Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/July 2011

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 Dabomb87 15:53, 1 July 2011 [1].

---

List of Prime Ministers of Canada

Notified: Arctic.gnome, Moxy, GoodDay, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Politics

I am nominating this for featured list review, because over the past few months it has seen a number of format changes and arguments, and I am wondering if it still meets the featured list criteria. 117Avenue (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Default keep unless you can provide substantial evidence that this list no longer meets the criteria, this nomination is a non-starter. We're not here to reply to your "wondering", please either provide substantial details why it should be demoted so we can fix it, or withdraw the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Criteria 6 is stability. There were edit wars in March. 117Avenue (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It's now mid-June. Can you provide objective evidence that this list is currently unstable? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't be objective to restart the war, I would still like the dates to reflect actual government practice. 117Avenue (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahah. So you're starting to tell us why the list should be demoted? Are there factual inaccuracies in there? If so, please be explicit and describe every failing you see here so each and every one can be corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the PM tenurship dates. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to GoodDay's belief, due to legislation passed in 1967, outgoing PMs since then (or since 1917 depending on your interpretation or source) had their term end at midnight the night before the new ministry was sworn in, rather than the day they formally submitted their resignation. Several sources can be found in Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Canada#Term dates. 117Avenue (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Baloney, the outgoing PMs after 1967, left office upon their resignations. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the Interpretation Act of 1967, and the Parliament of Canada's and Privy Council Office's interpretation of it. Why won't you accept it? 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Baloney on those, Martin was still PM on the morning of February 6, 2006. As was Chretien, on the morning of Decemeber 12, 2003; etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the detail here but please consider it's verifiability over truth here on Wikipedia, so we go with reliable secondary sources. Please resolve it that way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So do we use the dates the Parliament of Canada and Privy Council Office use, or the dates GoodDay has forced the article to use? 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We are using the Privy Council Office - not some made up dates as you are implying. Moxy (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with that link. Guide to Canadian Ministries since Confederation says Martin's last day was 5 February, and Life of a Ministry says "where an appointment is made effective or terminates on a specified day, that appointment is considered to be effective or to terminate after the end of the previous day." You haven't quoted the Privy Council saying otherwise. 117Avenue (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You said we should use either "Parliament of Canada" or "Privy Council Office" dates - we are using the "Privy Council Office" dates not some made up dates that GoodDay has forced on us. And yes we have quoted the Privy Council saying otherwise - pls see the refs "Martin formally tendered his resignation on February 6, 2006. On the same day, the Twenty-Eighth Ministry took office".Moxy (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Again I repeat the quote, "where an appointment is made effective or terminates on a specified day, that appointment is considered to be effective or to terminate after the end of the previous day." Martin's appointment was terminated on 6 February, that appointment is considered to be terminated after the end of 5 February. This is reflected at the top of the page for the Twenty-Seventh Ministry, "12 Dec. 2003 - 5 Feb. 2006". The Twenty-Eighth Ministry was made effective on 6 February, that appointment is considered to be effective after the end of 5 February. 117Avenue (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes we know all this as its all noted in the lead - that says "considered to be effective or to terminate after the end of the previous day." - However we use the formal days as it says in the lead --> "the following list uses the date that the formal resignation was received by the "Governor General." We should not be using the day that "is considered to be" over the "formal day of resignation" The royal process does matter in this country and is why the Privy Council Office adds notes for the specific day of formal resignation on ever page. This people are not Kings and Queens and the start and end of the their terms are done formally. They do not have royal death type accession, a process must be followed and papers singed etc. The reason the reference Twenty-Seventh Ministry say 5 Feb. 2006 is because its referring to the "Twenty-Seventh Ministry" as a whole whose last day in power was the 5th. The new Ministry took office on the 6th after the Old PM/Ministry resignation and the new PM/Ministry formally recognized. They do not technically hold power until the Queen says its ok by way of the Governor General. Processes processes processes perhaps we need to make this more clear in the lead?Moxy (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be made more clear in the lead, because I have ensured that it is stated, since we aren't using the correct dates. I agree with you, when you say this isn't death type accession, which is why the list should use the dates that the terms are effective and terminated. If you would take a look at the first day section, at the Privy Council reference, it states that the ministry and Prime Minister have the same tenure, so a 5 Feb. date for the ministry is a date for the PM. And what about the Parliament of Canada reference, which says terms end the day before? 117Avenue (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pls see Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Canada I believe I have solved the problem

