Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2014

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Failed 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 archived by Crisco 1492 13:29, 27 October 2014 [1].

Nick Drake discography edit

Nominator(s): --Idiotchalk (t@lk) 11:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... after a substantial amount of work a little under two years ago, and some further work recently, I feel it meets the Featured list criteria. --Idiotchalk (t@lk) 11:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 'Promotional singles' should have sources indicating that's what they are (probably just one of the sources from the Northern Sky and Pink Moon articles, plus something for Plaisir D'Amour.)
Done. --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
  • "Plaisir D'Amour" should probably follow French capitalisation conventions (Plaisir d'amour), unless there's a good reason otherwise.
It's capitalised on the single, but you're right, it should follow conventions. Linked to the article also. --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
  • 'Certifications' and 'UK: Gold' in the compilations section don't need to be linked since they were already linked in the 'Studio albums' section.
Done. --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
Yeah, I can understand it might be confusing to people. Replaced "CS" with "cassette". --Idiotchalk (t@lk)
  • iTunes tells me that most of these have been released as digital downloads as well, a format that's not currently being listed. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Idiotchalk (t@lk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll support the nomination. Best of luck! --Prosperosity (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 09:26, 25 October 2014 [2].

Melon edit

Nominator(s): Waitak (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this article in 2011. Since then, the article has continued to develop. I feel that, at this point, the article and, in particular, the references are of sufficient merit to consider the article as a featured list. Waitak (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest quick-fail The article has little real content and yet even then some of it is unsourced. There must be much more to say about melons that this. I suggest you try to get it to the level of coverage and prose standard of Lettuce which is a featured article, rather than rely on a patchy bulleted list to get this through FLC. It gives me no pleasure to say that this is nowhere near the standards to be expected of Wikipedia's finest work. BencherliteTalk 23:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—I'll give you a quick source review to help you on your way towards further development of this article. The biggest issue is one of consistency. At the featured level, consistency in formatting is important, and with citations, it stands out quickly when things aren't consistent.

  • The first consistency issue relates to how author names are rendered.
    • Now not every source gives full first names for authors, so you will have occasions where some references only have initials while the rest have full first names. Some authors use their full middle names, while others abbreviate to an initial and others omit any reference to a middle name. These variations are appropriate, and expected. Editors can shorten all author names to first and middle initials to overcome this, or the variation can stand.
    • However, our articles should be consistent about whether or not they are using "First (Middle) Last" or "Last, First (Middle)" order. This article employs both, and in the case of the second general reference, it uses both in the same reference.
  • Articles should be consistent in what punctuation separates authors. It appears this article is using the Citation Style 1 (CS1) family of templates, which normally separates authors with semicolons, unless the last author is preceded by an ampersand (&) using |lastauthoramp=yes.
  • Edition numbers should be rendered in the same way across multiple footnotes. This article has some that are spelled-out ordinals (second) and one that is a cardinal number (3). Normally these are rendered as ordinal numbers (2rd, 3rd).
    • In cases where the edition is not numbered, but a description, like "Easyread Large Edition" in footnote 21, this should be moved from the title parameter in the template to |edition= so that it is not rendered in italics, and it is rendered with "ed.".
  • Titles are not consistently formatted in terms of capitalization. Wikipedia allows both title case and sentence case. The former is where the first word, the last word, every noun/pronoun/adjective/verb, and every preposition of five or more letters is capitalized. The latter only capitalizes the first word and proper nouns. In both cases, the first work of a subtitle should also be capitalized. Based on MOS:CT, our MOS would seem to prefer title case for the titles of compositions, but this has not been strictly enforced on titles in citations.

    In any event, this article should pick one format and stick with it throughout all of the citations.

  • The character that separates a title from a subtitle is normally given using a colon. Footnote 14 does so, but FN15 uses a hyphen. The first general reference is using a period for this function.
  • I have the full set of citation error messages enabled. This article is defining an |accessdate= for sources not accessed online, which flags an error message for me. If the source does not have a |url= defined, it doesn't need an access date.
  • Several featured articles/lists mix shortened (Harvard) citations with long-form citations in the footnotes. This is fine, and I've done it myself several times. However, when citations are shortened because they keep referencing the same source, normally we shorten all of those citations, and list the full citation in list below the footnotes. Some style guides for print sources (Chicago) will run the first citation to a source and shorten after first usage, but we're not a print publication. Our footnotes can change order and repeat, so our practices can be a little different.
  • Several citations to books omit the place of publication, yet one includes it. Pick one method and stick to it. (I would suggest including the place of publication over omitting it; it almost never hurts to give a reader a little more information to find a source than less.)
  • A couple of citations link publisher names on first usage, and others do not. It's fine to link publishers or publication names, and this should only be done on the first usage to avoid WP:OVERLINKing. If you're going to link, then link, if not, don't.
  • Some book citations have ISBNs, and some none. I would suggest finding identification numbers for as many print sources as possible, whether that is an ISBN, OCLC, etc.

