Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log
This is a log of featured list candidates from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates which failed to reach consensus for promotion as featured lists, with the most recent at the top Discussions about successful nominations are located in the featured log.
Candidacy discussion about failed candidates in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2024.
Full current month log
- 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The list was withdrawn by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was tough. Over 1,800 entries for the Packers all-time roster. For this list, I will note that I weighed two variables higher than I usually do: article size and reliability. I created this roster in the simplest form I could to facilitate ease of updating. No need for 50+ entries to be updated with their tenure, games played, positions, etc. If they played one, game then they get added. As somewhat of a precedent, Outline of lichens provides a good example of a massive list that is primarily just bulleted data, allowing for proper organization/sorting but not providing any additional details on the entries. As always, happy to address any concerns (one note, I have a 2024 holding area on the talk page, if this is a concern and there is a desire for the list to be up-to-date per the most recent game, let me know and I will do it). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment
- What's actually sourcing the list? Is it ref 4? If so, I would make it a "general" ref above the numbered reflist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, done! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Not an official 'review', since I'm not familiar with FLC, but I came up with two points from looking at the list: (i) did 'Earl Smith' (the lone redlink) really play for the Packers? I can't find him at PFR nor PFA; (ii) is it correct to say that Roster sizes have evolved since the early days of the NFL, growing from 18 roster spots in 1921 to the upper 40s by the 2020s.
? The gameday roster is 47/48 active players but overall the 'active roster' can contain 53 if I remember correctly (see Template:Green Bay Packers roster which has 53 active). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- BeanieFan11, great comments. I will admit that Earl Smith (American football) frustrated me. I did some more investigation and realized that he and Mike Merriweather never recorded a game played but are still included in the Packers' all-time roster. If you search on the Packers all-time roster for games played less than 1, those two come up. I will address this with a note and remove them from the main list. I will fix it to say the low 50s and add a note. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd keep Merriweather, as the list says it is for those who have played
at least one regular season or postseason game
– and per PFR he appeared for them in the playoffs. Likewise you could add Keshawn Banks, who appeared in one playoff game last year. I don't see why they have Smith in the all-time roster, though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Added both BeanieFan11. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As you added Merriweather and Banks to the list, you should probably remove Merriweather from note one (
Packers.com includes Earl Smith and Mike Merriweather on their all-time roster, but neither played in a game for the team. As such, they are excluded from this list
). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- *facepalm* thanks BeanieFan11! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As you added Merriweather and Banks to the list, you should probably remove Merriweather from note one (
- Added both BeanieFan11. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd keep Merriweather, as the list says it is for those who have played
Further comment
- Is there an existing "standard" for NFL all-time roster lists? I only ask because if you look at equivalent lists for association football, e.g. List of Arsenal F.C. players, the standard format includes more information i.e. the dates of a player's career, their nationality, their playing position, and their stats, whereas this article is just literally a list of names. Appreciate that stats might not be appropriate in this case given that players are not all measured in the same way and nationality might be excessive as they are/were probably pretty much all American, but would giving the positions and dates not be beneficial to the reader? Just a thought...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, there is no WP:NFL standard that I am aware of. If you look at almost all the team lists (easily looked at List of NFL players), they are a mix of just bare lists all the way to tables. That said, my reasoning on this list was based on accuracy, ease of updating and page size. If you go back and look at all of those lists, none are actually up-to-date. Seeing as this list is currently over 1,800 players and grows by about 30 a year, it just becomes too cumbersome and difficult to update when you have to include years and games. Positions become difficult too, as many early players played like 6 different positions. That will also increase the size of the page exponentially, necessitating splitting it at some point, making navigation and updating even harder. The companion of this list, Lists of Green Bay Packers players, provides easy navigation to the type of tabular lists that provide that information. And per WP:NOTSTATS, if you really want to dive into a searchable statistical database, you probably go elsewhere then Wikipedia (Pro-Football-Reference.com, as an example). Lastly, the criteria say
