Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2025

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC) .

---

Bibliography of Stephen Harper

Nominator(s): MediaKyle (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of written and published works by and about Stephen Harper, the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada. Two books which only loosely fit the scope were intentionally excluded, as noted on the talk page. I believe this now just about meets the FL criteria. I used the featured list Bibliography of works on Madonna as inspiration. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• This list needs a short description, it's unlikely that those outside of Canada know who Harper is
• I think a link to the office (Prime Minister of Canada) in the lead would be useful
• The lead is completely unsourced for facts that do not appear within the list itself, for example his birthday and the fact he was a prime minister, with this being BLP adjacent, these facts should be verifiable
• The above also applies for the portion saying his first book "received mixed reviews"
• Both tables are missing captions (MOS:TABLECAPTION)
• The entry for The Harper Record is unsourced in the second table
• The entry for How Ottawa Spends, 2013–2014: The Harper Government: Mid-Term Blues and Long-Term Plans is unsourced in the second table

I think that's all I have! TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback, I believe I've addressed everything here. I just removed his date of birth, not really necessary here anyways and I'm actually not sure where the information came from upon further investigation, Stephen Harper is a GA but I see no source for the DOB at a glance. I also removed the "mixed reviews" part, whereas readers can simply navigate to that article to learn more about its reception. I don't feel as though it's particularly necessary to cite the fact that he was prime minister, though - I don't think this is something likely to be disputed, and it can be readily verified on many of the sources regarding the listed books. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy to support with the changes that have been made, nice work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Arconning

Here'll be my comments. Arconning (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Sole image, File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger Infobox.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, source link needs fixing as it's under a different license now. Alt text is there.
• "Stephen Harper is a Canadian politician who served as the 22nd prime minister of Canada from 2006 to 2015." - this is unsourced.
• "which concerns the history of professional ice hockey in Canada." - this is unsourced as well.
• "The book was a political work, drawing on his experience as prime minister. " - unsourced as well.
• "This bibliography compiles written and published works exploring Harper's political career and policies, limited to non-fiction books specifically discussing Harper and his time as prime minister from notable authors and publishers.", I believe this is general but it would be better if there would be a source.
• "The book discusses the history of the various flags used by Canada throughout the country's history." - unsourced.

Thank you for your comments. I have to say I'm a bit confused, because as far as I'm aware the lead as it is now doesn't require citations. Stephen Harper being the prime minister is the reason the list exists to begin with, and is unlikely to be disputed - I specifically wrote each description of the book in the lead to be the most basic summary possible, as each title has it's own article, and the associated citations for the information are also available in the table on this list. To that end, I would argue none of this is unsourced, and adding citations is a layer of redundancy. As for the "This bibliography..." part, that's me defining the scope of the bibliography per MOS:LISTOFWORKS, I don't see how I would cite that. Can you please clarify? Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning: I've revisited this, and the lead now has citations. The image does have the proper link, it's just they changed the licensing, however CC BY-SA 2.0 is irrevocable. You can view the original licensing by clicking "History" next to "Licensing" at the source file. Does that address all your concerns? MediaKyle (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning: Courtesy re-ping; this nomination has been open two months with only one supporting comment, and will be closed soon if there isn't some movement. --PresN 12:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I've lost hope of this going anywhere, I realized that FLC just doesn't like bibliographies. You can close it. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• 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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC) .

---

Timeline of the Tumu Crisis

Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The chronological list presents one of the worst military defeats in Ming history. I would highly appreciate any suggestions to improve it. Thank you for your time. Min968 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Drive by comments from History6042

• The prose seems like it is overly trying to convince the reader that the topic is very important. It uses words such as "highly mobile and battle-hardened", "orderly withdrawal", "catastrophic defeat", "bold proclamation", and "not only". Please fix these per WP:EDITORIAL.
  • Done.
• Does "The T'u-Mu Incident of 1449" have an ISBN or similar identifier that could be added?
  • @History6042: Done.Min968 (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Image review

Here'll be my comments. Arconning (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• File:英宗睿皇帝.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Tumu Crisis.jpg - I'm a bit doubtful of its license, the source doesn't seem to be under it. Should be fixed.
• File:Tumubao.jpg - CC BY 4.0, "The shared materials on this site are for learning reference only and may not be used for any commercial purpose.", this isn't licensed properly and is a copyright violation. This should be removed.
  • @Arconning: Removed. Min968 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Pass Arconning (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Alt-text is present for accessibility.
• Captions are proper and relevant to the article.

