Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/November 2008

Kept

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:Sephiroth BCR 20:58, 29 November 2008 [1].

---

List of Namibia ODI cricketers

Notified: WT:CRIC
Fails FL criterias 1, 2, and 3. Statistics are also out of date, as it has last been updated in 2005. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy remove ;) - Article lacks sources, needs more information, and is only updated through 2005. iMatthew 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If it makes any difference, Namibia haven't played a One Day International game since 2005 - so the statistics are not out of date. Of course, we need to update the "year as of" statistic, but this is easy to do (should we alter this to 2008 or to {{currentyear}})?. Otherwise, what further introductory information should we include in the lead section? Any WP:CRIC members with ideas? Statswise, Howstat provides us with all the data we need - what further sources are necessary if they will simply duplicate the data already available without adding anything significant? Bobo. 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In-line references are prefered to a couple of links at the end of the article. Perhaps the lead could be expanded with a little about Namibia's ODI history (when they first played, why they haven't played since 2003). Since the most matches any player has played is 6, perhaps a note on the outcome of the series the team played (it can only be a handful). Also some notes on the captain(s). Other than that, I'm stumped. Nev1 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

True enough about inline references - though once again, if we rely solely on Cricket Archive's stat machine, it would be the same reference repeated fifteen times. Perhaps linking through to Cricket Archive stats would reduce this redundancy. Bobo. 10:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What I'm doing with List of Irish ODI cricketers (a work in progress) is giving links to the record of each player, saving anyone reviewing the article thhe effort of trawling through more links than necessary to check the info. It's boring, but it's not particularly hard. I think the biggest problem is the lead, but I've made suggestions to expand it. I think in its current state, the article is not an FL, but it has potential to be salvaged IMO. Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm afraid that, like many of these old cricket lists, this one is heavy on the WP:STATS. The lead is rubbish. It should be about Namibian cricket, not about limited overs which the reader can find via a link. I won't vote yet because I don't know enough about this process but I think the nominator has got a point. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• I've added some additional text to the lead. Is this the sort of thing that's needed? I'd appreciate it if someone could check it over. I can add inline citations fairly easily, but I'm not sure where they should go for the table. --Cherry blossom tree 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You could add a reference column to the table. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is it possible to notify additional interested parties, such as the original FLC nominator, and maybe the current two most active contributors? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The FLC nominator hasn't edit Wikipedia since 2007, I already addressed to one of the current active contributors to this article, but the other one...well I didn't notifiy him... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Artiticle is now fully referenced, the lead has been expanded. Does more need to be done, or does the article now satisfy the FL criteria? Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know yet. Guess we'll just wait and see 18 days later. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Instead of the flag of Namibia, why not just put a image of one of the cricketers instead. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because no free use images are available. Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what's the point of putting the flag of Namibia? Just don't have the image on the article, since it is kind of useless. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in having the flag. The image is free, it makes the article look better, and it is related to the topic. I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way though, and I see your point. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you just removed the thumb part of the image. That'll be great. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Starting the list with "This is a list of ..." is discouraged —Chris! _ct 06:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this more to your liking? Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Yes that is what I want—Chris! _ct 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments by SatyrTN

• Table should be sortable. "Batting", "Bowling", and "Fielding" should be move to "Key". Will also need to use {{sort}} for the "100/50" and "BB" columns, and {{sortname}} for the "Name" field.
• Per previous commenters, the lede is a) not about Namibian ODI cricketers and needs to be re-written.
• Weak Remove" until issues are resolved. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Remove - table is now sortable, though {{sortname}} and {{sort}} still need to be used so names will sort by last name. Lede still needs to be rewritten. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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 by User:Sephiroth BCR 20:58, 29 November 2008 [2].

---

List of World XI ODI cricketers

Notified:WP Cricket, User:Stephen Turner.

I don't feel this meets the criteria for a featured topic. While the prose is okay and the lead engaging, it is not particularly comprehensive, it is out of date and has a reference (note, a single reference) that links to CricInfo page on World XI results on one series, rather than any kind of list of current capped players. The structure does not offer any kind of special features such as the ability to shuffle the list according to which facet you wish to order it, it doesn't have much visual appeal either. Thus, I have FLRC'd it for comment. SGGH ^speak! 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A note of thanks to the user who notified Stephen Turner, and put the nofitications on this page. SGGH ^speak! 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have changed the Cricinfo reference to one that shows all matches and will update if there are any more. I can't find such a reference on CricketArchive or any other sites. 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Sam Korn ^(smoddy)

• Remove for now - just one reference!? iMatthew (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not experienced in FL matters, so I don't know whether this is the end of the world. The information here is all provided by that reference, it is uncontroversial and the reference is reliable. Furthermore, the reference is the only one, so far as I can see, that exists. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • More than one reference should be used in order to give objective information about the subject. A key section is needed here, as well.--Crzycheetah 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

*Remove - One reference does not verify the entire list. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEDE and the way it starts is a big no-no, "This is a list of ___" is discouraged in FL's. It also seems to me that it needs to be updated, last update was October 2005. Fails FL Cr 1,2,3,5--S_RX 16:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - after the expansions to this list, it now complies with WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, the reference does verify the whole list, under any conceivable definition of "verify" (check it!). It is not out of date, as there have been no World XI matches since October 2005. If it is not acceptable for a featured list to have but one reference, fair enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)
• Comment. Could User:Crzycheetah be more specific about a "key section", please? What do you envisage? The details cannot be updated as the last match was in 2005 but I do wonder if there is too much WP:STATS here. I still have an open mind, especially as I'm unfamiliar with the ropes of this process and its "big non-nos". BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – there are several issues that need to be addressed:

• The "this is a list..." style is no longer used and needs to be changed. Done
• Please right-align the image. Done
• The lead is entirely unsourced.
• Give a brief explanation what an "over" is for non-cricket people.

