Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 04:14, 22 March 2008.
This list was promoted in 2005 and I feel that it no longer meets the criteria. The pages only reference goes to the main page of a website. As well, the list should be converted to chart form and include what team the player played for and any vital statistics. -- Scorpion0422 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, fails referencing requirements completely. One link to the front of a website is not adequate referencing. Some third party referencing for some of in the lead and to establish why this is a notable topic is needed, at the min. Reformatting to table would also be good, with at least some basic stats. Collectonian (talk) 01:36, 18 March 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 04:14, 22 March 2008.
I have several concerns about this article.
- Criteria 1c - Two of the lists in the ""Best Episodes" lists" section have no citations or sources whatsoever. As well, few of the references are properly formatted.
- Criteria 1f - The headers should not have the years in them, the entire best episodes lists section should go
- Criteria 2a - The lead doesn't properly summarise the article.
- Prose - A lot of the brief episode summaries aren't very well written and many of them could be longer.
-- Scorpion0422 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with all the above concerns. But also, shouldn't this article be split up like every other show's episode lists? This is just waaay to long. Drewcifer (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, agree with both Scorpion and Drewcifer. Additionally, the referencing is shady and needs to be fixed. With the amount of work needed, I don't think it could be cleaned up quickly. As Drewcifer notes, at 12 seasons, its time for this page to start looking towards seasonal pages with this page being similar to List of Lost episodes and not having the summaries. This list could not pass FLC today and needs to be delisted then, after work, sent back to FLC if desired. Collectonian (talk) 01:25, 18 March 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 04:14, 22 March 2008.
This list no longer meets the criteria for being a featured list. Its lead is inadequate and is missing basic information on licensing, availability, etc. The summaries for episodes are primarily teasers and many are far too short (one line in some cases). There are several bold statements that are unsourced in the lead. The references seem to be a combination of ELs and refs. Collectonian (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not beyond help, but it would be nice to see it updated to current standards. Any takers? Drewcifer (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if it's relevant that this list's lead doesn't talk about licensing or availability. The summaries should be improved, though. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most other FL episode lists do at least discuss that the episodes are licensed for release and/or airing in English. Another issue I've found seems to be an inconsistency between whether the list is going to use the English or Japanese spellings of things, particularly with Ishval versus Ishbal (this seems to be a problem through FMA articles, though). I've done some clean up, but having not seen the entire series, there isn't much else I can do, and no one else is stepping in to address the issues. Collectonian (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Define 'several' bold statements; I sourced the Animage thing, but I don't see what else explicitly needs a cite. —TangentCube, Dialogues 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Animage was the main thing, but anything not supported by the list itself should be explicitly cited, including the movie info and its airdates in Japan and on the Cartoon Network. Neither of the citations given in that paragraph give the start or end dates. Since the movie has its own article and is an actual movie, why is it listed as an episode? Collectonian (talk) 08:51, 8 March 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 20:29, 15 March 2008.
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 26 days, Significant issues not addressed. Delisted -- Scorpion0422 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is almost no lead to this list at all, and the episode summaries are too short, being more teaser than summary. Collectonian (talk)
- I agree that the lead is too short, but generally the plot summaries for these anime related lists aren't that long. Perhaps another sentence could be added to each. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The episode summaries are supposed to be thorough. These are not, they are teasers, many no different from what you'd see in the TV guide listing for the episode. Collectonian (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a general television episode guideline for how long a summary should be? If enough of these lists have gone to FL, surely someone's distilled a rule-of-thumb, so that people don't have to guess at these things. Also, it'd be good to have something that could be propagated to descendent Wikiprojects (like the Anime project). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a rule-of-thumb, of a sort, of 1-2 sentences per 10 minutes of show, so for a standard anime episode, there should be about 3-6 sentences. However, the guidelines regarding plot also note it should be thorough enough to cover all major plot points, and should not be a teaser. I agree, the TV project has really fallen down on the issue, despite our having many more episode lists going to FL now. This particular one was promoted almost two years ago, and the view may have changed since then on what constitutes completeness. It no longer meets completeness when we compare it to our recent FLs. If the TV project is doing anything, I think the Anime and Manga project has enough FLs now that we could expand our own MOS to cover episode lists, but that's probably a discussion to bring up in the project :) Collectonian (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a descendent project of TV, Anime should follow the parent's guidelines unless there is compelling reason. Do you know where the TV project's guideline is documented? I'm apparently blind this morning. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's part of the problem, it really isn't and my several attempts to prod the project into clearing it up have gone unanswered. While we should follow some TV guidance, in the absence of any existing guidelines beyond vague notions brought up in FL discussions or if you ask in the project talk page, I think we can/should take the initiative and make our own. Then maybe the TV project will pick it up as well. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a descendent project of TV, Anime should follow the parent's guidelines unless there is compelling reason. Do you know where the TV project's guideline is documented? I'm apparently blind this morning. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a rule-of-thumb, of a sort, of 1-2 sentences per 10 minutes of show, so for a standard anime episode, there should be about 3-6 sentences. However, the guidelines regarding plot also note it should be thorough enough to cover all major plot points, and should not be a teaser. I agree, the TV project has really fallen down on the issue, despite our having many more episode lists going to FL now. This particular one was promoted almost two years ago, and the view may have changed since then on what constitutes completeness. It no longer meets completeness when we compare it to our recent FLs. If the TV project is doing anything, I think the Anime and Manga project has enough FLs now that we could expand our own MOS to cover episode lists, but that's probably a discussion to bring up in the project :) Collectonian (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a general television episode guideline for how long a summary should be? If enough of these lists have gone to FL, surely someone's distilled a rule-of-thumb, so that people don't have to guess at these things. Also, it'd be good to have something that could be propagated to descendent Wikiprojects (like the Anime project). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The episode summaries are supposed to be thorough. These are not, they are teasers, many no different from what you'd see in the TV guide listing for the episode. Collectonian (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - unreferenced. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:15, 8 March 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 kept 04:14, 22 March 2008.
