Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/December 2012

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 Giants2008 19:21, 16 December 2012 [1].

---

List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford

Notified: Pit-yacker, WikiProject Greater Manchester, WikiProject Skyscrapers

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's plastered with maintenance tags... Also:

• MOS issues:
  • Image captions with full stops which aren't needed
  • WP:ACCESS compliance of tables
  • WP:DASH failures throughout
  • Mixture of date formats in the refs
• All needs to be updated following a new "tallest" building.

I know they're not major issues, but I need subject-matter experts to ensure the list is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delist due to concerns with the WP:MOS, and outdated, as well as tags. TBrandley 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delist as failing 3.b. I see no reason to have this list outside of City of Salford. Nergaal (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. For goodness sake, have we all forgotten how easy it is to fix things? I do realise though that it's even easier to plaster tags and initiate deletion delisting discussions, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note the maintenance tags were there when I found it, and in my nomination I stated "I need subject-matter experts" to help to ensure the list is both accurate and meets the current standards. Also note this is not a "deletion discussion". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I never suggested that you did add the tags, I was making a general point. So far as the points you raised are concerned, I think the date formatting is consistent now, the punctuation of the image captions corrected, and the dashes fixed. The rest I'll work on later if nobody gets there before me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I've now also made the tables sortable and WP:ACCESS compliant, and made a start on updating the article for buildings completed since it was written. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments - good work. Some minor issues:

• "taller than 50 metres" every building listed is 55 metres or taller, so can we confirm there are no buildings between 50 and 54 metres tall in Salford?
• "This list of the tallest buildings and structures in Salford ..." we don't start featured articles with "This article about ..." so that needs to be updated.
• Note (a) is referenced but note (b) isn't.
• "Cathedral Church of St. John the Evangelist (RC)" caption, either ditch (RC) or explain it. I don't think it's necessary.
• Why the difference in minimum height of those buildings listed (50m) and those proposed (60m)?
• External link needs to be explained rather than just linked.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• The basis of the list is here, which lists no buildings between 50 and 54 metres high.
• Fixed.
• Fixed.
• No idea, it was like that when I came across it.
• The external link was pretty useless anyway, so I've removed it.
• Fundamentally though, the accuracy of this list is compromised by the lack of available information on the several high-rises built in MediaCityUK in the last few years, such as Blue, Orange and White. I've failed to come up with any reliable sources, despite asking for help from the developers and the architects, so unless anyone can do better than I've been able to do I think this article will have to be delisted on that basis. Malleus Fatuorum 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the work on the list Malleus, it's in a much better state. I also appreciate your candidness regarding the potential compromise resulting from limited info on the newly developed buildings. I was hoping we could find an SME to contribute, or at least someone with access to that kind of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's still possible I'll hear something back from either Peel or the architects, as it's less than a week since I contacted them, so fingers crossed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  We have pretty flexible time constraints here at FLRC, so we can leave it another week or two. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  I now have some better news to report. I've just received an email from the developer, Peel Group, confirming the heights of the two towers I was most uncertain about, Blue and Orange. I'm still hoping that Salford City Council's web site will soon once again allow access to approved planning applications, to be able to provide an easily available reliable source, but failing that I could presumably forward the Peel Group's email on to OTS? Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Any more opinions here? There's one delist that's pre-Malleus' work, and another on 3b grounds that I don't understand; a list of tallest buildings isn't ideal for a main city article. This is in no consensus territory right now, so hopefully some more reviewers will speak up. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Malleus' great work to improve the article. Great job! TBrandley 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep I'm really happy to see the list has been massively improved by Malleus and think the remaining tweaks are in the margins of whether or not we should delist. It would be better if we could reference everything perfectly, but that's not going to happen. I also fail to understand the "logic" behind Nergaal's 3b oppose, it makes no sense to me whatsoever. So, from all of that, I'd go for a keep.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2012 (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 19:28, 16 December 2012 [2].