Very few (if any) cricket articles explain what an over is, they simply wikilink the term in the first instance. Generally this seems to be acceptable as it is a widely known term for those who follow cricket, IMO. SGGH ^speak! 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Try to incorporate the items in parenthesis into the text.
• "Where more than one player won his first ODI cap in the same match, those players are listed alphabetically by surname" has an awkward structure. Change to "In cases in which more than one player won his first ODI cap in the same match, these players are listed alphabetically by surname" Done
• Put a section header on the list.
• Given the heavy amount of statistics, sortability would be a good option.

I have tried to implement this but I can't get it to stop sorting the uppermost row of "Batting", "Bowling" etc. Hopefully someone with more expertise will come along. SGGH ^speak! 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have sort of got it, but someone will still need to be looked at SGGH ^speak! 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else has removed what I changed SGGH ^speak! 23:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• All the links in the "Team" column need to be fixed.
• Use en-dashes for empty columns. Done
• "2005-" - use en-dashes please. Done
• Why are there asterisks on items in the HS column?

An asterisk denotes an innings that ended not out SGGH ^speak! 18:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Per Crzycheetah, a key would be nice. Something like Chicago Bulls seasons or Annie Award for Best Animated Video Game.

• That's it for now. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep: the lead has been significantly expanded and I believe the article now satisfies criteria 1, 2, and 5. It always satisfied criterion 3. Wisden/cricinfo is considered pretty much definitive in the cricketing world. One reference for the statistics is sufficient. Also a key has been added, although having two separate tables looks frankly ridiculous. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The separate table part is only temporary by me trying to get the sorting thing working, awaiting someone with more knowledge to come and finish the job, as I stated above. SGGH ^speak! 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate why it was done (if you look at the article history you'll see I tried to integrate the two tables, then understood why they were separate), but since the two don't line up it does seem silly. I don't know who to ask for help, any ideas? Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this version, you'll see I had something approximating what we want, only with the rows the wrong way round. Closer? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the top part for now, as it has occured to me that we don't really need it. The column headings make it pretty clear whether its fielding, batting or bowling... SGGH ^speak! 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A good idea I think. I did the same on list of Irish ODI cricketers, but was waiting to get some other opinions before I started changing other articles. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments by SatyrTN

• The table needs its own section header
• The table also needs a key
• Instead of the separate header table, which doesn't quite match up, I recommend using the "Key" section to describe each column header, and have two sub-sections of the key for Batting, Bowling, and Fielding. See the current FLC List of Irish ODI cricketers for a key and imagine the sub-sections :)
• Column headers should not be wikilinked - that can be done in the Key, too.
• You may need to make use of the {{sort}} template for the "Best" column.
• Per MOS:FLAG, having the flag in this table doesn't add anything the text doesn't already show. They should probably be removed.
• You should make use of {{sortname}} for the "Name" column.
• Oh - now I see the Key. That should be before the table :)
• Weak Remove until some of the above have been addressed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Key expanded and before table, table sortable, top row delinked, header added, and flags removed. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• an innings that ended not out should either be an inning that ended not out or innings that ended not out
  • It is "a batsman's innings" there is no "inning" in cricket, as far as I am aware "an innings that ended not out" is correct, see Innings. SGGH ^speak! 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• The statement above the key that says Statistics are correct as of 30 October 2005. is either misleading or needs expanding. If there have been no games since October 2005 and there aren't likely to be any, it should be changed to something like "Statistics are correct through the last XI ODI game played, 30 October 2005." or something like that. If there may be more games played, then expand it a bit to explain: "Statistics are correct as of 30 October 2005. No games have been played since then."

Done. An innings in cricket is one of those strange words which is the same singular and plural, so there is no need to change the sentence as the grammar is correct. Nev1 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support for keeping this FL. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have made High Score sortable in the table, was there a particular reason why it was set as unsortable before? SGGH ^speak! 10:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought it was unsortable, when I was playing around with the preview I must have done something weird because it wasn't sorting it correctly. Nev1 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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 by User:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [3].