where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
I think thewhere appropriate
part provides the type of wiggle-room that has led Outline of lichens, for example, to be a FL, and what I am looking for here. I wanted a page that I could conceivably manage each season and maintain a high level of accuracy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Fair enough. I now note that you said pretty much all of that in the nomination statement that I was clearly too lazy to read ;-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahaha no worries! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, I just wanted to note that WikiOriginal-9 has been doing a crazy amount of work on these lists, including creating List of NFL players and all of its sub-articles, as well as overhauling each list, completely separate from my work on this list. They have chosen this standard format for all of the lists they have overhauled, standardizing this across the board. See for example List of New York Giants players (A–Kim). The only difference being my use of a general source for the list, which then removes the need for 1,800 references, helping keep the page size and loading times down. But from a standard layout, including not providing position/year/college data, I think this is now the acceptable format. Does this satisfy your concerns and provide an avenue for you to support the nomination? Thanks for any insight you can provide. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I did check this list as well and totaled the same number of players as Gonzo, so it's 100% accurate. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude just wanted to note that I have added some symbology for the players in the HOF and for players in the GB HOF. Let me know if there is anything I can do to address any concerns you have. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I did check this list as well and totaled the same number of players as Gonzo, so it's 100% accurate. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, I just wanted to note that WikiOriginal-9 has been doing a crazy amount of work on these lists, including creating List of NFL players and all of its sub-articles, as well as overhauling each list, completely separate from my work on this list. They have chosen this standard format for all of the lists they have overhauled, standardizing this across the board. See for example List of New York Giants players (A–Kim). The only difference being my use of a general source for the list, which then removes the need for 1,800 references, helping keep the page size and loading times down. But from a standard layout, including not providing position/year/college data, I think this is now the acceptable format. Does this satisfy your concerns and provide an avenue for you to support the nomination? Thanks for any insight you can provide. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahaha no worries! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I now note that you said pretty much all of that in the nomination statement that I was clearly too lazy to read ;-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, there is no WP:NFL standard that I am aware of. If you look at almost all the team lists (easily looked at List of NFL players), they are a mix of just bare lists all the way to tables. That said, my reasoning on this list was based on accuracy, ease of updating and page size. If you go back and look at all of those lists, none are actually up-to-date. Seeing as this list is currently over 1,800 players and grows by about 30 a year, it just becomes too cumbersome and difficult to update when you have to include years and games. Positions become difficult too, as many early players played like 6 different positions. That will also increase the size of the page exponentially, necessitating splitting it at some point, making navigation and updating even harder. The companion of this list, Lists of Green Bay Packers players, provides easy navigation to the type of tabular lists that provide that information. And per WP:NOTSTATS, if you really want to dive into a searchable statistical database, you probably go elsewhere then Wikipedia (Pro-Football-Reference.com, as an example). Lastly, the criteria say
- @FLC director and delegates: I would like to withdraw this nomination for now. Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:00, 23 October 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2024 (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 withdrawn by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have spent the past few days drafting up an overhaul of the list in my sandbox. I adapted the format from the other FLs in the series particularly the Arizona. I am disclosing upfront my reasoning for nominating this which is I hope to get it passed for the Wikicup. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive by comment: Double check accuracy of 1940. How did Roosevelt win with 43% of the vote, when his opponent had 57% but only 34k votes? Ravendrop 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well its simple, someone incompetent put in the wrong numbers Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "It was initially granted 7 electoral votes,[2] gaining three following the 1910 census" - write both numbers as words
- "to 8 votes in the 1950 census[5] before returning to its original 7 following the 2000 census." - write those numbers as words too
- "was won by Republican candidates Richard Nixon/Henry C. Lodge" - any reason for the slash rather than "and"?
