Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blest Withouten Match (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 7 September 2010 (→Lists nominated for removal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Removing featured lists in Wikipedia This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable. The FLC director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the exact timing of the process for each nomination. Nominations will last at least 14 days, and longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be kept, consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the delegates determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list, archived and added to Former featured lists if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination:
Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period as featured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily. A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions |
Featured list tools:
Toolbox |
Nomination procedure
|
- 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 03:54, 10 September 2010 [1].
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it violates the policy WP:PRIMARY, which states that articles cannot be based only on primary sources. There is extremely little independent verification of the information included in this article - simply references to the anime/manga itself and amazon.com pages. This falls short of the requirements of WP:FL?. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All primary sources? There is a whole reception section with non-primary sources.Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one section out of five which has citations to independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria says to follow the Manual of Style and the anime/manga manual state we have to use primary sources to cite in-universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a conflict between the MoS and WP:NOR then. I presume the instruction not to "base articles entirely on primary sources" is violated by an article which bases the main subject of the article (in-universe Naruto) on primary sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no conflict. Facts and events directly stated or displayed by a primary source can be cited to the primary source. WP:NOR simply states that any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims cannot be based on primary sources and requires a secondary, or third-party, source. Now if you can identify any specific analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims made in the article that isn't attributed to a third-party source, I'm sure that other editors will fix or remove them. However, your claimed reason for delisting, lack of third-party sources, has already been refuted by references 2–6 and 134—136. —Farix (t | c) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a conflict between the MoS and WP:NOR then. I presume the instruction not to "base articles entirely on primary sources" is violated by an article which bases the main subject of the article (in-universe Naruto) on primary sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria says to follow the Manual of Style and the anime/manga manual state we have to use primary sources to cite in-universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close to per WP:SNOW. PRIMARY applies to the article as a whole, not specific sections.陣内Jinnai 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The editor who started this FLRC has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close per WP:SNOW Blocked user and bad faith removal request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (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 15:48, 16 October 2010 [2].
- Notified: Gary King, WikiProject Companies
Another FL criteria violation (3b). This featured list can easily be merged into the main article. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delistso this is a 3.b breach. But could it not be salvaged by adding extra stuff about the mergers? Sandman888 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep at least until we know what 3b is going to look like long-term. While it is actively in flux, I can't support removing FL's for that rule. (NB: I'm not 100% certain this is unsalvageable even with 3b as it stands.) Courcelles 03:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it should be taken to AfD if one is concerned about SAL criteria? Sandman888 (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, AfD seems to be the appropriate forum for 3.b concerns. On behalf of K. Annoyomous I've created the relevant discussion here. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I've closed it as premature. It doesn't make sense to have a de-featuring and deletion process in play at the same time. Please resolve whether or not this list is to remain featured, and renominate without prejudice when and if it is delisted. The alternative is to open the door for the content to remain featured, but deleted--clearly, a nonsensical result. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish you had discussed that before closing. Precedence has it that FL can be deleted without going through FLRC, and one of the concerns on the RfC of 3.b was that 3.b objections duplicate 3.b so therefor an article should be allowed to be featured if it can survive AfD. As both WFC and I pointed out in the RfC it would make sense to leave 3.b concerns to AfD as a part of WP:SAL. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I've closed it as premature. It doesn't make sense to have a de-featuring and deletion process in play at the same time. Please resolve whether or not this list is to remain featured, and renominate without prejudice when and if it is delisted. The alternative is to open the door for the content to remain featured, but deleted--clearly, a nonsensical result. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist The list was incomplete as it did not include The New Yorker. I have redirected it to the relevant section of the Condé Nast Publications article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist and then redirect to the main article. It has already been merged. SnottyWong chatter 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist if that even makes any sense any more...DRV seems in favour of overturning, rendering the FLRC moot. Sandman888 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, a delist here would render the DRV moot, since I've already agreed that if it's delisted then an administrative close is no longer appropriate. That's principally a semantic distinction in this case, though, since only one person seems inclined that it be kept as an FL. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I know Dabomb87 or TRM they'll let it run until the RfC on 3.b is over per the above keep. Then probably require editors to revisit their delists based on the outcome of the rfc, but it doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Sandman888 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a delist here would render the DRV moot, since I've already agreed that if it's delisted then an administrative close is no longer appropriate. That's principally a semantic distinction in this case, though, since only one person seems inclined that it be kept as an FL. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - List has already been merged with the main article. Please continue the removal of its featured status. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Merge has been undone, another AfD has been started. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge hasn't been undone, its still in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist the 3.b rfc doesn't seem to be going anywhere with discussion died out. From the current criteria this is included in another article without remotely exceeding size concerns. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until the final consensus is reached on what the 3b really means and what it entails. I am not convinced that "But it could be merged into an article..." is a sufficient reason to delete and/or delist an FL. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep FL status. It's hard to see how this could be merged into Condé Nast Publications without creating a weight problem on that article. It's perfectly appropriate for a list to complement an article, offering a higher level of detail than would be appropriate in the article. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep FL status. Agree that the list is of a high-level of quality, and that it helps to complement the core article, rather than overwhelm it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Normally I'd point to criterion 3b as justification for my oppose/delist vote and be done with it. However, seeing as 3b is currently being discussed in depth on the criteria talk page, I feel the need to dig a little deeper this time. In my opinion, having lists like this go around displaying the bronze star is hurting the encyclopedia. "Getting a list to featured status" is considered some sort of achievement by many editors. In almost all cases that is a good thing. Put intentionally oversimplified, it motivates certain kinds of editors to create high quality content, who otherwise wouldn't. But there's an exception. Unlike normal articles, which are treated with the full force of our notability guidelines, list articles only face the mild breeze of "no consensus" in that area. If not for the FL process, lists would be spun-out of their parent articles on an as-needed basis. However, the FL process and the aforementioned achievement mentality do exist, and, because of them, editors spin-out lists before it becomes necessary and even if it probably never will be necessary. To make things even worse, this effect is accumulative. The list discussed here is a prime example. It may have brilliant prose an all, but it's just about as long as the average DYK. Lists as short as this shouldn't even stand alone if the main article was huge. In the absence of notability or a similar system for lists, FLC (whether we like it or not) is the place where, indirectly, the bulk of editors look for guidance. And until the larger community gets its act together and creates more explicit standards than what we have to work with right now, we should at least try to keep the trend away from "let's go chop up some articles into tiny little, FLC suitable pieces." -- If this was a merge discussion or an AfD, I'd vote merge. For that simple reason, I cannot vote keep here. Goodraise 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Good. If balancing is an issue, I am sure that those two tables can be made collapsable and then there would be no problem. If people still don't like this, then somebody should create the article History of Condé Nast and put the table there. Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove – Tough call, but I do think it fails to meet 3b. The tables are now included in the main Conde Nast article, and their inclusion seems reasonable to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. IMO these pre-emtive spin-offs were what 3b was made for (and the ongoing RfC saga hasn't convinced me otherwise). I think the "it could overwhelm the main article" argument is moot. The main article has existed since 2004 and hasn't been expanded enough to justify spinning-out yet. If someone does do a major re-write and finds that then the section is too weighty, we may consider spining-off again. However saying it that it could happen and that it should be pre-emptively spun out so a list can get a little bronze star is pure speculation (and in my opinion is tantamount to Wikipedia:Gaming the system). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:57, 8 November 2010 [3].