---

List of Archbishops of Canterbury

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Kent, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity iMatthew (talk)

After looking it over, it doesn't exactly meet the FL criteria. It was passed in 2005, and has some issues. First of all, sourcing the headers - not good. The format of the tables is troublesome as well. I'm not sure how reliable some of the sources are, notes should be combined. The current one's article says he was appointed in 2003, and this article says 2002, so some of the facts may not be correct. This list could also better from a history section, and moving the roles into that. It fails C4 of the FLC criteria, as it's not a sortable table, and C6 per the above comment about the format of the tables. - iMatthew (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sorcing the headers" - you want a reference for "To the Norman Conquest"?? Apart from an alphabetical sort, which the category does, what would a sortable table sort on? It seems irrelevant here. It could do with some more detail in places, for example on the origin of non-Englishmen (like the current occupant). Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Until I changed last night, the footnotes were actually incorporated in the headers, which isn't good style. Otherwise I tend to agree with you, there's a limit as to waht's actually sortable, and given the way it's broken down into sections (and it would otherwise be a rather intractable list), even alpha sorting doesn't seem to be particularly useful, as you would only get alpha order for each section of the list.

As for the issues over dating Williams's appointment, there are various dates which could be considered to be when he was appointed:

• When his appointment was first announced by Downing St
• When the Conge d'Elire was issued by the Queen, and he was formally elected by the canons of Canterbury Cathedral
• When he was legally confirmed in office
• When he was enthroned

All but the enthronement (which is probably what I would go with, as it's only then that he fully takes up office) were in 2002, the enthronement was 2003, see official biography. David Underdown (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling, but I reworked the early parts of the list to use the Handbook of British Chronology a while back, and it's on my list of things to do the rest. Handbook's pretty much the authoritative "list" thing for British history, and the list is currently based off that until 1500. Hayden's and the other works are not currently being used for the older sections of the list. As for sortable, err.. why? There are some things that just don't need to be sortable, honestly. C4 says "where suitable" for sortable. As far as the history, I point you to the article on the office itself, which is where I would expect history to be. I'm not saying that it couldn't use work, but structurally and sourcing wise its as strong as some of the lists out there that have been recently passed, and it's definitely under my wing (like all the bishop lists and articles). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse)

Comments from Sephiroth BCR

OKay, I am home. What needs to be dealt with? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A general list of stuff I saw on a brief look at the list:

• The "this is a list..." style is no longer used and needs to be changed.

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are no sources in the lead aside from the source for the roles the Archbishops of Canterbury serve.

• Added some. Need one more. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Added the last one. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the dates and notes are small; remove the tags.

• done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The background color for the list is odd. I don't think it's necessary.

• done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• What is the source for the Notes column?

• Unless noted, it's from Handbook. Still some to source out (mainly the canonization stuff). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Now they are all sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why do the earlier Archbishops have other names in parenthesis while the bold style is used for the modern day bishops? On that subject, the bolding is excessive and should be removed. Trying to rely on the bold to show the common name from the full name is bad.

• Fixed by removing the bolding. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The "All beginning dates are consecration dates, unless otherwise specified. All ending dates are death dates, unless otherwise noted" can likely be changed into a note ref rather than being repeated.

• Any suggestions on where to place the note? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The "Notes" section. Use the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't make myself clear. Where in the body of the article do you suggest putting it? I had notes on the column headers but they were nixed, so I'm not sure where to put the tags for the notes. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Next to the headers in the "Start" and "End" columns. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Let me know if that's not what you had in mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed it up a bit, but generally what I wanted. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Same with "Where the full name of an incumbent is not generally used, the name that is most commonly used is shown in bold (so, for example, Rowan Douglas Williams is usually called simply Rowan Williams)."

• Removed the bolding so no longer relevant. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The fifth note needs to be fully expanded with {{cite web}}

• It was an unreliable site, so has been removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Contact me when this has been addressed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

More comments – good job on my points, and I have a few more.

• Since the list isn't sortable, when there is a "vacant", use colspan="2"; align="center" to have the "vacant" expand across two columns and center it.

• Call me incompetant, but I can't seem to get the thing to span two columns, after staring at the Help sections for a while. Can you show me a working example, perhaps? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, did it myself. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the "References" section, use ";General" and ";Specific" to separate the references.

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good work on addressing my points. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - do we really mean consecration as the default beginning date? certainly post-Reformation virtually all have been translated from other Sees - they would have been consecrated when they first became a bishop, and archbishop is not a further order, so you are not reconsecrated. Enthroned seems more likely on the whole. David Underdown (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have enthronement dates very often for pre-1300 or so. We could use translation date for after the Reformation, easily enough. The Handbook of British Chronology doesn't use enthronement dates at all, so we'd be using ONDB or the Fasti Ecclesiae for that, when they are available. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the point I'm really making is that if the source describes it as consecration date for those translated from elsewhere, it's wrong. It's almost certainly enthronement date in fact. David Underdown (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

