Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2012
- 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 Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [1].
- Notified: Scorpion0422, Gran2, Rphr1987, Theleftorium, WP:DOH, WP:TV
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it doesn't currently meet criteria. If issues are addressed, though, I'd be happy to keep at FL. Thanks! TBrandley 18:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Unlink American per WP:OVERLINK- IMO animated sitcom should be one link to there rather than two separate links for animated and sitcom
I already know, but for the rare reader, make a note that its a television series perhapsThe images could dead with an "Alt" for itUnlink society per WP:OVERLINKUnlink television per WP:OVERLINKtwenty-second season. Please link itUS$ Unlink it as per WP:OVERLINK again- Series overview table doesn't reference many DVD release when it should
- Basic referencing issues in the overview table
In the series overview table, To be announced should be N/A using the {{N/a}} (talk) template. Also, for the 24th seasonNo references for any Production codes№ and # should not be used as per guidelines- US should be U.S.
Original airdate should for sure be Original air dateIn the ratings section, link Fox as it hasn't been linked in the actual article/list yet- TV series should be television series. Don't be afraid to write it fully
For all of the years in the ratings section, should be 1989–90 rather than 1989–1990 per WP:YEAR. Do also for the rest of the seasons in the years parameter of tableAlso, link all of the television season years. Example: 2011–2011. Link itNotes in the ratings section, Note. 1: 1996–1997 television season should be 1996–97 television season per WP:YEAR.- What makes Ref. 3, 8, 11, 19, 22, or 26 high-quality good sources
- 3 has been replaced, 8, 11, 19 and 22 are all FoxFlash, which is the Fox official website, so there's nothing wrong with them. 26 is CraveOnline, again a site considered reliable. It could be replaced pretty easily. Gran2 07:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't shout in the Ref. titles as seen in Ref. 19
- On ref. the "YYYY-MM-DD" method. Is use but on another "MMMM-DD-YYYY" is used. Please choose one
- Ref. 19: Use another source. There are so many others. I found one for you. Here is the source, etc.
- Ref. 66: "Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings" 2011-2012 should be 2011–2012 with an en-dash as per WP:DASH for references
Ref. 61: Should be "The Hollywood Reporter" rather than "Hollywood Reporter"- Ref. 11 has Fox Flash as publisher, others have it as work
- Ref. 12 and 13: Has .com on one on the other it doesn't. Please only choose one
See also should be before "Notes" and "References".Also, See also isn't even neededAdd TV.com to external links- Various ref.s are missing publisher. Example: Entertainment Weekly is missing the publisher, which is Time Inc". That's only one. TBrandley 19:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like a lot of this stuff you could have fixed yourself. Some of the issues should be addressed by project members, but wouldn't simply fixing things like the overlinking have been quicker than looking for it and typing this out? -- Scorpion0422 20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Brandley wasted more time posting here than doing the work himself, especially as he has knowledge in TV episodes. Most of the mentioned points are rather nitpicks, and it seems like he did not fully reviewed the prose. The only major issue I see so far are the dead references and those with questionable reliability, but they can be easily fixed within seconds. Regards.--GoPTCN 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took time to write this. As noted by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) before, "Because it's not up to any one person to fix issues in a nomination. Because if we don't help nominators understand where issues need to be fixed, how would we help improve nominations when presented here? The community effort comes from people", "Please don't assume that we're all here to fix issues which we see day in day out, that's not our job. We're all volunteers, but instead of just assuming we'll fix your issues, please know that we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"., "[the reviewers] want to help". Please understand that. Thanks for writing here though. TBrandley 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing." I take exception to that comment. I don't know about Rphr1987 (I haven't been active in a while), but myself Gran and Lefty all have worked on a wide variety of featured content. Your comment makes it seem like you consider us novices and that you're doing us a great favour by teaching us.