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is an old nomination, with serious lack of inline citations. Furthermore, the format used is quite unpleasant. Before keeping its status, significant changes would be necessary. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have the significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects been notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they haven't been (although I'm of course watching the page, being one of the authors and all). I'd be fully committed to fix whatever problems the nominator thinks this list has, providing he could be more specific. Last I checked, "unpleasant format" was a personal opinion, not a removal criterion :) As for "serious lack of inline citations"... ahem... I've been known to be accused of using too many of them, but "serious lack"? More specific comments about the proposed/expected "significant changes" would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 14:35 (UTC)
- I think "unpleasant format" means that the list is hard to read and understand, which fails Criterion 4. The prose is okay, but the tables have problems, especially the one under "Overview of administrative and municipal divisions". I also agree that the list would benefit from more inline citations.—Chris!c/t 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. The list was actually a result of a collaboration between me (content-wise) and another editor (who came up with the layout and structure). We tried multiple approaches, but navigation-wise this one seemed to work the best. The article covers a fair amount of material, so organizing it efficiently is, of course, a challenge. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what should be improved? I'll be happy to do the actual work of tweaking the list, but I need specifics—vague complaints are hard to act on! :) Same goes for the citations—can you point out a few specific sentences? Are those unreferenced sentences perhaps a part of a bigger, referenced, passage? Can the unreferenced parts be fixed by simply attaching already existing references? Could you clarify what exactly seems to be the problem with the "overview..." table? Colors, layout, placement, something else? If the article raises questions that impede the understanding of the material, what are those questions? Those kinds of comments will help me to immediately do something to address the concerns. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 19:20 (UTC)
- major issues:
- very short intro
- it is very unclear why administrative divisions does not include municipal divisions
- the prose in the history section is very choppy; at least merge the text into fewer paragraphs
- administrative division structure: it is very hard to follow this format (no idea how it can be improved, but it has to be improved); it is also very low on inline citations
- the overview table is not clear at all what is it talking about; i.e.: why Maykopsky District has 4 rows, two of which are not labelled/identified at all?
- the list section can be restructured into a table
Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; here are my comments (I hope you don't mind I re-numbered your bullet points for ease of reference):
- I'll attempt to re-write the intro tomorrow.
- I'll add some background information as to why it is so; that's a good catch.
- This section is a basic history background, so we tried keeping it short, leaving only the most important trends and facts. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
- The list and the definitions come directly from the republic's law. I can add other sources, but there really isn't going to be anything new those sources will add (plus, the law is current; other sources will be somewhat out-of-date). If adding the law citation to every single sentence work for you, I'll do it, but comments made around the time the nomination had been submitted leaned to such approach being unnecessary and redundant. As for the administrative divisions format, it is hard to follow because the system being described is itself rather convoluted (in fact, I am yet to see a more convoluted system than Russia's). The list presents the concepts hierarchically, from top to bottom. I don't know of a more straightforward way to present this information. Hopefully the list isn't going to be delisted just because the concepts themselves are difficult to wrap one's mind around?
- Maykopsky District's first two rows (in blue) show how the district's urban-type settlements correspond to the municipal urban settlements. The rest of the territory is under the direct jurisdiction of the administrative district; on the municipal side, however, that same territory is divided into eight municipal rural settlements (coded yellow; with 48 rural localities) and the inter-settlement territory (with three rural localities). See what I meant when I said the system is convoluted? :) At any rate, the table itself was a later addition made after the FL nomination had passed; I have no qualms about removing it altogether, although I think it could be helpful to people genuinely interested in figuring out how exactly the system works.
- The list section was restructured from the table format per the comments made during the FL review nomination, during the nomination itself, and the subsequent review. The table, apparently, was too hard to follow.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 20:53 (UTC)
- 6. Just take a look at List_of_Digimon_video_games or List of StarCraft media. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a first pass addressing ##1–3 and removed the overview table altogether to address #5. Please let me know if that addresses your concerns and, if not, what else I could do to address them more fully. I would appreciate more comments regarding #4 (see my remark above). On #6, I would like to hear from more than one person confirming that the currently used list format is inferior to the table format Nergaal proposed. Judging from the Digimon/StarCraft examples, those table add nothing beyond a gray background and some separators—seems to me it's just a matter of taste, not something critical. It is quite a chore to switch from one format to another, which is why I would appreciate more input regarding the matter. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2010; 16:16 (UTC)
- Thanks; here are my comments (I hope you don't mind I re-numbered your bullet points for ease of reference):
- Reply
- lead looks good
- while the municipal divisions issue is explained in the lead, this is not presented at all in the article text. more information should be added to the municipal division structure section
- the history section is better but some work can be still done: I counted 6 short paragraphs formed of 2 sentences each
- I don't like the one-sentence-per-section style now. It should be merged somehow and to help the reader, a scheme along the lines found at Tyrannosauridae#Phylogeny would be much more helpful.
- removing it is not the best solution. I prefer having it with explanatory notes added
- taste no; easier to follow (by having colums) yes
- is there a reason the article is not named List of divisions of Republic of Adygea? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies:
- OK, one down :)
- Unlike with the administrative divisions, which are different from one federal subject to another, the structure/terminology/qualities of the municipal divisions are described and mandated by a single federal law. The structure of the municipal divisions is thus the same in each and every federal subject of Russia; there's no point in explaining it over and over 83 times (or make corrections in 83 places if the definitions change later). That's the main reason why the "Municipal divisions" section only gives the briefest of overviews; all the meat can be found at Subdivisions of Russia#Municipal divisions, which is linked to from the section hat.
- The paragraph breaks are inserted in all the logical places. If you see a way to consolidate the existing material better, would you please do so? It wouldn't require the knowledge of the material; you'd be working only with the pieces which are already in there. Or perhaps you are looking for me to expand the paragraphs which are currently too short?
- The format of this list will eventually be re-used in the rest of the article on the "administrative and municipal divisions of...". While consolidating a list of districts and cities/towns into one chart similar to the phylogeny example is doable for Adygea, it will not be a feasible option for most of the rest of the federal subjects. Adygea, with only seven districts, is atypical; federal subjects have anywhere from one to sixty districts (and the federal city of Moscow, which has a very unique administrative structure, has 125), with the median of 22.
- I don't know a good way to explain that table, and you were right to point out at the beginning that it is confusing to uninitiated. If I (or someone else) think of a better way to summarize that information, I most certainly re-add it later on. From what I've tried so far, the result is either confusing or extremely cluttered (and thus also confusing).
- I would still prefer to hear someone else support this; hope you understand. Like I said before, the table format was shot down in the past precisely because someone else didn't like it; that's why everything is textified. We shouldn't be switching formats back and forth every few years without a clear consensus as to why.
- Adygea has other kinds of divisions; this article only deals with the administrative and municipal ones. Typically in Russia the administrative and municipal divisions are bundled under the "territorial" moniker (i.e., the title can be "List of the territorial divisions of the Republic of Adygea"), but I don't have a source available to back that up specifically for Adygea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)
- 2) Not everybody is aware of the distinction, because not everybody is aware of the issues related to divisions of Russia. For a featured content it should stand alone. Just add an introductory sentence to the section.
- 5) so use the diagrams used in phylogeny sections of species articles. as a featured list it should not contain confusing parts
- 7) just to clarify: if the article was titled simply divisions of... , what would be missing? Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 3) Let me think about it over the weekend and I'll do something next week.
- 5) Gotta think about this as well. If you have any ideas, could you do a rough draft of how the material should be presented?
- 7) Divisions of all other types would be implied but missing. Transportation zones, military units, maybe postal zones—I'm not very well versed in those, but none of them are related to the administrative/municipal divisions at all. In the end it's probably not that big of a deal, but since the list is an FL, extra care should be exercised to make sure the title is as precise as possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 20:30 (UTC)
- Comment What is the status of this nomination? Have the various concerns been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been working on this from the start, but did not have much time to address the remaining concerns in the past couple of weeks. I'm planning to return to the remaining issues in a week or two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2010; 18:52 (UTC)
- As I seem to be the only person reviewing this here are my thoughts: the list itself has much improved over when I nominated it. The only two major problems I can still notice is that
"Administrative division structure" is a bit difficult to go through (i.e. is not clear at all); and I would strongly prefer having "List of administrative and municipal divisions" in a tabulated form (which the editor would prefer to hear from other people too before doing). Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Any more news on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal? Are you good with closing this? I don't believe there's anyone else felt with outstanding comments regarding this list's FL status. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2010; 13:17 (UTC)
- I only have one major concern left (I would prefer the last section being tabulated), but considering how much this has been improved I am fine with keeping it. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal? Are you good with closing this? I don't believe there's anyone else felt with outstanding comments regarding this list's FL status. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2010; 13:17 (UTC)
- Any more news on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I seem to be the only person reviewing this here are my thoughts: the list itself has much improved over when I nominated it. The only two major problems I can still notice is that
- I've been working on this from the start, but did not have much time to address the remaining concerns in the past couple of weeks. I'm planning to return to the remaining issues in a week or two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2010; 18:52 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments a very good list considering the esoteric subject matter.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment my primary issues resolved, and currently see no consensus for demotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (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 18:01, 11 October 2010 [4].
