Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2013
- 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 Kept by Giants2008 22:29, 24 March 2013 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's currently just a redirect, its content having been merged into List of National Football Conference North Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees by User:Halophile a couple of months back. I don't know anything about the history of the move, or whether there was consensus to do so, but in any case, right now we cannot have a redirect as a featured list (and the target list is very poor indeed). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Halophile didn't seek any disucssion at all before merging, doing it after only 17 hours of the tag being added. I'm personally very much against featured pages being deleted or merged, absent serious legal issues, without review or at least proper notification. There was no notification I can see to WP:NFL nor the primary contributors to this list, so I suggest reverting to last stable and retaining if there are no other issues. Sceptre (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I can't find where this merge of an FL had consensus. Unless somebody other than Halophile supported this, it should be reverted back to the way it was. By the way, as an NFL fan, nobody I know of groups Hall of Famers by the division(s) they played in. The same user made other similar lists that may have to be dealt with too. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Without prejudice to the idea of having a single list of all Hall of Fame inductees, this merge was not well executed. Less than 17 hours ensued between the proposed merge notice and the execution of the merge. That's not good practice. To establish attribution of the merged article content, you have to look through its history to spot where the merge happened and then trace that article's contribution history. There's a template {{Copied}} to do the attribution properly, and failing to use it is more poor practice. Finally, and most damning, the Featured List's 35 citations have been gutted down to a single reference. As it stands at present, the encyclopedia would be improved by restoring List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame to the version of 26 May 2011. --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is worth noting that the merger of items like this is entirely outside the scope of the featured list process. Unfortunately. All we can do is assess the status quo. Hence why I have notified a couple of relevant projects. I know it sounds bureaucratic but all we can do right here, right now, is assess the list against the criteria. If someone is prepared (outside this process) to restore the list to its pre-piss-poor "merge" then I'm all up for that. But we can't decide on doing that here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that User:Halophile who made the unilateral merge/move/fail has removed the post on his talk page regarding this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hello all. It has been a while since I have been here, but as the person who brought the list to FL status way back when, I figured I could say something. I disagree with the moves that the user in question made, especially in regard to this featured list. I also agree with the above user that dividing the teams within their divisions makes no sense, and there should either be one big list for the NFL or lists for each team (which I support). Although I understand what TRM means when he says that this is probably not the best venue for this discussion, I do think that the most important thing is that we get it right and do what's best for the project. I do not think that we should delist this list, then go resolve the move matter elsewhere, and then have to relist the article again to get it featured. I agree with Rexxs that we should revert to the version of 26 May 2011, which is what I will do. For the other articles, it will be up to you guys to deal with them :) That's my 2 cents. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my previous (just to make it official :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the merge made no sense to me. This lists should be done by team. Now that the list has been restored and updated with the 2013 inductee, I believe that it meets FL criteria. Royalbroil 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep common sense has prevailed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2013 (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 Kept by Giants2008 22:29, 24 March 2013 [2].
- Notified: Gman124, WikiProject National Football League
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list does not meet current featured standards. The list has dead links, fails MOS:DTT (over reliance on color, no symbols, no scope col or scope row, etc). The colored headers are not necessary and hides the sort-ability symbol. Perhaps the tables should be merged and a "round" column could be added (that's how I would attack the list). Further, another paragraph could be added in the lead as to how the players career's went, since looking in retrospect should be easy, and a mention of Mr. Irrelevant should be added. I'm sure there are other things I am missing. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2001 NFL Draft for the promotion, done in 2007. Albacore (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have a go at fixing up this one, could be an interesting challenge as I know literally nothing about American football..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so far I've merged the tables into one, added a "round" column, removed the coloured headers, fixed the dead links, and started to expand the lead. I've never really got to grips with row scopes, though - can someone tell me where to put them......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, before that, there are some other things you can do:
- OK, so far I've merged the tables into one, added a "round" column, removed the coloured headers, fixed the dead links, and started to expand the lead. I've never really got to grips with row scopes, though - can someone tell me where to put them......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By comparison, the 2000 and 2002 drafts had one player apiece Expand the 2000 and 2002 links per WP:EGG
- Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pro Bowl selections need a general reference, or an individual reference if you want to work.
- All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the positions need to be linked in the table throughout. Same with schools and teams.
I'm working my way through this and hope to have it resolved by the weekend....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Think I've finally finished doing all that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the key somewhere a note should be made that # = number
- Replaced with "no." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why we need "¤" if it's unused.
- Gone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The URL source to File:2001nfldraft.png has rotted.
- Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article uses " Archived from the original on 15 May 2007" and "Archived from the original on 2007-04-30." Stay consistent
- All date formats should now be consistent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 7 seems unnecessary
- It's gone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Andre Carter needs some yellow
- Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the 66th National Football League (NFL) just say NFL since you abbreviated earlier.
- Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The University of Miami was the college most recognized in the draft, having 4 of its players selected in the first round. Rewrite the sentence. Miami had 7 players in the draft but Florida State had 9, according to our table.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a fan of the list at the end of the lead. Perhaps you could incorporate a sentence on this in the lead and remove the list. Albacore (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved it to the bottom and turned it into a table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Overall, the list doesn't look too bad after the overhaul. There are a few niggling issues left, but this should be savable.
