Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/September 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 06:30, 22 September 2008 [1].

Chicago Bears seasons

edit
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois, User:Happyman22 (original nominator), and about a dozen other editors who were leading editors at Chicago Bears, Chicago Bears seasons or members of the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago Bears.

This list passed before the rules on FL tightened. Therefore there a major issue with a lack of refs in both the lead and the footnotes. I also feel there is a minor issue with having the 2008 season when it hasn't even started yet. BUC (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BUC's assessment; in addition, I see several style issues that would need to be addressed, including incorrect use of dashes, links in the bold title, grammar and spelling errors, punctuation mistakes, etc.. The way the footnotes section is set up is not going to fly, either; it definitely needs true references. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys going after all the NFL team season lists Featured Lists or just this one. Why take away an honor from a list that was the first one to achieve the honor from the NFL articles? Also, the 2008 season starts in a few weeks so I do not see what is wrong with it being on the page. I think you guys need to leave the status quo. Worry about future lists not about the ones that were worked hard upon in the past, and that people do not have time to waste on making it "up to par" with new standards. If you want to fix the errors, fix them yourselves and also if you want to add more references go ahead. You can find all the references in any NFL history book or the NFL.com. The stats were not made up. Happyman22 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to add in some refs when I can find the time. I don't think it's a waste of time to get a list up the FL standered. As for the current season, the norm for team season lists is only to have completed seasons. BUC (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is not on the reviewers to maintain and update lists, unless of course they are normally one of the major editors of a particular list. The standards for FL have changed and, just like FAs, featured lists can lose their status if they are not maintained at the high quality expected by the reviewers. I know that, as a major editor of one featured list and several FL candidates, I have been doing my best to keep my lists up to snuff with new expectations within FLC. Don't feel targeted; these things happen. Rather, consider taking on this list as a project if you do not want to see it demoted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time, but it would be nice if someone else can do it. Happyman22 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name a Seasons list that you feel is an exemplary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the best bet is to look for the most recently promoted season list. I'm not sure which one that is. I am fairly sure that in baseball, Boston Red Sox seasons is the most recently promoted list; however, it is a vastly different format from this list. As a reviewer, I've been picking up more and more of what's expected of the latest FLCs in sports (since those are the lists I review), and so I've been trying to maintain Philadelphia Phillies seasons by adding the new expectations. Since that list was originally modeled on this list, it might be a good jumping-off point. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in this case, add a separate column for reference links; and add more into the prose. Quick look at the Footnotes, some of them can be omitted as they are mentioned in the Bears History article -- OR -- some are trivia. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a separate column for ref links, fix them up, and add more. I'll also work on grammar. RMelon (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to me removing the current season? BUC (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. That line will be right there within a month anyways; so it wouldn't make a difference anyways. Plus, it is in italics - indicating that it is pending. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the NFL season articles in the last few mounths have had to remove the current season line to get to FL status. BUC (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't bother me if it disappears. WP:CRYSTAL would agree. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed in Happyman's take-it-or-leave-it attitude. FLs, like FAs, are not some kind of life peerage; they need to be updated in terms of both their content and the modern standards we expect of FLCs. If an FL is left untended—an orphan, as it were—and the apparent guardian tells reviewers to fix it themselves, I think that's the death-knell for the FL. Tony (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cr 6, visual appeal: can someone change that glaring yellow in the table? Tony (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a lighter color. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be a death-knell for the FL if I don't have time to edit the article. I am stepping away from Wikipedia here in a few days for many weeks because my life is getting busy to the point where editing isn't possible for me with my schedule. I would like for this article to remain a FL so that is why I throw it out there that others should help out and edit. If you don't have time either or if no one cares to edit it then sadly it will probably lose its status.

Peace out. Happyman22 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is shaping up and I can now vote to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll offer a conditional support at this time, as the progress is helping a lot. However, the duplicate reference that is used over and over again should be turned into one named reference rather than being copied and pasted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are two separate duplicate references (from 1971 on the refs are full season summary pages - I tried to break it up). How should I go about turning them into one named reference? Also, he BoSox list article has duplicate references in the same manner. I don't believe having them should dictate whether the list remains featured. RMelon (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Red Sox seasons one only has one duplicate link, not one reference duplicated 20+ times like this list. Be that as it may, the way to do it is to name the reference on its first occurrence by changing the <ref> tag to <ref name="whatever">. Then, any time you want to use the reference, put the tag <ref name="whatever"/> with a slash, like that. Then it will be in the reflist only once and will show up with the same source multiple times. Different years are different sources, if you are using different years. The sources being used in this article (refs 17-27, 33-65, 67-71, 73-79) are all the exact same link. That's where the issue is. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see what you mean. I'll work on it when I get a chance. Shouldn't be too long. RMelon (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove—Cr 1. Here are spot-check samples of why it fails the Criterion.

"A brief period of success ranged from 2005 to 2007" eeuuw.

Simply fixing these examples will not do. I'm not going to fight about the details. It's just not good enough.