Toadspike

Hi Min. I realize this is likely going to be archived soon; I don't think I will be able to give this a proper review to prevent that. Reading over the timeline, two things stand out to me:

1. There is a lot of "The army camped at". Lists can be repetitive, but most timelines are a little more varied. Is there any more detail you can add for these entries?
2. Much more importantly: Why does the timeline cut off at the capture of the emperor? The page is titled "Timeline of the Tumu Crisis", not "Timeline of the battle at Tumu". In my view, it should continue in timeline style at least until the enthronement of the Jingtai Emperor, and possibly even until Yingzong's return, coup, and death. A very important date, if you have it, is when news of the defeat arrived in Beijing (given in the Tumu Crisis article as "the night of 2–3 September").

Sorry for throwing a wrench in things; if you ever re-nominate, feel free to ping me for a (source) review so this doesn't get stuck in review purgatory again. (I'll likely be somewhat inactive until mid-September, though, so you might want to wait until after that.) Toadspike [Talk] 22:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This nomination has been open well past the time it would normally be closed, without any supporting reviewers. As a result I'm going to have to close the nomination; feel free to renominate in the future. --PresN 00:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• 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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC) .

---

List of tallest buildings in Vancouver

Nominator(s): User:LivinAWestLife

I am nominating this for featured list because the article has been significantly expanded since it was removed as a featured list over a decade ago. There is now an extensive lead and history section, the images are up to date, and the list has been updated to include all completed buildings as of 2025, with coordinates as well. There is also an informative map of the city's skyscrapers, to let readers know the layout of the skyline and the location of the city's tallest buildings. In comparison to other featured "list of tallest building" articles, such as that of Albuquerque, this article is similarly detailed, if not more so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivinAWestLife (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, based on criteria 3(b). There are far too few inline sources in the prose sections, and the formatting in the Notes column is inconsistent. SkyscraperPage is heavily used despite being a user-generated database, so it needs to be fully replaced. SounderBruce 20:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  It’s an issue with virtually every single tallest building article outside of a select few cities. The fact is ever since Emporis went defunct it’s the only other skyscraper database besides CTBUH (which is not very comprehensive). Somehow the world doesn’t care enough about tall buildings to release exact heights for each building.

  I agree this is a problem. I think that many of the current FL of Lists of tallest buildings would never have been featured if they were nominated today. LivinAWestLife (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Bgsu98

As I said at another similar article for skyscrapers in New Jersey, this table inappropriately uses green color in violation of MOS:COLOR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you expand on this? A lot of other similar articles, including List of Tallest Buildings in New York City (which is featured) use green for the same purpose. I'm confused by that, and the notes state the period for which a building is the tallest building in the city anyway. LivinAWestLife (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In addition I was under the impression your opposition to the use of green on Newark's list was because there were two very similar shades of green being used, and only due to an unknown IP address editor beginning with 177. that keeps adding these green highlights to architecturally topped out buildings (which no article had before). There is only one shade of green here so this is unambiguous. LivinAWestLife (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I though that I had written those notes out. They are indeed added now so the information is visible even without color. Does that address the issue? LivinAWestLife (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, except you seem to have missed the Royal Centre (Vancouver). Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. LivinAWestLife (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That solves the problem that I raised, so you're good there. User:PresN's comments below regarding MOS:DTAB will also have to be addressed. If there is anything there you're unsure of or need help with, please let one of us know. I will take a closer look at this article later this afternoon for a more detailed review. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Name becomes !scope=col | Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | style="text-align:center" | 1 becomes !scope=row style="text-align:center" | 1 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Color is not sufficient to distinguish different rows, as colorblind users, users with poor vision, and users with screen-reader software cannot distinguish it. You need some sort of symbol to differentiate in addition to the color; typically this is an asterisk (*) or dagger (†) after the name (and in the key) - see Hugo Award for Best Novel for an example.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 22:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

EG

First of all, do you post on the skyscrapers subreddit? Your username looks familiar.

That being said, I must point a few things.