Now for more specific issues:

  • The wikinlinks in footnotes 3, 4 and 23–25 do not link to anything. Also, I don't think it's normal to use "et al." to omit a second author. If we do use that phrase, it is not italicized.
    • There is a quick way to fix the linking problem. Copy the full citation into a "Works cited" section, or make a bulleted list under the {{reflist}}. Add |ref=harv to that citation. Then use {{harvnb}} with the author names, publication year
  • The name of the journal in footnote 10 (Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ) is meaningless to non-specialists. We have guidelines that say it should be spelled out in full. Also, you should add |format=PDF to let readers know it is a PDF file. Not all readers can see the PDF icon. I also think if there are species names present that would be italicized in the prose, they should be italicized in the article title.
  • I'm not one for using general references. Given that Bencherlite has commented above that more citations are needed, I would take these general references and apply them wherever they apply as a start to get more footnotes in place.

I hope this helps. Imzadi 1979 → 07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the in-depth comments. They're very helpful. I'm not sure what the process is for withdrawing a nomination, but I'd like to do so for now and work on the article more before resubmitting it. The article was started as "List of melons", and subsequently renamed to "Melon". I hadn't been considering it as the definitive article on the topic for that reason, and clearly should have. Thanks again for the comments. I'll get to work. Waitak (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a source for "some varieties may be considered vegetables rather than fruits". I don't disagree that some of the plants currently on the list are considered vegetables (e.g. Momordica), but I don't agree that the culinary vegetables fall under any normal definition of "melon". "Melons" are culinary fruits, and Momordica is (per Google hits) just as often referred to as "bitter gourd" as it is "bitter melon". If the melon article is to be a list of every cucurbit with a common name that includes the term "melon", regardless of culinary use, then Praecitrullus ("round melon", "squash melon"), Cucurbita palmata ("coyote melon"), and Cucurbita ficifolia ("seven year melon") could be added. Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 09:13, 25 October 2014 [3].

Angela Aki discography edit

Nominator(s): Prosperosity (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page passes the criteria for a featured list. It was originally nominated a few months ago and even though everything was fixed up, not enough people commented for it to pass. Here's hoping for this time! Prosperosity (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly, it doesn't seem like this is drawing any comments - even after almost two months. Thus, I must sadly archive it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 09:13, 25 October 2014 [4].

List of finalists of The Voice Kids (Philippines season 1) edit

Nominator(s): -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the finalists of the The Voice Kids (Philippines season 1), I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is eligible for being classified as a featured list because it meets the criteria. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FLC delegates. The nominator of this PapaJeckloy has been blocked as a serial sock puppeteer (creating accounts to approve GAs and DYKs, etc...) and won't be back here any time so (AKA an indef block) - NickGibson3900 Talk 01:30, 10 October 2014 (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 15:47, 22 October 2014 [5].

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts edit

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally expanded it to mirror other featured lists on Wikipedia in a similar category. I am going to finish off the intro within the day as well as adding a description on what the acronyms mean. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that MA's university-level education is among the top in the US, possibly only behind CA's. Can't you find some discussion on that? Also, if I am not wrong, the enrolled-per-capita is also among the highest. I was surprised to see that the intro discusses almost all category types, except the most prestigious one - the research universities. You should fix that. Also wasn't there some top100 or so universities which featured several of MA's? I can't take very seriously a list which doesn't even mention MIT in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're going to have to search for those for me, as I have never heard of any of that information before and I haven't been able to find it anywhere. I have also copied the intro style from the D.C. list, which is a Featured article in its own right, and I don't want to make this a long intro in the name of listing most groups. Besides, there are only four research universities, all of which except for MIT are already mentioned in the intro. In terms of the US News and World Report, I am not comfortable adding in something like that, since there are many different ratings that go on with colleges, and many of them place these same colleges all over the place. One example of this is where they place Princeton in the top, whereas Washington Monthly places it at 27th. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me try to repeat what I said: MIT is ranged among top 5 in the world by essentially any ranking (see Academic Ranking of World Universities) so not even mentioning this entry, and not mentioning that Harvard is either 1 or 2, is quite a humongous oversight for an intro that is intended for featured status. There is a ton of trivia in the lead that is much less interesting or relevant than this. Nergaal (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I have added it under the fact that it was once a state university before it went private. If anyone else rejects to the lack of rankings there, then I'll go ahead and add them, but I would like to see the opinions of others before I go ahead and add in rankings. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hmm, looks very similar to another one of these lists that I reviewed. That's a good thing!
  • In the table, Wheelock College is the only row that has the type as just Master's, instead of Master's university
  • The Defunct university lead... just kind of trails off in the middle of a sentence
  • The "closed" column in Defunct universities for Andover Junior College sorts wrong- it's sorting under "c", not "1979".
  • The control column in Defunct universities for Southern New England School of Law is off-center
  • Actually, why is the rest of this column centered? The control column in the first table isn't
  • Why does the founded column in Defunct universities for Vesper George School of Art say unknown, instead of —?
  • If List of defunct colleges and universities in Massachusetts exists, why is it not under a {{main}} tag in the defunct section, why are you duplicating that list here, and why don't these two tables match? Personally, I'd merge the two lists (aka redirect that one to here).
  • Both "For-profit" and "Private" are redirecting in your tables, and neither is pointing to an article about for-profit/private universities.
  • Simmons, Springfield, and Regis College, as well as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, are redirecting to alternate spellings/disambig markers.
  • Your tables have col scopes, but not row scopes.
  • I agree with Nergaal- it's odd that you mention that Harvard and MIT are the largest schools, but not that they are highly ranked internationally.
  • The publisher for ref 127 should be Westminster College, not Ray Brown
  • Although certainly not required, if this review was helpful, consider reviewing List of Sega video game consoles further up on the FLC page.
  • --PresN 22:08, 17 October 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 09:53, 19 October 2014 [6].

