Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2015

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The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 11:16, 31 July 2015 [1].

Anurag Kashyap filmography

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after failing at its first FLC, this list has gone through a PR and now I feel meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Per my resolved comments here and at its peer review. I have done some tweaks and copyedits through these revisions. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 21:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks much better than the one during its first FLC. Hope it passes this time. :)
  talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - Looks good. Deniroish (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admins please note that

Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, and since this was from the nominator himself, this support should not be considered valid. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 09:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - Procedural withdrawal: nominator used a sock account to game the system and add a support !vote - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by PresN 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of census-designated places in West Virginia

Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of

Comment Lead needs a good copy edit as there are lots of passive sentences in a row. For example the first sentence could be written more actively as follows: "The United States Census Bureau separates places by incorporation for statistical purposes during its decennial census". It's also a bit strange that the lead starts with something that this list is not about. Specifically talking about incorporation instead of the definition of a census designated place. Mattximus (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: I've mixed a few active sentences into the lead. CDPs themselves don't have much of a definition, after a non-incorporated place. I've defined incorporation and the requirements specific to West Virginia to give a more complete definition of CDPs by way of contrast so that, if municipalities can do the defined articles listed under the Municipal Code of West Virginia, the implication is CDPs cannot. I followed the same for rules for incorporation. Seattle (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead really needs a copyedit, but I like this list, so maybe I can take a look. Revert any edits you do not like. One thing that stands out is that almost all the lead is dedicated to talking about what makes an incorporated place, but the list is about unincorporated places. It's great information if this list was about incorporated places, but I don't understand why it's in this article.

Also the caption beside the lead photo is great and useful, but also not related to the page in question. The list of CPDs should not have a detailed history of a particular building. That summary belongs on the page specific to that building, and this page can link to that one. Mattximus (talk)

• Comments by Imzadi1979:
  • The photos in the same section as the list table are creating a formatting issue. Right under the header, the photos appear on the right opposite a large blank space. Because the table is wider than the space left over by the photos, it appears under them. (The same behavior happens if I print the page to a PDF file.) I suggest converting the photos into a gallery under the table or removing them.

• That doesn't happen on my viewing platform, but I've seen that happen before. Moved to a gallery. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • As for the photos, there is some work needed related to the captions. I suggest piping the state name out of links in the captions. It should be obvious that any mentioned places are in West Virginia based on the title of the page, but if they were retained, someone needs to audit them to make sure a comma always appears after the state name. Since all of the mentioned places are linked in the table, they need not be linked again in the captions. Someone should also audit if linked phrases are common enough to go unlinked.

• I've removed the state names from the captions. I don't have a problem with convenience links in the captions so that readers won't have to scroll back to the table for more information on the town pictured. If you have a specific phrase that needs to be unlinked, let me know. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the table itself, the population column should be right-aligned for legibility. If this was done, ones place, the tens place, the hundred place and the thousands place (with the comma) would line up. Then it would be more apparent at a quick glance which values are larger than others.

• They look fairly well aligned now; if the community's population is larger, an extra digit will appear from the previous entry, or they will be the same. For sortability purposes, the list appears aligned. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would recommend that you use separate columns for area using |disp=table in {{convert}} since that would right-align the numbers for the same legibility concerns. It would have the added benefit that the unit value (sq mi or km²) would not need to be repeated in every row. You don't repeat "County" after every county name, so why do you need to repeat "sq mi" after every area? The implicit "people" unit for population isn't displayed in each row.

• I've added a line break in the column to align the conversions, and removed the labels. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the references, you've used "United States Census Bureau" as the name of a published work, putting it in italics. Since it's the name of the agency that published those sources, it should not be in italics. Now if you wish to include the relationship of the United States Census Bureau to the United States Department of Commerce, you could use the former as the author and the latter as the publisher, you could list both as the publisher. You could drop the department and just use the bureau as the publisher, but as it stands, it should not be the name of a published work.

• Ultimately the United States Department of Commerce publishes the data collected by the United States Census Bureau, the work. The United States Census Bureau operates within the United States Department of Commerce. I've formatted references to the National Register of Historic Places, published by the National Park Service, in a similar fashion. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • The West Virginia Code is the name of a published work, in this case a collection of the state's statutes. It should appear in italics to be consistent with the rest of the footnotes. Legal citations, in Bluebook format may italicize the title of an article in a journal or newspaper and then run the title of the word in roman ("plain") text, but you're not using Bluebook here, so you should conform those citations to the formatting style that is in use. The same goes for "Miss. Code Ann." (Mississippi Code Annotated) and "Fla. Stat." (Florida Statutes). At the very least, just as we advise with journal titles, we should not be abbreviating these. Since we are designed for a general audience, we should not presume that our readers know what "Miss. Code Ann." means.

