Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/February 2020
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keep
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 delisted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Notified: ChrisClarke88
I am nominating this for featured list removal per discussion here relating to the refactoring and reorganisation of the list. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for the following reasons:
- Lead only has one reference
- All refs are bare urls
- None of the tables complies with MOS:ACCESS requirements
- Images require alt text
- Looking at several different tallest building lists there seems to be no agreed height where the cut off point should be. However, it think that in this case the 50 metres cut off should be increased as the list is currently showing 135 buildings. I would make the cut off 70 metres and this would reduce the list down to 36 buildings.
- List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford also lists every building over 50 metres in height so everything is duplicated in the list. I suggest redirecting to this list as well.
- Pinging ChrisClarke88, Delusion23 and Quantocius Quantotius who is doing some great work in this area.
- Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - the article has not maintained the level required for FL status over the years. Also agree with merging Salford list into Greater Manchester one as they are duplicating work. Provided the ability to sort by borough/city it should be fine. DelUsion23 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of effort has gone in recently to fully update the Greater Manchester and Salford tallest building lists and I hope this effort is reflected. I would agree with merging the Salford list into Greater Manchester as nothing unique will ever be in the Salford list and it is strange that the 'City Of Manchester list is merged but not Salford. I would like to keep the cut off point for tallest buildings in Greater Manchester at 50M however. Central Manchester and Greengate in Salford are where the majority of tall buildings either do or will reside. If we raise the height bar, many areas and boroughs will no longer be listed which I believe will make the information provided weaker. For consistency across cities I would propose London's cut off is at 100 metres, with core cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield have a cut off at 50 metres. Any smaller cities can have a lower cut off - maybe around 30 metres. I plan to make the building lists for these cities in the UK more consistent moving forward to hopefully provide more up to date, useful information. ChrisClarke88 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist (responding to ping) WIAFL is not met at present. The lack of proper sourcing is by itself enough to result in a fail, although the MOS issues compound the problem. I say this with some reluctance, because it's clear that @ChrisClarke88: has been putting a lot of work into this recently, and I have somewhat of a SOFIXIT mindset myself. In fact I'm going to try to go through and try to make sure that all of the FLs in this area are up to date by the end of 2020, if I can find the time as real-life has been getting in the way of me doing anything here. Hopefully, at some point we can get a collaboration together and get this relisted. For the moment I'm going to drop a {{Bare urls}} on it. I almost always prefer to fix the problem myself, but in this case I have it on good authority that there are wikignomes who specialize in this kind of work, and the template will draw them quickly like moths to a flame. As a note to closer, I don't know when I'll next have time to log-in, if this substantially improves prior to close to the point were the FLRC equivalent of The Heymann Standard applies you can disregard the above in it's entirety. As a side note, @Ianblair23: I greatly appreciate the ping. 𝒬𝔔 20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – per all reasons above. – zmbro (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:32, 16 February 2020 (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 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 delisted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]
Promoted back in 2009, this one has NOT aged well. Outdated and only 9 references TOTAL, only a few of the mini-tables have refs of their own, nor descriptions like most other lists of this type have. Some awards are centered and others aren't. Also, 2 refs are bare urls. Clearly no longer deserves the star. – zmbro (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nomination. Hard to imagine how this was ever promoted in the first place. Would need a lot of work to get up to spec. buidhe 09:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist due to significant sourcing issues and the need to convert the mini-tables into one table per current FLC standards. Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist this shouldn't have been promoted in the first place when it didn't cite all the listings back when it somehow reached FL status, and that issue is even worse now. Needs many more citations to be up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 16 February 2020 (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 nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Notified: User:Gary, WikiProject Alternative music
This list was promoted back in 2008 (when In Rainbows was only a year old) and has aged poorly since. Apart from a six sentence lead (that has zero references), there are only 13 references total. Before I archived 10 out of 13, some of them led to 401 pages. Most of the tables only have one ref that doesn't mention every nomination/win, but rather just one or in some cases only describing the awards themselves. One of the tables also has its own ref col while the rest don't. Also inconsistent grammar and no periods in some spots. Clearly no longer worthy of the star. – zmbro (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Serious sourcing issues. Lead needs a whole rework. List does not meet current standards. Cowlibob (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Beyond the already mentioned sourcing issues, the mini-table format has been deemed to be too poor of a format for an FL. This brings up an issue for a whole plethora of musician award lists that also have the outdated mini table format, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 06:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.