HBC's format reads like this: "William Whittlesey - Accession - trs (translated) Worcester, prov. (provided) 11 Oct 1368, temp. (temporalities) 15 Jan 1369 Death, unless otherwise stated - 5 or 6 June 1375" or for something more modern "John Whitgift - Accession - trs Worcester, nom (nominated) 14 Aug, conf (confirmed) 23 Sept 1583 - Death, unless otherwise stated - 29 Feb 1604". Compare this with their entries from the Fasti Ecclesia, William Whittlesey - "Trans. from Worcester 11 Oct. 1368 (Reg. Wittlesey ff. 1-1b). Temps. 15 Jan. 1369 (CPR. 1367-1370 p. 187). Pallium bestowed 19 Apr. at Lambeth through bp. of Winchester (Reg. Wittlesey f. 7b). Enthroned 17 June (ibid. f. 13). D. 5/6 June 1374 (ibid. f. 68)." or John Whitgift - "Congé d'élire 14 Aug. 1583 (P.R.O., C 66/1229). Whitgift, bp. of Worcester, el. 23 Aug. (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift 1 f. 3; AC 1581-1607 f. 55r-v). Royal assent 27 Aug. (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift 1 ff. IV-2; P.R.O., C 66/1229). Conf. 23 Sept. by bps. of London, Peterborough, Lincoln and Salisbury (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift 1 ff. 1-8v). Temps. 10 Oct. (P.R.O., C 66/1229). D. 29 Feb. 1604 (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift III f. 279; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1603-10 p. 155)." which you'll note doesn't give an enthronement date. I suppose we could expand the "start" into different columns for the post Norman Conquest sections, giving "election or provision" "temporalities" "consecration" "enthronement" or similar columns, it's up to everyone. Just note that the Fasti only cover 1066-1857. The only really complete list is the HBC, which covers Augustine through Runcie, which is why I used it by preference. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that whenever it wasn't the consecration date I used from the HBC, I've given the type of date, such as "nominated" or "translated" or some such, in the start column. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that temp broadly coincides with enthronement, but I take your point. But if we're annotating virtually every entry, might it be better to chagne the default? David Underdown (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We could do that for the post reformation section easy enough. Or, I'm really not adverse to breaking the start dates into more than one type, for comprehension. I'd only do that for the post Norman Conquest stuff, as prior to 1066, the information is kinda scanty. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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 by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:05, 3 November 2008 [4].

---

Gwen Stefani discography

Notified: WP:DISCOG, WP:ROCK, User:Escape Artist Swyer, User:17Drew, User:Cacarlo92, User:PiracyFundsTerrorism, User:Tezkag72.

This list no longer meets the FL Criteria. It has many issues:

• It's lead section is not up to scratch, consisting of one paragraph and a parastub.
• There are multiple WP:MOS violations, such as "US" and "U.S.", and inconsistencies with chart names ("WW" and "UWC"),  Fixed
• unformatted references ([14]). Done
• chart positions are not referenced Fixed
• the infobox links don't link to the sections because they don't have the same names Fixed
• the key, "—" denotes releases that did not chart. uses mdashes, but the tables have ndashes Fixed
• "—**" denotes that a single was not released in that area. is unnecessary and the asterisks clutter the tables Done
• The three notes for the albums are not needed. "European RnB, HipHop chart" -- does this exist? Why isn't it linked to if it's a notable chart? Fixed
• ARIA R&B chart. Italics, really? I don't think info about this component chart is necessary Fixed
• 1xtra chart.. 1Xtra is a radio station, and again shouldn't be italicised. It's also not an official chart. Fixed
• Note 3 about being released in continental Europe -- not necessary due to the dashes in the table showing where it wasn't released Done
• Singles sales and certifications needs referencing and merging into the singles table Fixed
• The Miscellaneous section: What is miscellaneous supposed to mean? Collaborations? Then call it that Fixed
• Music video directors need referencing Fixed
• Unreleased songs should be removed. They were never released, and shouldn't appear on a discography. Fixed
• United World Chart was deleted for being un-notable. The UWC chart positions should be removed  Done
• aCharts is relied upon too much for referencing, instead of official charts, and there have been many discussions regarding its reliablity. Fixed

That'll do for now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start working on this right away. Please give me a few days to get it up to scratch. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And i'm helping. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You left out the fact that there are far too many charts being used in the tables. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats not importent. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Says who, BBHS? On the one hand, he's right - most discogs have around 10 charts so as not to fall into WP:NOT#STATS or WP:IINFO; however, it clearly shows that Gwen has had success in many countries (the country with the fewest chart entries is Sweden, with 6 out of 11 singles), and rules can be broken at times.