---

List of U.S. states and territories by population

Notified: Phoenix2, WikiProject United States

This five and a half year old FL is seeing the wear of time. Specific issues:

• Starts with "this is a list of..."
• The article lacks a proper lead which introduces and summarizes the list.
• There is no real explanation of a state and a territory and a brief difference definition.
• Parts of the prose is unreferenced.
• The referencing is difficult to follow. How is the table sources? For instance, I cannot find that any of the general references lists the 2011 population estimate. Individual columns should probably be referenced with inline references.
• The table is not accessible as it does not comply with WP:DTT
• No explanation of why some columns are green
• Use of hyphens instead of dashes in the table
• Inconsistent date formatting
• Mix of inline referencing and footnotes for comments
• Far too many see also links (if relevant, these should be made into a navbox)
• Personally I would like to see a map of the states with names. Although I am fully capable of placing state names on a map, most people (even Americans) are not.
• I would have liked to see a population density column.
• The sister project links bar is just confusing as there as far as I could see are no corresponding entries in any sister projects.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Delist about half the article is a nest of "See also" articles, and the issues above seriously compromise this list's current "best Wikipedia can offer" tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Been a month now, no action here.... suggest we move to close this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Delist. Agree with the nominator's concerns. Not one of the best lists Wikipedia has to offer. Till 00:50, 16 December 2012 (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 Gimmetoo 14:00, 15 December 2012 [3].

---

Foo Fighters discography

Notified: WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... I almost fell out of my chair after seeing this mess of an article with the bronze star. The lead sentence should not be in bold, 'twenty three' should be hyphenated and 100 and 200 in Billboard charts should not be in italics. All I see is 'the band', 'the band', 'the band' repeating over and over. There is no-where near the required amount of referencing. The biggest killer is the state of the references, including inconsistencies with date formats (January 1, 2000 or 2000-01-01), incorrect works and publishers (billboard.com) and bare links for references 78-93. The album certifications use certifying bodies (ARIA) whereas the singles table uses the country's abbreviations (AUS). Till 08:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"I almost fell out of my chair after seeing this mess of an article with the bronze star" - well that was unnecessary. This discography has been featured since before your account even existed, so obviously it isn't going to be meeting our frequently changing standards. Anyway...—indopug (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Replies and further comments

• The lead: yeah this needs a thorough copy-edit. Reads rather dully and repetitively.
• "no-where near the required amount of referencing" - where? In the lead? Not required, per WP:LEAD, as the chart numbers and certifications are covered by cites in the tables below. Of course, stuff in the lead that isn't supported by the tables will require refs (already in place).
• "inconsistencies with date formats" - done. (there are scripts for such things)
• "album certifications use..." - done.
• "incorrect works and publishers (billboard.com)" - done, I think.
• "bare links for references 78-93" - before we start filling these out: should we even be listing fan-made videos (no matter who paid for them) here?
• The tables have to be cross-checked with references for accuracy of the numbers. There's been a lot of moving around of charts of late.—indopug (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Delist a quick look...

• Lead and infobox doesn't tally up.
• Album release dates - where are they referenced and for which specific territory are they relevant?
• Live albums has an incorrect caption.
• If Five Songs and a Cover didn't chart, where is its existence referenced?
• The "x" note needs a full stop.
• Notes should be referenced.
• Where are the promo singles that didn't chart anywhere referenced?
• Blank cell for the director of "Generator".
• Where is any of the "Other appearances" table referenced?
• Check that reference titles meet WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note no traffic here for four weeks, suggest delisting is enacted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2012 (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 Gimmetoo 14:00, 15 December 2012 [4].

---

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium)

Notified: WikiProject Belgium, WikiProject European Union, WikiProject Numismatics

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's fails on a number of counts:

• Tagged as out of date, a theme running throughout the list.
• Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS and the embedded "table-in-a-table" approach is really nasty I believe for screenreaders.
• Minor points such as hyphens being used instaed of en-dashes, MOSNUM fails, Notes and References mixed up.
• Dead links.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delist as no issues are being addressed, and it does not meet lots of FL criteria. TBrandley 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I will try to update the article in the following days. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but this has been nominated for over two weeks now so we'll need to see some immediate improvements. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I updated the article. Is work still needed? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
      • You need to check those embedded tables are accessible. I'd suggest poor old User:RexxS (he's very much overworked and very much under loved by us) gives you some advice on whether these tables are really accessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
        • No need to bother our beloved RexxS with such trivial matters. These tables are clearly not accessible. (See MOS:DTT.) Goodraise 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Only because it does not have the captions? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
            • These tables are made to look good, at the expense of inexperienced editors and readers using alternative methods of viewing Wikipedia. They use table code for layout purposes, which should be avoided wherever possible. Goodraise 00:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delist on accessibility grounds alone. The faster the "Imitate me!" sign is removed from this list the better. Goodraise 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, I am still working on it. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, well as long as that is evident, the nomination can remain open. It's been going for over two months now. If nothing substantive is done to fix the accessibility in the next week, I'll move to close this FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are too much outstanding work, plus I am busy in real life. I think withdrawing it and start working on it next year is a good idea. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest an uninvolved director/delegate closes this as delisted given this outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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