- Notified: Miss Madeline, WP:TROP
I am nominating this for featured list removal because this is has not update since it was made. I do no think it meets criteria 3a anymore. I tried updating the article, but it is just too much work. In addition, shouldn't there be a modern repeats section? There is no sources to Baja Insider (the tracking agency for the region). Also, there should be mention of averages of hurricane pear year (Baja Insider once mentioned that) and maybe even why early season hurricane don't make landfall there (mentioned by Baja Insider as well). YE Tropical Cyclone 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, even if Baja Insider is not considered reliable enough there is still plenty of info missing and it still fails criteria 3a. YE Tropical Cyclone 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for peoples information, a few off us WPTC members including YE had a conversation on IRC and from first impressions of the site it didn't seem reliable. However people are welcome to judge this for themselves. I have also obtained a list of TC's from YE that are missing from this list. These are
Oliva 1967, Newton 86, Paine 86, Roslyn 1986, Flossie 1995,Madeline 98, Lane 2000, Elida 02, Hernan 2002, Isselle 02, Howard 04, Eugene 05, Illena 06, Dailla 07, Ivo 07 , Julio 08, Lowell 08, Olaf 09, Patricia 09, Rick 09, Norbert 08, Jimena 09 Gorgette 10. I will be double checking over the next couple of days why these aren't in the list my suspicion is that some of these barley affected Baja or didnt affect Baja at all.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these posted some effect on the Baja. These all impacted Baja form waves to $764 million in damage to TS watches. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even i still need to double check, since i need to know whats happened.Jason Rees (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Howard 2004 passed well offshore and had no impact on Baja according to the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relating to Howard check this. Madeline, Flossie, and Iselle all required TS watches. The NHC is not the best source for impact, impact is not there specialty, forecasting hurricnae is. YE Tropical Cyclone 4:54 am, Today (UTC+1)
- ive checked that site and it doesn't mention anything about Howard causing any impact so it doesn't go in. Also i trust the NHC more with regards to impact than that source you provided which looks unreliable to me, especially when you consider that it passed well to the south of Baja.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relating to Howard check this. Madeline, Flossie, and Iselle all required TS watches. The NHC is not the best source for impact, impact is not there specialty, forecasting hurricnae is. YE Tropical Cyclone 4:54 am, Today (UTC+1)
- Howard 2004 passed well offshore and had no impact on Baja according to the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even i still need to double check, since i need to know whats happened.Jason Rees (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bunch of the missing storms. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still quite a few storms are missing. The NHC is not the best source of impact, as I found a few major factaul error errors. Julio killed two people not one and Norbert and Jimena have damage totals. A few storms that caused waves or TS watches are still missing. What about a modern repeats section? also, not enough detail is included in the worse of storms (Liza, Norbert, Jimena). However, you are doing a great job thus far. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A modern repeats is unnecessary. A storm hits the BCP about once a year, hardly a rare event. Also, it is not necessary to indent that much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Also, should there be a Little more said for the notable storms. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so special about Norbert and Jimena that they deserve damage totals? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are damage totals available, why not put them? YE Tropical Cyclone 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of other ones don't have damage totals. What about those ones? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont personally see the need for the damage totals, especially as lots are missing or even haven't been assessed.Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Put it this way if there are damages totals put them in there (Jimena and Norbert were just examples as they have damage totals). They are in other hurricnae FL's and for some reason not in this one. In addition, we list deaths, damage totals are equally or almost important. Also, of the systems that are missing a number of them have not been taken care of (Howard did affect Bja) YE Tropical Cyclone 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont personally see the need for the damage totals, especially as lots are missing or even haven't been assessed.Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of other ones don't have damage totals. What about those ones? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are damage totals available, why not put them? YE Tropical Cyclone 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so special about Norbert and Jimena that they deserve damage totals? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) No, people are more important; you can always build another house, but you can't just get another (say) brother. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but we put them in hurricnae info boxes, don't see why not we can put them in the article? YE Tropical Cyclone 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't exclude information just because you don't want it to be there. If it's excluded, that can be considered censorship and obviously makes the article incomplete. Whenever available, the damage totals should be added to article. There may be a handful without monetary values listed, but that's how things are sometimes. The article doesn't have have "perfect" parallels for each summary, they just have to be as complete as can be with the available sources. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the actual quality of the article...it definitely needs improvement in places. A lot of the more recent storms are written in several sentences than can easily be merged into one and allow room for more information. I'll see what I can do tomorrow to improve the article quality, the information to be added (in addition to damage totals) is up for discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One issue I'm concerned with is how do you know if you got every storm? I realize there is a similar issue in other such lists, but for now I'll ask on here. It says Henriette was the only one in 2007, but the Dalila and Ivo articles both indicate impact on the peninsula. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, delist. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this should be delisted. I added Ivo and Dailla to the list of missing storms. More importantly they are factual errors in the article. For expamle, Julio killed 2 people not one. How can a storm kill 0-57. It hit Sinola where it killed all of its people. When they are death toll ranges form different sources always go with the higher one so the death toll of Liza is 950, not 600. Juliete and Liza also need damage totals and likely a few other storms. YE Tropical Cyclone 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I disagree about always going with the higher one. One should always go with the most recent and most accurate source. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Spanish sources tend to be more accurate than the NHC. YE Tropical Cyclone 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...not really. It depends from what agency the info is from. If it's some generic Spanish blog, than NHC is usually more accurate. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Spanish sources tend to be more accurate than the NHC. YE Tropical Cyclone 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I disagree about always going with the higher one. One should always go with the most recent and most accurate source. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this should be delisted. I added Ivo and Dailla to the list of missing storms. More importantly they are factual errors in the article. For expamle, Julio killed 2 people not one. How can a storm kill 0-57. It hit Sinola where it killed all of its people. When they are death toll ranges form different sources always go with the higher one so the death toll of Liza is 950, not 600. Juliete and Liza also need damage totals and likely a few other storms. YE Tropical Cyclone 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - currently this list fails 2 and 3a. Several editors above has expressed concern about the comprehensiveness of this list. Also the lead can be improved with more engaging language. "The list of Baja California hurricanes includes ..." reads a little better than "This is a list of ..." but still sounds boring. The sources are mostly okay but those from http://www.weather.unisys.com looks dubious. They also need consistent formatting. Some lack publisher info.—Chris!c/t 01:34, 1 October 2010 (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 kept by Dabomb87 22:10, 24 September 2010 [5].
- Notified: Underneath-it-All, Hotwiki, Mister sparky @actual discography.
The earlier parts of the lead discuss band line-ups, which is why they are referenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be clear on how it fails MOSNUMBER please? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORDINAL - single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and the style should be kept consistent. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Althought in every GA/FA i've encountered its the norm to spell out numbers 1 to 99 in words. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed it, took about four seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Althought in every GA/FA i've encountered its the norm to spell out numbers 1 to 99 in words. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORDINAL - single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and the style should be kept consistent. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be clear on how it fails MOSNUMBER please? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okies, I thing most of the issues have been resolved. There is one deadlink in the references, one bare url and sources required for the 'other appearances' section. If those are fixed I will conclude that IMO (and as the user who requested removal) that the discog satisfies FL criteria. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but note that the last two music videos' directors are unreferenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going with keep. The work to improve this has been very impressive and it's certainly not unsalvageable. The remaining concerns obviously need resolving, but they're fairly minor in comparison to what has already been done and are easily addressed through regular editing. While the original issues were serious enough to justify an FLRC, delisitng it now wouldn't be helpful. I have nothing but praise for the editors who have worked on this over the last couple of weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with HJ Mitchell's comments and I'm sorry because they're things I should have said too as the person who nominated for removal in the first place. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWiW, I think you were totally justified in nominating it for removal, but, thanks to the efforts of the editors who've worked to save it, I don't think there are any outstanding concerns serious enough to warrant removal. My comment wasn't a criticism of you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no HJ, don't worry about it, I didn't take it as personal critism. There were genuine concerns and those have been addressed. I echo you're comments in thanking those who've contributed to fix the article which, now is more or less a featured list IMO. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The irony is that it's received more care and attention through being listed removal than it has probably since its original FLC! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no HJ, don't worry about it, I didn't take it as personal critism. There were genuine concerns and those have been addressed. I echo you're comments in thanking those who've contributed to fix the article which, now is more or less a featured list IMO. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWiW, I think you were totally justified in nominating it for removal, but, thanks to the efforts of the editors who've worked to save it, I don't think there are any outstanding concerns serious enough to warrant removal. My comment wasn't a criticism of you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been told to respond, although my comments have not received any attention. The ladt two music videos' directors lack references, and the Dutch chart column in 'As featured artist' section is too. Once these things are cleaned up I will be happy to keep it as a FL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'll see what I can do. A very quick search turns up this, though I'm far from certain of its reliability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also this. I'll see if I can find editors more familiar with the subject matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'll see what I can do. A very quick search turns up this, though I'm far from certain of its reliability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no major issues outstanding, good work to all concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spotted a NZ gold cert for "Push the Button" at [6], but as the row is quite high, it probably doesn't need to be included. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I referenced the music video director, and returned the Dutch chart in the featured singles section. I will change to neutral. The 'Other appearances' section confuses me a bit. Why are the featured singles repeated here? Why are some referenced, but not others? [sorry for not picking this up earlier:)] Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks fine now. Nergaal (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2010 (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 kept by The Rambling Man 07:30, 15 September 2010 [7].
