Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/April 2011

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 The Rambling Man 18:05, 24 April 2011 [1].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)

Notified: K. Annoyomous, WikiProject Record Charts, WP Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I am pretty sure it is a CFORK of List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (Canada). It is incredibly short, and merging it with List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada) (current FL) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Canada) seems completely reasonable. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delist primarily as a result of the many, many dead links, but also perhaps because of forking worries. I'm not overly stressed about those though, because I think a good encyclopedia would have individual years as distinct lists, as purely objective and logical collections, especially since they are reasonable standalone lists. Arbitrary merges of these sorts of lists is becoming the norm now, so who am I to stand in the way of "progress"! Also, nom says it's a CFORK of a non-existent article before then going on to recommend the creation of what (according to his logic) must be another CFORK of the same non-existent article. I think we need clarification from the nominator on what he expects to see overall here.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Since we have TFL's now, would you be happy with having this on the main page? 2) Merge the three lists into a list of reasonable scope and length. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is FLRC, not TFL. And your suggested "merged" list, can you confirm you do not believe it will be a CFORK of the overall redlink list you said this article was a CFORK of? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean of List of Hot 100 number-one singles (Canada)? If Canadian Hot 100 will continue to exist (I see no reason why it would stop) for at least a couple of years then yes, it will be a fine split (i.e. passing wp:CFORK). If by a remote chance it will be pulled in the next year or so, the 2011 list could be merged with the 2000s one at some point. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mean you're saying here that you want three lists merged into one. You're also saying these existing lists are CFORKs of a non-existent list. I just want to be sure that if someone merges, say, three of these lists into one, you won't then nominate that merged list for FLRC as a CFORK of the non-existent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment are you nominating it for featured-list-removal, or for article merging? Personally I don't have a problem with its demotion, however I'm strongly against the merging of the article because of its length. The scope of the article is the same as all of the other "by-year" number-ones lists, for countless other countries and charts. This one just happened to begin in June of 2007, so it's not as if it can get any larger. - eo (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just take a look at List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) and see that it is very doable.

1. List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s,
2. List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK),
3. List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK),
4. List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK),
5. List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s,
6. List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK),
7. List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)

Have very similar scope and look fine by FL? standards. Nergaal (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support keeping it if someone could fix the referencing- looks like Billboard moved it all to billboard.biz and put it behind a paywall. A trip to the library and verifying this against paper magazines might be required. The fact that we can smash lists together doesn't make it a good idea, and there is utility in being able to present more information by having these separate, and each year is a clearly defined topic. Courcelles 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Arbitrary year smashing isn't really needed here. Fix the dead links and I support keeping the list as featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the sources can be fixed. Example, here is the current chart [2] and the previous weeks are sourced by changing the date in the URL, for example [3]. I do see that the UK is grouped by decade (not sure why that country is different) but I support keeping this one separated "by year" as all the other Billboard charts are. - eo (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I can see the nominator's point about this list possibly violating WP:CFORK and thereby failing criterion 3(b), but, by my count, there are more than twenty featured lists of music charts that only cover a single year. Does this mean that they all need to be delisted? 92.21.198.60 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Took be five minutes to fix all the dead links, so that wasn't a huge problem in my opinion. I just like to thanks User:Courcelles for fixing the previous ones I did not fix. I don't think that initiating this FLRC was the best idea to fix this issue. If this list is a content fork, I suggest you tell that to WP:RECORD, since they are the main WikiProject that maintain these articles. My opinion of this is that yes, these lists can definitely be merged into by-decade lists, but having these by-year gives the readers a more specific scope. I strong suggest this FLRC to close, and to move this discussion to WT:RECORD. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reply It is not clear to me how separating by year would give a better scope. There are plenty of cases when a single was listed #1 in consecutive years, which would be easier to deal if splitting by decade; for both 2007-08 and 2008-09 this happens to be the case. The three intros in discussion here are all relatively short, so merging them would work well. Lastly, this list has only 8 distinct items, so by itself is below the unofficial 10-item limit. The next one has only 11 new entries. The 2009 has only 9 new distinct entries. That would bring the total to an amazingly large number of entries: 28. How is that not reasonable? Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As you say yourself, this delineation is unofficial. One thing we may lose sight of here is how an encyclopedia would deal with this kind of thing. Now then, from my perspective, a yearly list, regardless of the number of entries, would be by far the most preferable and logical. I read almanacs all the time and they deal with things in a similar nature. Would be useful to think of it in that respect rather than apply arbitrary rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to note that almost all of the number-ones lists are arranged by year (numerous US charts by genre, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, UK genre charts, etc, etc etc). The UK Singles Chart and this pre-Billboard Canada list seem to be the only exceptions (unless I am missing others). It seems to make more sense that the UK and Canada should be reformatted to adhere to the style of all the others, no? - eo (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Fine, what is and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article udner 3.b supposed to mean? Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well I think the initial interpretation of that (i.e. the reason it was written in the first place) was to prevent unnecessary forking of, say, an eight-item discography into a list from a main article about a band (for instance). I've seen from the Phillies list discussions that this is now being interpreted as "merge similar lists into bigger ones until we hit WP:SIZE". I'm ambivalent about this list, but frankly, arbitrary list mashing to reach an unquantified number of items to satisfy editors doesn't seem ideal to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep With the dead links sorted, there's nothing requiring demotion here, and 3b is to stop splits that should have never been from getting stars, not to arbitrarily mash things together. Courcelles 04:27, 6 April 2011 (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 The Rambling Man 18:02, 24 April 2011 [4].