List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan edit

Nominator(s): FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because following the peer review and c/e it has significantly improved especially with the peer. After a hard work I think that it meets the featured list criteria. Thanks, --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – When your current FLC hasn't gained "substantial support", you shouldn't have added another one. Suggest the nominator to withdraw this candidate. —Vensatry (ping) 17:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even I thought so until this edit was made. Thanks, --FrankBoy (Buzz) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinions vary with editors. I don't have a final say here. So wait for others to comment —Vensatry (ping) 17:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments here and everywhere :) --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support if you change ref. no# 16 because the reference has nothing to do with Vidya's award.--78.26.1.16 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate's Comment: Sadly, this doesn't appear to be on its way to gaining a consensus either way. I'm archiving this nomination. If you decide to renominate, I recommend trying to review a couple other lists, and noting in your review that you also have an open nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 09:53, 19 October 2014 [7].

List of Russian saints (until 15th century) edit

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of a list of Russian saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church who died at most sometime in the 15th century. Due to size reason I decided to create two separate lists. The second part will feature saints from the 15th century on. Seems to meet the criteria. Tomcat (7) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the name of the list is wrong. For example, not even the precursor to the Russian culture/society existed when the first entry lived. Maybe "List of saints by the Russian Orthodox Church"? Nergaal (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of the lead states "most of which are Russians in the most different sense, while others are essential and important people in the Russian history". "List of saints by the Russian Orthodox Church" would be odd as they are not saints only in the local church; better would be "List of saints in the Russian Orthodox Church", but that name is not really ideal. --Tomcat (7) 15:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The latter name is much better than the current one. Nergaal (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have to add every saint canonized by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in pre-Schisma era (for example Old Testament prophets or the Church Fathers); this would be unneeded work as they are self-evident saints, honoured by the West and the East.--Tomcat (7) 10:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate's Comment: Sadly, this doesn't appear to be on its way to gaining a consensus either way. I'm archiving this nomination. If you decide to renominate, I recommend trying to review a couple other lists, and noting in your review that you also have an open nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 09:53, 19 October 2014 [8].

List of Twenty20 International records edit

Nominator(s): Blackhole78 talk | contrib 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. The issues raised in the previous FL nomination are resolved, with references being properly cited, records being regularly updated, tables being consistently formatted, etc.

The explosion of Twenty20 cricket in recent years has irreversibly changed the cricketing landscape, and thus it is important to document the various records and achievements in this format. Blackhole78 talk | contrib 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate's Comment: Sadly, this doesn't appear to be on its way to gaining a consensus either way. I'm archiving this nomination. If you decide to renominate, I recommend trying to review a couple other lists, and noting in your review that you also have an open nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (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 12:14, 15 October 2014 [9].

List of awards and nominations received by Boston Legal edit

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 23:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, having worked on it for a while now, I feel it is ready for FLC. There is only one problem, I have not been able to find sources for the Satellite Awards, yet I don't think I will be able to find them, so, in the hopes that you will be able to help me fix this I am nominating this list, as I believe the rest of it is of good enough quality.--Music26/11 23:44, 18 August 2014 (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 12:14, 15 October 2014 [10].

Ed, Edd n Eddy specials edit

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 15:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While too short for a FA nomination, I feel that the content given is reliably sourced, well-written and properly formatted; franky, that it meets the FL criteria. Khanassassin ☪ 15:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 3.b I was quite curious about this topic but when I opened the article got disappointed. 4 items do not make a FL, and you could easily have a simple para in the episodes list detaining the extra info here. If you really want to go with a separate article, then I strongly suggest to make this a GA/FA with little or no tables at all. You can have a common Dev section, Rec, etc, and perhaps separate Plot sections. Nergaal (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3.b. This could theoretically be worked up to, at least, a GA article. It doesn't make sense as a stand-alone list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2014 (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 20:42, 14 October 2014 [11].

List of ant subfamilies edit

Nominator(s): jonkerz ♠talk 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first nomination, with the list being written by myself, and the intro section, 'Clades' and 'History of classification' consisting of 95% [attributed] Creative Commons-licensed content from Ward, Philip S. (2007), "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)." (PDF), Zootaxa, 1668: 549–563.

In my opinion, the list meets the criteria; but it's worth mentioning that 1) English is not my native language, and 2) the previous dorylomorph subfamilies (Aenictinae, Aenictogitoninae, Cerapachyinae, Ecitoninae and Leptanilloidinae) were recently synonymized under Dorylinae by Brady et al. (2014).

While not very obvious, Ward's 2007 article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. From the website of Magnolia Press (mapress.com), the original publisher of Zootaxa: "All open access papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." (see [12]). Now, not all Zootaxa articles are open access (most are not), and the licenses are not mentioned in the PDFs. To confirm that this article is open access, you need to find the article listed on MP's website: search for "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants" in the list of Hymenoptera-related articles, and you find that it says "open access" in the description.