- Notified: Conscious, WikiProject Football
In these World Cup days I came across what I was hoping would be a thrilling list, but was rather dismayed. There are several key concerns:
- The lead uses half its space in defining UEFA and who are members, instead of quickly defining it and discussing the leagues and teams. The prose is not enganging and needs to be longer. Also, the key needs to be seperated and more structured. The first sentence is obsolete. (fails criteria 1 and 2)
- Referencing, if it can be called that, is a mess. Four general pages are provided, all with access dates from 2006, yet the article is up to date as of the 2010–11 season. Of the links, I was only able to navigate myself to this seasons tables via the UEFA link, but not the other ones. There should be at least one reference for each table.
- Done cites up to Latvia so far, will do the rest but its too mind-numbing for a single sitting. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a number of the tables sort wrong, i.e. the are alphabetized wrong by default or the sort key alphabetizes incorrectly. (fails criteria 4)
- I was under the impression that flagicons (i.e. images) in headers will wreck the syntax in some browsers, but havn't been able to verify this 100%. Similarly for links in headers.
- Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain if the term "city" is acurate; for instance, the list claims 11 "cities" in the Faroe Island, an area with less than 50,000 people. See for instance Eiði with its 669 residents. Perhaps "location" is better.
- Changed to Town or City, Location seemed too vague to me. There might be the odd village, but the meaning is clear enough I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there must be some suitable way to illustrate this, beyond a simple map. There is loads of space down the right, an image from selected teams would improve this list a lot. (fails criteria 5b)
- To compensate for the fact that this is a fun job, I'm starting with the difficult countries. Obviously I can and will add more, but what do you think about the general balance of images I'm adding? WFC (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are five disambiguation links.
Arsenikk (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Ideally you would revamp each section to something like this with a reference next to the As of... and maybe a map of where the clubs are. However this would take a lot of work. I could help out if others were prepared do put in a fair bit of work to, but I couldn't do it all on my own. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with the FL. This whole page is rather redundant when we already have several templates and links this same information. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder, this is not a deletion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Thinking of something else. Either way, it is still a redundant page that simply bring different pieces of information in one article...when we already have separate articles for each page. If it where like this two] lists I could understand but... Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder, this is not a deletion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had minor involvement in getting this list to FLC the first time around. Busy busy busy right now, but over the coming week I'll look at revamping it. Oldelpaso (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I have a serious question...how did this page even become a FL?! I have had a list that has been screwed with to death for almost two months and nothing. This one only has seven references in total and, presto! We are upgrading you to FL status...what is this??!! Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously a different kind of list which was considered complete at the time of its promotion to FL status. --MicroX (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was promoted in 2006. The standards then were quite different. At both FLC and FAC, over time there has been a steady increase in the standard required. In 2006 this genuinely was an example of Wikipedia's best work. In 2010, perhaps not so much. That's what this process is here to address. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – The lead and referencing, which were noted as problems in the nomination statement, seemingly remain so. Just doesn't seem like the page's structure holds up to modern standards.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment below is completely true. The list already looks quite a bit better, though some work still remains. I'd like to recommend that the directors hold this one for a while to allow for further improvements; we must be understanding that the fixes required here are quite time-consuming. If the list can be saved, then the extra time is well worth it. As for the current state, just having the photos and maps gives the list much more life. One quick suggestion: City should be de-capitalized in each of the many tables since it isn't a proper noun. That should be among the less work-extensive fixes that can be done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave open - I entirely share Giants' concerns, but I'm extremely impressed with the work that has been done on referencing and verifying this. So much so that I'm going to chip in as well. This certainly won't be a quick or easy save, but the will seems to be there. WFC (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm getting through this at a better pace than I had anticipated; half way there, ignoring the fact that I've already done some random bits in the second half. A few questions though. Firstly, Oldelpaso asked me on the talk page if it would be possible to restore the bold text for champions in addition to the yellow, as colour alone is not compatible with text-based browsers such as Lynx. I'm fine with that, but I was under the impression that bolding is depreciated? Secondly, I'm leaving some of the sorting until last. With some of the countries I'm not sure if I should sort by the very common first word. Taking Israel as an example, I personally would have ignored Maccabi and Hapoel for sort purposes. But the list didn't do that before, so I thought I'd open it up to comments before doing a lot of work needlessly. Finally, I know I'm making work for myself here, but does anyone think it's worth noting newly promoted clubs (where applicable)? --WFC-- 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, bolding is discouraged now, at least according to MOS:BOLD. Italics can always be used as a substitute, if this turns into a sticking point. The work so far looks good in general. One more thing while I'm here: reference 26 shouldn't have all caps in the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the reply. --WFC-- 08:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, bolding is discouraged now, at least according to MOS:BOLD. Italics can always be used as a substitute, if this turns into a sticking point. The work so far looks good in general. One more thing while I'm here: reference 26 shouldn't have all caps in the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep tho RSSSF refs need author and date. Tedious work. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments WFC asked if I'd pop over and have a look. It's certainly improved since people started working on it, well done... Few quick comments, haven't got time for a thorough review, sorry:
- Agree with Sandman re author(s)/publication date for the RSSSF refs. If he had to do it for the Barcelona lists...
- I agree. I'm not ignoring it, just waiting as long as possible. As Oldelpaso hinted above, it's a tedious job. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it'd be nice if the foreign-language references had the
trans_title
parameter completed (where it isn't obvious) - Also, it'd be helpful for the reader wanting to know where the information came from, if incomprehensible (to us semi-literate Brummies, anyway) foreign-language publishers e.g. Fótbóltssamband Føroya were either linked to their WP article or translated in parentheses (Faroe Islands Football Association)
- What makes the general references World Football Organisation and eufo.de reliable sources? assuming you're still using them for anything
- If it was me, I'd move the note about TNS/Llansantffraid/etc into the Wales section, as was done with the AS Monaco/France one, rather than leaving it in a general Notes section. That particular note's probably visible from its table anyway, but in general, it's kinder to the reader if they can see a section-specific note without having to click down to a Notes section and then back up to where they were.
- In Albania, as of 2010-11 season, what's the asterisk for?
hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll carry on methodically (one country at a time so that there is visible progress, to keep my chin up as much as anything else!). But I agree with pretty much all of that. Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to directors Work is ongoing. I made a request here for help with the lead. You may want to bear this in mind if there is a sudden flurry of !votes. Regards, --WFC-- 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me. As long as work is on-going then this can run (and run and run)... It does already appear that there's no consensus for a delisting, but the continuing improvements are well worth keeping the FLRC open for. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As an aside, I know that FL has a few detractors, but FLRC in particular is productive and efficient. Even when people take on a major, protracted job like this, we tend to get the job done quicker here than elsewhere. Point-y nominations aside, the end result almost always justifies the effort. --WFC-- 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me. As long as work is on-going then this can run (and run and run)... It does already appear that there's no consensus for a delisting, but the continuing improvements are well worth keeping the FLRC open for. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close? It seems fine to me now, no need to let people read all this stuff. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 07:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All looks good to me now, I dealt with a couple of typos but I couldn't see any issues when compared to the FL criteria. Looking at how it first passed and at the beginning of this review it looks a lot better. Well done to everyone involved. Woody (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and motion to close. While the original list was not up to standards, the current version is infinitely better. Great work, it's night and day. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks a lot better than when it came here. Arsenikk (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks significantly better. Well done to all involved. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and second move to close. Courcelles 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Lists nominated for removal
- 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 03:54, 10 September 2010 [8].