In addition, the black streaks across the top of the table could be toned down in colour. Is the reason for the bold explained? Tony (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the excessive linking to ref #4? BUC (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose because someone thought it was better to use one reference than to use the individual references for each season. It should be changed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the reference, I am not so sure it should be changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to [2] for 1922, [3] for 1923, etc., would be much better. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:WIAFL it is cited. If you want to swap out the refs for ones you prefer, have at it. I do not think objection would be valid however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it is cited, but I've been told to change a reference that is used that many times in another FLC. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above you asked for one named ref. That was done. This is not my article. I was just passing through and did what you asked above. If the editors involved here want to do something more elaborate, they are free to replace what I have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Tony, I did, and I won't retract what I said earlier. However, I didn't realize the scope of how many times this particular reference was being used. It looks excessive. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have encouraged as many people as possible to clean this up and I think it has gotten to a pretty reasonable level of quality in this process. Excessive is a very vague term. As long as WP:RS is not an issue, the question is whether the sources provided help to establish verifyability for the reader, IMO. Is the reader likely to say 50 citations come from the same place and thus I don't believe it. I think not. If the article were solely sourced by one ref it would be excessive. However, there are plenty of other sources to lead the reader to the conclusion that all facts have sufficient attribution. In terms of WP:WIAFL that is sufficient.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, it still fails Cr. 5 - compliance with the MOS. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand how this fails WP:WIAFL#5. Can you please elaborate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ←OK, let's see, the references and footnotes need to be split up. WP:COLOR is violated several times by having color as the only indicator for certain categories. Abbreviations need to be spelled out at their first occurrence, or in this case, footnotes should be added to explain the meaning. Beyond the fact that I still feel that link is overused, I still don't think that this list truly represents featured content anymore, in that it's not an example of Wikipedia's best work. I've withdrawn my conditional support above and am neutral at this time. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is using that link materially different from the Red Sox List's use of different pages on the same website over and over again? The solution to this "problem" would be to link to individual seasons on pro-football-reference.com, which would substantially increase the amount of references, and the overall length of the article. Is that desirable? RMelon (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of sourcing, and materially, yes, it would be better to link to the individual season pages. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RMelon (talk · contribs) said he will work on some of the issues this weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being that I won't have to disappear to another state this weekend, I will likely be around the wiki and look forward to seeing the improvements. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see much progress coming along on this list, many users have put effort into editing this article so for now I vote KEEP, and look forward to pitching in and making improvments. -Marcusmax (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to close this soon, but here are some more things that need to be considered:

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider converting the "Totals" section of the table to a separate "All-time records" table, as is done in the recently promoted New York Yankees seasons. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes and references still need to be placed in separate sections. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--looks fine to me. Matter of fact it looks better then most of the team-sports related featured lists. OSUpharm11 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And those will probably end up on the chopping block too, unfortunately. There are a lot of other sports-related FLs that are of much higher quality which the revisions could be based on. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:04, 15 September 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:Gonzo fan2007 05:19, 27 September 2008 [4].

Timeline of first orbital launches by country

edit

Unfortunately edit creep has taken its toll, with the list not satisfying the Featured List criteria anymore, that is in particular most of the assertions have no references whatsoever. The reference section has a few links without inline citation, but even those links refer only to Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Brazil, not mentioning all the other countries on the list. Other concern, but I guess those are more subjective, are that only few background informations are provided, and the layout could certainly be better. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — I think the biggest problem with the page is the massive section about other projects. They are hard to reference and most of them clearly don't belong on the page. I also agree that more references are needed for the top part as well. I would like to salvage the article's status so I hope we can work this out. – Zntrip 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the "not included" and "planned" sections lack references almost completely. Also, the reference section has refs that are not linked into the text. I suggest using them somehow. Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Far too much text is unreferenced, and the existing references are unformatted. Gary King (talk) 16:01, 23 September 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 06:34, 22 September 2008 [5].

List of Governors of Delaware

edit
Notified: WikiProject Delaware, WikiProject Biography, User:Golbez, User:Stilltim (Top 2 contributors). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has no inline citations, fails Criteria 1 (prose) and 3 (comprehensiveness—hardly any info about terms and conditions to be a governor, history, etc.). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removal. While it was the first governor list to reach FL status, its format has since been superseded by about ten other lists. My early attempts to change this list to the new accepted format met with conflict, and I withdrew until a later time. I didn't think when I first saw it that this was FL quality, and compared to the ones now, it certainly isn't. Among specific complaints: Almost no citations; a focus on occupation and birthplace which is specific to the person and has nothing to do with the office; very poor reference style, using over a dozen references to say essentially the same thing (became governor upon death of previous), includes their lifespan (which I disagree with) and then uses a single cell for start and end date, which is ugly and probably against the better practices of tables; overlinks, linking parties in every usage; and, as mentioned before, contains very little information on the office itself and (more relevant for a list of this type) the methods by which one enters the office. The other lists are concise, contain lots of information about succession, constitutions, the term lengths, etc. This one has none of those. It needs to be removed until it can be brought up to the standards of the other lists. Hopefully, the person who was an obstacle to my earlier attempts at this will be brought around by the article being delisted. (After writing this, I discovered User:Stilltim, the one I had the conflict with, has not edited since February.) --Golbez (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removal just doesn't meet the criteria, even fact tags in the lead. jimfbleak (talk) 14:12, 7 September 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 06:34, 22 September 2008 [6].

List of municipalities of Portugal

edit

Another featured list that is way below our standards.

  1. No information in this list can be verified by any of the references listed below.
  2. The lead is too short and unsourced; thus, it fails criterion #2.
  3. The "History" section has four short paragraphs(Cr. #1), which are unsourced, as well.
  4. As for the list, why are the ruling parties listed? Some explanation is needed either in the lead or "history" section.
  5. The names of the municipalities have to be left-aligned.
  6. The notes #1, #3, and #5 should be in the "Key" section before the list.
  7. What is significant about the note #2?
  8. Four out of five references are dead links and must be substituted.

I hope to see this list improved within the next two weeks!--Crzycheetah 01:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to see this saved, but (1) needs proper citing, and (2) I need sunglasses to cope with the garish colour scheme, both in the maps and the table.Tony (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Contributor with 2nd most edits to article, User:Joaopais, has been notified (Top contributor User:Mário has not edited in two years). Wikiproject Portugal also notified. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No progress seems to be happening here, which is a shame. I'll see if I can shake any of the WikiProject's regulars into helping. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 9 September 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/September_2008&oldid=241272998"