"with Jacksonville Jaguars and Buffalo Bills receiving 4 picks each." "the" is needed before Jacksonville, as this is how it is treated in American English. I now that it would normally be excluded in British English, but we in the U.S. don't handle things the same way and the article should logically be in American English due to its subject.- Many of the notes need similar changes.
- I still see some issues in refs 18 and 42. When I have free time this weekend, I'll pitch in and go through the notes myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there were no compensatory picks, that entry may as well be taken out of the key.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Think I picked up everything above, let me know if I missed anything.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article looks in a decent state, good work all round, but the "checklinks" tool is still showing several dead links. Is that a failing of the tool? Also a bit of overlinking (e.g. Pro Bowl). Should the "time" be a range rather than two separate date-time groups in the infobox? Would also link positions in the infobox (such as QB and TE) as they're not obvious to non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed overlinking (hopefully - let me know if you spot any others), linked player positions in the infobox, removed the times from the infobox (I think the date is sufficient for this sort of subject). Will leave investigating the deadlinks for the moment as the Wayback Machine appears to be down.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links should now all be fixed too.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've addressed everything above except for row scopes. Even after reading MOS:DTT I am none the wiser as to where to put these. Anyone.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The row scopes are placed in each entry for the table in the row that is the most significant for the list; at least that's how I understand it. In this case, you'd probably want to have row scopes for the players. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, have done that. No idea if I've done it right, mind.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep good work from Chris, thanks and well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks up to FLC standards. My concerns have been addressed. Albacore (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this FLRC still open? It's no longer listed at WP:FLRC, but no closure template has been put on this page and the article's talk page still says that the article is a current FLRC...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.
- 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 Kept by Hahc21 06:49, 10 March 2013 [3].
- Notified: Discographies WikiProject
This list has ten dead links which fail Wikipedia's WP:V policy, it has sourcing to websites such as Discogs and Youtube, and it contains inaccuracies between the infobox and the lead. The 'Other appearances' section is in complete error as it contains some of their songs that are on compilation albums like So Fresh, which are not actual "other appearances", just that their song was featured on a compilation. I'm also concerned that the layout of this list is not the requirement for typical discographies. Till 12:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist References need to be more reputable and reliable sources. Tables do not meet MOS:DTT, in its current state it's definitely not our best work. NapHit (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe I've addressed all these concerns. The article should now be at current FL standard.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, after some amazing improvements by Shaidar cuebiyar (talk · contribs). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per significant improvements. A big thanks to User:Shaidar cuebiyar for all the improvements. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Comments
Ref. 26 is incorrect and the website it links to is questionable.(Information removed.)Ref. 40 does not state that Viner was the director.- Ref. 43 does not state a director as far as I can tell. (Perhaps the website looks differently for me.)
Ref. 46 is a reliable source because?- Ref. 51 is a reliable source because?
Goodraise 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
- In what way is the information incorrect?
- The ref has "Powderfinger On My Mind (V2) 2003 (22.11.2003): 180 (-/1) Love Your Way (V2) 2004 (27.03.2004): 125 (-/1) " Which verifies the charting claimed.
- As for Tobias Zywietz' site being questionable, I dispute this. It has existed since 1994, it derives its data from Charts Information Network (CIN) and The Official Charts Company (OCC). If there any more reliable on-line sites for such charting I would be happy to use them.
- The ref was accepted at the Kanye West discography FLC with the following comment by proposer (Holiday56): "Zobbel is the primary source used for UK chart positions below 100, and sources its information from official UK chart media. Several featured lists also use the site as a source".
- The ref states that Viner's "work has won local and international awards including Suzuki's 2009 'Story of the SUV-Asaurus', the 2003 animated music video for Brisbane band Powderfinger 'Sunsets', and most recently Best Children’s Animation at Mipcom Cannes for Polly Pockets 2010". [Emphasis mine].
- I'm having trouble here too. Might have to delete this ref.
- Head Pictures is the video production company, which is run by Escott, Lance and Baker.
- Concedo. I'll have to find a better one for this.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's incorrect is the publisher. It's not Official Charts Company. As for Zobbel.de, there's not one convincing argument in what you said about the site. Suggest consulting WP:RS.
- Although I think this is a reliable source for chart positions below 100, I've decided to remove the whole column of UK charting until an alternative ref can be found (if ever).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it says his work won awards, but his work as what? Director? It doesn't say that.
- What's incorrect is the publisher. It's not Official Charts Company. As for Zobbel.de, there's not one convincing argument in what you said about the site. Suggest consulting WP:RS.
- Revisited. Goodraise 04:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe its a matter of implicit rather than explicit. He is a director (see second and fourth paragraphs), he worked on "Sunsets": implies he directed "Sunsets". A further ref for his being a director with Liquid Animation has been supplied. I hope this is sufficient.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The article violates WP:SYNTH to assert that Michael Viner directed "Sunsets", cites what appears to be some sort of music wiki and the presumably user contributed description of a video on a video sharing website. Goodraise 16:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I hope I've suitably addressed these issues.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still have doubts about references 43 (now 44) and 51 (now 52). Goodraise 21:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope I've suitably addressed these issues.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliability of this? Till 06:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disputed source has been removed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but this? And I have no more concerns for this list except for this source. Till 12:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the delay, didn't see this until today. I've removed both hindleysite.com uses and replaced with Amazon.com and Allmusic.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but this? And I have no more concerns for this list except for this source. Till 12:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disputed source has been removed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.