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it violates the policy WP:PRIMARY, which states that articles cannot be based only on primary sources. There is extremely little independent verification of the information included in this article - simply references to the anime/manga itself and amazon.com pages. This falls short of the requirements of WP:FL?. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All primary sources? There is a whole reception section with non-primary sources.Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one section out of five which has citations to independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria says to follow the Manual of Style and the anime/manga manual state we have to use primary sources to cite in-universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a conflict between the MoS and WP:NOR then. I presume the instruction not to "base articles entirely on primary sources" is violated by an article which bases the main subject of the article (in-universe Naruto) on primary sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no conflict. Facts and events directly stated or displayed by a primary source can be cited to the primary source. WP:NOR simply states that any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims cannot be based on primary sources and requires a secondary, or third-party, source. Now if you can identify any specific analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims made in the article that isn't attributed to a third-party source, I'm sure that other editors will fix or remove them. However, your claimed reason for delisting, lack of third-party sources, has already been refuted by references 2–6 and 134—136. —Farix (t | c) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a conflict between the MoS and WP:NOR then. I presume the instruction not to "base articles entirely on primary sources" is violated by an article which bases the main subject of the article (in-universe Naruto) on primary sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria says to follow the Manual of Style and the anime/manga manual state we have to use primary sources to cite in-universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close to per WP:SNOW. PRIMARY applies to the article as a whole, not specific sections.陣内Jinnai 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The editor who started this FLRC has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close per WP:SNOW Blocked user and bad faith removal request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (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 15:48, 16 October 2010 [9].
- Notified: Gary King, WikiProject Companies
Another FL criteria violation (3b). This featured list can easily be merged into the main article. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delistso this is a 3.b breach. But could it not be salvaged by adding extra stuff about the mergers? Sandman888 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep at least until we know what 3b is going to look like long-term. While it is actively in flux, I can't support removing FL's for that rule. (NB: I'm not 100% certain this is unsalvageable even with 3b as it stands.) Courcelles 03:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it should be taken to AfD if one is concerned about SAL criteria? Sandman888 (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, AfD seems to be the appropriate forum for 3.b concerns. On behalf of K. Annoyomous I've created the relevant discussion here. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I've closed it as premature. It doesn't make sense to have a de-featuring and deletion process in play at the same time. Please resolve whether or not this list is to remain featured, and renominate without prejudice when and if it is delisted. The alternative is to open the door for the content to remain featured, but deleted--clearly, a nonsensical result. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish you had discussed that before closing. Precedence has it that FL can be deleted without going through FLRC, and one of the concerns on the RfC of 3.b was that 3.b objections duplicate 3.b so therefor an article should be allowed to be featured if it can survive AfD. As both WFC and I pointed out in the RfC it would make sense to leave 3.b concerns to AfD as a part of WP:SAL. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I've closed it as premature. It doesn't make sense to have a de-featuring and deletion process in play at the same time. Please resolve whether or not this list is to remain featured, and renominate without prejudice when and if it is delisted. The alternative is to open the door for the content to remain featured, but deleted--clearly, a nonsensical result. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist The list was incomplete as it did not include The New Yorker. I have redirected it to the relevant section of the Condé Nast Publications article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist and then redirect to the main article. It has already been merged. SnottyWong chatter 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist if that even makes any sense any more...DRV seems in favour of overturning, rendering the FLRC moot. Sandman888 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, a delist here would render the DRV moot, since I've already agreed that if it's delisted then an administrative close is no longer appropriate. That's principally a semantic distinction in this case, though, since only one person seems inclined that it be kept as an FL. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I know Dabomb87 or TRM they'll let it run until the RfC on 3.b is over per the above keep. Then probably require editors to revisit their delists based on the outcome of the rfc, but it doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Sandman888 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a delist here would render the DRV moot, since I've already agreed that if it's delisted then an administrative close is no longer appropriate. That's principally a semantic distinction in this case, though, since only one person seems inclined that it be kept as an FL. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - List has already been merged with the main article. Please continue the removal of its featured status. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Merge has been undone, another AfD has been started. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge hasn't been undone, its still in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist the 3.b rfc doesn't seem to be going anywhere with discussion died out. From the current criteria this is included in another article without remotely exceeding size concerns. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until the final consensus is reached on what the 3b really means and what it entails. I am not convinced that "But it could be merged into an article..." is a sufficient reason to delete and/or delist an FL. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep FL status. It's hard to see how this could be merged into Condé Nast Publications without creating a weight problem on that article. It's perfectly appropriate for a list to complement an article, offering a higher level of detail than would be appropriate in the article. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep FL status. Agree that the list is of a high-level of quality, and that it helps to complement the core article, rather than overwhelm it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Normally I'd point to criterion 3b as justification for my oppose/delist vote and be done with it. However, seeing as 3b is currently being discussed in depth on the criteria talk page, I feel the need to dig a little deeper this time. In my opinion, having lists like this go around displaying the bronze star is hurting the encyclopedia. "Getting a list to featured status" is considered some sort of achievement by many editors. In almost all cases that is a good thing. Put intentionally oversimplified, it motivates certain kinds of editors to create high quality content, who otherwise wouldn't. But there's an exception. Unlike normal articles, which are treated with the full force of our notability guidelines, list articles only face the mild breeze of "no consensus" in that area. If not for the FL process, lists would be spun-out of their parent articles on an as-needed basis. However, the FL process and the aforementioned achievement mentality do exist, and, because of them, editors spin-out lists before it becomes necessary and even if it probably never will be necessary. To make things even worse, this effect is accumulative. The list discussed here is a prime example. It may have brilliant prose an all, but it's just about as long as the average DYK. Lists as short as this shouldn't even stand alone if the main article was huge. In the absence of notability or a similar system for lists, FLC (whether we like it or not) is the place where, indirectly, the bulk of editors look for guidance. And until the larger community gets its act together and creates more explicit standards than what we have to work with right now, we should at least try to keep the trend away from "let's go chop up some articles into tiny little, FLC suitable pieces." -- If this was a merge discussion or an AfD, I'd vote merge. For that simple reason, I cannot vote keep here. Goodraise 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Good. If balancing is an issue, I am sure that those two tables can be made collapsable and then there would be no problem. If people still don't like this, then somebody should create the article History of Condé Nast and put the table there. Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove – Tough call, but I do think it fails to meet 3b. The tables are now included in the main Conde Nast article, and their inclusion seems reasonable to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. IMO these pre-emtive spin-offs were what 3b was made for (and the ongoing RfC saga hasn't convinced me otherwise). I think the "it could overwhelm the main article" argument is moot. The main article has existed since 2004 and hasn't been expanded enough to justify spinning-out yet. If someone does do a major re-write and finds that then the section is too weighty, we may consider spining-off again. However saying it that it could happen and that it should be pre-emptively spun out so a list can get a little bronze star is pure speculation (and in my opinion is tantamount to Wikipedia:Gaming the system). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:57, 8 November 2010 [10].
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is an old nomination, with serious lack of inline citations. Furthermore, the format used is quite unpleasant. Before keeping its status, significant changes would be necessary. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have the significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects been notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they haven't been (although I'm of course watching the page, being one of the authors and all). I'd be fully committed to fix whatever problems the nominator thinks this list has, providing he could be more specific. Last I checked, "unpleasant format" was a personal opinion, not a removal criterion :) As for "serious lack of inline citations"... ahem... I've been known to be accused of using too many of them, but "serious lack"? More specific comments about the proposed/expected "significant changes" would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 14:35 (UTC)
- I think "unpleasant format" means that the list is hard to read and understand, which fails Criterion 4. The prose is okay, but the tables have problems, especially the one under "Overview of administrative and municipal divisions". I also agree that the list would benefit from more inline citations.—Chris!c/t 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. The list was actually a result of a collaboration between me (content-wise) and another editor (who came up with the layout and structure). We tried multiple approaches, but navigation-wise this one seemed to work the best. The article covers a fair amount of material, so organizing it efficiently is, of course, a challenge. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what should be improved? I'll be happy to do the actual work of tweaking the list, but I need specifics—vague complaints are hard to act on! :) Same goes for the citations—can you point out a few specific sentences? Are those unreferenced sentences perhaps a part of a bigger, referenced, passage? Can the unreferenced parts be fixed by simply attaching already existing references? Could you clarify what exactly seems to be the problem with the "overview..." table? Colors, layout, placement, something else? If the article raises questions that impede the understanding of the material, what are those questions? Those kinds of comments will help me to immediately do something to address the concerns. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 19:20 (UTC)
- major issues:
- very short intro
- it is very unclear why administrative divisions does not include municipal divisions
- the prose in the history section is very choppy; at least merge the text into fewer paragraphs
- administrative division structure: it is very hard to follow this format (no idea how it can be improved, but it has to be improved); it is also very low on inline citations
- the overview table is not clear at all what is it talking about; i.e.: why Maykopsky District has 4 rows, two of which are not labelled/identified at all?