• I don't yet have experience with Bluebook citations, but I tried to follow the abbreviations listed here. I expanded the legal citations' details, and included dates for publication. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • The publisher for the newspaper in n20 is superfluous and can be removed. With newspapers, the name of the paper alone (supplemented by the location of publication if not included in the paper's name) along with the date of publication is sufficient to identify the source of the article being cited. Since this is online, you should supply the access date, just as you did with other online sources.

• I don't see a problem with including the publisher for a newspaper.
  MOS:REF#Links and ID numbers implies access dates are optional for web sources with published dates, as does Wikipedia:Citing sources#Web pages. For web pages without published dates, I've included access dates. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've added dates where possible. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't state an opinion as to support or opposition at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers in the table are not aligned, which is not the same as sortability. When you have different orders of magnitude, as you do here, right-aligned numbers would be better. Looking at some values from the table, 9 is an order of magnitude smaller than 95, which is still an order of magnitude smaller than 961, and there's another order of magnitude higher with 9,995. Spreadsheets, and the paper ledgers before them, use right-aligned numerical values, or decimal-aligned numbers so that these orders of magnitude line up: the ones place is on the right edge in every row, the tens place is immediately to the left of it in every row, etc. However, when you left align these numbers, the 9s all appear first, even though they represent values within their larger numbers of 9, 90, 900 and 9000. Last comment on this point: when you add an additional digit while counting up in numbers to indicate the next order of magnitude, such as when your car's odometer rolls over form 99,999 miles to 100,000, you add it to the left, not the right. When you left-align a set of numbers of mixed magnitudes, you're effectively adding that extra digit to the right.

• I never conflated sortability with alignment– if I sort the values, they left align. I've aligned population and areas to the right. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Area column suffers from these same concerns of alignment, which again isn't the same as sortability. Additionally, by putting the metric values underneath, the visual scanning breaks down. I scan down the table, and read areas of 3.27, 8.5, 10.26, 26.6... At a quick glance, I don't parse that as 3.27 mi², 8.5 km², 10.26 mi², 26.6 km², but the numbers run together as the same base unit because no base unit is specified. Also, the decimal places aren't consistent so it's a bit jarring to scan the column and see the precision flip back and forth. Also, the parentheses are problematic because that is one of the ways used in accounting to note negative values, along with the minus sign or red ink/print. In any case, it forces the reader to pause to discern what is being displayed instead of parsing it more naturally.

    Now, this format might be necessary where space is limited, but it is not so limited here. Readers can figure out what the numbers mean, but not as easily as if they were in separate columns. You could use a header that placed the words "Total surface area" on one line that spanned both columns with "Square miles" and "Square kilometers" on a second line, or if that were too wide, you could use "mi²" and "km²" for the column labels on the second line. Then the values should be right aligned.

• I've re-added the miles and km markers, because in no other column are two values present, and right-aligned values. And I credit our readers with enough good sense to realize that there can't be a negative value for a straight conversion of area. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • The National Register of Historic Places is a published listing, and therefore a work; someplace is a printed copy of the register itself maintained by the National Park Service, and it alone isn't the name of an agency or office within the NPS. The "United States Census Bureau" itself is the name of a government agency, not the name of a book or a periodical like a magazine or journal. There may be a published work that begins with the name of the agency, a United States Census Bureau Journal, for instance, but that doesn't make the bare "United States Census Bureau" itself a published work that should appear in italics. It is either an author, a publisher, or both.

• Template:Cite web#TemplateData states that the "work" title represents the "title of the website". The work of census.gov is the United States Census Bureau. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm glad you expanded the legal code names. For a generalist audience, those abbreviations can be quite cryptic, but lawyers who deal with them on a daily basis would not have such concerns. The page you referenced is for those in the legal profession, not a generalist audience.

• I don't care how you feel. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • To comment on something in Harrias' review below, "census-defined place" is actually the more correct punctuation. Together "census" and "defined" jointly modify "place". There is no such thing, that I know of, as a "defined place" that would make sense modified by "census". No, instead it is a place that is "census defined", and when that compound adjective appears in front to modify the word "place", it should be hyphenated under basic English grammar rules. If the Census Bureau doesn't punctuate it that way though, well, that's a debate for another day. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a discussion you can hold at
  census designated place, not here. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Actually the website title at http://www.census.gov is "census.gov", if it has a title at all. (Not all websites do.) In turn, that website is published by the United States Census Bureau, a division of the United States Department of Commerce. The bureau is not the name of a published work no matter now you try to parse it.