Denmark has three and rule or guidline is not very good since nearly no one is following it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL That's one of the worst reasons I've heard in a long time. The validity of guidelines isn't based on whether or not it interferes with fans who want to add very important information. The letter – and spirit – of WP:NOT#STATS is that "sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability". Chart positions in a discography show trends in how well albums and their singles performed worldwide. Knowing how something charted in...Finland (Finland? Really? That's what, .1% of the global market?)...doesn't give readers any information they can't glean from the other fifteen or so positions there. Instead, it just makes it an ugly unreadable mess. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BBHS, I'm assuming the two of the three in Denmark are component charts, and wouldn't be suitable anyway. Piracy, I tend to agree with you on this occasion, though if every one of her releases had got to number 1 there, it would be important to keep it, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How US-centric. Finland? Really? Oh it's just a tiny country over in Yoor-up, it doesn't matter. As long as we have the US right at the front (out of alphabetical order, I might add), it's fine. Who's actually heard of Finland anyway? It's not like we're sitting in the middle of a giant encyclopedia. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is a straw man, and there was nothing US-centric about what I said. As I stated, Finland makes up about a tenth of a percent of the market; it has an almost negligible impact on how many copies a single sells. I also notice you didn't even attempt to address WP:NOT#STATS, considering the point I made about a table this large being unreadable is valid and supported by policy. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Stefani is a US singer, that is why the US chart is given first. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats true, but his right about this wikipedia when it comes to US-centric. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of the bias in WP, but we can't change the world in a day. Let's stick to doing it one article at a time. This one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• More
  • Some retrieval dates are linked in references, others aren't. Fixed
  • use List of Record Charts to pipelink the relevant charts in the Albums and Singles table, instead of linking to the name of the country. Fixed
• Looking much better, by the way. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What else does the lead need? I'm brushed it up a bit but I don't know exactly what it should look like. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See The White Stripes discography for an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose delisting - Matthewedwards concerns have been addressed, just waiting for more comments, if there are any. iMatthew 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• More
  • I'm generally happy the way this FLRC has gone, and the improvements made to the list. I still feel the Lede section could be improved upon, and I was wondering about some of the entries in the "Certifications" columns. Does "Sales: 7 million" and "Sales: 4 million" refer to worldwide sales or US sales? Please clarify in the list. Finally, are there any other certifications in other countries for her singles? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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 by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:05, 3 November 2008 [5].

---

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Notified: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Talrias

Fails WP:FL? criterias 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The lead is barely two sentences long, the article doesn't even introduce the subject, the prose does not define what the article is about, and the article only has two references. It also has some red links that needs to be cleared out. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delist The unsourced "Notes and key events" column does not belong in a FL. Even if every one had sources, I'd still be extremely wary of it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• I have made a first attempt at expanding the lead section, though my skills as a word-smith are probably not quite up to the job. I will focus on getting some references into the article after I have had some sleep and also take a look at that "Notes & key events" column. I don't have much experience with featured lists, so feel free to point out any other problems you see and I will try to resolve them. Road Wizard (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as FL Issues

• "This article is a list of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and its predecessor state the Kingdom of Great Britain." Not only is this sentence in the wrong place, but articles don't start like this anymore.
• More expansion of the lead is required. Suggestions:
  • What are the main duties of the PM?
  • More history of the position perhaps?
  • List some notable Prime Ministers and what they're famous for.
• The article needs more references.
• Add symbols to the colour code for accessibility.
• Overlinking abounds.
• "(for politican party)"-->(for political party)
• I think that the See also section needs to be purged of the less useful links. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the issues. I think I have resolved most of the ones raised so far. The only problem that I have still to tackle is the lead, but I will see what I can pull together in the next few days (unless someone else is willing to jump in here?).

While the lead is being worked on, are there any other outstanding issues that need to be resolved to retain the FL status? Thanks. Road Wizard (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Prime Ministers during the 19th century were Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, following the Act of Union 1800 (which merged the Kingdom of Ireland with the Kingdom of Great Britain)." Doesn't make sense.
• Really, the only issue left is the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead has now been expanded and revised. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• "(and hence the area the Prime Minister was Prime Minister of)" Could we avoid the repetition of "Prime Minister"?
• "in the northeast"-->to the northeast
• Single page numbers in references should use p., not pp. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have finished the changes on the article now. I have left "in the northeast" alone as it appears to be the correct wording. Do you have a specific reason for changing it?

Hopefully there won't be many more comments as I can't put much more time into this one article. Road Wizard (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be kept. You did an excellent job of bringing this article back to featured standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am impressed, I did not think the article would clean up this nicely.
  • I don't really like it when there are images in the middle of a group of text columns. Would it be possible to move the images to before the name column (but after the colour)?
  • Since the table isn't sortable, maybe you should merge all of the rows that state the monarch.
  • Would it be possible to add a List of elections won, like here?
  • Is there any image you can add to the lead?
• These are mostly optional, I no longer think this page should be delisted. Good job! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reordered the images in the list and added an image of the current Prime Minister to the lead. The lead image is facing the opposite way to the text, but the only alternative free image of adequate quality at Commons is unusually tall and distorts the lead at anything close to a reasonable width.

I will leave the cell merging of the Monarch column to future editors. I am not really enjoying the prospect of sorting through the table code and setting "row span" variables everywhere.

Likewise I will leave the election column for future editors to decide. While it sounds like a good idea in practice theory, it will require a huge amount of research effort to gather adequate references for all the general elections involved (and that is not mentioning the By-elections that Prime Ministers from the Commons had to fight until 1926 - see Resignation from the British House of Commons#History). The column could also get quite messy as Prime Ministers who led from the House of Lords would not have needed to stand for election. However, it may be something worth looking at once agreement can be reached on what should and should not be included. Road Wizard (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as FL the article is back up to meet the FL criteria. iMatthew 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nice work. It now meets the FL standard.—Chris! _ct 08:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

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:Sephiroth BCR 20:58, 29 November 2008 [6].

---

List of countries

We currently have a talk page consensus to convert this list into a redirect to lists of countries (without merging the content elsewhere), because, as I said on the talk page:

• This list and the list of sovereign states (which is not featured but probably could be soon) both present the same information in slightly different ways.
• It is not necessary to present the information twice.
• The list of sovereign states presents the information more clearly than does the list of countries.