- the list section can be restructured into a table
Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; here are my comments (I hope you don't mind I re-numbered your bullet points for ease of reference):
- I'll attempt to re-write the intro tomorrow.
- I'll add some background information as to why it is so; that's a good catch.
- This section is a basic history background, so we tried keeping it short, leaving only the most important trends and facts. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
- The list and the definitions come directly from the republic's law. I can add other sources, but there really isn't going to be anything new those sources will add (plus, the law is current; other sources will be somewhat out-of-date). If adding the law citation to every single sentence work for you, I'll do it, but comments made around the time the nomination had been submitted leaned to such approach being unnecessary and redundant. As for the administrative divisions format, it is hard to follow because the system being described is itself rather convoluted (in fact, I am yet to see a more convoluted system than Russia's). The list presents the concepts hierarchically, from top to bottom. I don't know of a more straightforward way to present this information. Hopefully the list isn't going to be delisted just because the concepts themselves are difficult to wrap one's mind around?
- Maykopsky District's first two rows (in blue) show how the district's urban-type settlements correspond to the municipal urban settlements. The rest of the territory is under the direct jurisdiction of the administrative district; on the municipal side, however, that same territory is divided into eight municipal rural settlements (coded yellow; with 48 rural localities) and the inter-settlement territory (with three rural localities). See what I meant when I said the system is convoluted? :) At any rate, the table itself was a later addition made after the FL nomination had passed; I have no qualms about removing it altogether, although I think it could be helpful to people genuinely interested in figuring out how exactly the system works.
- The list section was restructured from the table format per the comments made during the FL review nomination, during the nomination itself, and the subsequent review. The table, apparently, was too hard to follow.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 20:53 (UTC)
- 6. Just take a look at List_of_Digimon_video_games or List of StarCraft media. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a first pass addressing ##1–3 and removed the overview table altogether to address #5. Please let me know if that addresses your concerns and, if not, what else I could do to address them more fully. I would appreciate more comments regarding #4 (see my remark above). On #6, I would like to hear from more than one person confirming that the currently used list format is inferior to the table format Nergaal proposed. Judging from the Digimon/StarCraft examples, those table add nothing beyond a gray background and some separators—seems to me it's just a matter of taste, not something critical. It is quite a chore to switch from one format to another, which is why I would appreciate more input regarding the matter. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2010; 16:16 (UTC)
- Thanks; here are my comments (I hope you don't mind I re-numbered your bullet points for ease of reference):
- Reply
- lead looks good
- while the municipal divisions issue is explained in the lead, this is not presented at all in the article text. more information should be added to the municipal division structure section
- the history section is better but some work can be still done: I counted 6 short paragraphs formed of 2 sentences each
- I don't like the one-sentence-per-section style now. It should be merged somehow and to help the reader, a scheme along the lines found at Tyrannosauridae#Phylogeny would be much more helpful.
- removing it is not the best solution. I prefer having it with explanatory notes added
- taste no; easier to follow (by having colums) yes
- is there a reason the article is not named List of divisions of Republic of Adygea? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies:
- OK, one down :)
- Unlike with the administrative divisions, which are different from one federal subject to another, the structure/terminology/qualities of the municipal divisions are described and mandated by a single federal law. The structure of the municipal divisions is thus the same in each and every federal subject of Russia; there's no point in explaining it over and over 83 times (or make corrections in 83 places if the definitions change later). That's the main reason why the "Municipal divisions" section only gives the briefest of overviews; all the meat can be found at Subdivisions of Russia#Municipal divisions, which is linked to from the section hat.
- The paragraph breaks are inserted in all the logical places. If you see a way to consolidate the existing material better, would you please do so? It wouldn't require the knowledge of the material; you'd be working only with the pieces which are already in there. Or perhaps you are looking for me to expand the paragraphs which are currently too short?
- The format of this list will eventually be re-used in the rest of the article on the "administrative and municipal divisions of...". While consolidating a list of districts and cities/towns into one chart similar to the phylogeny example is doable for Adygea, it will not be a feasible option for most of the rest of the federal subjects. Adygea, with only seven districts, is atypical; federal subjects have anywhere from one to sixty districts (and the federal city of Moscow, which has a very unique administrative structure, has 125), with the median of 22.
- I don't know a good way to explain that table, and you were right to point out at the beginning that it is confusing to uninitiated. If I (or someone else) think of a better way to summarize that information, I most certainly re-add it later on. From what I've tried so far, the result is either confusing or extremely cluttered (and thus also confusing).
- I would still prefer to hear someone else support this; hope you understand. Like I said before, the table format was shot down in the past precisely because someone else didn't like it; that's why everything is textified. We shouldn't be switching formats back and forth every few years without a clear consensus as to why.
- Adygea has other kinds of divisions; this article only deals with the administrative and municipal ones. Typically in Russia the administrative and municipal divisions are bundled under the "territorial" moniker (i.e., the title can be "List of the territorial divisions of the Republic of Adygea"), but I don't have a source available to back that up specifically for Adygea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)
- 2) Not everybody is aware of the distinction, because not everybody is aware of the issues related to divisions of Russia. For a featured content it should stand alone. Just add an introductory sentence to the section.
- 5) so use the diagrams used in phylogeny sections of species articles. as a featured list it should not contain confusing parts
- 7) just to clarify: if the article was titled simply divisions of... , what would be missing? Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 3) Let me think about it over the weekend and I'll do something next week.
- 5) Gotta think about this as well. If you have any ideas, could you do a rough draft of how the material should be presented?
- 7) Divisions of all other types would be implied but missing. Transportation zones, military units, maybe postal zones—I'm not very well versed in those, but none of them are related to the administrative/municipal divisions at all. In the end it's probably not that big of a deal, but since the list is an FL, extra care should be exercised to make sure the title is as precise as possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 20:30 (UTC)
- Comment What is the status of this nomination? Have the various concerns been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been working on this from the start, but did not have much time to address the remaining concerns in the past couple of weeks. I'm planning to return to the remaining issues in a week or two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2010; 18:52 (UTC)
- As I seem to be the only person reviewing this here are my thoughts: the list itself has much improved over when I nominated it. The only two major problems I can still notice is that
"Administrative division structure" is a bit difficult to go through (i.e. is not clear at all); and I would strongly prefer having "List of administrative and municipal divisions" in a tabulated form (which the editor would prefer to hear from other people too before doing). Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Any more news on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal? Are you good with closing this? I don't believe there's anyone else felt with outstanding comments regarding this list's FL status. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2010; 13:17 (UTC)
- I only have one major concern left (I would prefer the last section being tabulated), but considering how much this has been improved I am fine with keeping it. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal? Are you good with closing this? I don't believe there's anyone else felt with outstanding comments regarding this list's FL status. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2010; 13:17 (UTC)
- Any more news on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I seem to be the only person reviewing this here are my thoughts: the list itself has much improved over when I nominated it. The only two major problems I can still notice is that
- I've been working on this from the start, but did not have much time to address the remaining concerns in the past couple of weeks. I'm planning to return to the remaining issues in a week or two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2010; 18:52 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments a very good list considering the esoteric subject matter.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment my primary issues resolved, and currently see no consensus for demotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (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 18:01, 11 October 2010 [11].