This is an article that would do well with inline citations and references. As of now, it has very little. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, a single blanket reference isn't good. Drewcifer (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hangon in there, I'm coming. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and a bit more time if you want more done, please. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hangon in there, I'm coming. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looks a lot better, with a picture, and several properly formatted references and in line citations. I am satisfied with the improvements and feel it meets the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 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 kept 20:29, 15 March 2008.
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 30 days, I still think it should be delisted, but I am clearly in the minority. Although it will likely be back here in about a year. Kept -- Scorpion0422 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to nominate the page because format wise, it is quite a solid list. However, it is slowly deleting itself and thus fails criteria 1e. Since January 14, five entries have been removed, including an entire section. Eventually it will have to be deleted. The table does look really good though, so perhaps it could be renamed to Last surviving World War I veterans or something and be expanded. -- Scorpion0422 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea of Last surviving World War I veterans. I suppose it should include the ones who died over the last couple of years, plus the last surviving veteran(s) from each country, regardless of when the last veteran from that country died. (That last addition would mean restoring Wycech as the last verified veteran in Poland, as well as finding the last veterans to die in New Zealand, Romania, etc.) --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, there's already a Last surviving World War I veteran by country. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that, but I was thinking of a general list that wouldn't have such limitations. -- Scorpion0422 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who decides where to draw the line for "last surviving veterans"? Seems rather subjective to me. The "Veterans of the first world war who died in XXXX" goes back all the way to 1999, but contains hundreds of names. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just a suggestion so that this content won't eventually be lost because it is a good list. Maybe include all veterans who died after a certain year like 2004 which would be 90 years after the war started. -- Scorpion0422 02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who decides where to draw the line for "last surviving veterans"? Seems rather subjective to me. The "Veterans of the first world war who died in XXXX" goes back all the way to 1999, but contains hundreds of names. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that, but I was thinking of a general list that wouldn't have such limitations. -- Scorpion0422 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, there's already a Last surviving World War I veteran by country. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When it was awarded Feature List status it was already known that it would eventually delete itself - Criteria 1e is a rule primarily in place to protect wikipedia from becoming a nightmare of transitory pap like lists of daily tabloid newspaper headlines. Some lists are not simply a case of 'one glove fits all'. The list of WWE Champions changes about as much as the veterans page but I doubt you would want to see that nominated under 1e either, as you know the list holds interest even though it is a technical rule-breaker (actually that page breaks 1c as well, you need to reference against stuff like PWI, in fact I may well go and slap on a citable sources tag a bit later). The page could probably do with a re-organisation now and eventually it will reduce to the point were it is no longer sensible for it to be a list, it will become an article. That's the point were it should lose FL status, IMO. RichyBoy (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You really can't compare them because this is a completely different list. The List of WWE Champions and many other lists are slowly expanding while this list is shrinking at a much greater rate. FL status should not purposely be a temporary thing. Why not go for something like a list of last veterans, then it won't slowly be deleting itself? -- Scorpion0422 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree that this list shouldn't be featured because, while it can be maintained/is stable per 1e, it will eventually get to the point where it is no longer able to be featured. Sure, it's sourced now, but maybe even tomorrow it won't be (because there will be no one to source about). —ScouterSig 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the moment it meets the criteria, as far as I'm concerned. This might become more of an issue eventually, but for now it seems within reasonable limits. Drewcifer (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Keep As said above, it's fine now. It may need to be re-evaluated in a year or two once more have died, but at the moment it seems OK. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:15, 14 March 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.