Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2008

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates‎ | log

Kept

edit
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 User:Matthewedwards 08:15, 5 August 2008 [1].

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks

edit

I've been working on these first-round picks series and noticed that there are older FLs that don't meet the standards of today. This one is in the worst condition among FLs, in my opinion. The problems are,

Major
  1. WP:LEAD needs copyediting and sourcing. No inline citations at all.
  2. There are 23 footnotes and none of them are cited.
Minor
  1. Abbreviations in the "Positions" column should be linked and written in full or just add a "key" section.
    Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Use symbols to indicate what colors mean.
    Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fix links to disamg. pages
    Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this list improves in the next two weeks!--Crzycheetah 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added refs to the lead and tidied the notes up. The only site I can find the mentions what most of the notes say is here and it doesn't look too realiable. Buc (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC) edit: oh! and I found this too. Again not sure if it's realiable. Buc (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few refs added. Buc (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Second and third current general references are dead links.
    • Fourth one does not list the 2008 pick.
    • The last one is not a general reference at all.
    • Positions can be written out in the table and wikilnked in order to decrease the amount of white space next to the table. As a result, the key section can be removed.
      • You need to ask Gonzo fan2007 about that because he added it. Buc (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you think about this, though?--Crzycheetah 07:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would concur but I'm guessing Gonzo fan2007 added it for a reason. Buc (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really dont care, I just added it because the original objections stated that it needed them spelt out "or just add a "key" section." So I added a key. Personally I dont mind either way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Crzycheetah 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All notes have refs now. Buc (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 25th pick in 1986 was from the Dolhins.--Crzycheetah 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing remains now is to improve the lead.--Crzycheetah 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

edit
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 User:Matthewedwards 23:37, 24 August 2008 [2].

List of districts of India

edit

FLR1 FLR2

Sadly, this is a third nomination for removal. There are several problems with this list, though.

  1. The Lead is really short. It should at least talk about history a little. Something like when India decided to divide its states into districts.
  2. The lead currently is unsourced.
  3. The Officials section is unsourced, as well.
  4. Tables should look like a Wikipedia table, i.e. use class=wikitable or even better use class=wikitable sortable.
  5. The "Area" column should list the sq mi figures, as well. I think the {{convert}} template should be used here.
  6. Headquarter(s) or Headquarters?
  7. Many links get redirected to a totally different spelling. Maybe, they should be linked to an official spelling?
  8. Some links go to disamg. pages.
  9. Why Puducherry doesn't have any headquarters?
  10. I couldn't figure out what info was taken from the "Official directory of all Indian districts" link.
  11. The "statoids.com" link doesn't have density listed. Where did the density figures come from?

--Crzycheetah 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

density comes from population/area. silly question, really! --GDibyendu (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you verify that they're correct? There's no references that list those density figures. It violates WP:OR right now.--Crzycheetah 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to verify, you can pickup a few random rows and verify. I don't think using a simple formula like this can be WP:OR. --GDibyendu (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too sure about WP:OR, but just to be safe, we should probably state that formula somewhere.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – not a FLRC IMO, easily fixed in an hours work