- Notified: Miss Madeline, WP:TROP
I am nominating this for featured list removal because this is has not update since it was made. I do no think it meets criteria 3a anymore. I tried updating the article, but it is just too much work. In addition, shouldn't there be a modern repeats section? There is no sources to Baja Insider (the tracking agency for the region). Also, there should be mention of averages of hurricane pear year (Baja Insider once mentioned that) and maybe even why early season hurricane don't make landfall there (mentioned by Baja Insider as well). YE Tropical Cyclone 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, even if Baja Insider is not considered reliable enough there is still plenty of info missing and it still fails criteria 3a. YE Tropical Cyclone 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for peoples information, a few off us WPTC members including YE had a conversation on IRC and from first impressions of the site it didn't seem reliable. However people are welcome to judge this for themselves. I have also obtained a list of TC's from YE that are missing from this list. These are
Oliva 1967, Newton 86, Paine 86, Roslyn 1986, Flossie 1995,Madeline 98, Lane 2000, Elida 02, Hernan 2002, Isselle 02, Howard 04, Eugene 05, Illena 06, Dailla 07, Ivo 07 , Julio 08, Lowell 08, Olaf 09, Patricia 09, Rick 09, Norbert 08, Jimena 09 Gorgette 10. I will be double checking over the next couple of days why these aren't in the list my suspicion is that some of these barley affected Baja or didnt affect Baja at all.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these posted some effect on the Baja. These all impacted Baja form waves to $764 million in damage to TS watches. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even i still need to double check, since i need to know whats happened.Jason Rees (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Howard 2004 passed well offshore and had no impact on Baja according to the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relating to Howard check this. Madeline, Flossie, and Iselle all required TS watches. The NHC is not the best source for impact, impact is not there specialty, forecasting hurricnae is. YE Tropical Cyclone 4:54 am, Today (UTC+1)
- ive checked that site and it doesn't mention anything about Howard causing any impact so it doesn't go in. Also i trust the NHC more with regards to impact than that source you provided which looks unreliable to me, especially when you consider that it passed well to the south of Baja.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relating to Howard check this. Madeline, Flossie, and Iselle all required TS watches. The NHC is not the best source for impact, impact is not there specialty, forecasting hurricnae is. YE Tropical Cyclone 4:54 am, Today (UTC+1)
- Howard 2004 passed well offshore and had no impact on Baja according to the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even i still need to double check, since i need to know whats happened.Jason Rees (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bunch of the missing storms. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still quite a few storms are missing. The NHC is not the best source of impact, as I found a few major factaul error errors. Julio killed two people not one and Norbert and Jimena have damage totals. A few storms that caused waves or TS watches are still missing. What about a modern repeats section? also, not enough detail is included in the worse of storms (Liza, Norbert, Jimena). However, you are doing a great job thus far. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A modern repeats is unnecessary. A storm hits the BCP about once a year, hardly a rare event. Also, it is not necessary to indent that much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Also, should there be a Little more said for the notable storms. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so special about Norbert and Jimena that they deserve damage totals? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are damage totals available, why not put them? YE Tropical Cyclone 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of other ones don't have damage totals. What about those ones? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont personally see the need for the damage totals, especially as lots are missing or even haven't been assessed.Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Put it this way if there are damages totals put them in there (Jimena and Norbert were just examples as they have damage totals). They are in other hurricnae FL's and for some reason not in this one. In addition, we list deaths, damage totals are equally or almost important. Also, of the systems that are missing a number of them have not been taken care of (Howard did affect Bja) YE Tropical Cyclone 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont personally see the need for the damage totals, especially as lots are missing or even haven't been assessed.Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of other ones don't have damage totals. What about those ones? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are damage totals available, why not put them? YE Tropical Cyclone 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so special about Norbert and Jimena that they deserve damage totals? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) No, people are more important; you can always build another house, but you can't just get another (say) brother. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but we put them in hurricnae info boxes, don't see why not we can put them in the article? YE Tropical Cyclone 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't exclude information just because you don't want it to be there. If it's excluded, that can be considered censorship and obviously makes the article incomplete. Whenever available, the damage totals should be added to article. There may be a handful without monetary values listed, but that's how things are sometimes. The article doesn't have have "perfect" parallels for each summary, they just have to be as complete as can be with the available sources. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the actual quality of the article...it definitely needs improvement in places. A lot of the more recent storms are written in several sentences than can easily be merged into one and allow room for more information. I'll see what I can do tomorrow to improve the article quality, the information to be added (in addition to damage totals) is up for discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One issue I'm concerned with is how do you know if you got every storm? I realize there is a similar issue in other such lists, but for now I'll ask on here. It says Henriette was the only one in 2007, but the Dalila and Ivo articles both indicate impact on the peninsula. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, delist. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this should be delisted. I added Ivo and Dailla to the list of missing storms. More importantly they are factual errors in the article. For expamle, Julio killed 2 people not one. How can a storm kill 0-57. It hit Sinola where it killed all of its people. When they are death toll ranges form different sources always go with the higher one so the death toll of Liza is 950, not 600. Juliete and Liza also need damage totals and likely a few other storms. YE Tropical Cyclone 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I disagree about always going with the higher one. One should always go with the most recent and most accurate source. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Spanish sources tend to be more accurate than the NHC. YE Tropical Cyclone 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...not really. It depends from what agency the info is from. If it's some generic Spanish blog, than NHC is usually more accurate. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Spanish sources tend to be more accurate than the NHC. YE Tropical Cyclone 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I disagree about always going with the higher one. One should always go with the most recent and most accurate source. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this should be delisted. I added Ivo and Dailla to the list of missing storms. More importantly they are factual errors in the article. For expamle, Julio killed 2 people not one. How can a storm kill 0-57. It hit Sinola where it killed all of its people. When they are death toll ranges form different sources always go with the higher one so the death toll of Liza is 950, not 600. Juliete and Liza also need damage totals and likely a few other storms. YE Tropical Cyclone 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - currently this list fails 2 and 3a. Several editors above has expressed concern about the comprehensiveness of this list. Also the lead can be improved with more engaging language. "The list of Baja California hurricanes includes ..." reads a little better than "This is a list of ..." but still sounds boring. The sources are mostly okay but those from http://www.weather.unisys.com looks dubious. They also need consistent formatting. Some lack publisher info.—Chris!c/t 01:34, 1 October 2010 (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 kept by Dabomb87 22:10, 24 September 2010 [12].
- Notified: Underneath-it-All, Hotwiki, Mister sparky @actual discography.
The earlier parts of the lead discuss band line-ups, which is why they are referenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be clear on how it fails MOSNUMBER please? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORDINAL - single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and the style should be kept consistent. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Althought in every GA/FA i've encountered its the norm to spell out numbers 1 to 99 in words. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed it, took about four seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Althought in every GA/FA i've encountered its the norm to spell out numbers 1 to 99 in words. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORDINAL - single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and the style should be kept consistent. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be clear on how it fails MOSNUMBER please? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okies, I thing most of the issues have been resolved. There is one deadlink in the references, one bare url and sources required for the 'other appearances' section. If those are fixed I will conclude that IMO (and as the user who requested removal) that the discog satisfies FL criteria. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but note that the last two music videos' directors are unreferenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going with keep. The work to improve this has been very impressive and it's certainly not unsalvageable. The remaining concerns obviously need resolving, but they're fairly minor in comparison to what has already been done and are easily addressed through regular editing. While the original issues were serious enough to justify an FLRC, delisitng it now wouldn't be helpful. I have nothing but praise for the editors who have worked on this over the last couple of weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with HJ Mitchell's comments and I'm sorry because they're things I should have said too as the person who nominated for removal in the first place. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWiW, I think you were totally justified in nominating it for removal, but, thanks to the efforts of the editors who've worked to save it, I don't think there are any outstanding concerns serious enough to warrant removal. My comment wasn't a criticism of you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no HJ, don't worry about it, I didn't take it as personal critism. There were genuine concerns and those have been addressed. I echo you're comments in thanking those who've contributed to fix the article which, now is more or less a featured list IMO. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The irony is that it's received more care and attention through being listed removal than it has probably since its original FLC! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no HJ, don't worry about it, I didn't take it as personal critism. There were genuine concerns and those have been addressed. I echo you're comments in thanking those who've contributed to fix the article which, now is more or less a featured list IMO. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWiW, I think you were totally justified in nominating it for removal, but, thanks to the efforts of the editors who've worked to save it, I don't think there are any outstanding concerns serious enough to warrant removal. My comment wasn't a criticism of you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been told to respond, although my comments have not received any attention. The ladt two music videos' directors lack references, and the Dutch chart column in 'As featured artist' section is too. Once these things are cleaned up I will be happy to keep it as a FL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'll see what I can do. A very quick search turns up this, though I'm far from certain of its reliability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also this. I'll see if I can find editors more familiar with the subject matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'll see what I can do. A very quick search turns up this, though I'm far from certain of its reliability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no major issues outstanding, good work to all concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spotted a NZ gold cert for "Push the Button" at [13], but as the row is quite high, it probably doesn't need to be included. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I referenced the music video director, and returned the Dutch chart in the featured singles section. I will change to neutral. The 'Other appearances' section confuses me a bit. Why are the featured singles repeated here? Why are some referenced, but not others? [sorry for not picking this up earlier:)] Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks fine now. Nergaal (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2010 (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 kept by The Rambling Man 07:30, 15 September 2010 [14].