I was advised that this needed to be taken here for community approval because it is a featured list.

The major issue with the list rising from the discussion, aside the fact that it is one of two which present the same information in slightly different ways (and that the other presents it in a better way), is the definition of the word "country" used by the list. This is a problem because the definition used to decide which entries belong does not always fit in with sources for the word "country" - indeed there are several places that would normally be called countries that are not included, and others that would not normally be called countries that are.

Otherwise, structurally, it isn't great (though I would say "so improve it then" if we didn't have the same information with a better structure elsewhere) and it does tend to be a target for edit wars over content (though it is stable, long-term) - partly because of this structure. Pfainuk talk 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, you already have consensus for a merge, which makes this 2 week FLRC rather unnecessary. It might be possible to speedily remove it after a week, I'll ask User:Sephiroth BCR and see what he thinks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I actually already went through with it, but then undid it on User:Sephiroth BCR's advice on my talk. The double redirects and things that I switched still go to their new targets, though if this somehow didn't happen, it would simply be a matter of going through my contribs reverting things. Pfainuk talk 00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove quickly The original list as a featured article involved a decision by four people (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries/archive1 and [7]) and since then its FL status has been used as one of the justifications for keeping it rather than discussing the list and the problems it has on those criteria. --PBS (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove quickly Agreement was reached on the talk page for it to be redirected to the lists of countries page, which includes a link at the top of the page to List of Sovereign states which is by far the better list and contains all the data this current list does with out creating the same number of disputes. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of the list of countries and the reinforcement of the sovereign states list. I do agree with the arguments above. I was involved in a discussion on the list of countries page regarding the actual statute of Western Sahara. In fact, WS isn't a country but a territory disputed by Morocco and Polisario Front, a sahrawi separatist faction. I believe the list of sovereign states represents the actual statute of Western Sahara better than the actual list of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – barring a significant discussion on the merge, I'll archive this in time for GimmeBot's run on Sunday. I'm busy as hell at the moment IRL. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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:Sephiroth BCR 20:58, 29 November 2008 [8].

---

CZW World Heavyweight Championship

Notified: WP:PW

I'm nominating this one because of it's lack of a lead and reliable sources. As far as I can tell, "CageMatch.de", "Smart Mark Video", "Solie’s Vintage Wrestling" and "CZW Database" aren't very reliable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove - Fails Cr 1-3,+5, lead fails to FL compliance's and WP:LEDE compliance's. Tables need to be updated, small font needs to be removed, trivial information has to be removed.--S_RX 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove per lack of reliable sources, and short lead. iMatthew 01:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per above, sourcing needs shecking and Lead and general MoS requirements.Yobmod (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [9].

---

Towns of Alberta

Notified: Qyd, WP:ALBERTA, WP:CANADIAN COMMUNITES, WP:CANADA.

I believe that the article fails FL criterias 1, a little bit of 2, 3, 5, and 6. Also, the list is out-of-date and has not been edited since July of this year. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 06:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's not out of date, the 2006 Census is the latest Canadian Census. Also, there has not been any change in incorporation status of any town in Alberta lately, so the list is very much up to date. Any specific concerns? --Qyd (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delist:
  • The intro certainly needs work; "... are generally formed from communities with populations of at least 1000 people." But later it implies that 1000 is the minimum; so wouldn't they all be formed from ones of over 1000? Unless the first sentence means, that towns in Alberta are generally at least 1000 people... and it never touches on if the town is a provincial term, or federal term, or what... we need much better explanation of what a Town is. "A higher density" - Higher than what? Needs either a comparison or a new word.
  • Some of the names in the image are nearly impossible to read, but that's a bit harder to fix than the intro.
  • The sorting is wrong; when I sort by name, Athabasca shows up as the fourth name down, when it's the first alphabetically.
  • Is Lac La Biche a town or not? If it was dissolved, it should be removed from the table.
  • What is a "stand-alone municipality"?
  • The footer about sorting isn't needed.
  • The footer about sources is better handled ... elsewhere, in a general references section or something. Maybe above the table.
  • Speaking of above the table, I see no point for the alpha TOC. There aren't so many entries that a page up or page down in any direction won't take you halfway through the alphabet, and it's useless if you sort by anything other than alphabetically.
  • At least some of the 'see alsos' seem redundant with the footer box, but that may not be an important issue.
  • That's all that leaps out at me, this needs some work to remain featured. --Golbez (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, until Golbez's comments are resolved. iMatthew 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [10].

---

List of elements by symbol

Notified: WikiProject Elements and Chemistry.

Proceedural nomination. Per this discussion, there is consensus to merge the eight different List of elements related lists into one. Nobody has ever gotten around to it, so I decided to get the ball rolling.

It's slightly better than the List of elements by name, but there is still not much of a lead, no citations and the sources are all from pre-2005. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose to removing towards merging but undecided on references part

1. Firstly, I am not sure if overlapping is in any ways a FL criteria (just look at the List of UEFA club competition winners that passed FLC recently).
2. Secondly, the approval sounded like "it is a good idea but somebody else do it"; just removing these two them will not actually make people work on a new list.

