Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/July 2010

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 21:03, 14 July 2010 [1].

---

List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners

Notified: NapHit, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the lack of any specific references as well as additional general references besides RSSSF. Most of the lead needs verification of some sort. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I agree this needs some TLC (ref 1 is dead for starters), but there is no set requirement for the number of references, nor is there a requirement for any general referenes. WFC (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But feature material are held to higher standards as they represent wikipedia's best work. The list is nowhere near of meeting the set of standards required of all feature lists; the first criteria is highly questionable and the third is next to non-existant on the list. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the prose could do with work (criteria 1). While I haven't scrutinised them, if anything is unclear in the tables footnotes may be appropriate (if so, criteria 3(a)). But my point on references stands. The UEFA links need fixing, and extra refs would probably be introduced if the lead were expanded. But the requirement is that everything is verified by reliable sources. If a small number of reliable sources were enough to verify everything, there would be no need for any more. WFC (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that everything needs to be verified. The entire table needs references. The lead, which is two paragraphs long, only has ONE reference and that source only backs up one sentence. What about the rest? I know next to nothing about the competition. What is a knock-out tournament? What does it mean when it says "home and away"? Who is Fiorentina? Rangers? Why is "Final" capitalized on the lead? That is just the few things I have found. Feature lists are exemplary because they provide any user, who knows jack crap about the subject, the very basic things to know about what they are reading.

This doesn't even provide the basics. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree that there is scope for improvement. I'll get to work on this one once someone else comments. By the way, in your notification to NapHit, you failed to link directly to the conversation. It surprises me that someone pedantic enough to demand a reference for a capital letter and monosyllabic words would be that careless. WFC (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Update I'm sure any good faith editor will agree that the sourcing for what is currently in the list is now up to standards. I await any further comments. Regards, WFC (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with having "good faith" as editors. Everyone here does. It has to do with a FL trying to keep its feature status with mediocre sourcing. You have 39 editions, two paragraphs and all there is to show for it are six references? This is far from being FL material and it clearly doesn't meet criteria 1 and 3 (especially 3) in the basic standards provided for all FL to meet...in other words, it doesn't even meet the basics OF the basics. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contructive comments. Regards, WFC (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jamen, FLRC and FLC are not and have never been reference-counting games. Please give specific details on what needs to be improved (e.g. "This sentence needs a citation" or "The lead does not mention X, when it should"); otherwise, I will close this FLRC as a keep within the next few days as all of the actionable issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am being specific. The entire lead needs referencing or some sort of source. This list needs a lot of work. What is UEFA? What is FA Cup? What do they stand for? What is a knock-out tournament? What do they mean when it says "home and away ties"? Who is Fiorentina? Rangers? Lazio? Real Mallorca? Are those people, places or things? Why is "Final" capitalize in the lead? Is it a noun or else? Why is "reorganisation of its cup competitions" linked to an UEFA's club section that provides no reason as tp the "reorganisation of its cup competitions"? Why was the Cup Winners' Cup abolished?...

...this is simply the first paragraph. As I have said, this entire list needs a lot of work. This has nothing to do about reference-counting; it has to do with everything being verifiable (which I understand is a requirement for all FL if I am not mistaken). The great bulk of this page relies on RSSSF; while a great source, it is stil not an official source of any type and seeing that the external link is dead, there is nothing official backing RSSSF on anything they said. This list is entirely sub-standard of what a FL should be. Fix the above, look over the 2nd paragraph, give references for every edition of the competition (with official backing) and I will come back tomorrow to see if I should retire my FLRN. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All actionable comments addressed. I do not consider the nominator's reference requests to be actionable; references 2 and 4 cover all competitions, and there is no requirement for "official" sources. If anything the RSSSF is a better source than UEFA, as it is independent. Regards, WFC (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am looking and there has been almost no change in the lead. What does UEFA stand for? Who is Fiorentina, Rangers, Lazio, etc. (i.e. The first competition was won by Italian club Fiorentina who beat Scottish side Rangers...), what is two legs? The list goes on...you have to pretend that you know nothing about the sport and ask yourself those questions. The answer that I left on the UEFA Champions League FLRN section applies here too. Very little has been done. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent, ec) I agree, very little has been done. I have virtually no interest in the subject, other than being a member of WP:FOOTY. I will therefore deal with solveable, actionable requests, and leave anything above and beyond that to people with an interest in European football. Apparently there are a few of them. While it would normally be considered canvassing, I'm more than happy for you to invite other editors in good standing to contribute to this discussion, if you feel that actionable objections have not been met. Regards, WFC (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – It's true that UEFA could be spelled out (in the lead and references), and the lead could perhaps be slightly larger, but I'm failing to see any substantial issues that would require an FLRC. The referencing seems fine to me, keeping in mind that general references are not a bad thing, and that most of the lead's content can also be found in the table, which is cited. I also don't think we need to provide an explanation for every single term in the lead; that's what wikilinks are for. It would be nice to have teams' countries mentioned, but I again don't think an FLRC is needed for such a relatively minor issue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I haven't expanded the lead, per my outdented post above, but I've dealt with the actionable suggestions. WFC (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - There aren't any actionable issues here. FLC does not and never has counted references, everything that needs referencing has been. The nominator's issues surrounding "explanation" are adequately addressed by wikilinks in my opinion. We assume readers have a reasonable amount of intelligence when they read the articles, we don't need to explain every word. In my opinion it still meets the FL criteria. Woody (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2010 (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 kept by Dabomb87 15:11, 2 July 2010 [2].