• No, actually I'm "parsing" it directly from Template:Cite web; the "title" of the webpage is "United States Census Bureau", for which Census.gov represents. Seattle (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This version clearly shows how to compactly format the table with separate columns.
  • As I noted above, you've dropped the word "County" from the name of each county in that column, because the column heading implies that. You've omitted the unit of "people" from the population column, because the column heading implies that. Properly done, there's no need to repeat the unit in each row of the table because the heading will imply the proper units. However, dropping the units and leaving the conversions in the same column is an open invitation for readers to mis-parse the data while scanning the table; seeing raw numbers in parentheses in a table can be mis-interpretted as negative numbers or notation of measure uncertainty.

• Tell me what criterion of the
  featured list criteria the list fails, in its current state, and I'll be happy to address it. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • You seem to believe that splitting the columns is bad for some reason, yet that's what |disp=table is for in {{convert}}.

• I don't know why it's there; you'd have to ask whoever added the parameter to {{convert}} his or her reasoning behind adding it to the template. As I noted above, I re-added the parameters because "in no other column are two values present". Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done this way, the two columns actually take up less horizontal space.

• The second column under "Total area" is superfluous to the first; "parse" it any way you want, but there's no reason that couldn't be one column.

• • The table takes up less vertical space because the only rows that need to occupy two lines are those for places in two counties. So except for those rows, everything lines up across vertically as a reader scans each row horizontally as well. For those two-county rows, you could separate the two values by a simple comma instead of a line break, which wouldn't widen the column much, if at all. On narrower displays, the cells will still line-wrap at the comma if necessary to reduce the width of the overall column.

• Again, a smaller vertical width seems like a personal preference. Tell me what criterion of the
  featured list criteria the list fails, in its current state. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, the photo, at that size, renders it too small for any productive use. Readers can see details of the community in its current form. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi 1979 → 09:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—fails several criteria. Until this point, I had not reviewed the prose, but now that I have, I feel the lead section fails criterion 1 in addition to the
  WP:V
  policy. There is a direct quotation that lacks a citation for the source of the quotation, contrary to policy. From WP:V, "All quotations ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Professional writing standards, and typical Wikipedian practice, is to immediately follow quoted text with a source. I might assume that the footnote at the end of the subsequent sentence is the source of the quotation, but that assumption would be no substitute for appropriate practices, even if that means consecutive sentence bear the same footnote.

• Moved. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire second paragraph is off-topic, but would be appropriate in a list of incorporated places in West Virginia. If this paragraph were recast a bit, it could be on-topic for CDPs/unincorporated places, but much of the information as presented does not apply to the topic at hand.

• Disagree. This paragraph actually describes CDPs by describing what they are not– they haven't met the requirements for incorporation, which I specify in paragraph two, or they have chosen not to incorporate. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to criterion 4, the second paragraph of the lead should be its own section once reworked as it would form a natural area of the topic of CDPs in the state, a description of what a CDP in the state is. The last paragraph of the lead, as it appears, is a good summary of some the details in the table, so it should remain in the lead to satisfy criterion 2.

• I'm not sure what your objection is here. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the length of some of the captions in the gallery cannot be classified as "succinct", failing criterion 5b. If the author wants to expound on various places, he or she can add a "Description" column to the table.

• If you have a specific objection, be sure to let me know. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5a is failed related to the layout of the table regarding the area columns. The placement of a panoramic photograph immediately after a gallery, resulting in the juxtaposition of two styles of photographic elements also fails criterion 5a. Splitting the unit systems for the area would enhance the legibility or the ability of readers to parse the numerical data and improve the visual appeal of the table. Harmonizing the juxtaposition of photo layout styles, even just by moving the one photo up into the prose sections preceding the table would also improve the visual appeal.

• I'll disagree and point you to a consensus at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 against segregating units. Now, if you want to try and change that consensus through a RFC, that would be your best route– it currently appears that both are accepted. I disagree that the wide photo of Corrine is "jarring" after the gallery– it's a nice way to end the list, actually, with a detailed panorama of a West Virginian CDP. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For these reasons, I now oppose at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 11:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:CONVERSIONS. However, they're at least putting the unit in the heading and not repeating it in every row of the table, something that currently has to be done here to keep the customary and metric straight. Imzadi 1979 → 12:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'll disagree and point you to a consensus at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 against segregating units. Now, if you want to try and change that consensus through a RFC, that would be your best route– it currently appears that both are accepted at FLC. I'll consider adding a "population density" column. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, all three FLs to which you pointed me do not have a "population density" column. Pinging featured list director @Giants2008: and delegates @Crisco 1492:, @SchroCat:, and @PresN: for official comment. Seattle (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Arizona list has the population density, but it is the oldest list of the three and some of the table features show its age. I don't know that much about what is expected of similar lists, but it's not something I would personally mandate. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it a "List of census-designated places in West Virginia" with a hyphen, when it defines a "
  census designated place
  " with no hyphen? Unless there is a reason I am missing, this should be made consistent, and probably follow our article, and have no hyphen.