- " decided cast a faithless vote" - the word "to" is missing
- "for Harry F. Byrd/Barry Goldwater" - same comment about the slash
- "While the state initially went back and fourth " - last word is spelt incorrectly
- "etween voting democrat and republican" - capitals on the party names, surely.....?
- Comma needed before "most recently"
- "Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election and the state being Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016" - this is not a grammatically complete sentence
- "Republicans have won the election without carrying the state only twice" - what does "carrying the state" mean?
- "While democrats have won without the state 8 times, most recently Joe Biden in 2020." - this is not a grammatically complete sentence
- also that 8 should be written as a word and Democrats should have a capital D
- "Additionally, a third party did not qualify every single year." - no need for the word "additionally" here
- That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: I think I fixed all of it Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Carrying the state" is still unexplained and the final sentence of the lead is still a fragment rather than a full sentence...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: I replaced carrying with winning and per another editor merged the final two sentences. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One last query - the double dagger in 1920 is bolded - is this intentional and if so, what does it signify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing. It was a mistake Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One last query - the double dagger in 1920 is bolded - is this intentional and if so, what does it signify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: I replaced carrying with winning and per another editor merged the final two sentences. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Carrying the state" is still unexplained and the final sentence of the lead is still a fragment rather than a full sentence...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: I think I fixed all of it Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- The scope for "Winner", "Runner-up" and "Other candidate" should be colgroup.
- Bold text shouldn't be the only way to indicate something. Use a symbol too.
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.!{{anchor|1912}}
becomes!scope=row|{{anchor|1912}}
(on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: Done :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text shouldn't be the only way to indicate something. Use a symbol too.
On second thought, this is not needed. The winners (in the state) are already in the "winner" colgroup and so don't need the extra symbol to differentiate them. My fault for not noticing. Sorry about that.- I'm also noticing a cs1 error for the wsj 2016 ref. Please fix. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So I fixed the first thing. Secondly is the issue also in WSJ 2012? Because the two citations look identical besides the title and dates. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: Done :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alavense
- I would merge the last two sentences, because that While at the beginning of the last one feels a bit odd.
- For purposes of these lists - Even though there may be other lists for other states, we only have one list in hand here, so I'd say something along the lines of "For the purpose of this list".
- At the beginning of the second paragraph, "1960 election" should be in blue and not only 1960.
- The state later passed a law that would invalidate any votes cast - I don't think I understand that. So is any vote cast invalidated? Or only those by faithless electors?
- Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election, additionally the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016 - The way this is written, I feel the sentence would read more naturally without the "additionally".
That's what I saw, OlifanofmrTennant. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Adressed most of the comments, for the fourth point: you've taken a portion of the sentence and not the full one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. But the sentence didn't make sense. It does now, though, because of the change ChrisTheDude made. Is that what you meant originally? Alavense (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election; the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016. - That sentence still doesn't quite work. Either you exchange the semicolon for a comma or you say "Republicans have won every single county". Alavense (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just gonna send a ping to see if all of @Alavense's concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Poking @Alavense once again. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't see the first ping. I'm afraid I'm in no position to support yet. I feel as if the text could still be worked on a little bit more. For example, when reading the first paragraph out loud, you'll find out that it's a constant "census ... census ... census ... census". Same about While the state initially went back and forth between voting Democrat and Republican, more recently the state has been considered a safe red state, which has too many "states". Alavense (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense: I addressed the second concern but the first one kinda has to be that way since its discussing results of the census. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense: Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I feel the article is not up to the standard yet with regard to how it's written. I don't really know how I can help here, but I'm afraid I cannot support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense: Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense: I addressed the second concern but the first one kinda has to be that way since its discussing results of the census. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't see the first ping. I'm afraid I'm in no position to support yet. I feel as if the text could still be worked on a little bit more. For example, when reading the first paragraph out loud, you'll find out that it's a constant "census ... census ... census ... census". Same about While the state initially went back and forth between voting Democrat and Republican, more recently the state has been considered a safe red state, which has too many "states". Alavense (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Poking @Alavense once again. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just gonna send a ping to see if all of @Alavense's concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose from Kavyansh
Always a pleasure to see that this series is being continued on the format I set some 3 years ago!
