Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2017
- 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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture
I am not actually nominating this list for removal but instead for a reassessment, and I hope this nomination ends with a "Keep" consensus. Since its promotion to a featured status, this page had changed substantially and was in a sorry state. I updated it, removed unsourced statements, introduced a clickable skyline image, and changed its structure per my standardization efforts. I'm looking for comments on those changes, and I hope the list's featured status will be affirmed. If this is not the place to seek help in such cases like this one, please feel free to tell me what courses of action I should take in the future – for example updating the article after nominating it for featured list removal or mass removing lists in a similar state and then nominating them for a featured status. Sandvich18 (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Sportsguy17
- For the "Tallest Under Construction" section, it would be nice to add a source for each of the other three buildings under construction.
- It wasn't me who added these buildings, and I couldn't find a source for Multnomah County Courthouse's height (the other two buildings are under 250 feet so they shouldn't be in the table anyway), so I removed them. Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to add a "Tallest approved or proposed" section? Some other tallest building FLs contain this, albeit it is not required.
- I believe such a section is against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, and I remove it from the lists I work on. Most of the proposed or approved buildings are never built and keeping each list up-to-date would be significantly more difficult were they to be included in the article. Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (Optional) Include a section breaking down the tallest building in each neighborhood of the city of Portland.
- That's a neat idea, I'll try to implement it. Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these suggestions help out. Beyond that, I think the list looks good. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! :) Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, Sandvich18! I too hope that these articles can retain FL status. You did a very good job making the necessary changes before coming here. On my second comment, I partly agree to disagree on this one. If the information is verifiable, I don't think WP:CRYSTAL necessarily applies, albeit I do not believe that it adds much, so I'm not opposed to excluding that bit from the article. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just added a section listing tallest buildings in Portland by district. Sandvich18 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, Sandvich18! I too hope that these articles can retain FL status. You did a very good job making the necessary changes before coming here. On my second comment, I partly agree to disagree on this one. If the information is verifiable, I don't think WP:CRYSTAL necessarily applies, albeit I do not believe that it adds much, so I'm not opposed to excluding that bit from the article. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- With the changes made, I think this article is a pretty obvious Keep. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as keep- seeing as this was a reassessment, not a removal candidate, I'm fine not holding out for multiple reviewers trying to help "fix" it. --PresN 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture
I am not actually nominating this list for removal but instead for a reassessment, and I hope this nomination ends with a "Keep" consensus. Since its promotion to a featured status, this page had changed substantially and was in a very sorry state. I updated it, removed unsourced statements, introduced a clickable skyline image, and changed its structure per my standardization efforts. I'm looking for comments on those changes, and I hope the list's featured status will be affirmed. If this is not the place to seek help in such cases like this one, please feel free to tell me what courses of action I should take in the future – for example updating the article after nominating it for featured list removal or mass removing lists in a similar state and then nominating them for a featured status. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Sportsguy17
My comments that I made at the Portland, Oregon one apply here as well. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as keep- seeing as this was a reassessment, not a removal candidate, I'm fine not holding out for multiple reviewers trying to help "fix" it. --PresN 02:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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 removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Biography
This article sadly no longer reflects an article of good standing. Problems include, but are not limited to:
- Addition of large-scale unsupported information (much of the "Others exempted" section)
- Terrible formatting on the "Scottish Act of indemnity and oblivion" table (even the title has been poorly done)
- Inconsistent citations in the notes section
- Inconsistent citations in the lede
There were problems of WP:OWNership shortly after the list went through its FLC, and I see no point in trying to rescue this from someone who has stated that the featured process "is of little interest to me as I believe the process is broken in many ways". - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree, but there's also been zero discussion on the talk page to try to resolve this. Now, I'm just as familiar as anyone with the idea of giving up because you know what kind of people you're dealing with, but ... I dunno, it just seems weird to me to recommend a removal without at least token discussion on the front. Could the formatting be cleaned up, the inconsistencies be addressed? Yes. But, on the other hand, those issues pervade the article, not just the new list. I'm not well-enough versed in this to know if the new information is worthy or not, so... a spiritual Agree on my part. At least someone should care. --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's such an interesting list, are you sure that the citations and table cannot be brought back up to standard? Is anyone working on this article? Mattximus (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. The problems with this list are fixable. But no one is willing to fix them, which is frustrating for everyone involved. Delisting. --PresN 02:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, 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 removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]
Notified: WT:WPMUSIC
- As indicated in the lede, the Bubbling Under peaks need to be changed from 1xx to "did not peak on the Hot 100, but reached xx on Bubbling Under".
- Most of the "other charted songs" charts don't appear to have charted. They are also unsourced.
- "Guest appearances" has multiple unsourced entries.
- "Music videos" is completely unsourced.
The previous FLRC in 2014 dealt with sourcing issues that appeared to have been taken care of. The article has changed significantly since then. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, I'm not even sure why there is a music videos section in a discography page... but primarily it is the sourcing issues, and I suspect there may be some need to bring it up to date. Mattximus (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, and consider splitting into separate albums and singles discographies. Given how huge Eminem's body of work has become over the years, it'll probably be easier to keep things up to standard if we split his singles and album statistics into separate pages. I've been working on the singles section in one of my sandboxes here, although it's not finished yet by any means - feel free to offer any suggestions. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, the article is a total mess. In addition, references needed to be re-checked, many dead links and inconsistencies. Mymis (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist dead links are quite an issue, music videos and "guest appearances" are out of scope (they respectively are better for a videography page and a "List of songs recorded by Eminem" page). I also don't understand why the lead artist and featured artist single sections have different chart listings. The article furthermore should be split into separate albums and singles discography articles as Sufur222 noted above due to the massive size of the page (which I'm surprised was dismissed during the previous FLRC I initiated). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delisting. --PresN 02:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, 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.