• Moved. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little confused about the second paragraph. As far as I can tell from the first paragraph, a CDP lacks "elected municipal officers and boundaries with legal status", while the second paragraphs discusses "municipal corporations": are "municipal corporations" a subset of CDPs?

• Clarified. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The last paragraph seem a bit repetitive, given that Bowden is the smallest and least populated, those facts could do with being merged into one sentence.

• Merged. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything in the table looks hunky dory, and the images display fine next to it for me, but I do have a wide screen. Harrias ^talk 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot assume all readers have wide screens. I have one as well, but I keep my window width constrained to approximate a sheet of paper held in the portrait (upright) orientation, not a sheet of paper in landscape (wide screen) orientation. Before the page was changes, I had the same issue viewing the desktop version of the article on my iPad in the portrait orientation, and when I rotated the device to landscape mode. Viewing the mobile version of the page, pre-change, gave me the same formatting issues in portrait mode, but not in landscape. And just to be complete, I viewed the page on my phone. My phone gave me the same results as my tablet for the desktop view. In mobile view, the table appeared under the photos no matter which way I held my phone.

    In short, we have a lot of variables to account for in laying out the elements of a page, and assuming that a reader has a wide screen and won't have issues with a format is a bad idea. The change to a gallery under the table is a great improvement. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved images; I didn't see a break, but I've seen them before. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 09:37, 22 July 2015 [3].

Shinhwa discography

Nominator(s): Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is an inclusive and useful list that meets the content and style requirements of discographies and standalone lists. I also want it to serve as a model for Korean music-related discographies, as there are currently no FLs in this area from the time period covered by this list. South Korea's music charts have changed a few times over the years, and I feel this list accurately portrays and represents the charts being used at various points in time. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your comments. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I believe this now meets the featured list criteria. (I tweaked the references myself.) Random86 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Don't worry about references; they are perfectly fine now. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 10:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from dan_arndt

• In accordance with the style guide for discographies it is recommended that column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. For example the wikitable for Studio albums, where the Korean charts should be in a single column, under a single heading of KOR, separated into two sub-columns for each of the two Korean charts. Dan arndt (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Does the band have any music sales certifications (i.e. Gold, Platinum Records) from the Korea Music Content Industry Association. Most of the relevant websites are all in Korean. Dan arndt (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In the second paragraph the wiki-link for My Choice is broken. Dan arndt (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to dan_arndt Thank you so much for taking the time to review, @Dan arndt:. I'll try to address your concerns.

• I don't think it will improve the article in any way to completely redo the tables in order to make this minute change. The required information is there, clearly presented, and totally understandable. The style guideline for discographies has never been agreed upon by anyone, so I think it's fine the way it is. Also, because there are three different Korean charts involved in the article, I kept the name of the chart in the table header even in tables showing placements for only one Korean chart. It's much more clear that way.
• Korea has no certifications.
• D'oh, thanks for catching that. I broke it a couple days ago when making another editor's requested changes; it's now fixed.

Thanks again for your time. Let me know if you have any more concerns. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't mention sub-columns specifically. Random86 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Many discographies include music videos, but in this case they're listed on the videography article instead, so the hatnote is in its present location by way of explanation. This type of hatnote seems appropriate in this case, much like a hatnote to a group member's group works on their solo discography (see FL George Michael discography and Wham! discography, for instance).

I'm not suggesting you remove it, just move it to a section above references titled ===See also=== and list it there. The examples you cite are notes about other musical discographies, videographies are generally non-important in relation to discographies.

But videographies are kind of parallel to discographies. They're for an artist's video releases, and discographies are for audio releases. So I just thought it made sense to have it in a hatnote to clear up the music video issue.

Videograhpies, like this one, can actually include other things like television commercials and film/tv appearances, which as you know are completely unrelated, still would like to see this moved but it's your FLC so your call.

• Link to the closest appropriate article for chart column headers, because at this point, I have no idea what "KOR RIAK" is.

The RIAK has no article and likely never will. You just have to read the note, unless you have other ideas?

I suggest you link to the article on Korea, some may not understand the abbreviation.

Okay, although the Korea article doesn't mention the RIAK. The acronym is explained in the article, if a person actually reads the whole thing.

• Can nothing be done about the large width of the Year column in Singles and Other appearances?

The width of the year column is, on some tables, dictated by the length of the word "positions", which is required. If I make the font smaller for some tables to shrink the width of the column, then another editor will likely have a problem with inconsistency in that regard. Hmm...

• Not one single is referenced to prove it's a single as opposed to a non-single charting song.

