Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of heists in the United Kingdom/archive1


 * 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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC).

List of heists in the United Kingdom

 * Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of heists in the UK notable for having taken a total sum of £1 million or more in cash or goods (at contemporary rates). It includes a golden toilet and a painting which has been stolen four times. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. It's my first such nomination. Mujinga (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment
 * The sorting on the "original value" column doesn't work, it treats £10605 as larger than £291.9 million..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * good spot! i'll look into that Mujinga (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * fixed using "data-sort-value" Mujinga (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I'm not a fan of including the images in the table. They are inconsistently applied – some rows show the object that was stolen, others show the location of the heist, and some have no images at all. The images also make rows unnecessarily tall, reducing how many rows can be displayed at once (especially on mobile). I would suggest removing this column and adjusting the width of the table to show a few of the more significant images along the right side (see the FL Caldecott Medal for an example).
 * The explanatory note is not formatted very well. Normally, the reader should be able to hover over the footnote marker in the table and have the full details appear like so, but this does not happen because the footnote is just a and does not include the full text (Contemporary values for heists...). My suggestion would be to rewrite the footnote using or something similar.
 * Make the dates consistent in references – most appear to use full day-month-year format (i.e. 31 October 2020), but some use yyyy-mm-dd (i.e. 2020-10-31). The first format is more common within the list currently and should probably be applied everywhere.


 * Hi RunningTiger123 thanks for the comments. I've taken the images out of the table and put some alongside the table as you suggested. I've tried alt formats for the explanatory note but having the link to the template in the note itself seems to break things. That's unfortunate since mentioning the template is basically the point of the note so then I'd rather keep it as it is. Dates are now consistent. Mujinga (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's okay – I was able to go in and change the footnote myself, so it should work better now. My only other comment is that the captions for the new pictures should say recovered in [year] instead of just recovered [year]. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah what sorcery is this!? I'm sure I tried doing that and it broke the table, no doubt I was doing something wrong. I'm very happy it works now, thanks! I was wondering what other people would say about "recovered" / "recovered in" and ChrisTheDude mentioned it below, so that's changed too. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Support (pending changes listed below). RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aza24

