Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/December 2015
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keep
[edit]- 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 delisted by Giants2008 22:06, 6 December 2015 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not well-referenced enough to meet today's FL standards. The vast majority of roles listed here and the accolades are missing sources. Having a total of 12 in-text citations is quite problematic given how many films are mentioned. I'm also not sure if it's really necessary to include color coding for lead roles or have prose bits within the "Television appearances" section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think this could be a problem, as the General General has all movies covered.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely placing a collection of links in "General" isn't exactly enough; all accolades and roles need to have in-text citations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At most case, I would agree that "Merely placing a collection of links" isn't exactly enough, but in this particular case, is seens unnessasery to add a <ref name=xxx />to every role and every movie, a recent example is 2014 Winter Olympics medal table, is pointless to add a citation to every NOCs, as they were all come from a same source, so list at "general". And I also feel this filmography case have more excuse, as those kind of infomation that people could simply watch the movie to find out, and this is the reason we don't need a citation for plot section in film articles (except lost films). I agree that this list could done some work like updating the lede, add citation for accolades (who add this anyway, when there's already a List of awards and nominations received by Arnold Schwarzenegger), but I don't feel the name of those movies, tv show, or roles needs this.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is NOT "pointless" to cite individual roles per today's FL standards whether using one or multiple different sources for listings. The criteria has become more demanding throughout time even if this was enough for 2009's standards. "Simply watch the movie" is also not good enough, especially for uncredited roles. How well sourced other articles are is irrelevant to this page per WP:WAX, and that isn't a comparable example since it isn't even a filmography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. The table in unsourced with unnecessary use of yellow colour to denote the lead roles. The lead is quite poorly written and needs a thorough c/e. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: poorly sourced table, poorly written introduction and the unnecessary yellow cell shading to highlight lead role. Drdpw (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: Per the above. To echo Snuggums, is not pointless to cite individual pieces of information. That isn't even an FL criteria: it should be the base criteria of ALL our work. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The FLRC has been closed as delist, due to a clear consensus that the list no longer meets FL criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 7 December 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.