This has entered my mind, also, but I've never seen references to "prove" something was a single. There are none on the only Korean discography featured list, Girls' Generation discography. Korean singles were not generally released for sale until pretty recently (2010, generally), so there are no chart positions. Pre-Gaon, singles were simply those songs that had music videos, were performed on music TV shows, used to promote sales of the album. This may differ from how, say, the USA does it, but it was the norm in Korea. What kind of references would be appropriate? (edited to add, I see a fellow editor has added some refs consisting of mentions of the songs in news articles. Is this the kind of thing that's needed? If so, most will be in Korean but it's probably do-able. Just never seen anyone else do it before.)

This is the first Korean discog FLC I've given comments to, so I may well be mistaken, is their no iTunes singles? Random86's refs seem to check out too also.

I don't know what you mean, "is there no iTunes singles". Until pretty recently, most songs were not released individually for sale; of course there are no singles newly-created for iTunes that weren't released as singles in the past. I don't think iTunes is relevant; it doesn't even exist in Korea. What I'm asking is what kind of things are appropriate to use as references in a case like this? Please go look at the FLC I mentioned, as it has absolutely no references to prove something was a single. Some of these songs are from the late 1990s - it will be very hard to find articles (all of which will be in Korean) specifically saying "this song was a single". We know they were singles because they have music videos and were promoted on music shows. So if I can't find a source I have to leave it off, which means the discography is then inaccurate. I'm happy to try, but I need to know what kind of stuff I'm looking for; things like Random86 put, yes or no? It will, at the very least, take quite a long time to find something for every single, and I don't think it's fair after the Girls' Generation discography got promoted to FL with no references at all for that kind of thing (and a ton of other missing/incorrect references).

Yes I'd try, otherwise I can argue that all of the singles currently without reference should move to the Other Charted Songs box, if someone does that, what would you say? That the songs have music videos so are singles? A song having a music video doesn't prove it was a single. As for the other Korean FL, I also would have raised this issue had I given comments there, but I didn't, so I can't. I'll have a read over it and leave a comment on the talk page about this issue.

What would I say? I'd say they should be blocked for vandalism. Since you raised this issue, I've been looking at other discography FLs and what you're recommending simply is not standard practice on any of them. Most have no references at all to "prove" something was a single. Others have a reference here or there (all to iTunes, a retail site and thus not very appropriate), with no apparent rhyme or reason to why. Do we also have to give sources to prove something was not a single? I'm sorry, but there is no reason to make this FLC conform to standards that no other FL has ever been expected to meet.

Ok, my example was probably too over dramatic, let me re-word. A harmless IP stumbles on to this article one night, he sees a song he does not think is a single, and innocently moves it to "Other charted songs", his edit summary reads "This wasn't actually a single :)" you are the first to see it, and revert their edit because, as far as you know, it was indeed, with the edit summary "Yes it was". They become more hostile, this time reverting and

All of them except Angel Haze, I'd say. :/ I looked at like the first 10 on the FL discog list as well as a smattering of others. (BTW, the disocgs MOS isn't an MOS, it's a Regarding your example, couldn't you use the EXACT same example for any song on any FL discography? I can see your point, but MY point is other FL discogs have not been asked to do this. You think Shinhwa needs to be different because you don't know them, and that's simply discriminatory.

But anyway, let's try to figure out how to make this work. I'll explain the whole situation to you and maybe together we can come up with a FAIR and non-discriminatory solution. From 1999 to Sept 2008, the RIAK published a monthly chart of sales of physical albums/EPs/maxi-singles/20-CD-box-sets. All of them were together on one chart, all considered as the same things basically. The majority of these items were full albums. All this while, songs were released from these albums for radio airplay, public performance, and with music videos, just like they are anywhere else. But they weren't for sale as separate entities from the album/EP/whatever they were contained on. In 2010, Gaon began publishing weekly charts of physical music sales; again, full albums, EPs, maxi-singles, whatever - they're all treated equally on this chart, and they still have certain songs released to promote the CD, but those songs are still not sold in physical format separately. Gaon also publishes a weekly digital sales chart for digital song sales. All items on this chart are individual songs, as that's how music is sold digitally in Korea, and just like anywhere else, items on this chart may be songs which were released to promote the album (the singles) or may be other album tracks. So, never in Korea's history have singles been released for sale in the way that, say, Beyonce might release several singles (all for sale in some kind of packaging as a single) off an album (which is also for sale). If you notice on the discography, none of the singles released pre-Gaon have any chart positions, because it was impossible for them to chart; they weren't sold in that way. Nevertheless, just because it's a little different than how the USA does it I don't think we can accurately say that there were no singles in Korea ever until the Gaon digital chart was founded. Of course Korean artists had singles and to say otherwise would be very misleading about the musical history of Shinhwa or any other Korean artist who predates 2010.