---

List of Church of England dioceses

Notified: WikiProject Anglicanism, WikiProject Christianity

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails FL criteria 2 (not much of a lead and all) and has no inline cites. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• The introduction is ten sentences and written in Summary style and seems adequate for the topic. A requirement for inline citations is not one of the criteria for featured lists, and seems unnecessary distraction to readers, as the data is not likely to be disputed. Therefore I would suggest keep. Although I would recommend citations be offered for the territories and years of foundation, that should not affect its Featured List award. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have merged several short paragraphs which really didn't need to be separate sections to create one decent length lead, and added a couple of inline citations - I'll work ont he latter further later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:V. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's looking good now, though I'll wait to see if the coordinators have any issues with the article remaining an FL. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Image fails WP:ACCESS as just yellow or pink is used to denote York or Canterbury. "dioceses were founded. No new dioceses were then created until the middle of the 19th century, when dioceses were founded mainly in response to the growing population, especially in the northern industrial cities. The latest dioceses were created in 1927. The 44 dioceses are divided into two Provinces, the Province of Canterbury (with 30 dioceses) and the Province of York (with 14 dioceses" I know this is about dioceses, but we seem to have repeated the word seven times in this snippet alone... "(see also List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom)." isn't this why we have "See also" sections? Heading should probably be "Diocese (Bishop)" The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) All done bar the image, I'm lousy with image software (plus I can't think how else to designate the two provinces.......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Lacking both the inspiration and the skill to fix the access issue with the image, I have resorted to replacing it with a new one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 15:11, 2 July 2010 [3].

---

List of popes (graphical)

Notified: Dominic, WP Catholicism, WP Vatican City

I am nominating this for featured list removal because this was promoted five years ago this month, and the standards for FL's are quite a bit different than they were back then. At present, my main concern is 3b- that these graphs do not meet the standards of a stand-alone article. There's also some issues with criteria 2 and the referencing, as the lede is very short, and the references are minimal, but both of those could easily be resolved with a few hours work. In my opinion, this list's status as a FL turns on 3B, and my opinion is that it doesn't qualify. Courcelles (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove and could probably be taken to AfD aswell. We recently had another list with similar problems which is on its way to deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. As far as I can see the list is very useful and informative, setting out detailied and often confusing encyclopedic information in an ordered yet visual way. This is the sort of list that in my view is presentationally ideal for an encyclopedia, combining clarity with ease of linking to other articles. As has been said, the information is referenced and is not in dispute. Whether or not it stands alone is a little in the eye of the beholder. Xandar 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. I think this list meets all the criteria in Featured list criteria and Stand-alone lists. Is the objection that the information on the list duplicates what's found in List of Popes? That's true of the names and dates, but the graphical presentation is useful and unique to this list. A name change to something like "Timeline of Popes" might highlight the list's contribution. --Meyer (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That means that many lists can now by duplicated by the nifty timeline tool. I'm not convinced it's such a great contribution, to duplicate information, as to merit the distinction of being featured. Sandman888 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Delist unless several practical details are attended to... to whit:

• Don't start lists with "This is a list of..." any more.
• Use unspaced en-dashes in year ranges (see WP:DASH for more).
• "depending on whether a source counts Stephen II." not referenced, and pretty important. And poorly worded.
• The image of the list doesn't have the last and current pope on it, worth a note.
• Far too many see alsos. Not convinced at all we need this to link out to "sexually active" popes... And do you really want a link to Template:Popes?!!
• You have three general refs, none of which could possibly cover the last and the current pope.

Not entirely convinced this is even necessary - all the information in this list is covered (in more detail) in List of popes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Delist

• Completely unreferenced lead.
• I presume the three books under references are supposed to be 'general references'. However, they lack any page numbers, so it is impossible to recreate this list without skimming through three entire books. Also, there is no ISBN numbers, making them difficult to locate.
• The lead is poorly written and starts with 'this is graphical list of...'
• There is no explanation at all as to what an antipope is, or why the reign concurrently with other popes.
• Lack of a legend can make it difficult for some people with color blindness to understand which is a pope and an antipope.
• The list is completely redundant in information to List of popes.
• Supreme Pontiff redirect to a disambig page.
• The see also section is a mess and even has a template listed.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Delist

• For reasons given above, but most pertinent is by 3b. This could easily be incorporated into List of popes with a <timeline> or an appropriate template along side the table. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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