- As for your concerns, they can all be fixed rather easily. If one of the others doesn't beat me to it, I'll work on most of them later today. -- Scorpion0422 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit late here so I'll help out as much as I can tomorrow! And I kind of agree with what Scorpion has said. Was an FLRC really needed? Most of the issues are really minor. If you would have given the project some kind of warning I would have cleaned up the article in a couple of days. Theleftorium (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I'll do that next time before/if I ever nominate again. Thanks, TBrandley 21:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we are being a bit hard on you, since all you're trying to do is help. And you did do an extensive review of the article, which should be commended. In the future, if it's mostly prose issues, you should tell the nominator and/or project first. If your concerns are ignored, then take it to FLRC. -- Scorpion0422 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I'll do that next time before/if I ever nominate again. Thanks, TBrandley 21:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit late here so I'll help out as much as I can tomorrow! And I kind of agree with what Scorpion has said. Was an FLRC really needed? Most of the issues are really minor. If you would have given the project some kind of warning I would have cleaned up the article in a couple of days. Theleftorium (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I took time to write this. As noted by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) before, "Because it's not up to any one person to fix issues in a nomination. Because if we don't help nominators understand where issues need to be fixed, how would we help improve nominations when presented here? The community effort comes from people", "Please don't assume that we're all here to fix issues which we see day in day out, that's not our job. We're all volunteers, but instead of just assuming we'll fix your issues, please know that we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"., "[the reviewers] want to help". Please understand that. Thanks for writing here though. TBrandley 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Brandley wasted more time posting here than doing the work himself, especially as he has knowledge in TV episodes. Most of the mentioned points are rather nitpicks, and it seems like he did not fully reviewed the prose. The only major issue I see so far are the dead references and those with questionable reliability, but they can be easily fixed within seconds. Regards.--GoPTCN 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, can we split this list into 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s? --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say no. Make things way too complicated. TBrandley 21:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment TBrandley, can you have another look at the article? I believe all or most of your concerns have been addressed. Theleftorium (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Here are some more comments to be addressed:
- Unlink prime-time per WP:OVERLINK
- Like others (and FLS), shouldn't this use {{Episode list/sublist}} with the episode's writers and directors, which are missing.
- No, this list (unlike the others) is already big and adding writers/directors would just make it worse. Besides, that kind of information is why we have season articles. Plots and writers/directors are more important in those article. Theleftorium (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it different from other FLs related to this, eg: List of Awake episodes.
- In "Ratings", only Fox should be linked, not network
- Ref. 78 should be before Ref. 81 in "Ratings"
- Various references have WP:DASH problems. Example: Ref. 37 has a regular - when it should have a en-dash, a –. Per WP:DASH. This is for various others also.
TBrandley 17:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After a huge copy-edit, and attention from members of WP:DOH, I now believe it meets criteria, and, unless more issues can be found, I withdraw this nomination. TBrandley 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not make sense. Withdraw means that you are still unsatisfied or agree that you made a mistake. You are the nominator so you decide whether it meets the criteria or not. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 07:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He obviously means that he thinks the article meets the criteria now and that the FLRC can be closed. Theleftorium (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was kept by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [2].
- Notified: WP:INDIA
I am nominating this for featured list removal because...
There are no external links whatsoever.
- Added links to "NIC" and "legislativebodiesinindia.nic.in" —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is very short and not concise.There are no explanations for the headings.
Which row lists states, which row the UTs?
There are two rows #13, it does look like one of them is bogus.There are a lot of footnotes that have no sources.
Cheetah (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I request some time to fix the issues. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem. I am sure the directors will give you up to a month or so to fix this list.--Cheetah (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update The referencing structure has been re-done. Several citations and references are added. Several footnotes (now grouped under explanatory notes) have reference now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no more issues with this list. I just compared today's version to the one I saw when I nominated it...wow huge upgrade. Thank you for your work!--Cheetah (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Giants2008 21:12, 31 August 2012 [3].