Combining all the non-singles and singles together as 'charted songs' would be misleading, because all of the singles before 2010 never charted. They were still singles. Their existence as singles is much more significant than, say, that fact that some random recent album track charted at number 89 for one week. Discographies are about an artist's musical history, not merely a brag book of their charting success.

I'm willing to find a source for every single if and ONLY if every other discography FL is required to do the same. Maybe every single one of them needs to be nominated for de-listing? I don't necessarily disagree with your "but what if" scenarios (although I'm not nearly as stupid as you portray me to be in your hypothetical scenes, ha ha), but I do refuse to be discriminated against, by your own admission, simply because you aren't familiar with this artist. (Also, just so you know, I'm the last person to try to pull the "but it's Korean so it's ~different~ and ~special~ and therefore I can do whateeeeever I want!" line; I've spent my whole time at Wikipedia fighting those people. I merely said some aspects of the Korean music market are different than, say, the USA's, and that has to be taken into account when asking me to do things like get iTunes links to prove something was a single in 1998. Seriously, I sourced the way other FLs are sourced, and you can't justifiably accuse me of asking for special treatment or being ridiculously sloppy, and you can't genuinely shocked at this response.) As it is, you and some of the other people have put me off seriously editing Wikipedia, like, ever again. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ice Cream Cake. It has double title songs, "Ice Cream Cake" and "Automatic". They are called singles by Billboard [6], even though they were never released separately from the album. This is the norm for K-pop. Another example is the song "Ah Yeah"; it was never released separately from its EP, yet reliable sources call it a single: [7], [8]. I think if Shinhwa's singles were removed for lack of references (they mostly didn't chart, so they can't go in "other charted songs"), it would misrepresent Shinhwa's discography. There is very little English-language news about Korean music pre-2012, so it will be extremely difficult finding references explicitly proving the songs were singles. Since Shinyang-i speaks/reads some Korean, he/she might be able to find Korean references. Most FL discographies do not have those kinds of references, so I'm not convinced this is absolutely necessary. Random86 (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The studio albums table is divided into a section for Korean albums and a section for Japanese albums, as was recommended to me at some point. Does that suffice?

Not really, the release dates mentioned are supposed to be the first release dates of the album. There's possibility that the albums first got release in another country, Germany perhaps, so it needs clarification. The header tells me what language the album is recorded in, is it meant to tell me anything else?

No, the header isn't the language, it's the country for which it was released. Korean albums, especially ones this old, aren't released in a ton of countries, certainly not one like Germany. They are sometimes secondarily released in Taiwan or China or Thailand, but those don't go in the discography, only the main country for which the release was intended. This isn't like Western music where albums release & chart in dozens of countries. Inspiration #1 is actually mostly in Korean, but it is a Japanese album - released in Japan for the Japanese market. Similarly, Big Bang's Big Bang was recorded almost entirely in English and yet it's a Japanese album, too - released in Japan for a Japanese market. I've never heard of it being required to say a work's language in a discography.

I'd remove the Korean and Japanese headers and simply switch to a (KOR) or (JPN) next to each release date, having the separators for only one Japanese release messes up the chronology (Something

WP:DISCOGSTYLE

suggests you adhere to) and really confuses me.

I divided them up at the suggestion of a senior editor some time ago, because the market for which an album was released is actually a "thing" in Korean music. And once again, it's the way the only available model I had to work with, Girls' Generation discography, is done. I can change it but, again, we're going against the status quo for Korean discogs. (The Discog MOS has never reached consensus, btw.)

Oppose at the moment, largely due to the lack of singles references, and confusing Japanese chart in places. Azealia911 _talk 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Azealia911, RIAK stands for Recording Industry Association of Korea. It does not have a Wikipedia article, but note A explains what it is. I agree that the unused Japan columns should be removed. All the "year" columns looks normal on my screen, but the width could be set to 2em if it is a problem. Random86 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to review, @Azealia911:. I'll try to address your concerns. Thanks for bringing your perspective to the article and I hope you can give some feedback to my responses so that I can improve the article further. I had little upon which to base some of these unique situations, so it's been a little tough and I hope this discog can eventually be a model upon which other Korean discogs can be modeled. Thanks again! Shinyang-i (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Withdrawn — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 13:11, 21 July 2015 [9].

Arshad Warsi, roles and awards

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Warsi has been in the Hindi film industry since 1987 but it was only in 2003 that he won fame for his role in Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.. Since then he has won several awards for his acting skills. This list presents all his film credits, awards and nominations.Skr15081997 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

• I don't see a need to add three images of him, all taken during the same time.

Removed 2 from the filmography section.

• Why is it that you've not included a "Director" column in the table?

