running the show as opposed to just making a guest appearance on public TV. Essentially, "host" is a role, "guest appearance" as oneself on such shows isn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews removed. — Maile (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with all of what FrB.TG says (especially with music career not belonging here). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• Ref 4 has a page range with a p. which should be pp. (the second one in the cite)
• Unwanted quotation mark at the end of ref 17. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the second comment, you'll want to have a period at the end of the cite, for consistency with the other references. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Done. — Maile (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - But you should change Ref(s) → Ref. Thank! TheFame08 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates, take this thread into account if you end up making a decision on this FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for catching. Credibility of account being the question, I've also reverted the change to the list suggested by this editor. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note

Trying to keep this moving along; with the holidays everything around here is slowing to a crawl (happens every year). @SNUGGUMS: are you still opposing this FLC? --PresN 01:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am until the TV listings prior to The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis are removed Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN and SNUGGUMS: My position is stated above with links to FL articles that have such listings in them. I see no reason to remove it for this one FLC when others have been passed without television shows being removed. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF not withstanding, they aren't officially TV credits, at least not in the sense that the other listings are. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has now been open for 2 months without garnering a lot of (valid) support, so in order to keep the nominations queue moving I'm going to have to close it. No prejudice against re-nominating at a later date. --PresN 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination spent 2 months in the FLC queue and only received notice from two editors. One supported it, and the other did not. The process itself was helpful in getting this list into better shape. At the end, I moved the page from Elvis Presley filmography to Elvis Presley on film and television. It is a more appropriate and descriptive title, in keeping with other successful Featured Lists. Also in the process, the editor who did not approve the nomination did so because they believed certain television shows should be removed.

At the end of the day, how much is any editor willing to sacrifice for the possibility of sticking that little gold Feature List star on the front of the article? I felt resolute in my decision in keeping those TV shows on the list. The dissenting editor was insisting on the removal of the Dorsey shows (Stage Show), the Milton Berle shows (Texaco Star Theatre), the Ed Sullivan Shows and the Steve Allen Show. Aside from the fact that there are legitimate precedents on successful Featured Lists for keeping those, these shows were ground-breaking and of historical significance acknowledged by music critics and historians. One lone editor out of the millions on Wikipedia was not enough to make me erase that ground-breaking history as though it never happened. I have restored the two removed at the request of the editor who did approve the nomination, the Hy Gardner Calling exclusive interview with Elvis, and Wink Martindale's Teenage Dance Party. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: I understand your frustration; it's really annoying when a list gets archived just because it didn't get enough attention, rather than because it had problems. It's, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) the biggest problem by far with the featured processes on Wikipedia- that far too often deserving articles/lists just don't get attention from reviewers. The fact of the matter is that there's just not enough reviewers- to break even each nominator would have to review at least 3 lists, and preferably not limit themselves to specific fields; those criteria aren't met by too many nominators, so things fall through the cracks. I'm glad that the process was at least helpful for improving the list, though, even if the end result wasn't ideal.

As far as the editing dispute, only you can say what reviewer changes you want to follow; part of the reason that we have delegates to close nominations instead of just a vote count is because sometimes the nominator disagrees and gets opposed for it, and we have to decide what to do about it- it's not supposed to be that you blindly follow all reviewer commands. Just the other day I closed a review as a pass even though it had an outstanding oppose, because the specific issue left was something that was done at other FLs. At the end of the day, it's "your" list, so you have to decide what you want to do with the reviewer comments. --PresN 01:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, 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.