Most refs are available online in one way or another; let me know if you need help finding any particular reference. Much appreciated, jonkerz ♠talk 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick Comment I would link the captions of the photographs to the species page, especially if it's not linked already in the description. Looks like a good list! Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mattximus: Thanks! My internet connection is very unstable at the moment, but I'll link the species as soon as possible, it makes a lot of sense. jonkerz ♠talk 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • Why list the number of extant genera as "N/A" rather than "0"?
  • You should link the species names in the image captions (even if they will be redlinks)
  • I think it may be worth mentioning that there are some taxa which are incertae sedis. I'm not sure if it belongs in the table, but it certainly belongs somewhere in the article.
    • Added two sentences about the incertae sedis genera to the 'History of classification' section. jonkerz ♠talk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the navigational list in the lead, surely incertae sedis should be at the bottom? Also, why do you list Formiciinae under "others" rather than on its own?
  • "In Bayesian analyses of multi-gene data sets Leptanillinae is sister to all other ants, while the poneroids form a clade that is sister to the formicoids, but this result appears to be confounded by data artifacts including long-branch attraction between Leptanillinae and other aculeate outgroups. It does not have statistically stronger support than alternatives in which the ant root lies within the poneroids or on the bipartition separating formicoids from other ants." This is a little jargony- I couldn't easily follow.
    • I've shortened the sentence to make it more readable. jonkerz ♠talk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be difficult (I assume AntWeb and other databases would be helpful) but how would you feel about including a "synonyms" column?
    • Sourcing (without using 100 different sources) may be a problem, and one subfamily with tons of synonyms may make the list look messy with little apparent gain. I'll make some research. jonkerz ♠talk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've given it some thought and came to the conclusion that it's better to not include all synonyms in the table, but only mention recent or well-known synonyms in the comment cell. For example, Brady et al. (2014) created at least 10 new synonyms of Dorylinae (Acanthostichini, Aenictinae, Aenictogitoninae, Cerapachyinae (Eusphinctinae and Lioponerini), Cheliomyrmecini, Cylindromyrmecini, Ecitoninae, Leptanilloidinae), but not all of them are noteworthy. jonkerz ♠talk 17:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the apparent lack of a metapleural gland in Armaniinae fossils could be due to preservation bias" "Preservation bias" is unexplained jargon (and, unless it doesn't mean "bias" in the typical sense, I'm not sure how a bias could result in an ant not having a particular gland)
    • Changed to "poorer preservation". jonkerz ♠talk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of changes; please check them! Good luck- it may be worth contacting some WikiProjects to bring insect specialists to this review, as I suspect not many of them will watch the FLC page. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and edits, J Milburn. I've made some changes to the list, more to come. WP:INSECTS has already been notified. jonkerz ♠talk 20:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I have updated the article and addressed all comments. jonkerz ♠talk 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • This is a very nice list, though I feel like a need a shower after looking at all those ant pictures
  • You don't link either taxa or genera, which is a bit strange since you're willing to link family and order
  • In the Aneuretinae row of the table, you say there's 8 fossil genera and then state there's 7.
  • In the Dorylinae row, you put both notes in the fossil genera column, but it seems that both notes are about an extant genera, not a fossil one- though they could be, you never state what the fossil genera is. If either of the notes are about a fossil genera, please state it in the note, and if they're about extant ones, move them to that column
    • The notes are referring the the fossil genera; I've updated the notes to make it clearer. jonkerz ♠talk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formiciinae row: "With queens the size of a rufous hummingbird" - that's... an oddly specific comparison between an extinct ant and a modern bird. Is that the comparison made in the source, or is there some other reason you didn't just say 3 inches long?
    • It is from the source. The comparison makes more sense with this photo, showing a Titanomyrma lubei with rufous hummingbird for scale. Do you think this needs changing? jonkerz ♠talk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I can tell from context that you put a dagger in front of any group that is composed solely of fossil species, but you never actually state that anywhere. You should do so.
    • Added a legend to the top of the list. jonkerz ♠talk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sidebar, you have sources cited for... one subclade and one subfamily. And those sources appear to both be 2 of the 3 listed at the bottom of the box. Why are those special?
    • Removed inline citations to avoid confusion. jonkerz ♠talk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular reason you've chosen to stick notes on their own line in a cell instead of just leaving them next to the item like references?
    • "note 1" is too long to fit on the same line without messing up the layout. Adding the notes on their own lines makes sure that the number of species is still centered. This is what is looks like with lower case latin letters; maybe it is better? jonkerz ♠talk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Type Genus column isn't sorting correctly- Formicium is getting sorted to the end. Appears you're missing a sort template for that one.
  • Fossil Genera column isn't sorting correctly; same row
  • The publisher for refs 16-18, 24 is AntCat, not "An online catalog of the ants of the world".
  • For ref 26, you don't need to list both work and publisher like that if they're identical and there's not another work by that publisher; in this case just list the publisher as AntWeb and leave out work.
  • Redirecting links are unavoidable for tree of life articles, given the constant merging and splitting of articles, but ones of note that aren't just redirecting to scientific terms or moving up/down the tree- Subfamilies in the lead, Carl Linnaeus in the table and the history section (but not the refs), and Harvester ants in the table
--PresN 18:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, PresN, much appreciated. I have addressed all comments. jonkerz ♠talk 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support. For the notes, I prefer the 'letter' method, but if you want to leave it as it is that's fine. --PresN 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've changed the style of the notes to "lower-alpha". jonkerz ♠talk 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written article, very nice layout and well referenced. I did not spot any major problems, or any problem infact. It's an article/list worth featuring! Burklemore1 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose From WP:Close paraphrasing: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words".
Source: "With more than 12,000 described species (Bolton et al. 2006) and many others awaiting description, ants are the most species-rich of all social insects."
Article: "Ants ... are the most species-rich of all social insects, with more than 12,000 described species and many others awaiting description."
Source: "They have come to occupy virtually all major terrestrial habitats, with the exception of tundra and cold ever-wet forests."
Article: "Ants have come to occupy virtually all major terrestrial habitats, with the exception of tundra and cold ever-wet forests."
Source: "They display a remarkable range of social behaviors, foraging habits and associations with other organisms (Hölldobler & Wilson 1990), which has generated intense scientific and public interest."
Article: "They display a wide range of social behaviors, foraging habits and associations with other organisms, which has generated intense scientific and public interest."
This is just from the lead paragraph. I think the article needs to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to ensure there aren't any other similar examples of close paraphrasing. Sasata (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata: Thank you for taking a look at this. First of all, per Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Public_domain_or_free_use_content, this is not a WP:COPYVIO issue since the content is attributed (please see the first paragraph of this nomination: "This is my first nomination, with the list being written by myself, and the intro section, 'Clades' and 'History of classification' consisting of 95% [attributed] Creative Commons-licensed content from Ward, Philip S. (2007) ... ", and note the template at the bottom of the article: "This article incorporates text from a scholarly publication published under a copyright license that ... "). Now, one could argue that basing a WP article on single source is problematic; this is of course true, but I do not think that is an issue here. The relevant sections are not very controversial and I have added a couple of references to take into account new findings. Also, the original article published in Zootaxa has been peer-reviewed and was written by a respected entomologist, Philip S. Ward of the Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis. jonkerz ♠talk 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not indicate in my oppose that there was any issue with copyvio, or with largely using a single source. I don't think a featured article should copy so closely a source (even if it is free use content) when it it not particularly difficult to rewrite in one's own words. I see now that the featured list criteria do not make any specific mention of close paraphrasing, so perhaps that is accepted custom here? If so, the closing delegate can ignore my oppose. Sasata (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm crossing out my oppose. The template at the bottom of the page (didn't make it that far down on first read) provides sufficient attribution according to policy. Sasata (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment

  • I'm also a little concerned by some of this close paraphrasing. Just because a document says you can use it however you wish, it does not give carte blanche for a straight copy without direct attribution through the use of quotation marks and in line citations. I suggest a close re-write that makes much of the text more original, and that anything that is a direct quote is properly attributed as such.
According to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Public domain or free use content, properly attributed content may be used in this way: " ... or may include more general attribution that indicates the material originates from a free source, either as part of an inline citation or as a general notice in the article's 'References' section". jonkerz ♠talk 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable in signing off something so closely paraphrased from one source, but somewhat surprisingly it appears to be within the rules, although I disagree with them deeply. However, there is an issue here with the licence here. Please see User talk:Moonriddengirl#Close paraphrasing from PD source for the issue, which will need to be sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, as required by the license (see this diff for the admittedly an ugly workaround). I think it meets the licensing requirements, but I'll ask on Template talk:OA-attribution#License compliance to find out for sure. jonkerz ♠talk 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also suggest using a few other sources to soften the 95% single-source problem, which will also help the issue above. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of additional references, and like I mentioned in another comment, the content was peer-reviewed before it was published in Zootaxa. What is important is that the material is verifiable and referenced to reliable sources, which I believe it is. jonkerz ♠talk 16:39, 5 October 2014 (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. Aside from the above comments, which should be cleared up through the OA attribution thread if they have not already, after two and a half months there just isn't enough of a consensus to promote, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 13:13, 14 October 2014 [13].

Mac DeMarco discography edit

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I first created this discography five months ago and have been working on it since, because I appreciate DeMarco's work very much and think having a comprehensive list of releases on a widely-read encyclopedia such as Wikipedia would be very beneficial to both fans and people who have never listened to his music, but are interested in him. Before becoming successful under his real name, Mac DeMarco, with his 2012 releases Rock and Roll Night Club and 2 and, this year, Salad Days, he released quite a bit of material under the name Makeout Videotape, which is not very well-known but still good and should be of interest of people who like his newer music. I would be grateful for any helpful comments. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having the sources for albums next to their release dates is a little tidier.
Done. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these releases should definitely have articles, such as Ying Yang and the notable EPs. It's very bizarre having a disography page where one of the albums doesn't have a page.
I've started an article for Ying Yang and linked it, but haven't yet made one for any of the early EPs because I wasn't even sure Ying Yang was notable enough to warrant an article. I'll create articles for them if you're sure they need ones, though. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel Top Heatseekers is slightly inappropriate to be in the table, since he can only appear once as his next album made it on to the top 200 (i.e. there's only one possible data point and everything else will be — by definition). I'm all fine with it being in the prose like you have already, though. What are your opinions? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't know that. I've removed it from the table but kept it in the lead. Thank you for your comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll give my support for FL. Good luck! --Prosperosity (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Littlecarmen (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 13:13, 14 October 2014 [14].