If an actor-director collaboration is really noteworthy, then it is mentioned in the lead. Adding separate column for director would increase total width. I have followed User:Cowlibob on this. An actor's direct contribution to a film is his/her respective role. Almost all the filmography websites list film's name, year and role. On WP, we provide 2 more columns–notes and ref(s). Had he been a director/producer then a different format would have been followed as in Satyajit Ray filmography.

Yeah, I know. Not a requirement, just a suggestion.

• "and reprised his role as Circuit in Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. in its sequel Lage Raho Munna Bhai" - grammatical error.

Corrected

• "Warsi also hosted the first season of the reality television show Big Boss, for which"

Added

• Don't restrict the awards to only Filmfare in the prose as it's not just a filmography, but also awards list.

All awards and nominations have been mentioned in the lead.

• "he played a lawyer in the National Film Award-winning comedy" - "National Film Award-winning" is
  WP:UNDUE
  .

Removed

Please have a look at this. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I now support. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 12:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for reviewing. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• The very first item listed in the
  WP:Naming conventions, which says, in part, to "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another". A title such as "Arshad Warsi, roles and awards" suggests to me that this article is a subsidiary to the main Arshad Warsi article, and many other editors have expressed similar concerns about this particular title format (see, for example, User:sroc's comprehensive reasoning here
  ). Therefore, I believe that this title violates WP:Naming conventions and that thus the article does not currently meet the FLC.

A Thousand Doors, the new title is List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is that, while I have no objections to titles of the format "List of roles and awards of [name]", there are editors who do. If this article were promoted to FL under its current title, I'm not convinced that it would stay there for very long. I feel that the community need to reach a consensus on what are appropriate titles for list of this type before we promote anymore to featured status. I'm afraid to say that my oppose stands.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Lack of community consensus isn't a good reason to oppose.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in sroc's reasoning that is applicable here (or anywhere else, for that matter) and your agreement with one user's opinion means nothing in this context. Indeed, quite the reverse, as the consensus was against him there and in similar discussions. The title format "Name, roles and awards" is entirely acceptable, here and elsewhere, and an oppose based on such an opinion holds no water. (To clarify, although I am an FL delegate, I will not take part in closing this candidacy to avoid the question of COI on this point.) It is a great shame that the title has been changed because of ther bullying stance, and a greater pity with it is such a poor choice: the double "of" is utterly jarring. Whay was a perfectly good title changed for a poorer substitute? - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared this article to the FLC; I do not believe that it meets them. That is why I am opposing. Sroc was certainly not "one" user. I count over a dozen editors who have, at some point or another, raised objections to this particular title format:

1. "The title seems very ungrammatical to me"
2. "The title bothers me as well" (NB. This user went on to support John Gielgud, roles and awards becoming an FL)
3. "Comma here may imply that we are speaking about John Gielgud, some roles and some awards"
4. "This is a terrible title, and I'm incredulous that this made FL with such a title"
5. "the present title sounds like a discussion about John Gielgud, roles and awards"
6. "the current title at best scans poorly and at worst is confusing, if not sub-optimal use of English"
7. "'John Gielgud, roles and awards' doesn't work"
8. "the current title is at best awkward and at worst a comma splice"
9. "the comma version is atrocious"
10. "The current title is awful"
11. "The current title is pretty mediocre"
12. "maybe to something like Roles and awards of John Gielgud or List of roles and awards of John Gieldgud. To me, that just reads and looks nicer"
13. "Personally, I can't parse the current version with the comma"
14. "The title is a little non-standard"
15. "'Name, roles and awards' has unsatisfactory syntax because it has the appearance of a list" (NB. This user was the closing admin in the Category talk:Filmographies discussion)

This all suggest to me that titles in the format "[Name], roles and awards" are not, in fact, "entirely acceptable". I'm certainly not seeing anything at

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing that "forbids" double of? There's nothing that specifically bars many things, but it's piss poor English, which is why it jars.

WP:OSEmi a nutshell. As to the previous name format, the ignorance of a small number of the holier-than-thou, self-appointed Guardians of the MoS regarding the British use of the comma does not in any way diminish the fact that this is an entirely acceptable format. The reason articles still exist in the format is because there was no consensus to change it, and because it is grammatically correct. I stand by everything I said in my first comment. – SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose for now – Fails 3(b) criterion. With the prose size of the parent article being less than 5k chars (~800 words), I don't find any reason to fork out a separate list just for roles and awards. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I have added a few lines to the main article, hope that suffices 3(b) requirement.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you even call than an improvement? —Vensatry _(ping) 17:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I appreciate the time you are giving to this nomination, but can you be a bit specific? It will help both of us.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the minimum prose size. Since you want me to be a bit specific, my rule of thumb would be 15k chars, say the size of Bipasha Basu's. —Vensatry _(ping) 06:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15k sounds too much at present. However I will try to make the article 8-10k characters in prose size. Meanwhile can you review the list?--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know but make sure it reaches at least 10k. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, give me some time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: now the parent article has 10,167 characters of prose. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• The very first sentence has two instances of the word "film".

reduced to 1

• "as Mahesh Bhatt's assistant director" ==> "as an assistant director to Mahesh Bhatt"

Done

• Warsi didn't "star" in either Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya or Salaam Namaste. Salman & Sushmita did in the first, and Saif & Preity did in the other. Please tweak.