- Notified: WikiProject Discographies
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it appears to be way out of date. There are currently 111 releases according to Willowtip's own website, yet only 91 are listed here (and the lead claims "Willowtip has released 72 albums from 52 artists."). The list doesn't meet our current, higher standards (e.g. MOS:DTT), one dead and one suspiciously dead link. Finally, it's worth considering whether this shouldn't just be failed on 3b as it should be merged back into the main article about the record label itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Along with the dead link tag, there is also an outdated tag at the top of the list. If TRM's comments are any indication, the tag is well-earned. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - The outdated tag has been here since April 2011. That's really unacceptable for a FL. Unless someone brings this up to date, this list doesn't belong among Wikipedia's finest.--Cheetah (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist No improvements seem to of been made to the problems already listed. Afro (Talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for violating criterion 3b. Should be merged into Willowtip Records. Goodraise 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on. Well, just now [it's not anyone's fault] I became aware of this nomination. Please let me know what should I do to improve this list?--Malconfort (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See the comments in the nomination statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check the table again. What about add internal links to all artists?--Malconfort (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All external links repaired.--Malconfort (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but the biggest issue really is that raised by Goodraise. This spinoff list is a perfect candidate to be merged back into the main Willowtip Records article (which is very small and needs work). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See the comments in the nomination statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I agree with Goodraise, this list violates 3b and should be merged into the parent article. NapHit (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Goodraise. TBrandley 21:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [4].
- Notified: Nikki311, Professional wrestling WikiProject
This January 2008 promotion has numerous deficiencies that cause it to fail the current FL criteria, and in several respects has declined in quality since it was promoted.
- Most glaring issue is the original research tag in the Royal Rumble records section, which didn't exist when this list became an FL.
- In addition, there is a verification tag in this section. Almost none of the records are cited, which is an automatic failure of FL criteria.
- Ref 88 is a dead link, and I'm not convinced that www.mondaynightwarriors.com is a reliable source anyway.
- Cite error for ref 87.
- I'm not sure if any of the first three general references are reliable; About.com probably isn't, at least. What I am sure of is that the general references shouldn't be listed twice. Can't remember seeing any article with this issue before.
- The lead is short at one paragraph. Some basic statistics could be introduced, such as venues to host the Royal Rumble multiple times, most frequent champion(s), most recent champions, etc.
- The table is outdated in regards to accessibility requirements: see MOS:DTT for more on what needs to be done.
- One more thing: Since the Royal Rumble itself is a pay-per-view event, and the content generally relates to a certain type of match at that event, should the list be titled Royal Rumble (match)? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that most of the "Records" section be removed, as much of it is trivial. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist as well as the above, there are dab links, appalling English ("Most Times Becoming Runner-up"), raw URLs in the refs, I'm seeing plenty of issues with the refs. Not good enough, not by a long chalk. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist A lot of problems already listed with the article and no one's attempting to resolve any of them. Afro (Talk) 11:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [5].
- Notified: WikiProject Australian television
I am nominating this for featured list removal because from the emboldened timeline of.. onwards this is not Featured quality. The lead is minimal and sparsely referenced, while many points of the timeline itself are unreferenced, particularly those from the last few years. This might have been worthy of the Featured tag in 2007, but four and a half years on, it certainly not. Unfortunately I don't think there is really any chance of this being saved in a reasonable amount of time. Harrias talk 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that correcting the referencing holes that have crept in since 2007 is a major issue - television after all is a medium that loves to talk about itself and I've found references fairly easy to find. The lead certainly is sparse, though that too could be fixed. I can see two other types of issues though: there are textual errors that have crept in eg: "SBS TV partners up with the Seven Network for joint coverage of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games." rather than "SBS TV and the Seven Network jointly cover the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games." and I think the text needs a thorough going over; There are things that to my eyes are missing from the list eg: creation of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations; the fact that in 1960 all capitals were now had commercial Television (which was part of the original legislative plan); 1963 when the first speech by political party leader was made (R Menzies) on Australian Television; formation of the National Television Network in the same year; the significant legislative and TV station ownership events over time (there is only one mention of the surname "Packer" which seems odd); the introduction of teletext in 1980; and others. There is also some trivial additions—do we need to know the time that Channel Nine dropped the word national from their news program's title ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comment seems like there's a bunch of issues with WP:MOS (like WP:DASH and the WP:LEAD) and also bad links so those should be addressed initially otherwise this is a clear delist. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And tags on the list! TBrandley • talk • contributions 00:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove the three non-free images with unconvincing fair-use rationales for this timeline - they're purely used as decoration. BencherliteTalk 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.