List of municipalities in Yukon edit

Nominators: Mattximus (talk) and Hwy43 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

We are endeavouring to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted List of municipalities in Manitoba, List of municipalities in Saskatchewan, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Alberta and List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 5 nominations into account. We are hoping to eventually reach featured topic when all lists have been promoted. Our project is currently 5/13 complete, hoping to make it 6 with this very short nomination. Thank you for your input! Mattximus (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is below municipalities? At only 8 items this list could be reworded as an actual article. Nergaal (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it could be reworded, I think it is best as a table. This will allow a complete featured topic with the list from all provinces and territories (and not all provinces and territories, except for Yukon). Also having the table gives readers an easy way to sort and compare all the values in each column, which would be lost if it were converted to text. It also allows comparisons between provinces and territories as they all share a standardized format. I'm not sure what you mean by "what is below municipalities". It is the lowest administrative division of the territory, so nothing is below. Mattximus (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inserting late answer: In Yukon, a "local advisory area" (e.g. hamlet) is the administrative division below a municipality. maclean (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about a map like File:Manitoba_municipalities.png? Nergaal (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map you see on the right is actually that. The map shows all of the municipalities. It could not look different. There is not much up there. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the borders. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I understood. Those are the borders, they are so small that they are within the circles that are for towns and cities. There are no large land areas under municipal control like other provinces. Mattximus (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. When comprising a mere 0.2% of the territory's land mass, using areas rather than points will be ineffective. The map in question is consistent with maps for urban municipalities in other provinces and territories (i.e., File:Manitoba urban municipalities.png, File:Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities.png, File:Alberta's Urban Municipalities.png, File:Northwest Territories municipalities.png, and File:Nunavut municipalities.png). Hwy43 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That answers my question then. What is there in the remaining 99 percent? Nergaal (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, pardon the late reply. Mattximus is on holidays and I forgot to monitor this more closely in his absence.
Unorganized Yukon covers 98% of the territory. The remaining 1% comprises a couple other much smaller unorganized areas and numerous small communities that are not recognized as municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I understand what is happening. I believe then that this is a wp:FORK issue since List of communities in Yukon would be a perfectly suitable FL, which would not have any problems in terms of length. When it will come to FTing this, you can use the communities list instead of a municipalities (probably for all territories). Nergaal (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the speedy keep outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities in British Columbia. "Municipalities" are incorporated communities. "Communities" are inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated communities. Having unincorporated communities in Yukon's FL would be inconsistent with the other provinces and territories (Northwest Territories passed) within the topic, and outside the scope of {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}.
Further, info on various unincorporated community types is less readily available than incorporated municipality types. Sections on the different unincorporated community types will not reach the same standard as the municipality type sections in this candidate, and there would be content gaps within the table (or equivalent tables). Essentially, the {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} topic does not lend itself to be FL-worthy.
As the inclusion parameters between the "municipalities" and "communities" topics are sufficiently different, and per WP:NOTPAPER, I respectfully disagree this is a WP:CONTENTFORK issue (which I believe you were intending rather than WP:FORK). Hwy43 (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this particular FLC should be 100% independent of what a topic should look like or it should be. That is a completely separate discussion at FTC. From my long experience there, I have seen quite a few topics where the overlap of the article with the topic is only part of that article. Secondly, hypothetically, if List of communities in Yukon would be a FL, what would it not contain that this list does now? I can't see anything that would not be 100% included there. Furthermore, the scope of that article is significantly smaller than the municipalities of states like Quebec or Ontario, so it would require a major amount of work. And the difference with the AfD is that that list is much more massive than for YK, so forking it into a separate municipalities list is perfectly ok. Nergaal (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at an acceptable fork of an FL at List of Academy Award-winning foreign-language films. Because of the size of a particular part of the list, that was almost completely taken out so I anticipate a similar pattern for the BC communities list. An example of unacceptable cfork is List of universities in Canada which used to be split in some 6 separate mini-FLs. All those were removed and merged into the reasonably-sized main article. The main article in this case is List of communities in Yukon. Nergaal (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm on vacation for the next few days but I'm having trouble understanding your argument. Are you saying that the article which has a completely different inclusion criteria, but is a set that contains the set of the article we are nominating, should be the only one of the two permitted to allowed to reach featured status, despite the consensus mentioned above (which was debated twice, both times resulting in the agreement to keep both lists, and the policy WP:NOTPAPER. What you are arguing is an arbitrary level which includes subsets that are also arbitrary. I'll explain. This set that is nominated, contains sets of all cities in Yukon, and all towns and villages in Yukon. What you want to nominate is a list which contains all communities, cities, and towns and villages. But why stop there? Why not all settlements in Yukon and communities and cities and towns and villages? Why not all communities in all three territories? Why not all communities in Canada? Of course I'm exaggerating but I'm trying to make a point. The cut off you propose is arbitrary, but the one we submit is based on a simple fact: groups of people defined by law to have local government. A very simple inclusion criteria that is not arbitrary. One used in all other provinces and territories that are featured. So adding in another set (communities not included here already) does not make sense. That list exists because of policies mentioned above, but should not be considered as influencing this submission. Mattximus (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 3.b. Those consensuses were for much longer articles. The article here is not even 10 items long and can very, very, very, very, very easily be included into the communities one. Nergaal (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if you read my reply. You have given us a catch 22. If we submit what you propose, we run afoul of 3.a. Specifically "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". Municipalities are a defined entity with specific inclusion criteria (legally based). Adding something that is not defined (a community or settlement, what ever those are) arbitrarily, makes