- What is Oklahoma? Ofcouse it is a state but I don't expect a non-American to know it, or to know what are we focusing on trends of a state. The first introductory sentence should be like "Oklahoma is a state in __ part of the Southern/Central United States", like the first sentence here.
- "Since it first joined the United States in 1907," : How many times has Oklahoma joined the United States?
- "electoral votes, gaining" --> "electoral votes, but/and gained"
- "it was given an additional vote in the 1930 census" --> "it was given an additional electoral vote following the 1930 census"
- On another note, why are we so much inclined to list all the changes in its electoral vote count? These lists are to analyze the results of elections every 4 years in these states. I think all we should be specifying should be the current electoral vote count (as of 2024).
- "In the 1960 election the state was won by Republican candidates Richard Nixon and Henry C. Lodge" --> Can just say Republican ticket lead by Nixon. Why mention Lodge?
- "votes cast by and issue fines to faithless electors" --> "votes cast by faithless electors, in addition to issuing fines to"
- "While initially Oklahoma went back and forth between voting Democrat and Republican, more recently it has been considered a safe red state." - What is "initially", what is "more recently". It is always better to provide years, if not decades (like since 70s, its a safe red state)
- "Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election, the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016." --> This sentence simply doesn't work for me. It state two arbitary facts and tries to combine then in attempt to get a link between both, which doesn't happen. Split and state both things as separate facts. And why does it matter if it is the third largest margin of victory for a particular candidate. We are writing this becuase contemporary media articles have stated this. Did we conduct a thorough research (which I admit, as wikipedians, we are not responsible of doing. We are not historians) whether Oklahoma had third or second or fourth largest margin of victory for Bush 92' or Nixon 68' or not? I don't know, neither do I expect anyone to know, but whats the point of writing it was for Trump in '16 if there is no conclusion we can draw from it?
- "Democrats have won without the state eight times, the most recent example being Joe Biden in 2020." : Whats the importance of giving most recent example when it has happened 8 times?
- "Note – Percentages may not total 100.0% because of rounding." Not just because of rounding, also somethimes there are some 0.02 or 0.07 percentage of votes to a fourth candidate not in the table. I don't think we need to justify this, it is pretty obvious. I'd suggest removing this, but I won't oppose just on this.
Im sorry but I am leaning to oppose due to the prose and anaylsis part. The table is fine; in fact it looks perfect. The references need a bit of formatting changes. The is missing in NYT, WSJ, etc. I rarely oppose, especially here at FLC. I have to oppose becuase this is a "short and sweet" article, we have nothing more to give to a reader than the table and formatting. So there is no reason why it should be a FL unless it has a strong interesting lead, alongside solid references and sources. This has scope for improvement, but that would happen if the entire prose part is re-written. I am willing to help if you wish. As the things stand, this unfortunately does not "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". Let me know if you need any help, I am willing to remove the oppose if substancial changes are made.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for your comments. Unfourtnetly I saw your comments as I was withdrawing this nomination while I rework the lead. I'll defently take your notes under consideration. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou @OlifanofmrTennant, that is a very kind thing to do. The list has potential to be a FL, feel free to leave a message at my talk whenever (if) you need any help reagrding this list or any other similar list, and I'll be more than willing to help. p.s. you'll need to inform one of the FLC coordinators that you are withdrawing this nomination to prepare it off FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw
Due to substantail prose issues noted by multiple reviewers I wish to withdraw this nomination and both rewrite the lead myself as well as requesting a copy edit at the GOCE. @Hey man im josh: I saw you commented twice so maybe you wish to do the formal closureQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries @OlifanofmrTennant, I hope you come back with this again sometime or another nomination.
- 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.