Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2009
- 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 Rambo's Revenge 00:44, 28 March 2009 [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Olympics, Scorpion0422 and Maxim.
Nobody checked the names of this list before promoting. There are perfect external links which show all the correct names. Sorrily many of them are misspelt or end in a redirect. E.g. Oldrich Zabrodsky, Eilert Määtää, Jiri Novak, Ronald Näslund, and Katheryn Mccormack. I think a featured list needs the correct spellings? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that we need a formal FLRC for this? Why can't this be solved on the talk page? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have read the FLRC instructions: "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates), or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily." I checked my redirect checker, and only about a dozen are actually redirects (and most of those were moved after the last I checked them). The issue is diacritics, and like I explained, wikipedia is inconsistant with them. -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they should be fixed, but this issue was hardly worth an FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond the FLRC instructions, what the hell happened to common courtesy around here? Seriously, Doma-w, could you not have simply asked Scorpion and Maxim about this before running out and trying to destroy their work? This is just a bad, bad, bad FLRC. Resolute 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doma-w: I'm barely active right now (if active at all), but what it seems like is that this is a case to tell you {{sofixit}}. If I understand correctly, it's just some spelling corrections, which you could have done much quicker instead of complaining about it. butterfly (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have fixed the 13 links that were redirects. [2] (to be fair though, they were all moved recently, so when they went through FLC, they wouldn't have shown up as redirects). You have to remember that a lot of these are European names, and even the sources vary on them. For example, this source uses "Ronald Naslund", this one calles him "Ron Naslund" and the IOC database uses "Ronald Näslund." In most cases, I just used whatever title that person's page was under or what was said on other wikipedia pages. -- Scorpion0422 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this could be making a mountain out of a molehill. I vaguely remember Scorpion mentioning a "discussion" taking place at WP:HOCKEY about diacritics (from research this seems to be a perennial discussion: 1, 2, 3). I think there is no need to delist a particular list over this. If anything you may want to try and discuss consistency in how diacritics are used (see Wikipedia:Diacritics) but this has proved difficult many times in the past. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The diacritics issue is similar to the date linking issue in magnitude; diacritics are maybe a rung lower than date linking in being a mess with out any agreement as to what to do. butterfly (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No substantial concerns remain. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Clarifying my stance. Per Dabomb87 and Rambo's Revenge. butterfly (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on Let's give Doma-w a chance to respond first. I disagree with this FLRC, but he has concerns with the list and I would like to try my best to address them. -- Scorpion0422 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the talk page? I tried to correspond there...
- "Tried"? I responded and I said I would do what I could. Pardon me for not being able to do it immediately. -- Scorpion0422 13:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a question of "keep" or not. A featured list must be perfect? Or not? Of course I want to keep the featured status!
- "Mountain out of a molehill" - Well, the mountain of this list are the names... Or is there something I misunderstood?
- The 13 links that were redirects: They were all misspelt in the featured list and then one user created the articles with the mispelt titles and then the articles were moved!
- What is the problem the check all the names? Määtää is wrong in any case, correct is Määtä. Mccormack is wrong in any case, correct is McCormack. Or per WP:Title "Gordon 'Pete' Sears" is wrong. I think also the red links must be correct. A featured list should not invite users to create articles with wrong titles.
- I can't help but wonder why you couldn't have fixed these yourself? You're aware of these errors and if you fixed them it would be faster for all of us. -- Scorpion0422 13:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are perfect refs shown, why we do not use them? The IOC database misspells many names, this source is not reliable for the spelling of the names.
- Ron(ald) Naslund: The question is not if "Ron" or "Ronald", but "Näslund" is not correct. I am not American, but is it possible to spell the name of an American citizen with "ä"?
- Please see all the other "List of Olympic medalists in..." e.g. List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing, List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing, List of Olympic medalists in speed skating. ALL names are correct, so why not do the same for the ice hockey list?
- The easiest way is to use "sports-reference.com" there are all names spelt correctly.
Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the names look much better now. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you withdrawing this FLRC? -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course! I withdraw the FLRC as the names are good now! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pile on, but I'd like to keep this an FL. The nominator's main issue seems to be taken care of, and the list meets all of the criteria as I see them. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLRC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 00:49, 28 March 2009 (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 Sephiroth BCR 23:06, 31 March 2009 [3].
- notified: WikiProject Journalism, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Sociology and Bfinn.
This one showed up in the Clean up listing and when I looked at it, I discovered a number of sourcing violations.
Some examples:
- It cites wikipedia pages at least five times.
- There are two citation needed tags, one of which has been there since October 2008 and there are a number of uncited statements, such as real death dates.
- Several completely unsourced entries, including Sean Connery, Kevin Stoney and Heinz Wolff.
- A lot of improperly formatted citation templates.
- Several questionable sources, including:
- abbaannual.com
- Regrettheerror.com
- Amazon.com
- Jesuismort.com
- about.com
- "See references in John Darwin disappearance case."
- Prairieghosts.com
- Stiffs.com
- Some scope problems too, if you are going to include NN people who don't have pages, like Feliberto Carrasco or Mildred C. Clarke, doesn't that open up a huge can of worms?