• The lead is too long per MOS:LEAD, which recommends four paragraphs at most. This is especially relevant given that the article also has extensive prose sections.
• There is a lot of unsourced prose. This was pointed out by Bruce above, but I'll list out specific examples:
  • Para 2 of 1900s–1950s: Early development - everything from "The Sun Tower would be overtaken by..."
  • Para 3 of 1900s–1950s: Early development - everything from "The second hotel was closed in 1939..."
  • Para 3 of 1960s–1970s: Office expansion - everything from "Two notable hotel skyscrapers ..."
  • Para 2 of 1980s–1990s: Vancouverism - everything from "Coal Harbour is now characterized by high-rise residential towers."
  • 2000s–2010s: New heights - the end of paragraph 2 and all of paragraphs 3 and 4
  • 2020s–present: Beyond downtown - the ends of paragraphs 3 and 4
• In Para 2 of 1900s–1950s: Early development, the word "stories" is used, but everywhere else it's "storeys". This should be consistent.
• In the Tallest buildings section, in the "Notes" column, there are some rows that have text after the refs. This text should be sourced, if it's not backed by the refs already in that column.
• In the Tallest buildings section, for row 35 (320 Granville), the height column is formatted differently than in every other row.
• In the Map section, "aren't" should be spelled out as "are not".
• As Bruce said, I recommend replacing SkyscraperPage as it is a user-generated source. I suggest using CTBUH for the heights, completion date, purpose, and rankings, and finding other sources for the other info.

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @LivinAWestLife, in case you missed this. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen it now. I think this candidacy is unlikely to progress further as of now so I haven't been working on the article as much of late. Will try to find sources for these eventually. Some of these buildings have no alternate sources for the heights, unfortunately, or as far as I know. I have searched quite far for those. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comments

• Out of date wording used: "This list ranks..." is tautological. Consider writing something like "Vancouver has x buildings over x tall based on CTBUH.... The first tall one was built... The most recent... The tallest is..." This would make for a better paragraph introducing the table.
• Citations should go at the end of the note.
• Remove all proposed buildings. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL so speculation and guesses really don't belong. This should be a list of tallest buildings, not tallest buildings that might one day, possibly, be built. Maybe.
• Wording needs work on second heading "The following table ranks skyscrapers" -> "There are x buildings planned to be over x m tall under construction..." Same with next two heading paragraphs list.
• Same with "this map shows", that's tautological. Need a paragraph that interprets the map.

Oppose for now, but with some changes this could pass. Mattximus (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

While I am no longer working towards this candidacy, I should point out that proposed buildings are in virtually every List of tallest buildings article on this site, including all the featured ones for which there are proposals. Removing these seems unfeasible and would require consensus change of a longstanding convention at WP:Skyscrapers (which is currently not very active). Some of those wordings are also common throughout "List of tallest buildings" articles, including currently featured ones. Agreed about some of your other points. LivinAWestLife (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: Just as a heads up, I'm not sure if LivinAWestLife's comment "While I am no longer working towards this candidacy" (above) counts as a withdrawal, but I don't know what path to success this FLC has if the nominator is no longer working on it. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You can just withdraw it, since I'll state that I'm withdrawing it now. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Closing. --PresN 02:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• 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.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC) .

---

Judy Blume bibliography

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Judy Blume is known for books such as Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, Summer Sisters, and Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. After my previous FLC at Barbara Park bibliography, I decided to work on another bibliography for a similar author. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "predominantly-white neighborhood" - I don't think that hyphen is needed there
• "Blume wrote the book when divorce was becoming more common and accepted by American society, and reflected her own marital trouble at the time" => "Blume wrote the book when divorce was becoming more common and accepted by American society, and it reflected her own marital trouble at the time"
• "Michael and Katherine are a couple who decide have sexual intercourse" => "Michael and Katherine are a couple who decide to have sexual intercourse"
• "Blume wrote the book on the advise of her teenager daughter" => "Blume wrote the book on the advice of her teenaged daughter"
• "the aftermath of three different airplanes crash" - that doesn't sound right.....
• There's quite a few descriptions which consist only of a sentence fragment eg "A television series adaptation of the Fudge books." These shouldn't have full stops.
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude Thank you! All changes made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Deenie is a teenage girl who wants to become a model until she is diagnosed with the spine disorder scoliosis and must wear a brace, only for Deenie's mother to make her feel that she no longer met her expectations - Why is the tense switched there?
• A television series adaptation of the Fudge books. - You can lose that full stop as well.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Alavense, is there a specific wording you have in mind? The sentence is written in present tense. I've removed the full stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I got it all wrong here, but wouldn't it make more sense to have Deenie is a teenage girl who wants to become a model until she is diagnosed with the spine disorder scoliosis and must wear a brace, only for Deenie's mother to make her feel that she no longer meets her expectations? Alavense (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