  1. I've boosted the lead by merging sections. Also added a few inline citations
  2. SQ MI is optional. MOS:CONVERSIONS does not make it mandatory to have it, so does not fall under a FLRC. Although if anyone has the time and energy, they are most welcome to provide two extra columns for misup2; density.
  3. Table colours are ok. See WP:FLC. GDibyendu has added the sorting feature and also corrected Headquarters
  4. Puducherry and Mumbai City do not have any HQ as they are city districts.
  5. Links that go to a dab page or redirect page are not a problem as long as they reach the intended article. It would be an inhuman effort to constantly monitor 1500 links to a page to see if they have been dabbed. Maybe a bot could be commissioned for this purposes. But it is not a FAC or FLC criteria.
  6. Density is NOT OR. Density has an accepted formula that is population per area. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lead still lacks info on the history of districts. When they were created? why? Currently, fails criterion #3.
  2. MOS:CONVERSIONS states that "metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided". It says generally because there are some exceptions, but none of the exceptions apply to this list. Currently, fails criterion #5.
  3. Any reason why there's a blue background in tables? It does not look appealing at all. Currently, fails criterion #6.
  4. This page does not explain why Puducherry doesn't have any headquarters. Currently, fails criterion #3.
  5. That's the problem, these pages do not reach the intended pages. They're not helpful at all. Currently, fails criterion #4.
  6. That accepted formula should be mentioned in this page.
--Crzycheetah 09:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is not much on the history of districts. I added a one liner on the earliest law I could find.
  2. Generally does not mean compulsorily. Only listing the metric units are perfectly acceptable due to widespread usage. I am not against having imperial units, but absence of imperial units does not violate the FA/FL criteria. If someone would be willing to add that column, please go ahead. NOT DONE
  3. #3 allows suitable use of colour. What is not appealing to you is appealing to someone else. This is a personal choice, so am not changing it as the criteria allows us to use any (non gharish looking) colour.
  4. Puducherry is now explained NOT DONE
  5. Again a majority of links are working. A bot needs to check on the links. If you can provide an instance of bad link, we can look into it. No featured list criteria if the link is redirected. NOT DONE
  6. It would be ludicrous to list the "accepted formula", but I've added the description of the column headers that should satisfy your objection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK
  2. It does violate the criteria as I already mentioned above.
  3. All Wikipedia tables have gray background and use other colors used to indicate something. This isn't about personal preference; this is about Wikipedia's preference.
  4. OK
  5. Try this
  6. OK
--Crzycheetah 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of the dab fixes. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out WP:R2D. No policy is violated as per that link. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I noticed that, per that link, the redirects in this list should be fixed. See the second exception.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not enough for deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt anyone wants to delete this page.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criterion 2: Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."
    • The lead is manifestly inadequate in this respect. I'm left not knowing who appoints or elects whom, whether districts are locally managed rather like counties or councils in other countries, and what services and governance they're responsible for. Can they be sacked by the central or state government? The two little paragraphs there at the moment are totally inadequate. Tony (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cr 6, visual appeal: the second and third columns are HUGE, leaving acres of white space and making the table more horizontal than necessary; those with small monitors suffer. Tony (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments I have decided to archive this nomination as delist. Not that I necessarily have to, but here are – some, not all of – my reasons.

  • Tony's comments have not been addressed/rebutted or even acknowledged
  • MOS:CONVERSIONS is a guideline, and doesn't have to be followed per se, however, WP:FL? does say that a FL should "comprehensively" cover the scope. Converting measurements ensures that the list is comprehensive, and provides context and understanding to users who are unfamiliar with the metric system.
  • The majority of the tables are wikitables, but the first two are not. This promotes inconsistencies within articles, as well as using colour to make things pretty, rather than to identify something specific.
  • Besides Tony's comment about whitespace in the talbes, the huge contents table also takes up a lot of unnecessary whitespace, and while it is collapsable, is not by default. An alternative would be {{AlphanumericTOC}}
  • DABs should be redirected to the correct page (WP:DAB and MOS:DAB). Why make a reader make two clicks to get to the page when one is better? We shouldn't rely on a bot (which may or may not exist) to come around to the page to make these changes, editors should be doing it.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 22:54, 24 August 2008 [3].

IWGP Tag Team Championship

edit
Note: Notified are WikiProject Professional wrestling. -- Scorpion0422 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this page because of the reliable sourcing criteria. Most of the sources the page relies on, "Strong Style Spirit" seems to be rather questionable. Please note that a similar list, IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship, was recently delisted for largely the same reason. -- Scorpion0422 00:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, what if the source was changed to the company's official list as the primary source? Nikki311 01:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's in Japanese though, and it does not help people who do not read the language (and I would assume that this would refer to the majority of English wiki users). -- Scorpion0422 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then couldn't they put it through some sort of translator? I think as long as it's reliable and accurate, the language it's in is pretty superfluous. --MarcK 18:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A bit of prose massaging to do, such as "In addition to Japan, it has also been defended in the United States and Mexico" (spot the redundant word).
  • "United States" should generally not be linked. See MOSLINK.
  • Cr 2: the lead seems like an inadequate entree into the list. Double or triple the size, please?
  • Please remove the colons from the column titles. Tony (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments! Prose tightened and lead lengthened. Nikki311

I'm going to notify the WikiProject that I'll be closing this FLRC soon. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment No attempt appears to have been made to find more reliable sources than http://puroresufan.com/index.php (Strong Style Spirit). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (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 User:Matthewedwards 22:36, 24 August 2008 [4].

