Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/July 2012
- 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 Giants2008 21:12, 9 July 2012 [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Norway
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's not up to scratch with current standards. To whit:
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Keep now my major concerns have been addressed. Feel free to move list but after FLRC so none of the links get too messy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – Found quite a few issues that I'd like to see addressed while this is here.
|
- Keep meets the criteria (discard this vote if unappropriated, but I was not the original contributor, just stepping in to save an article). Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Giants2008 18:10, 28 July 2012 [2].
- Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject Discographies
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is outdated and has been flagged since April 2011, with no resolve. There are also spelling and formatting errors. Certainly, this is no longer among the best of Wikipedia. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist
- dead links
- Woeful lead.
- Maintenance tag.
- Malformed table (incomplete format, etc and no sign of sorbability or all those good things).
- Distinct lack of inline reliable sources. Just take a look at the most recently promoted discographies, this is way short.
Probably could add more, this is just a five-second scan of the page. Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - per TRM. This is really awful. I guess WikiProject Discographies is inactive. --Cheetah (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Giants2008 18:10, 28 July 2012 [3].
- Notified: Spangineer , WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't feel it meets the Featured list criteria. The list does not adhere to WP:DTT, and the entire article/list is referenced to one source, which doesn't even provide all the information given. For example, the secretary, William Jackson, is not mentioned at all on the sourced page, and he is listed as representing Tennessee in the table. More references, and possibly a more comprehensive lead would improve the article greatly, while making the table accessible shouldn't be a difficult matter. Harrias talk 14:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've brought this up to standards. Albacore (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a "notes" column as well telling me a little something about each of the signatories - not a full biography, probably only a few sentences for each. As it stands, it's a rather boring list of names and to find out anything about anyone I have to move away from the list, which isn't ideal. BencherliteTalk 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, what does this add at present to Constitutional Convention (United States)#Delegates? Isn't this a 3(b) violation because the material is in fact already contained in another article? BencherliteTalk 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find myself in agreement with Bencherlite. The amount of information presented in this article is underwhelming. It needs more. Goodraise 00:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tending to delist - there's not much here that I don't see in the main article that Bencherlite has noted. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the table (the only real difference between this article and the main one) be merged into the main one and this article become a redirect, but that's for another discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Agree with Bencherlite, there is no reason why this cannot be in the aforementioned article. NapHit (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, this is a list of signers of the constitution, as opposed to the longer list of delegates to the Convention. Not all of the delegates signed, some because they were absent during the signing, some because they disagreed. So while their is significant overlap, there is a difference in the information conveyed here and at Constitutional Convention (United States)#Delegates. Tomsimlee (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference, sure, but as the list of delegates specifically marks those who didn't sign, this list of those who did sign doesn't add anything. Delist. BencherliteTalk 08:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Goodraise 12:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to do some work on the article to try to save it, but the question is whether these votes to delist are on the idea of article in general, or if there is information that could be added to the list that would justify its being a separate list. For example, it would be relatively easy to add general biographical details like dates of birth and death, later holding of offices created by the constitution, etc. However, information like that does not specifically relate to the constitution. It would be considerably more difficult but still probably doable to add information related to each signer's contributions to the debate in terms of major ideas later included in the constitution, or perhaps the dates they were present during the constitutional debates. Just need some guidance. Tomsimlee (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FLRC isn't AFD. Lists here don't need "saving". Votes to delist aren't votes to delete. This makes a fundamental difference. At AFD, editors have to take into consideration what could be in the article, here (as far as criterion 3b is concerned) it is sufficient to look at what's already there.
As for guidance, if this list were expanded to include all delegates instead of only the signers and the kind of information you mention (especially the kind specifically related to the constitution) were included in significant quantity, then this list would likely be able to measure up again to the ever increasing quality standards for featured lists. Goodraise 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant save it from being delisted, but such a fundamental reorientation of the article from being a list of signers to a list of delegates would obviously require broader attention than FLRC. Tomsimlee (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FLRC isn't AFD. Lists here don't need "saving". Votes to delist aren't votes to delete. This makes a fundamental difference. At AFD, editors have to take into consideration what could be in the article, here (as far as criterion 3b is concerned) it is sufficient to look at what's already there.