---

List of Super Rugby champions

Notified: WikiProject Rugby union

This list was promoted to FL status way back in July 2006. Time appears to have done the list no real favors, and it fails several modern criteria...

• To start with, there's a merge tag on the top of the list, which calls the scope into question. I have no idea if a merge should actually take place, but it should be discussed while we're here.
  • The merge has now been completed. There appeared to be a silent consensus based on the merge of the parent articles, and I reinforced by double-checking at WikiProject Rugby Union. —WFC— 23:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Referencing could stand to be improved. The lead has a bunch of uncited content on the history of the event and scoring system. There's also a dead link, and what appears to be the primary source of the tables is a book with no page numbers given. Reference 2 is to an archived GeoCities page, which is likely not a reliable source. All in all, work is needed in this department.
• The lead could use some work to bring it up to modern standards. In particular, the first paragraph is thin, and it would be nice to see an immediate explanation of who the SANZAR nations are, instead of waiting until later in the lead or clicking on a link.
• There are so many Manual of Style violations in the table that it makes my head spin. There are hyphens that should be en dashes (in multiple columns), colored items without matching symbols (excessive coloring, at that), and bolding in multiple columns (now discouraged; italics should be used instead). The sub-section heading also has a faulty hyphen that should be an en dash.
  • To all intents and purposes these MoS violations have been dealt with. An explanation of what the italics mean will follow when I've done the key. —WFC— 23:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• The competition scoring section would be nicer as a full-blown key for the table.
• See also should come before references, although I don't think either of the links adds any value. One is included in the opening sentence and the other in a hatnote. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See also removed. —WFC— 23:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment On the merge front, User:Gnevin knows how to get people talking, and also knows the Wikipedia rugby scene better than the average FLRC reviewer. Could be worth dropping him a line. I'll get to work on the technical things, but it would be unreasonable to ask someone to work on the prose prior to a possible merge of this nature, and that decision should therefore be made ASAP. —WFC— 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have moved the page to List of Super Rugby champions, as there is consensus for a merge. I'll carry that merge out in the near future. I'll update WP:FL now, but I don't know if anything else needs to be done in relation to this FLRC. —WFC— 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• The merge has now been completed. —WFC— 23:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's been a week, so just thought I'd give a progress report. I now have a reasonably good idea of what I'm doing, but reviewing time would be better spent on other lists at the moment. Will post again when I think it's ready for further review. —WFC— 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• is it possible to make the table sortable?
• the intro is a bit short
• any reason why the super 6 and super 10 are not included? aren't they super rugby champs?
• an image with the competition format would be greatly helpful for casual readers

Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delist unless these issues are solved. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [5].

---

List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga

I am nominating this for featured list removal for the same reason as stated for Season 1, Season 2 and Season 3. Episode list is unreferenced, Information about the Japanese video releases is completely absent, and plot summaries are inadequate. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delist main ref is dead, and agree with DragonZero's assessment of the summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist season FLs these days require more than just plots anyways. Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Same problems as with the other lists of this series. Goodraise 10:05, 3 April 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [6].