 * Really interesting list to work on, so thank you for that.
 * Sorry I'm jumping around a lot here with comments
 * I think the table would be far more effective if the heists which have been recovered and not are highlighted/signified somehow. I would think the best way to do this would be an additional column, because in doing so it could be sortable by which ones are gone and which aren't. Perhaps something like a "status" column with either "Recovered (year of recovery)", "Unrecovered", "Partly recovered", "Fragmently (or something) recovered"
 * Yes this idea has been discussed a bit on the talkpage and freeing up the images out of the table does give a chance for another column. the problem then is (as you are suggesting), how to classify what is recovered and not, since in some cases (pictures) it's pretty easy and others (cash) it's quite hard to quantify. I've been thinking about this, it's hard because when you get into it there's weird ones like City Bonds where almost everything was recovered and Hatton Garden security deposit burglary where nobody knows exactly what was taken to begin with. Another idea would be to say what was stolen: art / bullion / cash but then again it becomes tricky because some heists were a real mixture and some we don't know the full details. Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see some of the issues here – what have a "Status" with "Recovered" "Mostly recovered" "Partly/partially (not sure which word to use) recovered" and "Unrecovered" – I would think that a short note for some of the "Mostly recovered" "Partly/partially" ones could clear up any discrepancies. In doing so, the sorbability would help show the differences between the item, since it's a little jarring to list something like the Cézanne and the Leonardo in the same manner, when one is lost and the other has been recovered. Happy to discuss this further. Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i'm not averse to the proposed structure, i just wonder how it would work with for example waddesdon and ramsbury manor, where i'm not sure what if anything was recovered - maybe then add "not known" to the categories? the idea of adding notes might lead to notes stacking up, since off the top of my head city bonds = all but one bond, great pearl = all but one pearl (good story there), northern bank = very hard to say what was recovered, hatton garden security deposit = we don't even know what was taken ... the biggest problem is that for KLM, barclays bank(s), bank of america, chatila, A13 bullion the info is minimal and thus we just don't know what was recovered. Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Buccleuch Madonna is only in part by Leonardo, scholars attribute it to him and someone else. In the Leonardo art world, it is a huge deal when a painting is only by Leonardo, as there are only 15 that are, this one isn't so I would recommend changing the caption to "The Buccleuch Madonna, inpart by Leonardo da Vinci, was..." or "The Buccleuch Madonna, by Leonardo da Vinci and another artist, was..."
 * done Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The "Original value" column doesn't seem to sort correctly at the bottom
 * this is now fixed Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "although the Portland Tiara (stolen in 2018) has never been valued." – shouldn't Darwin's notebooks be included here as also not having been valued? According to the table at least
 * yes - it's a recent addition and worth mentioning Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "has been stolen four times in total" – sounds weird, surely "has been stolen four times" would suffice for both the lead and image caption, I mean rather obvious that you're talking about "in total"
 * i suppose the "in total" bit is there to emphasise how many times it has been stolen, that doesn't seem necessary in the caption so i've removed the phrase there Mujinga (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "Rembrandt" "Goya" but "Paul Cézanne" "Henry Moore" and "Maurizio Cattelan". Cattelan and Moore make sense as full names I think as being less colloquially known – but Cézanne is weird with the "Paul", his fame is surely lower than Rembrandt, but right up there with Goya, this is a long way of saying that "Cézanne" would suffice
 * i agree on this, "Paul Cézanne" does feel weird on inspection Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * as a corollary to this should I say Thomas Gainsborough or is Gainsborough is ok? Mujinga (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah good catch, I missed that one. I would think just the surname, since if someone didn't know Gainsborough, I'd be surprised if they knew "Thomas Gainsborough" – if you see what I mean Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thomas removed! Mujinga (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that the default alphabetical sorting makes sense. Most of the "names" aren't official, like "Theft of the Portland Tiara". I would think default sorting by year would make the most sense; you can adjust this easiest in visual editor. Have default sorted by original value would be dubious for obvious reasons, and contemporary value sorting would change over time.
 * I don't use the visual editor so I didn't pay around with this. When I researched it, it seemed I would have to make the year the first column and I'm not sure about that since the reader would be looking for the heist not the year. If there's a way to make the year column default sort where it is, I'm happy to give that a go. Mujinga (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to resort them by year if that helps. I agree having the year in the first column would be odd, so perhaps it should be kept where it is. I just think that it's even more odd to have the names listed alphabeticially, when so many of them are just "Theft of _____". Happy to discuss this further as well Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * oh yes please, let's see if it helps! Mujinga (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "The largest heist on record in terms of the amount stolen (also one of the world's biggest) " is a rather choppy, especially since parentheses are used in this sentence later as well. "in terms of the amount stolen" doesn't actually clarify since one could still see "the amount stolen" as the "amount of stuff" – I'm not sure how it could be rephrased, but perhaps try something different out here :)
 * rephrased! Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Calling the section "History" is a little misleading as it's not presented in a chronological (historical) format. Maybe "Overview" would be better?
 * done Mujinga (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps make it clearer in the text that Moore's "artwork" was a sculpture? The others are all paintings (well, besides the toilet) so I think the distinction would be worthwhile here
 * done Mujinga (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * why is the "which is 12 by 10 inches (30 by 25 cm)," helpful?
 * it's showing that it's a small painting, which may or may not account for why it gets nicked so often - i've rephrased a bit Mujinga (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Otherwise looks good; good work here. I'll do a source review in a few days if no one else does. Aza24 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these detailed comments! I'll work through them over the next few days and ping you when done if that's alright. Mujinga (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine – no rush at all. Aza24 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the comments Aza24, I've worked through them all now and taken the opportunity to update the article, see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried ordering them by year; I just think it makes sense that when a new heist occurs it would be added to the bottom of the list, not inserted somewhere alphabetically. As for as the status column, I think an "unclear" or "uncertain" parameter is perfectly valid. Aza24 (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ordering by year looks good! I thought I wouldn't like the first column being year not heist but it looks quite neat. I tried adding a status column here and I wsn't so keen. Over half the entries are "unknown". Mujinga (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that does look odd, oh well. Am completely happy with the changes made, I support this nomination. Happy New Year! Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do this soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ref 3 needs a website or publisher parameter
 * ref 9 needs a publisher
 * ref 14 missing date
 * ref 28 missing date
 * ref 30 missing author
 * ref 39 needs a publisher
 * ref 41 missing date, I also why this is the only one including the website url? Perhaps it should be removed as to be consistent with the others
 * ref 48 missing author
 * formatting looks good otherwise
 * found no reliability issues Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for that! i've processed all the recommendations Mujinga (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support my comments addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.