   Well, the reason I nominated it is because I plan on doing it, should it be delisted. I'm hoping someone with more expertise will volunteer, but I'll do it if nobody steps forward.

   I don't care about the listing/delisting procedure, but my worry is that after delisting nobody will get back and actually get the work done.

3. Thirdly, the poll did not receive enough feedback to actual achieve more than a general opinion - w/o offering good solutions.
4. Fourthly, my solution: I started working on a list that does not overlap in any ways with these two: (i) List of elements by atomic properties - which will include AMONG others the atomic weight and number; (ii) later, List of elements by physical properties - another one I plan to create that will include boiling points, melting poits, densities, and others. Neither of these will have much overlap with the "symbol" or "name" part so removing these two FL due to 'merging' does not apply.
5. The only possible list of elements that would overlap is the list of etymology of the names, but that will not get near FL in the foreseeable future.
6. The symbol page has a lot of extra-information at the bottom that cannot be be merged into other lists
7. Lastly, merging all the lists into one will produce a table that will be 18 columns wide → it will be humongous and won't be as useful as the periodic table one.

   Well is it possible to create two lists then?

   Which ones?

   Well I'm no chemistry expert (so ignore me if this is a stupid idea), but could you have one table with 8-10 columns of just basic information, then another page with 8 or so of the rest or something? I dunno, just a suggestion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

   That's exactly what I want to do (see point #4), where the two lists are phisical, respectively atomical properties - neverthelwss, neither of these overlap with symbols or names. Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

   So you would support a merge if that was the solution? That sounds like a good idea to me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

   As I've said at #4, the merge would NOT involve these 2 lists. Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn the bureaucracy that drains the energy of users from other more productive projects. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, you supported a merge in January, yet you oppose it now. What made you change your mind? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

the 18-column thing Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delist until such time as a proper merging can be performed (not necessarily into one list). Among the issues with this list: No accounting for accessibility (colors used without identifying symbols or text); the "Why not used" column should be text, rather than a ref; Mercury lacks a pictographic image, just has a link; the list of isotopes should probably be split out; 'other symbols' needs sourcing; 'Notes' is empty. Nergaal, don't take it personally, take it as a sign that the ideals for featured lists have improved in the last 3 years, and it needs to be brought up to those. --Golbez (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another comment I also don't really like that this page is comprised of 5 completely seperate lists. Would it be possible to merge some of the tables or move some (specifically the "Symbols for named isotopes" section) to a different or new page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• How does a FLRC get the ball rolling on a merge? I don't see any connection and therefore oppose delisting. Once the merge occurs, THEN it would be appropriate to have a procedural delisting. But not before. Get the ball rolling by doing the work of the merge on a holding page. --mav (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's appropriate to delist now, because this is definitely not FL quality. In fact, if it's merged, it should be delisted anyway, because the new list will have to then be vetted on FLC. In other words, this list is losing no matter what, and I hope whoever handles these things understands this. Can you picture FAC allowing a substandard article to remain featured just because "a merge is pending"? No, they'd delist it, because - why not? When it's merged, it will no longer exist, and thus won't be featured anyway. The star has to go. --Golbez (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • But you are missing the point that this list is NOT MERGEABLE!!!!!
      • I disagree, but if it's not, so what: it's not featured quality, either. It should lose the star either way. I'm sure I could give it a good go at a merge, but I would still suggest delisting it until a merge was complete and the new list could be vetted on its own merits. --Golbez (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Although per nom votes are generally discouraged, I say delist per Golbez and per nom. iMatthew 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – ignoring the merge discussion, the list, as it stands, has serious issues that need to be addressed.

• The lead is barebones and needs to be expanded.
• Using color for the table is bad. Not only is the table unappealing, it makes it extremely difficult for a reader to discern what group the element belongs to. Create a new column that has color-coded cells to illustrate this (see the "Result" column in List of submissions to the 79th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film as an example).
• Repeating the key twice is unnecessary. Place it under its own section header.
• The "Why not used" column on the second table should actually place a rationale rather than simply the reference.
• For the third table, same thing with the "Why not used".
• The Notes section is empty. I would move all the notes currently utilized in the tables here.

• That's it for now. Please contact me when these issues have been addressed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [11].

---

List of elements by name

Notified: WikiProject Elements and Chemistry.

Proceedural nomination. Per this discussion, there is consensus to merge the eight different List of elements related lists into one. Nobody has ever gotten around to it, so I decided to get the ball rolling.

As well, there is virtually no lead, no citations, no seperate section for the table and the sources are all from pre-2005. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Very strong oppose per Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of elements by symbol. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know about delisting, but I strongly support a merge of the lists. Reywas92^Talk 15:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• How does a FLRC get the ball rolling on a merge? I don't see any connection and therefore oppose delisting. Once the merge occurs, THEN it would be appropriate to have a procedural delisting. But not before. Get the ball rolling by doing the work of the merge on a holding page. --mav (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – ignoring the merge issues, the list is still not FL quality. The lead is nonexistent and the color coding system is hard on the eyes and difficult to comprehend. Create a new column stating which group of elements it belongs to. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [12].