I'm sorry to do this, but the lead feels like it is just rehashing the list below, instead of giving additional details about the author, like I see in other bibliographies that are featured lists. In articles like Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography or Roald Dahl bibliography I see the lead summarising important aspects of the author's biography and major topics commonly explored in their works. Also, why are there no images in the list? Judy Blume has an image that can be used in the article. At this time, I do not think I can support promotion, although feel free to ping me if there are major changes to the lead. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Leads summarize articles, and information about the author belongs in the article about the author. I looked for images, and it doesn't make sense to me to use the same lead image for both articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Bgsu98

Seeing this article, I am reminded of the article William Faulkner bibliography, which very recently underwent the FL process. I'm wondering if converting all of the bibliography to tables, similar to what the Faulkner article uses, would make it easier to digest. You could also examine the Faulkner lead to maybe help generate ideas for improving the lead here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of a table over a list? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are easier to navigate. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that your article Barbara Park bibliography has also undergone the Featured List process, and it is very similar to this article, so you should feel free to ignore my suggestion above. However, some more information about the author in the lead wouldn't be a bad thing. I realize this isn't a biography, but a bibliography without background feels insufficient to me. Which I'm not saying this article is insufficient; I will examine it more closely tomorrow afternoon and return with additional thoughts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments (July 3, 2025)

• I would suggest adding a photo of Judy Blume to the lead.
• I would also suggest adding maybe just a little more to the lead about the author. You could probably import the text directly from the first paragraph of the Judy Blume article.
• While I might prefer to see the article structured more like, say, the William Faulkner bibliography, I can see that your own article Barbara Park bibliography was promoted to FL in its current state, so there is nothing wrong with following the same format you used here.
• Your descriptions of the books are good. I would suggest including information about the books which have drawn controversy (Margaret, Blubber, etc.). Many of these books have wikilinks which provide further information. For example, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.#Censorship in the United States has text and sources you could incorporate here.
• I would include information and wikilinks about the three plane crashes that are part of In the Unlikely Event (novel).

User:Thebiguglyalien: Please let me know if you have any questions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the image, although it duplicates the one in the main article. I'm not convinced that any of your other points are required to meet the criteria for FL. I especially don't want to use the poorly-written prose in the main Judy Blume article; that should be rewritten, definitely not duplicated. I personally believe that William Faulkner bibliography is a little messy, and a format like that would be out of necessity because of the volume and variety of his work, not the ideal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, best of luck with your article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to Oppose this nomination. Three different reviewers have made reasonable suggestions for improvement, which the nominator has dismissed, and although that is the nominator's prerogative, it seems antithetical to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. That being said, I also wouldn't have supported Barbara Park bibliography in its current state had a I reviewed it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this oppose. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Sophisticatedevening

• File:JudyBlume2009(cropped).jpg - Needs alt text
• From Special:permalink/1299207066 can you add archives to refs 38, 39, 40, 31 and 3?
• You can wikilink "Simon & Schuster" in the references section.
• Speaking of references, is there a reason all of you inline references are placed in a "notes" section, and stuff for your sfns are in the references section? I personally would move your refs to the references section, and make a new section called "sources" or "bibliography" or something and then move your other sources there. Only asking since it's mixing long and sfns as well.
• Several of Blume's works have been adapted to film and television. - You could clarify which works have been in the lede.

Overall nice work! Sophisticatedevening🐞^(talk) 02:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Added the alt text and the reference links. There's really no ideal way to use both web sources and Sfn, since Template:Sfn and <ref> both sort into the same list. The cleanest alternative would be to use Sfn for the webpages as well, but that comes with its own drawbacks. For the lead, I'm not sure what the best way would be to mention the adaptations. I'd say that it would either involve mentioning each one individually, or adding another paragraph that listed them, but both of those seem messy to me. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This nomination does not appear to be reaching a consensus to promote after 2 months. There does seem to be a strong split in reviewers on whether these bibliography lists should be in bullet list format like the Barbara Park list or tables like the William Faulkner list, but unfortunately, despite prior successful nominations, the discussion in this nomination seems in opposition to the bullet format, and also has some disagreement with the way the lede is used. For now, I'm going to have to close this nomination. --PresN 02:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• 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.

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