- Notified: Conscious, WikiProject Football
In these World Cup days I came across what I was hoping would be a thrilling list, but was rather dismayed. There are several key concerns:
- The lead uses half its space in defining UEFA and who are members, instead of quickly defining it and discussing the leagues and teams. The prose is not enganging and needs to be longer. Also, the key needs to be seperated and more structured. The first sentence is obsolete. (fails criteria 1 and 2)
- Referencing, if it can be called that, is a mess. Four general pages are provided, all with access dates from 2006, yet the article is up to date as of the 2010–11 season. Of the links, I was only able to navigate myself to this seasons tables via the UEFA link, but not the other ones. There should be at least one reference for each table.
- Done cites up to Latvia so far, will do the rest but its too mind-numbing for a single sitting. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a number of the tables sort wrong, i.e. the are alphabetized wrong by default or the sort key alphabetizes incorrectly. (fails criteria 4)
- I was under the impression that flagicons (i.e. images) in headers will wreck the syntax in some browsers, but havn't been able to verify this 100%. Similarly for links in headers.
- Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain if the term "city" is acurate; for instance, the list claims 11 "cities" in the Faroe Island, an area with less than 50,000 people. See for instance Eiði with its 669 residents. Perhaps "location" is better.
- Changed to Town or City, Location seemed too vague to me. There might be the odd village, but the meaning is clear enough I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there must be some suitable way to illustrate this, beyond a simple map. There is loads of space down the right, an image from selected teams would improve this list a lot. (fails criteria 5b)
- To compensate for the fact that this is a fun job, I'm starting with the difficult countries. Obviously I can and will add more, but what do you think about the general balance of images I'm adding? WFC (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are five disambiguation links.
Arsenikk (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Ideally you would revamp each section to something like this with a reference next to the As of... and maybe a map of where the clubs are. However this would take a lot of work. I could help out if others were prepared do put in a fair bit of work to, but I couldn't do it all on my own. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with the FL. This whole page is rather redundant when we already have several templates and links this same information. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder, this is not a deletion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Thinking of something else. Either way, it is still a redundant page that simply bring different pieces of information in one article...when we already have separate articles for each page. If it where like this two] lists I could understand but... Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder, this is not a deletion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had minor involvement in getting this list to FLC the first time around. Busy busy busy right now, but over the coming week I'll look at revamping it. Oldelpaso (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I have a serious question...how did this page even become a FL?! I have had a list that has been screwed with to death for almost two months and nothing. This one only has seven references in total and, presto! We are upgrading you to FL status...what is this??!! Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously a different kind of list which was considered complete at the time of its promotion to FL status. --MicroX (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was promoted in 2006. The standards then were quite different. At both FLC and FAC, over time there has been a steady increase in the standard required. In 2006 this genuinely was an example of Wikipedia's best work. In 2010, perhaps not so much. That's what this process is here to address. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – The lead and referencing, which were noted as problems in the nomination statement, seemingly remain so. Just doesn't seem like the page's structure holds up to modern standards.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment below is completely true. The list already looks quite a bit better, though some work still remains. I'd like to recommend that the directors hold this one for a while to allow for further improvements; we must be understanding that the fixes required here are quite time-consuming. If the list can be saved, then the extra time is well worth it. As for the current state, just having the photos and maps gives the list much more life. One quick suggestion: City should be de-capitalized in each of the many tables since it isn't a proper noun. That should be among the less work-extensive fixes that can be done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave open - I entirely share Giants' concerns, but I'm extremely impressed with the work that has been done on referencing and verifying this. So much so that I'm going to chip in as well. This certainly won't be a quick or easy save, but the will seems to be there. WFC (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm getting through this at a better pace than I had anticipated; half way there, ignoring the fact that I've already done some random bits in the second half. A few questions though. Firstly, Oldelpaso asked me on the talk page if it would be possible to restore the bold text for champions in addition to the yellow, as colour alone is not compatible with text-based browsers such as Lynx. I'm fine with that, but I was under the impression that bolding is depreciated? Secondly, I'm leaving some of the sorting until last. With some of the countries I'm not sure if I should sort by the very common first word. Taking Israel as an example, I personally would have ignored Maccabi and Hapoel for sort purposes. But the list didn't do that before, so I thought I'd open it up to comments before doing a lot of work needlessly. Finally, I know I'm making work for myself here, but does anyone think it's worth noting newly promoted clubs (where applicable)? --WFC-- 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, bolding is discouraged now, at least according to MOS:BOLD. Italics can always be used as a substitute, if this turns into a sticking point. The work so far looks good in general. One more thing while I'm here: reference 26 shouldn't have all caps in the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the reply. --WFC-- 08:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, bolding is discouraged now, at least according to MOS:BOLD. Italics can always be used as a substitute, if this turns into a sticking point. The work so far looks good in general. One more thing while I'm here: reference 26 shouldn't have all caps in the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep tho RSSSF refs need author and date. Tedious work. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments WFC asked if I'd pop over and have a look. It's certainly improved since people started working on it, well done... Few quick comments, haven't got time for a thorough review, sorry:
- Agree with Sandman re author(s)/publication date for the RSSSF refs. If he had to do it for the Barcelona lists...
- I agree. I'm not ignoring it, just waiting as long as possible. As Oldelpaso hinted above, it's a tedious job. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it'd be nice if the foreign-language references had the
trans_title
parameter completed (where it isn't obvious) - Also, it'd be helpful for the reader wanting to know where the information came from, if incomprehensible (to us semi-literate Brummies, anyway) foreign-language publishers e.g. Fótbóltssamband Føroya were either linked to their WP article or translated in parentheses (Faroe Islands Football Association)
- What makes the general references World Football Organisation and eufo.de reliable sources? assuming you're still using them for anything
- If it was me, I'd move the note about TNS/Llansantffraid/etc into the Wales section, as was done with the AS Monaco/France one, rather than leaving it in a general Notes section. That particular note's probably visible from its table anyway, but in general, it's kinder to the reader if they can see a section-specific note without having to click down to a Notes section and then back up to where they were.
- In Albania, as of 2010-11 season, what's the asterisk for?
hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll carry on methodically (one country at a time so that there is visible progress, to keep my chin up as much as anything else!). But I agree with pretty much all of that. Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to directors Work is ongoing. I made a request here for help with the lead. You may want to bear this in mind if there is a sudden flurry of !votes. Regards, --WFC-- 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me. As long as work is on-going then this can run (and run and run)... It does already appear that there's no consensus for a delisting, but the continuing improvements are well worth keeping the FLRC open for. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As an aside, I know that FL has a few detractors, but FLRC in particular is productive and efficient. Even when people take on a major, protracted job like this, we tend to get the job done quicker here than elsewhere. Point-y nominations aside, the end result almost always justifies the effort. --WFC-- 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me. As long as work is on-going then this can run (and run and run)... It does already appear that there's no consensus for a delisting, but the continuing improvements are well worth keeping the FLRC open for. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Close? It seems fine to me now, no need to let people read all this stuff. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 07:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All looks good to me now, I dealt with a couple of typos but I couldn't see any issues when compared to the FL criteria. Looking at how it first passed and at the beginning of this review it looks a lot better. Well done to everyone involved. Woody (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and motion to close. While the original list was not up to standards, the current version is infinitely better. Great work, it's night and day. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks a lot better than when it came here. Arsenikk (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks significantly better. Well done to all involved. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and second move to close. Courcelles 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.