- Speaking of wikipedia pages, is someone vandalizing a page really considered an obituary? And I've seen many cases of people doing that. Doesn't having a page that lists these things just glorify and encourage people to do it?
- I'm also curious about some of these entries, like Vince McMahon. That was a storyline death, like someone's character being killed in a TV sjow, and I don't think any news sources took it seriously and actually published an obituary for him.
Some of these issues are minor and easily fixable, but there are a lot of them. -- Scorpion0422 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup already, I agree with most of the statements, and it seemed like the FLC passed without much commenting a year ago. I'll fix the rest of the concerns in the upcoming days. Secret account 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed many of the sources that seemed questionable with the exception of regrettheerror.com, which is a reliable source for media errors, and covers all errors major news media makes (even if it's a little bloggy). I removed a few of the nn (others should have articles, as they are well known and even mentioned in books), I took care of the wikipedia vandalism obituarys, but I still have more work to do. Secret account 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stumbled across this when going through the latest cleanup listings. I managed to replace one {{fact}} tag but was unable to verify the other. The comprehensiveness issue will always be a struggle with this list, but even without that difficulty, when citations are referencing an IMDb message board I think it becomes time to delist. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sad to see this one gone since this is one of the most interesting FLs, but it should be delist per sourcing issue.—Chris! ct 06:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't think the sourcing issues can be resolved in the time allotted here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2009 (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 Sephiroth BCR 00:00, 18 March 2009 [4].
- Notified:WP US Government, Warhol13, DLJessup
Not really sure how this ever got through. The obvious issue is that there is no lede to speak of; in addition some third party references would be nice, but really the lede is the problem. One can assume that everyone knows what the US Supreme Court is, but the lack of any kind of prose is a problem. Ironholds (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- There is practically no lead and references are insufficient to verify the article.--₮RUCӨ 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- fully agree with the above. There are myriad possibilities for this list and many different changes that could (should) be made, but in its current form, this list is not featured content.
- Needs a lead (obviously).
- Needs images.
- Date ranges should be in two separate columns.
- Violation of WP:BOLDFACE as per active justices.
- Inline citations are not proper; i.e., they should direct to specific works. Most of the material in there now belongs in a footnotes section.
- Asterisks shouldn't be separated from their entries.
- I fail to see how the timeline adds to the article; it's redundant information.
Numerous other issues as well, but the above certainly disqualifies this list. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once (if) the major issues are resolved, there are nitty-gritty MOS issues to iron out, such as the dash spacing and the extraneous external links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified the new Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. We'll see if any of them can improve the list enough to rescue it from delisting. – Quadell (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (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 Sephiroth BCR 00:00, 18 March 2009 [5].
- previous FLR (23:05, 3 November 2008)
- Notified: WP DISCOG, WP ROCK, Escape Artist Swyer, 17Drew, Tezkag72.
- previous FLR (23:05, 3 November 2008)
I am sorry for having this brought back again at FLRC, but this discography does not deserve a featured list by today's standards. My main concern is the usage of mariah-charts.com, a fan site that completely fails WP:RS and is often inaccurate, based on my personal work with discographies. That leaves almost 200 peak positions from the singles' table which are unverified. We have reliable databases that can fix this problem, and can be found at MOS:DISCOG#Sources and User:Kww/goodcharts. In addition, there are various other issues in my opinion, such as the MTV Europe chart which fails WP:CHARTS, the lack of citations in the Other appearances, a not so-brilliant lead, inadequate format of various in-line citations along some other minor issues. Hopefully they can be solved. Thanks, Do U(knome)? yes...or no 05:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - the lead needs expansion, some of the content needs verification by sources, and some of the references need proper formatting. --TRUCO 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Clearly fails the increasingly tough standards expected of discographies. This list has slipped under the radar for a while now, so I'm glad to see it here. Hopefully someone can come along and help, but until then I agree this list should be not be considered a featured list. Drewcifer (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless improvments made. The number of charts given is also excessive. Along with the inadequate lead and other problems pointed out above, this doesn't match expectations of WIAFL. I'm suprised it was kept only in November, but no-one improved it then or since.YobMod 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All problems seem to have been resolved except for the lack of citations in the "other appearances" section..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still a glut of chart positions, 15 columns for the albums and 16 for the singles. General sources are still needed. Column widths are at random. "Promo release only for the clubs." is worded badly. The Hollaback girl certification uses and x rather than ×. There's more stuff, but that's what pops out to me right now. Drewcifer (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shows how closely I examined it. Good job I didn't !vote, I must have been really half asleep :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lede states how many releases No Doubt had, but not Gwen Stefani has, which is odd. There are still too many chart listings. Comprehensive is one thing, but this is a case of too much information. It all begins to blur and starts looking like a wordsearch puzzle, and isn't visually appealing. Completely unreferenced section, too. Even after the work that's gone into it, I still don't think it's the best we can offer. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 01:32, 10 March 2009 [6].
Proceedural nom. This page was merged and redirected back in September(!!!!!!) per this. It should be delisted immediately. -- Scorpion0422 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist obviously. GARDEN 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delist, no need to keep this open. The consensus is clear from the talk page, and no one has challenged it in months. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delist – this is the link to the actual redirect page: [7]. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.