the list quite poor. In fact, adding those extras will decrease the quality of the list since they don't have much data on them (they are not matched well to statistics). In some cases they are literally some families in a small area. Why take a well defined list, and add ill-defined and arbitrary items? This would also run afoul of FLC guideline 2. since we would not have defined "inclusion criteria". Can you see the catch 22? Mattximus (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"List of X" will always have X a defined scope. My point is that having X contain 3 items does not make "List of X" deemed as FL quality. Instead, if "List of Y" contains all X and several more other things, the list is still well defined by Y and is enough of a list to pass FL? There are artists with a single published album, should we make FL discographies for those artists? Or should the list be included as a paragraph in the main topic? Here that is not necessary, since Y is still large enough to not be included into the Yukon main article. Nergaal (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suggestion here that a list for a single item should be eligible for FL-designation. There are nineeight items (municipalities) in this list. A cursory review of Wikipedia:Featured lists#Places reveals there are three FLs of counties by American state with less than nine, and a fourth with ten. Presumably there are numerous FLs in other topic areas with nine or less entries. Wikipedia:Featured lists#Settlements also reveals there isn't a single "List of communities in X" FL to date. In my opinion, this is because of what both Mattximus and I have stated previously. List of communities in Yukon does not lend itself to become a FL. Hwy43 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are <10 items long? Why arent the comminities lending themselves to a FL? It has 66 items, and not all of them need to be featured at a level that municipalities would (i.e. some of them only need a name and a ref and would be enough). Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Connecticut, Hawaii and Rhone Island. New Hampshire is at 10. A bulleted list of 58 communities (doubt List of communities in Yukon is complete or accurate) following the comprehensive table of municipalities would be an embarrassing joke in my opinion. Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of them is List of counties in Rhode Island which was promoted in 2007, way before the criteria were seriously upgraded around 2009. That list could possibly be included into List of municipalities in Rhode Island but there there is a slightly larger difference between a county and a municipality, than between a municipality and a commune. I will nominate it when the current FLRC I started will be over. Nergaal (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of municipalities in Ontario has upper-tier municipalities (i.e., equivalents of US counties) embedded within it. Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may put it another way. Nergaal, it's not true that "List of X" will have a defined scope. What if an item on the list is ill defined? Using your example, the artist would have 8 albums in their discography, but made a few recordings at home that were never published. Should those be included in discography? Of course not, they are not defined as albums. It is the same thing here. Specifically, in this case the issue would be whatever a settlement or community is (it has no clear definition, unlike the municipalities on this list). Unless your primary concern the number of items on the list, and not the inclusion criteria? If so, what is the exact minimum number? Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is not the number, but the size. Currently this looks more like a joke than an actual FL. There are artists with less than 10 albums, but those have 10+ singles and several other items. That way those lists don't need to be included as part of a larger article. Let's try an extreme example: what is this list covering that is NOT already in Yukon#Municipalities by population? Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the minimum size threshold and what are the units? If not number of entries, is it number of words? Bytes? I don't see anything explicit regarding length or size at WP:FLCR or WP:SAL. Without, size/length is subjective. Only thing I see is "The length and/or topic" under 3.b., in which "and/or" is key. This FLC doesn't duplicate any content except for the bulleted eight municipality entries at List of communities in Yukon, which could be replaced by transcluding the table from this FLC as the main "municipality" article to there.
I don't see this FLC as a joke. I see that it is a list that consistently aligns with all the other Canadian municipality FLs, but it is a unique case where there are the fewest here than meet the inclusion criteria compared to the others.
Not sure your extreme example works. Yukon#Municipalities by population is a transclusion of the table from this FLC.
BTW, I really appreciate your patience and walking through your concerns in detail with us. It is a collaborative and informative exercise. Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this again: could you please do me a favor and spend only 1h on the communities article and see where you can bring it? Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please address my comment above. It's like you are asking someone who made a discography list which consists of 8 albums to add a bunch of random recordings that are not albums to the list. Maybe there were live performances one time back in 1983. Should that performance be added to the discography list? The community list has former trading posts, ghost towns, mining camps, first nation communities. None of these have areas, populations, dates... they simply are completely different than municipalities. Much like a live performance is different than discography but both fall under "music by artist X". If your concern is the size, please state an exact acceptable size of the list, otherwise it's just arbitrary. Thank you for your input.Mattximus (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are not willing to work with me here. Check the communities list now, and please tell me what is TMI in that article as of now? Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are not addressing my comments. The communities list is a random assortment of different things. It has no defined scope running afoul of 3.a. I could put "bob's farm" on that list and there is no way to determine if it should or shouldn't be there. There is no definition for what a community is, that's why it can't be a featured list. It's completely arbitrary. It's like having an article "music by artist X" and including some albums, some performances, some tapes made at home, some covers of the band, instruments used by the band... The municipalities takes the defined subset and includes only items that meet this definition, just like we've done for every other province and territory including List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories which is *very* similar. Mattximus (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Nergaal's edits to User:Hwy43/List of communities in Yukon/sandbox for viewing purposes as the copied lead from this article did not work at List of communities in Yukon. I have however transcluded the table from here to there just like it is transcluded to Yukon#Municipalities by population. Hwy43 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am giving up trying to help you when you go ahead and even revert my good faith edits. Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take the revert personally. It has to be obvious that the lead you copied and pasted was not applicable to that article. As for the other content, we already have transclusion available, so why not use it? Hwy43 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you can figure out how to transclude both the "Cities" and "Towns" sections as well as and the list of municipalities to List of communities in Yukon yet only transclude the list to Yukon#Municipalities by population without the two sections, please show me. I've experimented in my sandbox on other things and have had little luck. Hwy43 (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) How is List of communities in Yukon not suitable for FL? Well...