---

List of spacewalks and moonwalks

Notified: WP SPACE and WP Human spaceflight

In going through the various space lists, after List of ISS spacewalks was removed as a featured list because of lack of references and other issues, and List of space shuttle missions is also up for removal, because of lack of references, it seems to me that this list has even less references than either of the other two had, and the most important events (such as the world's first EVA) have no references whatsoever. In fact, the first 270 EVAs have no references given at all. Additionally, it has no navigational sections, and with 297 columns, that's against WP:FL?. The lead is not comprehensive, nor is it current. The lead was last updated in 2007. The comments column has poor punctuation, and very little information given, some items are only 3-4 words. If the WP:FL standards are going to be consistent, then this list should also be removed as a featured list until references and other issues can be fixed. Ariel♥Gold 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not true - the first 154 entries are all sourced to Reference #3 but repeating that inline 154 times was judged a tad excessive. Rmhermen (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually nowhere does it say reference 3 is the reference for any of the EVAs. Reference 3 is given to support the statement that only 10 women have participated in EVA activities. One could peruse the references, and guess that the chronology may cover at least part of the listed spacewalks, but it is not indicated in the list. Ariel♥Gold 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to note the source in, say, the prose before the table. You don't need to repeat it 154 times. But you DO need to point out which source is being used. Also, I don't see any point to the blue lines separating years. Finally, this looks like a table that could be made sortable. This does indeed need work. --Golbez (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't had much to do with this list, other than adding the EVAs from the last year or two. Unfortunately, the majority of the list really isn't done very well, with no punctuation, no explanation of what was done on the EVAs, no linking or spelling out of acronyms, and 3-4 words for an EVA, all combined seems like this isn't what Featured Lists should be. And for the EVAs not covered in the chronology, there are no references given at all. It would take a significant amount of work to get it up to the current standards, I think, and I'm still working on the other lists above, to get them back to FL status, hee hee. Ariel♥Gold 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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:Sephiroth BCR 23:05, 3 November 2008 [13].

---

Nuclear power by country

Notified: WP:ENERGY, User:JWB, User:Beagel, User:Smurrayinchester.

Since being promoted in 2006, this list doesn't appear to have been kept up to date. Every reference is from 2005 or 2006, and there is even a "This article or section needs to be updated." AMBOX, and more than half the cells in the table are empty. The criteria has been revised since 2006 and I feel it now fails to meet FL requirements, in particular

Cr. 2 -- Lead section -- It fails to follow WP:LEAD, in particular WP:BOLDTITLE, and what's with the context box placed in the middle of the lead?

Cr. 3 -- Comprehensiveness, with the missing information.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The external link mentioned in the article has some of the information required to update the list but the file format crashes my browser. Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, the Status column is very poorly sourced. For example, we need sources on the 'considering decommissioning', among others. Also, since the table is sortable, the World row should be an unsorted row. --Golbez (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delist, per above comments -- just not up to scratch at this stage. Many of the figures shown in the Table do not agree with the main source given: [14]Johnfos (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delist, per above comments. In addition, the map added to the article is incorrect about some countries. I think that this article should deal only with existing/under construction reactors and all speculations about new possible reactors or decommissioning should be removed.Beagel (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delist per above comments, and since no effort has been made to fix the article. iMatthew 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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:Sephiroth BCR 23:05, 3 November 2008 [15].

---

Narnian timeline

Notified: WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force, Fbv65edel.

This article came to my attention thanks to our handy cleanup listing. It is an older FL and lacks in-line citations and has several unsourced statements. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• This article uses Harvard Style inline citation. LloydSommerer (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It does? I might be missing something, but I don't see any inline citations. I see three references at the bottom, that's it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There's no inline citations at all, let alone in Harvard style. Majorly ^talk 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are two in the first paragraph of the lead, but that's nowhere near enough. The main table needs citations and there are still unsourced statements. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Lacks citations and has various maintenance tags. Majorly ^talk 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are issues that need to be addressed. There are large sections of text that have been recently added that are unsourced and probably need to be removed. I don't think the text in the timeline itself needs to be sourced. It is all from the published timeline. There is only one source for this information. But notice that the citations are from published experts in the field and not from the original source material. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You are supposed to wait until AFTER the issues are addressed before voting keep. The point of FLRC is to improve issues in lists, and since you admit there are serious issues, you should wait until after they are fixed before deciding it should be kept. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What if the cleanup doesn't happen? Will you return to change your !vote to "Remove"? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and did the cleanup and have changed my vote to a keep LloydSommerer (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - lack of sources, maintenance tag. Mainly because of the lack of sources. iMatthew (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is actually about a single source of information. It is cited once in the lead. Due to the addition of other material this was no longer obvious. That should no longer be the case. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Citing in the lead is weird. I'd prefer Harvard-style citations rather than the present MLA-esque citations. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – can you include a brief overview of the plot of the Narnia series in the lead? Some context for the reader probably is good. The citation style in the lead needs to be changed to Harvard style or another suitable style, as MLA-esque citing is generally not good. Furthermore, it is unclear what the references are for. Are they simply for the lead, or are you citing the items in the timeline with them? As it stands, it appears as if the timeline is completely unsourced. Making clear where the source is coming from is necessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.