Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/January 2011: Difference between revisions
create |
keep 1, delist 2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
==Kept== |
==Kept== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Indianapolis Colts seasons/archive1}} |
|||
==Delisted== |
==Delisted== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/109th United States Congress/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1)/archive1}} |
Revision as of 00:35, 11 January 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 00:35, 11 January 2011 [1].
- Notified: TheHoosierState89, Manningmbd, WikiProject National Football League, WikiProject Indianapolis Colts
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
This list was promoted almost three years ago, and it has not aged terribly well. There are several areas in which it fails to meet modern criteria:
It sounds like a lot of work to do, but I think the list is saveable. I'm willing to pitch in and offer a helping hand if serious work is being done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Update: I fixed the first sentence and removed bolding. Courcelles fixed dashes.—Chris!c/t 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a couple general references that verify most of what is in the table. More citations are still needed, though. Oh, and "By winning Super Bowl XLI the Colts became the only dome team to win a Super Bowl in an outdoor stadium" is no longer accurate, since the Saints won earlier this year in Miami. Just noticed that after I added the refs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - good to see folks pitching in to help with this and hopefully my comments will do nothing but continue the improvement.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Would suggest an elegant rephrase of the 1953 thing so you say the franchise formed then, and don't explicitly mention "the list" as it currently does...
|
- Notes are unreferenced.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed several. The blank "Division" is already explained by one of the notes.—Chris!c/t 00:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Symbols are in, and it looks like Chris took care of the overlinking and consistency issues. References remain the major stumbling point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Took me a while, but I was able to find references for all of the award winners. The lead and notes still need cites, but progress is being made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added cites to the lead in all places where I felt they were needed, and reworded a couple things in the process. The notes remain uncited, and they should probably be split from the citations at this point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes are now cited, at least the ones that needed them. That takes care of all my original comments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added cites to the lead in all places where I felt they were needed, and reworded a couple things in the process. The notes remain uncited, and they should probably be split from the citations at this point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Took me a while, but I was able to find references for all of the award winners. The lead and notes still need cites, but progress is being made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Symbols are in, and it looks like Chris took care of the overlinking and consistency issues. References remain the major stumbling point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a result of good work by Giants2008, well done dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, somebody not aware of the postseason rules will have a hard time understanding what "Wild Card Berth ¤ One-Game Playoff Berth" each mean, or what is their importance. I would suggest adding a note saying each of them what it means. Also, isn't it important if the team bets a bye for the wild card playoff game (like in 2009)? I would like to see this color-coded somehow. Nergaal (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'ved added the relevant link. Does that help any? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 00:35, 11 January 2011 [2].
- Notified: Markles, WikiProject U.S. Congress
First, this is not exactly a list. While it has a list of Senators, a list of Representatives, a list of legislation, etc. within the article, it is not a "List of" anything as a whole. Therefore, even if other problems are fixed, this would be better off at GA or FA. Next, I feel that the article is lacking information. Surely a two-year period of American politics would have more major events, or the ones mentioned could be elaborated on. More than one hearing was held, and the article in general could be more informative. The main problem is sourcing. There are some references, but the article completely lacks links citing other facts, the party summary, leadership, members, and employees. I'm sure this article can be greatly improved, but I don't see it as a list. Reywas92Talk 19:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree - It is a list of several items, and contains info and links necessary to access the articles on Senators, Representatives, Legislation etc. All these have their own articles, and in this one it should not be elaborated upon, exactly avoiding to create a monstrous catch-all. Kraxler (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care - "Featured" File or List is an ego-boosting process, as it was for me when I nominated this article. But now I don't need that kind of personal affirmation. At the time, by the way, I thought it was an "article." When I nominated it (like the 110th), it was as an article and I was told "No, it's a list." I said, "fine then nominate it as a list." I think it passed then. But frankly, if the article is Featured, GA, A or C, it's all the same to me. It doesn't matter to the article so you can delist it or not. It doesn't change anything if it's "Featured" or not. —Markles 01:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nominator. --TIAYN (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - There's a lack of citations. The lead doesn't adequately describe the article. The Major events section could be greatly expanded upon. I'm sure also that parts of the article could be formatted better. Afro (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist a shame Markles etc think this is a badge-winning exercise. The mature outlook is to produce excellent lists, of which this is not one. It's not about recognition, it's about promoting Wikipedia. When editors start throwing toys and claiming this about anything other than ensuring excellent content, it's a great pity. This is not a featured list, Afro hits the major problems, if no-one is willing to help then that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, The Rambling Man. The "Featured" process does encourage editors to improve articles. Perhaps that justifies the "badge-winning" part of it, anyway. I was hasty and I apologize.—Markles 02:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still disagree to certain things mentioned above, although I have no opinion at all on the delist-question:
- Lists should not need too amny citations, the sources and references are on the listed subjects' articles. Only controversial content should be footnoted.
- Please see nearly every other FL. While I think citations can get excessive, this has nowhere near enough. That is not how Wikipedia works; FLs should be able to stand alone. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Major events section could be greatly expanded upon??? What do you mean? Add descriptions, duplicating content that should be read elsewhere (on the event's article page), or add events, including minor events and minute events and minuscule events, and non-events?
- Lists should not need too amny citations, the sources and references are on the listed subjects' articles. Only controversial content should be footnoted.