  • What are the definitions of “hamlet” and “settlement” and what are the inclusion criteria of each?
  • Of the 17 “Ghost towns and First Nations communities”, which are ghost towns and which are First Nation communities?
  • What makes a community a ghost town?
  • What makes a community a First Nation community? First Nation communities in Canada are typically Indian reserves and Indian settlements. Is there really a third type of First Nation community? If so, what is the proper designation that applies to such communities?
  • What is “Other” communities and how can we be sure this is complete? Couldn't they also fall under "Small Yukon places"?
  • Speaking of, what are the differences between a “place” and other types of unincorporated communities (i.e., “hamlets”, “communities”)?
  • Also “Small” is subjective. What makes a place “small” in Yukon, and why aren't the four “Other” entries suitable for inclusion in the “Small Yukon places” section?
  • Likewise, couldn't the “Ghost towns and First Nations communities” entries also be listed under the same? What about the “hamlets” and “settlements”?
  • The only pre-existing reference is Robert G. Woodall, The Postal History of Yukon Territory Canada, Lawrence, MA, Quarterman, Revised edition, ©1976, ISBN 0-88000-086-4, but due to the lack of inline citations, it is unclear what content the source actually verifies. Surely it doesn't verify all content in the article (excluding the "Municipalities" section).
  • Also, a source from 1976 is terribly dated. So many things may have changed in the past 38 years. For example, we know from List of municipalities in Yukon that all “villages” became “towns” in 2001.
  • How do we know if all entries in List of communities in Yukon truly are communities? Some of them could simply be family-owned gas station/restaurant/hotel developments on the Alaska Highway just like Twin Lakes, Alberta on the Mackenzie Highway? I've stopped there many times, and I would argue these places are not communities.

I could go on, but I think I've gone beyond overkill here. The points are there is not much information available to answer these questions and to assure the list is complete, and it is unclear where communities end and other places unsuitable for inclusion begin. Surely not every rail siding and roadside service station is a community. The article is riddled with WP:OR of which I am confident not all content could be verified by reliable sources. List of municipalities in Yukon on the other hand... Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A good list. A few quibbles.

  • "The Municipal Act stipulates governance of these municipalities." This seems to me almost meaningless. Done
  • "at the request of the Minister of Community Services" I would specify Yukon Minister (assuming it is). Done
  • "Whitehorse, which is the largest among the three cities" I would prefer largest of the three. Done
  • "Of the remaining 99.8%, Unorganized Yukon accounts for 98.1% of the territory's land mass". What is the other 1.7%??  Done Dudley Miles (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, and good catch on those numbers! I'm still figuring out where the discrepancy lies... Mattximus (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! I hope this change clears up the confusion. Mattximus (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought reporting the percentages of the two next largest areas was a bit too much, so I changed the note. Hope that is okay. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think the "stipulates governance" sentence arose out of one of the five earlier FLCs and was carried forward. I have no issue with its removal however. Hwy43 (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support, Dudley Miles! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This lists the criteria for becoming a municipality but skips the purpose: what it means for a community to become a municipality. Likewise, is there any difference between a "City" and a "Town", like additional responsibility, more regulatory authority, administrative requirements like a larger council?
    • Thanks for the suggestion. According to the legislation "The purposes of a local government include (a) providing within its jurisdiction good government for its community; and (b) providing within its jurisdiction services, facilities, or things that a local government considers necessary or desirable for all or part of its community. S.Y. 1998, c.19, s.3". It seems a bit tautological but I'm more than happy to include this if you think it adds. Specific services (fire, roads, etc.) are not prescribed by the legislation as far as I can tell. Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took the liberty of adding an abridged version to the lead. I think this should address your concern.  Done
        • Maclean25, main differences I am aware of are the different population thresholds to incorporate and the minimum size of councils. I have not previously found any evidence that city status carries additional responsibilities or more regulatory authority than town status. Hwy43 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "A proposal to incorporate a community as a town can be initiated under the Municipal Act at the request of the Minister of Community Services, a municipal council..." - how can there be a municipal council if the community is not incorporated? the "municipal council" part only applies for altering municipal boundaries or dissolution. maclean (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch. I fixed it based upon the same act. It turns out that the council is there for dissolution or changes to boundries. I added both cases to reflect that.  Done
      • Maclean25, a municipal council can conceivably request its municipality become a town. Though rare, a city could voluntarily request to change its status to that of a town, just as three towns in Alberta changed from town to village status. In Yukon, Dawson once held city status but now holds town status. It is unknown if this was done voluntarily by its municipal council or was imposed by the territorial government due to population decline. Given this, I have removed the additions regarding dissolution and boundary adjustments. Hwy43 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Maclean25: have your comments been satisfactorily addressed? If so, do you have any additional comments or a position on the nomination to share? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Failed_log/October_2014&oldid=631319689"