• Speedy keep per above. —WFC— 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, as there's nothing wrong with the PM tenure dates. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Week keep - as i do find it odd refs for 2 different dates can be found. But i think we got the dates that seem to explain why it's this dates specifically, thus I think we got it right.Moxy (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – Ignoring the debate above for a second, the list is in reasonable shape; I made a few copy-edits to it as well. Only see two things worth commenting on here. First, I'm not a fan of the bolding of the last names in the table. It goes against MOS:BOLD, and to me doesn't add anything. Second, the access date formatting in the references has inconsistencies, and reference 13 doesn't have an access date at all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I believe this concerns above, have now been fixed by a few editors. Moxy (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolding is gone, but I still see inconsistent date formatting. Some of the references are in YYYY-MM-DD format, and some are in the style YYYY-DD-MM. Also, the first reference has the access date fully spelled out, so there are actually three different formats in use. This isn't close to being worth delisting over, but it would be nice to see this fixed while the list is here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed = accessdate=2011-03-24 Moxy (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per rambling man. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Delisted

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 Giants2008 18:36, 31 July 2011 [2].

---

List of Bleach manga volumes

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga

I am nominating this for featured list removal because after most of is content was divided to sublist due to weight issues (the article was 104,623 bytes before the split. The article's sublists are List of Bleach chapters (1–187), List of Bleach chapters (188–367) and List of Bleach chapters (368–current) and I wonder whether they should also be reviewed. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: No DABs or dead links, although the lead image needs alt text. —WFC— 23:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Added.Tintor2 (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should try sending the sub lists to FLC before sending the main list to FLRC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was recommended to send this one first. Don't know if I should cancel this anyway.Tintor2 (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 06:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More or less resolved comments by Goodraise I never liked having lists start with "The chapters/episodes/whatever of the" it sounds too much like "This is a list of chapters/episodes/whatever". Well, I suppose I can live with it, but this list is no longer about chapters. It has moved and the lead needs to reflect that. (And not only the first sentence.) In particular, the lead discusses chapter names, but the list contains none of them. Instead it lists volume names, but doesn't discuss them. The lead might also be a good place to explain the odd exception in the first table's first row, second column field. What exception? The first volume's title? Yes. At the moment, it is not obvious to the reader, which of the titles is the original one and which is the one used in the English adaptation. One might even mistake them to be a singular title, as in "Strawberry and the Soul Reapers: The Death and the Strawberry". Goodraise 12:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Added a note.Tintor2 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Not the most gracious solution, but since I'm to blame for the table layout, I suppose I shouldn't open my mouth too wide. Goodraise 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Wasn't sure either, but anyway any advice or or other way is welcome. Unless I'm mistaken, Viz Media is a licensee, not a licensor. Done. "which include a poem based on the cover character." -- This is a bit cryptic and confusing. How can a poem be based on a character? And why is this noteworthy? I'm not sure about that since considering above, you wondered about discussing volumes. Modified a bit. What I don't get is what makes this worth mentioning in the lead? Manga volumes tend to include a lot of things aside from manga chapters. What's so special about these poems? Goodraise 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Removed. "The latest volume is forty-nine" -- Outdated? Done. The FUR of the only image used is insufficient (not to mention pointing at the wrong article name). Changed. That's not enough. (We had this problem before: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach episodes (season 10)/archive1.) Goodraise 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Replaced book cover fur. Okay, I realize that I can be pedantic at times, but this is not a laughing matter. These search results make me wonder. Are you sure you didn't violate anyone's copyright with this edit? Goodraise 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC) No idea. I just reworded a bit the original version from template, considering my poor English and the fact that the reasons are the same for all book fur are the same. I see. As a senior editor, you should really have developed at least a basic understanding of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or the GFDL by now. Believe it or not, with this edit you violated at least some of these people's copyright, because you did not provide proper attribution. Needless to say, the edit should be reverted. As for the FUR as it is displayed at the moment: There are major repetitions in the "Description" and "Replacable?" fields. Also, the text in the "Purpose of use" field claims that "[t]he image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary". However, I see no "critical commentary" in the article. (You could copy the manga volumes FUR from here. Just don't violate my copyright.) Goodraise 02:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Rewritten.Tintor2 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Rewriting is not enough. You can't just take somebody's copyrighted work and pass it off as your own. That applies to the File: namespace just as much as to the article space. You can copy text from one Wikipedia page to another, but you have to give proper attribution. The bare minimum attribution for CC-BY-SA 3.0 content is a link to the place where you got the material