---

Extreme points of Sweden

Notified: Theleftorium, WikiProject Sweden

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it will be a very good section at Geography of Sweden. This list currently fails 3(b) criterion. Cheetah (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I concur. The Geography of Sweden article is hardly massive, this list will fit in perfectly there. Delist for failure to meet 3b. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Sadly, I agree with the nom. Nergaal (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delist – With only eight entries, I'm surprised this list's lack of heft wasn't brought up at FLC. Anyway, I agree with those who say it fails 3b. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 19 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [7].

---

List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks

Notified: Conman33, WikiProject National Football League

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it does not meet the criteria.

1. The lead should be updated. The recent season it states is 2008.
2. The Notes subsection doesn't have a "c" note.
3. There are several dead links in the references, which may take some time to fix.
4. The list isn't as comprehensive as it should be. The statistics and records of quarterbacks from the main page should be moved to this list. That article will only benefit from getting rid of those sectins.
5. The quarterbacks from the post-season are missing for no reason.

--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• On the last point, the main article is also two seasons out of date. It may need a GAR. (And caution should be taken before anyone copies stuff from there to here.) Courcelles 20:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments nomination comments all need addressing, my variations below, currently a delist for me as well though.

• Lead needs minor update to encompass the fact it's now 2011.
• Four links noted as "dead" although I haven't checked them, sometimes H3llbot can be a little enthusiastic... Either way the tag needs removing or the links fixing.
• Table needs col/row scopes.
• Images could use alt text.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "col/row scopes"?--Cheetah (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial, section 1, Overview of basics. Courcelles 06:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Is it for the screen readers, basically? Because I didn't notice any difference with or without the scopes.--Cheetah (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The row scopes will cause that cell to appear grey and bold; though the "plainrowheaders" argument in the table header can remove the bold. Yes, this is for the screenreaders. Courcelles 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the lead; though it may need some tweaking for clarity. 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove – In addition to the issues raised above, I noticed several other things, which combined with what has been found already push me to the delist side for now.

• I checked the four links marked as dead, and unfortunately the bot wasn't "enthusiastic" in this case. They are all dead. This is a significant problem, especially considering that one of the links is the most-used reference in the article.
• The last couple sentences of the first paragraph could use citations.
• American Football League is overlinked in the lead.
• There are a bunch of bare years linked to season pages in the lead and notes. Can this be cut down on somewhat, or can some of the links be converted to the more pleasing "xxxx season" format? The less blue that appears useless at first glance, the better.
• Caption: "Warren Moon started one game in 2000 for the Chiefs, his final season in professional football." The flow would be better if "for the Chiefs" was moved to after "one game". Even in a caption, high quality should be sought after.
• As for something touched on earlier, why are we still asking for alt text in lists when the FA criteria no longer mandates it? It seems like we should be following their lead, no? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As for alt text, I think "why not?" if we're prepared to do it. There was an almighty kerfuffle about it a while back I seem to recall, but basic and non-controversial alt text is better than nothing. As far as I'm concerned, why shouldn't FA follow our lead? (In the words of a certain song, FLC does it better and it really does make me feel sad for the rest......) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [8].