- I'd be happy to do some work on the article to try to save it, but the question is whether these votes to delist are on the idea of article in general, or if there is information that could be added to the list that would justify its being a separate list. For example, it would be relatively easy to add general biographical details like dates of birth and death, later holding of offices created by the constitution, etc. However, information like that does not specifically relate to the constitution. It would be considerably more difficult but still probably doable to add information related to each signer's contributions to the debate in terms of major ideas later included in the constitution, or perhaps the dates they were present during the constitutional debates. Just need some guidance. Tomsimlee (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Goodraise 12:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Giants2008 20:31, 11 July 2012 [4].
- Notified: Neelix, WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has been merged into List of Caribbean music genres by Neelix (talk · contribs). Merger was suggested by Neelix on 30 June and completed (without anyone else supporting or opposing or indeed responding) on 5 July. I cannot see from Neelix's contributions any sign that s/he notified any contributors to the list(s) or any associated Wikiprojects, although in fairness the original FLC nominator TUF-KAT (talk · contribs) has not edited since 2009 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago is not exactly a hive of activity. The list has already been removed from WP:FL by Neelix, so this is more a question of completing the paperwork. I have no opinion on whether merger was a good idea. BencherliteTalk 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - The term "calypso-like genre" does not appear in the literature, so we should not have an article on the subject. The broader concept of "Caribbean music genres" appears in the literature and that is what we should have an article about. Neelix (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Since the merger has already gone through, I'm inclined to perform a speedy delisting the next time I go through FLC/FLRC. Does anyone have any problems with that? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Giants2008 21:20, 9 July 2012 [5].
- Notified: WP:STARGATE, WP:SCIFI. Original FLC nominator is inactive-->
I am nominating this for featured list removal because... there are some outstanding issues from Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Things to fix that have not received any attention or attempts to address since they were posted 2 weeks ago. The main issue now is the dead links, unreferenced material, and material sourced to a Stargate fan site. I did what I could to fix everything else, but as I'm not really a fan of the show these things are beyond my scope. Hopefully the FLRC will iron out the rest. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - just a few opening thoughts.
- Plenty of [citation needed] tags going on which need to be fixed.
- Checking out the list of things to do on the talk page is a good idea, many have been fixed by Matthew, but some still remain.
- Why are the columns of the tables different widths from section to section? It looks really messy.
- "Stargate SG-1: Children of the Gods - Final Cut" should use an en-dash, not a hyphen per WP:DASH, check for others.
Done
- What does # and # mean in the table headings?
- Not sure but do these tables meet MOS:DTT? A quick look at the episode articles reveals no row or col scopes.
- It says "Original air date" but there's (Showtime), what's that?
- "214 & 2 Films" why is Film capitalised?
- Where are all the air dates, writers, etc referenced?
- Ref titles need to meet WP:DASH.
- Footnotes are unreferenced.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just fix issues, rather than removing. --TBrandley • talk • contributions 00:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be my guest. It's up to those interested in the list and any associated projects to remedy the situation. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist It's been here long enough with pending issues.--Cheetah (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Giants2008 21:20, 9 July 2012 [6].
- Notified: WikiProject Canada
I am nominating this for featured list removal because:
- Maintenance tag, in-line references are absolutely necessary.
- Multiple MOS fails (bold, dashes)
- Lead starts with "This article..."
- Table uses HTML markup, and bold for emphasis, see MOS:DTT.
- Table should be in chronological order.
Clearly not, right now, Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Other issues that were brought up in Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Alberta general elections/archive1 include:
- Tables could be sortable
- The colours in the graph don't match the colours in the tables
- Tables don't have row and col scopes
Hopefully this will be the start of all 13 lists being upgraded. 117Avenue (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Basically the same issues as the PEI list below. Outstanding maintenance tag, lack of referencing, poor accessibility/table formatting, etc. I would also think that a bit more information could be given for the 1900-1974 elections (number of members elected, at least?), rather than just a bulleted list of links to the individual articles. Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Issues are unresolved since May. It's ready to be delisted.--Cheetah (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.