- It could be more descriptive regarding the events which took place "Prominent events included the filibuster "nuclear option" scare", could be explained as to what this scare was for example, the whole section doesn't seem encyclopedic. Afro (Talk) 15:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a list, then isn't it sufficient? You want it more descriptive, but is that really necessary for an article? I guess that brings me to the meta-question: Is it a list or an article?—Markles 15:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Featured Lists do not just have name, name, name, name or event, event, event, event; they often include more detailed information about the subjects. And that brings me to why I nominated this: It's an article with numerous sublists. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest a layout more like the one shown on 111th United States Congress to keep it as a list. Afro (Talk) 18:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be more descriptive regarding the events which took place "Prominent events included the filibuster "nuclear option" scare", could be explained as to what this scare was for example, the whole section doesn't seem encyclopedic. Afro (Talk) 15:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, Markles, do not apologize. You might have been hasty, perhaps even wrong, but no harm was done. Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The apology was welcome. There was no need at all to disparage the good faith efforts of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, Markles, do not apologize. You might have been hasty, perhaps even wrong, but no harm was done. Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you not oppose the nomination, back in 2007, Rambling Man? It was supported unopposed then. No, Markles, there is absolutely nothing to apologize for. And by the way, all the "Nth Congress" and connected lists/articles are still full of doubtful info, which I'm trying to improve. It will take years, and if anybody handed me a badge, unopposed, I would take it without hesitation, although I never nominated any of my articles for anything. I propose to delist now, and to archive this, finishing a fruitless and unhelpful debate. Kraxler (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow your argument at all. Standards have changed dramatically since 2007, and I appreciated Markles' apology for disparaging this entire project. Once again, this is not about "badges" as you seem to be obsessed with, it's about preserving the highest possible standard for Wikipedia's featured content. Simple as that. The debate actually is helpful as it keeps our featured content excellent. And it would be more "fruitful" if people acted to improve the article rather than complaining about the system. Thanks for your contributions to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not obsessed with badges, as I said above. I do not think that Markles disparaged your precious project. He was given the badge a long time ago, and has now grown up sufficiently to state his opinion that the article will be the same with or without the star. Which is absolutely correct. Besides, "featured content" is certainly less than 1% of Wikipedia, I'm concerned about the other 99%, improving hundreds (who knows, thousands..) of articles over the years. IMO, that is what promotes Wikipedia: that users can look up anything, and get good and reliable info. Most users/readers don't even know what is a "featured article". And by the way, I'm not complaining about anything, I'm fine. Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "my precious project", it's Wikipedia's project to ensure excellence across lists. His apology was welcome. I'm glad you're concerned with the rest of the unfeatured part of Wikipedia, aren't we all? But in any case, this discourse is pointless, as it certainly isn't leading to improving the list, so I guess it's best we both disengage. Happy new year. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "my precious project", it's Wikipedia's project to ensure excellence across lists. His apology was welcome. I'm glad you're concerned with the rest of the unfeatured part of Wikipedia, aren't we all? But in any case, this discourse is pointless, as it certainly isn't leading to improving the list, so I guess it's best we both disengage. Happy new year. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not obsessed with badges, as I said above. I do not think that Markles disparaged your precious project. He was given the badge a long time ago, and has now grown up sufficiently to state his opinion that the article will be the same with or without the star. Which is absolutely correct. Besides, "featured content" is certainly less than 1% of Wikipedia, I'm concerned about the other 99%, improving hundreds (who knows, thousands..) of articles over the years. IMO, that is what promotes Wikipedia: that users can look up anything, and get good and reliable info. Most users/readers don't even know what is a "featured article". And by the way, I'm not complaining about anything, I'm fine. Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow your argument at all. Standards have changed dramatically since 2007, and I appreciated Markles' apology for disparaging this entire project. Once again, this is not about "badges" as you seem to be obsessed with, it's about preserving the highest possible standard for Wikipedia's featured content. Simple as that. The debate actually is helpful as it keeps our featured content excellent. And it would be more "fruitful" if people acted to improve the article rather than complaining about the system. Thanks for your contributions to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you not oppose the nomination, back in 2007, Rambling Man? It was supported unopposed then. No, Markles, there is absolutely nothing to apologize for. And by the way, all the "Nth Congress" and connected lists/articles are still full of doubtful info, which I'm trying to improve. It will take years, and if anybody handed me a badge, unopposed, I would take it without hesitation, although I never nominated any of my articles for anything. I propose to delist now, and to archive this, finishing a fruitless and unhelpful debate. Kraxler (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist it is a list, but it is neither a very appealing, easy to read, nor well reverenced one. Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:35, 11 January 2011 [3].
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is using an unreliable source to source its airdates. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the only reason? Because this can be easily fixed by removing the reference. The first two states sourced to to ANN's encyclopedia aren't ones that are likely to be challenged and the third has an second reference. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I guess this is it. It needs a new source for its airdates. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Demote I see a lot of other problems with this list, beyond the use of ANN's Encyclopedia as a source. Information about the Japanese video releases is completely absent from the article. This information exists[4]; we just need to find the release dates. Second, many of the plot summaries are inadequate or simply incomplete. Plot summaries should describe the entire plot of the episode. You can't do that in one or two sentences. This alone is a reason to delist the list. Third, the list references itself in the lead sentence, this is contrary to Wikipedia's policies on self referencing. The lead also fails to properly identify the main subject and doesn't provided much coverage beyond North American, even though this is a Japanese anime television series. —Farix (t | c) 13:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Demote - The general reference is dead and it means the entire list of episodes are unreferenced. Afro (Talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.