---

List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment

Notified: Scorpion0422, WP:PW

When this list was promoted it had 9 entries, and now only 6 still exist. To deserve the FL status, I feel like the scope of the list needs to be broadened a bit, to include something more than the 6 champion titles. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Such as? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is way too short and shouldn't really exist. It is content forking in my opinion. Only reason it exists is because of the topic. I think that topic would be better served with an article covering all the titles to exist in the company.--WillC 00:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If I had my way, this and List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment would be merged into a single list, documenting the first and last (current) champions throughout the promotion's history. Courcelles 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of an actual article than a list, as this would be the format for future title topics. Kinda like what I've worked on here.--WillC 02:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment This should either (a) be an article that lists the history of the champions, or (b) be merged into the main WWE article. (a) is a lot of work and would be outside the scope of this FLRC I suspect, (b) is a clear delist selection. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment is already a large article, and sticking the current table right in the middle of it would be out of place. Personally, I think this page qualifies as a standalone list, but I wouldn't be opposed to merging it with List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A merge would be fine, and keeping the merged list as the lead for the current champions topic would work well. Nergaal (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not averse to merging so we have one overall list of champions. I think "current champion" lists are a bit silly anyway as they are rarely stable from one week to the next. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Remove – As it stands now, this is a six-item list. I don't believe it has any kind of case in 3b terms to remain an FL. If the list was turned into one about all of the WWE's different championships over the years, as is being talked about, that would resolve the 3b concern in my mind. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Its a list of champions, not championships, so technically there are 7 items (Edge, Wade Barrett, Miz, Sheamus, Eve, Slater and Gabriel) not 6. Feedback ^☎ 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, 7 that is such a list. I still think this needs to be delisted and we need an article over all championships in WWE. Like what I showed above.--WillC 05:56, 24 March 2011 (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 Giants2008 20:08, 2 April 2011 [9].

---

List of Washington Metro stations

Notified: WikiProject Washington Metro

I am nominating this for featured list removal because a decent portion of the article's information is outdated, and some content is either redundant or lacks a reliable source. Posts were made on the talk pages of both the list and the respective WikiProject with input from only one user; no edits to the list have been made since I posted my concerns.

The average weekday ridership in the main station list is from 2009, while the ridership in the "top stations" sections is from either 2008 or 2006 (therefore outdated). The "top stations" lists are also redundant because the stations with the highest ridership can easily be determined by sorting the main column. The station codes also do not seem necessary for this article, as they are only used internally by WMATA and appeared to be unnotable for inclusion in this list. Additionally, the source for the station codes for the Silver Line station is unreliable and no reliable source can be found. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Please note that the 2010 station figures have not come out yet, so the article is still using the most recent figures. If someone finds the official figures, I would appreciate a link here. I agree that the list of busiest stations is unnecessary, and that the by jurisdiction list can also be easily created by sorting the main table twice. I diesagree with the nominator in that the station codes should go because they are "not notable". It is fully credible that a railfan or other specially interested reader would want a list of the internal codes to aid in reading official documents from WMATA, for instance. I agree that the codes for the silver line are from a unreliable source, and I have no idea if reliable sources are available, so that at current they should go. I don't see any reason to add an {{update}} banner to the article at this point of time. As a postscript, note that the original nominator of the FLC has retired. I am therefore going to be bold and edit the article in those points where I agree with Dream out loud. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The table that was just removed listed the list of highest ridership stations in each jurisdiction. This could not easily be determined by sorting the other table. The article is hurt by the deletions advocated by Dream out loud. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• There is still outdated information in the article. Any ridership information older than 2009 needs to be updated (ie: lead, "Lines" section). The station codes would definitely be interesting to a railfan, but this is an encyclopedia, not a railfan site, so the station codes are unnecessary. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Dream Out Loud-- I'm from Washington and I've looked at this list before, and all the rail codes did was confuse me. We need to look at this list from the point of view of a layman. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments could easily be saved in my opinion.

• Addressing some of the above:
  • Station codes are fine as long as they're footnoted that these are general public station codes, if that's the case. In the UK we have station codes, no-one uses them, but they're valid nonetheless.
  • The "top ridership" table didn't (in my opinion) repeat anything verbatim so should be restored.
  • Ridership figures should be updated to the most recent available source, no matter what.
• My own comments:
  • Image caption does not need a full stop.
  • Seems like ref 1 has been tagged as a {dead link} - this may not be true, H3llbot seems to have made a few mistakes if, indeed, it was "it" that tagged it... check it please.
  • There are a couple of "As of..." in the lead (2009 and 2008 respectively) which could be updated if possible.
  • And an "as of 2006" which really needs to be updated.
  • Lines section is "as of 2009", if the silver line isn't constructed yet, perhaps update the As of date here too.
  • Look into using our new ACCESS-friendly {{dagger}} instead of the simple dagger.
  • Don't have a linebreak between text and the reference in the table headings.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delist It's going to be a month now and no issues stated above were addressed.--Cheetah (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I believe I may have found sources that could possibly be used to update the list: [10][11][12][13] Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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