in the edit summary. (Perhaps I'm being pedantic here, but I just can't except a fair use rationale which is itself a violation of copyright.) Goodraise 16:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I don't remember continuing copying the template, but now I'm unable to continue since you reverted my edit and it is in same condition you first pointed. If you talk about a link to where the image was obtained, the file already had it in the Non-free media data. I was about to add the Shueisha source anyway, but I found the file reverted.Tintor2 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Readded with the source.Tintor2 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC) You don't understand. I'm not talking about the file. I'm talking about the text of the FUR. You copied it from Template:Book cover fur to File:Bleach cover 01.jpg. Whenever you copy text from one page on Wikipedia to another, you have to provide a link to the page from which you took the text. That's the bare minimum for satisfying the CC-BY-SA 3.0. Goodraise 21:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I thought that was the reason I blanked the whole rationale and wrote a few parameters. If not every image using the same rationale had to give the same link as it used the same parameters. Anyway, added the link to other information.Tintor2 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Mind replacing the Amazon references? (For example with sources like this: http://www.viz.com/product?id=8880) Done. Less pressing, but I'd also like the store.viz.com references replaced with www.viz.com references. We don't want to appear as a sales catalog, if we don't have to. Don't see the difference but I'll give it a try. Done. Even less pressing. Most web references are already archived. Mind doing the rest? Done. As for the procedure regarding the sublists. My suggestion is to tag them with the featured star for the moment and nominating them for reconfirmation FLRCs as well, as soon as this one is closed, especially since most of the original list's content is now part of those lists, not of this one. Goodraise 02:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 21:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Revisited. Goodraise 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure about Goodraise's last comment - whether to tag first and send to FLRC or not to tag and send to WP:FLC... but I would then also recommend WP:FTC after everything is done. G.A.Stalk 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Okay, I've done some digging. I think I got the idea back in 2007. I already suspected my memory might not be perfectly accurate on this matter. It seems that even less came of that incident than I recalled and that my mind filled-in the blanks with what I thought to be the most reasonable course of action. However, I still think following my suggestion would be sensible and I also didn't hear any outraged protests, when I made the same suggestion in this recent discussion. Then again, it's the directors who will have to do the background work of this task, so asking one (or all) of them about it might be a good idea. Goodraise 12:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Delist. The article is just an inch away from FL-quality, but it seems people would like to see this at FLC again (a pain I had hoped could be avoided). Fine by me. Goodraise 06:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist - now this has been split into sublists and the information contained has been distributed across a few other lists, I believe this is now not much more than a navigational aid to the sublists. It seems unreasonable to keep the star based on a list that is now about 80% smaller than it was when it went through FLC. It shouldn't preclude a topic staying featured, as long as that's what the FT community agree to, but this is nothing like the list the one the community supported as featured. Note: that's all this process here is involved with, we have no jurisdiction or influence at other FLs or FTs in this particular FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist per above. A consensus is needed now. I'd like to see the sublists attempt FL at some point though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist I also agree with The Rambling Man. This list shouldn't be an FL for the same reason hallways (usually) don't win architecture prizes. Bobnorwal (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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 removal 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 Dabomb87 18:06, 26 July 2011 [3].

---

FC Barcelona in Europe

Notified: Sandman888, Football WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because after the promotion of Liverpool F.C. in Europe to Good Article status I believe this would be better suited to an article rather than a list. Barcelona are a club with great European tradition, at present the list simply lists the results the club had in Europe. Following on from the Liverpool article I feel this is the logical step for this article. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove - This article would be far better served with more text, making it more eligible for FA status than FL. Therefore, I believe it is ineligible for the FL criteria and its FL status should be removed. – PeeJay 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove – As said above, it would be better with more prose content to make a GA or FA. — Bill william compton^Talk 00:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove – I also believe this list should be removed. Most information here can be found in other articles already. --MicroX (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion about removing FL status, not removing the article altogether! – PeeJay 01:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • As PeeJay says, this isn't an AfD discussion. We are only determining whether the list deserves to be featured (the removes only refer to the FL star). Any movement for deletion should begin elsewhere, though with the existence of similar articles for Liverpool and other clubs, I can't see such an effort getting very far. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. I wasn't previously convinced that there was a real need for such lists, and was therefore going to stay away on the grounds that my opinion is already well known. However, the Liverpool article has convinced me that in an article format they are worthwhile. —WFC— 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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