Indian national cricket captains

edit

previous FLC (17:29, 24 November 2005)

There are mostly minor issues here, but the number of them is quite big.

  • Too many single years are linked
  • Too many links to India national cricket team
  • The note about " a dagger (†)" should be placed better
  • In sub-section Test match captains, the table heading is "Indian Test match captains", which is redundant. This goes to most subsections.
  • The column "played" needs an explanation. Why teams play each other more than once in one year?
  • Do we really need "total" row for captains, who played only one team?
  • "Includes one Tied Test Match" needs an explanation. What's the difference between a tied match and a drawn match?
  • The "Asian Test Championship" note shows that India played first in India, then in Sri Lanka, but the Championship was held in Bangladesh.
  • In Records and highlights subsections, there is uncited information throughout the page.
  • Footnotes should be separated from the citations in the References section.

--Crzycheetah 07:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all very easy to correct. For deletion review see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deletion process. Your link is irrelevant. --Crzycheetah 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unless improved.

  • "this list"—The list, please, which is grammatically better and avoids iss iss.
  • "of Men's cricket, Women's cricket and Youth cricket"—why the caps? MoS breach. Please remove two instances of "cricket".
  • MoS breach in "1960/1" and numerous others: the closing year must be two or four digits. En dashes required for year ranges at the bottom. Single years shouldn't be linked: I'll fix the last issue now.
  • Remove the thousands of percentage signs in the final column, since the key at the top clearly announces "%". Easier to read, then.
  • Remove "percentage": "the highest percentage win rate (56%)".

Look, the text needs a thorough audit. It's worth saving. Can we gather together a team of people to call on when Indian sports lists come up for review? Is there an appropriate WikiProject we can lean on? Tony (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Can someone inform me soon if the date script I've run has caused any problems? And revert if so. Looks OK to me. Tony (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is very skewed.

  • Why two lines about the "seven Tests before 1947", and the 1947 tour, which are irrelevant/unimportant for the article.
  • Putting 1983 and 1999-U19 in the same line is a bit of a joke (there was also another U-19 win in 2007 and a U-15 in 1996, by the way)
  • You can't unhesitatingly call 1983 the greatest success because there are Test wins, for eg, 1971 and 2001 which are extremely important. Tintin 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments - Despite the concerns being addressed, the list still fails to meet our criteria in certain areas. Opening sentences that contain "This is a list of..." are no longer in favour, and prose still needs tightening (bolded for effect): "They played only seven tests", "On 25 June 1932 it became the Test nation", "Their first game against other opposition came in", "Also,". Proes also contains hyphens in place of n/m-dashes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLR (22:36, 24 August 2008)

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 User:Matthewedwards 08:15, 5 August 2008 [5].

List of X-Men episodes

edit

Criterion 2 - The lead appears to be one sentence long.  Y
Criterion 3 - Some episodes have one-sentence plots.
Other - What makes this and this reliable sources? Also, the only image used in the article doesn't have a rationale. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies, Milk, I changed "criteria" to "criterion"; hope you don't mind. TONY (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserving judgement
  • Needs a copy-edit throughout; random examples—
    • A few awkward sentences, such as "The series' first 13 episodes were notable for being possibly the first time ever that an animated series had a full season of episodes flow one into the next, creating a single continuing narrative, something the series producers fought heavily for.
    • "longest running"—ambiguous without hyphen.
    • Para 3: past or present tense? Not both. ("is").
    • Each episodeS?   Done
    • See MOS on spelling out numbers and spaced em dashes.
    • Tone unencyclopedic: "Looking back at the previous Marvel animated adaptations" (Who's looking back?)
    • "Episode 4x03"—Is that standard code for Ep 4, Series 3? Odd.
  • Cr 6: Why the grey backgound. It does make the text just a little harder to read.   Done
  • Please attend to Milk's issues.
  • I've changed the repetitious opening. TONY (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite - There are too many X-Men episodes in multiple and different X-Men cartoon series to slap them all up on one page. I say, articles on each different X-Men series. Each has a subsection or sub-page...with one sentence descriptions for each episode. Example: Episode 4: Wolverine and the New Mutants fight rampaging space monkeys. Lots42 (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm busy in real life and have no time to work on the summaries. So if someone else wants to work on em go please do. --Gman124 talk 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/log/August_2008&oldid=234039847"