Tweaked

• "His performance in the latter won him the Filmfare and Zee Cine Awards in the category Best Actor in a Comic Role" ==> "in the Best Actor in a Comic Role category"

Done

• "honoured him" is not something we use to talk about film awards. Please use the more conventional received, won, garnered etc.

Done

• In can see many, many instances of "in the same year". Please construct your sentences differently. In general, the prose definitely needs an additional bit of work.

Copy-edited

• There is no mention of which of his films earned the most money. It's an important bit of info in an actor's filmography. It's also important to say that his first film was a box office flop. Without those bits of pertinent information, the lead reads like a monotonous collection of "he played xxx in yyy".

Added info on box office performances

• The source you provided for Jeetenge Hum makes no mention of when it released, but only states that it has been in production for a long time. What made you put 2001 as it's release date?

The film was shelved for about 10 years. IMDb lists its release date as 2001 while the BH source used now says 2011.

• I don't think the name of the tv show is Bigg Boss 1. The 1 refers to it's first season. The show is simply called Bigg Boss. You need to mention which season he hosted in the notes column.

Done

• Warsi's official website as an external link is unnecessary in his filmography page.

Removed

--

@

Krimuk90: I hope my recent edits have resolved all of your concerns. Thanks for your thorough review. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• "he played the lead role in Raj Kaushal-directed mystery film Anthony Kaun Hai?, and the counter-terrorism drama Kabul Express" ==> "in the Raj Kaushal-directed..."

Done

• "Warsi also co-produced and starred in the supernatural comedy-drama Hum Tum Aur Ghost. It performed poorly at the box office." The two sentences can be combined.

Combined

• "Golmaal 3, the year's second-highest grossing Hindi film also featured him in an important role". Not sure what "important role" refers to. You can say he played one of the primary roles in it.

Done

• "...and turned out to be a commercial disaster". Sounds like a tabloid report. Please tweak to something more formal.

Tweaked

• What is a "solo commercial success"? Do you mean it was his first commercial success in which he played the lead role? It's not very clear from the prose that before Jolly LLB most of his successes were in ensemble films.

I have removed this claim.

• You have a number of "shelved" or "unreleased" films in the table, and have yet provided a release year for them. Why?

Those are the years they were scheduled to release in.

The very purpose of the year column is to state which year the film released in, or for films that haven't released yet, the scheduled year. For shelved or unreleased films, this is a violation. --

Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Location is an important information for references.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what I meant. You need to maintain consistency here. If you provide location information, then you must provide for each of the refs. --

Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Krimuk90: I have responded to all of your comments. Cheers, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Warsi did not receive a Screen Award for Best Actor nomination for Hulchul. See this ref.

Actually he was nominated for Best Comedian.

Yes, but you put the wrong category in the table.

IMDb says he was nominated for Best "Actress" category.

• Also, his Screen Award for Best Supporting Actor nomination for Munnabhai MBBS is missing. See this ref.

Added and thanks for the source.

• Refs. 74, 78, and 80 do not work. (this version)

This will be everyone's worry. See here. The worst thing is that http://filmfareawards.indiatimes.com couldn't be archived.

Hopefully it's only temporary.

Well, I too hope so. Lots of FLs (and even FAs) have references from filmfareawards.indiatimes.com. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 23:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher info missing for ref no. 88. (this version)

Added

• What makes indiantelevision.com a reliable source?

Replaced

• Surely Warsi has won awards or received nominations at the
  Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Working on Stardust.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No awards or nominations found on IMDb, BH or other site.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per a BH source, he has received a Stardust nomination for Ishqiya. @Skr15081997: You can use this source. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 2 more awards. Now there are 25 awards & noms; 2 Star Guild Awards, 3 BIG Star, 5 Filmfare, 2 GIFA, 5 IIFA, 1 ITA, 4 Screen, 1 Stardust and 2 Zee Cine Awards.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prose really needed a lot of work. I've given the lead a copy-edit. --

Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• In the references, you should only link a magazine, publication, TV show etc etc the first time it is used, then subsequent references should not be linked. But I can see that
  WP:ACCESS. These issues are quite easy to sort out. I think the lead reads fine, and the other tables are fine, too. As a result, I will Support this nomination given that you correct these couple of points. If you wouldn't mine looking at nomination, I'd appreciated it.  — Calvin999 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]